Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

Is an Elo ratings, 11v11, and rsssf source more important than a FIFA´s source???

Hello everybody! I am quite new in the english wikipedia. The topic I´m adding is related to the count of matches in the Argentina-Brazil football rivalry article and all the related articles derived: Argentina national football team results (1920–1939), Argentina national football team results (1940–1959), Argentina national football team results (1960–1979), also in Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches), in Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches) and in Brazil national football team records and statistics.

I want you to tell me, please, the "consideration" of the sources here. If in the Wikiprojet Football is more valuable or "important" a source of Elo Ratings [1] [2] or 11v11 [3] [4] or Rsssf.com [5] that show a list of matches, or a source of FIFA that also shows the list of matches FIFA official´s page (archive). Argentina vs. Brazil head to head. February 2013. FIFA´s source is from Feb. 2013. After that date, they played 10 times, with 4 wins for Argentina, 4 wins for Brazil, and 2 ties. To see the complete list of matches according to this FIFA´s source, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches".

I only put FIFA´s source to be neutral, but there are many others sources with the complete list of matches of serious organisations or sites that differ with Elo Ratings, 11v11 and Rsssf. For example, AFA (Argentine Football Association) [6], El Gráfico [7] and many others that agree with FIFA´s source...

My opinion is that the most important and official source in football that we can have is FIFA... No other site or association can be above FIFA. I think that any source by any web or page or organisation CAN´T be above a FIFA´s official source, because FIFA means official in the world of football, and FIFA is the major world football official organization. For me, I repeat, a single FIFA source "kills" any other source in football.

So, for you and the members of the WP Football: is an Elo ratings, 11v11, and rsssf source more important than a FIFA´s source???

Can you participate in the talk page of the article Argentina-Brazil football rivalry? [8] Thanks! Regards, Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

wouldnt fifa be considered a primary source meaning secondary sources are preferred?Muur (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

For questions of most notability, statistics compiled by an authoritative agency, should be more preferred than secondary sources, if no analysis or interpretation of the statistics is involved in a Wikipedia article. However, it is only my opinion and not a Wikipedia guideline. Miria~01 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Realistically, we care a lot more (in general) about what secondary sources say about a subject. When this is about statistics, there's a bit of confusion.

I see this a lot, because there's two ways to look at it. If the "official" primary source says something, arguably it is always correct, even if it's wrong, because they get to choose what the "official" statistics are. However, on the flip side, if multiple other sources agree that it isn't the same, then arguably we should state that as the correct information, as it comes from reliable secondary sources.

The fix? Simply state both. If it all possible, leave a result in prose, but then have a note stating which sources back up that result. There's obviously some issues there, but in general we can't just take one organisations opinion on the matter.

A good example of this being done in practice is pro wrestling, where organisations can state dates of when championships are won/lost, but because they happen on tape delay, their numbers and the real-world examples are wildly different. In articles, we publish both pieces of information, and use notes to explain why. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify the above: a subject is a primary source when it is closely or immediately involved, and all sources are primary sources for something. So for instance a primary source for a single football game is likely going to be generated by Players, Managers, Referees, Clubs, Pundits, Commentators, Fans and their immediate output (interviews, opinions) a lot of which will fall into SelfPub, or otherwise be considered unreliable for wikipedia (i.e. youtube, or lacking due weight etc), or in the case of things like Team Sheets, Match Reports, Referee Reports, ticket stubs etc are official documents and de facto always primary sources. Secondary sources will be Match Reports, News Reports, and so on which may include or re-contextualise Players, Managers, Referees, Clubs, Pundits, Commentators, Fans and their immediate output. They may differ in things like the time a goal was scored, how many shots were made, successful passes, etc or have other criteria that they use others don't which is what is what segregates them from being a pure primary source.

Who contextualises, and in what context, can also change the source from secondary to primary however. So FIFA talking about the results of a football game are not a Primary source, they are secondary. They are reporting, like any other news site, the outcomes, or in this case a list of games. However, if FIFA in discussing the football game were to talk about themselves, their policies and so on, then they would cross that line back into being a Primary Source. There are also wrinkles such as FIFA not recognising games that they did not sanction etc which is reliance on them alone can sometimes be fraught with issues. Similarly if a football club, say Liverpool, publishes post match review and such - there's nothing inherently unreliable for basic observable facts - but any discussion of the club, opinions on referees, controversy etc are obviously way more contextually primary than secondary. However in most cases there is usually a secondary sources available to corroborate or explain any issues (as LV says above) or be more suitable sources for any other number of reasons.

This is why, typically, for statistics - FIFA and club sites are generally reliable sources, but the context needs to be understood of what they may be describing or presenting to decide if it is Primary or Secondary. Koncorde (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Adding context: the discussion arose because according to some sources in Spanish and a FIFA report, some matches between Brazil and Argentina were not accounted as a Full A (without further details as to why). In the talk page. The user Raúl Quintana Tarufetti claimed that these matches were disputed the state teams of Minas Gerais and Guanabara (it seems strange, but in fact these teams sometimes played at international level in the 1960s/1970s, just like the Basque Country and Catalonia today). I showed that it didn't make sense, since there are even photographic records that the Brazil national team was officially represented (see [9] [10]), and he somehow believes that this is a partial view that favors the Brazil team. However, all other secondary sources (World Elo, RSSSF and 11v11) have match information as normally Full A, being counted even on the Argentine side (see Argentina national football team results (1960–1979) as example). Otherwise, he simply forces WP:POV ignoring the entire match list (which has more than 190 sources). Svartner (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• In 1968, a group of athletes from Minas Gerais clubs represented the Brazilian team in a friendly match in Belo Horizonte. 50 years ago, players from América, Atlético and Cruzeiro were together, on the same side, wearing the Brazilian team's shirt, at Mineirão. On August 11, 1968, the Minas Gerais team represented Brazil, which beat Argentina 3-2, in a friendly. [11] regarding the photographics, that they played in the Brazilian shirt. Nevertheless, I would go by the FIFA source and then not count it as an official game between two national teams. However, it would probably be best to have two versions of the tables next to each other, as it is now. Miria~01 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  This happened countless times. For example, in the 1975 Copa América, the Brazil national team was also represented by players from Minas Gerais (see). And the Minas Gerais state team always played with its own shirt, by FMF. (see). Svartner (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

