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.

Assists on 2023–24 A-League Men

Would some editors here please help explain the consensus not to add assists to league pages? I have reverted Alza08 twice on 2023–24 A-League Men and do not wish to get blocked for edit-warring. Alza08 is not listening and is claiming that other league pages list assists. --SuperJew (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

some examples from a quick search: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_12#Assists, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_78#Assists_in_season_article, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_164#Assist_table_to_club_season_articles. Also, the MoS for league seasons doesn't include assists. --SuperJew (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why people put assists on season pages, it's overkill and we have WP:NOSTATS to cover a degree of overkill. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Given some goals are not assisted by a team mate, such as the opposition giving the ball away to the goalscorer, penalties and own goals, I consider assists as an incomplete list of facts on how goals are created. e.g. the top of the report from this game did not name the Newcastle player who assisted the own goal by Deniz Undav last year while a Premier League match yesterday did not have an assist when the BBC compiled the report. I can see SuperJew has taken away assists tables already. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Assists should not be included, not least per WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 11:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User Kolya77 is also objecting to removal of assists on Moldovan Super Liga pages (for example) and would like to challenge the consensus here. --SuperJew (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I think this consensus should be properly documented and codified (maybe on the league season page MoS?) so there is a proper link to show users claiming there is no such consensus. --SuperJew (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus for this. GiantSnowman 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of assists there. --SuperJew (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes - I meant to add it there. GiantSnowman 12:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to remove them, but meeting pushback and don't want to be in an edit war. --SuperJew (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We can discuss this , but this will lead nowhere, usually it will be as Mr Snowman wants. Have a good day guys.Kolya77 (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it will be as the community agrees. If that's the level of your contributions then I suggest you stop posting. GiantSnowman 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

you're the one who was asking to discuss again and again, but when given the opportunity seems you are not interested to discuss. --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We have discussed this multiple times, just because this user don't like the outcome, that's too bad. Consensus is against adding it, and it's a clear violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

On this note, there are many articles with top assists listed. If anyone wants to join me in trying to clear them out, that'd be good. --SuperJew (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Kowalczyk900 is re-adding assists to 2023–24 Premier League with no explanation and I'm on verge of editwar. --SuperJew (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a clear mention of assists is required in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus prior to any attempts to start removing top assists sections from any article. And I would be very careful in making any changes to North American league articles, where assists are considered really important (and sometimes have associated awards and attract referenceable media attention), and where there would be considerable pushback. Perhaps concentrate on non-North American articles more generally, and see how much traction or opposition ensues from those edits. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I added. Feel free to improve my wording. --SuperJew (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt see this post earlier. It presents to me like a circular argument, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus should really be referencing one of the many previous discussions around assists rather than this current one. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 14:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

2024–25 season articles

If anyone's interested in seeing what the 2024–25 English club-season articles are going to look like (including overly detailed squad tables and everyone's favourite round-by-round league positions), have a lookie here. Maybe we can nip it in the bud now, saving ourselves hours of work in the summer. Seasider53 (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Why wait? Just look at the Singapore 2024–25 season articles. Rumours sections! Youth teams results! Women's results! Dougal18 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Definitely pertinent to next season to know how much money a club paid to sign players anything up to nine years earlier.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

How did I guess who drafted that Liverpool article, full of nonsense...?! GiantSnowman 13:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Next season’s West Ham page uses the rumoured transfer fee on many occasions where the actual fee was undisclosed. What was wrong with the current season with no fees, no "first signed" dates and no youth team players with zero appearances in the squad list?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That level of detail is not needed. GiantSnowman 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also can't see how "contract expiry date" is in any way relevant. Has anyone ever looked at 1967–68 Manchester United F.C. season and thought "well, it's good, but what I really want to know is when George Best's contract was going to expire"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Also the verifiability of lots of this superfluous information is questionable. GiantSnowman 15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Horrible *cries in fancruft* Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this being overkill and way too much info. Since we talk about those articles, i ping @Skyblueshaun:, so he can join the discussion. Kante4 (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry if you think this is overkill, I just took the inspiration from here, and here, and here for example. If someone could send me a draft season article then that would be appreciated. Most League Two and some League One clubs won't have season articles if not created. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons has been in existence for 17 years. GiantSnowman 15:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use that template in future, may I add a "Released" section in the "Transfer" section please, so we can see what players were released/let go before joining a new subsequent club. Also I'll use the "footballbox collapsible" template for matches. Again, thank you. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That club seasons template clearly states that there are MOS:ACCESS issues with footballbox collapsible. It would be advisable to use one of the other formats. You could also just use the footballbox (ie- get rid of the collapsible function) as that gets around most of the problems with it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yellow and red cards are still not part of the match summaries in the WP:FOOTY manual of style, by the way. Only goals should be listed outside of the attendance, referee etc. I don't understand why you include such irrelevant information, making so much work for yourself, when maybe three other readers find it useful. Seasider53 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not the only editor to use yellow and red cards, Most of the season articles I come across do include cards. Skyblueshaun (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

