Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football


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

A.C. Milan, AC Milan, Milan


This discussion has been going on for years (2018, 2020, 2021), and consensus has yet to be established. I propose the following:

  1. Use AC Milan (without dots) in the first mention (so, in the infobox, the first mention in the lead, and the first mention in the body of the article)
  2. Use Milan after AC Milan has already been used once
  3. Never use A.C. Milan (with dots), as it just looks clunky

Thoughts? Nehme1499 14:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A.C. Milan is just the British language grammatical choice for abbreviations. It isn't usually used either in the Italian, or in reliable sources, so is purely a grammatical choice. I can understand in the main club article retaining A.C. Milan for the article name (as a British definition of the subject), but from that point onwards AC Milan / Milan should be interchangeable. For players / other articles so long as AC Milan diverts to A.C. Milan then I see no issue standardising. However I have to say I am not convinced piping to "Milan" only is appropriate for infobox like current team etc without having first established the club is in fact A.C. Milan per Ciprian Tătărușanu lede for example. Koncorde (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
A.C. is as commonly used in English as AC is. There is no standard. Personally, I would advocate for using AC and replicating that with FC instead of F.C., SC instead of S.C. etc, etc across all football articles but I doubt that's ever going to happen. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
A.C. really isn't used as much. I think you would struggle to find A.C. being used consistently anywhere - and then likely only in English language sites. My books all use AC, and a web search isn't bringing back much specifically with A.C. and in fact most references to A.C. Milan are based on circling back to the wikipedia article. I think the abbreviation mark should remain for article titles to indicate that they indicate individual words - but beyond that initial spelling out of the terms we can conform to a shortened version. Koncorde (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) For Tătărușanu I would write who plays as a goalkeeper for Serie A club AC Milan, and in the infobox I would display the club as "AC Milan". However, in the second paragraph of the lead, I would keep In September 2020, Tătărușanu transferred back to Italy and signed for Milan, as the use of "AC Milan" has already been established. Nehme1499 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I would agree. Koncorde (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Yep, the club article at 'A.C.' is correct, but common usage of 'AC' and/or 'Milan' is fine - as long as article is consistent. GiantSnowman 16:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I would also extend it to the Career Stats section table to use AC RedPatch (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've created WP:ACMILAN. Nehme1499 18:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with what you've written at WP:ACMILAN, and would add section headings and image captions to the list of where AC Milan should be used. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
True. I've amended the section. Nehme1499 18:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit ridiculous that we've decided to refer to the club without dots in prose when the article is located at A.C. Milan? We really should just get rid of dots wholesale. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that "AC Milan" isn't pronounced "Ack Milan", or that "Arsenal FC" isn't pronounced "Arsenal Fuck". – PeeJay 19:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there are some English fans who pronounce it exactly "Arsenal, Fuck" ;) --SuperJew (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding WP:ACMILAN created by Nehme1499, wouldn't it be better to have a wider wording to include other clubs too? --SuperJew (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Such as...? GiantSnowman 19:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Inter Milan definitely needs the same consensus. The only issue is that with Inter we are dealing with three names: Internazionale, Inter Milan, and Inter. Nehme1499 19:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Such as any German name which was discussed here recently that are supposed to be full name on first appearance, or clubs with a country or club name in them, such as Kuwait SC, Qatar SC, or Sydney FC, or clubs with a name of a much more famous club like Barcelona de Ecuador. --SuperJew (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the German clubs naming convention is already covered by WP:KARLSRUHER. We definitely need a guideline for Swedish names (for example, Trelleborgs FF is shortened to Trelleborg without the S, for some Swedish grammar convention). Nehme1499 19:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Why do we need different naming conventions - same principle - use full name on first appearance, and later can use shortened version. --SuperJew (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The core concept is the same, but it's not immediately obvious what the full and short names are for specific clubs (in specific countries sometimes). We need to explicitly say that for Swedish clubs, the s is removed from the full name in specific circumstances (someone from Sweden can probably explain better), or that we have to behave in a certain way for German clubs, or for AC Milan. Nehme1499 19:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Correct regarding the Swedish club names. "Trelleborgs FF" basically translates to "Trelleborg's Football Club", the s at the end of the geographical (or other) name is indicating the possessive form, and thus should be omitted when the name is shortened to "Trelleborg". Similar to "Karlsruher SC" and "Karlsruhe", but a different grammatical construct. In some cases though, the geographical name itself ends in s, and thus shouldn't be removed, e.g. "Västerås SK" but also "Västerås". – Elisson  T  C  10:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a problem when people just put Milan on its own to represent the club. That's the name of the City with two of the biggest clubs in Europe. I feel it is far more correct to have AC Milan and it's more correct towards WP:COMMONNAME. Govvy (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

In Italy, the club you might call AC Milan is far more commonly known as just "Milan" though. I'm not sure what you "feel" enters into it. – PeeJay 21:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I know I'm a little late to chime in, but I support the WP:ACMILAN thing. We should make more shortcuts to established naming consensus like this. It's helpful. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is completely unnecessary and has not received an extended consensus by the way... (4 or 5 people are not a majority and should not be entitled to decide or speak for all the Wikipedia community...) The full name of the club is A.C. Milan, as for instance, the full name of Chelsea is Chelsea F.C. or the full name of Real Madrid is Real Madrid C.F. ; all these names are with the dots and all of them are abbreviated as Chelsea and Real Madrid, not Chelsea FC or Real Madrid CF. A.C. Milan is not different. So there is no need to call the club AC Milan especially knowing that the club is called Milan in its own country, which is Italy. So Wikipedia should not intervene in this matter which seems to be a matter of interest only for some English-speaking users, in addition, there is no relation and no possibility of confusion with the name of the other club of the city which is called (in this order) Internazionale, Inter or Inter Milan. --93.151.145.8 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the articles on FC Barcelona and Real Madrid CF (plus Valencia CF, RCD Espanyol, RCD Mallorca, Malaga CF, CA Osasuna and Sevilla FC by the way) are at those destinations, without dots. Plus, English-speaking users are exactly the group to be considered here as it's the English language Wiki. Crowsus (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


