Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 165

Archive 160

←

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

What about Debbie Day

Before I proceed I wish to know if these articles are sufficient to make a Debbie Day article. Man City's Lauren Hemp presents Worcester Lioness with special cap | Evesham Journal and BBC Hereford & Worcester on X: "Debbie Day from #Worcestershire was among the first players to represent England between 1976 and 1978 ⚽️ 🦁 ⚽️ 🎧Listen here👉 https://t.co/lwSaOh47AA" / X (twitter.com) Dwanyewest (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No. 5 sentences isn't enough. Q+A Interviews don't count either. Dougal18 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

How about three sentences?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s an essay on deletion policy and as it says using it as an argument is "generally unsound and unconvincing". I see no reason why the article for England Woman’s International footballer, Debbie Day should not be created.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to create in draft and then it will be easier for people to take a view on notability. GiantSnowman 13:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest:, and there’s your way forward.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Assistant manager roles in infobox

Reprising the discussion that took place here (and possibly more recently), since EndzoneEnthusiast (talk · contribs) is adamant about the inclusion of Mikel Arteta's assistant role in his infobox, but is seemingly averse to discussing it. Has the infobox documentation been changed to allow other roles to be included? I only ask because I'm unable to bring up that information currently. If it has changed, I'll happily revert my edits at Brian Kidd and Mike Phelan. I hope it isn't a case of editors just going rogue again. 15:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Seasider53 (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see it was it discussed last month. Seems that the instructions still apply. Seasider53 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that assistant coach roles should be included in the infobox. But I wouldn't extend that to other non-head coach roles. Only assistant coach. I display that as is done at Thierry Oleksiak, for example. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That's nice, but it isn't correct. Seasider53 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, no assistant roles. Kante4 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Manager/head coach roles only. "I like other things too" isn't a valid reason to add them. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We should only include notable roles - for somebody like Arteta, that does not include any non-managerial roles. GiantSnowman 15:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, should we also remove assistant coach roles from the infoboxes of notable managers like Zinedine Zidane, Nuri Şahin, and Thierry Henry? EndzoneEnthusiast 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Done Y. Seasider53 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ró-Ró

The main (nay, the only!) concern here is the player's international appearances: NFT.com gives him 96 caps (if you count the non-FIFA apps, in my 17 years of editing i came to realise there are occasions where you even add those to the totals), whereas RSSSF gives him 101 caps, noting that the match against Jordan is not to be counted.

Why this discrepancy, can someone shed some light on this please? Plus, i have just searched the web (both in English and in Portuguese - we have several Arab news outlets in English and he is of Portuguese descent) for info on such an important milestone (the 100 FIFA club), found absolutely nothing. For example, if you Google the Qatar/Uzbekistan match, supposedly his 100th appearance, he even converted the decisive penalty, ZERO results for that (https://www.google.com/search?q=r%C3%B3-r%C3%B3+100+caps+qatar+uzbekistan&sca_esv=c1f14eea029e1e8c&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1GCEU_pt-PTPT906PT906&ei=l7oCZoiINfOtkdUPzvmoiAk&udm=&oq=r%C3%B3-r%C3%B3+100+caps+qatar+uzbe&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiG3LDsy1yw7MgMTAwIGNhcHMgcWF0YXIgdXpiZSoCCAAyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIpxNQjgVYjwtwAXgBkAEAmAGmAaAB5gSqAQMwLjW4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgagAokFwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA5gDAIgGAZAGCJIHAzEuNaAHrhM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1).

I reverted an IP once on this matter, but now reinstated their version and come here to see if we can reach some consensus. Attentively, sorry for any incovenience. RevampedEditor (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The discrepancies come from caps 79, 80, 83 and 85-87 in the RSSSF list, and the January match against Jordan in the NFT list. Those RSSSF discrepancies were in the run-up to the World Cup, probably a matter of whether they were unofficial "test" matches or A internationals. Qatar were playing a lot of unofficial matches at the time to prepare for the tournament, including against club sides. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: FCSB v CSA Steaua București

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that FCSB is the successor to the Steaua Bucharest club. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Does FCSB or CSA Steaua București (football) represent the 20th-century Steaua Bucharest club? Scolaire (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

For context, see FC Steaua București records dispute. Scolaire (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Poll (Steaua)

• FCSB. There is continuity between the club formed in 1947 and FCSB; the current CSA Steaua only exists from 2017. Scolaire (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• FCSB They are the ones who kept the top division status, so are clearly the continuation IMO. Number 57 13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• FCSB Just follow the players. The Banner talk 22:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Correction

Discussion (Steaua)

You have rushed the RFC. Where are the sources? GiantSnowman 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You said, "Somebody please open a RFC, I'm sick of this argument and the disruption." I did. The sources are in the article I linked to. --Scolaire (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That article is full of misinformation. Cezxmer (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

There are also sources at Talk:FC Steaua București records dispute and Cezxmer's talk page, as well as his post in the section above this one. --Scolaire (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• FCSB Just follow the players. The Banner talk 22:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Cezxmer (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I am completely serious. The Banner talk 23:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Tomorrow PSG buys the whole Barcelona team. Congratulations in advance to PSG for winning the UCL :D

At least have the decency to read what I posted. You also commented on my talk page and I gave you a reply. If this is your response, then I'm forced to believe that you have bad intentions or that you're a troll. Cezxmer (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF. The Banner talk 00:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but how is "Just follow the players" open for discussion? How is that even an argument? I have given my thoughts on the matter. I also tried to provide sources. If you want to discuss, I'm here for it. But don't come with a verdict based on one sentence, on a debate as complex as this, if you want to have a serious discussion. Cezxmer (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly an argument that does not fit in your point of view. Sorry for that. But who is playing where is in this confusing case a valid argument as the players were not involved in all legal arguments. They just did their job. If you play for entity A or any other letter in the alphabet, they all have to earn a living. The Banner talk 10:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If company B hires all of the employees of company A, that does not mean that company B = company A.

No one is disputing the legitimacy or motives of the players. This is a debate about the illegal use of a trademark, proven in court. And I have to ask you to provide sources for your claims, because this is the first time I have heard that the identity of a club is determined by the players. Cezxmer (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If Company A overnight changes name and legal status into Company B with the same staff on the payroll, it is still a valid successor. Despite later court cases. The Banner talk 16:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• We should not decide this Sources describe a prominent dispute, and we have an article on the dispute. Not only do we not have to take a side, Wikipedia should absolutely not take a side. That's massive WP:OR, especially sending people to the article on the dispute to suggest, what, reading the sources and making a decision? If reliable sources definitively say one or the other is a successor, we go with it. If they disagree to the point it is unclear, we write that sources disagree. Especially when there is a legal aspect and Wikipedia deciding one or the other is "right" could be harmful. Continue writing there is a dispute and close this as both a technically malformed RfC and a terrible idea. Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Recently there was a lot of edit warring and POV-pushing. That has to stop. Allowing that to go on is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    Stating OR as fact is not in the best interests of Wikipedia, and can't be easily prevented by protecting articles like the disruption you describe can. Kingsif (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  • @Kingsif: A link cannot go to two different articles. Either we use [[FCSB|Steaua București]] or [[CSA Steaua București (football)|Steaua București]] to link to the old Steaua. At the moment, links are being changed back and forth, and different pipes are being used in different articles; this is highly undesirable. Scolaire (talk) 12:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    We don’t have to link one or the other, either. Protect the articles if there is warring Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand you. Are you saying that all references to pre-1998 Steaua should be unlinked? And that this should be enforced by protecting all articles with "Steaua București" in them? Scolaire (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, sort of. We should not be linking (wikilinking nor connecting in prose) either of the disputed articles to the original team, and there is no reason or need to do so. Besides edit disputes, I don't even know how editors have got it in their heads that something needs to be done. Just have an article on the pre-1998 team, which should contain the information on the succession dispute, and mention the dispute at the articles of the two more recent teams. No side taking is needed at all. If people start trying to take sides, protect the articles. Kingsif (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

So, you're saying we should create CSA Steaua București (football, 1947–1998), which will have the same content as FCSB, CSA Steaua București (football) and History of FC Steaua București. We should then edit the 100+ articles that mention Steaua to link to this new article, and if anybody reverts, have the articles protected. Have I got it? Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As for why we have got it into our heads that something needs to be done, not every change is an edit dispute (see these edits for instance, which were not part of edit wars), but every change is disruptive. A reader should not click a link today, and find themselves at a different article than when they clicked it yesterday. Not to mention articles like this version of Eternal derby (Romania) – a fixture that goes back to 1948 – that had only "FCSB" in the text and infobox, and "Steaua" in the tables. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Please go to User talk:Cezxmer#CSA Steaua records dispute (copy) to read the copy of my archived comment from this page.

I would also like to add that, it is extremely confusing for me to read the arguments of the other editors that participated in this discussion since the whole CSA Steaua v. FC Fcsb dispute is similar to the B-SAD v. C.F. Os Belenenses

Literally just read my comment and then the B-SAD#Background and legal status Cezxmer (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: It's naive to think that Romanian courts have the final say. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee renders a verdict upon who's the sporting successor of a team. The verdict may be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. So, CAS has the final say, and winning the Romanian trials is fool's gold. At worst, CSA Steaua could get banned from soccer competitions. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Others should be aware that User:Tgeorgescu is basing his entire comment on 2 year old fake news. See the latest comments on Talk:FCSB#Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023. Cezxmer (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Whatever, here is a legal precedent from an official source: https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/7290.pdf See argument from fallacy. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I have put in a request to Wikipedia:Closure requests to have this closed. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Raúl Quintana Tarufetti

Appears to be a single-purpose account that changes the head-to-head of matches in Argentina–Brazil football rivalry and Brazil national football team records and statistics, ignoring the sources presented and forcing WP:POV. I reverted the edits, but the user repeatedly changes the information, what is the best way to proceed? Svartner (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Uruguay vs Basque Country

Uruguay played a friendly against Basque Country on this 23rd, which ended in a 1-1 draw. Since Basque Country is not a FIFA member, match was a Non-FIFA friendly. However, Uruguayan Football Association consider this as an official match and added it to player's profiles on their official website (auf.org.uy). They even mentioned it was goalscorer Matías Vecino's 70th match with the NT and congratulated him on their social media platforms. 16 Uruguayan players (including 3 debutants) got minutes in that game.