False. In this list, there are players from Sao Paulo (Sao Paulo), Guaraní Campinas (Sao Paulo), Palmeiras (Sao Paulo), Flamengo (Rio de Janeiro), Vasco (Río de Janeiro), América (Río de Janeiro). Not a Minas Gerais team. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, as has been pointed out by Svartner, FIFA themselves don't always agree with their own tables and there are multiple sources standing by that total. Trying to represent every possible sources view of what is and isn't counted and including several different counts of games is unworkable and unencyclopedic, and has made the article a mess of disclaimers and notes. Koncorde (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Svartner: Answering first to you, I have to say that the same sources you use to conunt the 4 matches that Brazil won, they count the 2 Argentina´s victories (1920 and 1956) too: See Elo Ratings: Argentina See Elo Ratings Brazil See Rsssf.com... And there is more: this source of Rsssf says in the "notes" that there are sources that claim that the 1956, and the two 1968 games were played by State Selections, NOT only the 1956 match. Rsssf.com ARGENTINA NATIONAL TEAM ARCHIVE Notes 21, 23 and 24.. But moreover, there is another source of Rsssf.com (It sounds to you...) I put of the List of UNOFFICIAL Argentina´s matches, that says clarely the two 1968 games were unofficial because they were played vs a Guanabara State and a Minas Gerais State selections Argentina National Team - Unofficial Matches - Match Details 1968: Río de Janeiro Combined and Minas Gerais Combined.

So, as everybody can see, for Svartner these sources are ok by the controversial matches won by Brazil. But when the same sources that say Argentina´s 1920 and 1956 matches (won by Argentina) may count, they are not ok... Very strange... And moreover, as I demonstrated above, Rsssf.com says in another source that the 1956 and 1968 matches are listed in the Argentina National Team - Unofficial Matches [12]. Veeeeery confused... What Rsssf.com´s source do we belive???

And the most strange thing is that the november´s 2023 FIFA´s source in spanish says they are tied 42 vs 42 [13] and the november´s 2023 FIFA´s source in english says that is 43 vs 41 in favour of Brazil [14]. None of them has the complete list of matches as it had the 2013 FIFA´s source, that says Argentina leads by one match [15]... What FIFA´s source do we belive??? I think that the correct "solution" is what I did in the article, to put the 3 versions of things. Before I participated, it only was the "Brazilian version", and it was wrong, it was not neutral and encyclopedic. Now, there are the 3 versions with sources because FIFA doesn't even agree itself... Said that, I want to agree with you, Miria~01 and Lee Vilenski. This is the correct way (I think) to face this article for me.

And Koncorde: doy you want more than 20 sources that stands Argentina is 1 match above, or they are tied in 42? I can bring you 50 if you want... No way: meanwhile FIFA do not make and official report with the list of matches recognised by the association (the major and official in the world of football, not a few historians of Elo Ratings or Rsssf, that as you see they don´t agree each other themselves either) we should let the article as it is right now, with the 3 versions of the count. It has a lot of notes? Yes, ok, not a problem. They show the clear discrepances... Regards, --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

We should accurately represent what the reliable sources state. If you have 50 reliable sources for a single outcome - please present it. That's it. However what you have done is unfortunately a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and invites the reader to infer an outcome from conflicting sources. Notes to explain discrepancies are one thing, notes repeated 4 or 5 times explaining marginal differences, especially mutually exclusive differences between some sources that are themselves incomplete, is hugely problematic as both a readability challenge and a question of neutrality - expressions such as "official", "dispute", "controversial" are not included in the sources that you ascribe them to. Instead there are, largely, either omissions and / or notes aside from the Goleamos source.

There are also significant issue in how certain things are expressed at the moment as it's pieced together, by you, from numerous sources. Statements like "many sources say it was not a “Class A match” because it was played with 8 players each", the fact it was played with reduced players is acceptable as mentioned in the DW source - but there's no evidence of "many sources", nor any description that matches any expression of "Class A match". Similarly the sentence "many sources say it was not a “Class A match” because Argentina didn´t play with its “A” team" is not included in 3/4 articles sourced. Goleamos[16] appears to be the only source for the claims, and Goleamos has unclear criteria as a reliable source.

For simplicity and clarity, as the issue is only between friendly matches there is really no reason to duplicate the counts for all matches repeatedly as an easier way of presenting alternative counts, along with cutting out 99% of the duplication and re-duplication of sources. Koncorde (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

But I do not disregard the 1920 match (even if it does not appear in some official listings). Only the 1956 match, because there are sources that in this case confirm that it was the Guanabara/Rio de Janeiro state team (see [17] [18]). Svartner (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

So, Koncorde, look the "confusion" of Rsssf.com. Look the confusion of FIFA itself... There are 3 FIFA´s sources: one says 42vs42 another says BRA 43vs41 and one from 2013 says ARG leads 40vs39. That source has the complete list of matches (the others 2 no), and I presented several times: it doesn´t count the 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 and 1968 matches; you can see it by yourself! Moreover, there is the AFA´s sources, the El Gráfico´s source (the 1919 magazine, one of the most important in Latin America), the TyC Sports source, the Goleamos source, the Promiedos source (that counts 42 vs 42 matches, coinciding with FIFA´s source in spanish from November 2023)... But there are more sources:

ARG. would lead by one match:

• TNT Sports: [19]

• Diario Olé newspaper (after 1-0 ARG win in november 2023): [20]

• Another from Olé after the last match won by ARG:: [21]

• Another from Olé before the last match won by ARG: [22]

• Onefootball.com (from november 2019. After that, Argentina won 2 matches, and they tied 1): [23]

• Diario Clarín newspaper (before the 1-0 ARG win in 2023 in Maracaná): [24]

• Another from Clarín, after the 1-0 match in Maracaná in nov. 2023: [25]

Would be tied in 42

• La Nación newspaper (after 1-0 ARG win in november 2023, it says they are tied in 42): [26]

• Diario AS from Spain (before the 1-0 ARG last win in Maracaná): [27]

• Sporting News (after 1-0 ARG win in november 2023): [28]

• Diario Perfil newspaper (before the 1-0 ARG last win in Maracaná): [29]

And I can follow... No way the article shouldn´t show only one vision (brazilian one) beacuse is high demostrated there are LOT of sources that say another thing... What´s your solution, Koncorde? I repeat what I said: if there are misatakes of style (about wikipedia) or grammatical, please correct them! But the content and the 3 versions of the count is totally right, because it wasn´t neutral before my intervention here. The article only showed one version... --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

All of these sources come up against the problem that was shown above in the 1968 matches, where, as I demonstrated, there are photographic records that it was the Brazil team that played. The reports replicate each other, based on the same source. Svartner (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Photographic records??? How you can prove this pics were from these 2 matches??? Please, do not complicate things with a so waek argument... There are plenty of sources, as I gave that do not count as official these matches against these state´s selections.