Yes, so you follow my thesis, as the clubs you just cited are then called and spelled Barcelona and Real Madrid on their Wikipedia pages or on the player's boxes and tables, not Barcelona FC or Real Madrid CF.--93.151.145.8 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. The problem we have unfortunately is that the agreed name for the other club is Inter Milan as Inter is too vague and nobody really says Internazionale. Inter Milano would also be better in my own opinion, but it's not a commonly used term in English. But there seems to be no problem with using Dundee and Dundee United on Wikipedia, they don't use Dundee FC (with or without dots!) for the dark blue club even though there is nothing else to call them, and it is also the name of their city which could cause further confusion. So on the same basis I don't see any issue with using simply Milan and Inter Milan. Crowsus (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
'Dundee' would be the common name for the club in English, which is not the case for (AC) 'Milan'. BBC Sport, for example, will always refer to them as 'AC Milan', at least at the first instance in an article, whilst it will refer to Dundee as 'Dundee' (). Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Per Crowsus & MA - but effectively I have no issue if at the first mention of any non-English (or British) clubs we were to use the longer name format such as FC Barcelona for instance. It helps to establish we are not linking to the city article per WP:EASTEREGG. Koncorde (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There is not yet consensus for this proposal from Nehme1499, who by the way has started to modify Milan to AC Milan all over Wikipedia pretending that he got a vast consensus as if a vote among the Wikipedia community has been organized or so... This is not how you should behave. You do not start to impose such a change while only 3 or 4 users have said that it's fine for them. For me, there is no reason to change the current situation and the arguments to support this change are unclear, trivial, and not solid at all. The club is called A.C. Milan for Associazione Calcio Milan, and as we do not write Arsenal FC on Wikipedia but Arsenal, we should not be obliged to write AC Milan as well. It is exactly the same situation, taking also into consideration that the club is called Milan in its country and by UEFA which is the most important football organization in Europe (see UEFA.com website).--Bergenoslo (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bergenoslo: It's probably closer to 7-8 people agreeing, and no one being against. This is the English Wikipedia, so we use the common names used in English (FC Bayern Munich instead of Bayern München is one example). Unfortunately (I say unfortunately because I personally dislike this), people outside of Italy refer to the two "Milano" clubs as "AC Milan" and "Inter Milan", rather than "Milan" and "Inter". Plus, WP:ACMILAN advocates to use "AC" only in the first mention of the club; in subsequent mentions it's perfectly acceptable to only use "Milan". Nehme1499 16:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, to be clear Bergenoslo - the use of Milan only is incorrect per the reliable sources provided on the same pages. See sources such as Sky,ESPN,Transfermarkt,BBCUEFA 1, UEFA 2, The Independent among many others that will use the extended name at least initially in coverage. It makes sense to ensure clarity, and the clarified policy actually strengthens the use of Milan through the rest of the article by establishing its initial usage. Koncorde (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Lewis O'Brien September 2018.jpg


This image is not, despite the name, of Lewis O'Brien (footballer); it is of Jim O'Brien (footballer, born 1987). Any idea how we can rename it? GiantSnowman 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Moved to File:Jim O'Brien September 2018.jpg at Commons. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
In case you need it in future: on Commons, there's a move button. Which tags the article to be moved, and you have to specify one the Commons move criteria (blatantly incorrect name is one of the criteria). And then someone with file mover rights can move it. Or you can just ask someone with file mover rights on Commons and cut the bureaucracy out. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks guys! GiantSnowman 10:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
We learn something new everyday GiantSnowman. I've been told not so long ago that whenever I made an edit using an IP address while not logging in, the address gets removed by one of our helpful admins. I'm guessing the same thing happened to you GiantSnowman when reverting on your Commons talk page with the summary "DENY", the user name/IP address got removed but I think it was you who did that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I have file mover rights on Commons - if anyone needs something for the project, welcome to ping me or write on my talk page (either on Wiki or Commons) :) Regardless, the files are moved pretty quickly usually ;) --SuperJew (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mattythewhite, Joseph2302, and SuperJew: further assistance needed please, because @Aderiqueza: keeps on adding the image even though it is the wrong person. GiantSnowman 17:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Seems Aderiqueza has seen and acknowledged the correction. I belive this was a mistake done in good faith of a new user who didn't understand the whole process of reverting etc. --SuperJew (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been clearer - my main concern was that the file they were re-adding was still labelled as Lewis... GiantSnowman 17:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: you have to request an IP address to be removed from the page history, it doesn't happen automatically. GiantSnowman 13:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's something for me to remember for next time an accident like this happens to me again. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Players table on PSG 2021-22 season article


Hello. I have several questions about this table. Firt of all in the "signed in" section, for youth players, should we put the year they joined the club or the year they joined the first team? Example is Presnel Kimpembe, who joined the first team in 2014 but PSG in 2005. Second question is about the club free agents join from. If a player signed a contract before they became a free agent (like Georginio Wijnaldum), then it's clear the club they signed from should be written. But for Sergio Ramos, Gianluigi Donnarumma, and Alexandre Letellier, I have a dilemma. Should we write the club they previously played for or write "Free agent/Free agency" (IDK which one) and leave a note stating their previous club, a bit like what was done for players who got released (see previous discussion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As I stated above, the whole table should be changed to this. Nehme1499 17:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Nehme - NOTSTATS applies and a huge table full of information is simply not required. Basic info & stats only. GiantSnowman 18:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
This sort of table is very prevalent throughout WP:FOOTY articles. We are likely to receive a lot of resistance if we try to remove it, but I agree a lot of the info contained therein is pretty irrelevant. A player's date of birth, signing date, contract expiry date and transfer fee are totally pointless. The only signing info that is relevant is for players signed during that season, not players who joined before, and contract expiry info is often a guess for a lot of players. I'm also confused as to why we would need players' squad numbers to be included in the "Transfers" tables, especially for players who have left the club. – PeeJay 18:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
It might be prevalent - doesn't make it right. If it is against MOS/consensus then it should be removed. GiantSnowman 09:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
…Yes, that’s what I said. – PeeJay 12:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
...yes, that's why I'm agreeing with you. GiantSnowman 08:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Way too much detail that isn't needed for a season article. The year or who people joined from, or when their contract ends is not relevant to that particular season. Number of total appearances is probably not needed too (especially when it looks like unsourced original research. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The same type of table is found on 2020–21 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season.
I think that instead of a statistics table like Nehme1499 suggested, we should just have a squad list (like for current squads of clubs). Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't display the seasonal statistics. Nehme1499 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Loan returns


Should we add "loan returns" for this section? Is there a difference between players coming back from loan and going back to their parent clubs? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No, returning from a loan is not a transfer, nor an agreement, nor a contract, it's simply returning from loan!! Govvy (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I don't get the wrong season a lot of the time, loans return at the end of a season, not the following season unless otherwise! Govvy (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I would add them (to both seasons), but at this point maybe change the section to "Player movements". For example, Hakimi not being an Inter player anymore is definitely relevant information. To me, the purpose of the "transfer/player movement" tables is to show the difference in the first-team squad between the previous and current season, whether the player left on a permanent transfer, free transfer, Bosman ruling, return from loan, whatever. Nehme1499 13:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Nehme on this one. It isn't a transfer but it is definitely "player movement" or a "squad change". If anything, my main gripe with these sections is adding academy moves when the article is about the senior team. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Depends if the academy player is integrated into the main team. Obviously, someone who moves to the club just to play youth football for them that season shouldn't be included. Nehme1499 16:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the idea of changing the section to "Player movements". That's not clear to the average reader. To address your example, the fact that Hakimi is not an Inter player any more should be obvious from the fact that he's not listed in the squad and that the end date of his loan should be made clear on the season article for the relevant season. That's why loan returns don't need listing at all: the end date is clearly specified at the start, and if any changes are made, we modify the table to match. – PeeJay 16:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, Hakimi was a bad example as he was a permanent transfer to Inter (I thought he was on loan). I'll use Diogo Dalot to AC Milan as an example. Not everyone will want to read the previous seasons, or the player article. Especially since, not everyone knows a priori that Dalot was a Milan player in the first place in 2020–21. Someone reading the 2021–22 season page will find it usefull to know that Dalot, who was a Milan player the previous season, isn't one anymore (the same way Hakan Çalhanoğlu, who played for Milan in 2020–21, won't play for them anymore in 2021–22). Whether the guy won't play anymore due to returning back from loan to the parent club, or due to his contract having expired, or due to having been sent on loan, or being sold permanently, or whatever, isn't really that relevant. Nehme1499 16:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
You're right, the fact that a certain player was only on loan at a club is not something we could expect every reader to know, but if a reader is well-versed enough to know Calhanoglu was with Milan last year, it stands to reason they might check the previous season's article for an explanation for why he's not there any more. Of course, that's not a problem here because his free transfer to Inter is rightfully mentioned in the 2021-22 Milan season article, as he only moved to Inter at the end of his contract on 1 July. – PeeJay 16:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Right, but we don't only make season articles for globally-recognized teams with globally-recognized players. Sometimes we deal with guys like Davide Frattesi, one of Monza's key players in 2020–21, who returned from loan to Sassuolo. Not everyone knows about Monza's players, or about Davide Frattesi, but if they wanted to exclusively read about Monza's 2021–22 season, knowing that Frattesi (who was at Monza the previous season) isn't there anymore is relevant information. It's not a good assumption for us to make that the average user will also automatically want to view the previous season to see if someone had returned from loan. Nehme1499 16:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. If a reader wants to read about Monza's 2021-22 season in isolation, why would the fact that a player from the previous season isn't there any more be at all relevant? – PeeJay 21:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Because it's a change in the roster that impacts the 2021–22 season. Nehme1499 00:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Changes are not relevant with respect to just one season though. I'll repeat, if someone wants to read about the 2021-22 Monza season in isolation, why would the fact a player from 2020-21 isn't there any more be of any concern? – PeeJay 06:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not loan returns should be included, the term 'player movements' is ridiculous as this is probably the first time I have ever seen it used. We should be using clear, standard English rather than making up terms for this. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I might be thinking of the Italian "movimenti di mercato". I don't know the exact English equivalent. Nehme1499 00:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
So, what are your opinions? Should we have loan returns (both ways, to and from clubs) in season articles? Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I don't know why you want to put last seasons loans in the following season, when they have nothing to do with that season. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is allergic to Transfermarkt, but even they include end of loans in the following season's transfers. Nehme1499 13:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it's just a continental thing. I've never seen it anywhere other than continental Europe, but especially Italy and apparently Germany. – PeeJay 17:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Let's get a consensus, it seems enough arguments have been put forward (imo). Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Uncertain end career date


