Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 164

Archive 160

←

Archive 162

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

Royal Charleroi S.C.

After the move chat was closed and the article was moved over, I moved the season pages to match and migrated the categories for seasons and managers for the club. However, whats the best way to do the players Category:R. Charleroi S.C. players, to move to Category:Royal Charleroi S.C. players, is there a bot that can sort it out? Govvy (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

List at WP:CFDS. Twinkle is good for doing this. You should have done this with the other categories too, to be honest – better for attribution and a clear history for a bot to move the categories than for you to create new categories and delete the old ones. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, now it actually saying that on the category to do which it didn't before, didn't know I could do that, will have ago. Govvy (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Richard Sosa - Uruguayan footballer

This article in it's present state is "garbaged up". From History, the missing content is at 07:48, 9 November 2020 here. Asking for expert help here to please fix as I am clueless how to re-construct. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC: The article was vandalised 13 months ago and never restored, I just reverted to then. However, does it even pass WP:GNG? I wouldn't be surprised if someone came along at put it up for WP:AFD unless you're able to greatly improve it. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy - Thankyou for this cleanup/rollback. Even though I could not find this biography on the three football reliable sources that I know of, I did de-orphan based on one of the article's references. I agree about questionable notability. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Olympic footballers by country

Hello. I don't know if there has already been a previous discussion, but wouldn't it be more correct to separate these categories of footballers in the Olympic games into men and women?

Ex:

Olympic footballers for France‎ > Olympic men's footballers for France / Olympic women's footballers for France

Svartner (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that would have to be agreed on an all-Olympics basis, e.g here. At present AFAIK, no Olympic event competitor categories have been split into gender. For consistency, it should really be all or none. Crowsus (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: Defenders, central defenders and fullbacks

Greetings everyone, I know this topic has probably been discussed hundreds of times but I don't know if any consensus was ever reached and I would like to suggest my opinion on how to organize everything.

In terms of categorization, I think the best method would be as follows:

1. Players who is/was mainly a centre-back - "Men's association football central defenders"
2. Players who is/was mainly a full-back - "Men's association football fullbacks"
3. If a player can/could do both (like David Alaba, Benjamin Pavard, Lucas Hernández) - both "Men's association football central defenders" and "Men's association football fullbacks"
4. "Men's association football defenders" should just be used for players from the old days, when football positions were different and can't be compared to today's; or "obscure" players when we are not sure exactly which role they played in the defense

I would love to have some opinions on this system and if it could be implemented. If so, we could start going through everyone in "Men's association football defenders" (it has almost 50k articles so a lot of work ahah) and dividing them (when possible) through the other categories.

Thank you for your attention, would appreciate your input on this. JoaoSPinto18 (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the method you describe is the way categorisation is currently being handled. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, what is the issue here? If a player is described as a general 'defender', we categorise them accordingly. If they are a specific 'fullback' etc. then we categorise them the same. GiantSnowman 21:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, good to know. It's just that it's very uncommon to find a defender article that is correctly categorized, even "big articles" get this wrong constantly.

For example: Virgil Van Dijk, Matthijs de Ligt and Raphaël Varane are all categorized as just defenders and not central defenders. On the other hand: Trent Alexander-Arnold, Marcelo and Kyle Walker are also just considered "defenders" instead of specifically "fullbacks".

I saw this so often I started to wonder if I was the one who was mistaken. I will try to dedicate some time to work on this. Thank you all! JoaoSPinto18 (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

American English on events in the United States

As Jay eyem has brought up, this seems to be an issue we're having with a user who constantly changes soccer to football on events in the United States because of their belief that it's the "proper" name even though it was decided by MOS:TIES that the local English must be used in relation to page's location (so as such American English has to be used). This isn't the first time this has happened and the 2026 FIFA World Cup page had to be locked because of this and the first subject on its talk page is about this. I am setting this up as a way to discuss this and see what action should be taken in regards to whether or not the user should be blocked. I am aware that we have many non-American readers who take this issue to heart for a variety of reasons, but I want to help resolve this dispute in a way that settles this. Digitslain12 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If an editor refuses to understand that WP:TIES and WP:ENGVAR were used to come to a consensus that American English should be used on 2026 FIFA World Cup, i.e. they constantly change "soccer" to "football" regardless of how many warnings they receive, then they can be blocked from the article by an admin. If they receive a warning and stop using "football" in place of "soccer," then the warning served its purpose. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES for Copa América Centenario and 2024 Copa América

Would appreciate some input from the broader WP:FOOTY community on this. I believe that we had this conversation regarding the U.S.-hosted World Cup articles last year, but I think these two tournaments are distinct from the World Cups hosted in the U.S. in an important way. These two South American championships were held/are being held in the United States. Unlike the World Cup, CONMEBOL does not have any members that speak English natively. As a result there are no strong national ties for any particular dialect of English, so I can see how it makes sense to use the DMY date formatting and use of the term "football" for the other Copa America articles. However I would argue that is not the case for these two tournaments, where it makes sense to use American English for both dating conventions (MDY) and terminology ("soccer" vs. "association football"). And unlike the World Cup, which will have a significant audience from around the English-speaking world where there are no clear national TIES and the case is more ambiguous, I would argue that is not the case here with the United States as the clear English-speaking country with TIES (and potentially Canada, if they qualify). And while Jamaica has qualified, I believe the United States would still have the stronger TIES. Looking for some additional input, thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with Jay eyem that American English should be used since this was the agreed precedent set by the 1994 FIFA World Cup, 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup, 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup, and 2026 FIFA World Cup (which all use soccer due to the United States hosting the event). I think we may even need to look at all US Gold Cup pages for this as well since I don't know how many use soccer on their page. Digitslain12 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's an event solely hosted in the US (as these examples are), then American English should be used in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

An event hosted in the United States (or majority hosted, in the case of 2026) should use the local variant of English. Consistency across editions of the same tournament shouldn't trump MOS:TIES, especially when the justification isn't based on solid reasoning (in the case of tournaments primarily hosted outside the English-speaking world). I could see exceptions in the event that an event traditionally only hosted in the UK is played in the U.S. (as some awful proposals for the CL final or regular season La Liga matches in the U.S. have shown, it's possible), as a similar "international" event like the MLB London Series still retains its home style of English due to stronger ties to the league than the host. SounderBruce 04:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Dribbles as a statistic

Are dribbles an import statistic in football, enough to include it in Wikipedia profiles? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

100% not IMO. I'm bemused as to where such a stat could even be obtained from. Whatever next, statistics on the number of times a player touched the ball per game.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I consider that original research if there is not a reliable source covering that statistic. I am unaware of such sources which features dribbles. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That's actually quite an important stat in some sports, such as Australian rules football, but definitely a non-stat in soccer. --SuperJew (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Dribbles is just WP:TRIVIA and almost certainly also made up WP:OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I see this relates to a dispute about Jérémy Doku, an article which contains references to his completing the most dribbles by a teenager in a Euros match (wow!) and also this: ".....was subsequently given the man of the match award after winning 8 duels, completing 6 take ons and creating 5 chances, more than any other player on the pitch in each category". What the heck does that even mean? What are "duels" and "take ons", and who is measuring them and how? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The article also previously claimed (now removed) that he set a new record for the most dribbles in a match in the French League 1 with 12, which I would say is actually 100% unprovable, as I can guarantee that if someone is tracking this highly dubious stat about "numbers of dribbles in a game" then they have only been doing so for about five years so how do we know that someone didn't do 27 dribbles in a match in 1953......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of a chapter I believe was in the book The Numbers Game which said that before becoming automated, Opta made its statistics by having humans watch video tapes of matches and manually tally the data. So that is how the statistics were gathered in the 1990s/early 2000s, and anything before that is lost to time. Football is a very dynamic game which makes these statistics subjective (what really was a pass or a shot?), compared to the wealth of historical statistics on more rigid games such as cricket, baseball and American football. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This one is statcruft. It's one of those things that Opta measured, but unless an RS states it as being super important, we surely shouldn't measure it. Might as well state how many times a player hits the post. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this - we count games and goals only. Significant 'other' stats (such as highest assists in a season etc.) which are covered in detail by significant sources can be included in prose. GiantSnowman 17:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I would love to know how many dribbles were completed per game by the various players dubbed "the wizard of dribble" or "the prince of dribblers" in the Victorian era but sadly we will never know. I bet it was more than Doku ever did, though....... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We have to be pretty careful not to get statistics creep that is rife in broadcasts. Where Mahrez has the "most take-ons per 90 minutes". None of these minor stats are helpful to understand a topic. Imagine if we listed how many throw-ins a team had? Thats another statistic that is measured. Completely pointless. Unless you are a team that is well known for playing a long throw, and if RS talk about the team getting a lot of throw-ins, that would be fine. Else, it's muck a reader has to digest. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

How to describe out of contract player in the lead paragraph

So, with the seasons ending in leagues that operate on the Jan-Dec calendar, many players are being announced as out of contract/free agents by their clubs. Should the previous club be mentioned in the paragraph. For example, I've seen these pages updated in the two following ways

1) Example Player (born # XYZ ####) is a nation footballer.

2) Example Player (born # XYZ ####) is a national footballer who most recently played for Team Name in League Name.

Is there a preference as to which form to use? Personally, I prefer the first one, with no mention of club as it makes it clear the player is uncontracted, whereas the second, can appear that the player is still under contract if one is quickly skimming as it looks similar to the regular form. Thoughts? RedPatch (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I would go with Option 1. Kante4 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There's also the third option I've seen of

3) Example Player (born # XYZ ####) is a nation footballer who is currently a free agent.

States they're a free agent outright, doesn't allude to former club unless the editor also chooses to put that there. Christiangamer7 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Either 1 or 2 is fine. I would not specifically state that they are a free agent, as it might encourage editors to add 'free agent' as their current club in the infobox, which is a pet peeve of mine! GiantSnowman 07:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. EchetusXe 14:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Me too. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't really use "free agent", as we don't always know when this is true. We aren't privvy to contract talks. I'd prefer to have 1, but we should absolutely state where the last team that they played at was. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Association football requested move

This requested move has been relisted twice therefore I think more user input is needed so it can be closed with the pages being moved or not. A few of us have already participated including me. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Jamie Donley

I am not convinced he should have been moved out of draft, we are not running WP:NFOOTBALL anymore. What do others feel? Govvy (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy tagging Ortizesp, who moved it to mainspace -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree, the only thing that matters is coverage now. And he's getting a ton of coverage through being a top English prospect in the Prem. He probably passed GNG a year ago. Ortizesp (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If the article wasn't in mainspace then he would be the only player in Premier League history not to have an article. Which would be notable in of itself. Like the interesting number paradox. EchetusXe 13:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

One minute in the Spurs first team, you get all this coverage for youngsters these days, but to me he hasn't done anything notable yet. :/ Anyway, Je ne sais pas, comme ci comme ça. Govvy (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think he should have played more minutes than just the one at the very end of the recent match. To be fair, the pages I've created on Wikipedia about footballers which are in proper article format have become more notable so this article we're discussion will probably have more minutes played so he will inevitably be out of draft for being a player in regular coverage et all. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

He probably meets GNG - if you disagree, take to AFD. GiantSnowman 19:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ciro Immobile

Good evening. I was asking myself if it was correct to say that he is actually the captain of the Italian national team, considering that he has not been called up since semptember. Let me know what you think 14 novembre (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Immobile is still the captain despite the fact he was not called up recently. Considering the typical cases with captains, if we list every captain of all Italian matches, the list would be larger than what Italy national football team#Captains says. I see Gianluigi Donnarumma is the current captain in recent Italian matches and states on the article itself, whether or not that is a permanent role remains to be seen. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

NOWRAP on sports scores

The discussion on using NOWRAP on sports scores is taking place here. Please add your comments so that a consensus can be acheived. Keith D (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

sam hird

the made up stat issue is still happening https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hird&diff=1184522671&oldid=1183763533 Muur (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have much limited knowledge about IPv6 IP addresses but I do think this is the same person responsible for the edits. As a result of the delay in reverting, I am keeping my eyes on this article, hopefully to ensure edits like this can be reverted as soon as I or someone else sees something is wrong. Page protection should be necessary should that persistently continues. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

they did it again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hird&diff=1186685391&oldid=1186531294 Muur (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems very likely. If anyone who is an admin have the knowledge to block this IP range from editing the Sam Hird page, the range Special:Contribs/2A00:23C6:28D:4000:0:0:0:0/51 is the largest range possible without any other articles affected. No surprise, the edits including and after 25 October 2023 are disruptive. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

guy still at itMuur (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This individual has been given a warning message from me, not sure if that would be taken into acknowledgement, clearly not if the editing continues. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Certainly continues to edit incorrectly [1] despite my only warning message on the previous IP address talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2023–24 AFC Champions League knockout stage

There is a discussion in progress HERE about deleting the 2023–24 AFC Champions League knockout stage article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Assist table to club season articles

An IP keeps adding assist tables to club season article despite (@2806:101E:D:3F7E:C543:52F9:8263:C7BA:). Although it is not of great importance and how assists are counted varies. Sakiv (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

We do not count assists per NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Bryan Robson goals for Manchester United

Hi all, I thought I'd bring this here because it shares a lot of similarities to the discussion when Harry Kane set the goalscoring record for Tottenham and no one could quite decide if Charity Shield goals counted.

The Career Statistics section of Bryan Robson was only partially complete and completely unsourced, so I filled in the gaps and sourced it all to the English National Football Archive (ENFA) as probably the only source which could reliably cover his entire career. This gave him 100 goals in all competitions for Manchester United. A couple of times recently it has been reverted to 99 goals by an IP editor, removing his apps/goals in the Football League Super Cup because "he is not on the official list of players that have scored 100 or more goals for the club". Sure enough Manchester United's official website puts him on 99 goals. But then an archived version of the same page puts him on 98 goals so that number's clearly in flux.

I'm going to revert again because right now the table doesn't match the source, but just wondered if anyone had input on how much weight to put on official club sources vs independent databases in light of the previous Harry Kane/Jimmy Greaves discussions. Nonleagueapps (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

this is why non affiliated sources are seen as so important on wikipedia. united arent even consistent on what does and doesnt count, as they count bobby charlton's community sheild stats.Muur (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Stadium name

User @FrBuJü: has changed in a huge amount of football articles the name of the stadium in Milan, from San Siro (current wikilink) to Stadio Giuseppe Meazza. I've noticed some other little changes to other stadium names. What's the practice to be used? Island92 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Should be the name most commonly recognisable to many football fans around the world which is not the sponsored equivalent (here it should be the San Siro). I have never known that to be it's alternative of "Stadio Giuseppe Meazza" till you've opened this discussion. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert and warn. GiantSnowman 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User has been warned in his talk page. Considering the huge amount of articles may be a BOT to revert automatically to San Siro is a choice. Island92 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at the page histories of both San Siro and Stadio Giuseppe Meazza where up to 2006, both have had articles relating to the same stadium and I think [2] and [3] are exactly the same as each other but with different titles. It explains why I have never seen any page moves until 2011. As to the latest response, users who have rollback rights can revert these edits quite quickly without having to revert pages one by one. But not every "current" revision will have that editing behaviour so care is needed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested Move at AFC page (December 2023)

There is currently a requested move is under discussion at AFC page. Fellow WikiProject members are requested to weigh in. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 14:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Giovanni Bonfanti

Hello! I just wanted to let y'all know that I've started preparing a draft article for Giovanni Bonfanti, since he should have already met the minimum WP:GNG criteria by making his Serie A debut for Atalanta, and will (probably) make his European debut tonight.

Of course, if you want to contribute, any kind of help is hugely appreciated! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Tony Yeboah

His article got moved from Tony Yeboah to Anthony Yeboah, with the reason given, by Herr chagall, being that he is "generally known as anthony yeboah". The references in his article would claim otherwise. If this was discussed, and I've missed it, I'll scratch this tomorrow. Seasider53 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I can only speak for England but in this country he is/was 100% known as Tony, not Anthony -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this should have been discussed via the WP:RM procedure because of the balance between both names used, therefore this page should be returned whence it came, which was the name used on page creation and discuss this issue with other users before it can be moved upon consensus.