Another point that makes the complete confusion of these counts in Spanish quite evident. Following the logic, Brazil should then appear with 41 victories, not 42. Svartner (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No, these serious sources that claim Brazil has 39 victories and Argentina 40 do not count (with good sense, as FIFA did in 2013 withe the complete list of matches, and El Gráfico with the complete list of matches, and AFA with the complete list of matches, that many of you do not want to see) the 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956, and 1968 games... The sources that gives 42 vs 42 (including one of FIFA of november 2023 [30]) do not count only the 1922 or 1923 match: one of these 2 matches are not counted as official. Promiedos.com for expample doesn´t count the 1922 game See the complete list of matches here. But, as we do not have the complete list of matches in the 2023 FIFA´s source we can´t be 100% sure what FIFA counted [31]. I think we are drowning in a glass of water... --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please stop claiming things like "that many of you do not want to see" - it is highly insulting to accuse people of ignoring a source. We are not. We can see clearly there are multiple sources with different totals. This is nothing new or novel on wikipedia or WP:Football. Koncorde (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the new sources; all these sources indicate is that Argentina FA has a preferred list which a group of these sources are using - this isn't creating clarity as to the reason why the AFA chooses to ignore them, nor does it confirm that they are in fact not recognised by FIFA (an incomplete archive view from 2013 is questionable at best). We should therefore correctly describe "many sources" as "Note: The Argentinian Football Association does not recognise 5 friendlies" and to continue to use the reliable sources that have been used on wikipedia for the main count until an authoritative source (i.e. FIFA) clarifies the final count of which matches are and are not included as none of the sources beyond 442 state anything to do with FIFA official recognition, and their comment is subjective in how it might be read ("In the general history, including friendlies and cups endorsed by FIFA"). Any attempt to define official / unofficial status of specific games where we ask users to look at conflicting sources that we have selected to demonstrate a specific outcome is itself WP:OR / SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, Koncorde, the 2013 FIFA´s source says what it says and is the only source we have from FIFA (the major football association in this planet) that puts clarely the complete list of matches until Feb. 2013... And I do not see there the 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 and the two 1968 games... Tell me if you find them there... You are confusing the talk, saying that. In the Notes, there must figure the 2013 FIFA´s source (as it figures with my editions, that are ultra correct) that FIFA at least until FEB. 2013 didn´t count those matches. We have the FIFA´s source whit the complete list of matches and you question it. It´s the upside down kingdom, my god...

Second. You are just interpreting things, you are the subjetive one, because you don´t have any proof to say what you said. AFA doesn´t "choose" anything to "ignore" those 6 matches as you are saying! AFA probably abides what FIFA said in 2013! So difficult to understand? The common sense says they were not First Class A matches, and it is explained in each note of the article that those 6 matches wouldn´t be Class A matches, and each source expliains why they are considered like this... 1920 because it was played 8 vs 8, 1922 because it was a Brazil B team (the same day the A team played the 1922 Copa América final), 1923 because it was an Argentina B team (the same day the A team played the 1923 Copa America final), 1956 because it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara State´s selection, 1968 (2 games) the same: it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara´s selection, and a Minas Gerais Selection... There are a LOT of sources presented here, there [32] and everywere [33]... But "casually", for the games won by Brazil many users use the Elo Ratings and the Rsssf.com sources that mention them as "official", but when the same sources of Elo Ratings and Rsssf.com mention the matches won by Argentina are counted, they say they are unofficial [34] and I can follow with diffs like that... Very very very strange behaviour...

Third: you do not have any proof to say the other media or sites uses the numbers of AFA to make their articles! Which proof do you have to claim that? As you saw, there are media that count 40 vs 39, and others count 42 vs 42...

And not only AFA doens´t count those matches: as you saw, Rsssf doesn´t count a few of this matches in one source and in another, counts a few and doesn´t count other games... Promiedos doesn´t count the 1922 match and counts the others, La Nacion, Diario AS, Sporting News and FIFA itself (in nov. 2023) counts 42 vs 42... With which criteria? We don´t know. Only Promiedos puts the full list of matches, excluding the 1922 game... So, in resume, not only AFA doesn´t count these 6 matches or a portion of these 6 matches! Only Elo Ratings counts all those 6 matches, and it´s clear that you and Svartner only want to use this source as principal, but not counting the 1920 and 1956 games... Very funny... No way! It´s a total confusion. So we must ask too: With which criteria Elo ratings counts them? As User:Stevie fae Scotland told me: "Elo often include unofficial matches" [35] We don´t know, because -as you see- there are many ways of couting... And the article, before my fair intervention counted only as Brazil and CBF counts (using Elo Ratings), and this was not neither neutral nor encyclopedic. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

In resume, I think the article Argentina-Brazil football rivalry like it is now is ok. It shows the 3 versions of counting and the notes enlightening for each controversial match. The problem now is how we can solve the related articles, as Brazil national football team records and statistics (wrong the head to head vs Argentina, at least we must include notes clarifying many things of these 6 matches and the count), Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches), Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches), Argentina national football team results (1920–1939) (1920, 1922, 1923 matches), and Argentina national football team results (1940–1959) (1956 match), Argentina national football team results (1960–1979) (two matches of 1968), Brazil national football team results (1914–1949), and Brazil national football team results (1950–1969). What would be a solution? We include all 6 matches but putting notes on each of them? Or we do not put any of them? --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, the 1920 match was accounted for (just look at the copy of the match list I left in my sandbox), even if the RSSSF count does not include it (and that is the why the match is listed in Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches)), since it was clearly a match between Argentina and Brazil. The one from 1956 is not counted because this one has sources that it is not disputed by the Brazil team, by about Guanabara/Rio de Janeiro ([36]). I had even written an article on the Copa Raúl Colombo to avoid further doubts, maybe it would be better to restore it. Svartner (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Svartner: again: you are the one who is adding the 1920 match in the Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches) [37] [38] and you are the one who removed it from the Brazil national football team results (1914–1949) [39]. But here now you say it counts? Agree yourself, please... Intelectual honesty 1...

The 1956 match figures in rsssf.com and in Elo Ratings.com as "official". The same sources you use... The same... Rsssf.com [40] and Elo Ratings [41] and [42]. Intelectual honesty 2... You will tell me there is a note in the rsssf.com it says it was a Guanabara team. Right! I will tell you the same source says with a note that the two 1968 games were against a Ganabara Selection and a Minas Selection [43] (Notes 23 and 24). As you and Koncorde should know, even worse there is an Rsssf.com source that clarely puts these 2 friendlies in the List of Argentina National team UNOFFICIAL matches... Again... what do you see??? [44] Arg. Vs Rio de Janeiro Combined and Arg. vs Minas Gerais Select don´t you see???

