WikiProject Football | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() |
Main pages |
---|
Football Assessment |
Manual of style |
|
Other |
Contents
- 1 Career stats tables
- 2 I apparently have a bias
- 3 Player Information & Statistics in Seasonal Articles
- 4 Fulham squads (and squads in general)
- 5 FIFA's website
- 6 Tehran Football Competitions
- 7 Fin(n)ish line
- 8 Upton Park F.C. at 1900 olympic games
- 9 Who was the coach of South Korea in 1960?
- 10 Gibraltar team name
- 11 Formalize "not a scoreboard"
- 12 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup
- 13 SWA Sharks Football Club (Turks and Caicos)?
- 14 Diego Costa's height
- 15 Shahril Ishak international caps
Career stats tables
Hi, Italia2006 (talk · contribs) insists on contravening Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics and is merging the division cells in the career stats table at Raheem Sterling. Not the crime of the century, I know, but why have a project-wide MoS if it's not going to be enforced? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think I'm on the side of User:Italia2006 here, and that the MOS needs updating. If the club rows can be merged, why not the divisions? – PeeJay 21:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with PeeJay on this one. GiantSnowman 21:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sure the reason the division cells are divided is due to an accessibility concern, but can't remember what. I seem to remember it being mentioned in the past by Struway2 (talk · contribs); can you help us? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I raised this at the MoS talk page some months ago. No-one replied. The relevant bit read:
- what we can't do here is override Wikipedia's Manual of Style by recommending a style that fails WP:ACCESS because screen readers don't read rows with rowspanned cells properly, if that's still the case. It might well not be. Perhaps someone who supports this change could get confirmation from the accessibility project as to whether it's OK or not, then if it is, the change could be proposed and discussed
- Should say "rows with multiple rowspanned cells", I think. The first column (clubs) is the row header and should have its scope indicated with
! scope="row" |
(see MOS:DTAB), and then the screen reader will associate the header with all rows in that rowspan, but (as was once explained at some featured list review that I was involved with, don't remember what) they get confused if there are rowspanned rows other than in the header cell column. As I say, that may well be outdated advice, but if it is still an accessibility problem, we can't recommend it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)- Unfortunately there is conflicting advice on the accessibility or otherwise of merged cells in data tables. The W3C guidelines don't suggest they are inaccessible [1], however other advice errs on the side of caution suggesting that some older screen readers may be confused by complex layouts and advises avoiding them [2]. Note though that it usually a suggestion and as W3C are the standard guidelines then it becomes a moot point. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I raised this at the MoS talk page some months ago. No-one replied. The relevant bit read:
- I'm sure the reason the division cells are divided is due to an accessibility concern, but can't remember what. I seem to remember it being mentioned in the past by Struway2 (talk · contribs); can you help us? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with PeeJay on this one. GiantSnowman 21:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I apparently have a bias
While that may or may not be true, the discussion is whether "football" piped to "association football" should be used in the lede of a major upcoming tournament or whether it should simply be a linked "association football". See Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup#Association football piped to football or not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously. A few project members need to discuss is at the article because the consensus is currently to change the lede to read
- The 2014 FIFA World Cup will be the 20th FIFA World Cup, an international men's association football tournament
- and I know that will annoy several editors here, but consensus will have been established. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think I agree with this suggestion, or alternatively to use "football (soccer)". After all, a minority of the participating countries (Australia, United States) have an alternative primary use for "football". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Don't open up the can of worms with Australia's 'football', I've lost count of the number of RFCs and admin reports on the subject...! GiantSnowman 11:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- It's not my suggestion, that's the opinion of two editors at that article.
- Discussing this here won't change the consensus at the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- The current push is to list it as "football (soccer)". Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- In this instance, I can't really see why it can't just be termed "football", the articles are clear that it is about a FIFA competition, so not sure how there could be any confusion. Agree with GS about the whole can of worms but can see where technical confusion might arise when talking about a club however here, there can be no confusion about what sport is being discussed because of the presence of "FIFA". Fenix down (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- That makes the rather large assumption that a reader who is uninformed enough to be confused about what sport is involved would know what "FIFA" is............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seems the Americans are winning and it may move all FIFA World Cup articles to "football (soccer)".