This user has moved the page in 2018 before being returned whence it came by Mattythewhite a few months later. Since standard users cannot do this (as Govvy knows well with the Cristian Romero page move issue), I think it is right for someone with page move rights to move it back. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have moved it back; the references certainly don't seem to back the new name as being COMMONNAME, and since the move was reverted before, it should have been clear that a discussion was required. Unilateral moves are for non-controversial situations. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977)

This article will be the Featured Article on 26 December. I am not happy with the title. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City redirects to the article in question, and there is no hatnote referring readers to other articles about other matches between the teams with the same final score. Do we really need the "(1977)" in the article title? That is the only thing I can think of changing, because Home Team X–Y Away Team is the standard article title format we use for significant matches. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

We need the 'F.C.' to make it clear that it's a football team. Without it, it could refer to anything to an uneducated reader. GiantSnowman 18:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Coventry City F.C. 2–2 Bristol City F.C. should work then? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be my preferred title. GiantSnowman 18:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the year is necessary as a disambiguation. Per WP:NOYEAR, The date is not needed when the article pertains to events that are unlikely to recur. Coventry City and Bristol City have drawn 2–2 on six occasions (three in Coventry, three in Bristol). I fully agree with the inclusion of the F.C. though as this would maintain consistency with the parent articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

When viewing the context of the whole of WP:NCWWW (and not just WP:NOYEAR), I have to concur that the year is necessary for a scoreline that not only has happened multiple times but also has a high likelihood of occurring again, regardless of whether there are multiple Wikipedia articles. Coventry City F.C. 2–2 Bristol City F.C. (1977) would be my article title of choice. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 08:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I also think abbreviating both club names will do for this article title (this also distinguishes from Bristol City W.F.C. which has a featured article of it's own, for the wrong reasons). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Knockout rounds - bracket templates

The article 2023–24 AFC Cup knockout stage needs a rather bespoke template, as the normal 11-team templates dont seem to cater for some rounds being single leg and some being two-legged. Where can i find help to amplify n the existing one, or make new templates? or is this more generally a question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: Not sure if this helps, but 2023 MLS Cup Playoffs has an example of a bracket template that has both single and multi-leg series. SounderBruce 08:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This has single and multi-leg matches in the same round - beyond my skills. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the necessary change has been made. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to @Cs-wolves:. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Future FIFA Club World Cup (China)

This redirect should be deleted. Dipralb (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:Redirects for deletion is thataaway.... GiantSnowman 18:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The RfD is right here. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge help

Would like help merging Draft:Alexandra Kimball and Draft:Alex Kimball; linking here as it is relevant to this project Joeykai (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Leah Williamson

If the article is not already on certain user's watchlists: please could more pairs of eyes take watch over this article- both Kingsif and I are in danger of being blocked for edit warring (probably for this article only). The edit history is definitely not looking good with lots of "Reverted" tags attached to many December edits. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I would seriously question whether [4] is a WP:RS- it looks like a fan piece to me. If it's not a reliable source, then an actual reliable source should be added for the text that's being removed/re-added. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the IP is correct here. Why are you restoring a contentious statement sourced to ... well, a gossip website? Surely there must be better sources, if indeed the information is DUE? Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: I also protected Jordan Nobbs this week without that same gossipy source being used to source her sexuality. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the history of that page and see that was violation of WP:NOTGOSSIP. And reliable source also comes into good question. That's more than one good reason the IP version seems good enough but IP should not edit war in any case. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Usually no, but I suspect they'd claim the WP:BLP exemption to WP:3RR, and to be fair would have some justification. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick Google search showed that Williamson and Nobbs apparently were in a relationship, but I would judge most of the sources as not reliable because they are blog-style sites. Unless their relationship was confirmed in an interview or other reliable source, I have to concur with the removal of contentious information from a BLP. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this content should never return to both articles we are talking about here? And hope that Kingsif would not restore that content now that I know what the source is all about? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that unless the content is confirmed in a reliable source, it has no place in either article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

And the content has been restored again, despite only being sourced to that questionable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing Kingsif may not have seen this section. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would've appreciated a ping. Of course, AfterEllen (at least, not the vaguely transphobic-looking guest writer stuff I see as I visit now) is an RS. I don't see the source as questionable and the IP behaviour here and elsewhere is incredibly concerning, but if there's agreement to not include, I won't restore. Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

(Removed my own comment for discussion links, but): I think that because this is non-trans related content, AfterEllen should be considered reliable. See 2020 and 2023 RSP discussions. Also see January talkpage discussion (that I don't remember having if I'm honest, but still think the same). Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not pinging you earlier that afternoon.

Having a look at both these RSP discussions, none of us has ever participated in these generally mixed outcome discussions, but should be used with context as seen in 2020 and queer reporting and biographies of living persons both make good points, as quoted by the two closers of these discussions. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

As for the content, I still can't see a reason an SPA IP (i.e. passers-by who read something they want to change) would edit-war over such a thing unless it is for erasure. To improve the article (and to not give them the satisfaction), I have gone on a source hunt to see about restoring the content. While I agree I can't find any better sources to support the relationship, there are some to support Williamson's sexuality (note that I searched for "LGBTQ+" so there may be other sources that confirm a specific identity, but these don't): would adding PinkNews and Evening Standard satisfy for inclusion @Iggy the Swan, Joseph2302, Black Kite, and Jkudlick:? Kingsif (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm good with both of those sources, though there must surely be some better sources on the relationship - after all, it's not exactly a secret. But the IP was completely correct that AfterEllen on its own was not good enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, besides the lesbian-interest websites, the interest in women's footballers' relationships probably wasn't big enough to get good coverage until recently, so you can see why there might not be better sources. Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Those seem fine to me, as they're actually reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• A further ping to participants (@Iggy the Swan, Joseph2302, Black Kite, and Jkudlick:) that the IP is back edit warring the updated sentence (most recently yesterday because it wasn't reverted). Page protection perhaps? Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. I've seen @Kingsif: reporting the IP address range recently but the admins who watch the page haven't, presumably because a much larger IP address range is currently blocked for editing one page and the helper bot explains that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Transfermarkt vs. Footballdatabase.eu

So Transfermarkt is not considered as a reliable source but Footballdatabase is ? Do you even know how Footballdatabase works ? Yes, exactly the same way as Transfermarkt does : it is user-generated. The difference is that they have no verification process, so clearly it is even less reliable than Transfermarkt. Now for the sake of consistency, I'm therefore asking for the 12000 links to Footballdatabase to be removed. Thank you. Frenchl (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:RSN. GiantSnowman 17:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion there. Frenchl (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd particularly like to point out to the WikiProject Football that the data for the 1998/1999 season of the French National were all completely wrong and has been completely removed from footballdatabase recently, but not necessarily from Wikipedia. Frenchl (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Change target link at Template:Fb si player

I see the Template:Fb si player (with its very inactive talkpage) has "EU" linking to European Union citizenship at the moment. I think it would be appropriate to change the target link to EU status (football), which I created a while back - not really because of the specificity, but moreso because people who are not EU citizens can still be EU players, in a variety of circumstances. The current link target was suitable enough but changing it would be more accurate. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I presume you meant that you wished to change the "EU" pointer at Template:Fb si header. I made the change there. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Check this merge request

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti# 93.140.194.58 (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Actual link - Talk:FCSB#Merge proposal. GiantSnowman 20:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Willy Kambwala

Hey, Willy Kambwala has the France U16s on his infobox, despite never having played for the team. He was called up to the France U16s for a Clairefontaine training camp in 2020 here, but was not capped officially. Every single France international with a cap gets a FFF profile, and he doesn't have one. User:Stuart1234 keeps readding the national team despite 0 caps because there's a one-off sentence on the Man Utd side saying he's captained France, but my understanding is that you don't add the nationalteam to the infobox if they haven't formally played for the team. Can anyone confirm how to proceed?--Ortizesp (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have used a suitable edit summary to explain why you were removing it from the infobox in this edit rather than "cats" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willy_Kambwala&diff=prev&oldid=1191486288 Then I wouldn't "keep readding". Your edit left an inconsistency in the article Stuart1234 (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox error

I got a strange Infobox error when editing 1892–93 Scottish Cup this morning. The following came up when previewing edits despite all four parameters appearing in the infobox and in the template documentation so I'm not sure what that means.

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox football tournament season with unknown parameter "nextseason"
Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox football tournament season with unknown parameter "champions"
Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox football tournament season with unknown parameter "runner-up"
Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox football tournament season with unknown parameter "prevseason"

I've never seen it before so thought I'd ask in case anyone here knows more. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be an isue with the infobox (I checked on other pages using it and they also have the issue). Looking at it's history, I would hazard a guess it came about following this edit. I don't have enough experience with this kind of coding (or ability to edit the infobox template) to work the kink out. I recall there's some technical talk-page that helps out with this? Or alternatively maybe the editor who made the change @Aidan721: could address it? --SuperJew (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Just switch the parameters to |next_season=, |winners=, |second=, and |prev_season= respectively. The tracking category is there to deter multiple parameters for the same usage. Presently there is no difference in appearance of the infobox, but the messages are to encourage using a standard set of parameter names. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Doing that gives me

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox football tournament season with unknown parameter "winners"
and doesn't display the champions (see edit) --SuperJew (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the |winners= row ought to be formatted like the |second= row, to accept |champions= or |winners= the same way that |second= accepts |runner-up= or |second=.

| winners = {{{champions|}}}

| count = {{{count|}}}

| second = {{{runner-up|{{{second|}}}}}}

What would be good, apart from someone with the requisite permissions to fix it, is to document the changes. I'm not convinced we're likely to start using a standard set of parameter names if those names don't actually appear in the documentation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've put in an edit request at Template talk:Infobox football tournament season to get the winners parameter fixed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Struway. Might be worth looking into a bot if these parameters are to change, I can think of at least 100 pages that I've edited that use them so I would not be surprised if there were several thousand out there. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

K.F.C. Moerbeke - Belgian football club

Greetings, Asking for help with K.F.C. Moerbeke article. Founded in 1927, and according to FB page, still active. Article lacks references, and is Orphan status. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Third provincial division suggests to me the club is in the 8th tier of Belgian football. Besides, the only secondary source coverage I can find is the standard results websites. I have a hard time believing it's notable. Perhaps AfD unless someone else can find other stuff to help improve the article. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo - Thanks for the club info. I see article now has PROD, by @HawkAussie so unless improved, it will go Jan 2. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Total goals scored by Rogério Ceni

Recently, a dispute arose over the number of goals scored by goalkeeper Rogério Ceni in his career. All Brazilian media coverage, in addition to more serious sources (such as globoesporte, Lance!, etc.), consider the 131 goals scored professionally. On the other hand, the IFFHS disregards two goals scored in friendly matches, even if the criteria of a full professional match were adopted in them.

In the article, the information of 131 total goals and 129 goals in official competitions was clearly mentioned, however, the user Mishary94 constantly suppresses the total information, stating that goalkeeper Rogério Ceni scored 129 total goals in his career.

What is the best way to proceed? Svartner (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

club friendlies arent official matches, otherwise pele gets to keep his claim of scoring 15,000 goals.Muur (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - no other player's stats include friendlies, so why should his? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Friendly matches do not cease to exist and comply with professional criteria. Even mentioning that such goals existed seems completely arbitrary to me. Svartner (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sponsored team names

I'd like to strike up a discussion for page moves for football clubs with sponsored team names, as that possibility could potentially be reopened in Chinese football.

Do sponsored team names warrant a page move from the original team name to the new, sponsored team name e.g., a page move from İstanbul Başakşehir F.K. to Rams Başakşehir, or should a title like İstanbul Başakşehir F.K. stay unchanged (which is what Başakşehir seemed to do, I'm just looking at examples), given that clubs still retain their original names officially, because

1. moving pages would be hard to maintain with all the redirects and player pages using the original name,

2. it might not be the best name that some clubs are most known as (as per the rule at Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names), or as per Wikipedia:Article titles#Name changes, where you'd only move the article when sources in the English language start using the sponsored name.

I'd like some opinions, thanks. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We should not use sponsored names. GiantSnowman 10:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we should avoid sponsored names. Tbf, you've sorta answered your question with point two. The common name will remain as the unsponsored name at least for the beginning of a period where a team has a sponsored name. That may change, but that's a bridge to cross in the future. As an example, New Douglas Park has a new sponsored name pretty much every season, none of them have ever been as commonly used as New Douglas Park and it feels pretty pointless to move it every May or June to reflect the change of the official name. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The name of an article of a club should meet COMMONNAME. This rarely (but sometimes does) include sponsorship. FC Red Bull Salzburg for example. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not a 'sponsored' name - the owners changed it to reflect their company. GiantSnowman 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It should depend on the country, as sponsored names are in common use for stadiums around the world. Same applies to the rare team that goes down this route, especially the K League and the former Japan Soccer League. SounderBruce 21:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the policy we've had for years to not use sponsored names unless it has had no other name since foundation. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Even then, we have examples such as Falmer Stadium, which precisely no-one calls it because it's had one sponsor since it opened and is known to all football fans (and locals) as The Amex. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Caps by year table

Could someone refresh my memory of the agreed way to display this? Should it be as it currently shows at David Marshall (Scottish footballer) with dashes for uncapped years, or should those years be omitted from the table? I have a feeling the latter was preferred? Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Dashes are used in club stats to indicate that the player's team did not participate in the competition in question that season (or the player was not eligible, for example being cup tied) - so using dashes in international stats indicates that the country did not play any games, which is not correct. I say use '0' instead, to make it clear there were zero appearances by that player. GiantSnowman 12:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't automatically assume that a dash means the country didn't play any matches, just that the player didn't. Regardless, it's equally pointless to have x number of rows of zeros or dashes when the player hasn't played any matches. Combining rows would make more sense when a player has gone two or more years without an international appearance. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I second this, although I'd prefer the zeroes rather than the dashes. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replies, I had thought there had already been a discussion on this which established a firmish rule, but maybe not. Agree 0s better than -s, personally I'd prefer to just take out the uncapped years altogether for aesthetics (reduce a long thin table, particularly for the likes of Marshall) but not something I want to argue with anyone over. Crowsus (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Bah, ideally I'd have filled the whitespace beside that table with a Scotland photo but the only one for him is the main image, and I'd agree it's probably the best one for that purpose. Crowsus (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Right-back vs right back

I watch the Trent Alexander-Arnold article, which has been alternating between "right-back" and "right back" on a near weekly basis for quite a while. My guess is that this is actually an ENGVAR problem, where right-back is the UK spelling and right back is the American spelling. That's based purely on some unscientific google searches so I'd like to bring this up for wider discussion so that I have an archive to point to in the future. Plus, if it's happening on the TAA page I'm sure it's happening elsewhere. Does anyone have any soccer dictionaries that could solve this for us? Alyo (chat·edits) 16:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What a pathetic edit war! I think it should be 'right-back' (with dash) per this, this, this etc. - these were the first results which came up on a Google search for 'Trent Alexander-Arnold right back' (no dash). GiantSnowman 10:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Right-back is the correct way to spell it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem might have been that {{EngvarB}} was added in April 2023 even though {{Use British English}} had been present since October 2016. I removed the unnecessary EngvarB. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It didn't help that it was inconsistently hyphenated throughout the article, so I went ahead and fixed that. – PeeJay 21:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be hyphenated when used a compound adjective, hence what PeeJay has seen as inconsistent use of hyphenation on the Trent page. Otherwise, there's no need for hyphenation in typical usage. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Most sources hyphenate the right-back in the article we're talking about so I'm inclined to agree with these sources about hyphen usage. The Andrew Robertson article uses hyphens for his normal playing position so should this one. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 00:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by “compound adjective”? Are you talking about saying “he plays in the right-back position” vs “he is a right-back”? Why would they be any different? What rule of grammar is this reflected in? – PeeJay 10:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in the wsy that we would type "it's an 18th-century castle" versus "the castle is from the 18th century". Grammar isn't our strong suit, as we've previously discovered. Plus, "right back" or "right-back" are invented terms, so pinning down the correct usage will be subjective. Seasider53 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Who's "our"? I don't think that rule of grammar applies here. – PeeJay 18:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel the need to (again) point out that {{Use British English}} has existed on that page for more than seven years, so "right-back" should be used as it is the dominant term used in the UK to describe a fullback who plays to the right of the goalkeeper. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Arthur Rigby

