Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Active discussions
WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Infobox image size for football articlesEdit

Is there a default image size for club article infobox images that goes is more specific that WP:IUP#Infobox and lead images and H:INFOP? There’s an IP who seems to be changing lots of infobox images to 250px or 300px. Generally, infobox image is not fixed per se because the software will automatically size the image according to user preferences or the device they’re using. The default size, I believe, tends to be about 220px, but maybe it varies by infobox. If the image sizes need to be tweaked it might be better to scale them as needed instead of just fixing one size for all. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

200px seems to be the standard sizing for pictures in player's infoboxes (at least, if the picture ratio is around 2:3). For club infoboxes, instead, as logos tend to vary quite a bit (see Inter Milan, compared to Juventus F.C., compared to SK Brann), there is a bit more liberty towards the size. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs states: "preferred widths 75, 100, 150 or 200px depending on shape of badge". As long as the logo isn't too big (in my opinion, 250 and 300 is a bit too much), or too small, it should be fine. Using an "upright" parameter as you suggest is also another good option. Nehme1499 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The 250px logos (see three examples in section below) are way too big. The logos don't need to be large as most don't have much detail and fair use of copyrighted logos would also suggest using the minimum size necessary to see the details. The football kit images are also often much bigger than necessary (e.g. [1]). The size when there are three shown side-by-side is adequate.   Jts1882 | talk  10:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I've found it best just to delete the size parameter and the logo then seems to default to an appropriate size for the infobox. Number 57 16:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
This seems like a reasonable approach to follow. I think that most infoboxes being used these days have been set up to automatically size images in accordance with user preferences and the device being used; so, fixing the image to a set size seems to actually be preventing the software from doing what it’s supposed to do. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Whilst we're discussing this IP's editsEdit

The rest of the IPs edits could do with a review as well. They seem to be entirely focussed on changes to club formation/reformation dates and the associated categories, sometimes removing long standing status quo from articles. eg: [2] [3] [4] Some have been reverted and the IP warned for unconstructive editing by @Wira rhea:. Gricehead (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely worth reviewing their edits. I've reverted several of them (some a couple of times) but in some cases it wasn't clear if they were right or not. Number 57 16:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
IP is now blocked for 31 hours by @Kosack:. Gricehead (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
IP has returned from block and has returned to exactly the same sort of edits. I posted on Kosack's talk page, but he seems to have gone offline just before, so does any other admin want to consider taking action? @Number 57:? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I've left a message on their talk page in the hope of them engaging in discussion. They seem to be offline right now so any disruption is limited for now. Kosack (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
They've restarted in the same vein and failed to respond to Kosack's message. I've blocked them from editing in the mainspace for a week, which still enables them to respond to the message on their talk page. Number 57 11:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Now making (so far only one) similar edit(s) from IP (edit to add:) Tried to report to AIV, but it was deleted before I could add any context. Gricehead (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I've just blocked them at that IP ( (talk · contribs)) as they've continued in the same vein. Editors are welcome to ping me if more IPs need blocking. Cheers, Number 57 13:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijani club titlesEdit

Hi Everyone,

Is there any particular reason why many Azerbaijani club titles contain homoglyphs and are not written in their native language (e.g. Keşla FK, Gabala FK, Sabail FK, Zira FK, etc.)? And then, we have Turkish clubs written in Turkish which belongs to the same language family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:6E0E:7FFD:3CA2:9158:1DE:3EB8 (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Because we base our article titles on the way teams are referred to in English, per WP:NCST. For example, one of those clubs refers to itself as Gabala (see here), so we do the same. Can you provide any examples of Turkish clubs that don't do this? – PeeJay 11:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
That's what I meant, but it should be either Gabala SC/FC (in English) or Qəbələ İK/FK (in Azerbaijani), not this current mixture of both. Same for other clubs as well. 2603:9000:6E0E:7FFD:3CA2:9158:1DE:3EB8 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
in future, instead of a heated argument over an edit war, it is much better to simply ask a question as to how we should be handling these sorts of things. We can point to a consensus, or gain a new one. Starting an argument is not the way forward. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

RSN topic of interestEdit

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rocket Robin Soccer in Toronto May be of interest to the group as it deals with the sport and many teams in Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC Position by Round deadline?Edit

Do we have an actual deadline for the yes-no poll for the "RfC Position by Round" section - I see almost equal support on both possible answers after the opening vote 9 days ago. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't put a time down till it has to be closed, I kinda put it forward and was hoping someone else who isn't impartial and not project related maybe close it. Govvy (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Don’t we need one of those administrator types to close this? Isn’t that a part of administration?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't it need to be marked as an {{rfc}} if you are hoping for external input on this? Spike 'em (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Niko Kovac honoursEdit

