Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

FIFA Men's World Rankings

Hi. Why was this article moved to this name? FIFA World Rankings should be the correct name.--Island92 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. FIFA's own website distinguishes between "Men's Ranking" and "Women's Ranking. Historically it probably is the case that "FIFA World Rankings" referred to the men's game, but I'm not sure that distinction remains relevant (Unlike, for example, if someone were to move FIFA World Cup to FIFA Men's World Cup). If anything I think FIFA World Rankings should be turned into a disambiguation page. Jay eyem (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree as well, FIFA clearly has them titled as Men's and Women's rankings, and it is becoming more common to distinguish the two, same as some National Football team articles now have men in the title for the National Football team to distinguish it from the women's team.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 00:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, they might name them that, but is it the WP:COMMONNAME? It's a little bit of WP:RECENCYBIAS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If you look at 2022 FIFA World Cup Group E for example you read FIFA Ranking (generic name). That's why I think the Page should be re-moved to the previous name. Island92 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition to that, the info box for a National Football Teams shows FIFA Ranking, as England national football team for example.--Island92 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Every women's national team page also says simply "FIFA Ranking" not "FIFA Women's Ranking", for example England women's national football team. It also does the same on the world cup pages (just says FIFA Ranking (example: 2019_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup#Qualified_teams. So that is irrelevant. If I were to talk about about a women's team's ranking, I would naturally say they are number X in the World Rankings. I wouldn't randomly include the word women's since it would be obvious. For both genders, the COMMONNAME is simply "FIFA World Rankings", but it needs to be disambiguated somehow, so going with the name FIFA uses makes sense instead of going with FIFA World Rankings (men) and FIFA World Rankings (women). RedPatch (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If you check out this page and this page, you can see a logo in the top-right corner saying "Coca-Cola Men's World Ranking" and "Coca-Cola Women's World Ranking". I think that's enough evidence to suggest the new titles are appropriate. – PeeJay 16:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Should the articles be moved to FIFA Men's World Ranking and FIFA Women's World Ranking (singular)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that. – PeeJay 16:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so - we would be listing all of them, so you might look up the ranking of a team, the teams all make up the rankings. We can't just change good English to fit with FIFA. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

On that, why is this not FIFA men's world rankings? It's hardly a proper noun, even if they think it is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it's an official branding, similarly to why we don't have the FIFA world cup or UEFA champions league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

- but those things are proper nouns. They are competitions. It seems to be a bit all over the place, with things like snooker world rankings, but also Official World Golf Ranking, which just seems wrong to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Samuel Iling-Junior

Do I write Iling-Junior or Iling Jr. in the prose and in the footballboxes? Dr Salvus 21:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Juventus, Chelsea and UEFA all use "Iling-Junior", not "Iling Jr." Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be doing something just beacuse someone else has done the same. Iling-Junior is not needed (maybe I could understand only in the title). No one is so stupid to not know Junior can be expressed with Jr. Dr Salvus 21:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Junior doesn't automatically equal Jr., just so we're clear and not stupid. Seasider53 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

His surname is officially "Illing-Junior" (hyphenated), so we should just treat is as such. The fact that part of his surname happens to have "Junior" does not imply that we should use "Jr." Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

if it is a hyphenated name it clearly is a proper part of his name. A basic understanding of English is necessary to contribute on en.wiki Spike 'em (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The full word "Junior" is literally part of his actual legal name, so obviously we are not going to compress it to "Jr", that would be insane. I would not expect to see Trevor Senior referred to in prose as "Trevor Sr." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to We shouldn't be doing something just beacuse someone else has done the same, that is exactly what we should be doing. We should refer to subjects by their common name i.e. the one that reliable sources use. We shouldn't decide to change the spelling/formatting/whatever of a subject's name just because we like it better...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em it won't be the best possible, but my understanding of English is good enough to edit here (and I edit and read without using Google Translate). Dr Salvus 08:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

From this very article : before moving to Chelsea in 2020 to Juventus and Iling-Junior is a left-footed offensive winger, who can play in both sides. Spike 'em (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And would these mistakes mean I have no understanding of English? This is new... Dr Salvus 08:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I never said you had no understanding, but you seem to struggle with basic grammar. Spike 'em (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Spike 'em, I know that's a problem, you don't know how much I work to improve. Regarding to that sentence, I was distracted. Unfortunaltey, I sometimes confuse some words or believe words that exist in Italian exist in English as well (ananas-> pineapple for example). I apologise for that. Dr Salvus 08:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

