Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions
→Sérgio Oliveira: probably |
|||
Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
::::Guessing again, but the extra two names are probably his grandparents' surnames, as [[Portuguese name#Number of names]] suggests that some people use 4 surnames (grandparents' surnames and both parents surnames). So may well be his actual official name. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 13:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC) |
::::Guessing again, but the extra two names are probably his grandparents' surnames, as [[Portuguese name#Number of names]] suggests that some people use 4 surnames (grandparents' surnames and both parents surnames). So may well be his actual official name. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk]]) 13:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::More than likely, cheers, [[User:Struway2|Struway2]] ([[User talk:Struway2|talk]]) 14:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC) |
:::::More than likely, cheers, [[User:Struway2|Struway2]] ([[User talk:Struway2|talk]]) 14:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
OK, if it's done again i won't oppose then. Thanks for your time, sorry for any inconvenience. --[[Special:Contributions/193.137.135.2|193.137.135.2]] ([[User talk:193.137.135.2|talk]]) 15:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:10, 28 July 2022
![]() | Football Project‑class | ||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
![]() | This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 9 July 2012. |
![]() |
Project pages |
---|
|
Full fixture list
See 2022–23_Manchester_United_F.C._season: I'm sure I've read somewhere on our project talk page relatively recently that the full fixture list should not be visible at the start of the season unless something has changed regarding that content. Related articles also have their fixture list in full as well yet I don't see the full list of fixtures for this article at present. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think it was something with copyright but that changed a few years ago. I have no problem with all fixtures shown. Kante4 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. There was a claim by Football DataCo a few years ago that all the English and Scottish league fixtures were their intellectual property, so we couldn't publish them. That turned out to be unenforceable outside the UK, and ultimately a spurious claim. Nothing wrong with posting all the fixtures right here and now. – PeeJay 21:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is there any point in having the full fixture list? Not least because lots of it will become incorrect in time due to matches being moved for TV schedules, Europa League meaning matches are moved to Sunday, and possibly other scheduling clashes like the FA Cup. We shouldn't be presenting the entire fixture list as fact, when a large chunk of it will be changed at points in the future. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with publishing the fixture list. Sure, some matches might get re-arranged, but those can be amended. The list is correct as it stands and it seems a bit heavy-handed to not show any sort of fixture list at all just because some games might get re-arranged. Fixture lists get published in full in books like the Nationwide Football Annual and club programmes..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not even correct as it stands, as all six of their games (11/18 Sep, 8/15/29 Oct, 5 Nov) following Europa League rounds will be moved to a Sunday (or possibly Monday) and that's even before Sky stick their oar in. For a team like this lot, it might be better to show "week beginning" instead of an actual date until they're known for sure? Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I miss the old days when games only got postponed if it was pouring with rain or snowing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- If the official FA/entity published a full list, I think it's only appropriate for us to show the full fixtures. We go by what information we have at hand now, not by what may possibly change in the future. Per WP:CRYSTAL,
a schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified
(which is our case). Nehme1499 09:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)- ... except that we know it's actually wrong! I think the approach used in 2022–23 Leeds United F.C. season is better, where only the few upcoming fixtures are shown, and they're updated as required. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not wrong as things stand. Those are the dates the games are scheduled for. They might be moved by a day, but it's not helpful to remove the entire fixture list just because one game might be played 24 hours later than originally scheduled. – PeeJay 11:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- ... except that we know it's actually wrong! I think the approach used in 2022–23 Leeds United F.C. season is better, where only the few upcoming fixtures are shown, and they're updated as required. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- If the official FA/entity published a full list, I think it's only appropriate for us to show the full fixtures. We go by what information we have at hand now, not by what may possibly change in the future. Per WP:CRYSTAL,
- I miss the old days when games only got postponed if it was pouring with rain or snowing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not even correct as it stands, as all six of their games (11/18 Sep, 8/15/29 Oct, 5 Nov) following Europa League rounds will be moved to a Sunday (or possibly Monday) and that's even before Sky stick their oar in. For a team like this lot, it might be better to show "week beginning" instead of an actual date until they're known for sure? Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with publishing the fixture list. Sure, some matches might get re-arranged, but those can be amended. The list is correct as it stands and it seems a bit heavy-handed to not show any sort of fixture list at all just because some games might get re-arranged. Fixture lists get published in full in books like the Nationwide Football Annual and club programmes..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is there any point in having the full fixture list? Not least because lots of it will become incorrect in time due to matches being moved for TV schedules, Europa League meaning matches are moved to Sunday, and possibly other scheduling clashes like the FA Cup. We shouldn't be presenting the entire fixture list as fact, when a large chunk of it will be changed at points in the future. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. There was a claim by Football DataCo a few years ago that all the English and Scottish league fixtures were their intellectual property, so we couldn't publish them. That turned out to be unenforceable outside the UK, and ultimately a spurious claim. Nothing wrong with posting all the fixtures right here and now. – PeeJay 21:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Well I only like to see a few games at a time, with fixtures subject to change it's easy to mess things up and have incorrect information on the page. Govvy (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Like said above, no reasons not to show the full list (i like to see it, but what we like or not does not count). Moved matches can easily been shown as that. Kante4 (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Player demoted to B team during pre-season
Where to put a player that has been demoted to a B team, i.e. he's training with them, during pre-season: move him to the B team article, or put him under "Other players under contract" in the first-team article? SLBedit (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Who exactly is this player? Nehme1499 09:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Two Benfica players: Gabriel and Taarabt. SLBedit (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
A suggestion
I know there's info at the top of the WikiProject, to help readers avoid the confusion. But honestly, an RM should be considered to re-name it Wikipedia:WikiProject Association Football. Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, an umbrella for both the 'association' & 'gridiron' versions of the name. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- That would break thousands of links in e.g. historical comments which link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football or Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. And makes it harder to find this WikiProject, if people have to go through a disambiguation page to find this project. Seems fine as it is right now, very clear how to find the other "football" WikiProjects. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, it's a suggestion. I've no intentions of opening up an RM on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you'll get much support from this project to do so, but feel free to start such a discussion. Spike 'em (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide one good reason to change the name? – Elisson • T • C • 15:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I don't feel there is a major need to make the switch (I've seen some but not an extreme examples of confusion), the fact that the wikipedia article for football is an umbrella article for all the codes and the article for association football is at that title would probably make for greater consistency. I feel keeping it at the current title is fine as I don't think there is much confusion, but I wouldn't stand in the way of a switch to WikiProject:Association Football if there was a consensus. RedPatch (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be against a switch, the vast majority of the world know it as football and I would argue a case of WP:AINT because I don't see a group of people complaining its causing confusion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Reserve teams in the infobox pt. 2
See this 2020 discussion. Thoughts on adding an arrow and "(reserve)" next to reserve teams in the infobox? Filippo Ranocchia's infobox looks very weird the way it does right now. If he were to move permanently to Monza, the clubs would be listed as (numbers represent the chronological order): 1. Juventus, 2. → Perugia (loan), 4. → Vicenza (loan), 5. → Monza (loan), 3. Juventus U23, 6. Monza.
It would make more sense to put Juventus U23 between Perugia and Vicenza, and list it as "→ Juventus U23 (reserve)". This makes it clear that it is neither a loan nor a permanent transfer to the reserve team. Also, it makes sure that the subsequent loaned teams (Vicenza, Monza) refer to the parent team (Juventus), not the reserves (U23). Nehme1499 09:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I support this for players going back and forth (if a player plays for the B team, then joins the A team without going back, I assume we would keep it as status quo?). I feel like I commented on this in a different previous thread before. It does make sense, especially for the ones like you showed where other loans get in the way. RedPatch (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it's only necessary when a reserve-team spell is sandwiched between loans. Under normal circumstances, the reserve team would just be displayed normally in the infobox without the senior team. Nehme1499 11:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Other opinions? Nehme1499 14:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok but I'd write (res.) rather than (reserves) not to get an umproportionally big table. Dr Salvus 16:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with both, but I'd rather use a tooltip as such for (res.). Nehme1499 17:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think doing what I've done at Luca Clemenza? From 2017 to 2022, he was loaned 3948303 times. He spent the 2019-20 season with Juventus U23, what do you think having 2019–2020 → Juventus U23 (res.), with a narrow. I don't like the absence of a narrow (Idk why). Dr Salvus 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this solution, it looks much better with an arrow. I've been bold and have applied the same change to Filippo Ranocchia. Nehme1499 18:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is not the case to do what Nehme is doing when he player debuted with Juventus U23. Dr Salvus 18:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- For instance: let's see Nicolò Fagioli. Fagioli debuted for Juventus U23 in 2018 and for the first team in 2021. So having, "2018– Juventus" and "2018–2021 -> Juventus U23 (res.) wouldn't have sense. Nehme1499's change has been reverted by me. Dr Salvus 18:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have changed idea. I approve his changes. Dr Salvus 22:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- For instance: let's see Nicolò