Hey! For Sandesh Gadkari, the infobox says that he plays for Mumbai which obviously isn't true since the club is now defunct. While I am sure that this is him, I can't seem to find when he last actually played before retiring. What would I do in this case, where we don't know when the player retired or, in other cases, what happened to them at all after leaving the professional leagues? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the information we have. If all we know is that he signed for the 2015–16 season, I would put 2015–2016 as the range. If we know he was still playing in, say, 2017, I would extend the range to 2017. It all depends on the sources we have at hand. Nehme1499 00:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that is usually what I do. What would I write then in the career section? That he last played for Mumbai? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest using a question mark in the infobox instead of an uncertain end date. Hack (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know, would look odd the question mark but I guess it is the most accurate. Any suggestions for the prose? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Mural of Marcus Rashford


Project members may be interested to help expand Mural of Marcus Rashford. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the topic at hand that notable? Nehme1499 00:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why this would need a separate article. It could be covered in a few sentences of the article on Rashford. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed - definitely doesn't merit a separate article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I have opened an AFD on it @Another Believer: @Nehme1499: @Joseph2302: @ChrisTheDude:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree on the assessment for Afd and posted as such. Google search yields a lot of results for GNG. :/ Govvy (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Govvy, Thanks! Too often artworks depicting sportspeople are nominated for deletion by sports editors and require "rescuing" by editors more familiar with standards for notable works of art. Not a criticism, just an observation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Rather more editors help out on this project than the WP:ARTS project, and there is a hell of a lot of amazing arts/paintings/sculptures that are not even documented by wikipedia! O well. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Domenico Berardi


I've opened a discussion regarding Berardi's loan status from Juventus between 2013 and 2015; further input would be appreciated. Nehme1499 17:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Notes for players joining from free agency


In the "out" part of this section on this article, we established that we shouldn't write the next club for players that were released (like Kays Ruiz-Atil) but instead leave a note like such. Should we also do that for players that joined from free agency (like Gigio Donnarumma and Sergio Ramos)? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Depends when the player became a free agent. Notice the difference between Mario Balotelli here, and Andrea Barberis here. Nehme1499 19:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
If from free agency, no need to write previous club and is irrelevant. --SuperJew (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
What should we write? "Free agent", "Free agency", "Unattached"? Should we leave a note stating their previous club? Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
"Unattached". No need for a note. --SuperJew (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Skyblueshaun: please read this and stop adding leaving clubs on Rotherham United free signings / joining clubs on released players as you do every season. Thanks. Gricehead (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Should “Unattached” be in italics? And why should we leave a note for released players but not for incoming free transfer signings? Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for italics. I also think that we probably should have a note to say which club the player last played for, but only if they were released and joined a new club in the same transfer window. If they become free agents in July 2021 and don't join a new club until January 2022, no need for the note. Also, if the last day of the player's contract with their old club is 30 June 2021 and they join a new club on 1 July 2021, we can say they moved directly; no need to say "Unattached" in those cases. – PeeJay 14:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@PeeJay: What do you think of the wording for the notes? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The flags are definitely unnecessary, and I don't think you need to specify the date their contracts ended (most end on 30 June as a matter of course). You could just say "Last played for Real Madrid" and "Last played for Milan". – PeeJay 16:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to list the club last played for or club joined afterwards unless it's a direct transfer. It's irrelevant. --SuperJew (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@PeeJay: Why are the flags unnecessary? We have them normally. However, I personally think that the date the contract expired is relevant. That's just personal belief. Last played for Milan is fine too, I guess. to User:SuperJew: I don't think it's irrelevant. Readers might want to know where certain players came from; for readers, "unattached" is not very interesting and doesn't mean much. Paul Vaurie (talk)
Flags should never be used in prose. – PeeJay 19:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: So the reader will click-through to the player's page and read their history of clubs. Maybe the reader is interested to know in which city the player was born? Should we include that too? Perhaps where the player played in their youth? Perhaps how many international appearances he has? The information relevant to the transfer is from where the player was transfered, the fee/type of transfer, contract length, and date (and of course reference). --SuperJew (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change to MOS