......but there's no need to add anytime "Junior" in the prose. We write Iling-Junior the first time and then we call him just "Iling" as I've done in this change (even though I've seen many Juventus U19 matches at TV and the commentators often called him "Iling-Junior"). Dr Salvus 16:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The change is incorrect. His surname is "Illing-Junior", not "Illing", or "Illing Jr.", or any other variation. It's akin to calling Dominic Calvert-Lewin just "Calvert". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just corrected. Dr Salvus 16:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Does this also mean the redirect Samuel Iling Jr. or the draft I had created in January 2021 (when I was unaware of WP:NFOOTY) are wrong and should be deleted? Dr Salvus 22:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

To conclude: In Italy, I could find no sources talking about the place he was born, can you try to find one in an English site I may not have the access? Dr Salvus 22:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the redirect and draft are wrong. His name is Iling-Junior. The "Junior" in this case does not operate in the same way as in Robert Downey Jr.'s name. I don't know Samuel Iling-Junior's parents' names, but I'm pretty sure he's not the son of Samuel Iling Senior... – PeeJay 00:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Redirects for what could be common incorrectly spelled search terms are fine. It's like how Christiano Ronaldo with an h is a redirect to the proper page. It shouldn't be linked under that spelling elsewhere, but a redirect for a potential search term I see no issue with RedPatch (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Freestyle football

A recent deletion request (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashraful Islam Jhohan) has drawn my attention to Freestyle football. I'm aware that (despite the hyperbolic claims in the article) freestyle is a hyper-niche variant of minimal interest (the page averages around 50 views a day, about 1⁄6 those of Korfball), but even so this article is truly terrible in terms of both prose style and sourcing, if anyone fancies a stab at cleaning it up. (I do not volunteer to do ths myself; as far as I'm concerned 'freestyle' is just a fancy word for 'keepy-uppy'.) ‑ Iridescent 03:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Freestyle football is basically the ball discipline from rhythmic gymnastics, except it uses a football instead of a rubber ball. – PeeJay 16:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Álvaro Vázquez

This article has caused some confusion: on the article it says he still plays for Kerala Blasters however the club article does not include him. I then checked the FC Goa page and he's currently on there but the source given does not include him on the squad page. It does appear on Google News that he has agreed terms (https://www.90min.com/posts/isl-alvaro-vazquez-reportedly-agrees-terms-to-move-to-fc-goa-from-kerala-blasters) which states that the Kerala Blasters contract ends on 31 May 2022. That makes sense as to why the FC Goa website does not include him yet. So I have changed the article to reflect that hopefully to avoid more confusion on that article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If he's agreed terms with Goa, shouldn't there be some mention of that in his article? – PeeJay 16:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree re your response so I have included that in the article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Results and Fixtures - Scotland and Peru national football teams