Fagioli. Fagioli debuted for Juventus U23 in 2018 and for the first team in 2021. So having, "2018– Juventus" and "2018–2021 -> Juventus U23 (res.) wouldn't have sense. Nehme1499's change has been reverted by me. Dr Salvus 18:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is not the case to do what Nehme is doing when he player debuted with Juventus U23. Dr Salvus 18:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this solution, it looks much better with an arrow. I've been bold and have applied the same change to Filippo Ranocchia. Nehme1499 18:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think doing what I've done at Luca Clemenza? From 2017 to 2022, he was loaned 3948303 times. He spent the 2019-20 season with Juventus U23, what do you think having 2019–2020 → Juventus U23 (res.), with a narrow. I don't like the absence of a narrow (Idk why). Dr Salvus 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with both, but I'd rather use a tooltip as such for (res.). Nehme1499 17:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok but I'd write (res.) rather than (reserves) not to get an umproportionally big table. Dr Salvus 16:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Squad template for VfB Oldenburg
Hi. Could someone please create a squad template for VfB Oldenburg? They've been promoted to the fully professional 3. Liga for this season. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- done --SuperJew (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fantastic! Thanks, SuperJew. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Fourth place
Hi all, I was thinking that it might be good to standardise the colour used in tables for fourth place. Currently, both a pale yellow and a blue are used across different pages but I’ve recently seen something of a push towards the blue. Does anybody have any suggestions as to what to do here? Vesuvio14 (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's wise to not overuse colours, and the tables will use tournament qualification colour coding and not placement finishing generally. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fourth place should only be coloured in tournaments with a 3rd/4th place playoff. Nehme1499 14:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Any suggestion on which colour to use though? Vesuvio14 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- How about none? GiantSnowman 13:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with none, as this is compliant with MOS:COLOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
GAR notices
Cambodia women's national football team has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Madagascar women's national football team has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Mauritius women's national football team has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
For your information I have created the Category above, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Some Monday morning amusement
This AfD has just been closed as "keep" after being open for 13 years...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh wow! GiantSnowman 10:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ironically, I don't think we ever saw that coming. – PeeJay 11:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Deletion archive
I seem to be the only editor who bothers to move closed AFDs from the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves to the archive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Deletion archive, and with a) an increase in the number of AFDs and b) me becoming busier in real life and spending less time editing, it's becoming somewhat of a chore. If anybody wants to lend me a hand then I wouldn't say no... GiantSnowman 15:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Positions by round and season progress
Hi all, I want to ask. Is it necessary to put season progress and positions by round in 2022–23 Liga 1 (Indonesia) like this and this edit? I'm asking about this because I previously put this in 2017 Liga 1 (Indonesia) and it was deleted because there was no source. But Fau Tzy insist to put it since he was editing without an user. Please enlighten me. I don't want to engage in edit war. Pinging Mattythewhite, GiantSnowman. Thanks. Wira rhea (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
they have bolton vs sporting listed wrong, they put a 1-0 win for bolton instead of a 1-0 win for sporting. it was 1-1 at bolton and 1-0 for sporting in portugal.Muur (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure where you see an error, I can't find it. No matter that, you can correct errors yourself, you know. – Elisson • T • C • 00:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, there is no such error in that section of that article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Barassi Line
Some additional input may be required at the Barassi Line page. More association football knowledgeable editors, could really be of some help. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure this article is about association football/soccer at all- soccer is mentioned once in the article. It seems to be entirely about Aussie rules and rugby league/union. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, doesn't seem relevant to soccer at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see, WP:RUGBY would be more suitable. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, doesn't seem relevant to soccer at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why players either who have been booked or sent off should not be included into football match infobox? This is common practice used until previous season. During League matches cards are reported as well as, including Cup matches and European competition, especially for a club season. This is what I've always noticed for years. Barcelona v Juventus report do include cards. Why user @Dr Salvus: is preventing me from diplaying this information? Since the beginning user @Mediocre Legacy: added them, as we are used to it. Now seems to be impossible. Island92 (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would include red cards but definitely not yellows. We don't have to include everything that is related to match (e.g. we don't include starting lineups which are far more significant than bookings). Spike 'em (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would include everything, along with penalty missed. I remind you that is a