There has been many discussions in the past (1 and 2) about the need to update the Club seasons guideline without result. This has caused many disagreements recently between editors. There are some editors who see the MOS in dire need to be updated. This is a proposal of what an updated guideline that an editor worked on might look like. All suggestions are welcome. Keeping it as it is or leaving it up to the user's discretion are all possible suggestions.:--Sakiv (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what? This has not been updated for 2 years and I am unaware of any discussion suggesting a change? The 'Statistics' section looks awful for a start and has NOTSTATS issues, such as disciplinary records which we do not track, and subs/starts etc. not relevant accordingly. GiantSnowman 15:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that proposal looks pretty bad. For one thing, we don't need separate sections for transfers in the summer and winter transfer windows. We also probably shouldn't use the collapsible footballbox to list matches, as Wikipedia policy says you shouldn't hide content in collapsible boxes for accessibility purposes. – PeeJay 15:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I like how you have cherry-picked discussions from 2013 and 2014. More recent discussions – which established a consensus against using the collapsible football box – include this one and this one. The 'Results by matchday' section is also clearly WP:NOTSTATS and the information is already available anyway given that each season article includes a list of the team's results. Agree with GS + PeeJay re- statistics section and transfers. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Their proposal is only a draft and is open to any change. We can start a new draft for what an updated MOS might look like.--Sakiv (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Why does the MOS need to be entirely overhauled? GiantSnowman 20:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather we had specific notes on what needs changing to the current MOS than creating a new one. Could you outline which parts of the current MOS are unsuitable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why the transfers should be split by transfer window, and I don't believe a players number of appearances (for outgoing players) or contract expiry date (for incoming players) is relevant, as it doesn't directly affect the season in question. "Aftermath of the season" seems arbitrary, especially include reports on profit made during the season- a casual reader wouldn't care whether they made £3.7 million or £4.1 million in a season. And "Other statistics" would likely just encourage people to add whatever random stats they feel like, violating WP:NOTSTATS.
To me, this seems like WP:NOTBROKEN- I don't see issues with the current MOS, so why do we need to spend lots of effort trying to "fix" it? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Exactly, for example, the format of the matches using tables looks outdated and has not seen significant changes since the inception of the guideline. For example a vast number of articles does not use these tables. Player details look good and so is the transfer section. We can add to the prose for the sake of consistency. Also, hould the transfers section be at the top of the article or at the bottom of the competitions? We may also decide if it is appropriate to place the competitions under main sections or under subsections each within the section called match results or competitions.--Sakiv (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
"a vast number of articles does not use these tables" - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "Player details look good" - see WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The tables look outdated? How so? I think they're an elegant way of displaying the relevant information. The collapsible footballbox not only hides important information behind a click that the user probably shouldn't have to make (and isn't even compatible with mobile devices), but also takes up way too much of the page with whitespace with its 100% width setting. It's ugly. – PeeJay 22:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • A few random thoughts from me:
    • I don't see why the contract length is necessary/relevant. All we need to know is that the player joined the club and played in the season in question. We don't need to know how many years he was contracted for. Also, the available information on this is going to be pretty patchy any more than about 15 years back
    • Collapsible boxes for matches are horrible, there's nothing wrong with a table
    • Results by matchday is stats overload and unnecessary and of course just leads to those endless questions of "what to do when matches are postponed and played weeks/months later"
    • I can't see the point of the "Overall competition record" table. Why would we report on the "win %" in something like the FA Cup, a knockout competition?
    • Cards again are going to be incredibly hard to source more than a few years back. I know people are probably going to say "well, we can get it for recent/future seasons, so why not show it?", but should we really encourage including a stat which isn't going to be readily available for the majority of seasons to date?
  • Just my 2p.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see what specific information we are actually trying to change here, and more to the point where there is more than one person looking for it. If other articles don't meet this style guide, we should update them to do so. using tables looks outdated and has not seen significant changes since the inception of the guideline - that usually means that tables look fine. If you have a specific table style, I'd be more than willing to weigh in on the pros and cons of the contrasting tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
cards aren't hard to track, soccerbase do it on player's pages. messi] got 6 yellows and 1 red last season for exampleMuur (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
what about players not covered by Soccerbase? Just because stats sites track something doesn't mean we do. GiantSnowman 17:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Muur: - I doubt Soccerbase could tell us how many cards Man U got in 1984-85, let alone Cardiff City in 1921-22. We shouldn't get too obsessed with stats which are only available for a comparatively small percentage of players/seasons.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Is there a real problem including this information for seasons where the information is available and not including it for seasons which it isn't? You don't have transfers information for the seasons you mentioned above either. --SuperJew (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A note on one specific aspect of the draft guideline linked by @Sakiv:. Linked text in Wikipedia usually has a colour value of #0645AD (see: WP:LINKCOLOR), though for cross-language Wikipedia links, this color value changes to #3366BB. At all times we should promote accessibility, and ensure that everybody can read the encyclopedia, which means, among other things, meeting WCAG 2.1 colour contrast guidelines (see WP:CONTRAST). If we use #0645AD as our benchmark for text colour, the colours chosen in the draft guideline to indicate a win or a loss, as well as for Champions League qualification and relegation, fail the WCAG 2.1 test. If we use #3366BB as our benchmark for text colour, none of the colours chosen in the league table pass the WCAG 2.1 test. I'd say it's better to target the default link colour, #0645AD, as this covers 99.9% of use cases on the English Wikipedia. I'd favour using the colour guide contained in WP:COLOURS to choose appropriate colours for W/L/D, as well as league positions - #E6FFE6 for a win, #FFFFE6 for a draw, #FFE6E6 for a loss. Everything in column two of the colour guide in WP:COLOURS ought to be appropriate, except at hue 240, which fails. Domeditrix (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: We will not disagree on the colors, I agree with your proposal.--Sakiv (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Domenico Berardi position as Winger - being accused of vandalism by GiantSnowman and Nehme 1499


Kindly have a look at the page of the Italian footballer Domenico Berardi, where I added a source justifying that this footballer plays as a Winger, while two users, namely GiantSnowman and Nehme 1499 have removed the source repeatedly, without providing any solid argument or information demonstrating that the player is actually not a Winger, while they are also accusing me of vandalism. This is a true abuse towards me and not a good service for Wikipedia by these people. You should be able to show and provide facts and sources, not threaten other users --93.151.145.8 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You are edit warring, and editing against consensus - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 144#Domenico Berardi where it was agreed to list Berardi only as 'forward'. GiantSnowman 16:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

UEFA Euro winning countries


We need more people and their opinions at Talk:UEFA European Championship#National teams in the summary table / conclusion voting to settle those things with Yugoslavia / Czechoslovakia / USSR / Serbia / Russia once and for all, so any opinion would be appreciated. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Only the real and true historic winners should be mentioned at least until the so-called "heir's countries" will be able to win a title. For instance, it is not correct to award to Serbia the results obtained by Yugoslavia which was a different State and a different political entity.--Bergenoslo (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You say it's not correct to credit Serbia with Yugoslavia's victories, but that's what UEFA and FIFA have done. Please read the discussion linked above before commenting further. – PeeJay 22:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Current clubs, or clubs at last call-up?


Which clubs should be displayed in the "Players" section of national teams (example), the current clubs (e.g. PSG for Donnarumma) or the clubs at the latest call-up (AC Milan)? I thought that we should be displaying the clubs at the present day (both for the current squad and recent call-ups). Nehme1499 16:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: Pinging involved user. Nehme1499 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that as the age on the current date is displayed (rather than the age at call-up), the club at the current date should also be the information shown. Felixsv7 (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Per what source says, club last call. During the next call the club will be updated.--Island92 (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say club at time of call up. Has Donnarumma received a call-up whilst a PSG player? No. GiantSnowman 17:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd say current club. What would we do for "recent call-ups"? Display the club they last played with? When I look at national team rosters, I look at both current and recent to see the "current pool" of players, of which the club would interest me. For the articles like "Euro 2020 team rosters", those absolutely should have team at time of call-up since that's more of a "snapshot" at that point in time, but the national team article to me is an ever-updating page so should have the current team (aka PSG for Donnarumma). RedPatch (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with RP. Nehme1499 18:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree with Felixsv7 that the issue of the club and the age are related. If we decide that we are using the club at time of call up, we should also use the birth date and age2 template to "freeze" the age. --SuperJew (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