Hey all, once again @Walter Görlitz: has attempted to start an edit war with me and even warned me on my talk page for my edits on Niko Kovač honours section as a Bayern Munich player. As per wikipedia protocol/standards, I moved the Intercontinental Cup trophy he won as a Bayern player underneath the two domestic trophies (Bundesliga & DFB Pokal) so that it's properly ordered as league title; cup title; international title; regardless of year won. Walter disagrees with me, keeps reverting these edits, and says I am in the wrong. He has even deleted my comments from the page when I tried to discuss the matter there without involving others. This type of reaction from Walter is nothing new and is very frustrating. Would love some people to weigh in here and explain the ordering of titles in honours sections. Thanks everyone in advance for your help and input. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh for crying out loud. You started the edit war. I just continued what you started. You moved the "international" honour after the domestic honour, breaking the chronological order of the honours, and did so without explanation. I reverted based on the unexplained change. I then reverted you after you did explain as it needed WP:PSEUDOHEADings. You then essentially told me to fuck off and die, so instead, I fixed the section in question. The edit history shows the facts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Update: looks like he has realized he was wrong and has even gone as far as to put sub-sections of Domestic and International honours in Niko's Bayern Munich honours which is also not commonplace and too much and of course took a subtle dig at me in the edit summary... Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
No I did not realize I was wrong, I correctly institutionalized your preference. It is not defined at the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
It does not require pseudoheadings and it's not my preference. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
If you cannot provide the MoS or guideline that stipulates that "domestic titles go before international titles", it is your preference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, if you refer to that template, you will see that there are no pseudo-headings, as you retro-actively included on Niko's page. Furthermore, you will see that league championships are positioned ahead of cup titles, regardless of year won. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't prefer that, simply placating you. You're at four reverts now. Care to self-revert? First at 2020-02-19T15:26:25, then 2020-02-19T21:02:09‎, then 2020-02-19T21:34:41‎, then the series started at 2020-02-19T23:27:29‎. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving from my talk pageEdit

I've reverted twice not four times. Please revert my edits again if you wish to pursue an edit war. I won't be bullied by you. You can refer to wikiproject talk page as I will not address this matter on my or your talk page anymore. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: I never wrote that you reverted me four times. I simply wrote that you made four reverts. According to WP:3RR, "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."
2020-02-19T15:26:25 - changed the order, that undid another editor's action, so revert 1.
2020-02-19T21:02:09‎ - "incorrect; domestic titles go before international titles", You think this is your first revert, but based on the definition it is revert 2.
2020-02-19T23:27:29‎ - "please no more reverts; this is now the correct format with Bundesliga, DFB Pokal, and then Intercontinental Cup trophy" which is revert 3.
2020-02-19T23:27:29 - "no pseudo-headings", this is revert 4, and even if you count reverting me, you're at 3 here. An additional sequence of edits follows.
In contrast: this was not a revert as it added additional content so I am at two reverts.
Since your last word when you left this on my talk page was I will not address this matter on my or your talk page anymore, I've move your misunderstanding from my talk page to this space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
While I'm not trying to bully you, I would really appreciate you not being misinformed. I have no intention of reverting that again, but then again, you've still not provided a guideline or MoS to support your claim. I don't want the PSEUDOHEAD there either, I want it chronological and the PSEUDOHEAD was a compromise. It appears you're not interested in compromise or communicating so enjoy the WP:BATTLEGROUND you create. Ping me if you want me to continue to educate you in how Wikipedia works. I'm happy to continue this mentorship process.Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
So then you would have already been at four reverts before me. Thanks Walter. Let's let the other folks weigh in now. Rupert1904 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Counting is clearly not your strong suit. I made two reverts and one edit. You made four reverts (changes). Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
You crack me up. Also, @Walter Görlitz:, please let me know when I "told you to fuck off and die". You are not only misinformed on the rules but totally outrageous and impossible to deal with. Rupert1904 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you find not know what constitutes an actual revert vs an edit, not being able to count and hyperbole humorous. It might save when someone with less patience than I have meets you in an alley after you've pissed them off for similar. You can refer to wikiproject talk page as I will not address this matter on my or your talk page anymore. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone cares about your petty edit war, but suggesting that someone may be beaten up because of their edits on here is extreme bad faith and I'd suggest you remove them. Spike 'em (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
That's not what I wrote. It's the editor's attitude that will result in the thrashing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I know that you didn't personally threaten them, but your fantasy that someone might get beaten up over a simple content dispute is still worrying. Spike 'em (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest checking the MoS and for anything which is unclear from it, asking for input at that talkpage. --SuperJew (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Chronological is not the most common. Never has been. Obvious examples such as Ronaldo, Pele etc. I don't want to be drawn into another Walter battleground. Koncorde (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The typical order should be [domestic_league], [domestic_cup1], [domestic_cup2]...[domestic_cupN], [domestic_supercup], [continental_cup1], [continental_cup2]...[continental_cupN], [continental_supercup], [global_cup1], [global_cup2]...[global_cupN], [other_cup]. Not sure where anyone would have got the idea that it's supposed to be chronological. Just another case of Walter playing Billy Big-Bollocks. – PeeJay 12:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it make more sense to put the continental/global cups above the domestic ones? In my opinion, winning a Champions League is more relevant than winning N La Ligas/Serie As etc. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that it should go from the smallest scale to the largest (i.e. national, continental, international). – PeeJay 14:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with any order, as long as we specify it in the Manual of Style. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree with PeeJay. Domestic and after that International. Surely not chronological. Kante4 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Most often I've seen honours listed chronologically, just popping up on the list when that player won something. When there are a lot of honours on a page they seem to get sorted out per order PeeJay said. Walter Görlitz you seem to rub a lot of people up the wrong way, this has been discussed with your attitude towards other editors before. Just because you try and remove every spat at your talk page also doesn't help your case, this constant edit-war with other users, I strongly suggest you stop adding edit-war notices to other editors talk pages, discuss these issues out instead of throwing more wood on to the fire. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've proposed to standardize the honours order in the MoS talk page. If you agree, or have any objections, write it there so that we can take care of this issue ASAP. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Several football-related pages are exceeding Wikipedia's technical limits causing templates to failEdit