In this context, how should we display it on players' pages? As of now, it is added normally like any other international match on players' infoboxes. A note has been added under the 'International' section in 'Career statistics' for all those 16 players (for example, see Franco Israel or Luciano Rodríguez). As it is recognized by the players' NT football association, is this the right way to do it? Thanks in advance. Kokoeist (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd count it, we even measure caps by the Basque Country national team. Ortizesp (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

We count it: it's the Uruguay FA who award caps, not FIFA. All the other opponents in their complete list are likely FIFA members, since there's been such a thing, but if for some reason they're counting this one as an official international then that's what it is. For comparison, the English FA count England v Rest of the World in 1963, which isn't a "FIFA friendly", and so do we. Might be an idea to source the stats table note to that complete list, or even better use the appropriate player page from auf.org.uy as the actual source for the stats (once they get round to updating them). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

SpVgg Fürth

Hello,

as a part of the active fan scene of our club "SpVgg Fürth", I would like to request the following change, especially in the english-language wikipedia. Our Club was founded in 1903 as SpVgg Fürth. In 1996 there was no merger but an accession of TSV Vestenbergsgreuth. Since then the club has been correctly called "SpVgg Greuther Fürth". Since then, we have had the problem that our club name has been abbreviated. "Greuther Fürth" is wrong and does not reflect the more than 100-year history of our club "SpVgg Fürth". The club comes from Fürth, in Middle Franconia in the state of bavaria. I have already tried several times here to get changed this. In some articles "Greuther Fürth" is written, althought we would like to see "SpVgg Fürth", "SpVgg Gr. Fürth" or the full name. Why all this? Because a campaign for renaming the club is currently underway under the name "Zurück zur SpVgg Fürth" (Back to SpVgg Fürth". We members are campaigning for the club to be renamed. I hope you can understand why we don't like being referred to as "Greuther". Foreign fans have already said in the past or asked us that our city must certainly called "Greuther" or "Greuther Fürth". Today 100 years ago our club wins this first german championship. It's important to us that the club's name is spelt correctly. I would therefore like to point out that it would be extremly important for us if you would support us. In future, the members, fan clubs and Ultras of the club will vote in favour of a renaming.

Under pressure from our fan scene and Ultras German online medias also refer to us as "SpVgg Fürth". Also other Ultras groups or fanclubs from other Clubs support us with a banner in the stadium. Like the Fans from 1. FC Kaiserslautern, SV Lippstadt, Audace Cerignola (Italy) or many other clubs. We are not asking you to use the traditional club name in the first instance. We would one wish and inform you to do without the abbreviation "Greuther".

Best regards and a happy easter from Franconia

Andreas SpVggFuerth (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The full name should be used per WP:KARLSRUHER. GiantSnowman 11:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The whole post needs to be stuck off the history, has it had a website and insta on it, and the username is a violation under policy along with being COI. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

National Games

Hello, I wanted to know that the number of national games should only be counted by the number of games played by the player in FIFAday or all the games outside and inside FIFAday are considered for Wikipedia. Ab10sport (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We only count 'official' international games, if that's what you are asking. GiantSnowman 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean international games that are outside the calendar of friendlies and FIFA tournaments Ab10sport (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Are they official or not? GiantSnowman 17:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

They are called non-FIFADey games, and this is my question: are they considered official games and should we include them in the number of national football players' games? Ab10sport (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If FIFA doesn't consider them official matches, then we do not include them in players' articles. Some matches outside the official calendar could be considered official, but that is entirely within FIFA's discretion. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

So how do we know if FIFA accepts them or not? Ab10sport (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally they count unless stated otherwise. I wouldn't read much into it, friendlies and the like count for our purposes generally. Ortizesp (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Really we should only be counting caps for matches that the national association counts as an official "A" internationals. What FIFA decides is irrelevant to how a national association internally decides to award caps. England counts caps for matches against the Rest of the World or Europe. It would make no sense for us to exclude these matches from the count of England players, such as Jimmy Greaves or Bobby Charlton, when the FA awards caps for such matches. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

wiki is literally counting non fifa matches. e.g., Romelu Lukaku's hat trick against luxemburg that fifa dont count due to too many subs.Muur (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's not an official game, we should not count it. GiantSnowman 10:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You can play in a official international game without being capped, but that’s very rare. An example is the Netherlands against Scotland in 1929. Only the Scottish players were capped. Caps in games that are not official are more common. Cattivi (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Football Star report and who's DD?

I was working on Walter Tull a bit and this section; The match report of the game away to Bristol City in October 1909 by Football Star reporter, "DD", was headlined "Football and the Colour Prejudice", possibly the first time racial abuse was headlined in a football report.[citation needed] "DD" emphasised how Tull remained professional and composed despite the intense provocation: "He is Hotspur's most brainy forward ... so clean in mind and method as to be a model for all white men who play football ... Tull was the best forward on the field." Firstly, who is DD? Why is it written DD on the article? And can anyone find the Football Star report in the newspaper archive at all? Because unless I can improve that, I felt like removing the whole section from the article. Regards. Govvy (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sports reports in newspapers in those days were often signed with what could be termed nicknames rather than the writer's actual full name. In writing articles on Gillingham seasons from before the First World War I have come across many articles which were written by "Citizen", "Man of Kent" and so on. The article can be found here although you will need a British Newspaper Archive subscription to read it. The publication is actually the Daily News (maybe the article was syndicated across multiple papers.....?), but it contains the exact quote shown above and is signed D.D. So your citation would be:

{{cite web|url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000051/19091004/170/0008|title=Hotspur at Bristol: Football and the Colour Prejudice|date=4 October 1909|accessdate=22 March 2024|work= [[Daily News (UK)|Daily News]]|author="D.D."|url-access=subscription|via=[[British Newspaper Archive]]}}

Hope this helps!-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you, I added the cite to the page, however I couldn't login to see it. I was wondering if I needed to add a note to accompany the cite or not. Govvy (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy: - what note would you be looking to add? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A note for who DD actually is and why it was under a nickname, etc. Govvy (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

But we don't know who he was...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious editing

An ip range has been making a large number of rapid edits on football related articles some of which are sending up yellow flags and tripping the edit filter. Could someone knowledgable on the subject take a look at their recent history? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Most edits seem fine - such as this; some seem less fine (although good faith) - such as adding flags which violates WP:MOSFLAG and this which is appears to be a good faith but flawed attempt at a grammar change. No major concerns from me. GiantSnowman 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Other edits like this - addition of an unsourced list of people - are, however, more concerning. GiantSnowman 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks GiantSnowman. Sounds like this is not a vandal running amok which was my main concern. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No, nothing looks like vandalism. GiantSnowman 18:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem and GiantSnowman: I'm not so sure. I've just undone a good half of this morning's contributions, where they've added random Japanese subjects to football roles unsourced; changed multiple instances of coach and assistant coach to manager and assistant manager contrary to the websites of the relevant employers; and added random inaccurate content such as "Born in Serbia he plays for Spain internationally" at Stefan Bajcetic, who was born in Vigo, Spain. Less easy to check the many changes to clubs with Arabic-language websites. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman @Struway2 I have posted a notification on their talk page alerting them to this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes like this are good faith, even if incorrect. GiantSnowman 18:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A single change like that is likely good faith, and I undid that one with an edit summary that explained why it was incorrect. Systematically changing the standard US head coach to manager and arbitrarily dividing the assistant coaches into one (occasionally two) assistant manager(s) and the rest as first-team coaches isn't vandalism, but it's certainly disruptive. I'm generally quite good at AGF, but when they appoint Yoshika Matsubara as assistant head coach of Plymouth Argyle and Yusaku Ueno as "general coordinator" for the Brazilian national team when neither team's website contains that person's name and Google doesn't find any relevant connections, and add "Born in <country1> represents <country2> internationally" to subjects whose sourced birthplace is <country2> (as at e.g. Junnosuke Schneider as well as at Bajcetic as mentioned above), it's not easy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Those Japanese-related edits are definitely vandalism and do not seem to link with the other editing pattern; very bizarre. GiantSnowman 21:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem and GiantSnowman: OK, so far this morning they've involved themselves in filling the vacancies at Vietnam national football team and Vietnam national under-23 football team caused by the departure of Philippe Troussier. They appointed Yoshiro Moriyama as manager of the senior team and then half an hour later un-appointed him on his own page, and added him at least twice at to the team page (reverted by others). They made three different appointments to the under-23 team (reverted by others). And they continued their fiddling with the Thailand women's national football team with a series of coaching appointments, in particular that of Kiyotaka Ishimaru as coach; as of Sunday just gone, Mr Ishimaru was head coach of Ehime FC, that club's website is very up-to-date, and they don't seem to realise he's left. Reverted by me and accompanied by a final warning. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman @Struway2 That's enough for me. I have blocked the /64 range x 60 hrs. If this resumes after the block expires, I will consider something a bit longer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this has gone from good faith into vandalism - good block. GiantSnowman 19:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman @Struway2 per discussion on my talk page and yet another warning ignored, I have reblocked the /64 x 3 months. I agree with Struway2, this may well be a CIR situation with someone whose IP is constantly changing. But the bottom line here is that they are causing a lot of disruption, especially with their poorly sourced or just plain factually false edits. The previous block doesn't seem to have had any effect on their editing habits and I am at a loss on how to communicate with them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. They have made so many rapid edits, of which a large percentage are known to be problematic, that if someone were to suggest mass reverting, I might be inclined to treat that as the most practical solution. Unless somebody wants to check each of their edits for accuracy and sourcing (of which I am completely unqualified as this subject is outside my ken). -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the good faith edits are not always correct, and the level of disruption is too much. CIR definitely applies. GiantSnowman 10:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

After randomly spot checking a bunch of their edits, none of which had an edit summary and almost all of which are unsourced, I've decided to mass revert all of their last 500 1000 edits. I just don't know what is good and what isn't and I can't ask anyone to look through that many edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Teddy Wynyard

Hello all. Just over from the cricket project. Teddy Wynyard, an FA Cup winner with the Old Carthusians in 1881, is currently undergoing a major expansion with an eye on a FA nomination once it's been reviewed and alterations made. I was wondering if anyone has any sources which cover his football career in detail? AA (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I own the book "The Early FA Cup Finals and the Southern Amateurs", which has a profile of him of (I think) about a page in length. I don't have it to hand right now but when I do I will see what, if anything, I can add -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be a fantastic addition to the article, cheers! AA (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"sports links" template

Hi there. I've seen a few editors use the {{Sports links}} template in External links sections. As I see it, this is problematic. For example, at Rade Bogdanović (link), we ended up with 11 external links which is excessive. In cases where the use of the template initially results in an acceptable amount of links, we could later end up with far more links as more database profiles get added to the Wikidata item. Am I missing something? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this template includes way too many links, most of which aren't appropriate for an external links section. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed this should not be used for our articles. GiantSnowman 13:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: The number of external links generated is restricted to a maximum of ten, maybe this should be reduced. Otherwise I don't see an issue with the links themselves. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

An indiscriminate heap of links - depending on what is held at WikiData - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 18:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not all Wikidata links are shown with this template though, the specific sites to be displayed are controlled locally on this wiki. As mentioned, we could reduce the maximum number of links shown on an article. I don't see an issue with using it to link to a player's profile on ~4 of the most prominent football websites, such as Soccerway or Soccerbase. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

2023–24 R.W.D. Molenbeek season

Is there only the 23 -24 season page for this club? I was sure there were more... Govvy (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy Greaves Harv error,

