# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Latest comment: 1 day ago by Matilda Maniac in topic Discovery plus
Football Project‑class

## FIFA Club World Cup teams in contention

Last year, there was a discussion here about whether or not to include a list of teams in contention for the FIFA Club World Cup. See here. It was decided that they were not needed.

However, someone has added such a list to the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup, but via the new 4-year ranking. There is a lengthy discussion as well.

So, are these rankings tables needed? Also, if they are kept, does pruning the tables to just teams in contention without a source fall under WP:CALC or is it WP:OR? It seems to me that calculating who is or isn't in contention is more nuanced than just basic math, and requires knowledge about how various tournaments work. See my example of Penarol here. So I think this should still have a source.

Just to be clear, I'm not really heavily for or against listing teams in contention. But if it's done, it should be done in a limited fashion (because obviously adding these tables at the beginning of 4-year cycle, for example, would be bad, because there could literally be thousands of teams in contention). And I think it needs to be properly sourced, which I don't think it is right now. I also think, giving incomplete information is bad because it leads to a half-baked article. So if we're going to list teams in contention via the 4-year ranking, we should also list the teams who may qualify by winning a competition, since the rankings tables themselves are dependent on that information. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The situations are not the same. The previous discussion (which went for only 14 hours by the way) was someone posting bullet points of all 108 countries who might qualify (of a total of 7 who did). That is indeed overkill, and I was happy it was removed. It was easy at the time to simply click on the links to the different confederations if you wanted to see who was still in contention. This is a different case, as it is not a single competition feeding into the calculations, it is (for the remaining confederation, CONMEBOL) over four competitions. The rankings for CONMEBOL are shown at the FIFA website for all four years in a single table, so there is a primary source. That FIFA website shows the current leaders under the four-year ranking, and those 2 teams I have put into a note in the main table, as that is also clearly not WP:OR. That approach is consistent with how the notes have been displayed for all other confederations before they were finalised. At one point in this article, the table showed all of the results, so dozens and dozens of teams, and that also is not WP:OR. However, showing dozens of teams that in fact were not in contention was also misleading so that subset was removed. The criteria on the FIFA website clearly list the points available (3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 3 points for progress to each stage of the competition), so that is not WP:OR. The maximum number of points available to a team without their winning the 2024 Copa Libertadores is easily calculated: After round 3 of the group stage, it is 3 wins in the group stage, 2 wins in the round of 16, 2 wins in the quarter-finals, 2 wins in the semi-finals, draw in the final (PSO loss). Nine wins and one draw = 28 points, and progressing 4 more rounds to the final = 12 points, so total = 40 points. That to me is WP:CALC. If one of the three teams - that have already won one the three previous editions of the Copa Libertadores - wins this year, then a third team will qualify through the four-year ranking method. That process is sourced from the FIFA Website. Olimpia currently sit on 57 points, third in these rankings, so any team with less than 17 points cannot qualify by this method (57-17=40). That to me is again WP:CALC. So, overall, removing the teams that cannot qualify I would clearly consider to be WP:CALC rather than WP:OR. What would be better, obviously, is if there is also a secondary source showing the teams still in contention. As a side issue, it is not going to be a permanent feature of the FIFA Club World Cup article, as it will decrease through time as did the tables for the other confederations (and disappear entirely in November 2024). Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, my point about WP:CALC not being applicable is not that this doesn't involve routine calculations. Of course it does. It's that it involves more than just routine calculations (i.e. knowledge of how the various tournaments are structured, how teams have been drawn, etc.) That is what makes it OR. Specifically, it's WP:SYNTH. I don't think it is controversial to require a source that explicitly states the conclusion that is being made. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Translated excerpt
The maximum that can be added in a single edition of the Cup is 52 points in this hypothetical case: being runner-up by winning all the games and tying the final, this would be 37 points (twelve wins and one draw), to which would be added three to participate in the group stage and twelve to advance in the following rounds (to the round of 16, to the quarterfinals, to the semis and to the final).
This is what I consider to be a credible source to confirm the calculation. Miria~01 (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Using this as the only source for the information that is presented at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup would be WP:SYNTH. It doesn't explicitly say which teams are "in contention" beyond National and a few others. To make a conclusion based on this would be OR. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com,, published 19 mar 2024