- No assumptions at all. The links are present. If they don't know what FIFA World Cup means, they are welcome to click it. They may also click football (or hover, if they have the ability as mobile devices do not) and FIFA, which appears later in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
-
- I like that you assume everyone pushing for this change is from the U.S. In fact, it's users from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore via the UK, as well as Americans who have suggested this change. Calidum Go Bruins! 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- May I make a suggestion, stop talking about me and talk about the subject. I fully understand where the term "soccer" is used. If you look at the discussion there, you'll see that. The original editor who suggested the change was an American and that's why I used the term. I am simply reporting back to the project and "Americans" is shorthand for those who favour the inclusion of "soccer" or the expansion to "association football". As a Canadian, I don't have a preference either way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I like that you assume everyone pushing for this change is from the U.S. In fact, it's users from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore via the UK, as well as Americans who have suggested this change. Calidum Go Bruins! 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- association football is fine really. -Koppapa (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
-
- That makes the rather large assumption that a reader who is uninformed enough to be confused about what sport is involved would know what "FIFA" is............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- In this instance, I can't really see why it can't just be termed "football", the articles are clear that it is about a FIFA competition, so not sure how there could be any confusion. Agree with GS about the whole can of worms but can see where technical confusion might arise when talking about a club however here, there can be no confusion about what sport is being discussed because of the presence of "FIFA". Fenix down (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The current push is to list it as "football (soccer)". Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Player Information & Statistics in Seasonal Articles
Following a discussion over at Talk:2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season it seems that there is no policy about which player information should be contained in seasonal articles. I would like to reach a consensus on this subject as I believe all articles of the same type should be consistent with each other. Kanoch (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons, which simply needs updating and expanding. GiantSnowman 11:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Simply there has only been 2 edits on the template page since 2007 (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons). I don't expect there will be changes in the template... Also you will never get consistency in the seasonal articles because firstly they are hacked and continued on from the previous season and secondly there are editors who have strong feeling that their template which they have been using is thoroughly correct and everyone must abide by it if they are going to contribute. What I have noticed about the season articles is how woefully not update some of the entries are that they are a misnomer and should be deleted. A lot of them start out gung-ho at the beginning of the season but unless its a major profile team they end up very poor and not up to date.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Minimum expected and definite no-no's
Dumb Question. As I see it, if you look at the information on the numerous season articles there are three types of information.
- Information which is considered a minimum for a season article.
- Information which we, as a community, have decided violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.
- Information which can be argued as useful and can be included when sourced.
Assuming the what is included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons is considered a minimum and is there anything else or conversely an agreed list of things we don't want?
=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Fulham squads (and squads in general)
I notice that the squad section on Fulham's page seems to be sticking without fail to the sections players have been placed in on the club's official website (first-team/under-21/academy). This means that Patrick Roberts and Moussa Dembele do not feature anywhere in that section, despite featuring semi-regularly in Fulham's matchday squad of late, and are only listed on the offshoot Fulham F.C. Academy page. This is wrong in my view, we need to reflect who is being selected for Fulham - players can move up during the course of the season, and club website admins don't necessarily touch those profiles until pre-season.
That said, I am aware that by splitting players between under-21 and first-team squad sections we're making our own judgement call as editors. For instance, I came here about Roberts/Dembele, but Muamer Tankovic made first-team appearances earlier in the season, he's just listed in the under-21 section - I'd never heard of him. But this distinction between under-21s and first-team players probably does need to be made with the larger clubs in order that the page/squad template isn't cluttered and readers get an idea of who is in first-team contention for these clubs and who isn't.