There appears to be a Harv error: linked from CITEREFGreavesScott2004 displayed on my page, but I can't locate the error on the page. For those that know about harv errors, can someone find and fix it? Because I was struggling to see where the error is coming from. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, guess no one knows about harv errors. :/ Govvy (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't even see the error, in read or edit mode. Kante4 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I can't see anything? GiantSnowman 17:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

nm, I've asked on the admin forum, as I thought it was an admin that showed me them before. Seems it must be niche, I have a bit of script installed to see them, which I guess you guys don't have. Regards. Govvy (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

David Williams (footballer, born 1955)

Can anyone with access to ENFA confirm whether he appeared for AFC Bournemouth in 1992? Some sources mention that he did, but it is not included in his article. Though it does say he worked as an assistant for the club from July. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

He appeared in the 1992–93 season: one sub appearance on 27 April 1993 at home to Bolton, on a non-contract basis (which would make sense if he was a member of the backroom staff making up the numbers). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I added it to the article with an appropriate ref -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you! S.A. Julio (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"Primeira Liga" moved to "Liga Portugal 1" without discussion

Footy Tea (talk · contribs) moved the page. SLBedit (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the move. SLBedit (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have warned them. GiantSnowman 18:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on how host countries are listed

In the infobox, the current norm is to simply type the name of the nation. I believe that it would look better, and be better if we used the country data templates (example: Brazil) as the host country. In the 2022 FIFA World Cup article, simply having an unlinked “Qatar” as the host just feels bland. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia-wide policy on this - MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear, and so this doesn't need any more discussion. This WikiProject cannot override a Wikipedia-wide guideline on this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

References on Football Players with Senior NT Appearances

On pages of football players who have gained appearance(s) in senior national team, I noticed that the sources regarding their debut on "International career" section are inconsistent.

1. Some pages referenced match reports from UEFA and FIFA (e.g. Kylian Mbappé)
2. Some referenced secondary sources (e.g. Álex Grimaldo)
3. Some are not referenced (e.g. Edinson Cavani)

Let's use references from secondary sources instead of match reports, shall we? I've done that with many football players articles recently, such as Arkadiusz Milik. Anyone may go ahead and replace them with sources provided.

CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't be boxscore match reports. A reference should explicitly mention what it is being cited. Otherwise it's original research. RedPatch (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Chiedozie Ogbene

Eyes/views welcome on the lede at Chiedozie Ogbene - it has been 'Irish footballer' since the article was created, now an IP is saying he is 'not fully Irish' and adding 'Nigerian'. This, to me, is a Raheem Sterling case - born abroad but lived in 'adopted' nation since a young child and all sources describe him as such. GiantSnowman 17:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the (non-POV-pushing) sources take precedence, and if a person attended primary school in a location and - in the case of football - started their football career there, we also have common sense dictating that they are of that nationality and from that location. Other viewpoints constitute variants of primordialism.

I have witnessed the same case at Kabamba Kalabatama. Someone insists on calling him Zambian, although he was not born to Zambian parents, but to Congolese, and spent his entire schooling and youth football career in Norway. And not least, no credible sources call him Zambian. Of course, it might be a case of representation and acquiring the passport of another nation, but to return to Chiedozie Ogbene's case, he unequivocally represents Ireland. Geschichte (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Roger Schmidt page move

Anyone else thinks this is identified as a controversial move and therefore should have been a WP:RM discussion first? I certainly remember some of us talking about this article before. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes - I have reverted. GiantSnowman 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an example of something I've highlighted before: there are subjects who are notable for both their playing and coaching careers (albeit most coaches these days tend to have played at a notable level of football). I say we should do away with "footballer" as our disambiguator and use "football" instead. Rugby union uses "rugby union", American football uses "American football", why are we using the person's job and not their field? – PeeJay 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I like PeeJay's suggestion. It would also match how we use "soccer" not "soccer player" for North American and Australian players. RedPatch (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

because 'football' is notoriously ambiguous. GiantSnowman 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

We use rugby union/soccer because there isn't an adjective for it. Many other sports that have an adjective form use that e.g. cricketers. And as GS points out, football is ambiguous, and (footballer) is clearly better than (association football), which would be the only appropriate compromise. And (coach) is ambiguous too, which was what this thread was actually about. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That reasoning runs into problems, when you've got people like Schmidt, who are involved in football, but are not notable as players. While coach is clearly the wrong hatnote, moving the page away from footballer is well warranted, given that Schmidt would not meet the relevant notability guidelines based on his playing career. That being said, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that this Roger Schmidt is the primary topic. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I also think this qualifies as WP:ONEOTHER since the academic is no longer living and won't influence the famous world anymore and those are the only two articles which has that name. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

New York/New Jersey Metrostars

I created a New York/New Jersey Metrostars, separate from the New York Red Bulls. However several admins have taken this page down. Below is the article. Please reply yes, if you wish to join the appeal for this page to exist. Thank you and regards. Loganmascarenhas20 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the content of your article, placing it here in full is inappropriate. GiantSnowman 20:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with GiantSnowman about the full content, I would have preferred linking the last edit like this instead of making this page more difficult to navigate.

As to voting: no, I already think New York Red Bulls covers all relevant content already. An example: Small Heath Alliance does not have any article content taken from Birmingham City F.C. as that is on the current team article so I believe this appeal could be pointless. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the same club, just with a rename/rebrand, so we only need one article on it. Repeatedly trying to overwrite the redirect is disruptive. GiantSnowman 20:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Al-Ahli Saudi FC

The honours section was vandalised, I've corrected the league trophy count, maybe someone else wants to double check it's all okay. I am not sure if any other fake honours were added, cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Tom Bradbury stats

Upon review, the Soccerbase and Soccerway stats for Tom Bradbury are miles apart - either 23 or 31 league apps. Any idea which is correct? Soccerbase seems to be missing a number of this season's games... GiantSnowman 11:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: The issue seems to be they have a duplicate profile of him they've switched to midseason, see here. The stats add up correctly between the two profiles. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why the switched profile has him listed as Scottish even though Soccerway clearly has him English. I have checked the stats for Curtis Davies and can conclude Bradbury played both earlier and later than the time when Soccerbase apparently switched, which in my view should not have done. As he did not make the Cheltenham lineup or the subs bench today, the 31 league apps (Soccerway) has the stats correct. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks both. GiantSnowman 10:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Failed footballer saltings

Samuel Somerville (footballer) was previously deleted and salted as Samuel Somerville (and title blacklisted!). Ditto Noe Baba (footballer) vs. Noe Baba. Have these footballers actually become notable since then, or have they just flown under the radar? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Back in the day, the subject notability guideline (SNG) for footballers required playing in a "fully professional" league or for a senior national team. Mr Somerville would now be notable under that guideline, through multiple appearances in the Malaysia Super League, Mr Baba would not.

Since the SNG was abolished, we go by WP:SPORTCRIT, which requires at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject to be present in the article, with the proviso that meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. In my personal opinion, sufficient sources probably do exist to merit a stand-alone article about Mr Baba; I wouldn't know where to find reliable sources about a player whose career was mainly in Malaysia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

In the hope that salting does not affect admins/page mover rights users, as in both cases there is only one article of those names, i.e. those which * Pppery * has listed, I think it is sensible to move to base name at this point. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I can technically. But it would be wrong for me to do so without making sure that the reasons the article were salted have been addressed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The actual name isn't really the issue. It's SALTed because the subject wasn't notable. I'm happy to move those articles to the correct locations, with the previso that there is nothing against also doing an AfD. SALT is only really supposed to be to prevent obviously non-notable subjects that are recreated consistently from being created. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If you do move Noe Baba, could you please merge the history of the long-deleted version into it; I'm happy to make an attempt at expanding it, and the old history/content might be helpful. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a lot there, but three citations that may be of use: [1], [2] and [3] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have moved both articles and restored the history. I will let others decide if the articles should go to AFD. I also note that I am entirely unsurprised that this mess has been caused by @Das osmnezz:. GiantSnowman 18:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Changes to report style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, let other people chime in first.

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

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

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

Clubs with same name - infobox (River Plate)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crystal Palace first stadium

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

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

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

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

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

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

Match results after penalties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- away goals rule

- extra time

- penalties

A combination may be used.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For statistical purposes, matches won on penalties are draws. See for example this recent article about the Champions' League: [4]: While Manchester City's defeat by Real Madrid ends their Champions League hopes, as penalties do not count in coefficient terms, the game ended in a draw, and this is how FIFA/UEFA categorise all penalty shootouts for statistical purposes. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

updating crests?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1906–07 Western Football League

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

Assists on 2023–24 A-League Men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cup top scorer navboxes

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

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

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

Aston Villa F.C.

I've raised on the talk page the possibility of a Featured Article review. The history section is bloated compared to the edition that passed in 2007. [5] Personally, I think approaches like on Liverpool F.C. with no history sub-headings but just links at the top are better, as this is a page about a whole club, not its history.

There are seven unsourced paragraphs in the history section, all from the pre-Internet era. Users with books on the history of Villa are advised to help. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this alert. I've responded on the talk page on my own views about this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Mágico González

The following month, a fellow user added several honours to this player, sourcing some of them. Yesterday, i took it upon myself to source the rest, but here's the deal:

they inserted that player/country won the 1977 Central American Games, which is what is shown in the pertinent page of tournament. The ref accompanying it (which is what i used to source honour, this one https://www.rsssf.org/tablesc/cag78.html), however, mentions that they won the QUALIFYING tournament (also the only rankings shown in the WP page), and in the finals they lost FOUR matches in FIVE while conceding a whopping 21 goals, finishing second-bottom (at least if i'm reading it well)!