Hello everyone. Following the model at Scotland national football team and suggestions by GA/FA reviewers, the Peru national football team article does not include a "results and fixtures" list. Off the top of my head, I recall some reasons for this being that it made the article bulky, focused excessively on recent and future events, relied on dubious sources, and often was manipulated by users to display favorable results (altering date ranges to filter bad results). Since at the time of the FA reviews Peru was on a losing streak, see the first decade at Peru national football team results (2000–2019), nobody had any issues with altogether removing the results (matching with the design of the Scotland article). However, since Peru is now doing "better" a user wants to add the results list on the page ([1]). I am tired of the discussion, especially as the user is now pushing buttons ("I understand that you've been editing this page for fifteen years therefore have a particular interest in it" [2]). My understanding is that their main argument is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams should be enforced on all articles as the standard. I always understood that page as just a proposal to help articles develop. The Scotland and Peru articles have kept a stable model for over a decade. I wanted to bring this up for discussion here to get more input from other FOOTY members. Thanks.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I should add that Peru has also 3 additional records pages: Peru national football team records and statistics, Peru national football team results (2000–2019), and Peru national football team results (2020–present). So the results and fixtures do appear on the site, just requiring one or two more clicks. Just searching on Google also brings up the results quickly.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And, of course, Scotland being the joint-oldest national football team in the world, they have a long fixtures record starting with Scotland national football team results (1872–1914).--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't add the recent results (matches played in the last 12 months) to national team articles. If WP:RECENTISM is a concern, then the current squad and recent call-ups section should also be removed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for bringing this discussion here. As I mentioned in our previous chat, Fixtures and Results never came up in either of their FA reviews, the section was removed from the Peruvian page in 2009 but it was in table format back then rather than its current template. I have absolutely no interest in how the Peruvian team is doing, only that the national team articles are somewhat consistent, as demonstrated by my editing history. I believe that Fixtures and Results is a good section and should be included on the main page with the parameters that are set out on the template. The rest of my argument is available here! Felixsv7 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If GA/FA reviewers feel a section including recent results should not be included then maybe we should be rethinking the template. At the end of the day, we want as many of these articles to be featured articles as possible and if this is only going to prove a stumbling block it might be better not to be included. A good article will contain a history section which will outline recent results anyway even if it doesn't go in depth and readers can be pointed to results articles if they want more detail. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: I had a look through the GA/FA reviews of both the Scottish and Peruvian national football team pages (the Peruvian page has four separate reviews) and neither mention the inclusion or exclusion of a Results and Fixtures section. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, Belgium is a Featured Article and had a similar discussion a few years ago before deciding to reimplement the Results and Fixtures section. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is interesting. I had a quick look back at the edit history and at the time of those reviews neither article had a results/fixtures section so if the reviewers never even thought about why the section was missing, it can't be that important. It also implies that it's not needed as, if it was, the reviewers would have brought it up in their suggestions for improvement. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The Peruvian page used to have a version of Results and Fixtures (back in 2009) and Scotland had an even more strange one (in 2007) but I wouldn't recommend a reversion to either format. I'd look at the Belgium page to suggest desire for the section but, in the end, if we feel that the template isn't reflective of what the ideal national team page looks like, let's amend it (though I am personally a fan!) Felixsv7 (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I know some articles do include the last 2/3 years of results (though isn't that a WP:RECENTISM issue?), but I think it is much tidier if you include the match results in separate articles for each decade unless a team didn't play much then you could make it 20-30 years. That's my 2p and it avoids cluttering the article which is already full of tables and templates for squads and tournament results. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any national team page features results from over a year ago in their Results and Fixtures section. If they do they certainly shouldn't! Felixsv7 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with including all results from the current qualifying cycle, even if some may have happened more than 12 months ago. – PeeJay 12:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@The C of E: See my comment above re RECENTISM. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, how exactly is the "as well as any future matches that have been scheduled" not a problem with future predictions? I should also add that, while the past matches have "reports" that can at least serve for some verification (albeit that is also problematic for FA standards), the "future matches" do not have any reliable sources to support them. There's even an ongoing situation between Chile and Ecuador that may affect Peru's qualification ([3]), so the "future match" being listed in the fixtures is clearly unreliable information. IMO, I reiterate that Wikipedia is not Google or a sports journal, so we should not display these lists in the national team encyclopedic articles...and we specially should not speculate about the future.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The future matches shouldn't be unverifiable. They should either be the result of a draw by FIFA or their confederation, or they will have been announced by their football association (a friendly). Felixsv7 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't prevent us from talking about future events, provided that they are properly verifiable. – PeeJay 16:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:Crystal says to avoid speculation, but says that verifiable future events can be mentioned if they are notable enough that they would be mentioned if they happened in the past. This seems to cover confirmed future fixtures in my view. Spike 'em (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep, the fixtures are scheduled, and it would actually be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL not to list them, as it would imply an assumption that those games wouldn't be played. – PeeJay 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Awesome. Let's take a peek at the evidence available. So, after I made this comment, Felix quickly edited the Peru article to add sources for the upcoming matches ([4]). Fantastic. But, let's take a look at other articles and see what's up. Mexico national football team has 11 unreferenced future matches ([5]), Ecuador national football team has 9 unreferenced future matches ([6]), Malaysia national football team has 5 unreferenced future matches ([7]). And the list goes on. What does this indicate? I see placing undue burden or expectations on editors to keep up the verifiability of future matches, hindering the stability and source quality of the articles. All for what exactly? How is adding these lists of any encyclopedic value? How are we not turning these articles now into databases?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 01:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the articles contain much more than just fixture lists, or at least they should. If the fixture lists were the only content in those pages, I would agree that it is ridiculous to keep such an article, but many of them also have info on the teams' history, their kits, their home stadiums, etc. What exactly is the problem with adding fixtures as long as they're properly sourced? – PeeJay 08:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I did quickly edit it - because the information was easy to come by. And adding the fixtures and results for a football team onto said football team's page cannot reasonably be considered an indiscriminate collection of information. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• We don't have "recent results" sections in club articles, so why are they in national team articles? It's a blatant case of WP:RECENTISM. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Having the current roster and recent call-ups is also RECENTISM. Should that section also be deleted? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  No. We also have current squads in the club articles. Why should the national team articles be inconsistent with club articles? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  They shouldn't, both the recent results and recent call-ups should be kept as neither violate RECENTISM. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  We have different templates for the national teams and clubs - the former playing much less frequently - creating differences. Also, none of the bulleted descriptions of Recentism apply to the Results section. Felixsv7 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  That is circular logic. The template is different, so the article should be different. I'm saying that the template is wrong. There is no difference between listing the last umpteen results for a national team and the last umpteen results for a club team. Nobody ever said when the article went through peer review, FAC or FAR that "this article is lacking the most recent results of the team". In fact, at peer review one of the suggestions was to remove the recent results section (point 11). WP:RECENTISM says "Long passages in an athlete's or an actor's biography might be devoted to detailed coverage of a recent controversy" - you propose to add over 12,000 bytes of data about recent events (over 1/10th of its total length), which skews it towards those recent events. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  The current framework for recent results and fixtures didn't exist when the article went through review fifteen years ago, instead they suggested removing a table (with their final point).