See confirmation bias. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

and also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 18:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Do or do we Not include cards then, If I am being warned to stop then so should everyone else. Skyblueshaun (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You claim to be copying other articles. Don’t, and you’ll be fine. Seasider53 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This says "Goals scored and optionally cards issued". Dougal18 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The documentation has been like that for almost 15 years, consensus appears to have changed since then. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

We can't really complain about that if it's currently part of the documentation. I don't know that it's worth discussing its removal either, considering there's so much else that we need to clamp down on regarding the current state of season articles. Seasider53 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Not to dwell on this, but I just noticed the visual editor doesn't have a field for cards (unless I'm misunderstanding its functionality), so maybe their non-inclusion is worth enforcing... Seasider53 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this one better here? Skyblueshaun (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If you’re going by the season template, nobody can have any qualms. Seasider53 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

And that still has position-by-round, which has been deemed useless in WP:FOOTY discussions of yore. Seasider53 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't include colours in the transfers tables. It's unneccessary decoration which can make it hard for some users to read. --SuperJew (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that Leeds are definitely getting promoted, that'll save a lot of stress over the next four weeks... Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see this article, here, this wasn't created by me but also includes the first team squad table. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, again. GiantSnowman 11:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Changes to report style

As was discussed in this discussion, the style of how to indicate match reports has changed, but not all articles follow this. Is there a good way to promote this change and make it more well known, or is just going through and manually editing the best way to handle this for now?
Pinging @Stevie fae Scotland because he is the one who made this change, and who let me know about this change. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to manually update them but there's no obligation. You may be able to get a bot to assist though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any experience getting those to work? Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 12:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll need someone more technical than I. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You could make a request at WP:BOTREQ, but you'd need to show there is consensus for this, and have a clear description of what is needed.

As an alternative, you could also get consensus for the module changed so that it automatically creates a reference instead of a link. Spike 'em (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Are the playoffs of the New Zealand Football Championship a national cup?

After several reversions from @ABC paulista in the Treble (association football) article, I would like to ask for your help here. He claims that the New Zealand Football Championship playoffs at end of the regular season are a national cup itself (even the main one in New Zealand), because a trophy is presented. The main traditional national cup, the Chatham Cup, founded in 1923 and contested with over 100 teams, is in his opinion no longer the main national cup for the years 2004–2021, because clubs from the franchise league were not eligible in these years. So he now interprets the playoffs, played just by the four best-placed teams after the regular season, of this franchise league as the main national cup. Miria~01 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Miria~01 You're distorting my words, I've neve said that the Catham Cup stopped being a main national competition, or that the Grand Final superceded it in any way. I'm arguing that, for the franchises and the NZFC, their main cup was the Grand Final, and not the Catham Cup, because the latter wasn't part of that league structure and the franchises didn't take part on it. It isn't about the country itself, it's about the NZFC, the league that was affiliated to the OFC at the time.

And that doesn't undermine the Catham Cup's importance or weight, it's just that it was a disctinct entity on the New Zealand footbal at the time, part of another structure. One could argue that during the NZFC era there were two main cups: The Grand Final for the franchises, and the Catham Cup for the traditional clubs, and IMO it's not a wrong assessement.

Also, just because the Grand Final is a playoff-styled competition doesn't mean that it can't be considered a national cup and a important one. There are many other important playoff-styled national cups aroud the world, like the A-League Grand Final in Australia, the MTN 8 in South Africa, the HKPLC Cup in Hong Kong and the MLS Cup in the USA. The Supercopa do Brasil de Futebol Feminino, which employs a style similar to a playoff, is considered to be the main cup in the Brazilian Women's football system.