Perhaps I´m crazy, but no, I´m sane and sober... As I told you a loooottt of times: you arrange things as it suits you, and this is

WP:POV. Fortunately this is not "Wikipedia Brazil", and the count of matches and head to head between Arg and Bra was corrected by me...--Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Raul, don't use bold text. Your arguments don't become any clearer when you make them, and you are not dealing with the issue by continually repeating information we have read already, and you have had this requested of you at the Admin noticeboard.

• "the 2013 FIFA´s source says what it says and is the only source we have from FIFA this isn't true, we have another source from FIFA stating the total is 110 matches that is subsequent to the 2013 stats total. We therefore have a discrepancy we cannot resolve with FIFA alone.
• "there must figure the 2013 FIFA´s source (as it figures with my editions, that are ultra correct) that FIFA at least until FEB. 2013 didn´t count those matches" being "correct" (in your opinion) is not the same as being verifiably supported by reliable sources. As you have conflicting totals from FIFA alone, never mind other sources, any conjecture about what FIFA did or didn't do to that date or any other is entirely your opinion.
• "We have the FIFA´s source whit the complete list of matches and you question it" except it isn't a complete list as it stopped in 2013, RSSSF sources are also incomplete etc and you yourself have introduced other sources that specifically disagree about which fixtures are specifically omitted by including multiple counts of matches.
• "AFA doesn´t "choose" anything to "ignore" those 6 matches as you are saying! AFA probably abides what FIFA said in 2013!" This is your opinion. We have no evidence from FIFA that this is the case, and the recent count of 110 refutes the claim. Therefore the AFA have their own count, and no explanation from them as to their reason. Taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
• "So difficult to understand? The common sense says they were not First Class A matches, and it is explained in each note of the article that those 6 matches wouldn´t be Class A matches, and each source expliains why they are considered like this... 1920 because it was played 8 vs 8, 1922 because it was a Brazil B team (the same day the A team played the 1922 Copa América final), 1923 because it was an Argentina B team (the same day the A team played the 1923 Copa America final), 1956 because it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara State´s selection, 1968 (2 games) the same: it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara´s selection, and a Minas Gerais Selection..." You are attempting to combine the notes from one site (RSSSF or Goleamos) with a list of fixtures from another site (again WP:SYNTH) AND you are expressing an outcome that those sites themselves do not express (again WP:OR). You need to understand those basic tenets of wikipedia.
• "you do not have any proof to say the other media or sites uses the numbers of AFA to make their articles" It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list.
• "With which criteria? We don´t know." but you have already expressed a whole bunch of criteria about why you think FIFA didn't include certain matches and are trying to use other sources to explain possible logic. This is (again, again) WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
• In resume, I think the article Argentina-Brazil football rivalry like it is now is ok. Absolutely not.

It's a mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, poorly written and terribly structured. I haven't reverted out of politeness so far as I have tried to find alternative authoritative reliable sourcing for the match listings - but this is not endorsement of the content as presented. Koncorde (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I will answer to you, Koncorde:

• this isn't true, we have another source from FIFA stating the total is 110 matches that is subsequent to the 2013 stats total. We therefore have a discrepancy we cannot resolve with FIFA alone. The only source of FIFA that shows the complete list of matches is this, the one from 2013. Give me another that shows the list of matches. Of course, as I said and I put in the article (I put the 3 versions, not as others did who only counted one version of the head to head) there are 3 (three) FIFA´s source that do not agree themselves: 2013 (ARG 1 match above, with the complete list of matches [45], 2023 in spanish (tied in 42 each) [46] and 2023 in english (BRA 2 matches above) [47]. Fortunately, I included the 3 sources ;-)
• being "correct" (in your opinion) is not the same as being verifiably supported by reliable sources. As you have conflicting totals from FIFA alone, never mind other sources, any conjecture about what FIFA did or didn't do to that date or any other is entirely your opinion. As I proved in this discussion, there are a lot of sources an verifiable (serious sources) that also counts as this source. El Gráfico and AFA (with the full list of matches). Do you knok that the AFA is the football association of the current FIFA´s World Champion? ;-) I saw you edited that in the article that Brazil has 6 World Cups, and I had to correct it... I assume it was a typing error of you... But, this is not the discussion. I accept all the sources that express the 3 versions of the list of match. I´m not blind, and meanwhile FIFA doesn´t clarify the head to head, the article must be as it is, with all the notes and the 3 versions of the count of matches.
• except it isn't a complete list as it stopped in 2013, RSSSF sources are also incomplete etc and you yourself have introduced other sources that specifically disagree about which fixtures are specifically omitted by including multiple counts of matches. I clarify in the "Notes". After that date, they played 10 times, wit 4 ARG wins, 4 BRA wins and 2 ties... It´s easy to prove! But as I said, I do not deny the other FIFA sources! What I object to is the way the article was before I came: with only Brazil´s point of view. As you can see, (I wish yo can) other user still ties to mix sources and take a part of the same sources he uses to "prove" something, but erasing parts of the same sources that say things he try to rule out. The 1920, 1956 and 1968 matches are the example. In this answer, I show the crux of the matter. This is WP:POV. Clarely. And you do not say anythng to him, Koncorde. It seems to be a war agaisnt me...
• This is your opinion. We have no evidence from FIFA that this is the case, and the recent count of 110 refutes the claim. Therefore the AFA have their own count, and no explanation from them as to their reason. Taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I said that because you said the other media took the AFA´s numbers, and that AFA "choose" the 2013 FIFA´s source to rule out a few matches... You do not a proof to assert that the other media (Clarín, Olé, TyC Sports, El Gráfico, and so) took the AFA´s numbers... So, it goes to you: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-) We have what we have: a lot of different sources. Many of them say one thing, many of them another, and many of them another. The article is clear as it is. Don´t drown in a glass of water, please.
• You are attempting to combine the notes from one site (RSSSF or Goleamos) with a list of fixtures from another site (again WP:SYNTH) AND you are expressing an outcome that those sites themselves do not express (again WP:OR). You need to understand those basic tenets of wikipedia. I don´t attempt anything. I only show with sources each case of each match and why they are not considered A mathces according to a few sources: it is explained in each note of the article that those 6 matches wouldn´t be Class A matches, and each source expliains why they are considered like this... 1920 because it was played 8 vs 8, 1922 because it was a Brazil B team (the same day the A team played the 1922 Copa América final), 1923 because it was an Argentina B team (the same day the A team played the 1923 Copa America final), 1956 because it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara State´s selection, 1968 (2 games) the same: it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara´s selection, and a Minas Gerais Selection. Evrything figures in the sources. The one who makes WP:SYNTH is another, not me...
• It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list. As I said, you don´t have any proof to say that. Any... So, it goes to you again: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-)
• but you have already expressed a whole bunch of criteria about why you think FIFA didn't include certain matches and are trying to use other sources to explain possible logic. This is (again, again) WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. No, no, no. Do not confuse other users: a lot of sources I gave expressed about why a few matches do not count. I don´t kow if FIFA consider them, because in the source of 2013 do not consider 6 matches (you can see), in the 2023 source it considers 5 of the 6 controversial matches (42 vs 42), and in the 2023 source in english considers 43 vs 41 for Brazil.
• It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list. Again. As I said, you don´t have any proof to say that. Any... So, it goes to you again: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-) So, playing your "game" I can tell you that AFA could have taken the numbers according to the 2013 FIFA´s source... ;-) And perhaps, brazilian media count from a CBF source, I don´t know from where thay took their numbers. The knot of the matter is those 6 matches; friendlies with no importance from the stone age, comparing with the official mathces, where Argentina dominates ;-). FIFA itself doesn´t agree in 2023...
• it's a mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, poorly written and terribly structured. I haven't reverted out of politeness so far as I have tried to find alternative authoritative reliable sourcing for the match listings - but this is not endorsement of the content as presented As I said several times: if there are grammathical mistakes, or style mistakes, please correct them! But the content, the 3 versions, the notes with sources about each controversial match must stay.

Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the above is dealing the issue. You are just repeating the same mistakes and attempting to defer back to sources that are disputed by the same publisher, and use other sources without attribution. If you acknowledge that FIFA's list is a discrepancy to itself, this discussion is null and void and your argument about which source (FIFA or otherwise) is irrelevant. That you attempt then to use RSSSF to explain why certain matches are omitted without attributing and simply saying "many sources" is pure WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

However, specifically regarding the attempt to claim I am using OR or SYNTH - as I haven't expressed support for ANY outcome that isn't possible, or any total. I stated a basic observation that multiple sources you provided all used the same list as provided by the AFA. That's it. You are the one arguing for solely your interpretation and committing SYNTH and OR. It may have existed before you started also - but that isn't the argument you have made, so I am not judging it. Koncorde (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No no no. BEFORE my participation the article was a "Rio de Janeiro´s" tribune because of the lack of neutrality it had. I "fought" hard to make the user Svartner see that there were a LOT of sources that counted the oppinsite or with discrepancies of what figured in the article... Beacuse of ME and MY participations with sources and notes that clarifies things, we could "solve" the neutral point of view, that was collapsed before my participation... You talk with pure technicalities that complicate things, but you do not solve anything. Be more specific with texts or notes you would want to include and we can talk. Go to the point with examples, please. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

"and you are the one who removed it from the Brazil national football team results (1914–1949)" - In fact, it was the opposite, and it happened in 2021, when the match lists were still being developed. That's why I say that your edits are disruptive, it's essential to understand how the project works before simply changing the entire scope of the content indiscriminately. Svartner (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I saw bad there, I apoligise. It was other user, not you. But you didn´t add it again later. For expalmple, betweem march and today, as we had this discussion. If I add would you keep it there? And another thing: about the 1920 match in the Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches) what would you tell us of this? [48] Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't completely understand what is going on here, but if the sources differ, we need to note that the sources differ and why. SportingFlyer T·C 01:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, SportingFlyer! This is what I did in the article. It wasn´t neutral until my participation, and only showed one version of the facts. Thanks for participating. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Nutshell: There are multiple sources, and someone is trying to use those multiple sources in a WP:OR / WP:SYNTH manner. I.e. FIFA provides a list in 2013, AFA provides a list until 2023, FIFA does new article which would refute both their original 2013 content and the AFA's, and those of multiple sources giving different Argentinian totals. Raul wants to use 2013 FIFA plus other articles plus incomplete list of games from RSSSF etc which includes some notes to provide multiple stat outputs and claim which are and aren't "official". Koncorde (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User:SportingFlyer: What Koncorde says is totally FALSE. It was ME who edited the article to show the 3 versions of counting! Thus it was ME who gave a bit of neutrality to this article! The other user (Svartner), had the article as his "property", he reverted me all the time, he only wanted to show in the article the "brazilian way of counting" (of course, with Brazil ahead, winning "everything", not counting the controversial friendy matches won by Argentina but counting all the controversial friendly games won by Brazil), and when I tried to reach a solution in the talk page, he didn´t want to change anything. He had to "accept" it because of the "force" of sources I presented... And Koncorde, clarely supports him, because he doesn't like me. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello everybody. Koncorde, Svartner: please, follow the discussion here [49] I found an official AFA´s document from 1968 that gives no room for discussion about these 2 games... I found digitized the 1968 AFA´s Memory and Balance.[50] It is on the internet, in the "Library of AFA". http://biblioteca.afa.org.ar/libros.html (Biblioteca AFA in spanish). There are many of them digitizeds, and I will continue searching. In the 1968´s book, you go to the page 32 and 33, and you will see the sumary of those 2 games. Not need to know spanish, are very clear the summaries. And as I told you lot of times, it was not Brazil national team... Those matches were played between Argentina and a Rio de Janeiro selection (August 7) and Argentina vs Minas Gerais Selection (August 11). Please, see here [51]. The summary says "COMBINADO RÍO DE JANEIRO VS. ARGENTINA" and "SELECCION MINAS GERAIS VS ARGENTINA".[52] As you can see, AFA always (alredy in 1968) counted them as unofficial matches, against state selections, not against Brazil. Now, we can discover (and not only "interpretate") why AFA do not count those matches as "Class A full international games": that´s because always considered them not against Brazil national team. As you can see in the source of the "Memory and Balance" of AFA, already in 1968 they were considered unofficial, and considered as 2 matches against 2 provincial rivals. Can you see Koncorde, why AFA "ignored" those 2 games?... Simple... I hope we can following unraveling the puzzle. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

So, this explains why they are considered unofficial by the AFA, but the CBF considers them the main Brazil team, with the photographic records already presented above showing that they acted representing the CBD, the predecessor of the CBF, not the state federations. Svartner (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for AFA they were always against 2 State Selections, not vs. Brazil´s national team. For CBF, they count as Brazil national team, although those matches were directed not by Joao Saldanha, the Brazil´s team trainer in 1968. Until FIFA do not clarify this situation with a new source I think we should keep the article as it is. The same for the 1956 match, and the 1920, 1922, and 1923 matches. Said that, what should we do in the artcles of Argentina´s historical official and unofficial results??? There, only there just for now, I think should be erased, because AFA do not consider them as official,and (as it was demonstrated) they never considered like this. In the rivalry´s article, I think they should stay as they are, with notes explaining each situation. And in the Brazil´s related articles (results official and unofficial matches) we should keep them (I think with notes explaining too, that AFA never considered as official games), until FIFA clarifys this issue. What do you think about this? How can we continue? --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the rivalry page;