Hi, came across him randomly and saw some gaps in the stats. Managed to find one for Everton and Boro that takes him over 500 games, but there are still a couple of seasons at Crewe and Orient missing, would be better to have a grand total for inclusion on List of footballers in England by number of league appearances. Could anyone fill this in, possibly from ENFA? Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I have added the stats per Michael Joyce's book. Could I ask where the previous "total" figures came from? Even when I added in the figures for the missing clubs the total league apps don't come to anywhere near the totals that were shown before..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. For the totals, someone had already added the correct grand total even with several clubs missing. I added the stats I found to that total (rather foolishly, obviously 120 odd + 160 odd would not make 460 odd so I should have spotted it BUT very strange to have it like that, how did they know the sum but not its parts) so that put it way higher than reality, and has now been brought back down. Ah well, nice to have the boxes filled even though he didn't make it to 500. Crowsus (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

On a separate note, is this page a clear primary topic over Arthur Rigby (actor)? RedPatch (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualification

User @Gaty3000: has created 2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualification on which I find the same contents as per 2025 FIFA Club World Cup if not for an extra and huge table. What should we do? Island92 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like unnecessary duplication to me, as all the extra table are unsourced WP:OR on who can or cannot qualify theoretically. Probably best to just redirect to the main article, as we don't need separate qualification articles for club tournaments. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. That's just not needed and overkill. Kante4 (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Island92 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I tagged it for WP:A10 as it is clearly copied from the main article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Powell rename discussion

Can members please contribute to this renaming discussion. ParkingTheBus (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Split discussion on Lionel Messi

A discussion is underway to determine whether or not splitting two sections of the Lionel Messi article into their own article is the best solution to resolve the article's WP:SIZERULE issue. Input from as many voices in the community as possible would be much appreciated. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Beraldo

Hello. I have a question.
Lucas Beraldo is a player that was on Sao Paulo before being transferred to PSG on 1 January 2024. Should his infobox display that he ended his Sao Paulo career in 2023 or 2024? Someone else said 2023 because that's when the Brazilian season ended, but I initially thought 2024 because he still would have been a Sao Paulo player on the morning of his signing. Any ideas? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

For me, the contract starts right away on 1 January, so 2023 as the end date for his Sao Paulo career. Kante4 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Kante is correct but for the wrong reasons. Where a player plays in a league which runs calendar year seasons (such as Brazil), their end date is the last season they left, so 2023 is correct. Where a player plays in a league which runs across two years, when they transfer on 1 January, the 'end' date is 2024. GiantSnowman 19:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if he signed in 2023, or his transfer became official? Kante4 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A player cannot transfer to the new club until the window opens, so e.g. 1 January 2024. GiantSnowman 19:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I know but assumed it would mean he is a player of that club at 00:00 on that day. Kante4 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification, GiantSnowman and Kante4. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If the transfer was agreed and announced in the December but couldn't happen until the January when the transfer window opened, surely it would make more sense to have 2023 as the end date and 2024 as the start date regardless what league the player plays in? It looks silly and is a bit misleading to imply player y played for club x in 2024 when they didn't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Stevie fae Scotland. It makes the most sense to do it that way and provides better insight to the reader as to what actually involved the player's career, rather than a technicality where the player was a member of a club for a single second in 2024. RedPatch (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not misleading at all. A player transfers from one to the other on 1 January 2024. It's accurate and the long-established way of doing things. GiantSnowman 21:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ian Rush goal amount wrong

Rush scored 346 for LFC 2A00:23C7:C3CB:E501:D53E:EAD8:656E:C84F (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct, and his article says exactly that. What's the issue? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If you’re wondering why the infobox only says 109, 90 and 30 for Liverpool (which adds up to 229), that’s because infoboxes are supposed to only take into account goals scored in the league. Adding up his goals in the league, cups and other competitions you get 346. Check the career statistics section further down the article. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've corrected the infobox which included every goal scored for Liverpool rather than just league games. I've seen this several times by the way where Liverpool player stats are "inflated" in the infobox - not sure if there is just one WP user making these changes? ColchesterSid (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Might be. I’ve come across that issue several times, mostly in older player’s pages. the current players probably get updated regularly enough to prevent it happening. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aaron Parker#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aaron Parker#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Alexia Putellas

Similar to the recently-archived thread on Leah Williamson and an SPA taking umbrage with the mention of sexuality. It looks like a different person, based on behaviour, however, which is concerning - and looks like either a particularly angry and righteous homophobe or someone who has maybe been tasked with getting information about one of Putellas' (former?) partners in particular off the internet (though she wasn't named etc).

Anyway, I have left a message at their talkpage responding to some of their excessive edit reason and pointing out that whatever their motive, it's not allowed, and asking for a more cooperative explanation. I am leaving this note here in case anyone involved in the last discussion wants to keep an eye out, or if further discussion how we protect such coverage is warranted – I nearly responded to the editor here that inclusion is not "inconsequential" as they claim, that Wikipedia is proud of its recent efforts to help make minorities including LGBTQ+ women more visible. Kingsif (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The user is blocked for similar behaviour on Spanish Wikipedia. [5] Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

FSAF French championship

Hello,

Before the creation of the French Football Federation in 1919, so-called national championships were organized in France by two federations, one amateur, the USFSA and the other "professional", the FSAF (Federation of Athletic Societies of France). . There is no English Wikipedia article devoted to this last competition. Is it possible to create articles for each of the well-documented editions, the documentation being based on the results, news and rankings published in the specialized press of the time?

vincentm5194 Vincentm5194 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Vincentm5194 Is this the same organisation as Union des Sociétés Françaises de Sports Athlétiques? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No, Joseph2302, it's a different one. There were two federations managing French football association championships at this time if we do not consider the French "patronages" federation : the USFSA and the FSAF. Vincentm5194 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Vincentm5194. I don't see any problem for such a creation. Frenchl (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Different names at club and international level

How should we deal with players who are known by one name at the club level, and another at the national-team level? For example, Omar Bugiel is known as such when playing at the club level in England, but is known as "Omar Chaaban" when playing for the Lebanon national team. Should we pipe [[Omar Bugiel|Omar Chaaban]] in articles relating to the Lebanon national team? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Frenchl (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sounds fine - or simply link to Omar Chaaban, no need to pipe... GiantSnowman 11:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, per WP:NOTBROKEN, piping is unnecessary. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Gethin Jones (footballer, born 1995)

now that hes been called up and played for Australia, having played for wales at youth level, should this page be renamed to soccer player and his page use soccer terms instead of football. born in australia, moved to wales as a kid, played for wales up to u21 level, turned them down until he was in his late 20s and i guess realised wales would never cap him. for what its worth, he uses football in the interview after his debut. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/24031631.bolton-wanderers-gethin-jones-australia-togetherness/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xejUyXG6z-E&ab_channel=OptusSport and dude just straight up has a british accent and talks about how he used to be wales u21 captain Muur (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• No, it should stay as it is per MOS:RETAIN. Also, since he has played his entire 14-year football career in England, it would be somewhat bizarre to start using "soccer" now on the basis of a single Australian cap. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Scott Arfield is still a footballer despite his caps for Canada. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 20:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Featured article review for IFK Goteborg

I have nominated IFK Göteborg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:ACS Mostiștea Ulmu#Requested move 9 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ACS Mostiștea Ulmu#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

1927 Belgian FC article - needs References

Greetings, Article K.F.C. Moerbeke was created 8 July 2012‎, and remains without citations. Asking for help here as it was PROD by @HawkAussie on 26 December 2023‎; then deprod by @Kvng on 1 January 2024‎. Because of this club's long history it should be notable, but the article does need reliable source, in-depth references. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion at AfD. I understand considering WP:ATD, but there's no point in merging to Royal Belgian Football Association when that's an article on the Belgian FA only and there is basically nothing from K.F.C. Moerbeke to merge anyway. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Sgubaldo for the AfD decision. While I have an interest in football sport (mostly as a fan), it's not very deep knowledge for me about clubs & individual players. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

1930–31 First Division club season articles

Currently these are all screwed up, with the tables showing the second division table under each club’s position in the First Division table. Is anyone able to fix this? - J man708 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@J man708: I think i fixed it (hopefully). Kante4 (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers @Kante4:. Looks fixed to me! - J man708 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

2023–24 Feyenoord season

Is it me, or is it a really horrible to do a transfer table? Govvy (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine if properly referenced but that one is formatted really oddly. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

At first I thought it was the squad list, then I realised afterwards it wasn't. It does have that odd feeling. Govvy (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to change it around, but felt like just leaving it! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Having a transfer table is fine (and a good thing even), but formatting it in that way is very odd and looks like trying to merge squad and transfers which is very confusing. Needs a major clean-up --SuperJew (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - we should not use the 'squad list' formatting. A table is fine. GiantSnowman 11:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Access to English National Football Archive

Does anyone have, or know someone that does, access to the ENFA website (subscription based) to retrieve specific player career club stats? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, any other websites which offer accurate historical player career statistics? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Which player...? GiantSnowman 21:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The one you have observed me working on recently, Leon Leuty. There is one ref (I think you added) which offers overall club apps stats, but I can't see where else publishes this, or broken down by season. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bungle: I have access to ENFA and have added a career stats table to the article. Good work with it, by the way! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite, many thanks for that, it's appreciated! I think it "finishes off" the article nicely, with everything reasonably covered. I'm pondering putting it through GA, as I feel it's pretty much at the standard now (I just wanted to wait to see if the career stats could be sourced)!

On a similar note, I also helped to further develop a new article Ray Young (footballer) a few weeks back, but could not find anything in the way of stats for his last 2 clubs (and seemingly his last 2 senior years), if that happens to be available also? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bungle: ENFA only include appearance and goal data for Football League clubs, so there's no data for the latter two which played in non-League, except the years he signed for them, which match what's already in the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, I suppose that makes sense if the database is limited to the football league only. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Goal template

Has anyone noticed that the goals in the football boxes are starting to appear larger than necessary? I think this change should be discussed more widely. This is where change was requested. Sakiv (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem with it. The issue was presented and remedied? Seasider53 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The template was violating the MOS and now it isn't- which means in general it will work better for people, particularly those on mobiles/tablets. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

There are size differences between goals and cards. Sakiv (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Cards aren't included in the World Cup tournament listed as an example in the link you gave. Seasider53 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you please understand? In club season articles! Sakiv (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

What am I missing? Seasider53 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Seasider53: I believe Sakiv is talking about the {{yel}} and {{sent off}} templates that use the same font size as the old version of the goals template. An example can be seen at 2023 Seattle Sounders FC season#Leagues Cup 2. SounderBruce 02:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been discussed before and the consensus was to not use the goals parameter for cards hence why it doesn't appear anywhere in the MOS Seasider has linked to. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd be interested to see who first introduced them. There may have been a discussion about it, but it equally might have been another undiscussed one-man mission. Seasider53 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Phoenix Hill Football Stadium into Chengdu Rongcheng F.C.

There is a proposed merge discussion at Talk:Chengdu Rongcheng F.C. § Proposed merge of Phoenix Hill Football Stadium into Chengdu Rongcheng F.C.. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves related to university football

• College soccer
• College association football
• College soccer in the United States

There appears to have been an undiscussed page move, specifically moving College soccer to College soccer in the United States, turning College soccer into a disambiguation page, and what appears to be the creation of College association football. Does this move seem alright? I know there was a template on the College soccer page for some time about it being US-centric, but it would have been nice to generate some discussion before these were moved. Jay eyem (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This should not have been done without discussion. US college sports are the primary topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Already raised with the editor in question at User talk:Fma12#College soccer. GiantSnowman 11:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It also looks like the talk page Talk:College soccer also should have been moved to Talk:College soccer in the United States but it wasn't, and now there is a new talk page in its place rather than the old talk page. So now you have conversations relating to the original article on the talk page for the disambiguation page. Jay eyem (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What a mess. Can an admin unwind this completely and start a RM? SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the page histories for all three articles, all I can say is that this is what the US military would call a "Romeo Charlie Foxtrot," or a "Royal Clusterf***." There was no page move performed, which is why the old talk page is still with the dab page. (See the move logs for College association football, College soccer, and College soccer in the United States.) I would try to "unfornicate" what has happened, but I'd be more comfortable if an admin or someone with rollback rights performed the edits. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent edits by Fma12, so currently the main article is College soccer in the United States, College soccer redirects there, and College association football redirects to College soccer. This is still not ideal. Surely the main article should be College soccer? I cannot work out how this was the first ever edit to 'college soccer' and only on 26 December 2023? GiantSnowman 20:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what discussion was needed since the college soccer in the United States article had also sections related to the sport in the UK, South Africa, Vietnam, Japan, and other countries. After the reversion to the previous version, the title "...in the United States" is (IMO) wrong. What I simply did was to create a new article, "college association football", moving topics related to non-US college/university (association) football there.

Those changes were based on the tag that says The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject..... I don't think the current version help avoid confusions, but if anyone knows how to solve this out, he'll be welcome. For my part, I won't edit or modify anything else. Fma12 (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But you have not moved anything, there is nothing in the logs? GiantSnowman 21:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I already moved the non-US college football sections. All is here Fma12 (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In the most technical sense, copying (which is what you did) is not the same thing as moving. It left a huge mess in edit histories (how is it possible that the first edit in a page's history removed more than 50 kilobytes?) and disassociated a talk page from the proper article. I understand what you were attempting to accomplish, but the end result was extremely confusing and should not have been done unilaterally. I would suggest that you begin discussion to determine how to properly split the article at Talk:College soccer since that is where all the existing discussion already resides. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And now they have all been just redirected to College soccer in the United States rather than College soccer, and the talk pages have still not been fixed. Is there any way for us to return this to the status quo, where all of this was under College soccer, and to have a proper RM before making any more changes? I don't really know how to undo all of this but would appreciate some guidance. Jay eyem (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There were no page moves, so talk pages should not be affected. GiantSnowman 17:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok I don't understand how that could be true. The page was always at College soccer, I used to regularly check the page, it was never at College soccer in the United States until very recently. How else do you explain the fact that Talk:College soccer has posts going back to 2007, while Talk:College soccer in the United States was only very recently created? I admit that I don't know everything about moving pages, but the page was originally at College soccer and just redirecting that to College soccer in the United States doesn't make sense. Jay eyem (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree, I cannot fathom what they have done and they have not explained. GiantSnowman 19:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I have gone ahead and posted something at the help desk and hoping to get another look at this. I am not sure if I should be posting somewhere else, but I am still hoping that this can get resolved back to the status quo. Jay eyem (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

---

The sequence of events that got us here is that Fma12 copied most of the content from College soccer to College soccer in the United States, copied the rest of the content to college association football and then converted college soccer to a disambiguation page. Then DanCherek merged the history (using Special:MergeHistory, so it appears in Special:Log/merge not Special:Log/move) of College soccer to College soccer in the United States. Then GiantSnowman reverted College soccer and College association football to redirects and College soccer in the United States back to the content (but not the title) it was before Fma12's actions. So the result is equivalent to as if Fma12 had moved the page (but not the talk page) even though the page move functionality wasn't invoked, and an admin can bring things back to the status quo ante by moving College soccer in the United States back to College soccer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I performed that history merge in an attempt to preserve attribution in the edit history, but it looks like I made things very confusing for folks so apologies! DanCherek (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

So I am not 100% familiar with the process on undoing this change, so I went ahead and started a RM at Talk:College soccer in the United States. Hopefully we can get this sorted. Jay eyem (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Genoa CFC

I was reading through the article, but the open lead second paragraph, Established in 1893, Genoa is Italy's oldest extant football team and one of the country's oldest ever. One of the country's oldest ever? This reads funny, I wasn't sure how it should be rewritten, but this sentence seems pretty important, Wouldn't it be better to just have Established in 1893, Genoa is Italy's oldest extant football team in the country. ?? Govvy (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've left it as Established in 1893, Genoa is Italy's oldest extant football team. If it's Italy's oldest team still in existence, it's implicitly one of the oldest even when you include those that have been dissolved. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough, cheers, I only posted, because after I edited Timo Werner the other day people seemed up in arms over it and harassed me. Wikipedia is a strange thing. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:AEK Athens F.C. in European competitions#Requested move 15 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:AEK Athens F.C. in European competitions#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, I've just looked at the page history, one user should be sin-binned by an admin, and it shouldn't need a page move request, it needs moving back. Govvy (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Amelia Hazard up for deletion

Amelia Hazard at AFD sourcing issues. — Maile (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it ever acceptable to put a footballer's MOS:ETHNICITY in first line?