The FIFA article indicates exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, before the Group stage started. Miria~01 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a great source, but where does it explicitly say what the current teams in contention are? If instead of a current ranking table, that section of the article merely contained a summary of what this source says (i.e. a list of teams that are still in contention as of the start of the group stage, perhaps including the rankings at that time from a source showing that) then this would be a perfectly good source for that. It would be outdated, but it would be backed by sources. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
But that's what WP:CALC is intended for.
What you explicitly ask for is a dynamic source like this FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ Confederations ranking that is updated after each game day with the information addition of eliminated clubs by the 4-year ranking . Or rather, there should always be news sources that confirm that a team no longer has a chance through the ranking after each match day. There are numerous of these news, but that would be a WP:OVERCITE, as there is no point in confirming an easy calculation again and again. These sources are more than sufficient for WP:CALC:
Miria~01 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, determining which additional teams are eliminated and which ones are still in contention requires more than just a simple calculation, so WP:CALC is insufficient. To make that determination, you need to both do a calculation *and* have additional context. Any conclusions drawn from that context need to come from a source. If you draw a conclusion about which teams are currently in contention from the sources you've just provided, none of which explicitly say which teams are currently in contention, then that is WP:SYNTH. Requiring a single source that says explicitly what is being claimed is no where near WP:OVERCITE (which is not policy, unlike WP:OR). So I'm not sure what your point is with that. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, if we had a source that also listed such a thing, then we should include it. If no other sources are talking about the teams "in contention" then we shouldn't either. Creating graphs and tables and the like for things isn't what we are here for. We summarise what sources say, rather than be the standard. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Yup, agree with Lee Vilenski. Kante4 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com
This FIFA article indicates exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, before the Group stage started. Now the question is whether WP:CALC could applied here after three match days have been played and show which clubs currently in contention through the 4-year ranking. Or is it really WP:SYNTH as @Bmf051 above stated. Miria~01 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I think there's a misunderstanding here about what WP:CALC is. Can you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers and the above article?
For example, suppose Libertad are in the semifinals and need 10 points to qualify by finishing third in the rankings out of eligible teams (assume that they cannot finish first or second). Suppose Flamengo are the only previous winner still alive. Can Libertad qualify via the rankings? It is impossible to answer that question without knowing whether Libertad and Flamengo are playing in the semifinals. If they play Flamengo, the answer is no. If they don't, the answer is yes. So this requires more information than just a basic calculation using just the numbers. WP:CALC does not apply. You're using WP:CALC to do a lot of heavy lifting here, for things that it is not intended for. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Specifically, WP:CALC mentions Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. So this is about whether these calculations are decided by consensus as routine. My long post near the start of this section outlines my opinion on the routine nature of the calculations (points for a win, points for a draw, points for reaching the next stage) over and above what is already published on the FIFA website (the reliable source, albeit a Primary one). I would consider the comment by @Bmf 051: that Can you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers and the above article? is not the correct question to pose; it should rather be Can you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers, the format of the calculation of points, and the Primary reliable source? to which the answer is Yes. Otherwise, by analogy it means most times that the status_TEAM=E is applied to a group table in a competition - before the group stage is completed - is also WP:OR. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
"RE: It should rather be..." This is not correct. What you are talking about is WP:SYNTH: taking a routine calculation, additional information, and other miscellany, then making your own conclusion about something that is not explicitly stated. If you could make that conclusion via only a routine calculation (and there was a consensus that the calculation was correct), that would be WP:CALC and would be fine. But that isn't the case here. Instead of trying to justify why this information doesn't need to come from a source, we would be better off spending our time looking for a source or simply representing what the sources already say.
Unfortunately, the qualification status on some pages is posted prematurely, before there is a source stating it. I think the reason people get a way with that is that often it either goes unnoticed or because the source is updated soon after the page is updated. That doesn't make this practice correct or okay. In this case with the "teams in contention" list, the lack of sources has not gone unnoticed, and the sources have not been updated after the fact, if they exist at all.
The argument you are making is a type of WP:WHATABOUTISM. Yes the rules are broken elsewhere. So what? Bmf 051 (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