So in my view i feel this "honour" should be removed, but i come here for "enlightenment" first. Attentively 193.137.135.5 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

According to that RSSSF source, El Salvador won the football tournament at the 1977 Central American Games, which also acted as a qualifier for the football tournament at the 1978 Central American and Caribbean Games, which is a different competition. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

User:ChrisTheDude I see, DIFFERENT competition. I got it now, honour stays! Many thanks. --193.137.135.5 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Jack Eggett

Should this be moved to John Eggett? Two source material refer to him in title as John Eggett, it was also known as Jack Eggett and he seemed to have been nicknamed Jack. Govvy (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Jack is a common diminutive of John. Given that there are plenty sources which call him Jack eg this one, from one of his former clubs, I don't see an issue with leaving the article where it is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

New Article for AFC Champions League Elite (ACLE)

The AFC Champions League is being rebranded in the following season to AFC Champions League Elite, at which time there should probably be an examination as to whether to change the name of the AFC Champions League article to AFC Champions League Elite. However, a new article has just been created called AFC Champions League Elite (ACLE). So the question posed is whether this new article should just be speedily deleted, on the basis that the AFC Champions League article will be renamed (perhaps in a month or two) and two separate articles for the same competition are not warranted. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Назар Кусий edits for links to a stats and betting site

To let you know that User:Назар Кусий is back (after a block in late 2023), adding external links to their related stats and betting sites once again (they were unblocked recently : @PhilKnight:). I do not think that they are here to build an encyclopedia. Block again ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them again. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Massive rapid fire unsourced edits

An IP has been making large numbers of rapid and unsourced changes to football related articles. I have already reverted quite a few, but there are probably hundreds. Could someone have a look? I suspect vandalism but would like to be sure. The IP has been blocked while this gets sorted out. It's extremely late here and I will check in tomorrow. If the edits appear to be disruptive, any experienced editor should feel free to just roll them back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

looks like 90 reverted; 296 to go ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted all of their still current edits. I think close to 400. This reminds me of someone I blocked a while ago doing similar stuff. They may be the same person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

2024–25 season articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results-by-round appears to be in some 2024–25 club-season articles, but not all. I think that's a nice balance, because if you don't think the section should be appearing in articles, you won't get annoyed all the time. Seasider53 (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Manager articles

I've clicked through a lot of football manager pages who were footballers before switching to manager career, including Pavel Dochev. Despite this, there's no evidence of them being one, even a sourced "Playing career" section. I don't want to remove the clubs they've played for on infobox without permission, so I would suggest anyone else to do this with references, which are mostly archived news. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Why would you remove that? Have you looked at the other language wikipedias? Govvy (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked at the other language wikipedias Yes, on Bulgarian Wikipedia for Dochev. After translation, there are no sources on his "playing career" section (first section) which certainly will not help copy over English article. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@CuteDolphin712: Pavel Dochev's playing career is supported by his Worldfootball.net (https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/pavel-dotchev/) and NFT (https://www.national-football-teams.com/player/26936/Pavel_Dochev.html) profiles, linked in the "External links" section. Removing his playing career would be highly inappropriate. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

National Football Teams and WorldFootball are primary sources without secondary content/coverage.

Sure, removing "Playing career" on infobox is inappropriate for such players like him, especially if we don't have same section with more detailed clarification by adding sources (e.g. When the manager ended their playing career). I thought we had to only do that, or am I wrong? Does this also apply to active players? Hmm... I guess those kinda spoil people who are new to the football figure! CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No, Worldfootball.net and NFT are not primary sources, at least not per our definition. They are databases, not newspaper articles, so they're not suitable for prose but they're fine for verifying infobox content.

I thought we had to only do that, or am I wrong? Does this also apply to active players? Hmm... I guess those kinda spoil people who are new to the football figure! I'm sorry, I don't understand that. Could you rephrase? Robby.is.on (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

They're also fine for prose, if the content cited is a basic fact like "PlayerName scored two goals against TeamName on Date". What they're not suitable for is demonstrating notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

CuteDolphin712, I respectfully suggest you leave football bios alone for a while, until you are able to edit them from a place of more knowledge. GiantSnowman 20:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

They're also fine for prose, if the content cited is a basic fact like "PlayerName scored two goals against TeamName on Date". Are you sure, Struway2? Don't we need non-database sourcing to demonstrate content is worthy of inclusion per WP:DUE? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Existence of non-database sourcing and requirement to supply it within the article are two different things. At the level of "PlayerName scored two goals against TeamName on Date", there's plenty of non-database sourcing available to show the worth of any brace of goals, and editors make a value judgment as to whether that particular brace was important enough in PlayerName's career to warrant inclusion in their article. Once the editor decides to include, then a database entry can verify the fact. The example wasn't about how to write a better article, but what form of verification is acceptable for a bare statistical fact at a basic level. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on Sorry if I don't talk too well :( Maybe... I meant if the playing career is detailed, is that against WP:FAN or something?

Anyway, I kinda agree with Struway2 statement that database sources are inappropriate to demonstrate notability!

CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I meant if the playing career is detailed, is that against WP:FAN or something? Whether content is worthy of inclusion is determined by coverage in reliable sources.

Looking at Pavel Dochev: Dochev spent many seasons in the first tier of Bulgarian football and the third tier of German football. I think most experienced editors of football articles will tell you that this usually means there is significant coverage. There's no guarantee there is but it's a good rule of thumb.

Your initial statement there's no evidence of them being [a footballer] was inaccurate as his playing career is verifiable through the database entries I mentioned. The next step would be to search for coverage in newspapers and the like. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

1907–08 Western Football League

Can someone help, the article was vandalised by an IP on 6 August 2017, making the maths on the tables completely wrong, it's never been fixed, and there are a couple of edits in between, I was looking at trying to restore the article, but keep the future edits, but my previews looks odd. I didn't want to fuck up the article. Can someone else help fix the tables back to normal so the maths add up again. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

A quick question, not directly related to your query - why is one of the columns headed "goal ratio"? This term was literally never used (at least not in England). The correct term was "goal average" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the goal ratio, but tables are still broken! I might just have to revert back to the edits before August 2017 then if no one else fixes it before me... Govvy (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I corrected Spurs' record, which seemed to be the only issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No you didn't, goals are all wrong in the first table, Tottenham came second in the league not Bristol Rovers, and the third table goals are all wrong. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what RSSSF says. What source do you have that is wildly different....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted that 2017 IP the same day, undoing all his edits, so I'm not sure what he did is the problem. These historic season articles were better off with simple tables before they were overcomplicated. The "goal ratio" thing was added here [6] during the mass expansion of templates on all these articles. The maths was changed here [7]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well Spurs played 12 games, won 7 and lost 5, they never drew a game. The third table down, total 309 goals for and 274 total against? How is that even equal? Goals for and against are always equal. Govvy (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Also Spurs scored 26 goals only only let in 13 goal in that league. :/ Govvy (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

[8] Govvy (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

In the reference I originally used for this article, Spurs' record was Pl12 W7 D0 L5 GF26 GA15. I assume it's been changed to 6-1-5-16-15 because someone's found a different reference and changed it. As for Division Two, in the original reference I used, the total goals for and against were 304-274, hence I added the note about totals not balancing. I assume the original tables were wrong, so...? My reference shows Welton having scored 23, not 28 (goal average of 0.5), so that's been changed somewhere, but as you say, still miles off. I also don't know why Welton were above Weymouth, given their goal averages suggest it should be the other way round. My guess is that somebody made a mistake historically, and Weymouth actually conceded 53 goals, not 23. That would fix the goal difference across the whole division, and give Weymouth a goal average of 0.471, explaining why they're below Welton. But that's just my guess... Unless someone has a reference which makes them add up? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Bob Goodwin's Complete Record lists the twelve Spurs games, which add up to a record of P12, W7, D0, L5, F26, A15, Pts14. On the same page there is a league table showing Spurs record as P12, W6, D1, L5, F16, A15, Pts13. The match record is confirmed at Topspurs, so the 6-1-5-16-15 is an error derived from the book. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Philip Soar records all the games in Tottenham Hotspur The Official Illustrated History 1882–1995, not one draw list for the Western League in the results. I have both books here. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

International Friendlies

Can someone explain why we don't list friendlies play outside the FIFA international windows? eg England v Canada women in 2023 or any of the Gibraltar games against non-FIFA nations. I can understand why these don't count towards official statistics, but for them to be on separate lists or just not included seems odd. Mn1548 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes these matches are made unofficial and not registered with FIFA for specific purposes, such as non-standard lengths, using ineligible players (ie. dual-nats considering a one-time switch), other alternate rules (players in and out), etc. Friendlies played outside windows are counted if they are still official friendlies RedPatch (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

For England v Canada women in 2023 the reason is clear:-> The teams played two 45-minute halves with unlimited substitutes

It's the same like for this match: FIFA downgraded Belgiums friendly victory over Luxembourg.
Recognition only as a practice match, but not as an official friendly according to the rules of the FIFA and IFAB Miria~01 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks, so essentially FIFA classification differs between Friendly and Practice Match to if they follow official rules or not. Mn1548 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Jardel (1999-2000 season) - 37 or 38 league goals

Unfortunately, there are discrepancies in sources and football databases regarding Jardel's number of goals in the 1999-2000 season. That's why I wanted to ask if anyone has an official source (like perhaps from the governing body Liga Portugal itself) for the top scorers list from 1999-2000?
In most Wiki articles (e.g. 1999–2000 FC Porto season or Mário Jardel) the number of goals is listed with 38 as it is according to this sources:
Mario Jardel 1999/2000 - zerozero.pt or infordesporto.pt.The problem is also increased by the fact that sources then state the total number of goals across all competitions as 56[9] instead of 55 .

But these reliable sources have 37 goals in the league for Jardel in the 1999-2000 season:
Record (Portuguese newspaper) [10][11],worldfootball.net,RSSSF, footballdatabase.eu [12] and Besoccer [13]

Apparently it's about one game where this discrepancy comes from in different sources:

Database	BeSoccer (37 league goals)	Worldfootball.net (37 league goals)	zerozero.pt (ogol.com.br,playmakerstats.com etc.) (38 league goals)
match-report	Porto 3 - 0 Braga https://www.besoccer.com/match/fc-porto/sporting-braga/200018481	Porto 3 - 0 Braga https://www.worldfootball.net/report/primeira-liga-1999-2000-fc-porto-sporting-braga/	Porto 3 - 0 Braga https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo/2000-02-05-fc-porto-sc-braga/736558
goals	Capucho 1x goal, Chaínho 1x goal, Jardel 1x goal	Capucho 1x goal, Chaínho 1x goal, Jardel 1x goal	Capucho 1x goal, Jardel 2x goal

So the question is whether someone has a better source (like perhaps from the governing body Liga Portugal itself) or even a video link to the game in question to check it out. Miria~01 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a minor comment: per WP:WPFLINKSNO, FootballDatabase.eu should not be used. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither should ZeroZero - I trust WorldFootball. GiantSnowman 20:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the difference in sources is due to the method of the goal. I tried to search for the different goal and could not find it. I think we should follow the most reliable sources, which consider that Jardel scored 37 goals. --Mishary94 (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I found the explanation for this discrepancy in an article from the Portuguese sports Newspaper Record:

https://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-nacional/liga-betclic/sporting/detalhe/jardel-atinge-150-golos-na-i-liga-lusa

Translated excerpt from 12 January 2002

The number of goals scored by the Brazilian in the Portuguese championship is not unanimous (148 for Record). All because of the second from FC Porto-Sp. Braga (3-0), played on February 5, 2000, and which our newspaper attributed to Chainho, as did “France Football” and Eurosport. After Chainho headed the ball to the goal, Jardel claimed that he was last on the ball and changed the direction, what Chainho not disputes. Nevertheless, the official match report by the fourth referee and the League delegate lists Chihnio as the goalscorer.

... Days later it was made public that the fourth referee and the League delegate indicated in their respective reports that it was the midfielder who scored.

--> The conclusion from this is, in my opinion, that we should follow the sources according to worldfootball.net and state 37 goals for Jardel in the season 1999-2000, as @GiantSnowman and @Mishary94 already recommended. Miria~01 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Great work, I will change everything related to this in Wikipedia (it will be considered that he scored 37 league goals with Porto in the 1999-2000 season). Thank you --Mishary94 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this source credible?