So I thought I'd bring the issue here. Firstly - Fulham, where should Roberts/Dembele go? Secondly - how do we define which young players go in the first-team section, and which go in under-21s? Or should the latter section exist at all? Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's fine to separate into 'First team' and 'Youth/Reserves', but there is no need for more than these two sections. And should a player migrate IRL from the 'Youth/Reserves' or 'First team' (either by playing or being on the bench) then I would argue that they should do so on Wikipedia, at least until the end of the season. Getting a squad number is not enough to be considered 'First team', however. GiantSnowman 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Under Premier League rules, doesn't every club have a 25-man senior squad, and youth players aren't counted towards the 25 no matter how many senior appearances they make? (La Liga has a similar rule, except they go the extra step of requiring numbers 1-25 for senior members, then 26 and higher for youth members) To me, it would make sense to limit the senior team squad to those submitted to the league, and avoiding having to make judgement calls Editing to add The Premier League has a list of 25-man squads for all 20 clubs as of February (i.e. after the close of the transfer window): http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/feb/updated-premier-league-squad-lists-2013-14.html Mosmof (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion this is straight forward - We work from reliable sources for verifiability, so if FulhamFC.com says Muamer Tanković is in the U21 squad, then he's in the U21 squad on Wikipedia, same for U18s like Moussa Dembélé. I agree with GiantSnowman, just because a player receives a squad number, doesn't mean he's first-team. JMHamo (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think our readers would find it perverse that players who have appeared for Fulham in the Premier League this season, such as Roberts and Dembelé, don't appear anywhere on the main club article. We do indeed work from RS, and sticking with what section of Fulham's website players were listed on at the start of the season, when reliable independent sources such as the BBC, Soccerway, Soccerbase and Sky Sports all include Roberts and Dembelé in Fulham's squad, doesn't seem particularly helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Could we have a senior squad list, then a subsection under it listing youth players who have made senior appearances and/or been named to matchday squads? 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think our readers would find it perverse that players who have appeared for Fulham in the Premier League this season, such as Roberts and Dembelé, don't appear anywhere on the main club article. We do indeed work from RS, and sticking with what section of Fulham's website players were listed on at the start of the season, when reliable independent sources such as the BBC, Soccerway, Soccerbase and Sky Sports all include Roberts and Dembelé in Fulham's squad, doesn't seem particularly helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion this is straight forward - We work from reliable sources for verifiability, so if FulhamFC.com says Muamer Tanković is in the U21 squad, then he's in the U21 squad on Wikipedia, same for U18s like Moussa Dembélé. I agree with GiantSnowman, just because a player receives a squad number, doesn't mean he's first-team. JMHamo (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Under Premier League rules, doesn't every club have a 25-man senior squad, and youth players aren't counted towards the 25 no matter how many senior appearances they make? (La Liga has a similar rule, except they go the extra step of requiring numbers 1-25 for senior members, then 26 and higher for youth members) To me, it would make sense to limit the senior team squad to those submitted to the league, and avoiding having to make judgement calls Editing to add The Premier League has a list of 25-man squads for all 20 clubs as of February (i.e. after the close of the transfer window): http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/feb/updated-premier-league-squad-lists-2013-14.html Mosmof (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW, Fulham's website has a seemingly arbitrary approach to putting players in the senior squad. For example, Dan Burn and Cauley Woodrow listed as full squad members but not Tankovic or Dembele, even though they're all youth players who came into the fold in the new year. I think Liverpool's squad list is a bit clearer - it lists everyone, but denotes which players are in the Premier League squad (i.e. maximum 25 senior players). Mosmof (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
FIFA's website
All links to the FIFA website's reports of World Cup matches have gone dead. --Theurgist (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like they changed the prefix from http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/ to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/. -Koppapa (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- That seems to be valid only for 2010 match reports. I replaced "
worldcup/archive
" with "tournaments/archive/worldcup
" for all 35 URLs in this article (without saving the changes), and only the two URLs for 2010 matches did work. --Theurgist (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)- You are right, for earlier reports, they changed the edition parameter to a round parameter and added locationyear like http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1013/results/matches/match=8761/report.html to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/france1998/matches/round=1014/match=8761/index.html That seems tough to change automatically by a bot. -Koppapa (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- That seems to be valid only for 2010 match reports. I replaced "
Tehran Football Competitions
We have Tehran Football Competitions, and a number of articles on seasons, like Tehran Football League 1977-1978, Tehran Football League 1978-1979, Tehran Football League 1979-1980, ... These pages have no context, no background, and the only source for them give sme an error.[3].