To add to the discussion, an alternative format is presented at the article talk page that just captures the leading teams, which is available directly from the FIFA website (a primary source), and therefore meets WP:OR and needs no additional calculations. Perhaps this format is more acceptable if having the remaining 16 teams is not. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no issues with having just the rankings listed somewhere. As long as it continues to not make unsourced conclusions, it would indeed not be WP:OR IMHO. Though a separate page may be better, with perhaps a transclusion of part of the table on the respective annual Club World Cup page, when prudent. I think FootyRankings could be a good additional source for this, in the same way that https://kassiesa.net/uefa/ is used to supplement the UEFA coefficient page. Assuming FootyRankings is reliable.
The good thing about this solution is that it can be carried over to future tournaments. As soon as the next 4-year cycle kicks off for each confederation (and the sources publish the tables), the new rankings can be updated on WP. The current solution of listing teams in contention would not allow us to do that, since nearly every club in the world would be "in contention" at the start of a 4-year cycle. Bmf 051 (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I consider Footy Rankings to be a better solution for referencing in any case, as this website is a) a Secondary source, which is preferred over a Primary one, b) has traction as it is used currently for articles for AFC and UEFA coefficients, and c) generally kept up-to-date. A fork to a separate small article with this information (similar to the UEFA coefficient) is still going to have the same issue with respect to WP:OR vs WP:CALC; it doesn't achieve anything, AND that article will shrink to zero as teams become mathematically unable to achieve qualification via this ranking route. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
If we are literally just summarizing the content from FootyRanking, there should not be any issue with WP:OR aside from people updating it before the source is updated. We're ideally just displaying the information from the source and nothing more. Also, just as the UEFA Coefficient page doesn't "shrink to zero" when teams are eliminated, a separate small article for the Club World Cup rankings doesn't need to either, because there's nothing wrong with leaving some teams that are qualified or eliminated. We could just establish through consensus how the table should be displayed, which teams would be included, the minimum/maximum number of teams displayed for each confederation, etc. For example, for CONMEBOL currently, it might show the teams listed in green on FootyRankings and the top 12 teams in yellow (for a total of 15). But there might also be an OFC table with just the top 5. Perhaps UEFA would have 20 teams: the 12 in green, plus 8 in white. The others could have 10. This is just an example, and I just pulled numbers out of the air; I'm not saying we need to do exactly this. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I like FootyRankings too, but it's a blog with user-generated content WP:UGC from a twitter account (https://twitter.com/FootyRankings). In my opinion it's only okay as an additional source, but never as a main source. But I'm totally on board with the idea of only showing a maximum of teams. In this regard, I would only use the number of slots that are still available for the best-ranked clubs (not yet qualified as champions) in the respective confederation. For CONMEBOL it would now be the three best placed teams (as in https://inside.fifa.com/en/fifa-rankings/mundial-de-clubes: marked in orange Currently qualified clubs). Miria~01 (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
More sources couldn't hurt, and highlighting the orange clubs from the FIFA website instead would be fine too. One negative aspect of that is that FIFA sometimes list teams who can't qualify as "currently qualified". See Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors currently, and Philadelphia Union until a day or two ago.
I can't vouch for how the information from FootyRankings is generated or who generates it or how reliable it is, but is it's content coming from Twitter or is it just a website that also happens to publish its content on Twitter? Bmf 051 (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