club season, not a general football article as Champions League knockout phase for example. In that case only goals are needed. Island92 (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's listed on the template as goals, so only goals should be included. Penalty misses are almost goals, so maybe fine, but red and yellow cards are not goals, and shouldn't be listed in the goals section of a template. If people really think yellow and red cards should be listed, adjust the underlying template to have a separate parameter for it, but it's nonsense to list red and yellow cards under the goals parameter, as people are doing at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- The point is exactly that. To many users tend to add cards as a normal practice, especially for these articles. They have made a habit of it, including me. Consistency with old seasons play a role in it. Island92 (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Joseph above; the parameter is for goals, not cards. Nehme1499 11:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and penalty misses aren't goals either, so they also shouldn't be included. – PeeJay 12:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe red cards could be added but no yellows and penalty misses. Parameter is called goals and that's what only should be there. Kante4 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Penalty misses 100% should not be in there. Whatever next - disallowed goals...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Goals are nice things to have; penalty misses are not. Cards (red or yellow) are definitely shameful. If a parameter in
{{Footballbox collapsible}}
is named|goals1=
or similar, there is only one value which it may hold - anything else is overloading. If it is desirable to indicate misses, cards and anything else, fresh dedicated parameters must be added. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Goals are nice things to have; penalty misses are not. Cards (red or yellow) are definitely shameful. If a parameter in
- Penalty misses 100% should not be in there. Whatever next - disallowed goals...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe red cards could be added but no yellows and penalty misses. Parameter is called goals and that's what only should be there. Kante4 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and penalty misses aren't goals either, so they also shouldn't be included. – PeeJay 12:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's listed on the template as goals, so only goals should be included. Penalty misses are almost goals, so maybe fine, but red and yellow cards are not goals, and shouldn't be listed in the goals section of a template. If people really think yellow and red cards should be listed, adjust the underlying template to have a separate parameter for it, but it's nonsense to list red and yellow cards under the goals parameter, as people are doing at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would include everything, along with penalty missed. I remind you that is a club season, not a general football article as Champions League knockout phase for example. In that case only goals are needed. Island92 (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good to see that that article is upholding the usual standard of such articles by having two sentences of prose and then endless tables and accessibility-contravening collapsed templates -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. I really wish we could dispense with those collapsible tables, but unfortunately the mob who have chosen to ignore all rules have more sway just now. – PeeJay 12:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then, I want to use tables (like I've done at 2020-21 Juventus F.C. Under-23 season) rather than footballboxes, having also understood it's aesthetically better than that. Will I be able to do it without seeing Island92's opposition? Dr Salvus 12:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't really care about Island92's opposition, to be honest. They're only one person, and like you say, there's a good argument for using tables in the way you suggest. – PeeJay 15:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Especially when Island92's argument is essentially "we did it incorrectly before, so need to continue doing it the same incorrect way". Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. I'll then create the tables for league, cup and Champions League. And may change the tables of the transfer market. Dr Salvus 16:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Especially when Island92's argument is essentially "we did it incorrectly before, so need to continue doing it the same incorrect way". Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't really care about Island92's opposition, to be honest. They're only one person, and like you say, there's a good argument for using tables in the way you suggest. – PeeJay 15:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then, I want to use tables (like I've done at 2020-21 Juventus F.C. Under-23 season) rather than footballboxes, having also understood it's aesthetically better than that. Will I be able to do it without seeing Island92's opposition? Dr Salvus 12:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. I really wish we could dispense with those collapsible tables, but unfortunately the mob who have chosen to ignore all rules have more sway just now. – PeeJay 12:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Didier Lamkel Zé
Trying to get more eyes on Didier Lamkel Zé – it's getting a high volume of unsourced IP edits. I've requested page protection as well. Perfect4th (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Charlton Athletic edit war
Could an admin please take a look at an apparent edit war on Charlton Athletic F.C. - 3RR being repeatedly broken, it seems. Paul W (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- IP causing the issue, I have partial blocked them from that article only. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Black Kite. Paul W (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Height
Should it be in centimetres or in metres? Dr Salvus 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Feet and inches.Spike 'em (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Spike 'em We're not Americans. Dr Salvus 20:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nor am I, and I'm 5 ft 8 in tall. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- First, we are talking about the mesure to use in our articles on non-American players. Second, I dislike imperial units, I'm 1.82 m tall