Is this website Footofeminin.fr : le football au féminin a credible enough source to use for usage of coverage of women's football articles in France? Dwanyewest (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Willie Frame

Can anybody with access to ENFA or other sources confirm Willie Frame's league statistics for Gateshead in 1931/32? Would really appreciate the help. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll add later but Michael Joyce's book says 6 apps in 31/32 ColchesterSid (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Anything approaching a confirmed DOB would also be very helpful! Crowsus (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Joyce is vague - DOB is for William G Frame is "Larkhall 1898" and no date of death. It also has two extra clubs - sequence of clubs is shown as Larkhall Thistle, Clyde, St Bernards (loan), Motherwell, St Mirren (trial), Dunfermline Athletic, 1931 Gateshead 6/0, Bray Unknowns, Linfield, Motherwell. Oddly Joyce lists him as a goalkeeper - maybe a mistake? ColchesterSid (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we've got two different men here. The Gateshead Frame did indeed play as a goalkeeper for Gateshead, both for the first team and the reserves, in 1931/32. ENFA gives birth details as William Gray Frame born 11 Nov 1911 in Blantyre, which would have made him about 8 when he made his debut for Clyde. They list clubs as 1926 Kirkintilloch Rob Roy, 1926 Shieldmuir Celtic, 1931 Motherwell, 1931/32 Gateshead, 1932 Bray Unknowns, 1935 Linfield, 1938 Motherwell, 1940 Parkhead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there's multiple editions of the Joyce book but mine (dated 2004) lists only one Willie Frame, a goalkeeper, and it shows him as playing only for Gateshead, no other clubs at all. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple editions; I have the same one as you.

As to the Gateshead Frame, he definitely isn't the same man as the full-back that our article is about. If anyone has full British Newspaper Archive access, there's a decent little biography of him in Ireland's Saturday Night of 7 March 1936, url https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004162/19360307/129/0010 . I've only got snippet view, but it's enough to show he joined Motherwell as a young goalkeeper, stayed for 15 months playing reserve team football, and then moved on to Gateshead, Bray, and Linfield. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Great intel, Struway2! That of course poses the question.....what was the other Frame doing for seven years between 1931 and 1938.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It was the Gateshead/Linfield goalkeeper who signed for Motherwell in 1938, per the Wishaw Press: the first para says they're going to play him (in goal), scroll down to the bottom and it talks about him signing after a trial having regained fitness from a shoulder operation. Now that we know it wasn't the Willie Frame in our article, the Motherwell LB, who played for Gateshead in 1931/32 or rejoined Motherwell in 1938, Litster might have his later career attributed to some other W. Frame; or perhaps he retired: he'd have been early-mid 30s by 1931. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to dig into this tonight. Crowsus (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have now amended Willie Frame's article as best as I could find. The source of the confusion seems to be that GK Willie was a reserve with Motherwell but didn't play for them in the same season as DF Willie left, so the Litster database recorded DF Willie's move to Dunfermline (which seems to have been permanent) as a loan with a player of that name still on the books but not playing. Litster then links GK Willie's return to Motherwell as being by DF Willie in error, but doesn't mention any of the other clubs in between.

Certainly there are refs for GK Willie at Gateshead which mention Motherwell, and at the other end at Motherwell which mention Linfield, while DF Willie seems to have retired after the season at Dunfermline, so it's fairly certain that the Bray spell was also GK and it's only the Motherwell 1930/1931 period where their careers actually overlapped. With 6 FL and 10 SFL appearances for GK Willie, under the old rules he would have been eligible for an article, dunno if anyone wants to attempt it... The Ireland article above confirms Earnock Rovers Juveniles > Motherwell Reserves > Gateshead > Bray > Linfield and indicates he was from Blantyre, and a bit of snooping shows the only male of that name born there in the right period is William Gray Frame in 1911 which would match the 'G' in the name. Would be shocked to discover that isn't our GK.

Coming from the same part of the world, I don't recall ever actually meeting anyone called Frame, but there are plenty who have played league football! Many of the results in my searches for the 2 Willies were actually for Leicester's Billy Frame. And there are a couple of others, but no big names (Tommy Frame played for Man Utd but in the 2nd Division). I have a feeling a few of these guys were related but haven't come across anything in the reports which even hints at that. Crowsus (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your sterling work on this, Crowsus! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! S.A. Julio (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Johnny Orr - Blackburn Rovers

Does anyone know what happened to Johnny Orr who played for Blackburn Rovers during the 1910s? Hack (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

My copy of Michael Joyce's book lists no clubs for him after Blackburn so unless someone can dredge up another source then we have to assume that either he retired or the information simply isn't known -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked because a Scottish guy with the same name ends up in Melbourne during the early 1920s and plays for Australia in 1924. It's probably a different person but the dates match up. Hack (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

John Litster's database has him as 'Retired' from 1920 but then resurfacing at Leith Athletic in July 1924 (2 seasons in Scottish 3rd tier, 35 league app / 14 goals), depending on the Australia dates it might still be him, but came back home...? I'll try to get a source. Crowsus (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

...British Newspaper Archive actually has him playing for Leith as early as 1922 (they had closed down for WWI and were non league at that point until 1924, explaining the discrepancy) so looking less likely. Also a snippet from a benefit game in 1926 which doesn't mention any time in Australia. I can see that the other Johnny Orr was pretty prominent in the mid 1920s; you've probably seen a passing mention here. Crowsus (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

lfchistorc profile, worldfootball.net profile. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

ENFA says he played for Newtongrange Star, Blackburn Rovers, Leith Athletic - there was also a John Orr active at the same time who played for Kilwinning Rangers, Luton Town, Dunfermline Athletic. GiantSnowman 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't think the Luton / Dunfermline guy is the Australian as he played in Britain at pretty much the same time, and seems to have been a goalkeeper. I have now knocked up an article for Johnny Orr (footballer) (Blackburn) and still found nothing for Australia plans etc. Crowsus (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There's also a goalkeeper in Canada during the 1910s. Hack (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Managerial vacancies

If a club has no current manager, should we show "vacant" against that field or just show nothing at all? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

If there's a caretaker, show that, using |managertitle= to show what the club are calling the caretaker role. If there's nobody, which might well be the case when the playing season's just finished, show nothing. IMO. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no issues saying 'vacant'. GiantSnowman 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:American soccer players of Nigerian descent

Haven't super narrow categories like Category:American soccer players of Nigerian descent been deleted in the past? GiantSnowman 19:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe they have. One of these days, I will get around to writing Wikipedia:Not everything needs a category. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and recently at CfD (Jan 24) I have seen Fooian sportspeople of Bar descent being upmerged. Seemed to mainly have been the British ones, but I don't see why the American ones would be any different when someone gets around to nominating them. Personally I can see a valid intersection between origin and occupation but even things like e.g English sportspeople of Jamaican descent didn't cut it apparently; don't see why American sportspeople of Nigerian descent should be any different. Anyway, that would strongly imply that intersecting by any specific sport is (still) not necessary or desired, even if the upmerged list would be pretty large. Crowsus (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Len Bathurst

I've been going through some of the players in the Football League category and noticed Len Bathurst, who apparently played for Stockport County, Northampton Town, Rochdale and Crewe Alexandra in the 70s and 80s. However, I have not been able to locate any information about this player on Hugman's site or the ENFA. Is this possibly a WP:HOAX? I noticed the article creation in 2011 was the only ever edit by Adamhelal, which is suspicious. Would appreciate any input. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

He does not appear in Hugman (2015) and I've checked all players with surnames starting Bat---. I also suspect it is a hoax unless anyone else can turn up something more? Perhaps check a Rothmans Yearbook from around that time to be sure ColchesterSid (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A player with nearly 400 league appearances, even in the lower divisions, would have plenty of info about them easily available. I am going to AfD it as a hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

12.5 years Mr One-and-Done got away with that. Impressive, if somewhat embarrassing for us. Seasider53 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

TBF it won't crack the top 20 of the longest-surviving Wiki-hoaxes..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Middlesbrough F.C. listed for Good article reassessment

Middlesbrough F.C. has been listed under Good article reassessment. If you have anything to add, please do by adding to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

League South Cup in 1943

I've been going through old issues of the London Evening Standard for a non-football-related project and happened to notice an article in the 24 April 1943 issue about Arsenal and QPR playing at Stamford Bridge in the semifinal of the League South Cup, with the winners to play Charlton in the final at Wembley. We don't have an article on the League South Cup and I haven't been able to find out much about it. Should we have an article? Does anyone know more about it? I know the Football League was suspended during the war; I didn't think there was any professional football at all played during those years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Football League War Cup covers all aspects of this competition. The Football League and the FA Cup were both suspended but football itself continued throughout the war Wartime League ColchesterSid (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; I figured it was probably covered somewhere but I couldn't find it. Should League South Cup be a redirect to that article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Disambiguating with (football) for football players, which is related to the scope of this WikiProject. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

LaLiga Competition logos- Request for publication of appropriate logos

I have uploaded again to Wikimedia Commons the logos with the highest resolution. These logos correspond to the competition itself (they are not the logos of La Liga as an institution) but of the Primera División or "LaLiga" (LaLiga EA Sports) and Segunda División (LaLiga Hypermotion)

I tried to place the new logos in the articles and they were removed. As can be seen in the attached brand evolution chart, the logo provided is appropriate for the competition. Please restitute it. Thank you very much.

Evolución de marca LaLiga

Primera División LaLiga EA Sports - Logo competition High resolution

File:Logo HYPERMOTIONV PANTONE h color 2.jpg

Segunda División LaLiga Hypermotion LOGO High resolution

AraceliLaLiga (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The provided logo is inferior in quality to the existing vector logo, so I see no reason to change it. SounderBruce 16:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Evolución de marca LaLiga.jpg is not your own work, like you've claimed when uploading it. And it contains copies of logos that are likely copyrighted, and so I will be nominating this image for deletion on Commons. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Aston Villa F.C. Featured Article Review

I have nominated Aston Villa F.C. 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. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the proper location should be at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aston Villa F.C. without the "archive1" at the end, unless it has been located with the archive1 at the end for some reason. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It is already at the correct location, that is how the featured article system is ordered. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know how that system actually works late on 6 May when I made that comment of mine. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

What flag?