I've noticed a lot of single-purpose accounts recently that edit on absolutely nothing accept cramming someone's ethnicity into the opening sentence instead of their nationality. First there was User:Hackneyglyn21, who appeared to be Welsh but pro-Catalan and Basque, and almost unironically evoking Monty Python's "What did the Romans ever do for us?", asked for proof that Mikel Arteta is Spanish besides his country of birth and national football team. [6]

Days later came User:Lametinowiki whose entire edit history is a flurry of adding Basque origin to the lead. I don't think they're related, I just think they have the same hobby.

I don't see why there should be any special pleading that the Basques are a special case exempt from MOS:ETHNICITY. It is true that their language faced persecution, but the African Americans and the black people of South Africa faced exceptional persecution and we don't say that Michael Jordan was an African American basketball player or Steven Pienaar was a Cape Coloured footballer. As I tried to say to Hackney Glyn multiple times to deaf ears, "Spanish" and "Basque" are not mutually exclusive. One is a citizenship and one is an ethnic group. His arguments that players have names from the Basque langauge or even speak the language doesn't stop them from being born in the country recognised all over the world as the Kingdom of Spain, playing for the Spain national football team and working abroad on Spanish passports. In Europe we are used to the idea of the nation state but most countries in Africa and Asia are not nation states and this place would become incomprehensible if we talked about "Tamil footballers" and "Yoruba footballers" instead of the basic context of nationality. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it not notable. We put nationality in the opening line only, and even then not if it is complex. A player should be described as 'Spanish' not 'Catalan' or 'Basque'. GiantSnowman 22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The best example I can think of is the Featured Article on Sandy Koufax. Every baseball fan knows that Koufax was Jewish, and many books and articles have concerned his Jewishness, but it is not until the third paragraph of the lead that his Jewishness is introduced. The article details the importance of Koufax in Jewish history - alongside his much bigger importance in baseball history - rather than trying to bludgeon that identity into the first sentence. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Dodgy editing season

Maybe a few people might want to keep an eye on Cristian Romero (Argentine footballer) as there seems to be a couple of disruptive editors popping up to do goodness knows what to the page this January. Also, some of the written text on Timo Werner, ugh I've have to say, I simply don't trust some editors around these days. The article suffers from the awful, where multiple sentences start with; (On #date). It's nice to start a sentence a different way so it's not written like a list! As for lead! I don't really want to go there, there is a whole talk page section on it. :/ Anyway, happy editing all. Govvy (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Alas, no one interested in the nastiness going on at the Timo Warner article?? Govvy (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Results by round (yet again)

Can I check that the general consensus is not to have these? And in particular not ones where the "rounds" are numbered out of sequence? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary duplication of information. There are a list of results in every season article and every single one shows you the results by round so you don't need a separate section to tell you something you already know. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The usual suspect, Skyblueshaun (see article creation diff), doing what he wants and ignoring past discussions. Seasider53 (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think from this section where multiple users participated four years ago, a couple identified that as overkill. I certainly find number misordering of the "Round" row misleading. Hence why 2021–22 Gillingham F.C. season does not have that Results by round table, as that and majority of other clubs experienced Covid related match rescheduling.

I shall check the article creations for next season's club articles to see if the usual suspect adds these tables and ignores discussions. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I also brought it up last August but, again, no response. Seasider53 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

the prt where its like 1, 2, 4, 5, 3, 6, 7 cuz of postponed is stupid, and it seems to just be one obsessed guy. it should be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - what matters was 7 games being played not that 'the match that was meant to be 3rd happened 5th so lets make the table look really stupid'.Muur (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The positions by round numbers is not needed, and is basically WP:OR since the sources don't keep a history of the positions of teams straight after they've played a match. Changing the round numbers due to postponements is even more questionable/OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and the additional problem with Soccerway is that it only shows current league tables when looking at previous season articles. We are now more likely to scrap that sort of information per the last response above. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call Results by round WP:OR, however I do agree it doesn't provide much additional information to the article. I'd much prefer people to write decent prose on a season article. Which you don't see much of. So I have no qualms if it was removed. Govvy (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed.

By the way: on a different issue relating to the same affected group of pages (i.e. the current season pages for the 92 clubs in the top 4 English tiers of football), I have discovered almost every page had incorrect seasons where the number displayed after the club name is 2023 (the previous year) instead of the correct ones, e.g. https://int.soccerway.com/teams/england/swansea-city/2023/ . Reason being - why would we want to visit the Villareal CF Soccerway page instead of the correct teams? I can see from page histories of a sample as well as this that the user who adds in the incorrect Soccerway links by using the start of season number instead of the correct one is "the usual suspect, Skyblueshaun". I first noticed the mistake on the current Swansea City season page and once I checked the insource tool, I knew a lot of errors needed to be fixed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Esteban Solari

I'll be damned if i'll ever understand this one, but here's the deal: this manager replaced Héctor Bidoglio at the Malaysian club described in storyline, and after winning it all last season he now left, and Bidoglio has returned!

A Malaysian IP keeps removing the mention of Solari's arrival in December 2022 (replacing Bidoglio), ref and all! In their last summary, they wrote "Out Hector Bidoglio who is not part of Solari History". Really?!

I come to you for assistance, as i'm close to breaking WP:3RR. Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Odd situation. But yes, that content should stay. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It should stay of course - I'd also suggest the fact that Bidoglio returned to replace Solari immediately after that successful season ('moved downstairs' and re-appointed himself by the looks of it??) should be mentioned as well. Crowsus (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Fb rs template: neutral games

The Fb rs template which contains home and away records is useful, but might need to be taken a step further in regards to neutral matches that can occur in a league season. For example as recently, the Unite Round in the A-Leagues took place, where all matches for the round were played in Sydney, which indicates that there is no true form of home/away fixtures involved, or for the COVID hub games that occurred in Sydney during the 2019–20 season for the remainder the league season, hence the definition of neutral matches instead of true home/away ones. There may also be other circumstances where there weren't home/away (neutral) matches that occurred in other league seasons. However, the form of neutral records in this template can be just as effective. Since the overall totals are the home and away records added up (in the case of no neutral matches included in the records), the overall tally wouldn't be the same record as the team actually did in the league season. Also using the home/away records to add a neutral match is just throwing the true home/away records off. If the change can be done, the neutral records don't have to be shown in reading mode, unless the 'neutral' parameters are entered into the wikitext. FastCube (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a template expert, but imagine that the neutral parameters could be made as optional parameters, which only display if they're populated (similar to how the points deductions parameter on there looks to be working). There's probably enough matches wholly at neutral venues in the last few years with COVID to make this worthwhile IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Giorgio Marchetti nominated for deletion.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgio Marchetti (2nd nomination). Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Supercoppa Italiana year denomination

I suggest we change the name of the articles from a single year, such as 2023 Supercoppa Italiana to the name of the season, e.g. 2023-24 Supercoppa Italiana, as the official website reports and also to avoid confusion, as is often held in January of the following year, 2023 Supercoppa Italiana now is the one which is taking place in 2024. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree for all those where confusion could occur. Crowsus (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:AS Cimentul Fieni#Requested move 19 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:AS Cimentul Fieni#Requested move 19 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:ACS Hușana Huși#Requested move 19 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ACS Hușana Huși#Requested move 19 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of association football players who died during their careers#Requested move 3 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of association football players who died during their careers#Requested move 3 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 06:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Invite to join the Unreferenced articles drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of football articles and football score lists on Wikipedia that are not cited. We need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Esteban Solari

The Malaysian IP has now created an account and resumed removing any mention to the other coach in this manager's article. They also left a nonsensical note in the article's talkpage, i don't know what else to do anymore...

Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As I have told you - revert, warn, and report to AIV. GiantSnowman 16:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Neil Warnock Managerial Statistics

Could I get some calmer heads to take a look at the managerial stats in the article on Neil Warnock? There's an editor claiming that there's an error in the source cited. The claim seems at least plausible, but they're unwilling or unable to provide reliable sources to correct the error. Given that they've also resorted to posting an angry rant into the content of the article, direct discussions with them are unlikely to be fruitful. I'd appreciate some additional input on this. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added a footnote to the managerial stats table. Hope it helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Huddersfield confirmed the Stoke would be his 132nd time in charge, since he already had 108 matches between 1993 and 1995. Soccerbase are right with their stats on this article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Having a look at the footnote added, it would appear that Soccerbase added the Stoke match incorrectly. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, Soccerbase's stats are increasingly incomplete the further back you go. Huddersfield played in the Football League Trophy in 93/4 and 94/5, but Soccerbase doesn't include that comp in their database that far back (see 93/4, 94/5) so it doesn't get counted in their stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't access Soccerbase as I am at work and it is blocked on my work computer but his Scarborough stats look especially suspect. If he managed there for two and a half seasons, there's no way that equates to only 78 games. The team would have played over 100 league games alone in that period, never mind other competitions....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, 145 matches for Scarborough (W71-D38-L36) according to Scarborough football club official history 1879-1998 page 88 Cattivi (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Struway2: yes, I have checked Soccerbase for the confirmed omissions as well as the 1994 Football League Trophy final article where Warnock managed that team as confirmed. As for Scarborough, having a 31 game season is not common throughout the history of football for senior men so even more incompleteness. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If the numbers are that suspect, and the problem goes beyond just Warnock's most recent managerial post, is there a case to made to just remove the entire stats section until we can get better sources? Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sounds sensible - only add stats that can be clearly and properly sourced. GiantSnowman 17:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Write all official goals in a football player's page on Wikipedia

All official goals should be recorded in player's Wikipedia page; league, domestic cups and continental cups. Every goal exept friendly matches. The official records of UEFA, the player's domestic league etc. is doing it; so should Wikipedia. Because it's official. 149.7.163.75 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 17:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I presume what the IP means is that the infobox should include all goals (and, presumably, apps), not just league........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman I think linking to previous discussions from WP:Football would be better than just putting WP:NOTSTATS. All WP:NOTSTATS says is no Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Cup and International are not unexplained.

@ChrisTheDude I think you are correct. Demt1298 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We do not include non-league stats because it would favour modern players. GiantSnowman 21:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is actually one of the ugliest aspects of articles on footballers. Enthusiastic fans routinely update goals scored, round by round, almost always WITHOUT new sourcing for the new number. This means that maybe half the articles on football breach Wikipedia rules most of the time. I wish there was a simple fix. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In theory, the infobox should be reflecting information in the statistics section, which in turn is cited to whatever database or league website is there. I would not be against seeing FBref or similar databases cited in the footnotes section of the infobox, though making that standard across 200,000 articles is a daunting task. SounderBruce 03:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It can be done more automatically using WikiData and templates, as is done on infoboxes for Australian rules football players. --SuperJew (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXREF applies. GiantSnowman 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Which aspect(s) of WP:INFOBOXREF? HiLo48 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Frank Lampard

Can someone please have a word with User:StarryNightSky11 about their conduct at Frank Lampard? They're insisting on piping New York City FC to New York City despite the club being commonly known by their full name. They also seem to have a bit of a civility issue, as evidenced by this edit summary. I would also suggest that their edits at Nasser Al-Khelaifi are inappropriate, since the mention of his role with Paris Saint-Germain is immediately followed by his role in the Qatar Tennis Federation, and thus Paris Saint-Germain F.C. should not be piped to Paris Saint-Germain. Apologies if 3RR has been violated on my part - I often struggle with counting, especially when trying to ascertain another editor's attitude. – PeeJay 22:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems you were blocked regardless. Oh well. Seasider53 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There's already a lot of these team names in MLS that we don't pipe, but it's particularly inappropriate for New York City and Los Angeles where there are two teams each in both metros. No reason to not be as explicit as possible. Jay eyem (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There ought to be a more concrete policy on this (and other Americanisms that MLS has that outside editors refuse to recognize). For consistency and to prevent confusion, I strongly favor leaving the suffixes and prefixes for all MLS teams; even for a team with a distinct name like the Sounders, referring to "Seattle Sounders FC" disambiguates from the earlier un-FC iterations of team. This is also the case for some teams that have rebranded over the years. SounderBruce 01:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with SounderBruce when it comes to confusion.

As for those blocks I believe I took some responsibility for that as I reported both to 3RR notice board but failed to notice this section had already started before I finished reporting. Who knows what would happen if I didn't report by noticing this section first. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as we pipe the FC for almost every other team, why would we be inconsistent and not pipe it for New York City FC? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

USA is different... GiantSnowman 12:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Which raises the question: why are we doing it differently for the US? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It falls under WP:ENGVAR. We simply do things a bit different here. SounderBruce 11:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

For this particular case it is helpful to be as specific as possible. To a layperson it is not obvious to say that a player who played for "New York City" played for New York City FC and not New York Red Bulls, especially since NYCFC is pretty much never referred to as simply "New York City" the way you might for, say, Manchester City. The same can be said for a player who played for "Los Angeles", as it wouldn't be clear if they played for the LA Galaxy or Los Angeles FC (Likewise, LAFC is also pretty much never referred to as simply "Los Angeles"). Can't really speak for most other MLS cities with names like this, although there are often other teams in those cities, so just listing the name of the city in the infobox is unhelpful. Jay eyem (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Álvaro Fernández v Álvaro Carreras

"SukunaZenin moved page Álvaro Fernández (footballer, born 2003) to Álvaro Carreras: Now going by the name Álvaro Carreras check his presentation at Benfica as evidence"

No discussion, no nothing. Should one revert to the previous surname? SLBedit (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes and initiate a RM discussion to see what users think on this move. Looks controversial to me without one. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree - needs a full RM discussion. GiantSnowman 19:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Talk:Álvaro Fernández (footballer, born 2003)#Requested move 24 January 2024 SLBedit (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox football tournament season § champ match score

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox football tournament season § champ match score. 2pou (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Multiple Notes Sections

I think I asked this before, but I couldn't find it in the history when I was tried using the archive search tool. How do you set up multiple notes sections, so the notes appear in different places. For example, I have a note in the infobox that I want to appear in a notes section, then a note in the stats table, that I want to appear right underneath the stats table. Have this issue on a couple of pages such as Jesse Daley. However, all the notes are appearing under the stats table since that is the first "noteslist". Thanks in advance RedPatch (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If you use Template:Refn instead of efn then you can add a group parameter which will group the references separately. You'd need to change the notelist to {{reflist|group=groupname}} though and you wouldn't be able to group the two Sounders notes together. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Or, use the ordinary {{efn}} and {{notelist}} for the first one and a different template, such as {{efn-ua}} or {{efn-lr}}, for the other with the corresponding notelist, {{notelist-ua}} or {{notelist-lr}}. See the documentation at {{efn}}. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!! RedPatch (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Angola at 2006 FIFA World Cup

I need your help to find some informations about angolan staff members at 2006 FIFA World Cup. Can you help me ? Cordially. FCNantes72 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do we even have an article like Angola at the FIFA World Cup if they only appeared once? Surely that should be redirected and merged into the appropriate Group stage article.

Angola at the FIFA World Cup Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

A proper article would discuss preparations and the like, there's nothing wrong with it, just a bit too reference-y IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 14:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just found Mabi de Almeida (assistant), Arlindo Macedo (spokesman), Laurindo Vieira (psychotherapist). No informations about Goalkeeper coaches, Fitness coaches, other assistant head coaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCNantes72 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

article doesnt seem notable to meMuur (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Every country which has participated at the World Cup has an article in the same format as Angola's - several of them of course have also only made just the one appearance ColchesterSid (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It would, of course, be nice if the article had more citations than its current total of zero. Quite apart from that, it effectively fails WP:NOTSTATS because it's ... nothing else. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia's records now

So far, we have been counting Czechoslovakia's records towards the Czech Republic's historical tallies, and have been treating Slovakia as a separate new team. Do we need to reconsider this?

UEFA publishes pages profiling the teams that are to participate in each forthcoming Euro championship. Judging by those, UEFA may actually consider both teams to be equal inheritors of Czechoslovakia, as it states that they both were "winners as Czechoslovakia" at Euro 1976. Relevant pages: Euro 2024 teams, Euro 2020 Czech Republic, Euro 2020 Slovakia.