But actually Donnarumma who now plays for PSG has not received any call yet. The information given - The following 26 players were selected for the UEFA Euro 2020 - matches with the fact we should report club last call. Island92 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What's your thought on what Felixsv7's concern regarding the current age, and RedPatch's comment? Nehme1499 18:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The 'current age' template can be amended to stick at the date of call-up. GiantSnowman 18:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Current clubs. Why would you purposely want to have an encyclopedia with outdated information? Intruder007 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The current age can be easily updated when necessary. What does exactly mean the section named "Current squad"? The last squad called so as to attend a major tournament or friendly match or the current squad of everyday in accordance with which club the player is playing?Island92 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's cool to have the club of the call-up in the pages specific to a tournament such as UEFA Euro 2020 squads. But if you do that in the NT-specific pages, you will only cause confusion, specially because most people that enter that page will assume the clubs are up to date. Intruder007 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but Donnarumma is listed into the table, according to the source provived as AC Milan player because he was playing for AC Milan as he was called to attend Euro 2020 tournament. Island92 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. If someone enters the Italy page and reads the roster page, he/she won't assume that the clubs are "according to the club he was playing at the time of the call-up", he/she will assume it's as of today's date because, well, this is an encyclopedia and any encyclopedia worth it's salt will always try to be as up to date as possible. Doing otherwise is dumb. Intruder007 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a contrast, in any case. The information given - The following 26 players were selected for the UEFA Euro 2020 - means Donnarumma wasn't playing for PSG at the time he was called. Putting PSG is simply wrong. I think my thought has been understood about this aspect. I do not go on and I let other user say what they think. Island92 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"The following 26 players were selected for the UEFA Euro 2020" only means you have the 26 players that were called-up, not the clubs and the ages at the moment they were and nobody will assume otherwise unless specifically noted and why should they? It's a matter of using common sense. Intruder007 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Donnarumma was not a PSG player during Euro 2020 and any edit indicating he was is factually incorrect. GiantSnowman 19:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Showing Donnarumma as a PSG player in the Italy NT player section isn't stating that he was one during Euro 2020. Nehme1499 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is, given the Italian 'current squad' section says "The following 26 players were selected for the UEFA Euro 2020". GiantSnowman 19:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Again, who will assume the list of clubs were as they were at the time of the call-up? Nobody is saying Donnarumma was a PSG player at the time of the call-up. What we're saying is that nobody will assume the clubs of the list will be listed as they were at the time of the call-up. Ever. And nobody will unless you add a note explicitly saying that clubs and/or ages are according to the date of the call-up. And if you do that, most people reading the article will think the editors are insane. Intruder007 (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
he didnt even sign for PSG until after the tourney... if you list him as a PSG player at Euro 2020 that's wrong. I'd say it's prob fine to change it on Itlay's page itself though. But not Euro 2020.Muur (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Another question here, if we keep clubs and age as per when called-up, should we also not update the caps and goals? --SuperJew (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Caps and goals are updated when the Nation team plays, therefore automatically you have already updated the club the player plays for because he has been called by the Manager to play either a major tournament or friendly match. Island92 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Not every call-up is for one specific game. Many times we have call-ups for a tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the call. The most recent call means the most recent club the player plays for to be updated. The main fact is based on the statement above with source. During Euro 2020 Donnarumma was an AC Milan player. Island92 (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In the end, it's all a matter of what the use of the "Players" section is. In my opinion, it's much more useful for the average reader to know which "current" PSG players play for the Italy national team, for example. If I were to ask myself "how many PSG players are there currently in the Italy NT?", the Player section would be able to answer my question. It's very unlikely someone will ask themselves "what was the club makeup of the Italy NT during their last friendly played 3 months ago, which was their last game played?" At most, someone will want to know the clubs of players at specific tournaments - indeed, we have those noted in tournament squad pages such as UEFA Euro 2020 squads. Nehme1499 00:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
My 2 cents is that the national team should display the club the player currently plays for. If we keep it this way, we should have disclaimer it represents the players current club. If we decide it should show as the club the player is contracted to when they received their last call-up, then we should have another disclaimer as well clarifying that.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
As Ortizesp says, we should anyway have a note clarifying the situation so it won't be misunderstood. I also believe we should display the current updated status (club, age, caps, and goals), as that is the general expecation as I can see from the average Joe editor (I all the time see IPs update a club when a player joins a new club, and have yet to see an IP update back to the club the player was with at time of call-up). --SuperJew (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Current clubs, of course. Kindly remember that a "club" season is officially over on 30th June, and the new season starts on 1st of July, when usually also the player's contracts start. So it will be wrong information to write, for instance, that Donnarumma is still a player of his old club and not a PSG player. On the national team pages, the current club should be outlined, as it has always been. There was even no need to open this discussion.--Bergenoslo (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think changing the note to something like "Caps and goals correct as of 11 July 2021, after the match against England. Clubs correct as of present day." should work. Nehme1499 11:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I disagree for the main reasons I've already explained above. You have already done this edit, but I don't see any consensus reached in this talk.--Island92 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I've been WP:BOLD; there is a weak consensus to go with current clubs. And regardless, there is no reason to put the clubs as of the last call-up, given that we have a very simple solution (adding a sentence to the note). Nehme1499 12:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
By the way, should the phrasing be "Clubs correct as of present day" or "Clubs are correct as of the present day"? Nehme1499 12:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A reason to put club as of the last call-up was present before starting this talk. Island92 (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The way we were de facto operating was by displaying the clubs the players were currently playing for. Also, as SJ notes above, it's clear that the average reader expects to see the current clubs, as I have also only seen IPs change the clubs to the current ones, never to the ones at call-up. Nehme1499 12:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
That's why IPs want everything to be updated on the encyclopedia up to the current date. Basically, we are going against the source provived, which says Donnarumma plays for Milan at Euro. We should leave Milan into the table, along with a small ref explaining that from 1 July 2021 he's a PSG player, without changing the statement above. Could it be a reliable solution? Island92 (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Of the 10 editors who commented in here, 8 (Fsv7, RP, N1499, I007, Muur, SJ, Oesp, Berg) were in favour of Current Club and only 2 (I92 and GS) were in favour of previous club. Sure you presented a reason for your preferred method, but the other users also provided reasons why the Current is ideal. There are differing reasons and you can't just ignore other opposing reasons. As several users have stated, the actual UEFA Euro 2020 squads page will have Donnarumma as an AC Milan player, that will not change and has never been proposed, but the actual current Italian squad should have PSG because it's a current squad, is the current status quo, and there is not enough support to change it. RedPatch (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I will add another reason why having the current club is preferred in my opinion - the current club the player is at is how the manager views the situation. For example, if now Italy set up a friendly for next month and Mancini next weeks selects a squad, he needs to know who the player is currently contracted to - with which club he needs to negotiate a possible release for the player and this he needs to know before the selection. Also as a reader, I want to know what the current club situation is for the pool of players in selection contention for the national side. --SuperJew (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You might think I tend to adopt that method (isn't mine), but actually not. I accept whatever other users suggest doing, but remember just the fact source says Milan, not PSG. That's why a ref can be considered being crucial to clarify it, much better than the statement above. Needless to say, what was added into Euro 2020 squads will be never changed (clubs). Do whatever you may think to be good enough to add in that section. Have a good time on the encyclopedia. Island92 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the user Neheme1499, once again, has started to modify the base model of the football national teams without having a large CONSENSUS for his proposed modifications.. and this is not the first time that this user operates like that, misrepresenting the democratic rules of Wikipedia and pretending to have a large consensus which he doesn't have. In addition, please note that this user focuses ONLY on changing the ITALIAN NATIONAL TEAM page, so he is not driven at all by the general interest. --Bergenoslo (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bergenoslo: Quick tip (since it seems that you have personal issues against me): you can start a discussion at WP:ANI, if you believe I'm acting against the general interest of Wikipedia. (By the way, remember to indent (WP:INDENT) your comments on talk pages). Nehme1499 17:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think changing the wording above the Current Squad is necessary as the outcome of this discussion (to list a player's current team) is now listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams page. Felixsv7 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
That also works. Nehme1499 18:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I do think we should have the correct note on the national team page as the average reader won't read or be familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. --SuperJew (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The club listed should be the club at the time of the national team's last game. The national team disbands after every international window, so outside those windows, there is technically no such thing as a national team's "current squad". Listing the club a player moves to after they last played for the national team doesn't make sense as they weren't with that club when the national team last played. – PeeJay 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree, best explanation ever. With respect, but user @Nehme1499: has gone too ahead with his edits into the section.--Island92 (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Just because you agree with someone else, doesn't mean you should go and change the section based on your preference. The status quo has always been to change to the current day. Throughout this thread as a whole, there is more consensus to keep the way we have always been operating (updating the clubs to the present day) rather than to list the clubs as of the last game played. Arguments have been put forth for both sides, so repeating the same things won't get us anywhere. Nehme1499 22:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I try to explain it better. On FIGC.com, where is the section related to the "current squad"? There isn't, because the current new squad is established once the manager selects the list of players for new upcoming matches. Only in that moment you should update the whole table with the current club the player is playing for because on the official site you will read the new list of players have been called. And we will add the source for this. Where is the truly sense to display Donnarumma into the table playing for PSG? Just because is it 21st July 2021? The entire current squad was selected for UEFA Euro 2020 (Donnarumma an AC Milan player), not for today. The current squad will be updated at the end of August for new 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification matches, and we will display it together with new clubs players will be playing for. It isn't a preference of mine, it's logic. More than seven users agree with you, but, to be really honest, you are wrong about displaying the current club.--Island92 (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
"More than seven users agree with you, but, to be really honest, you are wrong about displaying the current club." So you're saying that you're right just because you're right? Wikipedia doesn't have to follow what FIGC.com does. I can also show you examples of websites that update the team to the present day (see Global Sports Archive, which has Donnarumma as a PSG player - even Chiellini and Sirigu as free agents). Nehme1499 22:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Displaying the club last call is the most suitable thing I consider being right, not the fact I'm right at all and it must be as I think. I've always thought for that section FIGC.com was the major priority to take into account. The main problem remains the same: the current squad as reported in that section wasn't called for today, but for the last tournament. There won't be a current squad until the end of next August.--Island92 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm for current club as well. Perhaps we may add a tooltip to reflect a different club at the time of last callup? --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Image recently added on Martin Braithwaite