• First: remove any claims to "many sources" or similar POV words (WP:OR). Make clear which source is being referred to, why, and with proper attribution. The Libros AFA document, and the AFA site list of results is perfectly adequate to state "The AFA does not consider matches X and Y in their official totals as they are against State Selections". This should be made clear for all such games with clear sourcing, not through aggregated sources (WP:SYNTH) that provide no rationale or description
• Second: remove directions to readers to have to follow specific instructions on archived sites of incomplete lists where you then use other sites to explain why they are omitted. It's unnecessary when there are list of such games already available, and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. This ends up a game of error by omission of one list or another rather than clarifying the definition. We should be specifying the inclusion / exclusion criteria once, in context.
• Third: any reference to "official" and "FIFA" shouldn't be included due to conflict of FIFA's own sources in multiple articles until such time they clarify.
• Fourth: as the competitive results are not in dispute, there should be static table of those results. Any discrepancy of "friendlies" should be treated distinctly in any count.
• Fifth: what goes in the infobox is up for debate - but as the authoritative source, FIFAs most recent counts would arguably be the most relevant. But whatever the outcome the current notes are not appropriate from both a basic function of the infobox and legibility.

Regarding other pages; if any notes are kept - they should stick to what the articles say only. Not what is omitted. Koncorde (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ideally, more members would get involved in editing the page to make it something more acceptable/neutral. As I said previously, I am not opposed to excluding the contradiction since throughout the process more sources were presented (hence my previous reversals), but as long as the total list of matches is preserved. Svartner (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you; I wish more users get involved in editing the page. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

A "little" answer to a few ponts:

First: remove any claims to "many sources" or similar POV words (WP:OR). Make clear which source is being referred to, why, and with proper attribution. The Libros AFA document, and the AFA site list of results is perfectly adequate to state "The AFA does not consider matches X and Y in their official totals as they are against State Selections". This should be made clear for all such games with clear sourcing, not through aggregated sources (WP:SYNTH) that provide no rationale or description

There are many sources, not only AFA does not consider a few games. FIFA, in the 2013 source didn´t include them either... El Gráfico doesn´t include too (with the list of matches), so we don´t know why they made this list; if they took AFA´s numbers or if they have historians working in the magazine (as thay always had) ... TNT Sports does not include either, TyC Sports either. Promiedos includes a few games but do not include the 1922 Roca´s Cup friendly match... FIFA 2013 doesn´t include any of those 6 maches in their complete list until that date, but FIFA´s 2023 source in spanish gives 42 vs 42, and in english gives 43 vs 41 in favour of Brazil... FIFA doesn´t agree itself! As you see, there are many sources that do not count all this 6 matches, a few that count a few and a few that count all the 6 games, or 5 of these 6... We do not know exactly the parameters the other sources (except AFA) considerated to make the list... Supposeing the reasons and not having a proof to afirm it would be clarely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... And you do not suppose, don´t you? So, there are many sources, that´s the truth... So not only AFA do not consider a few games.

remove directions to readers to have to follow specific instructions on archived sites of incomplete lists where you then use other sites to explain why they are omitted. It's unnecessary when there are list of such games already available, and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. This ends up a game of error by omission of one list or another rather than clarifying the definition. We should be specifying the inclusion / exclusion criteria once, in context.

Don´t agree at all. FIFA´s 2013 source is the only of FIFA that has the complete list of games until 2013. At least, this is what FIFA considered as "official" that time. And I think is correct to add the intructions to enter the article and the reader see with his own eyes what we say in the article of why we say what we say: there is a huge dispute of this 6 games, and until FIFA clarifies the whole thing, this source is very important to understand.

Third point of you: I´m agree with you.

Fouth point of you: I´m totally agree with you too.

what goes in the infobox is up for debate - but as the authoritative source, FIFAs most recent counts would arguably be the most relevant. But whatever the outcome the current notes are not appropriate from both a basic function of the infobox and legibility.

Do not agree at all. This rivalry has a lot of controversies and (as we can all see) different ways of counting, even for FIFA, that doen´t agree itself... All the 3 FIFA´s sources are valuable and none of them should prevail or be more important than the others. If you "hurry" me, I would say the 2013´s source would be more important because is the only one that has the complete list of matches until 2013. And if you see, the controversial matches were in 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 and 1968; veru very very far from 2013... And there, in this source, they are not listed... I keep with the idea of let the article with all the notes in the infobox, and all the sources they appear there. Do not erase important and serious information, please. Add, do not subtract! You talk with pure technicalities that complicate things, but you do not solve anything. Be more specific with texts or notes you would want to include and we can talk. Go to the point with examples, please.--Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

We do not know why FIFA in 2013 excluded, or why FIFA in 2023 included. It is pure speculation, and / or requires merging it with RSSSF's reasons and/ or other some other sources: this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. In contrast the AFA page and AFA history book are both completely, 100%, in agreement. We do not need any other sources to make the point, especially incomplete. At this point WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. You are fundamentally incapable of listening to why what you are saying doesn't fit with the requirements of wikipedia, and when someone presents you with the appropriate way of dealing with the issue you return back to insisting on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Understand what is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and understand why your current notes are problematic. I have given you over a week telling you why your framing is incorrect and at this point it seems you have made 0 attempt to understand why. Koncorde (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You continues with all those technicalities and you do not go to the point or the solution. Chapter 150.000... So for you an incomplete Rsssf´s source from 2008 (made by 2 or 3 historians that we don´t know their "perception") should be above a FIFA´s source from 2013? For example this Rsssf.com source includes the two 1968 games (with 2 notes saying they could be unofficial) that was demonstated by AFA´s official book that they were unofficial, played against 2 State Selections teams... And I ask you: you would "prefer" the 2008 Rsssf.com source instead of an AFA´s official source? You would prefer an ELO Ratings source instead of the 2013 FIFA´s source? As everybody saw, there´s another Rsssf.com source thar counts as official the 1920´s match and counts as unofficial the 1956 and the 1968 mathces... The SAME organisation (Rsssf.com) has 2 different sources (as FIFA, that has 3) where they do not agree themselves: one counts as official, the other counts as unofficial... I presented those sources a loooottt of times, so I'm not going to bore you again. Everybody can see the multiple contradictions!!! So why do we should "prefer" only ONE source from an organisation instead of other by THE SAME organisation that says the opposite? So, the point is that the notes are really necessary in this article and in the related articles... Until FIFA makes an official count of games, with the list of matches (AS THEY DID IN 2013 and you clarely don't give it importance) we must include all the notes.