UEFA's website also has general profiles of the national associations, and those are less categorical: the Czech Republic page contains a timeline where all notable records of Czechoslovakia are listed equally as those of the modern team, while the analogous lists in the Slovakia page only have one entry on that period, carefully worded thus: "1976: A large contingent of Slovak players, as well as assistant coach Jozef Vengloš, helps Czechoslovakia to win the European Championship."

FIFA's website, on the other hand, has association profiles that no longer have history sections (Czechia, Slovakia), but they used to have them, and they used to attribute Czechoslovakia's appearances in the World Cup to the Czech Republic only; Czech Republic: 9 appearances, Slovakia: 1 appearance.

On Wikipedia, based on those publications by UEFA, certain users have now carried over Czechoslovakia's records onto Slovakia's tallies too. So, the former team and its records are now listed and counted twice everywhere: check e.g. in statistics pages on the World Cup and its qualifying, and the Euros and its qualifying. Per the all-time table, Slovakia is now 20th in the World Cup historically, actually ahead of the Czech Republic, which is 21st.

Should we continue this way, or should we revert it? --Theurgist (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd have said revert. But there actually is a section of text at the very bottom of the article. "A number of UEFA associations have been affected by dissolution or splits of member associations. For statistical purposes, the records of these inactive countries have been allocated elsewhere: therefore, all Soviet Union matches are awarded to Russia; all West Germany – but not East Germany – matches are awarded to Germany; all Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro matches are awarded to Serbia; all Czechoslovakia matches are allocated to both Czechia and Slovakia." I wonder what makes that split special? -Koppapa (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen two countries end up with the predecessor's record before. That is weird. My opinion has always been that because the Czech Republic isn't Czechoslovakia, they should be separated out but they often aren't because the Czech Republic is considered the direct successor. This creates a very different problem and I don't think counting Czechoslovakia's result twice is the solution. The wording in that note is far from ideal as well because "awarded" sounds like there was some sort of competition to decide who got (for example) the Soviet Union's record. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Very strange, I mean Slovaks played a big role in the Czechoslovakian teams, but so did Croatians (and others) in the Yugoslav sides and Ukrainians (and others) in the USSR's... Crowsus (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

i would say it depends on how fifa determine it, not uefa.Muur (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Koppapa: Even if that page by UEFA overrules the general association profiles on the same website (which, again, don't seem to reflect it fully as of yet), that's only UEFA, not FIFA. And yet, all of a sudden we're stating that Slovakia has 2 silver medals from the FIFA World Cup. @Muur: I had an edit conflict with your edit; nice to know we're on the same page.

I agree that it's weird to count the same records twice. Besides, by definition no more than one party can have majority in a union. Even if ethnic Slovaks contributed greatly to the team, a country is not just the individuals who represent it but also organization, structure, facilities, funding, etc, all of which the Slovaks benefited from during the Czechoslovak period.

Imagine if Catalonia broke away and started claiming Spain's trophies, or if Scotland did the same with the UK's Olympic medals. I don't have ties with any of those countries, but it just doesn't make sense.

I'm pinging User:Khoa41860, who made the edits in question. --Theurgist (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree because the UN did not consider Czech Republic and Slovakia are the outright successor and that both were admitted as independent nation. Furthermore, FIFA and UEFA have allocated records of these inactive countries have been allocated elsewhere: therefore, all Soviet Union matches are awarded to Russia; all West Germany – but not East Germany – matches are awarded to Germany; all Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro matches are awarded to Serbia; all Czechoslovakia matches are allocated to both Czechia and Slovakia. Also, both the Czechs and Slovaks have played eight World Cups as Czechoslovakia and wanted to keep into both. Khoa41860 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is what UEFA states here, and where does FIFA state it? --Theurgist (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

FIFA.com Khoa41860 (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Which page exactly in fifa.com? --Theurgist (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

FIFA.com/Czech Republic and FIFA.com/Slovakia 2600:1700:B0A1:5F0:F06A:FBD1:C329:A267 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it is the updated links of https://www.fifa.com/fifaplus/en/member-associations/czech-republic and https://www.fifa.com/fifaplus/en/member-associations/slovakia 2600:1700:B0A1:5F0:F06A:FBD1:C329:A267 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I linked those two pages above. I'm not seeing such information there. In fact in both you see a "News" panel with a "SEE ALL" link on top right. The one at the Czechia profile gets you to a page containing articles on Czechoslovakia's achievements, while the equivalent page linked from the Slovakia profile only has materials on Slovakia. While not explicit, this is significant. --Theurgist (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

So, Slovakia is now suddenly one of the most decorated teams in the World Cup, in fact second only to the Netherlands apart from the title-winning teams. With due respect, this is not how it works.

UEFA is doing its own things, but as far as FIFA is concerned, there's no evidence that it treats it this way. Not only the old country profiles (also linked above) but also the all-time table used to attribute the appearances to the Czech Republic only, although we're still lacking a current (non-archived) first-hand explicit confirmation.

In fact RSSSF has an all-time table too, and it currently leaves those records unattributed to either modern country; in a footnote they admit that FIFA considers the Czech Republic the successor of Czechoslovakia but they've decided not to follow suit (a previous version did comply with FIFA's view). Better leave them unattributed than count them twice. This just makes no sense. Users might argue, and with reason, that Czechoslovakia is not the Czech Republic, but then Czechoslovakia is not Slovakia either. --Theurgist (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Jamie Jellis

A few sources - but not all - mention that Jamie Jellis played for St Albans City, which is seemingly verified by this, but St Albans themselves have no details on him and I cannot find anything to verify that or when he signed. Any help appreciated... GiantSnowman 15:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe he just had a trial. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

He's very active on Twitter, and I just scrolled back through those years, during which he mentions each of his transfers. St Albans wasn't one of them. Seasider53 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

OK great thanks - as Govvy says, possibly a trial? Which a journalist has mis-interpreted and then it's been repeated lazily. GiantSnowman 15:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ben Radcliffe (footballer)

The article Ben Radcliffe (footballer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

nothing out of passing mentions and routine coverage in reliable sources, does not seem to meet any notability guideline

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 2A02:C7C:78ED:FE00:9036:FEB3:C7A6:9328 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

A-League finals series appearances

Hi all, would appearances/goals in the A-League Men finals series count as 'League' appearances or as 'Other' in career statistics tables? I've seen it done both ways. Thanks for your help. Nonleagueapps (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on my understanding, league appearances - as they are used to determine the league champion. In Belgium, this was given as a league app on Toby Alderweireld even though it was after the regular season titled "Play-Off I". I'm inclined to know what others think about this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I had always thought they were 'playoff' and therefore an 'Other', as opposed to regular season. I think that's what I've seen with MLS? GiantSnowman 16:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand 'league' vs 'other' to mean any appearance that has bearing on league standings, including playoffs to determine a champion, vs appearances in multi-league tournaments, such as the UEFA Champions League. So appearances in MLS Cup playoffs or the A-League Men finals series would still count as league appearances but would not count toward any regular season statistics. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The finals series is part of the domestic league season, so should be included in league stats in infobox, and are treated as such in most stats websites I've seen, for example Ultimatealeague, Soccerway, Soccer Base. Fbref seem to be the only one I can see that count only league appearances until finals (but in the detailed view show the finals too and count them in the total). --SuperJew (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Soccerway also counts English domestic play-offs as 'regular league' games although it is long established that they are not... GiantSnowman 20:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I understand, English domestic play-offs are only to determine which teams are regulated or promoted, no? In the A-League the finals series is to decide the champion (format similar to the AFL format). --SuperJew (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Much like the MLS 'play offs' which we don't count as 'league' either... GiantSnowman 22:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

ALeagueStats tends to be the source I use and they separate out the Finals appearances! Nonleagueapps (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to add input to my own question, I always worked on the premise that any format where all teams play the same number of matches (e.g. the split in Scotland) counts as League, but any fixture which limits qualification to a select number of teams (e.g. promotion playoffs, MLS playoffs, A-League finals) would be Other, to show it's an addendum (or "post-season"). But as formats get more convoluted (Belgium being a good example) I tend to just leave anything complicated the way I find it to avoid incurring wrath. Nonleagueapps (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

play off, so goes under 'other'.Muur (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a play-off. Playoffs are to decide who gets promoted/relegated --SuperJew (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

tell that to the mls. who literally have mls play offs. same of the indian league. the kangaroos calling it something else doesnt not make them play offs.Muur (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

If the MLS want to call something which isn't a play-off a play-off it doesn't make it a play-off just because that's what they call it. --SuperJew (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The definition of 'playoff' is simply "a game or series of games that are played after a regular season of games [...] to decide a winner". GiantSnowman 22:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

and there you go. the regular season determines the winner of the supporter's shield, and then the play offs for the mls cup. this aussie stuff doesnt count as official league games. soccerbase dont count them as regular apperences - they count adam le fondre with 96 league appearences and 56 goals - discounting the end of season title play offs https://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=38355&season_id=155 if they counted them hed be at 106/62, but they count them under other instead. so soccerbase already dicsounts the a league final stuff for stats.Muur (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has followed the A-Leagues since their inception, the answer is 100% that finals games are considered league games. @Nonleagueapps: has mentioned that ALeagueStats "separates out the finals appearances". While they do at times list these games separately (they also separate out Grand Finals, which can hardly be different statistically than other finals games), it's also clear that they combine finals matches with regular season games for statistical purposes. For example, Carl Jenkinson's most recent game (bottom of the page) is noted as "50th appearance in the A-League (Men)". Looking at his stats up the top of that page, this is clearly the sum of regular season and finals matches.

This mirrors how other official and third party sources treat A-Leagues appearances (and is also consistent with a consensus in editing A-Leagues pages which has developed over 20 years without controversy). To pick another example, Nikolai Topor-Stanley retired as one of the A-Leagues' top appearance makers with 368 regular season games and 12 finals appearances, per ALeagueStats. All sources refer to him as having made 380 A-League Men appearances, including the league's official page: "surpassing recently retired defender Nikolai Topor-Stanley who sits one game behind on 380"; Newcastle Herald: "...called it quits last season aged 38 with an incredible 380 games to his name" and Cessnock Advertiser: "racked up 380 matches in the A-League".

Changing approach at this point would go against what has been done on many hundreds of pages and is also clearly out of step with how primary and secondary sources treat A-Leagues games for statistical purposes. Macosal (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see it as outside of the league season matches, which is how I've seen it recorded. For players with majority of their career in Australia/US/Canada they can have a Playoffs column in their stats table where these stats are recorded (beside League and before Cup) as is the case with the pages for many MLS players (similar to State League's location in tables for Brazilian players). Jesse Daley is an example of this as a player who has played in Australia, Canada, and the United States. RedPatch (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you bring exmaples of how it's recorded? I think Macosal made a strong case here, backed by media sources. --SuperJew (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant recorded on some wiki pages I've seen. RedPatch (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source to verify information. It is not uncommon for separate records to be kept in different sports leagues for regular-season and post-season statistics, e.g. the National Hockey League, but all statistics still count toward the player's total. If you can find a source that shows MLS, A-League, or similar leagues maintaining fully separate sets of statistics between regular and post-season play, please let us know. I have yet to see any league that uses post-season play to determine a champion not include those statistics in the players' totals. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe RedPatch is trying to reference other articles as examples of project consensus rather than citing them for statistics. As for the MLS side of this: the league website has separate tables for regular season and playoff matches, as does ESPN; FBref seems to ignore them entirely and Soccerway rolls them into the same entry on the table. SounderBruce 04:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This was what I meant (ie. Consensus) , sorry if it was unclear. RedPatch (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The consensus should be based on reliable sources. If the consensus is flawed, it should change. --SuperJew (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In creating its finals series, the A League was directly copying what happens in the two bigger football codes in Australia, the Australian Football League (which plays Australian rules football) and the National Rugby League. Both competitions have been holding finals series for over a century, much longer than the A League has existed. The A League did it for the same reason as Aussie Rules and Rugby League, money. More games added to the regular season (because that's what they are) brings more people through the gate and more television revenue. Nobody in Australia sees those "series" as separate from the main season. They the main season's culmination, not a separate series. So it's an Australian invention. No relationship to what happens in other countries. Most Australian soccer (football) fans have considerable interest in English and other European leagues, but have little idea about what happens in the US. Drawing any parallel between what happens in Australia and what happens in MLS is silly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Belgium is a an appropriate comparison - they have 'extra' matches which do not involve all the teams from the initial phase, but as far as I'm aware they are included as league appearances in the table for the players. Bit fiddly, but what I'd suggest is maybe having the A-League stats table have something like ||34||7||...etc to give a breakdown for those interested or uncertain (I'm aware that doesn't happen for Belgium at present, but maybe it should?)

Crowsus (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is it a bit fiddly? Australian sport has coped with the concept for over a century. (And Australians are obsessed with sport. MANY sports.) You cannot demand that all soccer playing nations follow the model you are most familiar with. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I just mean it's a bit fiddly to add the explanatory note in the table for every player and every season, but I feel if its being done right that should be shown, as many in other parts of the world would assume those aren't included - but I agree with you that the baseline figure should include them as standard. Crowsus (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kosovo Derby#Requested move 29 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kosovo Derby#Requested move 29 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Manchester United F.C. in European football#Requested move 1 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Manchester United F.C. in European football#Requested move 1 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Inter

I ask if I can change the name to the correct one, FC Internazionale Milano 14 novembre (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to change the article name of Inter Milan, then you should use WP:RM. GiantSnowman 19:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading the previous discussions at Talk:Inter Milan before doing anything. This has been discussed at length before. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

EPG Cup

Someone with a bit more experience should probably make an article for this bareing in mind it is in the public eye at the moment WikiHmmmm... (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

International players by club naming

There's practically no consistency with the naming in lists of international association football players by club. Some are "internationals", "international footballers" or, "international players" which appears as a mess. Can't we just stick to one name? FastCube (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should - I say List of CLUB international players, being in line with standard of List of CLUB players in Category:Lists of footballers in England by club. GiantSnowman 09:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

List of Indonesia footballers born outside Indonesia

Is this an okay article? Seems like a category can do the same thing. :/ Govvy (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Oklahoma City Stampede

I went to accept this, but it's already a redirect to Oklahoma City Slickers where the team is clearly covered. The articles are different though, is this enough for a stand-alone page? SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

List of footballers who achieved hat-trick records and women

I am throwing this open to formal discussion from the WP Football community for: how should List of footballers who achieved hat-trick records include women. See also the two discussions ("Women" and "Women 2") at the talkpage. People at this project talkpage will know I go hard on things like this (while hopefully being a wonderful conversationalist ;D), but hopefully know that this is because how we present things matters, that Wikipedia is such a widespread general reference tool that being as inclusive in our coverage of women and LGBT+ people etc. as makes sense for us to do, has a positive impact.

Okay, I believe Mishary94 (talk · contribs) started the list and has done a lot of work on it, and we have to thank him for that. However, after I removed the (women) label from after the names of, well, all the women, he has been uncooperative and insists that women's hat-trick records cannot be compared to men's.

I am not against having separate lists within an article for women's achievements (like List of most expensive association football transfers, where I added a women's list before it got split out) or creating a separate article for such things (like List of women's association football attendance records) – when there are practical and/or cultural differences.

I do not believe that there is any fundamental difference between men and women when it comes to scoring hat-tricks, and thus I think it would be very hard to justify not having them in the same list. As the most pressing example, Alex Morgan has scored more international hat-tricks than Cristiano Ronaldo, and it is not hard to say that.