I have a feeling the image added today may not be allowed to stay on there as a free image - I searched the image using Google Search and found the image on multiple websites including the Spanish article about him. Views? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You nominated it for deletion at Commons. Not sure why this is an issue to open on WT:FOOTY too? --SuperJew (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that Struway2, with the reasoning, identifies that as a "clearly copyvio image" removed it just recently. I was thinking that the image is a copyvio but I was wondering if others think likewise. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Big task for those feeling bored


Organising and subcategorising Category:Association football awards navigational boxes - by country and tournament etc. GiantSnowman 18:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I made a start (instead of studying for theriogenology so should probs get back to that). --SuperJew (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams#Competitive record


I believe that this discussion got closed without a resolution. Having just checked the template, it now advises between three different potential layouts for the Competitive record section which does not allow for consistency therefore could we please come to a consensus as to the best way to display this data?

Example 1
Year Final Tournament Qualification
Round Pld W D L F A Pos. Pld W D L F A
1930Did not enterWas not invited
1934Quarter finals2101441st220082
Example 2
Year Final Tournament Qualification
Round Pld W D L F A Squad Pos. Pld W D L F A
France 1938Third place42111210SquadQualified automaticlly
Brazil 1950Runners-up6411226SquadQualified as hosts
Example 3
Year Location Final Tournament Qualification
Round Pld W D L F A Pos. Pld W D L F A
2018 RussiaGroup Stage3111441st8530155
2022 QatarTo be determined1st000000
2026 Canada
 Mexico
 United States
To be determined

Draws include knockout matches decided on penalty kicks; correct as of 28 June 2018 after the match against Colombia.

Example 4
FIFA World Cup record FIFA World Cup qualification record
Year Round Position Pld W D L GF GA Squad Position Pld W D L GF GA
1930Did not enterWas not invited
1934Quarter-finals6th210154Squad1st220082

Which Example do people prefer? @REDMAN 2019: @SuperJew: @Stevie fae Scotland: @Lee Vilenski:

To throw my two cents in, I like the 4th Example and would argue that MOS:FLAGS actually allows for this. The reason that I feel that this is the best format is that it easily distinguishes the different tournaments without cluttering the table and, as the country that hosted the tournament isn't the primary focus of the table, listing it fully doesn't feel necessary to me but I'd be delighted to hear your opinions and come to some conclusion so that all National Team pages can fall under the same template! Felixsv7 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I also prefer Example 4, personally I am a fan of flags in these tables as I think they are a good visual aid but Example 3 just seems to crowded with the country's names in it as well. If people vote overwhelmingly against flags then I'm going for Example 1. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I prefer Example 4 as well. Nehme1499 17:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I have zero idea how you can read MOS:FLAG and think that four is ok. If it isn't a primary point of the table, why are we putting flags in? We should never put flags in as a way to state specific information. Specifically "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words." There's also "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details", so if you haven't used the flag already in the article, you'd have to state the country name as well. As much as I don't think it matters where it was played in a table like this, if it is important, you can simply write the country out, like so below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Example 5
FIFA World Cup record FIFA World Cup qualification record
Year Round Position Pld W D L GF GA Squad Position Pld W D L GF GA
Uruguay 1930Did not enterWas not invited
Italy 1934Quarter-finals6th210154Squad1st220082
MOS:FLAGS mentions that users have a preference to just using the flag in sports statistics. Admittedly it's quite poorly worded but based on the example that is how I understand it. The numbers are actually the key detail in the column, the flag is just extra detail! Felixsv7 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Example 5 is a good compromise as, along with complying with MOS:FLAGS, is also a good wording for the tournaments, as often times we hear the tournaments being referred to as "Italia 90" or "Germany 2006", for example. Nehme1499 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: What is the difference between example 5 and example 2? Anyways I think it is unneccesary to link to the squads page for each tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
There isn't much I suppose. I don't have much of an interest other than the flags. Felixsv7, that doesn't mean we should have countries replaced by flags. That generally means that we use {{flagathlete}} for long similar tables.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I can understand the issue that perhaps not every user knows every flag, but I do feel they are good to have as it helps with the reading to have some colour and images. Therfore I'd suggest as such:
Example 6
FIFA World Cup record FIFA World Cup qualification record
Year Round Position Pld W D L GF GA Position Pld W D L GF GA
Uruguay 1930Did not enterWas not invited
Italy 1934Quarter-finals6th2101541st220082
This way we don't have people lose information due to not knowing the flags. Also remove the unneccesary "squads" column. --SuperJew (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I still believe that the squads column is pretty useful. It's the only place on the national team article where we can link to those anyway. Nehme1499 18:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
To explain why I updated the MOS. The discussion linked above brought about a consensus to update the competitive record section to meet MOS:FLAGS but did not bring about a consensus to remove flagicons or any mention of the location of the tournament. As a result, I offered three examples of how that could be met. The discussion wasn't about whether the squad should be linked or not so I ensured it was still included and I also made sure to include details of how to indicate host nation and champion/runner-up etc. I personally don't see a problem with allowing more than one option for editors but I would have no objection if example 2 (which is identical in substance if not style to example 5) or example 6 were agreed as the favoured way forward. They both meet MOS:FLAGS and both detail who the host nation is/was. I would suggest that the year column be aligned left in option 6 though to keep the flags in line with one another. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the flag alignment. I would also prefer there to be a "white bar" to divide the finals record and the qualification record. Nehme1499 20:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Final option from me (complying with MOS:FLAG this time!) just to rowspan across the Year and Location columns and add the Squad column which was previously just a set of bullet points beneath the Recent Call-ups and is definitely more applicable to this table. The benefit I think this has over Example 6 is that all the years are down a single line, as are the flags, which should make it easier to read - especially for competitions that take place over a couple or more countries. Felixsv7 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Example 7
FIFA World Cup Qualification
Year Host Round Pld W D L F A Squad Pos. Pld W D L F A
2018 RussiaGroup Stage311144Squad1st8530155
2022 QatarTo be determined1st000000
2026 Canada
 Mexico
 United States
To be determined
Example 7 is exactly the same as example 3 albeit a slightly different style but the substance is the same. I have no objections if that's the preferred format though, all but example four meet MOS:FLAGS so I'm happy whichever. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Harold Shepherdson could use some attention