The national team page is neither an athlete nor an actor so that wouldn't apply. The only mention of a situation like this on the Recentism page is in the Talk page discussing live scoring - which I'll concede is pretty damn recent. Felixsv7 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we maybe just have Most Recent Match and Next Match which would limit the entries to 2? Crowsus (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

No, no, no. That is even worse. I also want to address a point made above - oh, the templates are different because national teams are "playing much less frequently". The typical college football team in America only plays 12 to 15 games in a year (e.g. the national champion Georgia played 15, winning 14, in their 2021 season). The NFL regular season has 17 games in it. It's not unusual for national teams to play at least as many games as this in a year, especially on the women's side. The England men's team team played 19 games in 2021, for example. Yet if you look at any major American football team (college or NFL), you will not get a list of "recent results", e.g. 1, e.g. 2 (both good articles). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Jmorrison230582's perspective makes a lot of sense to me. I also would like to further add that these "results and fixtures" are not and will never be highlighted in the introduction. What are we to write about it? "In the past twelve months, Scotland has won seven games, lost three, and tied four, with seven scheduled upcoming matches." And this has to be updated after every match or "confirmed" upcoming match? Not even in the history section do we write about every single match the team has played...because not all matches are relevant. Which leads me to the question no one has yet answered: Why are the past 12 months of matches relevant for the article? Moreover, what makes 12 months more relevant than 6 or 24 months? What makes months a more accurate marker than manager (as in, wouldn't it make more sense to list all matches under the current manager)? --MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 04:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be in the lead. Do we have to describe the 23 called-up players, or the recent call-ups? The latter is also subject to a 12-month timeframe. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a recent call-ups list either. The "current squad" list is always cited. The "recent call-ups" is uncited, which runs contrary to FA standards. Regardless, that is not a justification to support 12 months of "recent results" or why months are even a justifiable marker. It's simply using the same circular logic that Jmorrison230582 highlighted above.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we need an RfC to determine whether or not to include results on national team pages then. I'd obviously support for the reasons listed but would be great to provide further clarity and conformity to the template! (I'd also be in favour of citing the recent call-ups section). A year is a justifiable marker - easily quantifiable. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Which match minute?

Hello

If a match report says "1-0 Wayne Rooney 58.". Would you write that Wayne Rooney made it 1-0 in the 58th minute or in the 59th minute? Earlier I would have written that he scored in the 58th minute. But I now realise that is probably completely wrong. In fact, he scored the goal in the 59th minute (after 58 minutes played). I am probably the only one who have not thought about this before...

Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a specific instance to which you are referring with a source? Or are you asking if the goal was scored at exactly 58:00? Just trying to clarify. Jay eyem (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If the goal was scored at 57:59 or 58:00, I'd write 58 (beacuse the first minute goes from 00:01 to 01:00). If scored at 58:01, I'd write 59. Dr Salvus 22:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

58:00 is the 59th minute. See this, for example (The first minute is 0:00 – 0:59.) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Always match the report of cause. So 58th minute. Or have you ever seen a zero in the report? -Koppapa (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right. If the goal says "58", it was scored sometime between 57:00 and 57:59. If it happened after the clock ticked to 58:00, it would be reported as happening in the 59th minute. Fairly simple stuff, I think. – PeeJay 11:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The first millennium went from 1 AD to 1000 because no year zero existed. The same goes for games, when one starts it could be 00:00:00:00:00:00:01 but never 00:00. Once there was no stoppage time, so a goal scored at 90:00, would've been reported at the 91st minute in a league match? Dr Salvus 11:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

In those days, it probably wouldn't have been reported at all. The idea of recording exact timings of match events is a relatively new phenomenon. – PeeJay 11:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

TBH in those days you would probably find different timings reported for the same goal in different sources, because it relied on individual reporters checking their own watches..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Why only in those days? Also today you'll find differences between sources :) --SuperJew (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@SuperJew: you're probably right, although I did wonder if they had access to some sort of official Opta clock or something these days..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly in the Premier League, timings are handled by Opta. Any game that's televised nowadays though, you can find some reliable record of the timing of any match event. – PeeJay 14:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Daniele De Rossi

Hi Everyone! May I ask why De Rossi's Argentinian championship victory continues to be included in his palmares? Neither FA neither Boca Junior gives the footballer the title. Because here we are basing it on football sites and newspapers, which I remember are not reliable sources in this case. Thank you for your reply. --LittleWhites (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