There are no book sources about this[4], and very few other sources[5], most (all?) of them based on Wikipedia.
So my question is: does this league exist, and is it notable? Fram (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes it exists, no it is not notable. PROD the lot. We also need to do something about the article creator, they have a history of creating non-notable, or notable-but-unreferenced articles. Perhaps a CIR block is required? GiantSnowman 12:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Fin(n)ish line
Teammates,
does anyone have the slightest knowledge of Finnish to please provide translation to refs #3 through #5 in Rubén Palazuelos' article? Have asked to and fro, no luck still (i.e. the three Scandinavian users i know of, two have "wiki-disappeared", one told me he does not master the language).
Would not like to leave WP (July) without seeing this sorted, to get the job thoroughly done so to speak. Attentively --AL (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- http://translate.google.com/? GiantSnowman 19:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both of you, i'll try those! --AL (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- See also WP:NOTFINISHED. Hope it has the desired effect. Thanks, C679 09:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Upton Park F.C. at 1900 olympic games
Do you know who was the trainer of the team during the tournament?--FCNantes72 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC).
- It was the goalkeeper, J.H. Jones. TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. Where did you find this information? it's to complete the article about Upton Park FC. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's in the book GB United by Steve Menary. I'll add a few bits to the article, but there isn't much about the club in the book. TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. Where did you find this information? it's to complete the article about Upton Park FC. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Who was the coach of South Korea in 1960?
|
But when i go to korean template, I see Kim Yong-sik. Who was present at the Asian Cup in 1960?Cordially--FCNantes72 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Gibraltar team name
Hi, I need your help at College Europa A.F.C. I noticed the team when they qualified for 2014–15 UEFA Europa League and noticed the weird punctuation, not being one after the C so i started looking in to it. It seems to me as it should be only FC or F.C. after some google search but there is no official webpage to verify. Could someone please look at it and perhaps move the page (it has been moved twice before by unknown user, without any support for AFC). I have opened discussion with some links at article talkpage. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Formalize "not a scoreboard"
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to add Wikipedia is not a Scoreboard to create a centralized discussion on the the topic. It would be good to hear from editors who have opinions on the topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Inter-Cities Fairs Cup
There is a current debate over whether the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was a major honours over at Newcastle United F.C.. Despite my suggestion that 31.220.232.0 turn to this place to put across his point, he has continued with edits to the article. Sources in the Fairs Cup article clearly states that the competition is recognised by FIFA and Cup winners like Arsenal F.C. and FC Barcelona have listed the trophy under their honours. I don't see why it shouldn't be considered as a major honour in view of the above points. LRD NO (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The source behind the sentence is dead anyway. Problem is the wording major, who defines that? I'd say the UEFA Intertoto Cup in 2006 is about the same level as the IC Fairs Cup. I'd change the wording to something more neutral or get rid of the sentence completely. -Koppapa (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's a perennial debate, recently raised at 1961 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Final, and previously raised all over the place, and unfortunately it often comes up in context of my-club's-better-than-your-club (not saying that applies to the current NUFC discussion).
Personally, I don't think there's much doubt that it is a major honour. FIFA lists it explicitly as such, and UEFA regards it as the same competition as the UEFA Cup/Europa League except that because they didn't organise it, they naturally don't list it in clubs' record in UEFA competition. There's some recent argument at 1961 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Final#"Major" competitions, and plenty more all over Wikipedia, most of it repetitive, if you search for it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's a perennial debate, recently raised at 1961 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Final, and previously raised all over the place, and unfortunately it often comes up in context of my-club's-better-than-your-club (not saying that applies to the current NUFC discussion).
SWA Sharks Football Club (Turks and Caicos)?