The latter. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Just to illustrate what I mean: User:Bmf_051/sandbox/FIFA Club World Cup 4-year ranking. The general idea I'm thinking would be to always list some set number of clubs for each confederation (based on the number of teams that qualify, I went with 20 for UEFA, 15 for CONMEBOL, 5 for OFC, and 10 for the rest; I just picked these numbers out of the air). Then prioritize listing teams who have or may qualify over teams who cannot qualify, since that's the main point of the tables. Note that this information is entirely pulled from FootyRankings and FIFA - with the exception of Philadelphia Union and Club America's status, since they are still listed as potentially being able to qualify on FootyRankings. However, we can probably find one-off sources for stuff like that (i.e. when either website has not been kept up-to-date). I also updated Real Madrid and Bayern Munich's points, before the source has been updated. But updating point totals (and NOT concluding anything about qualifying status from them) is something that would fall under WP:CALC with a source for the match result.
Again, not saying we need to do it this way. But this is one way we might avoid having the tables shrink to zero or having it get too unwieldy with hundreds of teams. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Another idea is to have a template with the full ranking (or much of it) in a conditional table. That way it never shrinks to zero. But for contexts where we would like to keep it small (such as on the FIFA Club World Cup page for the current season), we give a parameter to collapse the table to just the teams in contention according to the sources.
Truncated table (default)
`{{User:Bmf 051/sandbox/Template:FIFA Club World Cup 4-year ranking (CONMEBOL)}}`
Rank Club 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
1   Palmeiras 43* 39 37 13† 132
2   Flamengo 46 52* 20 7† 125
3   Atlético Mineiro 38 26 17 15† 96
4   Fluminense 28 40* 11† 79
5   River Plate 22 23 19 13† 77
6   Boca Juniors 18 18 35 71
8   Olimpia 20 11 26 57
10   Nacional 11 10 19 10† 50
13   Independiente del Valle 8 11 19 7† 45
14   Cerro Porteño 16 14 7 8† 45
16   Bolivar 24 13† 37
17   Talleres 24 13† 37
18   São Paulo 25 12† 37
20   The Strongest 9 9 9 10† 37
21   Estudiantes 27 7† 34
Full table (parameter)
Only shows the first 21 teams, because I'm lazy
`{{User:Bmf 051/sandbox/Template:FIFA Club World Cup 4-year ranking (CONMEBOL)|fulltable=true}}`
Rank Club 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
1   Palmeiras 43* 39 37 13† 132
2   Flamengo 46 52* 20 7† 125
3   Atlético Mineiro 38 26 17 15† 96
4   Fluminense 28 40* 11† 79
5   River Plate 22 23 19 13† 77
6   Boca Juniors 18 18 35 71
7   Athletico Paranaense 37 22 59
8   Olimpia 20 11 26 57
9   Internacional 18 34 52
10   Nacional 11 10 19 10† 50
11   Vélez Sarsfield 19 30 49
12   Racing 21 27 48
13   Independiente del Valle 8 11 19 7† 45
14   Cerro Porteño 16 14 7 8† 45
15   Barcelona 30 7 5† 42
16   Bolivar 24 13† 37
17   Talleres 24 13† 37
18   São Paulo 25 12† 37
19   Argentinos Juniors 19 18 37
20   The Strongest 9 9 9 10† 37
21   Estudiantes 27 7† 34
This would require editors to have some knowledge of conditional tables. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Matilda Maniac@Miria~01 Since there seems to be agreement that we would all be fine with just showing the information from FIFA's website and perhaps supplemented by FootyRankings, I think I will update the table with that info when I get a chance. Basically adding some of the unlisted contenders from FootyRankings and highlighting the "current qualifiers" as per FIFA.
If someone else wants to do this before I do, that would be fine with me too. And if you don't agree with that, speak up. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your suggestion, I don't see any consensus with a conditional tables in a template, no another user supported this proposal either. The main idea is to show only the clubs that are in contention and not additional those that have already qualified, like the winners of the continental championships or have long qualifying tables with a permanent number of clubs based on an arbitrarily determined number. The described alternative to current practice, if it is rejected in a consensus because of WP:CALC, would be this (suggested also by @Matilda Maniac in the Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup#Eligible teams 4-year ranking):
Leading teams still in contention for qualification through four-year confederations rankings
Format and Legend as per the existing table
Teams 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
W D L Phase Points W D L Phase Points W D L Phase Points W D L Phase Points
River Plate 3 4 3 QF 22 5 2 1 R16 23 4 1 3 R16 19 3 1 0 GS 13 77
Boca Juniors 3 3 2 R16 18 3 3 2 R16 18 4 8 1 Final 35 0 0 0 DNQ 0 71
Olimpia 3 2 5 QF 20 2 2 2 GS 11 5 2 3 QF 26 0 0 0 DNQ 0 57