He played five league games for Boca; why shouldn't the title be awarded? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

pl back in teh day had a ten game minimum and i think its at 5 right now, does this league have a minimum?Muur (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Maybe because he left in January and the championship ended in May/June? Since when are titles awarded to players who changed teams or retired earlier? --LittleWhites (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@LittleWhites: - I don't know about the rules in other countries, but in England as long as a player played the required minimum number of games for the champion team, he gets a medal, even if he left the club before the end of the season. So if Dave Example plays ten games for Example United between August and December, then leaves in January to join Example Town, he would get a medal if United win the league, even though he left the club four months earlier. That's certainly how it works in England, as I say I don't know what the rules are elsewhere...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk)

Olli Harder

Seany91 has been removing some content from Olli Harder claiming it violates WP:SOAP e.g. [8]. I don't agree and have started a talkpage discussion at Talk:Olli Harder, would be good to get the views of others there. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Host selection for the 2020–25 UEFA Champions League Finals

As multiple relocation happened in these six Finals, I don't think moving the host selection is currently suitable. I'd suggest that moving the host selection back to the original article.
FYI, Istanbul 2020→21→23, Munich 2022→23→25, 2021 Saint Petersburg→Istanbul→Porto, 2022 Munich→Saint Petersburg→Paris. KyleRGiggs (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

All of the articles should mention what happened regarding the changes in hosting. – PeeJay 20:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is a must KyleRGiggs (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

777 partners

We should probably have an article on 777 partners, the US investment firm which now owns Genoa C.F.C., Standard Liège and (most recently) Red Star F.C. - if anyone feels like drafting one? Gricehead (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If I have time, I'll create this. Dr Salvus 12:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How different do article names need to be?

So there are these two players: Mohamed Omar (soccer) and Mohamed Omar (footballer). Their pages obviously require further disambiguation as recent consensus has been that soccer/footballer are considered to be the same and they have the exact same spelling. However, I also noticed there are also Mohammad Omar (footballer) and Muhammad Omar (footballer), with different spelling variations of the first name. Are those considered different enough to be fine as are, or should the four all be jointly further disambiguated? All four are listed at the Mohamed Omar disambiguation page. (If they do need further disambiguation, I'll do it through a RM, rather than a bold move) RedPatch (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that they should be disambiguated further due to extremely similar spelling variants as they might be considered the same name, the same way as Jonathan, Johnathan, Jonathon etc.. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Mohamed Omar (footballer) is spelt with two m's in the lede anyway! Probably just need to put what year they were born and then nationality in the disambiguation. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Technically, all their names are the same if written in Arabic. I would definitely further disambiguate by year. This is what I've done at Yusuf Muhammad (disambiguation), for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

So as you guys mentioned Mohamed Omar (footballer) should probably be moved to Mohammed, as noted that the lede spells it with 2 Ms and his club team also spelled it with two Ms here. RedPatch (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I created a Requested Move discussion here. Presented two options: Nationality and birth year. RedPatch (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Jordi Amat

I'm not sure how many users actually have this linked page on their watchlists: a large cluster of IP addresses have repetitively changed Amat's height by one centimetre from what the archive source says to 1.85m. This is a case of that editing behaviour being tedious at this point since that has been going on for many weeks now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan, I l've requested a protection at RPP. Dr Salvus 09:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Need help?

Hi how are you guys? Please help me the name of Goalscorers, match officials, and match report of 2022 CAFA U-16 Championship. Thanks. MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

If that information is so hard to come by, perhaps this tournament isn’t sufficiently notable for an article… – PeeJay 11:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly not notable. PROD submitted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Career highlights?

May I suggest that we add a "career highlights" section for very good or famous footballers? I have seen it on Jonny Wilkinson's wikipedia page and think it is a good idea. Please comment your opinion on this proposal. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a dreadful idea. Who's opinion is something a "highlight"? I have no idea why the rugby project haven't been on that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, fails WP:NPOV. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

We could make a decision on what is a highlight- eg debuts, hat tricks, trophies, and make a list on what we can include. Also, I've only seen it on one article so I'm not sure whether it's a regular thing. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This is quite a regular thing on WP:AFL. Usually highlights are end of season awards (ones which are notable enough to have a wikipage), leading goalkickers, captaincies, and premierships. Pretty much all the things we have navboxes for. --SuperJew (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of that is either statcruft, or suitable for an awards section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the original question - on WP:AFL at least it is part of the infobox, not a separate section. I agree in prose it is pretty much the awards section if seaprate at all. --SuperJew (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but if implemented like on the Wilkinson article that would be a terrible idea and would open the floodgates for all sorts of statcruft and POV pushing. The list on the Wilkinson article contains things like "Wales deny England a Grand Slam at Wembley" - how is that a highlight of Wilkinson's career? And other matches don't even attempt to present an explanation of why they would be considered highlights of his career. You suggest "debuts, hat tricks, trophies" as examples of what could be included in a footballer's list - well, his debut should be covered in the prose, trophies would already be covered in the honours section, and as for hat-tricks, in many cases a player will have scored quite a lot of these - Cristiano Ronaldo has scored 60, for example, and to list them all would be daft. Others may disagree but I'm afraid it's a massive no from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, just no per reasons above. On top of that, the whole section is unsourced. Kante4 (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

For example:

Anon Ymous

January 2018-Anon Ymous makes his first-team debut for example United, coming on as a 62nd minute substitute for Unkn Own.