About Elo Ratings sources, as Stevie fae Scotland told me once here [53], Elo ratings often include unofficial matches... So, for me, Elo ratings is not a reliable source...

Concluding: so Koncorde, please include the text you would upload in the article, the notes you would include (with the texts on each) and we can talk with more precision. Leave for a second the technical language, the WDFDSF, the WO:ODFDEDSDE, the XYSFEFJ:34/5, come down "to earth" and upload a precise text, concrete notes, and precises sources you would use (and explain why you would use one to the detriment of the other) in the artcile, and we can talk about the solution. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said previously, the article demands to be redesigned to desirable standards. I'm avoiding making adjustments until a consensus is reached. It is also necessary to know about the consistency of Argentina's match list, as he removed the 1968 games, now the count has become chaotic (see Argentina national football team results (1960–1979) ending at #513 and Argentina national football team results (1980–1999) starting at #516). It would be good to know what the @Stevie fae Scotland who organized the listing think about. Svartner (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Svartner: as it was demonstrated with the official AFA´s book of memmories and balance of 1968, those 2 matches are not considered official by AFA. Until FIFA says something about it, we should delete them. The same case with the 1920 match that you included as unofficial in the Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches)... Many sources count it as official... The same thing with the 1956 match, acording to many sources it was played vs. a Guanabara Selection... And I do not see this 1956 match in the Brazil national football team results (1950–1969)... My opinion? Those 3 matches were played vs State Selections, so they are all unofficial. It´s demonstrated. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I was happy with how it was after I had finished compiling the lists as I had looked into the status of matches to confirm that they were official. I used sources that we consider reliable to decide on inclusion or exclusion of matches where there were doubts about status. I don't think any of these ones were doubtful either, I don't remember looking too much into any Brazil v Argentina matches because the various RSSSF sources included them. The only reason I haven't said much on this so far is that I can see you're all coming at it in good faith and I don't want to get drawn into an edit war. That's why I was glad it was brought up here so the community at large can weigh in and we can reach consensus. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Mario Božiković

I was curious if we have an article on Mario Božiković at all, [54], maybe his career isn't notable enough for wiki standards these days. :/ Govvy (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't. There isn't even an article in the Croatian Wikipedia: [55]. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

K, I was looking for an article to see if it was up to date, etc, Cheers, anyway. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

He'd be eligible for an article based on the fact his obituary was in every major Croatian paper and we generally include obituaries as secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Filip Engelman

This guy seems to be a fraud. Most of his stats are not available anywhere except on his LinkedIn profile and Transfermarkt. However, even those seem to be fake (e.g., Serbian First League official website report & Soccerway vs Transfermarkt). Also, according to Transfermarkt, he played 21 games for Dukla Banská Bystrica in the Slovak First League (at the age of 18!?), but there are no other records on the internet that back that up. He never played for Unirea Urziceni either. 47.201.233.193 (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but I've added an 'accuracy' tag which will hopefully draw more attention to it. Crowsus (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Football Articles contributer

Hello, I am looking for someone who could help contribute and help write quality articles on football clubs, leagues, players, etc. Would anyone be willing to help as I have had trouble establishing notability on my articles in the past.

Appreciatively, MintyFresh201 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Football stadia and possible sock

Hi all, I came across the edit history of Anfield and I'm wondering what is preferred in the infobox and lede, to write "Liverpool" or "Liverpool F.C." when referring to the football club? The user who altered it into "Liverpool" claims it to be part of a consensus on here, but I can not find that.

Also, the user who made that change, "AutisticAndrew", has a young account, but has already used Twinkle a lot, usually immediately reverts any criticism and already knows how to pimp up his account with many infoboxes and links. This is similar edit behaviour to StarryNightSky11, a blocked sockmaster. Even clearer, both "AutisticAndrew" and "StarryNightSky11" prefer the option to omit "F.C." in the infoboxes/ledes of football stadiums: [56] and [57]. It is a bit suspicious... Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say that in the case of a stadium like Anfield we definitely need to show the F.C., as simply writing "owner: Liverpool" could give the impression that it is owned by the city itself (in real terms Liverpool City Council). Also, I do not believe that there is a consensus to omit the F.C. in this situation - see for example, Priestfield Stadium, which shows the owner as "Gillingham F.C.", Holker Street, which shows the owner as "Barrow A.F.C.", etc.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

User:AutisticAndrew is making the same change to the Turf Moor page with respect to Burnley F.C.. I have reverted the change twice but now risk breaching 3RR (I have left a note on AA's Talk page). Others may wish to review the Turf Moor changes in light of the consensus ChrisTheDude mentions. Paul W (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed AA partially reverted their change, putting Burnley Football Club in the infobox. Paul W (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Showing abbreviations seems to be inconsistent at this moment, e.g. Cardiff City Stadium and Swansea.com Stadium don't show them but Racecourse Ground and the examples said by ChrisTheDude do.

As for sockpuppetry, I have added to the sockpuppet investigations casepage about a couple of clues I've picked up. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

TBF there's somewhat less ambiguity with Cardiff and Swansea, as they both have a suffix in their name, unlike Wrexham -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It is also my understanding that it's better to include F.C. in cases such as Liverpool and Gillingham for that specific reason (owned by the council). And thanks Paul and Iggy for adding some rather interesting clues to the investigation. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Update: AutisticAndrew has now been banned for suspected sockpuppetry. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Kit update for Musan Salama

The kits that are shown in the infobox of Musan Salama are out of date. I don't know how to update them myself, so if someone has time to do it, I'd appreciate it. The updated kits can be found on the Finnish FA's page in this link. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 12:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

2025 FIFA Club World Cup

See history page and talk page (First edition section). User @Fa30sp: keeps insisting on claiming that the next edition will be totally new. It will be a new edition under a new expanded format, always under the FIFA Club World Cup name, not a new tournament from scratch. Island92 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User @Island92 keeps trying to interpret (wrongly) something already decided by FIFA and its president! Please everybody read everything in the talk page (First edition section) because all the information needed to understand the discussion is there.

But I will resume (quote) for everybody the most important part:

"This discussion ended yesterday (on the date that marks exactly 1 year to the start of the tournament) with a post from FIFA and its president, through their official social media, stating:

"One year to go until the FIFA Club World Cup 2025™️! 🤩 32 teams from all six confederations will gather in the United States for the inaugural edition next year" (https://www.instagram.com/p/C8O3bNsKvmV/)

Now, a new discussion opens about the title of this article (which in my opinion should be kept) and the article from the old FIFA Club World Cup (which in my opinion should be changed). But that is another discussion and is more in the sense of a formality. The most important thing is that we now officially have a position from FIFA and its president, confirming that this is the 1st edition of the new FIFA Club World Cup!"