Miria~01 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed this reply. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting anything about the conditional tables idea. If you read the post, you will see that I believed we had agreed to at least update the table to match the source: that's why I said "just show the information from" the sources. Regardless, with the Inside FIFA source, the table now does exactly that, so it's a moot point (for now, at least). But I'm not sure where you concluded I was saying anything about the conditional tables idea. These were two separate ideas, two different posts, two different days. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not see that a consensus has been reached for change at this forum. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• If @Bmf 051: has concerns with WP:OR, then the alternative proposed seems to be suggesting changes that also don't meet that criterion. Bmf 051's proposition to have a separate article may have merit (like the UEFA or AFC coefficient ranking articles), but I wonder if that would meet WP:GNG as a stand-alone article forking out of the Club World cup article. A table that slowly shrinks appears to me to be the most appropriate course; it is shrinking each gameday as fewer teams are in contention. It is showing teams in contention rather than all teams coloured by whether they are in contention. The latter would be unwieldy. The addition to the table by @Miria~01: of a note in the Total column (which I think from a procedural perspective was very cheeky given the table was subject to debate here) nevertheless is useful as it clearly provides the result of the calculation for maximum points available. It is therefore easy to see that the remaining teams are still in contention, and there's the reference available (whether a primary source from FIFA, or whether replaced by a secondary source from Footy rankings). Regarding the 2029 Club World Cup article, such a table for teams in contention probably does not need to be developed until the 2028 competitions are underway (or at least well into the 2027 competitions). Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I think I've done all I can to explain to you why I think this approach is WP:OR and I don't wish to do it again. What you've said about it being "easy to see" is a bandwagon fallacy. And as I've said, having the calculation is still not enough information to conclude who is in contention. For example, the added note doesn't explain why Barcelona is not in contention. The table as-is is unsourced. I removed it as such, and it was restored despite the person restoring it not providing a source per WP:PROVEIT. This is just going around in circles. Regardless of what (if anything) replaces this table, it is unsourced and I don't think there has been a good argument for why it should remain. I will ask an admin who I've run into a few times in WP:FOOTY discussions such as this one for their objective opinion.
@GiantSnowman, would you mind informally weighing in on this? I believe the table 2025 FIFA Club World Cup#Teams still in contention for qualification through four-year confederations rankings is WP:OR and I removed it as such. The information is not sourced. It was restored, the argument from others being that it is WP:CALC. But as I've said above, determining who is in contention based on the rankings requires more than a trivial calculation (see my example involving Libertad above for when this can happen; there are certainly other examples). They're using WP:CALC to do some pretty heavy-lifting to avoid providing a source, which I think is not the purpose of WP:CALC. Should this table be allowed to stay despite lacking a source? I think it should be removed until either properly sourced or rewritten in such a way as to not make unsourced conclusions. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Source to back up current calculation.
Can qualify as 2024 Champions (27 clubs) – 1 spot: ...
Can qualify via Ranking (13 clubs) – 2 spots...
As things stand ahead of Matchday 5, other South American teams still have the opportunity to be one of the 32 clubs at the inaugural tournament in the United States next year.
A maximum 37 points are now available to non-champions: 12 by reaching the various knockout phase rounds, 25 in matches. This means:
All non-Brazilian teams still in the competition currently with 20 points or more can qualify via the ranking BUT ONLY if one of the Brazilian trio of former champions, Palmeiras, Flamengo or Fluminense, win the 2024 Libertadores. This would open up a third rankings pathway spot, and teams could overtake Club Olimpia (PAR, 57 points), who are not in this season’s CONMEBOL Libertadores.
All non-Brazilian teams with 34 points or more can overtake Boca Juniors (ARG, 71 points), who are not active this season, for the guaranteed second qualifying spot.
All non-Brazilian teams with 40 points or more can still overtake River Plate (ARG, 77 points), who are active this season.
inside.fifa.com, Monday 13 May 2024
And for scenarios there is always a source at FIFA and other news sites. For e.g. as it was for the River Plate scenario before the Matchday 4, how with a win they will be direct qualified via ranking. FIFA.com, 6 May 2024
Before the Group stage started, these articles from FIFA and ESPN, already mentioned in the discussion, indicate exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, how the calculation works and how many points are available:
That's why your arguments that there are no sources are untenable. And the calculation is trivial (explained also in the provide sources above): after every match day max. of 3 points less available, and additional 3 points less when a stage (group, knockout) is finished. If the maximum point yield is less than surpassing the still in contention leading third best-placed team at the ranking,[1] then you can no longer qualify via the ranking. Miria~01 (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, the Inside FIFA reference is a perfectly good source for the current information on the page. That is all I'm asking for: a source that backs this up. Keep in mind that as teams drop out of contention, we will still need to find sources to support that. Hopefully similar articles are published by FIFA that will allow this information to remain up-to-date.
I do not agree with your last paragraph. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE. If it isn't, it shouldn't be here. And I think you are abusing the intent of WP:CALC. The issue isn't whether calculating the point totals is trivial. The issue is that making a conclusion about who is in contention based on that calculation often requires more than just a calculation. These conclusions still need to be sourced. I'm hoping @GiantSnowman can still informally weigh in on that, as that's still the point of contention here. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
What does it mean @GiantSnowman, would you mind informally weighing in on this?? A single user you are cherry-picking to get involved to demonstrate the consensus you believe that you have? If consensus is now reached by your preferred committee of one, can I ask that no changes are made until after the Matchday 5 is completed, as to remove it during this three-day process is going to cause edit warring for sure? Yet I still do not see that this is a case of WP:CALC abuse, as per my original post here. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Quite the opposite of cherry-picking. I hardly have interacted with @GiantSnowman. But from the conversations I've been a part of in which they have been involved, they seem like a fair and even-handed admin who is active in WP:FOOTY and willing to offer help. As the conversation was going around in circles, I was hoping an unbiased third-party could give some advice on whether they think declaring teams in/out of contention requires a source or if, like you said, it requires no source due to WP:CALC. I was honestly tired of going backwards and forwards on this, and was hoping to get an answer while also avoiding being accused of WP:CANVASSING. GiantSnowman was just the first person I thought of.
As for not changing anything, I have no intention of "deleting" the current table, because the source provided above from Inside FIFA supports its inclusion. I also have no issues with the numbers in the table being updated (because *that* is IMO covered by WP:CALC). My issue is with declaring teams in/out of contention without a source, and claiming it's okay because of WP:CALC and not something more nuanced. i.e. I think removing teams from the table without a source could potentially be WP:OR. But hopefully, Inside FIFA will provide another article that supports those changes.
I am unsure why this has suddenly become hostile and accusatory. I feel like this conversation has been quite civil up to this point. I do not appreciate being accused of edit-warring when I've in total made one revert on the page in question. Engaging in WP:BRD is not edit-warring. Bmf 051 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I have not repeat not accused you of edit warring at all, but I am just reflecting that ANYONE deleting the table just now in the middle of lots of other people editing this article in the middle of Matchday 5, and not everyone editing well (see todays reverts), will likely cause reverting and restoring left-right-centre. If it has to change because consensus is reached here, do it on the weekend. As a separate issue, it does look to me that WP:CANVASSING is evident. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
How does this not fit under WP:APPNOTE? Limited notification, I described both sides of the argument (WP:OR vs. WP:CALC) to the best of my understanding, I made no assumptions about the admin's opinion, and I did it openly. Asking an admin for help is not canvassing.
I think I deserve an explanation. If you're going to accuse me of something, you need to provide some reasoning. If you truly think I'm WP:CANVASSING, there are ways you can address it. Why have you not taken any of those steps? Bmf 051 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I have no views on this topic to 'weigh in'. GiantSnowman 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• As was mentioned earlier, I considered that this article was the appropriate place for the tables of teams in contention, rather than a fork to a separate article on qualification. I note that 2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualifying has now been created and has now been nominated for deletion (link here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualifying). Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The result of the AFD process was to Delete. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