June 2018-Anon Ymous scored his first goal.

September 2018-Anon Ymous scored his first hat trick.

December 2018-Anon Ymous scores a brace in the example derby, including a memorable bicycle kick in the 92nd minute.

February 2019-Anon Ymous makes his England debut.

May 2019-Anon Ymous wins the first trophy of his career, scoring the winning goal in the final of the FA cup.

June 2019-Anon Ymous wins his first individual accolade, winning the 2019 Primer Leek golden boot.

July 2019-Anon Ymous is called up for the 2019 FIFA world cup squad (pretend that that is a thing)

July 2019-Anon Ymous makes his first world cup appearance, scoring his first goal in a 6-1 thrashing of Panama.

July 2019-Anon Ymous is sent off in the quarter finals of the world cup, the first red card of his career.

July 2019-Anon Ymous wins the best young player award at the world cup.

December 2019-Anon Ymous becomes the youngest player to score 50 primer leek goals, aged only 21.

July 2020-Anon Ymous wins the PFA player's player of the year and the primer leek golden boot.

August 2020-Anon Ymous controversially signs for example United's local rivals, example city, for a british record £110 million.

The key word is "First".

Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

For most players this will almost mirror their career sections, which are usually just a list of statements saying On the nth of sometember he did a good thing. The prose career section should already be a summary of a career, with really momentous things appearing in the lead. Spike 'em (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned, every one of those items should be written within the prose of a "career" section. Having it as a table or bullet point list would either duplicate the prose (pointless) or be yet another lazy example of substituting a table/list for properly written prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Reads like a blog and as said, everything is covered in the prose, so simply no. And five editors are against it, so let's stop it. Kante4 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the two previous commenters, that list is just a badly written career section. – Elisson • T • C • 09:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (x2) No from me too; at the F1 project 'career highlights' is often used when a driver has a short, not very successful F1 career, in order to include wins or podium finishes in other major categories (Le Mans or other sportscar racing for example). Can't see that this could be adapted to work here and it would lead to the sort of POV pushing seen in 'honours' from time to time... only likely more so. Eagleash (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

sorry but this is a terrible idea. GiantSnowman 09:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Add me to the not in favour of this idea group. RedPatch (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Am I too late to join the this is a really bad idea team? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Basically what this proposal is, is WP:PROSELINE for a unspecified group of events. I'm going to take a look at the rugby stuff as it's not really suitable there. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. If you think it’s a bad idea, you also might want to get it off Jonny Wilkinson#career highlights’s page. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Has not much to do with this discussion but it's gone already. Kante4 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I think I'm going blind. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Marley Aké

Juventus site consider him (with no point) a first-team player (for example you can buy his shirt while you can't buy Miretti's). Should the article have the number he uses with the first team? Dr Salvus 12:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

No comment on that, but is it really necessary to include he caught and recovered from covid in his personal life section? Almost the entire world has has or will have it at some point. If he had missed a critical match or something with it in his career section, I'd say maybe, but to create a personal life section to just write he got covid once seems unnecessary. RedPatch (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@RedPatch: Almost any other illness wouldn't be reported by name if at all. --SuperJew (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I say we can start getting rid of COVID mentions for all players, unless it had a noteable impact. And yes, I reckon we can start listing Ake with the senior team number.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User:DJdjPollard15 and his many sockpuppets

Hi guys, just wanted to remind you all of this particular sockmaster. He's pretty tenacious when it comes to evading his original block, but fortunately for us, he's pretty easily identifiable. He seems to use the exact same set of edit summaries every single time ("Added some new information" or "Added a new image", the former being especially ironic when he's actually deleting content!), and his usernames follow a fairly common pattern. I raise this here because his targets are usually football-related, although he does stray into pop music and reality TV every once in a while. Per WP:BANREVERT, we should be reverting this person's contributions on sight, regardless of how constructive they seem. If their contributions are actually any good, feel free to re-add them, but they should definitely be reverted first. Also, if you see any new sockpuppets like this, please report them at WP:SPI, logging them under the username of the original sockmaster, DJdjPollard15. Cheers. – PeeJay 14:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reported the recent socks to the meta stewards for global locks, in line with the other sock accounts used by the master. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Iggy. I know you've been quite vigilant with this particular sockmaster. I just wanted to make sure others were aware so we don't end up with any of his edits slipping through the net. – PeeJay 16:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Position per round