We also have:

"It is officially the first edition, the INAUGURAL edition as its saying and you are fighting against the reality!

First of all, something confirmed on FIFA and FIFA's president official Instagrams is thousand times more valuable than if you wrote a final term on it!

Second, that's not only on Instagram, it is also on FIFA's website: https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/mens/club-world-cup/usa-2025/articles/mundial-de-clubes-25-teams-dates-venue-groups-draw-matches-tickets

I will quote just a few examples in this article on FIFA's website to help you:

"Find out all the information on the new club tournament with details of qualified teams, dates, competition format, hosts, tickets and more."

"New tournament will be played for the first time in 2025"

"The first edition of FIFA's new prime club competition will be played in the USA."" Fa30sp (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A new tournament under a new expanded format, keeping the same FIFA Club World Cup name, not a new total tournament from scratch. The first edition with 32 teams, that's it. That's what you are missing and what I've explained to you multiple times. It's like talking to a wall. Pinging @Blaixx:, @Chris1834:, @Matilda Maniac:, @RIP B1058:, @1995hoo:. Island92 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"A new tournament under a new expanded format" you just said.. so if it is a new tournament, 2025 is the 1st edition! hahahahahahahaha

Bro in this reply you just changed your opinion following what I explained to you hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That's not what you were defending, since you were undoing the edits I was doing to make Wikipedia's article follow what FIFA says! But no problem, good that you opened up your mind and its accepting FIFA and Gianni Infantino position right now. Fa30sp (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That said, reading The 2025 FIFA Club World Cup is the planned 1st edition of the FIFA Club World Cup or The 2029 FIFA Club World Cup is the planned 2nd edition of the FIFA Club World Cup (the other edit you made in 2029 FIFA Club World Cup) is wrong-assuming. The tournament FIFA Club World Cup itself has reached 20 editions in 2023. Island92 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

No, a new tournament (the format that will be put in play), always called FIFA Club World Cup, not a new tournament from zero. A new tournament from zero is FIFA Intercontinental Cup. Island92 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes bro! That old tournament reached 20 edition and 2023 was its last edition! The new tournament FIFA Intercontinental Cup will take its place in 2024 and will be held annually in December!

The new Mundial de Clubes FIFA (sometimes written like this even on English-language websites, exactly to differentiate from the old FIFA Club World Championship/FIFA Club World Cup held from 2000 to 2023; but sometimes translated to FIFA Club World Cup too) is also a new tournament!

And that phrase you wrote is crazy: "a new tournament (the format that will be put in play)" hahahahahahahahahaha bro, stop trying to create an interpretation for something that FIFA already decided, they say new tournament because it is a new tournament! If just a new format, new tournament would not be written, but only "new format" hahahahahahahahahahahaha Fa30sp (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to act like a children. YOU missing the fact that the name FIFA Club World Cup is still there. I see no Mundial de Clubes FIFA name on FIFA website. The new-look 32-team tournament sentence reported in this ref means a new format that will be used, with 32 teams. Island92 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It's very clearly been marketed as being a continuation of the event with a different format. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, same tournament just with more teams. Same as how the World Cup or Euros have had multiple changes in numbers of teams and formats, but it's all one continuation of the event. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Same tournament, just a new format. GiantSnowman 18:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have partial blocked Fa30sp from the article and its talkpage, indefinitely. Haha bro, as they say. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahaha I'm crying because Black Kite blocked me from the article and its talkpage.

Bro, if you didn't see Mundial de Clubes FIFA on FIFA's website it's because you didn't read it. Also, Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Intercontinental Cup are different tournaments or same tournaments with this logic?

So if u guys wanna keep it wrong just keep it wrong I don't care hahahahahahaha FIFA rules football, it is treating it as a different tournament and FIFA's website is what really matters.

That's why people still laugh at Wikipedia as a reliable source. Fa30sp (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE with a comment like that perhaps? But I have to echo the above, this is not a new tournament. It is an extension of a tournament that already existed. Like the current UEFA Europa League is the UEFA Cup, just with a different format. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong comparison bro!

UEFA Cup only changed its name to UEFA Europa League. Here we have a new tournament created, FIFA Intercontinental Cup, as a similar tournament of the old FIFA Club World Championship/Cup (2000-23), that can be considered a continuation.

And, finally, we have the new FIFA Club World Cup with its INAUGURAL tournament in 2025 and you can see that it will be the INAUGURAL tournament in the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup talk page, where there are many examples of FIFA's website as a source of it. Fa30sp (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

FIFA have been inconsistent too. I suggest that it stays as it is until closer to the tournament, under WP:TOOSOON, as in too soon to be definitely sure. If it is changed, then there will be some tweet from FIFA about Bayern Munich's 8th participation in the tournament, and the whole thing erupts again.

A corollary example has been the modifications on Wikipedia to the AFC Champions League Elite and AFC Champions League Two, which were both described as new tournaments initially, prompting this same debate, and article name changes (which persist), only for AFC to release a statement saying the history of the previous named competitions carries through to the current named competitions, clarifying that they are extensions to the tournament, albeit in a different format, and not a brand new "no one's ever played this before" tournament. You can argue that this corollary is meaningless under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS OR WP:CRYSTAL, but I feel there is sufficient uncertainty this far out from the competition to keep the current status. My recommendation would be to await all of their published tournament regulations, which usually come out a few months before an event. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand Fa30sp's point of view as FIFA themselves state that a "[n]ew tournament will be played for the first time in 2025", but I also understand the argument that this is the 21st edition of the tournament because FIFA is keeping the same name as the pre-existing tournament. However, the fact that this is a quadrennial tournament rather than an annual tournament means to me that this is more than just a simple format change. Given that the official source claims this is the inaugural tournament and the massive departure in how the previous tournaments were organized and scheduled, I would agree that this is, indeed, a new tournament. The 2024 FIFA Intercontinental Cup appears at first glance to be a rebranding of what was known as the FIFA Club World Cup with a minor format change. However, if FIFA are declaring that to also be a new competition, then another discussion regarding renaming is due.

That all having been said, I concur with Matilda Maniac that we should let thing remain as they are until more official details are published. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Turkey squad templates

I've seen that a lot of their players are down by their surnames despite being better known by their given names, which wasn't the case a while ago.

For example in this template, no.1 is better known as Rüştü, 8 Tugay, 15 Nihat and 21 Emre as what they had on their shirts during their times playing in Western Europe. It is a cultural thing as according to the Surname Law (Turkey) article, having a surname only came into law for its people 68 years before the 2002 World Cup. VEO15 (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)