Not only that, but the Grand Final's importance has enough recognition from confederations like FIFA and OFC, and media outlets like Otago Daily Times, Stuff and The New Zealand Herald to recognize the title as part of domestic and continental trebles. ABC paulista (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your definition of a national cup is very questionable, even absurd. According to you, the playoffs to decide a championship are equivalent to a national cup. Neither the MLS Cup nor the playoffs (final series) to decide the champion of New Zealand Football Championship are a national cup. A national cup is a real new competition, and not an extension of the championship. The contrast between U.S. Open Cup and MLS Cup is obvious. (definition of national cup: "Governance models across football associations and leagues", International Centre for Sports Studies. p. 58.)

You haven't shown a single source where these playoffs are called a national cup. The treble is not about winning any three titles. The premier national league championship, the primary national cup and main continental trophy must be won, as also defined in the article.

Your source may also recognize three titles, but put the word treble in quotation marks at the same time. In the media, the word treble is used in a very inflationary way for all sorts of three titles in one season in order to emphasize the greatness of this achievement. The exact definition or origin is usually knowingly ignored. That's why you should be careful and substantiate with other independent sources. Here we have a source (https://olympics.com/en/news/what-treble-football-winners) from the website of the IOC with different information and your Waitakere is not listed. However, I would never cite this source as the one and only clear evidence. Miria~01 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Miria~01 It's not written anywhere that a playoff cannot be considered a national cup, and the CIES document you brought is a study on general cases rather than a mandate on how things are supposed to be. And it's not my definition because I defined nothing, don't atribute this to me and it's not up to us to decide that, only the confederations and reliable sources can do that, and since sources like The Sporting News, Football Paradise and Sporting Life, among the aforementioned ones above, explicitally cites the NZFC continental trebles, then it's implicited that the Grand Final is being included and that it is being considered the main cup tournaments for these instances for being the only domestic cup competition on the count. Demanding that the weight of each competition to be explicitally attributed on the matter seems to fall on WP:PEDANTRY to me.

With the amount of sources presented so far, IMO to discredit them there should be similar sourcing directly questioning these instances. Not citing them wouldn't be enough, since these ones could be only using different criteria for the trebles, like the IOC one you brought or the Transfermarkt one, for example. ABC paulista (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Miria~01 and ABC paulista can pause for a little while and see what others at this forum might think? Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, let other people chime in first.

My view, if reliable sources consider the achievements by Auckland City and Waitakere United to be continental trebles then their inclusion is valid. If not, they should be removed. I see there are primary sources for the Auckland City ones, secondary sources would be better. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the definition than denying them a treble. The article mentions a source right at the beginning from FIFA with an idiosyncratic interpretation Raja conquered Africa, completing a remarkable continental treble in 1999 by winning the CAF Champions League, the CAF Super Cup and the Afro-Asian Club Championship. ... Individual sources contradict each other in the original definition. Hence the question of whether a playoff for the championship can be seen as a national cup. If not, perhaps the definition in this aspect simply needs to be changed for a "genuine treble". Miria~01 (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the definitions themselves aren't set in stone, they can be changed and adapted under some circunstances and there's little consistency about which term identifies what, especially outside Europe, so overall it ends being more subjective than one would assume. Overall, the importance and/or weight of the competition is more dictated by the perception of the people involved with it, or around it, than by its "type"/"style"/rules or nomenclature. ABC paulista (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hull City A.F.C.

Hull City A.F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I see Untitled740 disruptive finger prints on the article, the article needs to be cleaned up from it. False positives at play. Govvy (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Clubs with same name - infobox (River Plate)

So Club Atlético River Plate is the clear primary topic, but Club Atlético River Plate (Montevideo) also exists. Checking players from that club, they simply list River Plate in the infobox as the club, which can very easily be confused for the Argentine club. I know other clubs for example get listed like Botafogo-SP, Botafogo-PB to differentiate. I also notice this with Hong Kong Rangers F.C. being simply listed as Rangers in infoboxes, when the Scottish clubs is the main primary. What can be done? RedPatch (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The Brazilian state names should really be spelled out, given they're not particularly well known outside of South America and the Lusophone world. Hack (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's mostly a question of context. A Uruguayan player who has spent all his career in the Uruguayan Primera División, seems okay to me to have it "River Plate" in the infobox, but a foreign player, especially Argentinian and especially one who has spent time in the Uruguayan and Argentinian leagues (such as Ramiro Fernández (whose infobox should be updated btw)), I would have it River Plate (Montevideo) in the infobox. --SuperJew (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we don't really have to worry about this unless a player plays for both similar named clubs. Ortizesp (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Tim Matavž played for both ND Gorica (Slovenian team) and HNK Gorica (Croatian team), and both teams are widely known solely as "Gorica" and nothing else, so how would be distinguish that? Snowflake91 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Use the full name of the clubs i would say for Matavž. Kante4 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree for Matavž. GiantSnowman 20:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say they shouldn't be piped to "Gorica", per "Ambiguity" at WP:KARLSRUHER. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Crystal Palace first stadium