Me again. May I suggest that every major league (or at least the top five in Europe) has a position per round table on their page? It is absolutely driving me nuts that the Premier League and Bundesliga pages do not. I am currently making a Premier League one in my sandbox, so if somebody could make a Bundesliga one? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say the opposite- we shouldn't have them for any leagues, as it's completely arbitrary and made up. For most of the Premier League season, teams have played different numbers of matches e.g. at Christmas 2021, teams had played between 15 and 18 matches [9]. In those circumstances, how is a position by round even done? It seems like we'd have to make up a calculation for it (to work out how many points everyone had after they'd played exactly X games), which is original research, since this isn't published anywhere else. Unless a league has fixed match dates where everyone plays on the same dates, then a positions by round is completely useless OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I found that very annoying-some matchdays were different, matches had to be played at different times due to the covid in december, etc. Thanks for telling me that so I don't have to waste my time doing any more. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, such tables should be avoided. It's entirely possible that you could have a scenario where team X were in 6th place when they had played 10 games, team Y were in 6th place when they had played 10 games, and team Z were in 6th place when they had played 10 games, and how would that be represented? Better to just avoid altogether -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There has never been consensus to add to PL articles: see the many individual seasonal articles. I would object to any addition of such a table. Spike 'em (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there is currently a table lurking on the recently played WSL season, i.e. here. The table immediately after that is worse; if you have a look at the columns with the W, D and L filling them up, you will see that the wins and losses are imbalanced: column 13 for example shows only two wins but 7 losses, which is more than 50% of the number of teams who participated.

I'm not a huge fan of positions by round tables in this format and as what Joseph2302 says, that would not be useful. And just to add to the complexity of the positions by round, I found a website which shows what position teams were positioned round by round but, from e.g. the scorelines for round 18, the table after the set of results show the standings of everyone playing the first 18 rounds, barring Aston Villa and Burnley who are on 17 played. If Villa win, they would go up to 9th or 8th based on the results for this Thursday's and the rounds before that. It's pretty much unrealistic statistics there, we shouldn't really use these tables due to the amount of rearranged fixtures seasons have. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Today is really not going well for me on this talk page. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not your fault. Maybe you were told "this is the way it's always been done" and just gone along with it in hopes of a quiet life, like I have, only to find someone's just shoehorning it in because they think it's a good idea. Seasider53 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sort of. I saw it on a few league pages and always thought it was a good idea (for example, to show Salernitana's great escape-they were bottom for about 2 thirds but are now outside of the relegation zone) with things like that shown very well in a graph. I just didn't realise how difficult the logistics were.

Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It is an idea that has been proposed before but the current consensus is not to have these on major league pages. Although it is just as hard removing them in my experience! It might just be best to leave it as it is for now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The only way it could work in a completely logical and OR-free way is if each data point (for want of a better term) was a fixed date rather than a "round", because the position of each team as at a given date is an incontrovertible fact. So you could do the positions as at the end of each Sunday between August and May, say. But then people would probably try and argue that games on Monday should be treated as if they occurred on the Sunday or something (life was so much easier when everyone just played at 3pm on Saturday!). So again, probably just easier to avoid altogether......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Stat-cruft and usually OR. I have no idea why they continue to be a thing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Jake Daniels

Might we be proactive and semi-protect his article before the comedians start rolling in? There's already been one. Seasider53 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I was going to request it at WP:RPP, but it seems Joseph2302 has beaten me to it! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Just as well, some random nonsense was added in just now before it was reverted. I don't see any connection between that and the footballer. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

1985 European Cup Final

If in the official programme (see photo in the article's lead) and UEFA press kits that match is cited as "Liverpool-Juventus", why in this website is written as "Juventus-Liverpool"?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Neither team was at home so the order of the teams is completely arbitrary -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Uniform reasons with the other articles. And not, it's not arbitrary: UEFA chooses a "home" team for its finals for a reason..--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

UEFA says 'Juventus-Liverpool' actually. GiantSnowman 21:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

In the programme and statistics kit says "Liverpool-Juventus". Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Well for whatever reason the current arrangement based on the UEFA website is Juventus-Liverpool and that is what we reflect. GiantSnowman 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