## National team logos

Looks like the Canada Soccer logo has been removed from Canada men's national soccer team and Canada women's national soccer team due to a violation of WP:NFC#UUI section 17. How should this be resolved? A picture of a team lineup, the national flag, or somehow restoring the logo? SounderBruce 05:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The logo belongs to Canadian Soccer, so we can only use it on that article. Even if other people use the Canadian Soccer logo for the teams, it isn't the logo of them so won't meet Wikipedia's non free image policy. This is the case for all logos of football/soccer (and other sports)' organisations, if the logo is of the organisation and not the team itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I think using the national flag would be appropriate alternative. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. The flag is not uniquely associated with the team. A better alternative would be to use a photo of the team in action. – PeeJay 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree that an action photo of the team is preferable to the national flag. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

## Fix copy paste move

Can an admin maybe fix this copy paste move: AFC Women's Club Championship to AFC Women's Champions League. Also is there a better place to post these? -Koppapa (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Per AFC, it is a brand new competition ("inaugural", "maiden season") and not just a rebrading of the current AFC Women's Club Championship which is just a pilot competition, so AFC Champions League should have a separate article maybe? Snowflake91 (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@Koppapa, in case you didn't know, I think you could have undid those cut and paste edits yourself, but at least that part of the problem has been solved.
A WP:RM involving swapping both page titles is certainly better than using copy paste move since the article page history is preserved unlike what happened earlier on today. I am wondering what others think about this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, swapping titles should always be done through RM. This allows a pagemover or admin to perform the swap much more easily than someone without those permissions. Copy-paste moves should never be done since attribution for past contributions is lost. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Attribution for past contributions can still be maintained through WP:HISTMERGE where appropriate for a copy-paste move. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

## Two requests

Firstly, is anyone able to move Wokingham & Emmbrook F.C. back to Wokingham Town F.C. to reflect their new name change? Won't let me do it, presumably because Wokingham Town already exists as a redirect.

Secondly, the FA allocations for 24/25 have just come out. If anyone is able to update {{English football updater}} to add the new clubs in and their 23/24 league positions, it'd be appreciated (mainly to stop me from doing it and inadvertently destroying the template).

Cheers. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Have moved the Wokingham article. I am planning on updating the updater once the season is properly completed (i.e. after EFL play-off finals and the appeals against the FA's step 1-6 allocations are heard), meaning all allocations for next season are final. If new leagues are updated before all leagues are complete and all promotion/relegation finalised, you end up with a situation where clubs are already listed as playing in leagues that are still ongoing). Cheers, Number 57 00:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Appreciate it, knew you'd come in to save the day! NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 11:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

## Invitation to the talk of Argentina–Brazil football rivalry article

Please, I invite you to the talk page of the article Argentina–Brazil football rivalry here [2], where there is a dispute about the official count of matches, with many sources that differ. I thank you for your participation. Regards, Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

## Forth Rangers?

Has anyone heard of a Scottish team called Forth Rangers? This isn't another name for Falkirk is it? Govvy (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a place called Forth near Lanark but I think the team you are referring to were based in Grangemouth (next to Falkirk) and played in the junior leagues from 1890 to 1956. Crowsus (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Short answers: yes and no it isn't. Slightly longer answer: Two clubs used the name. One was a very short-lived club from Forth that existed for a season in the 1890s. The other was a junior club from Grangemouth which regularly entered the Junior Cup from 1890 until 1956 when it merged with Grange Rovers (also from Grangemouth) to form Grangemouth United. The merged club became defunct in 1966. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I was working on William McNair (footballer) article, in Goodwin's book he said he played for Falkirk, but I was wondering if he got mixed up with a different team of either Forth Rangers or one of the other clubs in Falkirk. Goodwin doesn't even mention his time at Celtic which I added. Didn't find the best sources, but if anyone can improve the article please do. Govvy (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