I was looking at Crystal Palace F.C. and went to Crystal Palace National Sports Centre, however, it's not exactly clear but I assume this was this Crystal Palace first ground? Was there an original older name for the ground? Govvy (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That article is seemingly about the stadium built in 1964. Their first stadium - on the site of the 'National Sports Centre' - was just called 'Crystal Palace Stadium' I think? GiantSnowman 20:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

..or even just 'Crystal Palace'? GiantSnowman 20:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

See e.g. this which refers to the stadium as just 'Crystal Palace'. GiantSnowman 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

From what I can find it seems to have been referred to simply as ‘The Sports Center’ or ‘The Sports Stadium’ while Palace where there. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I can go with Crystal Palace Stadium and make it a redirect to the National Sports Centre article. That would cover the historic value in my view. Govvy (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Match results after penalties

Hey, Pròssia (talk · contribs) is changing match results after penalties from "Draw" to "Win" or "Loss" and cites the IFAB (see the discussion at Real Madrid). Has there anything changed from before where it was counted as a draw (as far as i can remember it was)? Kante4 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting to bring the IFAB, as seems can be interperated either way. Searching for "penalt" there are 238 mentions, so I'll start with the first few and later keep looking. The first one seems to support the penalty shoot-out is part of the match: entering the field at the start of the match until after the match has ended, including during the half-time interval, extra time and penalties (penalty shoot-out). However the next reference seems to support the pso isn't part of the match: A player who is still serving a temporary dismissal at the end of the match is permitted to take part in penalties (penalty shoot-out). Will look further later :) --SuperJew (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

okay, I think it's quite clear. At the end of page 87: Penalties (penalty shoot-out) are taken after the match has ended. Quite clearly the pso is not part of the match. --SuperJew (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found this article with a pretty definitive quote: [IFAB Technical Director David] Elleray stated, “Law 10 makes it clear that a match is drawn, won or lost according to the number of goals both teams score ‘normal’ time or in ‘normal’ time + extra time. “‘Away goals’ and ‘kicks from the penalty mark’ (KFPM) are not part of the match itself and only are used to determine a ‘winning team’ where one is required. For KFPM, this is made clear in the next section of Law 10.” Wburrow (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Your article is only an interpretation of the Law. Says literally this: The official Laws of the Game, which are the responsibility of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) could be interpreted in other ways, but we have always held the belief that they explain the situation as we understood it.

We are in a regulatory contradiction with IFAB and FIFA. The IFAB considers extra time and penalty kicks to have the same status (procedures to determine a winning team) so if the penalty kicks are tied at a statistical level, the extra time would still be the same. But FIFA makes a distinction between extra time and penalty kicks. I think that extra time should have the same status as penalties as the IFAB says (it's who writes the rules). So all ties. Pròssia (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Please, see (p.77) of the IFAB laws: The Duration of the Match. Can explain me why extra-time and penalties are not mentioned? Pròssia (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi football editors, my modifications are based on current and official regulations. See IFAB rules 23/24 (p. 87): https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2023-24?l=en

Extra time and penalty shootouts are an extension of the match due to the fact that there was no winner in 90m. The referee cannot declare the end of the match until there is a winner in it. In the penalty shoot-out, the players who have contested the regulation time take part and players outside of this cannot participate. Also, looking at most sports chronicles, there is a tendency to say that the match was won in penalty shootout or after penalty shootout. The rules of the game are clear.

Question: Why a game won or lost in extra time is not declared as a draw? Is extra time different from a penalty shootout? No. They are simply extensions of the same match. The IFAB rules put it in the same category both. The game ends once the penalties have been taken. It cannot end earlier because there is no winner. I think the logic is pretty clear.

The rules are very clear: When competition rules require a winning team after a home-and-away tie, the only permitted procedures to determinate a winning team are:

- away goals rule

- extra time

- penalties

A combination may be used.