However, there are a few factors I think contributors should consider:

1. Does Wikipedia consider men's and women's hat-tricks as different things, separate topics to warrant separate lists, as this is how it may appear? Presenting items separately tells readers that they are different.
   1. Men's and women's achievements presented separately, regarding a field dominated by men (football), can imply to a reader that the women's achievement is not as important. I don't like it and wish it wasn't true, but for someone to try and argue people aren't influenced by how information is presented and its relation to the subject would be disingenuous.
   2. Men's and women's achievements presented in the same list with only women having a note about their gender, is liable to be interpreted the same way as an asterisk in advertising, a "but", a "to be taken with a grain of salt". It says that anything without a qualifier (i.e. the men) is the norm, is the absolute.
   3. There is nothing at the hat-trick article that separates men and women; in fact, the section about association football focuses probably far too much on records, and actually is more inclusive of women than the listicle ever was - while the listicle separates Men's and Women's FIFA World Cups as separate tournaments, the hat-trick article mentions all World Cup records together (including no mention of men when handling speed records, as these were achieved by women).
2. What is the best way to present information to the reader, based on what a reader may be looking for?
   1. The listicle needs to be navigable. If there is no need to duplicate 25+ sections to have a men's and women's version, it should not be done.
   2. Readers may be looking for men's achievements and women's achievements separately, or just one or the other.
      1. There are ways to do this without labelling and without separating – i.e. use a notes column or different colours for men's footballers and women's footballers (and to use colours for both, so it is not othering one or the other)
      2. If we assume that more readers would be looking for men's achievements, then separating out women's (and having men's above for alphabetical reasons) means that these readers may assume the men's achievements are absolute achievements. (They may do so regardless of order, too, based on the presumption of men being 'better')
      3. Therefore, if we do not separate out the women's, then readers who were only looking for the men's will instead engage with all: it should not make finding the information they want much or any harder (with e.g. colour coding), and the reader will be given a more accurate complete set of information. Wikipedia prevents the potential incorrect assumption, by presenting all relevant information. It also improves Wikipedia coverage of women for everyone, not just those looking for women.
      4. However, the list is not complete and has better coverage of men's achievements (based on, you know, media dominance), and so a reader looking for women's achievements who sees so few compared to the men's may assume that it is complete and that there aren't as many women achieving in the field. Would an incomplete list tag suffice?

Kingsif (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Just going to write here how I see practical and/or cultural differences, a reflection that I think would be too long and perhaps tenuous to cover in the opening statement. Having things in separate lists, indicates that those things cannot be compared. Within football, a field with male dominance, it is easy for readers to assume that therefore when women are separate, they are lesser; but in, I think, all cases where it is actually necessary to separate men and women in football, we are able to convey through prose statements about history and culture - through including related facts about women's football - why the women are not lesser.
  As case study examples, the two listicles I mention, of women's transfer record and women's attendance records. In both cases, the records are less than all top X (probably 100+) for men, and so we cannot compare them or have them in the same list. The women just wouldn't appear. The history/cultural aspect, however, is actually more significant, and really the reason we cannot compare. Men's attendance records were practically all set in the 20th century, when there were fewer health and safety rules on stadium/crowd size. Unofficial women's games from this period show similar attendances. But for much of this period, women's football was banned in a lot of the main footballing nations. By including this in prose, how large the achievement is of women (finally, in the 21st century) being able to officially achieve similar to men is conveyed. The same for transfers, also predominantly a 21st century phenomenon in women's football: prose discussing how and when financial impetus grew with women's football also shows the scale of the achievement.
  The ability to score a hat-trick is not limited by the history of women's football. Though women have a shorter history, it realistically only takes one match. There is no prose we could introduce that discusses women's hat-tricks as a topic and how the achievement is considered for women differently to men. It follows that we should not treat them different to men's. Kingsif (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Women's football and men's football are not the same. It's like comparing heavyweight and lightweight boxing. I think lists involving men's and women's football should be separated or else the integrity of the lists may be undermined. This is because men's football has a higher level of intensity that can't be matched by women's football as men are physically stronger than women. So, it wouldn't be right to put them together because they're somewhat different levels in the same sport. For example, Cristiano Ronaldo has 10 hat tricks for a national team but hypothetically, if he had played in women's football instead, that number could be significantly higher. Similarly, if Alex Morgan played in men's football, her number of hat tricks would be significantly lower. So, to put them in the same list is improper because they're different. Ae245 (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding both your attempts at comparison, neither of which are sound. Different boxing categories would be like different league tiers, while men scoring in the top tier of men's football and women scoring in the top tier of women’s football (like men and women each winning the same weight class in their own competitions) are legitimately comparable achievements. There is no reason to theoretically pit individual players against each other: men playing against men, and women playing against women, are comparable: you have literally used situations that will never happen as a reason to say it's different. We could also speculate that if Pelé was playing in the 21st century, with football having changed over the past 50 years, he wouldn't have scored as much, but this is a false argument as Pelé played against a matched opposition, and so his level of achievement within his experience of football is as valid as modern players. This is without addressing the irrelevant and inaccurate claim about women's strength, as it is irrelevant to scoring a hattrick against equal opposition. Kingsif (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  They're not comparable achievements though. The distinctions between men's and women's football are more pronounced, which is why women's football was established, because women couldn't compete against men (or even boys) in the same level playing field. To address the Pelé part, the players from previous eras weren't collectively and contrastingly different in terms of skills, performances, and/or talent compared with current players, despite other factors making them seem so. It's not a basis significant enough to divide football into categories because the factors distinguishing one era from another are constantly changing, unlike gender, which doesn't change. Since the separation of gender had been established in the sport, there's no reason for Wikipedia to deviate from it. The comparison with boxing is valid because lightweight and heavyweight boxers are separated based on weight, whereas women's and men's footballers are separated based on gender, which eventually comes down to physical capability. The boxers are given different awards based on the categories, they are never grouped together for any purpose. Ae245 (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  First, women's football was established because women wanted to play together, don't make up history.
  Second, you give one example of a women's team playing against not boys but male teenagers (i.e. past puberty, isn't that your point about physical strength); every youth (age group) team of the Barcelona women's team plays in male leagues and they regularly win said leagues. How 15 year old boys play against women and girls isn't a universal truth, don't seek out only evidence that supports you.
  Third, you are again relying on conjecture when you say Pelé and previous football eras have no significant difference to today. You cannot know, again, stop making things up.
  Fourth, the rules of the sport - including how one scores a hat-trick - are not different based on gender, and so there's no reason for Wikipedia to force a difference. When you think what is actually different between men's football and women's football, it is history and culture, not the actual sport.
  Fifth, no, the comparison with different classes boxing is not valid. Please learn about analogies. A valid comparison with boxing would be men's boxing vs women's boxing, obviously. You are, in this latest reply, outright saying that someone lines up all boxers and divides them by weight class and that would include men and women of the same weight competing against each other. That doesn't happen, does it. The different weight classes in boxing, as I suggested, would better translate to different leagues within gendered football. I.e. men's heavyweight is Premier League, women's heavyweight is WSL, men's bantamweight in EFL4, women's bantamweight is WNPL2, kind of thing.
  So, finally, yes, they are comparable achievements. Winning the second tier of football is not comparable to winning the top flight, and I assume that is how you're thinking about this based on your attempts at comparing to boxing - that your perspective is that you think women playing football must be judged on how they would play against men and sorted accordingly. Besides that in itself assuming women's football is inherently "worse" than men's based on nothing but the average (non-footballer) woman having less capacity to build muscle mass than the average man (i.e. how does anyone thinking criticially get to such a conclusion), trying to slot women who do not play in men's league into where you think they would go instead of just using women's leagues is a bad perspective - like, if we were talking about leagues, winning the top flight in women's football is comparable to winning the top flight of men's football - winning the top flight in Turkey is comparable to winning the top flight in England. It is winning the top flight you play in, no matter what nation or gender it is for.
  Of course, we are talking about scoring hat-tricks. So, likewise, as long as you are up against matched opposition, where scoring comes down mostly to your own skill, it is a comparable achievement. As has been noted, when a player is against a much weaker opponent then that is what can make the achievement incomparable - and yet you are both advocating against distinguishing football played at mismatched levels (your OR about historic players) and advocating for distinguishing players based on a hypothetical mismatched opponent (your "but if women played against men") as to exclude some of them. Kingsif (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  And look, the first few things are irrelevant anyway. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that you think comparing women's achievements with men's - in scoring, not even in winning - is comparing women playing football to men, and so you are playing devil's advocate and saying what if we compared them in every way. But this is still a fallacy. To wit, there are plenty WP articles comparing football things that are the same achievement but aren't played the same - like the list of teams that have won 4+ titles in a season. I don't understand why women and men are separated at that list, either, because winning four titles is winning four titles no matter what league/cup they are, as demonstrated by comparing men's teams with regional shields and Europa Leagues in their count to FA Cup and Champions League winners. Winning an Olympic gold is an Olympic gold no matter what gender or discipline. You wouldn't say that one gold medal is a different or lesser achievement because the person might not get it in a different event. You are thinking that the list is comparing (for analogy sake) the events, but it's just comparing how many gold medals. So the event (or, literally, men or women football) doesn't matter. Kingsif (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Should we then also separate by level? Is Chris Wood's hat-trick against Solomon Islands (~rank 130) in the OFC the same as Mbappé scoring a hat-trick in the 2022 FIFA World Cup final? Is CR7's hat-trick against Andorra in World Cup qualifiers the same as a his hat-trick against Spain in the World Cup group stage? --SuperJew (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment here does make one think. In terms of this article specifically, I have previously suggested that if anything needs some qualification it would be something relevant to ability to score multiple goals, like mismatched opponents as you say. I don't think there is a fair way to say what teams are easier for any individual to score against, though, so that could be difficult. Kingsif (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't mind, but a line has to be drawn at what extent to make the necessary divide, and gender is an acceptable line as it's something that doesn't change, not the prestige/prominence of the competition or player. Ae245 (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Besides the fact a line doesn't have to be drawn, because no divide does need to be made in the first place (Mishary just wanted to distinguish women for no reason other than them being women), there are examples at other football lists where Cup matches, Amateur, etc. are given their own lists because the difference is considered relevant to the topic. Kingsif (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• This is a very big issue to unpack and we can discuss it for a long time with a variety of opinions. But bottom line, while we have Association football and Women's association football, we are treating them separately and therefore any lists about achievements should also be separated. --SuperJew (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi. First, you will notice that association football is about the sport overall, i.e. including women. Where there are women related issues that need separate coverage, that is why we have the other. So in the exact same way, there should be a reason relevant to women in football to separate lists. So do you think there is a reason to separate them besides an unexplained "segregate by gender"? Kingsif (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly I'm not entirely sure what my thoughts are, def not to a level which I'd suggest Wikipolicy based on it. I do however think this is a bigger discussion than a specific list. --SuperJew (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, I will notify other related Wikiprojects and ask, in the notification, if there should be general discussion. However, I do think there needs to be case-by-case basis: as I tried to elaborate in my comment, there can be perfectly legitimate reasons to differentiate or separate. But sometimes there are not. One rule doesn't really fit all. Kingsif (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hello everyone, I think we ran into a problem with the List of footballers who achieved hat-trick records article. Kingsif insists on merging men and women players in one table without singling out any of them, otherwise this would be considered sex discrimination in his view. I tried to convince him that women's achievement is different from men's, because the nature of each is different, as women's sports are not the same as men's. However, he insists that achievement is equal for both, otherwise discrimination is considered a diminishment of women's record. I ask everyone to discuss here and find a final solution to this problem. --Mishary94 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Besides the fact they were in one table already, including added by users not myself, and you are insisting on either qualifying or segregating women - for the last time mate, a woman scoring a hat-trick against women is the same as a man scoring a hat-trick against men. Unless you can find FIFA rules saying women score hat-tricks differently, there is nothing different, is there. And yes, discrimination when done as you have attempted, by not labelling men or youth or amateur and only qualifying women, is literally Wikipedia not giving equal treatment to women for equal achievement in the relevant field. Kingsif (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Mishary, achievements of men should be separated from achievements of women, even in football awards they are separated.--فيصل (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  So we shouldn't include men under 21 because the Kopa Trophy exists?
  Let's be frank (for everyone): this is a place for discussion. Just saying "because women are different" - also forgetting that different does not mean unequal - is not contributing to discussion. Kingsif (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

I have a really simple solution: rename the current article to List of men's footballers who achieved hat-trick records. Then a separate list can be (and I'm sure will be) created for the women's footballers. They have always been two entirely separate strands of the sport. There is no reason to mash the lists together. Crowsus (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I would at this point in discussion just say refer back to my other comments, but I know you are a conversationalist and I do at least want to try and better understand the 'split because women' viewpoint. I have asked, and not always been facetious when doing so, as to what list-based and/or football rules-based reason there would be to separate. For reference, tournament football and Sunday league football are completely different and yet nobody has a problem with them being on the same list (and, for reference, the women in this list were never separate in the first place so we are looking for reasons to separate, not reasons to "mash together"). It seems really simple and obvious to me that 1. the scope of the list has nothing to do with gender and 2. gender has nothing to do with ability to score a hat-trick against a matched opponent. So if you can say, what are the simple facts that make you prefer a different solution? Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Venues of finals

Previous model of general article, FIFA World Cup (permalink)

Ed.	Year	Host	Final			Third-place play-off			No. of teams
			Champion	Score	Runner-up	Third	Score	Fourth
21	2018	Russia	France	4–2	Croatia	Belgium	2–0	England	32

Current model of general article, FIFA World Cup

Ed.	Year	Host	Final			Third-place play-off			No. of teams
			Champion	Score	Runner-up	Third	Score	Fourth
21	2018	Russia	France	4–2 Luzhniki Stadium, Moscow	Croatia	Belgium	2–0 Krestovsky Stadium, Saint Petersburg	England	32

Dedicated article, List of FIFA World Cup finals

Year	Winners	Score	Runners-up	Venue	Location	Attendance	Ref.
2018	France	4–2	Croatia	Luzhniki Stadium	Moscow, Russia	78,011	[47][48]

At some point, the venues of the finals and the third-place matches were edited into the table of FIFA World Cup, and gradually this was also carried over to all articles on the continental championships. I'm seeing the following issues with this:

• It makes the table more cluttered and the scoreline less prominent.
• It shifts the focus towards the match itself, when it should be on the teams.
• It messes up the roles of the general article and the dedicated one, List of FIFA World Cup finals. A general article is supposed to summarize, and a dedicated one dives in more depth. In practice, however, just one half of the general table now contains all the information of the dedicated one, except the attendance.

What do you think? --Theurgist (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The main article's table seems to be meant for tournament results, so the extra columns for hosts, number of teams, and the third-place match are warranted. I think it'd be best to remove the stadium names but retain the host city of the final. The stadium, attendance, and other information (perhaps global TV audience, referee, and/or man of the match) would belong in the dedicated list. SounderBruce 09:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I was asking only about the main article, and only about the stadium and city names there, but yeah, further discussion is welcome. The referees would be a good addition to the dedicated list. --Theurgist (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

First option for me for the main article. Kante4 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that including the stadium and location clutters the table on the general World Cup article. I agree with SounderBruce that additional information may be suitable for the dedicated list, but I think including even the host city detracts from the purpose of the main article table. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Also agree that venues should be removed from the main article table. It is undesirable to include different forms of information within a single cell, as it defeats the purpose of a table. The venues add unnecessary height to the table rows, while also visually cluttering the table and reducing the prominence of the scoreline. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone good with Arabic sources?

I recently rescued US Tataouine from a draft space deletion after beings surprised it was red-linked. (I've seen a few articles on football clubs recently that were poorly sourced and moved to draft space even though notability was fairly obvious, it's becoming a bit frustrating.) It's flagrantly obvious it's a notable topic with sources in both French and Arabic, but the French sources aren't very significant and I'm having trouble translating the Arabic sources. At least one website has a tag with the club information here: [7] Could someone please add a non-Soccerway source or two? SportingFlyer T·C 13:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @SportingFlyer - I added a cite for that article - Worldfootball.net, one of the three association football reliable sources that I know of so far. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

worldfootball.net is a reliable source. But being a database, it does not contribute to WP:SIGCOV and notability. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Still better than nothing. SportingFlyer T·C 18:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:European Cup winning players

Some former players are now in Category:European Cup winning players while others are in Category:UEFA Champions League winning players when they have won the same competition, the European Cup. Should the former category be deleted or not? SLBedit (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Not, it's neccesary and there are the players who won the competition until 1992,when the format was changed and the name of the competition was changed. RafitaElias23 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Just ensure there are no players in Category:European Cup winning players who have only won the Champions League after 1992 and viceversa. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@RafitaElias23: SLBedit (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is the distinction necessary? Was the split discussed here? I see there is a Category:European Champion Clubs' Cup which has existed for some time, but it's not really complete (if we're splitting winning players, we should split winning teams, managers and seasons too). But since it's just a name change (the format changed a season earlier, and there have been several significant format changes since - there's also a big one next year), is the cut-off necessary / appropriate? Crowsus (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

As it's the *same* competition but with a different name we only need Category:UEFA Champions League winning players. The same should apply for Category:UEFA Cup winning players and Category:UEFA Europa League winning players. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree - it's the same competition, there's no reason to have two separate categories -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the above sufficient to merge the European Cup and UEFA Cup related stuff as appropriate, or should more views be sought here / flag it up on CfD? Crowsus (talk)

Player position categories

I've noticed for a while that there's an inconsistency with our player position categories. Of course, we have the categories for goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders and forwards. However, for defenders we also have subcategories for central defenders and fullbacks, although there's no equivalent for midfielders (central midfielders, defensive midfielders etc) or forwards, except for the category for wingers and for the 'old' positions of wing half, inside forward and outside forward.