What flag icon do I use for a football player born in India in 1883? Govvy (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Per Star of India (flag), British Raj's official state flag for use on land was the Union Flag of the United Kingdom. However {{Country data British Raj}} seems to default to the civil ensign. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

k, I added "British Raj" to my draft (User:Govvy/1907–08 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season) and yes it comes up with the ensign flag. Is that representative of the nation you're born in? Govvy (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The table header says "Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules." Obviously FIFA didn't exist at the time so this is a rather large red herring, but at the time India was not an independent country, so Pass would not have had Indian citizenship and if he had ever played internationally it would not have been for India (the India national football team did not play a match until the 1920s). So he wasn't "Indian" in any meaningful/relevant sense. I think you are trying to apply a modern standard to a scenario for which it doesn't work...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, I can always set the flag icon to English, I was just trying to follow a manual of style, but you do make a valid point, I also had a draft for Jimmy Pass in my sandbox, says he was born in Juffupore in Goodwin's book, but is there even a place called Juffupore in India? Govvy (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I would use the British flag (Union flag) rather than that of England. His parents could have been Scottish or Welsh..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

BTW, on his place of birth, this (registration required) says he was born in Jabalpur, which was previously called Jubbulpore -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, now that's a good source, cheers Chris, I wonder why Goodwin has such a bad miss-type here. Govvy (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a small point, not sure if it was still the case in 1907 but in the 19th century, India-born players were only eligible for England regardless of their heritage, see William Lindsay and Stuart Macrae. Crowsus (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

And see here also List_of_England_international_footballers_born_outside_England#British India ColchesterSid (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Czech and Slovak male footballers

I'm doing a clean-up male footballer articles from West Slavic countries, namely Czech Republic and Slovakia, as I've been noticing a lot of them are not sourced or written well in any way, especially smaller ones. For example, Czech footballer Marek Havlík article has been unsourced since its creation for ten years, so I just need help to add secondary sources.

Regarding Slovak football players... the strangest thing is... unlike corresponding articles of Czech and Polish football players in their respective Wikipedia languages, even if there's a corresponding article of certain SVK football players, they mostly look far from well-written than English article (see here for example). Such case is Róbert Mazáň, which took me some minutes to clean his article up because there hasn't been a corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia (I already stated that in my edit summary).

How should we improve them?

Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove any unsourced info and tag with {{BLP sources}} or {{BLP unsourced}} as appropriate. GiantSnowman 14:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Cross Project Work

Hello Football Editors! Editors over at the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles are discussing working with other WikiProjects to tackle their backlog. This might take the form of a backlog drive or building up a shared resource to find reliable sources. We'd like you to be involved in the discussion because Football was identified as being a topic with a large number of articles lacking references - please join the discussion here. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Popularity in the 60s/70s of Spain women's football

How can determinate if there was a certain popularity? It is a current discusion here. Please help. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Svenska Fans (svenskafans.com), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Bristol Rovers F.C. listed for Good article reassessment

Bristol Rovers F.C. has been listed under Good article reassessment. If you have anything to add, please do by adding to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Fix copy paste move

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

Per AFC, it is a brand new competition ("inaugural", "maiden season") and not just a rebrading of the current AFC Women's Club Championship which is just a pilot competition, so AFC Champions League should have a separate article maybe? Snowflake91 (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Koppapa, in case you didn't know, I think you could have undid those cut and paste edits yourself, but at least that part of the problem has been solved.

A WP:RM involving swapping both page titles is certainly better than using copy paste move since the article page history is preserved unlike what happened earlier on today. I am wondering what others think about this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, swapping titles should always be done through RM. This allows a pagemover or admin to perform the swap much more easily than someone without those permissions. Copy-paste moves should never be done since attribution for past contributions is lost. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Attribution for past contributions can still be maintained through WP:HISTMERGE where appropriate for a copy-paste move. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

National team logos

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

The logo belongs to Canadian Soccer, so we can only use it on that article. Even if other people use the Canadian Soccer logo for the teams, it isn't the logo of them so won't meet Wikipedia's non free image policy. This is the case for all logos of football/soccer (and other sports)' organisations, if the logo is of the organisation and not the team itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think using the national flag would be appropriate alternative. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The flag is not uniquely associated with the team. A better alternative would be to use a photo of the team in action. – PeeJay 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an action photo of the team is preferable to the national flag. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Two requests

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

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

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

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

Appreciate it, knew you'd come in to save the day! NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 11:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to the talk of Argentina–Brazil football rivalry article

Please, I invite you to the talk page of the article Argentina–Brazil football rivalry here [14], where there is a dispute about the official count of matches, with many sources that differ. I thank you for your participation. Regards, Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Forth Rangers?

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

There is a place called Forth near Lanark but I think the team you are referring to were based in Grangemouth (next to Falkirk) and played in the junior leagues from 1890 to 1956. Crowsus (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Short answers: yes and no it isn't. Slightly longer answer: Two clubs used the name. One was a very short-lived club from Forth that existed for a season in the 1890s. The other was a junior club from Grangemouth which regularly entered the Junior Cup from 1890 until 1956 when it merged with Grange Rovers (also from Grangemouth) to form Grangemouth United. The merged club became defunct in 1966. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I was working on William McNair (footballer) article, in Goodwin's book he said he played for Falkirk, but I was wondering if he got mixed up with a different team of either Forth Rangers or one of the other clubs in Falkirk. Goodwin doesn't even mention his time at Celtic which I added. Didn't find the best sources, but if anyone can improve the article please do. Govvy (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Davidlofgren1996

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

Dragan Šolak and Sports Republic

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

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

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

English First Division top scorer in 1889–90

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

ENFA gives Jimmy Ross 19 league goals + 2 FA Cup; Nick Ross 22 League goals + 2 FA Cup. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Struway2! Is ENFA a reliable source? If so, we should change Jimmy for Nick in 1889–90 Football League, Template:English First Division top scorers, List of English football first tier top scorers. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, and presumably its figures are the result of more recent research than the very longstanding sources for Jimmy's 24. The 2004 edition of Michael Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 doesn't do breakdown by season, but gives both brothers the same totals of apps/goals for Preston as enfa does. I'd be inclined to believe enfa, personally. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

UEFA club final shootouts

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

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

There was some discussion of how much stats is too much for a stats-specific page when FIFA World Cup records and statistics went to AfD in 2022. My interpretation of the result was that sourcing all the stats to a WP:RS was imperative to show notability as well as accuracy. There was a major clean up effort, and while the page is still very long, everything in it is now properly sourced. Wburrow (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed. -Koppapa (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

FIFA Club World Cup teams in contention

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

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

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

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

The situations are not the same. The previous discussion (which went for only 14 hours by the way) was someone posting bullet points of all 108 countries who might qualify (of a total of 7 who did). That is indeed overkill, and I was happy it was removed. It was easy at the time to simply click on the links to the different confederations if you wanted to see who was still in contention. This is a different case, as it is not a single competition feeding into the calculations, it is (for the remaining confederation, CONMEBOL) over four competitions. The rankings for CONMEBOL are shown at the FIFA website for all four years in a single table, so there is a primary source. That FIFA website shows the current leaders under the four-year ranking, and those 2 teams I have put into a note in the main table, as that is also clearly not WP:OR. That approach is consistent with how the notes have been displayed for all other confederations before they were finalised. At one point in this article, the table showed all of the results, so dozens and dozens of teams, and that also is not WP:OR. However, showing dozens of teams that in fact were not in contention was also misleading so that subset was removed. The criteria on the FIFA website clearly list the points available (3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 3 points for progress to each stage of the competition), so that is not WP:OR. The maximum number of points available to a team without their winning the 2024 Copa Libertadores is easily calculated: After round 3 of the group stage, it is 3 wins in the group stage, 2 wins in the round of 16, 2 wins in the quarter-finals, 2 wins in the semi-finals, draw in the final (PSO loss). Nine wins and one draw = 28 points, and progressing 4 more rounds to the final = 12 points, so total = 40 points. That to me is WP:CALC. If one of the three teams - that have already won one the three previous editions of the Copa Libertadores - wins this year, then a third team will qualify through the four-year ranking method. That process is sourced from the FIFA Website. Olimpia currently sit on 57 points, third in these rankings, so any team with less than 17 points cannot qualify by this method (57-17=40). That to me is again WP:CALC. So, overall, removing the teams that cannot qualify I would clearly consider to be WP:CALC rather than WP:OR. What would be better, obviously, is if there is also a secondary source showing the teams still in contention. As a side issue, it is not going to be a permanent feature of the FIFA Club World Cup article, as it will decrease through time as did the tables for the other confederations (and disappear entirely in November 2024). Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, my point about WP:CALC not being applicable is not that this doesn't involve routine calculations. Of course it does. It's that it involves more than just routine calculations (i.e. knowledge of how the various tournaments are structured, how teams have been drawn, etc.) That is what makes it OR. Specifically, it's WP:SYNTH. I don't think it is controversial to require a source that explicitly states the conclusion that is being made. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

https://espndeportes.espn.com/futbol/mundial-clubes/nota/_/id/13319277/las-posibilidades-que-tiene-nacional-de-clasificar-al-mundial-de-clubes-2025

Translated excerpt

The maximum that can be added in a single edition of the Cup is 52 points in this hypothetical case: being runner-up by winning all the games and tying the final, this would be 37 points (twelve wins and one draw), to which would be added three to participate in the group stage and twelve to advance in the following rounds (to the round of 16, to the quarterfinals, to the semis and to the final).

This is what I consider to be a credible source to confirm the calculation. Miria~01 (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Using this as the only source for the information that is presented at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup would be WP:SYNTH. It doesn't explicitly say which teams are "in contention" beyond National and a few others. To make a conclusion based on this would be OR. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com,, published 19 mar 2024

The FIFA article indicates exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, before the Group stage started. Miria~01 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a great source, but where does it explicitly say what the current teams in contention are? If instead of a current ranking table, that section of the article merely contained a summary of what this source says (i.e. a list of teams that are still in contention as of the start of the group stage, perhaps including the rankings at that time from a source showing that) then this would be a perfectly good source for that. It would be outdated, but it would be backed by sources. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

But that's what WP:CALC is intended for.

What you explicitly ask for is a dynamic source like this FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ Confederations ranking that is updated after each game day with the information addition of eliminated clubs by the 4-year ranking . Or rather, there should always be news sources that confirm that a team no longer has a chance through the ranking after each match day. There are numerous of these news, but that would be a WP:OVERCITE, as there is no point in confirming an easy calculation again and again. These sources are more than sufficient for WP:CALC:

• FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ Confederations ranking - FIFA.com
• CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com
• Las posibilidades que tiene Nacional de clasificar al Mundial de Clubes 2025 - ESPN DEPORTES

Miria~01 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, determining which additional teams are eliminated and which ones are still in contention requires more than just a simple calculation, so WP:CALC is insufficient. To make that determination, you need to both do a calculation *and* have additional context. Any conclusions drawn from that context need to come from a source. If you draw a conclusion about which teams are currently in contention from the sources you've just provided, none of which explicitly say which teams are currently in contention, then that is WP:SYNTH. Requiring a single source that says explicitly what is being claimed is no where near WP:OVERCITE (which is not policy, unlike WP:OR). So I'm not sure what your point is with that. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, if we had a source that also listed such a thing, then we should include it. If no other sources are talking about the teams "in contention" then we shouldn't either. Creating graphs and tables and the like for things isn't what we are here for. We summarise what sources say, rather than be the standard. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, agree with Lee Vilenski. Kante4 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com

This FIFA article indicates exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, before the Group stage started. Now the question is whether WP:CALC could applied here after three match days have been played and show which clubs currently in contention through the 4-year ranking. Or is it really WP:SYNTH as @Bmf051 above stated. Miria~01 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here about what WP:CALC is. Can you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers and the above article?