The following football-related pages are exceeding Wikipedia's "template include size" is exceeded. These wind up in the "hidden" category Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. As a result, templates near the bottom of these pages may not display properly. See the information at the top of the category page for technical details.

For most of these articles, the best fix is to split the article. Other fixes, such as reducing template use or removing non-encyclopedic information, are also worth considering. In some cases the best solution will be obvious and non-controversial and it could "just be done" by any editor familiar enough with the page to know it won't be controversial and who has time to do it. In other cases a talk-page discussion may be needed.

A copy of this list is at Category talk:Pages where template include size is exceeded#Article pages as of Feb. 21, 2020. A "live" list of all article pages affected by this issue, including non-football pages, is here (XML format, not wiki-format).

If you would like to track this category and see pages as they reach this limit, "watchlist" the category and check the "category changes" check box in your Special:Watchlist filters (or make sure none of the filters under "Type of change" are selected). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

For the transfers' pages you can remove the flags of the domestic country and add a note that players/clubs without a flag are local. --SuperJew (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
There has been some good progress in just over a day. I have struck 8 items from the list that are no longer over the limit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I've blasted through them all except for Uzbekistan national football team head to head, which I believe should be deleted as an unnecessary confluence of Uzbekistan national football team results and Uzbekistan national football team all-time record. – PeeJay 13:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Should "Indoor Soccer" be listed in a player's infoboxEdit

Eric Hassli played for several clubs in Europe and then several in MLS, and went to the North American second division for a year and played one match for an indoor soccer team before disappearing. All of the appearances have been placed in the infobox, but apparently, Indoor soccer != soccer. I hadn't heard that before. Should it be removed from the infobox or not? My assumption is that an infobox is a summary of the article so it makes sense to include, but if Hassli had retired to F1 or professional cycling, we wouldn't include it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude that information from the infobox, {{Infobox football biography}} can be used for all football variants, whether that be futsal (e.g. Falcão), beach soccer (e.g. Madjer) or indoor soccer (e.g. Slaviša Žungul). If a person has played different types of football, a parenthetical note can be used for distinguishing purposes. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed - I've often seen it added as 'Club (indoor)' in the infobox. GiantSnowman 14:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

umm, can we un archiveEdit

The RfC we were discussing got archive, and why are we archiving so quickly? Govvy (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was archived because no one commented on that section for a week. Seems reasonable to me. – PeeJay 11:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
And yet it still needs an admin to close it. Govvy (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it wouldn't have been archived if it had been properly marked as an RfC using {{rfc}}? I don't know exactly how the archiving bot works. – PeeJay 12:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Football".