Personally, I don't think the more specific ones are particularly needed and would go with just the goalkeeper, defender, midfielder and forward categories. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. In terms of current PL players, the article about Nathan Aké says he played as a fullback at Watford but currently plays in central defence for his current team. Given some other defenders sometimes play in a different to normal position, it should be useful to stick with the general one word position categories used. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

What about players who play as a fullback or a winger? (for example Jordan Bos) --SuperJew (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Include categories for both positions on the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

List For FLC

I have nominated List of UEFA Champions League Hattricks for FLC. I require some advise and comments for the review, to improve the article. Plz comment in this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_UEFA_Champions_League_hat-tricks/archive2&redirect=no Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

How to correctly cite sources and accurately create kits for lesser-known teams?

Hi Wikipedians, The club Real Kakamora FC has just been bought by new overseas owners and I was one of the volunteer editors hired online to help edit the page and make sure it has all the necessary information. My first problem is that a big chunk of the information in the article doesn’t have any decent sources to back it up because the country of the club (Solomon Islands) is relatively poor and has a smaller internet footprint, as the new change in ownership occurred and our team has not yet established a website to announce it. The Solomon Islands Football Federation is waiting to publicize the story until we get closer to the beginning of our next season. My second problem is that I have no idea on how to make intricate, accurate kits on the team page similar to that of Solomon Warriors that are impossible to create with standard colors. All information in the article is currently true but I would appreciate help in adding more subsections and fixing the problems that I already addressed in this post. Thanks! CanUBeEnjoyer (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that someone changed that article to "Featured Article" status. I removed it. To become a "Featured Article", it needs to be reviewed and go through a process to obtain that status. It can't simply just be added because someone wants it to be one. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates RedPatch (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the swathes of unsourced content that the Solomon Islands FF is waiting to publicise, until such time as it or other reliable sources verify that content. Wikipedia isn't a breaking news site. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

First, Solomon Warriors F.C. desperately needs sources - are you in a possible position to add any? Second, I wouldn't worry too much about the intricate kits for now - if you know what the kits are generally, you should be able to find a template which matches closely enough. SportingFlyer T·C 17:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

How to deal with "Tag bombing"?

Since January 2024, a lot of articles about Italian and German football clubs were changed by what one author calls Tag bombing. Some of these changes were undone [8] [9]. But a bunch of other articles is still flooded with these tags. (for example: Hannover 96, AS Roma, SS Lazio) So how should be dealt with these changes? 93.229.134.111 (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Only looked at Hannover, but I'd be tempted to revert back to the pre-bombing state. Many of the tags are valid and let's AGF on the part of the editor adding them, but really if they are seeing these (minor) issues and are concerned by them, what they should be doing is fixing the wording rather than adding a tag for everything they see - which actually takes more time and effort and is arguably disruptive rather than helpful. Crowsus (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sections like SS Lazio#Honours are definitely "too much". --93.229.134.111 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Section transcribed here as part of the history are definitely disruptive. Agree they need major copyediting, but this is way over the top. The last sentence has two references, but Untitld740 has called for citations for each clause! Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"Lazio were forcibly relegated to Serie B in 1980, due to a remarkable scandal concerning illegal bets on their own matches, along with Milan. They remained in Italy's second division for three seasons, in what would mark the darkest period in Lazio's history. They would return in 1983 and manage a last-day escape from relegation the following season. The 1984–85 season would prove harrowing, with a pitiful 15 points and bottom place finish.

In 1986, Lazio was hit with a nine-point deduction (a true deathblow back in the day of the two-point win) for a betting scandal involving player Claudio Vinazzani. An epic struggle against relegation followed the same season in Serie B, with the club led by trainer Eugenio Fascetti only avoiding relegation to the Serie C after play-off wins over Taranto and Campobasso. This would prove a turning point in the club's history, with Lazio returning to Serie A in 1988 and, under the careful financial management of Gianmarco Calleri, the consolidation of the club's position as a solid top-flight club."

FCSB v CSA Steaua București (yet again)

Is it possible to come to a consensus on whether FCSB or CSA Steaua București (football) represents the 20th-century Steaua Bucharest club? I know it has been discussed many times on this page, but meanwhile the situation has been allowed to drift, with local edit-wars and ill-tempered discussions on talk pages. Most recently, Cezxmer edited about 100 articles and redirects with edit summaries like "Changed Steaua links to the correct ones" (i.e. CSA Steaua). Now, if everybody is in agreement with that, fine. But perhaps on those 100 pages there was already a silent consensus in favour of FCSB? Any and all input is welcome. Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What was the last consensus? This is a very contentious area and I'm not sure what the correct answer is. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, it is important to note that CSA Steaua Bucuresti is a multi-sport club that was founded on June 7th, 1947. The club started with eight sports departments, including football. In the year 1998, the club ceased its football activity and a non-profit association named AFC Steaua took its place in the first division. This association had the right to use the “Steaua” name and brand, but never owned them. During the 2002-2003 season, AFC Steaua ceased to exist and was replaced by a new team called FC Steaua ^{(official answer from the Ministry of Sport about the foundation year)}. However, the newly created entity broke every rule of the Romanian Football Federation and had no right to use the “Steaua” name or brand. In 2004, FC Steaua formally requested to use the name and brand from CSA Steaua Bucuresti, but the request was declined. Despite this, the team continued to use the fraudulent name.

Since 2014, there have been three major court rulings:

- Brand, definitive. In favor of CSA Steaua and barred FC Steaua from using the brand;

- Name, definitive. In favor of CSA Steaua and barred FC Steaua from using the name, resulting in the club being renamed Fotbal Club Fcsb;

- Honours/Records, partially definitive. CSA Steaua is the owner of the period from 1947-1998 and AFC Steaua ( defunct ) is the owner of the period from 1998-2003. Both are final and can’t be challenged. The reason this decision is only partially definitive is because we are still waiting for a final decision on the period from 2003 to 2017. FC Fcsb requested it, but the court did not grant it to them. ^{[source 1] [source 2] [source 3]}

Other recent and somewhat relevant information:

-  In 2020, some of FC Fcsb's supporters organized into an association that participated in the Honours/Records dispute. After the Court of Appeal issued its decision in October, one of the association's founders, who is a lawyer himself, renounced his initial position and withdrew from the dispute. ^[source]

-  Last August, FC Fcsb played three games at Steaua Stadium, but they had to sign a contract that included a condition to renounce and withdraw all claims that they are "Steaua" from their website, or their employees statements. ^[source]

Given the situation, it would be reasonable for there to be a consensus that the 1947-1998 articles are full of inaccuracies and that the links referring to Steaua Bucharest should redirect to... Steaua Bucharest.

Currently, there is a clear bias towards FC Fcsb as there are still many redirects that point to their article. Additionally, there is misinformation regarding the honors and founding date of FC Fcsb. How can two different teams have the same founding date and records? The current situation is clearly confusing the reader.

Most of the links I've changed were pre-1998 (UEFA cups, players, etc.), and from this point of view things are pretty clear. Both court rulings and common sense dictate that a team that was created this century can't be the one who won the ECC in 1986. More so, players from that era never played for FC Fcsb, so it is factually wrong to have them linked to that team.

In my opinion, I suggest that there should be 4 distinct articles.

1. CSA Steaua Bucuresti, football section of the same multi-sport club, and have everything from 1947 to 1998 linked to it.

2. AFC Steaua, non-profit association, distinct entity that had the right to use the "Steaua" brand. Links from 1998-2003

3. FC Steaua, club created in 2003 that illegally ^{[source 1] [source 2] [source 3] [source 4]} used the "Steaua" brand. Links from 2003-2017

4. FC Fcsb, 2017-present. ( At the moment, according to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, FC Fcsb doesn't even own the period between 2003-2017. So, they have only one cup. ) Cezxmer (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Somebody please open a RFC, I'm sick of this argument and the disruption. GiantSnowman 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

3 and 4 could probably merged, if that was just a renaming. -Koppapa (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Njala Quan Sports Academy#Requested move 22 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Njala Quan Sports Academy#Requested move 22 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Maps added to MLS season articles

This is regarding a conversation taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 50#Recent maps added to MLB season articles. Someone removed all of the MLB maps from the season articles (1920-2023). Do you think it should remain up for each MLS season, as shown at 2012 Major League Soccer season. Please join the conversation. Thank you for your guidance. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't see the harm in having the maps on individual season articles, especially since most years had some change from previous seasons. SounderBruce 03:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Everton F.C. at the FA Cup

Any compelling reason for this (incorrectly titled - teams don't take part at the FA Cup) article not to just be redirected to List of Everton F.C. seasons.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirect it. No reason for a new article. Kante4 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. 14 novembre (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Everton F.C. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

why redirect instead of deleteMuur (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Gerrard dived

My edit has been repeatedly undone. However the current version in wrong. It is a matter of fact that he dived, you can see the video (which, in my opinion should be considered a more relevant source than any news article) and also many articles saying so. 14 novembre (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

you can see the video (which, in my opinion should be considered a more relevant source than any news article) That's not how Wikipedia works. We reflect what reliable sources – news articles can be that – report, which is not necessarily what we as editors consider true. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, a really good idea would be to stop adding your own opinion to articles, because that is only going to end up one way. And I say that as absolutely no supporter of Liverpool or Steven Gerrard. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• It should also be useful to link which Gerrard you are referring to - yes Steven Gerrard is probably the most well known but there's also Anthony Gerrard, who is related to Steven, Edward Gerrard (footballer) and Paul Gerrard. All those Gerrards are equally as likely to dive at some point in their careers, but I do find it likely that Steven Gerrard is the article in question in this section. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• 14 novembre appears to be referring to their change at 2005 UEFA Champions League final. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  ok 14 novembre (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Robby.is.on ah I see. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Club Atlético Sarmiento (Junín)#Requested move 27 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Club Atlético Sarmiento (Junín)#Requested move 27 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Youth players in Category:[Club] players

Should a player, who has only participated in a club's youth academy and never played for or took part in the club's senior team, be included in the category for players of a club? For example, Mike Newell did not play for Liverpool F.C. and was only an academy player. Should he be included in Category:Liverpool F.C. players?

(Some related discussions - Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Sep 2019, Sep 2022, mentioned by @Struway2)

I propose that such players are removed from this category. Ae245 (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Newell spent six years with Liverpool so he is a Liverpool player. How can a player play for Liverpool's youth or reserve teams without being in the Liverpool player category? Will there be editors hovering around a player article for a guy siting on the bench waiting to add the category to the article once he is brought on? EchetusXe 11:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with EchetusXe. Also, when a player first signs for a club, editors will routinely update the club players category - they don't wait until he makes his first-team debut before updating the article categories. The player will also have trained and played in practice games, etc, alongside others who will regard him as a team mate and fellow player for that club; contractually, he will seen as a club's player by the manager, club staff and football authorities; and fans will regard him as a club player regardless of whether he's yet to play - why should Wikipedia treat such players any differently? Paul W (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a question of consensus. For example, on WP:AFL, the consensus is to add club categories only after a player plays a game for the club. Also what editors routinely do doesn't play into this. Editors used to routinely update games live (and use the {{mip}} marking), but the consensus is not to do this and wait to the end and now that is the majority.

Regarding the question itself, I do agree that a player who has joined the club should be added to the club category. As Paul W said they train and play practice matches with the club and are contracted by the club. --SuperJew (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

they also might play friendlies but then never play an official match, like a back up GK or something who sits on the bench a few years then leaves playing 0 official games but played a few pre season games. still played for their team.Muur (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think youth players should have the categories, there's a big difference between being a youth player and first team player - and I'd argue same with reserve teams. I don't think anyone considers Icardi a proper former Barcelona player, even though he's from La Masia. I'm not opposed to adding youth categories, something like Category:FC Barcelona youth players, to go along categories like Category:FC Barcelona Atlètic players.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I also feel like it should be restricted to senior team players and have no opposition to having a separate youth team category (I have seen this for several teams). In terms of who gets included, maybe a simple compromise would having a bench appearance at minimum? RedPatch (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I also say that youth is very different to senior and the category should not be added just because someone played there in the youth sector. Kante4 (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Youth players should be in the club player categories - are you really saying that Joe Bloggs who spent 15 years with Arsenal but never made the first team should not be in Arsenal player category? Nonsense! There is no reason not to categorise them as such and no need for separate categories for youth players. GiantSnowman 11:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If Joe Bloggs never ever played for the senior team, then no I wouldn't consider him a full-stop Arsenal player. He's certainly an Arsenal academy player, but never "made it" to Arsenal proper. How many 10s of thousands of players would Arsenal have, if every single U6, U8, U10 that ever passed through is an Arsenal player.Ortizesp (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What about a player who spent 3 seasons on the bench of the first-team? Such as an older goalkeeper who is signed as a back-up but never played? GiantSnowman 09:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what I like about my 'bench appearances' requirement. Could also use the is the club in the "senior career" or "youth career" section of the infobox. We also have pages like Arsenal F.C. Under-21s and Academy and Arsenal F.C. The former is what is supposed to be linked in the youth career, while the later is for the senior career. Could easily have categories based on that since there are separate pages anywways. Arsenal youth players category and Arsenal (senior) players category. RedPatch (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is somebody making 1 appearance on the bench any more definitive that somebody who makes 0? Or 100? What about the many players who play for both junior and senior teams - we are unnecessarily duplicating categories. Remember the Celtic 'youth' player category was deleted a few years ago... GiantSnowman 12:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It's the same logic as separating senior and youth career in the infobox. Ideally we would just match things up same as their infoboxes, and if there's discrepancies then we'd have a discussion. Ortizesp (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an easy enough compromise. Yes, the Celtic category was deleted years ago, but consensus can change. How many people would regard Ryan Giggs as a Manchester City player? He played a couple years in their academy when he was very young. Putting him in the same category as Haaland and Foden seems a bit off to me and obviously several others. RedPatch (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If people were doing a CatScan for players who had played for both Man C and Man U, Giggs would (erroneously) not appear... why is Giggs spending a few years as a Man C youth player any less important than (for example) a senior player who is signed for 1 game only? This is not a problem that needs fixing. GiantSnowman 14:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would provide valuable input, I don't consider Giggs a Man City player either, and I don't see what would hurt with having a Man City youth category on his page for visibility. Ortizesp (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, like Ortizsp mentioned earlier, we have a consistency issue. We have categories specifically for some of the B teams, but then A team and Academy players go in the same category. If we're going to have the B team categories then it should just be categories for A, B, and Academy for consistency reasons. RedPatch (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Overly complicated! GiantSnowman 22:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Assistant manager

This IP constantly removes assistant manager stints in infoboxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:D712:5A00:6A66:EC0F:E227:3B9D/64 is this according to the guidelines? --FMSky (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The documentation for the infobox templates states "A list of clubs that the person has served within the capacity of team manager. Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions)" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright thx --FMSky (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think a number of people like adding coaching/assistant manager stints, but the documentation is clear that it should only be manager/head coach roles. Which helps the infobox to be less cluttered up. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That bit of the documentation says in full "A list of clubs that the person has served within the capacity of team manager. Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career; this will apply primarily to those with significant or perhaps primary experience in management" (my highlighting). So it's not quite as cut and dried as suggested. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I like having other roles in there. Can help explain gaps that would otherwise appear. Why did he have a two year gap, but having other roles could clear that up - "oh he was an assistant somewhere else". RedPatch (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to open potential floodgates to editors who like to stray from the conventional as it is. Seasider53 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

First OFC Championship

Interesting case here. The very first edition, the 1987 Oceania Club Championship has a lot of results. The article is unsourced currently. Maybe those results came from RSSSF. RSSSF page now has a note reading "NB: contrary to an earlier version of this file, no qualifying tournament was held; it was a one-match play-off between the champions of Australia and New Zealand." Can anyone figure out what happened there? Maybe googleing some news paper article? Edit: I see now the discussion page has a bit of info. Content was already removed once, then added back. -Koppapa (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Youth titles in medal record section of infobox

There isn't a consistent standard applied for this across articles, and I can't find any guidance. I had always thought that youth titles were not included in the infobox, based on never seeing them for players I know have them, but recently some users have been adding them. Predominantly to articles of young players, often those who haven't even played senior tournaments, but also retroactively to older players' articles, too. So is there a standard, and if not should we formally discuss what it should be. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure why any honours are in the infobox. Seems like clutter. GiantSnowman 21:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion to have honours included and i say youth should be there aswell. Kante4 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That definitely opens questions of what the limits to honours should be. Like, do we consider an under-17 Euro bronze medal as more significant than a Champions League win, and if not, why would it be included instead? Senior major international tournaments is pretty watertight, so limiting to that seems reasonable for an overview. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I repeat - why should youth titles be included? (exceptions being major youth tournaments like U20 World Cup) GiantSnowman 14:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with GS, it's never made sense to me why we include *any* honours in the infobox when they can just go in the honours section. Didn't it start out as Olympic medals at first and then spun out to all international tournaments? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to remove it completely from the infobox. GiantSnowman 14:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That would need a wider discussion, right? WP:SPORTS? Kingsif (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Dial Square F.C.