For example, suppose Libertad are in the semifinals and need 10 points to qualify by finishing third in the rankings out of eligible teams (assume that they cannot finish first or second). Suppose Flamengo are the only previous winner still alive. Can Libertad qualify via the rankings? It is impossible to answer that question without knowing whether Libertad and Flamengo are playing in the semifinals. If they play Flamengo, the answer is no. If they don't, the answer is yes. So this requires more information than just a basic calculation using just the numbers. WP:CALC does not apply. You're using WP:CALC to do a lot of heavy lifting here, for things that it is not intended for. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, WP:CALC mentions Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. So this is about whether these calculations are decided by consensus as routine. My long post near the start of this section outlines my opinion on the routine nature of the calculations (points for a win, points for a draw, points for reaching the next stage) over and above what is already published on the FIFA website (the reliable source, albeit a Primary one). I would consider the comment by @Bmf 051: that Can you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers and the above article? is not the correct question to pose; it should rather be Can you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers, the format of the calculation of points, and the Primary reliable source? to which the answer is Yes. Otherwise, by analogy it means most times that the status_TEAM=E is applied to a group table in a competition - before the group stage is completed - is also WP:OR. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"RE: It should rather be..." This is not correct. What you are talking about is WP:SYNTH: taking a routine calculation, additional information, and other miscellany, then making your own conclusion about something that is not explicitly stated. If you could make that conclusion via only a routine calculation (and there was a consensus that the calculation was correct), that would be WP:CALC and would be fine. But that isn't the case here. Instead of trying to justify why this information doesn't need to come from a source, we would be better off spending our time looking for a source or simply representing what the sources already say.

Unfortunately, the qualification status on some pages is posted prematurely, before there is a source stating it. I think the reason people get a way with that is that often it either goes unnoticed or because the source is updated soon after the page is updated. That doesn't make this practice correct or okay. In this case with the "teams in contention" list, the lack of sources has not gone unnoticed, and the sources have not been updated after the fact, if they exist at all.

The argument you are making is a type of WP:WHATABOUTISM. Yes the rules are broken elsewhere. So what? Bmf 051 (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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

I have no issues with having just the rankings listed somewhere. As long as it continues to not make unsourced conclusions, it would indeed not be WP:OR IMHO. Though a separate page may be better, with perhaps a transclusion of part of the table on the respective annual Club World Cup page, when prudent. I think FootyRankings could be a good additional source for this, in the same way that https://kassiesa.net/uefa/ is used to supplement the UEFA coefficient page. Assuming FootyRankings is reliable.

The good thing about this solution is that it can be carried over to future tournaments. As soon as the next 4-year cycle kicks off for each confederation (and the sources publish the tables), the new rankings can be updated on WP. The current solution of listing teams in contention would not allow us to do that, since nearly every club in the world would be "in contention" at the start of a 4-year cycle. Bmf 051 (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I consider Footy Rankings to be a better solution for referencing in any case, as this website is a) a Secondary source, which is preferred over a Primary one, b) has traction as it is used currently for articles for AFC and UEFA coefficients, and c) generally kept up-to-date. A fork to a separate small article with this information (similar to the UEFA coefficient) is still going to have the same issue with respect to WP:OR vs WP:CALC; it doesn't achieve anything, AND that article will shrink to zero as teams become mathematically unable to achieve qualification via this ranking route. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If we are literally just summarizing the content from FootyRanking, there should not be any issue with WP:OR aside from people updating it before the source is updated. We're ideally just displaying the information from the source and nothing more. Also, just as the UEFA Coefficient page doesn't "shrink to zero" when teams are eliminated, a separate small article for the Club World Cup rankings doesn't need to either, because there's nothing wrong with leaving some teams that are qualified or eliminated. We could just establish through consensus how the table should be displayed, which teams would be included, the minimum/maximum number of teams displayed for each confederation, etc. For example, for CONMEBOL currently, it might show the teams listed in green on FootyRankings and the top 12 teams in yellow (for a total of 15). But there might also be an OFC table with just the top 5. Perhaps UEFA would have 20 teams: the 12 in green, plus 8 in white. The others could have 10. This is just an example, and I just pulled numbers out of the air; I'm not saying we need to do exactly this. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I like FootyRankings too, but it's a blog with user-generated content WP:UGC from a twitter account (https://twitter.com/FootyRankings). In my opinion it's only okay as an additional source, but never as a main source. But I'm totally on board with the idea of only showing a maximum of teams. In this regard, I would only use the number of slots that are still available for the best-ranked clubs (not yet qualified as champions) in the respective confederation. For CONMEBOL it would now be the three best placed teams (as in https://inside.fifa.com/en/fifa-rankings/mundial-de-clubes: marked in orange Currently qualified clubs). Miria~01 (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

More sources couldn't hurt, and highlighting the orange clubs from the FIFA website instead would be fine too. One negative aspect of that is that FIFA sometimes list teams who can't qualify as "currently qualified". See Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors currently, and Philadelphia Union until a day or two ago.

I can't vouch for how the information from FootyRankings is generated or who generates it or how reliable it is, but is it's content coming from Twitter or is it just a website that also happens to publish its content on Twitter? Bmf 051 (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The latter. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to illustrate what I mean: User:Bmf_051/sandbox/FIFA Club World Cup 4-year ranking. The general idea I'm thinking would be to always list some set number of clubs for each confederation (based on the number of teams that qualify, I went with 20 for UEFA, 15 for CONMEBOL, 5 for OFC, and 10 for the rest; I just picked these numbers out of the air). Then prioritize listing teams who have or may qualify over teams who cannot qualify, since that's the main point of the tables. Note that this information is entirely pulled from FootyRankings and FIFA - with the exception of Philadelphia Union and Club America's status, since they are still listed as potentially being able to qualify on FootyRankings. However, we can probably find one-off sources for stuff like that (i.e. when either website has not been kept up-to-date). I also updated Real Madrid and Bayern Munich's points, before the source has been updated. But updating point totals (and NOT concluding anything about qualifying status from them) is something that would fall under WP:CALC with a source for the match result.

Again, not saying we need to do it this way. But this is one way we might avoid having the tables shrink to zero or having it get too unwieldy with hundreds of teams. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Another idea is to have a template with the full ranking (or much of it) in a conditional table. That way it never shrinks to zero. But for contexts where we would like to keep it small (such as on the FIFA Club World Cup page for the current season), we give a parameter to collapse the table to just the teams in contention according to the sources.

Truncated table (default)

{{User:Bmf 051/sandbox/Template:FIFA Club World Cup 4-year ranking (CONMEBOL)}}

Rank	Club	2021	2022	2023	2024	Total
1	Palmeiras	43*	39	37	13†	132
2	Flamengo	46	52*	20	7†	125
3	Atlético Mineiro	38	26	17	15†	96
4	Fluminense	28		40*	11†	79
5	River Plate	22	23	19	13†	77
6	Boca Juniors	18	18	35		71
8	Olimpia	20	11	26		57
10	Nacional	11	10	19	10†	50
13	Independiente del Valle	8	11	19	7†	45
14	Cerro Porteño	16	14	7	8†	45
16	Bolivar			24	13†	37
17	Talleres		24		13†	37
18	São Paulo	25			12†	37
20	The Strongest	9	9	9	10†	37
21	Estudiantes		27		7†	34

Full table (parameter)

Only shows the first 21 teams, because I'm lazy

{{User:Bmf 051/sandbox/Template:FIFA Club World Cup 4-year ranking (CONMEBOL)|fulltable=true}}

Rank	Club	2021	2022	2023	2024	Total
1	Palmeiras	43*	39	37	13†	132
2	Flamengo	46	52*	20	7†	125
3	Atlético Mineiro	38	26	17	15†	96
4	Fluminense	28		40*	11†	79
5	River Plate	22	23	19	13†	77
6	Boca Juniors	18	18	35		71
7	Athletico Paranaense		37	22		59
8	Olimpia	20	11	26		57
9	Internacional	18		34		52
10	Nacional	11	10	19	10†	50
11	Vélez Sarsfield	19	30			49
12	Racing	21		27		48
13	Independiente del Valle	8	11	19	7†	45
14	Cerro Porteño	16	14	7	8†	45
15	Barcelona	30		7	5†	42
16	Bolivar			24	13†	37
17	Talleres		24		13†	37
18	São Paulo	25			12†	37
19	Argentinos Juniors	19		18		37
20	The Strongest	9	9	9	10†	37
21	Estudiantes		27		7†	34

This would require editors to have some knowledge of conditional tables. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac@Miria~01 Since there seems to be agreement that we would all be fine with just showing the information from FIFA's website and perhaps supplemented by FootyRankings, I think I will update the table with that info when I get a chance. Basically adding some of the unlisted contenders from FootyRankings and highlighting the "current qualifiers" as per FIFA.

If someone else wants to do this before I do, that would be fine with me too. And if you don't agree with that, speak up. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion, I don't see any consensus with a conditional tables in a template, no another user supported this proposal either. The main idea is to show only the clubs that are in contention and not additional those that have already qualified, like the winners of the continental championships or have long qualifying tables with a permanent number of clubs based on an arbitrarily determined number. The described alternative to current practice, if it is rejected in a consensus because of WP:CALC, would be this (suggested also by @Matilda Maniac in the Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup#Eligible teams 4-year ranking):

Leading teams still in contention for qualification through four-year confederations rankings Format and Legend as per the existing table

Leading CONMEBOL clubs Teams 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total W D L Phase Points W D L Phase Points W D L Phase Points W D L Phase Points River Plate† 3 4 3 QF 22 5 2 1 R16 23 4 1 3 R16 19 3 1 0 GS 13 77 Boca Juniors 3 3 2 R16 18 3 3 2 R16 18 4 8 1 Final 35 0 0 0 DNQ 0 71 Olimpia 3 2 5 QF 20 2 2 2 GS 11 5 2 3 QF 26 0 0 0 DNQ 0 57

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

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

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

• If @Bmf 051: has concerns with WP:OR, then the alternative proposed seems to be suggesting changes that also don't meet that criterion. Bmf 051's proposition to have a separate article may have merit (like the UEFA or AFC coefficient ranking articles), but I wonder if that would meet WP:GNG as a stand-alone article forking out of the Club World cup article. A table that slowly shrinks appears to me to be the most appropriate course; it is shrinking each gameday as fewer teams are in contention. It is showing teams in contention rather than all teams coloured by whether they are in contention. The latter would be unwieldy. The addition to the table by @Miria~01: of a note in the Total column (which I think from a procedural perspective was very cheeky given the table was subject to debate here) nevertheless is useful as it clearly provides the result of the calculation for maximum points available. It is therefore easy to see that the remaining teams are still in contention, and there's the reference available (whether a primary source from FIFA, or whether replaced by a secondary source from Footy rankings). Regarding the 2029 Club World Cup article, such a table for teams in contention probably does not need to be developed until the 2028 competitions are underway (or at least well into the 2027 competitions). Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think I've done all I can to explain to you why I think this approach is WP:OR and I don't wish to do it again. What you've said about it being "easy to see" is a bandwagon fallacy. And as I've said, having the calculation is still not enough information to conclude who is in contention. For example, the added note doesn't explain why Barcelona is not in contention. The table as-is is unsourced. I removed it as such, and it was restored despite the person restoring it not providing a source per WP:PROVEIT. This is just going around in circles. Regardless of what (if anything) replaces this table, it is unsourced and I don't think there has been a good argument for why it should remain. I will ask an admin who I've run into a few times in WP:FOOTY discussions such as this one for their objective opinion.