This article has been tagged for sourcing issues since 2009. I quickly added his substantial obit from The Independent which could be used to source and expand further. I'm not really a football expert, so I am not going to do more. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Loans in the currentclub parameter of the infobox


I have question since I did not find anything at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players: Should we mention the loaning club in the info box like this or should the "on loan from ..." be removed? --Jaellee (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely include the parent club. GiantSnowman 09:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Have I missed something, I have been reverted on Sarpreet Singh article because I undid an IP edit that put loaned from next to current club in the infobox. The fact that he's on loan is already stated in lede, in the article and under senior career now. I can't see the need for it to be with current club as well. I believe that should just be the team the player is playing for.

Then I corrected in the lede another IP edit that had displayed it to say loan is from Bayern Munich instead of Bayern Munich II and removed the loan information again by current club. Only for it to be re-added by Jaellee. I don't want to get into an edit war with them on it but it seems like it's not best practise to me, to have loaned from in current club field when you are having to used break text to display it plus it's displayed in infobox anyway under senior career that's its a loan. Would like others thoughts? — NZFC(talk)(cont) 09:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems while I was writing up my question, Jaellee did at the same time. I appreciate them bring it here also for others thoughts. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 09:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I've only ever seen articles include the club loaned from in the 'current club' field and that is most sensible in my opinion as they are playing for the loan club but are also under contract to the parent club. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Definitely include the parent club. GiantSnowman 09:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Pile-on vote for including the parent club :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I'm obviously in the wrong here so my apologies to Jaellee and I reverted myself. Maybe good to add something to the template page for a football player if possible too.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Prose transfer fees


Hello. How should we refer to transfer fees in the prose? For example, the transfer fee of a player is of ten million euros.
Option A: 10 million euros (do we wikilink euros or not?)
Option B: €10m
Option C: €10M
Option D: 10,000,000 euros
Option E: €10,000,000
Option F: 10m
Option G: 10M euros
Option H: €10 million
Option I: ten million euros.
Option J: another one? Make a suggestion?
Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:CURRENCY. Nehme1499 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
In prose, it should be €10 million, but in tables I would often abbreviate to €10m. – PeeJay 22:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2021–22 Coppa Italia


Can you help me to reach a concensus for this discussion Dr Salvus 16:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to explain the issue. On 8 June 2021 Lega Serie A have published two statements in this page (they're in italian). The first one is about the rules of 2021–22 Coppa Italia --> , the second one is an empty fixtures table based on ranks --> . The point 3.1 of first statement establishes the criteria for formation of fixtures table: teams are ranked based on places they've reached in the previous season. E.g.: Juventus is ranked 1 because they won previous Coppa Italia, Inter is ranked 2 because they won 2020–21 Serie A, Milan is ranked 3 because they finished 2nd in previous Serie A etc. According to these official rules, @Dr Salvus: and I have composed the fixtures, based on the table in the second statement. So for example Torino (ranked 17) will face Vicenza (ranked 32) and so on. However, Lega Serie A hasn't communicated fixtures yet, they've only published rules. In poor words, they haven't filled the table. So I'm asking: is writing fixtures considered an original research or must we wait for final announcement by Lega Serie A? Because that means that we can't even open the pages of next seasons of clubs before the start of championships unless an official statement says they will participate.--Andyen94 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep fixtures - As long as there are clear and immutable rules that mention what team receives exactly what rank, I believe this is OK. Combining the information found in two different sources isn't original research. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for input


Hello. Can I get some input in this discussion? Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Manchester United F.C. squad


On {{Manchester United F.C. squad}} there are SO many players - something I haven't seen on other templates of this type. On 17 July, I removed all the players that weren't included in the first team per the Manchester United website. However, PeeJay decided to revert my changes, claiming that "these players are included because they have been registered with squad numbers for either domestic or European competitions". What is the solution? Should we include the players or not? Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we should only have senior-contracted players --SuperJew (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
By the way, the players in question are Bishop, Woolston, Laird, Mellor, Kovář, Galbraith, Devine, Bernard, Wellens, Mastný, McCann, Stanley, Levitt, Hardley, Emeran, Haygarth, Svidersky, Pye, Hansen-Aarøen, Hugill, and Fernández. In other templates like this, we usually only have players who are in the first-team squad per the official website. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Only players listed here should be listed for now, and you can add players who subsequently feature for the first-team. GiantSnowman 10:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with GS, we should follow who Man Utd class as their current first team players. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Also agree, also, the point of the template is to show what players have articles, to link the player articles together. It's pointless having names there with no articles. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
That link doesn't list all of the players who currently have an article, though. Including all of the players who have a squad number avoids having to distinguish between first team and academy players, some of whom only have squad numbers because they need them in order to play in the Football League Trophy. – PeeJay 11:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Why should we avoid distinguishing between them? There is a difference. --SuperJew (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thirding what GS said, first team squad + players who feature for first team makes the most sense here. Macosal (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I also agree with the above (first team + youth who play at least 1 game in the current season). Nehme1499 15:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Olympic or U23 in Infobox


How should participation in the Olympics be recorded in the infobox. It's a primarily U23 tournament, but 3 overage players are allowed. Should the teams be listed as "Country U23" or "Country Olympic". I've seen both. It doesn't make sense for the overagers to be listed as "U23" if they're older than that, but it seems impractical for the same team to be listed differently. (Note: the qualifying tournaments are U23 only and no overagers, so those could be considered U23). For example, Neymar lists his past participations as Brazil Olympic, André-Pierre Gignac for this tournament is listed as "France Olympic", all the Great Britain players in 2012 listed as "Great Britain Olympic", but then you have guys like Pedri, Unai Simón, and Marco Asensio (overage player) with Spain U23 in their infobox rather than Spain Olympic. RedPatch (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

One point is that Great Britain is listed at Great Britain Olympic football team (and also Germany is listed at Germany Olympic football team), but all (I think, unless there are more exceptions) the rest of the teams are listed as Exampleland national under-23 football team (such as Brazil). Anyways based on that, I would definately think GB & Germany should be listed as GB/Germany Olympic in the infobox. The rest I would say for overage list them as "Country Olympic" and for the rest "Country U23" as the stats are the same team as the under-23 playing in qualification and youth tournaments. --SuperJew (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, GB qualifies with different situations - in 2012 as hosts, this year the women through England's campaign at the WWC. Germany qualified through the 2019 UEFA European Under-21 Championship. I feel it's hard to make a general rule in this case. --SuperJew (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
And also Portugal is found at Portugal Olympic football team. Maybe it's a European thing due to their qualifying being via an under-21 tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
It is down to the head coach of the Under-23s national team squad to pick a team for an Olympics. So the inclusion surprisingly both an Under-23 and Olympics team, however I feel we should just stick too U23 in the infobox. Here have a read of sporting news.com post. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Global Sports Archive calls all the national teams "U23", which to me makes the most sense. Plus, even other non-Olympic competitions have some "overage" players of some sort (87 23-year-olds participated in the 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship). Nehme1499 15:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC medals in infobox


Following up on this discussion, which medals should be included in the infobox of (association) footballers and national teams?