6 ft 0 in.- I would go with metres. Feet and inches in countries where this measure is used (US, etc.). Kante4 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- metres, if using metric. GiantSnowman 20:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would go with metres. Feet and inches in countries where this measure is used (US, etc.). Kante4 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- First, we are talking about the mesure to use in our articles on non-American players. Second, I dislike imperial units, I'm 1.82 m tall
We're not Americans
that is one thing I'm very happy to agree on. Spike 'em (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)- Depends what the sources say, if the sources are in ft in, we should use that, and vice versa. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nor am I, and I'm 5 ft 8 in tall. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Spike 'em We're not Americans. Dr Salvus 20:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- This was settled long ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Consensus#Height. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I assume you're referring to which should be the primary unit (i.e. which is presented first in the infobox)? Per MOS:UNIT, feet/inches for non-scientific articles with strong ties to the US or UK, and SI (metric) units for all other articles. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
2022–23 Queen of the South F.C. season + questions
@Rusty1111 is adding fan blogs and links to photos of the games to the Report sections. I'm removing them as they are unreliable and unnecessary only for @Rusty1111 to revert my edits. Can someone warn him that his edits are against consensus before it's 3RR time? Dougal18 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't think we had season articles for clubs not in fully professional leagues. Maybe that changed since I last looked. Gricehead (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I reverted them again, and mentioned it on their talkpage. We can have season articles for non-FPL clubs if they pass WP:GNG, which it's not clear this one is. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Assuming the season article were to pass GNG, of which there's no evidence as yet, I wouldn't have a problem with an external link to the fanblog in question, and another to whatever site the pictures come from, but not individual links for each match. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I reverted them again, and mentioned it on their talkpage. We can have season articles for non-FPL clubs if they pass WP:GNG, which it's not clear this one is. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- As with a similar comment I made above, it would be nice at some point to see more than two sentences of prose in the article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Have honestly no idea where the Turkish media got that full name from, but the correct version is the one that now stands. Here, have this google search with tons of results yielding "Sérgio Miguel Relvas de Oliveira", only the Turkish related ones have that invented nonsense (https://www.google.com/search?q=sergio+miguel+relvas+de+oliveira&rlz=1C1GCEU_pt-PTPT906PT906&oq=sergio+miguel+relvas+de+oliveira&aqs=chrome.0.0i19i355j46i19j0i19i22i30.4393j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)...
Attentively 193.137.135.2 (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty sure his full name isn't "made up by the Turkish media", not least because it's listed here. In Portuguese names, they use two surnames (maternal and paternal surname), so in "Sérgio Miguel Relvas de Oliveira", Miguel would be his middle name, Relvas his maternal surname (mother's surname), and Oliveira would be his paternal surname (father's surname). Though in common usage in non-Portuguese speaking countries, people tend to just write the person's paternal surname, which would be Oliveira. So the name "Sérgio Miguel Relvas de Oliveira" seems fine to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Portuguese name may explain this better than I did. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- He's referring to Sérgio Miguel Relvas Gonçalves Pereira de Oliveira, with the extra "Gonçalves Pereira". Nehme1499 13:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. However... The source cited in the Sérgio Oliveira page for the longer version, "Sérgio Miguel Relvas Gonçalves Pereira de Oliveira", added with this edit, is Galatasaray's official announcement of his signing, financial details, etc to the Turkish Stock Exchange. And if you search FC Porto's website for the same name, you'll find it used in a couple of official documents, one and two are the ones I found. So I doubt it is "invented nonsense". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Guessing again, but the extra two names are probably his grandparents' surnames, as Portuguese name#Number of names suggests that some people use 4 surnames (grandparents' surnames and both parents surnames). So may well be his actual official name. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- More than likely, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Guessing again, but the extra two names are probably his grandparents' surnames, as Portuguese name#Number of names suggests that some people use 4 surnames (grandparents' surnames and both parents surnames). So may well be his actual official name. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. However... The source cited in the Sérgio Oliveira page for the longer version, "Sérgio Miguel Relvas Gonçalves Pereira de Oliveira", added with this edit, is Galatasaray's official announcement of his signing, financial details, etc to the Turkish Stock Exchange. And if you search FC Porto's website for the same name, you'll find it used in a couple of official documents, one and two are the ones I found. So I doubt it is "invented nonsense". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- He's referring to Sérgio Miguel Relvas Gonçalves Pereira de Oliveira, with the extra "Gonçalves Pereira". Nehme1499 13:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, if it's done again i won't oppose then. Thanks for your time, sorry for any inconvenience. --193.137.135.2 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)