  @GiantSnowman, would you mind informally weighing in on this? I believe the table 2025 FIFA Club World Cup#Teams still in contention for qualification through four-year confederations rankings is WP:OR and I removed it as such. The information is not sourced. It was restored, the argument from others being that it is WP:CALC. But as I've said above, determining who is in contention based on the rankings requires more than a trivial calculation (see my example involving Libertad above for when this can happen; there are certainly other examples). They're using WP:CALC to do some pretty heavy-lifting to avoid providing a source, which I think is not the purpose of WP:CALC. Should this table be allowed to stay despite lacking a source? I think it should be removed until either properly sourced or rewritten in such a way as to not make unsourced conclusions. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Source to back up current calculation.

  Can qualify as 2024 Champions (27 clubs) – 1 spot: ...
  Can qualify via Ranking (13 clubs) – 2 spots...
  As things stand ahead of Matchday 5, other South American teams still have the opportunity to be one of the 32 clubs at the inaugural tournament in the United States next year.
  A maximum 37 points are now available to non-champions: 12 by reaching the various knockout phase rounds, 25 in matches. This means:
  •All non-Brazilian teams still in the competition currently with 20 points or more can qualify via the ranking BUT ONLY if one of the Brazilian trio of former champions, Palmeiras, Flamengo or Fluminense, win the 2024 Libertadores. This would open up a third rankings pathway spot, and teams could overtake Club Olimpia (PAR, 57 points), who are not in this season’s CONMEBOL Libertadores.
  •All non-Brazilian teams with 34 points or more can overtake Boca Juniors (ARG, 71 points), who are not active this season, for the guaranteed second qualifying spot.
  •All non-Brazilian teams with 40 points or more can still overtake River Plate (ARG, 77 points), who are active this season. inside.fifa.com, Monday 13 May 2024

  And for scenarios there is always a source at FIFA and other news sites. For e.g. as it was for the River Plate scenario before the Matchday 4, how with a win they will be direct qualified via ranking. FIFA.com, 6 May 2024

  Before the Group stage started, these articles from FIFA and ESPN, already mentioned in the discussion, indicate exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, how the calculation works and how many points are available:

  • CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com, 19 March 2024
  • Las posibilidades que tiene Nacional - ESPN Deportes, 12 April 2024

  That's why your arguments that there are no sources are untenable. And the calculation is trivial (explained also in the provide sources above): after every match day max. of 3 points less available, and additional 3 points less when a stage (group, knockout) is finished. If the maximum point yield is less than surpassing the still in contention leading third best-placed team at the ranking,[15] then you can no longer qualify via the ranking. Miria~01 (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, the Inside FIFA reference is a perfectly good source for the current information on the page. That is all I'm asking for: a source that backs this up. Keep in mind that as teams drop out of contention, we will still need to find sources to support that. Hopefully similar articles are published by FIFA that will allow this information to remain up-to-date.

  I do not agree with your last paragraph. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE. If it isn't, it shouldn't be here. And I think you are abusing the intent of WP:CALC. The issue isn't whether calculating the point totals is trivial. The issue is that making a conclusion about who is in contention based on that calculation often requires more than just a calculation. These conclusions still need to be sourced. I'm hoping @GiantSnowman can still informally weigh in on that, as that's still the point of contention here. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  What does it mean @GiantSnowman, would you mind informally weighing in on this?? A single user you are cherry-picking to get involved to demonstrate the consensus you believe that you have? If consensus is now reached by your preferred committee of one, can I ask that no changes are made until after the Matchday 5 is completed, as to remove it during this three-day process is going to cause edit warring for sure? Yet I still do not see that this is a case of WP:CALC abuse, as per my original post here. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Quite the opposite of cherry-picking. I hardly have interacted with @GiantSnowman. But from the conversations I've been a part of in which they have been involved, they seem like a fair and even-handed admin who is active in WP:FOOTY and willing to offer help. As the conversation was going around in circles, I was hoping an unbiased third-party could give some advice on whether they think declaring teams in/out of contention requires a source or if, like you said, it requires no source due to WP:CALC. I was honestly tired of going backwards and forwards on this, and was hoping to get an answer while also avoiding being accused of WP:CANVASSING. GiantSnowman was just the first person I thought of.

  As for not changing anything, I have no intention of "deleting" the current table, because the source provided above from Inside FIFA supports its inclusion. I also have no issues with the numbers in the table being updated (because *that* is IMO covered by WP:CALC). My issue is with declaring teams in/out of contention without a source, and claiming it's okay because of WP:CALC and not something more nuanced. i.e. I think removing teams from the table without a source could potentially be WP:OR. But hopefully, Inside FIFA will provide another article that supports those changes.

  I am unsure why this has suddenly become hostile and accusatory. I feel like this conversation has been quite civil up to this point. I do not appreciate being accused of edit-warring when I've in total made one revert on the page in question. Engaging in WP:BRD is not edit-warring. Bmf 051 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have not repeat not accused you of edit warring at all, but I am just reflecting that ANYONE deleting the table just now in the middle of lots of other people editing this article in the middle of Matchday 5, and not everyone editing well (see todays reverts), will likely cause reverting and restoring left-right-centre. If it has to change because consensus is reached here, do it on the weekend. As a separate issue, it does look to me that WP:CANVASSING is evident. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  How does this not fit under WP:APPNOTE? Limited notification, I described both sides of the argument (WP:OR vs. WP:CALC) to the best of my understanding, I made no assumptions about the admin's opinion, and I did it openly. Asking an admin for help is not canvassing.

  I think I deserve an explanation. If you're going to accuse me of something, you need to provide some reasoning. If you truly think I'm WP:CANVASSING, there are ways you can address it. Why have you not taken any of those steps? Bmf 051 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have no views on this topic to 'weigh in'. GiantSnowman 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• As was mentioned earlier, I considered that this article was the appropriate place for the tables of teams in contention, rather than a fork to a separate article on qualification. I note that 2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualifying has now been created and has now been nominated for deletion (link here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualifying). Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The result of the AFD process was to Delete. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Tranmere Rovers F.C. listed for Good article reassessment

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

Discovery plus

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

WP:NOTFORUM, this is for discussion editing Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

no need to be so PC, I asked a straight question about football, and this is a football project!! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a Wikipedia football project, not a media streaming football project. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Match report discussion style

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

We bit surprised at that. The policy is reasonably clear and it wouldn't be policy if it wasn't consensus. Thanks for bringing this up though, hopefully a few more weigh in and express their views and you can progress with the request. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Stevie. What is the policy that you are referring too? I didn't know we had one for match reports. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not specific to match reports, it's the same as the policy for every reference. Yoblyblob has linked to the policy on linkrot which impacts bare urls, the format that many of the match reports are included in articles. WP:CITE is also applicable. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought you were implying there was a policy against making this change.

I agree these should be reference style. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

[Seasons] in English football articles

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

Seconded, I see no reason why women's players and coaches shouldn't be listed in these sections. Macosal (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

why do we even list managerial changes? We don't mention all other transfers, we don't mention ownership changes or the like. It all seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski makes a good point. Managerial changes are not as significant as the team's performances during the season. Also relevant information can be found in the respective division season articles, placing them on the English football season articles can be too large, which is likely with all the transfers in a season. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've got to say, the retirement and deaths section also seems pretty arbritrary. Asamoah Gyan is listed in the English football retirement because he played two seasons in English football. We aren't the "recent deaths" section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Summer football transfers

A polite reminder - in the English system, contracts end on 30 June (so 'released' players leave clubs on that date) and begin on 1 July (so 'released' players join new clubs on that date). The transfer window will open on 14 June (per this) for other transfers.

In Scotland, I think it is 31 May / 1 June for 'released' players leaving/joining, respectively. GiantSnowman 10:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Vincent Kompany

I'm on three reverts so would someone mind reverting the latest unsourced/premature addition to Vincent Kompany? Thanks. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverted, warned, and I've upped the protection to 'admin only' as the disruption has been ongoing for a few days. GiantSnowman 15:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

AFC Cup

Please can someone help me on AFC Cup page. The tournament has been renamed to AFC Champions League Two (see here) and I have made a request for the page title to be moved to AFC Champions League Two. However, User:MMMM97 is continually moving the page to incorrect names like "AFC Champions League (2)" and "AFC Champions League two" rather than waiting for it to be moved properly. I have informed them to stop doing this on both their own talk page and my talk page but they will not listen. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to these persistent page moves from User:MMMM97, the page move request from AFC Cup to AFC Champions League Two is now listed as a malformed request as per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Malformed requests, as User:MMMM97 has now decided to move the page to AFC Champions League -2 for some unknown reason. If someone who is more experienced with page moves can help me to get this page moved properly, that would be much appreciated. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the page move request has gone through now, although we will have to deal with the ridiculous page title of AFC Champions League -2 (minus two?) until the move is done. Hashim-afc (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Now need to follow due process, unless these moves are construed as vandalism, which this forum can likely assist with. I note that both @Hashim-afc: and @MMMM97: appear to have broken WP:3RR during the course of mutliple edits and reverts to multiple articles over the past several hours. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

As well as moving the AFC Cup page during the move discussion which is not allowed per notice made by RMCD bot so the latter who was pinged above was also warned about this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: @Iggy the Swan: Someone else has moved the page again, now it's at AFC Champions League ‌Two (no, not "AFC Champions League Two" which is still a redirect, but "AFC Champions League %E2%80%8CTwo"). It's becoming a mess now. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the move and now fully protected the page from being moved again (I hope...) GiantSnowman 13:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've also deleted all the nonsense redirects as well. GiantSnowman 13:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see the article and talk page affected has gone back whence they came. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Alex Calvo-Garcia

Good afternoon,

i don't feel like this player's name should be hyphenated, but maybe i could be in the wrong there! What i do know for sure is that "García" carries an accent, i tried to move the page but was not allowed.

Can anyone fix that? Attentively, continue the good work everyone RevampedEditor (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Seemingly known as 'Calvo-Garcia' in England, but happy with a move to Alex Calvo-García? GiantSnowman 18:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Indeed, that would be a great move! If you can accommodate... --RevampedEditor (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. GiantSnowman 19:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)