  1. Olympics only
  2. Olympics and other major multi-sports events (e.g. Mediterranean Games)
  3. All international tournaments

Nehme1499 16:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Olympics only if it's what other sports projects are doing (tennis, swimming, etc.) for consistency. Otherwise, all international tournaments. It would be very weird to include the Mediterranean Games but not the World Cup, for example. Nehme1499 16:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Anything where you have a gold, silver and bronze. Other sports we include things like the World Games. If the international tournament doesn't follow this format, then it doesn't belong. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: {{Medal}} also has parameters for "Winner" and "Runner-up", not only gold, silver and bronze. So it's not necessarily true that a tournament that doesn't have a third-place match "doesn't belong". Nehme1499 12:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Olympics only and no need to link the locations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Nehme, as other sports are doing it also and i see no reason to only include the olympics. Kante4 (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 is the one we are using in almost every article, I don't see any reason to change it.Cracker-Kun (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Olympics only, otherwise where do we draw the line? It does not matter what other sports do. GiantSnowman 09:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Small Change to Template


I've noticed that several pages contain a small error in a template. A typical example is here. If you search for the word "different" you'll see that the template used says "different to" in several places, where the standard English is "different from". Is it possible to change this, and, if so, how?

Thanks in advance for any help with this. RomanSpa (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@RomanSpa: the template that should be changed is {{Fb cm footer}}. Nehme1499 19:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: Thank you. If there are no objections in the next day or so, I'll make the necessary minor edit. RomanSpa (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Overly detailed statistics


I removed a section from this manager's page which intended to list match statistics for every match the manager has overseen. Currently another section in the article lists win-loss statistics for U17 and U19 matches, I think they should also be removed. Even though Borussia Dortmund U19 is a youth team of a big club, which RS cover this level of football? Agree? Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Geschichte: Youth clubs should definitely be removed from the table. Nehme1499 12:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Stadiums


Could I please get more input here? @Dustyveil: argues that, I quote, 'we don't have to add 'Stadium' after every names, there is a description before them that already stated they're stadiums, we only write names.' Qby (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qby: Can you please explain what stadium and/or articles we are talking about? Nehme1499 13:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear. In China women's national football team#Matches section, @Dustyveil: adds '|stadium= Miyagi' instead of '|stadium=Miyagi Stadium'. and his explained that , I quote, 'we don't have to add 'Stadium' after every names, there is a description before them that already stated they're stadiums, we only write names.' Qby (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Qby: I disagree, it should be Miyagi Stadium (the official name of the stadium), as "Stadium" is capitalized (it's part of a proper noun). It's not called "Miyagi stadium". Nehme1499 14:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: I agree with you. Qby (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The stadium name is "Miyagi Stadium", so that's what should be used. This seems like Dustyveil is trying to make an argument for no benefit to the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Due personal, I have no arguement. But according to your logic, almost every pages about stadiums wrote and capitalize "Stadium" in their official names, so we mentioned and repeated, for every single time, the term "Stadium" in their names when providing information about stadiums? The term "Stadium" is not part of the "official" name. Trimbarista (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dustyveil: Why are you commenting as Trrimbarista? Nehme1499 17:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a cooling name I signed for myself. Trimbarista (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

According to your logic, almost every pages about stadiums wrote and capitalize "Stadium" in their official names, so we mentioned and repeated, for every single time, the term "Stadium" in their names when providing information about stadiums? The term "Stadium" is not part of the "official" name. Trimbarista (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC) By the way, the current page of China women's national football team reminds me of this one Special:Permalink/1027033969, both doesn't fit with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. And the Tournaments section in the China women's national football team is quite similar compared to the Record section in Special:Permalink/1027033969. @Felixsv7: and @Badass Flare: Sorry to bother you, but may I ask your opinion on this matter? As you were involved in this kind of thing before. Qby (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qby: Be WP:BOLD, and improve the article as you see fit. Nehme1499 14:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Still part of the terming problem, the wiki-link doesn't valued up. And the commonly used structure is not exempted from flaws. Prototyping the term "Stadium" is an example of how molecules of these structure are overstated. As stated, all sides need to be BOLD and not emnytizing other ideas. Trimbarista (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Dustyveil is a disruptive (or possibly simply incompetent) editor who I recently blocked for messing up numerous articles. If they are continuing to do this, let me know, as they have been warned numerous times about their editing and are probably deserving of another block. Number 57 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It is only a factor and doesn't rigidly apply to every circumstances. I have gradually and negotiably conform to many of your complaints yet you bring up further ones. There are specific thesis for different moves. Just because it's bold and somewhat different from a general view, it's not incompetent. The warning can't be associated with completely different complaints. Trimbarista (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Qby, it seems like the same editor as the UAE page to me. Felixsv7 (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a very good spot. The now-blocked IP made exactly the same changes to the UAE article – notably making plural headings like References and External links singular, which was one of the issues with Dustyveil's edits, it is certainly them. As numerous IPs of their were blocked for socking, some for up to a year. I have blocked them too. Number 57 20:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:ACMILAN


Hello. Should WP:ACMILAN also apply to AC Ajaccio? The club is in a similar situation, with Gazélec Ajaccio being the other club from Ajaccio. Gazélec is now in the fourth tier, but five years ago, they were in the Ligue 1, so I think they aren't just some minor club. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

What do reliable sources in English call the two clubs? Nehme1499 18:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I have always referred to them as 'Ajaccio' and 'Gazélec Ajaccio'. GiantSnowman 18:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

MOS for bios please?


I have genuinely tried hard to look for this. Earlier one of my created article titles was amended into the suffix '(Scottish footballer)' instead of '(footballer born 1879)' due to "standard dab". It's obviously not a big deal either way, but my understanding was the opposite - that the birth year should be used as disambig prior to nationality if it is known, as less potentially ambiguous. In this case the year is not in doubt, but neither is the nationality. Can someone direct me to the guideline either way? As I said, I did search but no joy. Crowsus (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm also certain that we disambiguate by birth year, not nationality, due to the fact that a player might hold more than one nationality (or their nationality status might change). Nehme1499 18:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
You are looking for WP:NCSP, and are correct that nationality is to be avoided wherever possible (but not in every case). GiantSnowman 18:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that is indeed what I was searching for. The 'other' namesake is a modern day Aussie Rules player. Think that one was created first so I just let it sit at 'footballer' and added the further disambig to mine alone, and now both have been changed so they are referring to the nationality which I suppose would be the most obvious for anyone looking for either player - as much as birth year anyway (although the year difference was 120 years so also not likely that the wrong article would get clicked). Crowsus (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Stade Briochin


Hello. In infoboxes, we refer to Stade Rennais F.C. as Rennes; in that case, should we refer to Stade Briochin as Saint-Brieuc? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's good that you ask the project when you have doubts, but most of your questions can be answered by asking "what do reliable English-language sources say?" I doubt most people in this project know about Stade Briochin, a third-tier French club (unlike AC and Inter Milan). If there are specific grammatical rules in French (Stade Rennais --> Rennes), as we have with Swedish and German, then another French-speaking person might be of help. Nehme1499 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)