Anybody want to weigh in on the notability of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SWA Sharks Football Club? Or find sources for this? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes they're notable, source is here, article needs to be moved to SWA Sharks FC. GiantSnowman 11:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Diego Costa's height
Teammates,
does anyone know what exactly does this mean (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diego_Costa&diff=606818619&oldid=606816534)? What on earth is the "peak height"? Did Costa reach 1,88 then all of a sudden he (and his body!) said "Oh, i liked it better when i was 1,86" and boom! "1,88 is the biggest i'll ever get, and not everyday of my life". And here i was thinking the OFFICIAL club profile sufficed... --AL (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Both UEFA and his club say 1.88; while others do say 1.86 I would go with the official sources. GiantSnowman 18:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Shahril Ishak international caps
Need someone, probably with admin powers, to intervene in Mas y mas who kept editing Shahril Ishak's international caps. I had obtained Shahril's international caps from the FIFA Century Club fact sheet, which is clearly referenced in the article while Mas had used his RSSSF page as the reference. Seeing as FIFA is the official source/governing body and obtain their information from sources such as the respective national associations, and RSSSF have been known to be lacking in their data before, his international caps should undoubtedly follow FIFA's. LRD NO (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- FIFA are also known for their mistakes, however NFT supports their claim of 117 caps. GiantSnowman 11:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The RSSSF are not wrong on this issue - their stats clearly note that one cap is not recognised by FIFA as too many substitutions took place in the game. The questions is what standards do we use on Wikipedia for assigning caps to people. Number 57 11:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- As per your question, this would be a good read, whether it answers the question or not. Mas y mas (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The sensible thing to do here is to use a footnote to explain the discrepancy between sources and the reason for it. That's how I resolved similar issues in 1930 FIFA World Cup, anyway. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- As per your question, this would be a good read, whether it answers the question or not. Mas y mas (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The RSSSF are not wrong on this issue - their stats clearly note that one cap is not recognised by FIFA as too many substitutions took place in the game. The questions is what standards do we use on Wikipedia for assigning caps to people. Number 57 11:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
FIFA is not the be all and end all of what constitutes as "official". Even if a match involving two senior national teams isn't FIFA recognized, one or both FA's involved may still consider it as "official" and therefore players who appeared in that match would get a cap! FIFA's century club only counts matches which are FIFA recognized which you can find on their fixture list at FIFA.com. For Shahril Ishak, as you'd see on RSSSF, he appeared for Singapore on 26-11-08 which isn't FIFA recognized but it says their on the file that it is official for the Singapore FA therefore he is awarded a cap which brings his total to 118! Et Voila!! Discussion over! Mas y mas (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Neither is RSSSF be-all-and-end-all, Mas. In this case, we should follow the caps recognised by FIFA or any confederation like AFC or UEFA above the rest, unless there is referenced data pointing to the contrary. And RSSSF clearly states that one match is not officially recognised themselves. I don't see how anyone could disagree in this instance. And no, the discussion is far from dependent on a single voice to be over. LRD NO (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Can you not read?!? It says that match in 2008 isn't recognized but it is OFFICIAL FOR THE SINGAPORE FA! Unless you're brain dead, believe or not, that settles the issue for Shahril Ishak! Mas y mas (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal abuse, Mas. This is not the first time you have done that. LRD NO (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Can you not read?!? It says that match in 2008 isn't recognized but it is OFFICIAL FOR THE SINGAPORE FA! Unless you're brain dead, believe or not, that settles the issue for Shahril Ishak! Mas y mas (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
If it's not a FIFA-official game then the cap does not count. GiantSnowman 11:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Again, it is official for the Singapore FA! Therefore a cap is given! I suggest you and everybody else read the link I posted above in response to Number 57. Mas y mas (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The RSSSF link? It was already included in my opening post. Yes, we are aware of that match. But if it is clearly not sanctioned by FIFA to be an official match for the valid reason given, then the cap should not be included. LRD NO (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) What the Singapore FA does is irrelevant. If FIFA does not sanction it then it does not count. GiantSnowman 12:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a relevant discussion (whether to go with FIFA or the national association) HERE. Either way, the discrepancy needs footnoting with reference to reliable and competent sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link, Struway. Suffice to say we should list his international cap at the official 117 (as per Anelka discussion) and put a footnote regarding the non-count of that one single unofficial match? LRD NO (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Or we should take the count of the national association, as we do with Bobby Charlton (also mentioned in the Anelka discussion) who according to the FIFA Century Club fact sheet has 105 caps, but according to the FA and multiple reliable sources, has 106... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)