## [Seasons] in English football articles

I've been looking at the recent few season articles, e.g. 2023–24 in English football with the sections "Managerial changes". The only changes included in there are just for the teams eligible for the EFL Cup, Because English women's football clubs are also in these articles and some of them have had managerial changes as well, I think it would make sense to have those changes on the appropriate article since coverage gets increasingly popular. Same could be said with retirements for the same reason regarding popularity. Thoughts? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

## User:Davidlofgren1996

This user came to my attention when they were indefinitely blocked for a reason that was nothing to do with football. However, a lot of their football player creations don't appear to be notable. I've found 3 in their most recent 5 that I've sent to AfD, and they appear to have created hundreds of articles. A lot of them are very young teenage players that have played for their national U-17 sides but have never played a professional game. Here's a list of their creations if anyone is really bored.... Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

## English First Division top scorer in 1889–90

Multiple sources state that Jimmy Ross (footballer, born 1866) was the top scorer in 1889–90 Football League. But in the article 1889–90 Preston North End F.C. season Nick Ross (footballer, born 1862) is the top scorer in that Preston North End season. Also according to Career statistics in Jimmy Ross article he scored 19 goals in 1889–90 season, not 24. I think this issue should be checked, maybe in books or enfa.co.uk (I don't have a subscription). --Corwin of Amber (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

ENFA gives Jimmy Ross 19 league goals + 2 FA Cup; Nick Ross 22 League goals + 2 FA Cup. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Struway2! Is ENFA a reliable source? If so, we should change Jimmy for Nick in 1889–90 Football League, Template:English First Division top scorers, List of English football first tier top scorers. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
It's a reliable source, and presumably its figures are the result of more recent research than the very longstanding sources for Jimmy's 24. The 2004 edition of Michael Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 doesn't do breakdown by season, but gives both brothers the same totals of apps/goals for Preston as enfa does. I'd be inclined to believe enfa, personally. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

## Dragan Šolak and Sports Republic

Hello, I would like to seek editor input on an outstanding edit request on the Dragan Šolak (businessman) article and its Sports Republic section. I thought editors here may be interested due to Sports Republic's involvement in football.

Disclosure: I am employed by United Group and Dragan Šolak, which is why I am seeking review by others.

Thank you AlexforUnited (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

## UEFA club final shootouts

I see Category:Association football penalty shoot-outs was deleted, my main question is to check in advance if it is felt a list of shootouts in UEFA club competition finals would be notable? Obviously don't want to put it together then have it deleted.

On a side point, while I was looking into that I came upon European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics, which I've seen before but don't recall being quite so bloated. Is NOTSTATS completely ignored on a statistics article? Overlinking as well (e.g 200+ links to Real Madrid). Could do with a tidy up IMO. Crowsus (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There was some discussion of how much stats is too much for a stats-specific page when FIFA World Cup records and statistics went to AfD in 2022. My interpretation of the result was that sourcing all the stats to a WP:RS was imperative to show notability as well as accuracy. There was a major clean up effort, and while the page is still very long, everything in it is now properly sourced. Wburrow (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that is needed. -Koppapa (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

## Discovery plus

I tried for a whole hour to see if I can watch the Europa League final, I thought you can watch it for free, but I've had nothing but paywalls, how about the rest of you? Anyone tried? Govvy (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, this is for discussion editing Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
no need to be so PC, I asked a straight question about football, and this is a football project!! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, a Wikipedia football project, not a media streaming football project. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

## Match report discussion style

Per this discussion on WikiProject Football, it appears to be the best course of action to edit match report external links to full cited templates because of WP:LINKROT. I have made a WP:BOTREQ to apply this to other pages, but it seems further consensus is required. Feel free to leave comments about this here, whether opposing or supporting this argument. Pinging @Stevie fae Scotland as they have been implementing this in some pages. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

## Tranmere Rovers F.C. listed for Good article reassessment

Tranmere Rovers F.C. has been listed under Good article reassessment. If you have anything to add, please do by adding to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)