Forgive me if I'm treading old ground here, but does this club pass notability guidelines? It hasn't competed at the required level at any point. The main contributor to the article in recent months is a floating IP who is persistently evading a block (Sir Knson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Canberra A-League Bid#Requested move 2 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Canberra A-League Bid#Requested move 2 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Mike Barnard (sportsman, born 1933)

Hello all. Just over from WP:CRIC. I have expanded the above Hampshire cricketer and Portsmouth F.C. footballer. However, his football section is looking a little bare. I wonder if anyone with a collection of Portsmouth-related sources might be able to expand that section? Cheers, AA (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: I've added some little bits and a career stats table using the Barry Hugman's Footballers and English National Football Archive sites, but I don't have any specific to Portsmouth to draw from. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, a nice addition to the article. Hopefully someone has a Portsmouth book which discusses him at length. Cheers, AA (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following two discussions may need more input from users as they have been relisted:

Article/Category/Template	Nom	Date
Jonny (footballer) → Jonny (footballer, born 1994)	RM	2024-01-23
Brandon Thomas (footballer) → Brandon Thomas (Spanish footballer)	RM	2024-01-23

They were both nominated by me and viewing them they seem to be balanced at this point of the second relisting.

Alex Iwobi goal

Input welcome at Talk:Alex Iwobi#Goal against Man Utd as I am in a slow edit war with an IP hopper open this topic. GiantSnowman 08:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I left a comment on there, go take a look

to summarize that comment, I am basically saying that I am defending the other user's side, and Iwobi's goal against Man United is notable enough to include in the article. Matthew is here zero (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

2008 Categoria Primera A season

Hey Can somebody take a look at this article and clean up the source content for me. What I mean is splitting the sports table source content into multiple lines so it is easier to read. I did one part myself but I find it to be a very tedious task and I dont know of a bot that does these type of tasks... (if anybody knows of one, let me know)

Thanks in advance. Matthew is here zero (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

World Military Cup

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone here could add some sources to World Military Cup please? It feels like it ought to be a notable competition but I'm not seeing much to add. If it can't be improved it may soon be tagged for deletion. Thanks JMWt (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems notable but I added a {{copyedit}} tag...there doesn't seem to be a lot of third-party sources that I can find though. Pksois23 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Then maybe it's not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice to see the women’s section coloured a beautiful pink!--Egghead06 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Not quite sure that complies with MOS:COLOUR though...I think it may be best to colour it normally. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Competitions seems to suggest a plain coloured table. Pksois23 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably by Wikipedia:Notability it isn't quite notable enough, although if anyone can find appropriate sources it seems to be a notable competition in football terms. A quick google search gives me the Wikipedia page, the official competition page, the The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation dataset, some news sources reporting results of the competition, some national military teams' official pages, and one highlight video. Not sure if that qualifies. Pksois23 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say it is not. Results reporting is considered routine, teams' official pages can be sources of information but cannot be used to show notability since they are first-party, and RSSSF can also be a source of information but does not indicate notability. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think it's notable, although the child articles on the 2015 edition did survive an AFD in 2015: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football at the 2015 Military World Games. Looks like the last few editions have been part of the Military World Games rather than using this event name. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Does this warrant a AfD? Pksois23 (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The original name was probably something like interallied football tournament. In 1947 there were only 3 competitors, after England and Czechoslovakia both withdrew. The notability is mainly historic, because conscription is abolished in many countries. Military National teams used to be strong, almost like a national u-21 team. [10] Cattivi (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

World Cup articles and opening politician/leader

A new parameter has been added by SpinnerLaserzthe2nd to the infoboxes of World Cup articles en masse without citations, so in accordance with BRD, I'm bringing it up for discussion here. The parameter adds a mention of the politician/leader (usually the head of state) who "opens" the tournament. I reverted these due to the lack of significance and lack of citations; I feel this should be a passing mention in prose rather than a prominent part of the infobox. SounderBruce 21:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

For me it is trivia information and overkill to include it. Kante4 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also note that they added that parameter to {{Infobox international football competition}}, and self-reverted a few minutes after this discussion was opened. I ask that SpinnerLaserzthe2nd respond to explain why those actions were unilaterally taken. That template is protected, which means they have Template Editor privileges and should know that such changes should be discussed first.— Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

During the opening ceremonies of the World Cup, these leaders usually declare it open and there are instances:

• https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/president/news/football-mourns-the-loss-of-her-majesty-queen-elizabeth-ii
• https://www.theguardian.com/football/2002/may/31/worldcupfootball2002.sport10#:~:text=Kim%20Dae%2DJung%2C%20the%20South,2002%20Fifa%20World%20Cup%20open!%22
• https://www.diwan.gov.qa/briefing-room/news/activities-and-occasions/2022/november/20/hh-the-amir-inaugurates-fifa-world-cup-qatar-2022-tournament?sc_lang=en#:~:text=His%20Highness%20The%20Amir%20Sheikh,to%20the%20World%20Cup%202022.
• https://allianz-arena.com/en/news/2006/06/allianz-arena---world-cup-opening (I added this source to the 2006 FIFA World Cup article)

These instances are the reasons why I added this parameter. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant information. Seasider53 (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

We could use that information if there is an opening ceremony section. It makes us wonder if we should add sections dedicated to pending ceremonies in past tournaments. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with that information being added to any prose describing the opening ceremonies, but it is too trivial to go into an infobox or the article lead. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think we should add info on the opening ceremonies of past ones? Because I felt like they had not been covered on Wikipedia yet. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If it can be properly sourced as part of a larger description of the overall opening ceremony, then I have no problem with the information being added. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Glossary anchors

I just added an anchor for "goalmouth scramble" since I was reviewing an article that wanted to link there from "scrimmage". I looked at a couple of other glossaries, and I see Glossary of video game terms for example uses the {{term}} and {{defn}} templates, which automatically create anchors for individual entries. I'm not a member of this project, but just wanted to mention it in case anyone here thinks it's worth converting the glossary to use those templates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tottenham Hotspur Task Force

I want to propose a Tottenham Hotspur Task Force under WikiProject Football. There are a large number of Tottenham-related articles on Wikipedia that need to be improved, and I just want to get consensus on this and whether anyone is interested in joining. Pksois23 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that much about wikiprojects, but I'm pretty sure you don't need an RfC to approve the creation of a task force. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC is overkill, but you do need to show there are enough editors that would be interested in such a task force. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah...just wanted to get consensus over whether such a proposal is viable, as I am not an extremely experienced editor. Pksois23 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have WP:BOLDly removed the RfC tag from this discussion, because interested editors will be looking at this talk page; it is not a matter that needs urgent community-wide attention. But Pksois23 — no worries. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, I will watch to see if any editors are interested. Pksois23 (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure where replies should start for interested users, but I'll throw my hat in the ring! I actually have a userpage of my own as essentially an unofficial taskforce for editing around the women's team as I've done a lot of editing on those pages over the years. I've also had experience in building up an unofficial USL taskforce/project and would love to help you out here whether it ends up being a taskforce or something on the side. Christiangamer7 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure! I would appreciate your help. Pksois23 (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  We do not need club-specific task forces IMHO. GiantSnowman 21:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency on article titles relating to gender

Is there nothing in terms of established consensus on this? Is it productive to be changing back and forth between "X national football team" and "X men's national football team"? There should be a clear guideline on this to avoid not only inconsistency with some countries including "men's" and others not, but frequent page moves. So which one is it? TylerBurden (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. GiantSnowman 21:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed six months ago with no consensus on uniformity. If you think an individual page needs to move to include or remove "men's", use WP:RM. If there are pages that are frequently moved (I don't have them all on my watchlist so I don't know), then WP:MOVP may be appropriate. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Namibia

I've been trying to de-redlink some African leagues, and I just messed up and created 2022–23 Namibia Premiership considering 2022–23 Namibia Premier Football League already existed. As some background, the Namibia Premier League dissolved after 2019 and after three years of no seasons being played a new league was launched. These pages need to be merged and everything updated, but I'm confused as to what the common name should be - all of the sources I've seen show that the local papers call the league the Debmarine Premiership, not the Premier Football League. The FA calls it both the Premiership and the NPFL: [11]. Any insights? Thanks in advance! SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This has been merged back into the title. SportingFlyer T·C 10:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Chilmi29

Hello, I have reverted an edit by Chilmi29 (talk · contribs) but a quick sample of their edits show they have updated significant infobox stats without updating the timestamp. I suspect the changes are incorrect but have not got time to investigate further. Keith D (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have warned them multiple times. GiantSnowman 21:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them for a couple of weeks. After a random check against stat sites failed to verify and without any timestamp update I have rolled back edits to 11 March as easier than checking out each edit. Keith D (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Some of the stats were correct on articles I saw, but the repeated lack of date updates is disruptive and it's a good block. GiantSnowman 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

title's on cup final articles

Did I miss something or forgotten something? Why are the titles for cup final articles dropping the word final to a lower character and not capped. I just noticed just now instead 2019 FA Cup final when writing a title the only lower capped words are words like and, if ect. If it's not a conjoining word you're suppose to capitalise the first letter. Govvy (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's following a couple of RMs in 2022 (See Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final#Requested move 19 November 2022 and Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup final#Requested move 12 December 2022). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How bizarre, is this some Americanism? British English? I don't know, but this wordpress article has good examples. [12] I don't mean to be mean about peoples English language abilities, but that consensus is floored and wrong from my view. It looks like people are confused between writing in prose to actual title structure. I see multiple instances of the top of the article using a capital F on final and then in the prose dropping the F to lower case. Very strange consensus. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Flawed be the word. Seasider53 (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

See sources such as the Times and TalkSport, in both of which the word "final" is not capitalised. I would say it is definitely the more common usage in UK English (which is relevant to articles on the FA Cup final) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

final over Final now seem to have become the standard for multiple sports, so I imagine we'd be fighting a losing battle to change it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

we'd be fighting a losing battle to change it - I can't speak for other editors but personally I have no desire to try and change it because I think it's fine as it is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Touche Seasider53 😂 --SuperJew (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: They are full sentence titles, and not shortened so you deal with the prose in a different way. FA Cup final, you're adding a prose statement to the title by the lower case, otherwise if you want a full title, you capitalise the F. There are different ways to have titles, but in a shortened form it's standard to capitalise words that are non connectors. :/ Govvy (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Basically the crusade of one editor who spends way, way too much time fighting over capitalizations. All to waste the time of other editors who actually want to improve content in this field of interest. SounderBruce 18:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Pascal Chimbonda

Regarding this edit, [13] and a few others by DiStefanoGoated I was curious what was correct, France or Guadeloupe national football team, He has represented France once, and Guadeloupe 12, however Guadeloupe is an overseas territory of France. So whats correct? Shouldn't it just be a French flag? Govvy (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I take French flag. Seeing sources 2 and 3 of that article as well as the Soccerbase external link as my three points of reference checking, they consider his nationality being France. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Guadeloupe flag IMO, seeing his last cap was with them, and his only cap with France was a friendly. Unique case for sure.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Ortizesp. Kante4 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Although he initially played for Guadeloupe, FIFA would consider him to have French nationality since Guadeloupe is not a member. His article states he is French, multiple reliable sources list him as French, he is French. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Jkudlick - sources say he is French. GiantSnowman 10:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The French flag is the official flag of Guadeloupe. CONCACAF have the French flag beside Guadeloupe in their rankings so that should be the flag used on all articles. Dougal18 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Even the Flag of Guadeloupe article uses the French flag for the infobox... Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for input

Hello. This is a request for input in an editorial dispute. GiantSnowman and I have a disagreement on the page of Ethan Mbappé. See Talk:Ethan Mbappé#Youth career for details. Summary is at the bottom on that page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

GS, so you see this. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks PeeJay for responding over there. More imput if possible, please. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It was actually Iggy the Swan, my apologies. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are you tagging random editors? WP:CANVASS applies. GiantSnowman 22:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that was a sincere mistake, I thought that PeeJay was the one who had responded on the other discussion. Then I correct my mistake. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

All-Island Cup

With the second edition of the All-Island Cup starting up this weekend, it seems that the article could use a potential reformat or split, as currently it reads primarily as an article for the 2023 tournament. Having three separate articles emerge (All-Island Cup, 2023 All-Island Cup, 2024 All-Island Cup) would be the best case scenario as far as I can tell, with the main and 2023 articles emerging from the current main article.

I'm not super familiar with procedure as far as what is the best choice in this situation, so wanted to bring it to the project's attention. Cheers! Christiangamer7 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Christiangamer7: as the creator of the page, I think splitting it would not be the best idea for the moment because it is fairly threadbare (and when I wrote it I struggled to find sources) and would be 3 barebones stubs if it was split. But I am happy to support that once there is more independent information avaliable for the Cup and the individual editions. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Was about to ask if you then thought it was good to start with a 2024 edition section in the same vein as what you laid out so far, and I see you already started such haha

Well whatever the consensus ends up being I'll look to help find some more citations to add for 2023 and 2024. Christiangamer7 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Kai Rooney

Just found out there is an article about the 14-year-old son of Wayne Rooney at Kai Rooney. I honestly have many reservations about the subject's notability, what do you guys think about that? Angelo (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If he was not son of Wayne, would he have an article based on the references given. I’m saying not.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Wayne's article IMO. GiantSnowman 10:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy tag @Davidlofgren1996: as the article's original creator and primary editor to date -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Egghead06: Why's that a question? He is the son of a famous former footballer and that adds to his notability. More sources will write about the son of Wayne Rooney if he does something in football than they would write about the son of GiantSnowman or ChrisTheDude. The question should be whether the sources satisfy GNG. I would say they do. --SuperJew (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

And no coincidence that seven of the nine references given, refer to him as Wayne’s son. As for if he does something in football, wouldn’t it be better to wait until he does?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

And almost all of the sources are just a few lines on Kai, and then information about Wayne. More coverage than most youth players would get, but not convinced it's WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No opinion on this, just feel it is relevant to mention that Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. through AfD led to a re-direct - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. Both of these are probably similar situations, so feel whatever outcome is decided here could apply to CRjr as well. RedPatch (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ultras

Hello everyone! I have noticed that the article Ultras only mentions football fans, even though many other sports have ultras and it's not exclusive to only football. For example ice hockey in Europe has a big ultras culture. Basketball also has European groups that can be considered ultras. One great example of this is the Finnish ice hockey fan group Osasto 41, which you can find on google. Ultras culture is growing in among ice hockey fans in Europe. Should the article change? – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe create a draft article about hockey ultras, and then if needed the current 'ultras' about football can be moved to Ultras (association football) and Ultras can become a disambiguation page. GiantSnowman 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)