UEFA decided to eliminate away goals and could perfectly determine penalties after 90m. without doing extra time. They are all ways to end the game. Each competition chooses its own.

Oficial rules of the game: https://www.theifab.com/laws-of-the-game-documents/?language=all&year=2023%2F24 Pròssia (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between determining a winner for purposes of advancement in a tournament and determining a winner for statistical purposes. The rules you're quoting are focused on advancement, but don't address how to keep statistics. I can't immediately find a document stating how to handle PSOs for statistical purposes, but there are documents that show how this is handled in practice. Here is a FIFA Fact Sheet showing the records of each team at the World Cup through 2014. If you look at Italy's WC match results, you can see that FIFA clearly considers matches that go to PSO to be draws, and matches decided during ET to be wins/loses. Wburrow (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The rules also say matches last 90 minutes. My view, the only consistent way to do it is to take results at 90 minutes. However, statistical convention as Wburrow points out is to count matches which go to penalties as draws and matches which are decided in extra time as win/loss. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland:@Wburrow:@SuperJew:@Iggy the Swan:@PeeJay:

Please, see (page 77) of the IFAB laws: The Duration of the Match. Can explain me why extra-time and penalties are not mentioned? Pròssia (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland:@Wburrow:@SuperJew:@Iggy the Swan:@PeeJay:

Please, see (page 170 — Football Terms) of the IFAB 23/24 laws: Penalties (penalty shoot-out): Method of deciding the result of a match. Pròssia (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the written rules are not fully consistent in how they describe what is or is not technically part of the match. But remember that these rules don't exist to determine which matches get a W, D, or L next to them on Wikipedia - they exist to determine which team advances (or is crowned champion) after a match that's tied after normal time, and they are unambiguous when applied to their purpose.

So how do we interpret the rules and resolve the statistical inconsistency? The good news is that we don't have to: it's not up to us. We have to present what's found in reliable sources. I've already provided sources showing that the Technical Director of IFAB and the statisticians at FIFA consider extra time, but not penalties, to be part of the match. Presenting an interpretation that contradicts the conclusion of the sources would constitute WP:OR. Wburrow (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We are in a regulatory contradiction with IFAB and FIFA. The IFAB considers extra time and penalty kicks to have the same status (procedures to determine a winning team) so if the penalty kicks are tied at a statistical level, the extra time would still be the same. But FIFA makes a distinction between extra time and penalty kicks. I think that extra time should have the same status as penalties as the IFAB says (it's who writes the rules). So all ties. Pròssia (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of a more basic discussion I've responded in once, now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 162#Can I get some extra eyes...... - cannot guarantee the IP and the user linked in the opening edit of this section are the same person. At the time, I was not aware of the green text from the sources linked in this section, just the basic understanding of the managerial stats specialist editor, Saintandy7, saying a draw is a draw before penalty shootout takes place. For those who are not aware: the same text from the Real Madrid season page has possibly been copied off the Talk:2023–24 Manchester City F.C. season page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If we start changing things now, that's going to cause all sorts of problems for historical statistics. Either way, factually, penalty shoot-outs are not part of the match; they are only used to determine which team progresses to the next stage of a tournament (or who wins the tournament in the case of a final). If the scores in a single match are level after 90 minutes or after extra time, that match is drawn regardless of anything that happens in a subsequent penalty shoot-out. – PeeJay 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

So, matches which go to penalties as draws and matches which are decided in extra time as win/loss? And how to explain that: 1. (page 77) of the IFAB 23/24 laws: The Duration of the Match. Can explain me why extra-time and penalties are not mentioned? 2. (page 170 — Football Terms Definitions) of the IFAB 23/24 laws: Penalties (penalty shoot-out): Method of deciding the result of a match. Pròssia (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The Laws of the Game literally say in Law 10 "Penalties (penalty shoot-out) are taken after the match has ended", i.e. the match is over, the result has been confirmed as a draw, hence the need for the shoot-out. You surely can't be so dense as to think that we're incapable of the same level of lawyering as you about this. But no, sure, feel free to continue picking and choosing which bits you want to support your case... – PeeJay 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland:@Wburrow:@SuperJew:@Iggy the Swan:@PeeJay:@SportingFlyer:@ColchesterSid:

Official UEFA report of Man.City–Real Madrid: Literally say: Agg: 4-4 – Real Madrid win on penalties. Yes, win on penalties and not win the penalty shoot-out. So, as per UEFA official report, Real Madrid won on penalties the match. See: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/match/2040496--man-city-vs-real-madrid/matchinfo/ Pròssia (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. You quote the IFAB, which specifically says penalties take place after the match, and then you claim Real Madrid wins the match because they won the penalty kick shootout. UEFA could be more specific and say "Real Madrid win the tie on penalties," but they're not interested in being verbose just for our conversation here. SportingFlyer T·C 05:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning historic statistics - I assume that in the days when European ties were determined by the toss of a coin we statistically record those matches as draws? For example - Liverpool v Koln European Cup 1964-65 quarter final there were three draws followed by a coin toss - you would not say Liverpool won because they guessed heads or tails ColchesterSid (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The match itself was a draw. A penalty shoot-out is a glorified coin toss, so actual coin tosses should be treated the same way. – PeeJay 22:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the IFAB laws which state that a game is considered drawn at full-time even if extra time is required. It does specifically say penalty kicks take place after the match but says nothing about extra time, and it's clear from previous statistics that games won or lost in extra time are still considered wins and losses. These changes should be reverted. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As others have stated, the penalty shoot-out is not part of the match, so the final result prior to the shoot-out is counted for statistical purposes. Otherwise we would be saying Aston Villa just won both legs against Lille, which is patently false. I have seen some articles which separately colour the score of the penalty shoot-out, such as at Croatia national football team results (2020–present)#2023, though I am not sure what others think of this. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Colour should never be the sole determinant for information display, and I honestly cannot tell the difference there. SportingFlyer T·C 05:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of this side-issue escalating and derailing the main topic . . . . colouring the score of the penalty shoot-outs AND the two-legged aggregates at Croatia national football team results (2010–2019) and Croatia national football team results (2020–present) is quite hard to see on a laptop or on a mobile phone, and constitutes WP:ICONDECORATION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matilda Maniac (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

For statistical purposes, matches won on penalties are draws. See for example this recent article about the Champions' League: [1]: While Manchester City's defeat by Real Madrid ends their Champions League hopes, as penalties do not count in coefficient terms, the game ended in a draw, and this is how FIFA/UEFA categorise all penalty shootouts for statistical purposes. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It would especially make no sense if the penalty shoot-out determined the result of the game in the case of Aston Villa's match last night. We'd have to say that, what, Villa won the match 1–2? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with recording them as draws. Penalties are a tie-breaker for purposes of advancement. CTD's point is evidence of that. RedPatch (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

updating crests?

I would like to point out that JpTheNotSoSuperior has gone through some articles changing the crest format image from *.png to *.svg formatting. I am not sure what's going on, why it needs changing, am I missing something?

• Huddersfield Town
• Colchester United
• Bradford City
• Millwall, I reverted this, I think the colour change isn't black, but a very dark blue.
• Blyth Spartans
• Newport County
• Salford City
• Stevenage
• Brighton

I am I a bit unclear why we need changing to svg formatting.. But I am a bit lost why these needed changing. Do they need to be reverting? Govvy (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the first thing you should do before opening this up for wider discussion here is to ask them on their Talk page. Seems like you haven't? Robby.is.on (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I opened it here for an open discussion! :/ Govvy (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

JpTheNotSoSuperior can best explain their motives. If you then find their reasoning lacking or if the two of you can't reach a common understanding, you can still bring the issue here. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:IUP#FORMAT does suggest Drawings, icons, logos, maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. I believe that these scale better between large and small screens for simple images like logos, but not 100% on the details about that. Either way, having a discussion about maybe doing mass changes is better than just doing them. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"I think the colour change isn't black, but a very dark blue" - Wasn't this a bit in Father Ted? EchetusXe 16:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

1906–07 Western Football League

Can someone make the tables transclude for me, thank you. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Cup top scorer navboxes

Template:Taça de Portugal top scorers seems a little weird to me. I haven't seen a top goalscorer navbox for cups before, and there is none for the FA Cup etc. Isn't this overly detailed, who really keeps tabs on cup goalscorers? Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There are some here. Kante4 (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Taça de Portugal winning managers too. It has a category where I see very few national cup winner templates, though there are many for national teams. In my opinion, both templates I mentioned are examples of overly detailed statistics. Football fans have a propensity for that. Geschichte (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)