Someone else want to look at the article, I really don't like the edits that Mwiqdoh is doing, I don't like the repeated linking to derby articles, (WP:OVERLINK)! I certainly don't like the (d) next to the score line which pops it out of alignment, I hate score-lines being linked up which messes with my voice reader for some bizarre reason. The scoreline won't be read out and it reads the link which is bizarre! :/ Govvy (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, no need for a (d) for derbies, and we don't need to link to every derby match in the fixtures/results lists. I have reverted and asked them to discuss here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree for consistency: we don't have any links to London derbies to 2021–22 Arsenal F.C. season for example. And I have never seen the (d) next to results before. Why would Mwiqdoh want to mess around with your current season's article? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I know! Why would he do such a thing? Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

jeez, Mwiqdoh Think you can stop edit-warring with everyone on the Spurs page, and to be honest, I don't really see a need to add rivalry links on the premier league round numbers. Govvy (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then we can leave it as is, no need to remove even more stuff like on the round numbers... Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And I don't see the need to list the clubs players join weeks after they were released by the previous club, but hey-ho, the guidelines/policies of football-season article seem to have long since fallen by the wayside. Seasider53 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The "Results by matchday" section has a link for the derbies aswell which should not be there and i removed it now. Complete overkill/overlink and just made a mess of that section(s). Kante4 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kante4: So how come we can include every away stadium link, but we can list 10 derbies that are legitimate rivalries? Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Season articles have a huge amount of links in them, really need to be clever what to link too, and not to overlink! Even players are overlink'ed on every season article. Rivalries can be talked about in prose and linked to in prose in the first instance, but no saturated all over the same article. Govvy (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

For me the links can be removed in the section. And the link to a derby can be piped during the rounds how it is displayed. Kante4 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

imbed code missing?

Not sure how it works, but I went to add the table too 1998–99 Willem II season season article, however the whole page got added from 1998–99 Eredivisie, anyone able to fix that? I don't know how. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. I added a "section=" parameter to the Eredivisie league table. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I had a look at what you did, but knowing me, I will forget how to do that. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about Catalonia national football team and related pages

User:The Chumbo One just made a bunch of significant edits, undiscussed changes, and page moves related to the Catalonia national football team. The only edit I made was here reverting major undiscussed changes two weeks ago, but I am getting accused of making ideological changes. I am not sure what the consensus is for these pages but I thought it was important that the project was aware of these to make sure they were addressed properly. Jay eyem (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Football Squad of Catalonia" is a made up machine translation of the Spanish name, and is no way consistent with any other football/sports team naming system. Personally, I think Catalonia football team (without the national) is most sensible, but either way, move requests like these should be done via WP:RM, not unilaterally. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The Palestine version includes "national" in the article title and so does the other related articles. The Chumbo One has moved these pages without a discussion so these pages should be returned whence they came to solve this problem. I can't think of any other teams which are in the same type as Palestine and Basque Country national football team as well as the team records they faced in the table lower down but some of those links have "national" included in those titles. So my guess is that national should be included for Catalonia as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, the user in question brought the same thing up here two weeks ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 153#Catalonia is not a national team. Either way, seems like they're here to push a POV, and not here to collaborate. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Palestine is part of FIFA, Catalonia isn't; the two situations are not comparable. If anything, we should be looking at CONIFA members, such as Kurdistan and Padania. Dropping "national" seems like a good solution, or maybe replacing "national" with "representative". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Equating Palestine with Catalonia is beyond ridiculous in so many levels.

If you cannot think of any other teams in the same situation as the "Selections" of Catalonia and the Basque Country... I suggest you take a look at the other 17 official regional teams representing other Spanish autonomous communities under the Royal Spanish Football Federation, which have identical status to those two.

And if you want to move away from the material reality and get into politics, then you'll know that the status of Palestine is a major ongoing issue at the United Nations with the majority of its integrants recognizing it as a country. In the other hand, absolutely no one questions the status of Catalonia, which is regarded just like every other European region a significant separatist movements present, such as Bavaria in Germany, Padania in Italy, Flanders in Belgium or Corsica in France. I see no one making absurd comparisons with Palestine with those. This matter is entirely ideological, and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the history of the region, which has absolutely no paralell with what's happening in Israel. The Chumbo One (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that we need to make a consensus on what word is used to describe non-official football teams, for example the different "national teams" for the Spanish states/counties/whatever they're called. I think that the "Catalonian autonomous community football team" sounds good. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately we need to determine what sources call the team, and that means using the common English name in sources. I have not done a search yet myself, but I am going to go out on a limb and guess they refer to it as a "national" team. But I don't know that for sure. Jay eyem (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a mistranslation, I've explained it at length in the my other comments. "Selecció" (selection) only refers to a "hand-picked" selection of players and is used at all levels, be it national ("Selección Francesa" for France's national team, or "Selección Española" for Spain), regional ("Selecció Catalana", as per their official website, for the team of the autonomous community of Catalonia) and even provincial ("Selección Sevillana", for the team of the province of Seville).

Translating the latter as "National team of Seville" with disregard of the context just because the direct translation is not common in English is just irrational. The same goes for "Selecció Catalana". The Chumbo One (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not a machine translation, I made it myself. If you want "made up" translations, look no further than "National Team". "Selecció" translates as "selection", as in, the selection of the players of the autonomous community (Spanish administrative subdivision) of Catalonia. At no point "national" is mentioned nor implied, as it is, to all effects, a regional team under the national Royal Spanish Football Federation of Spain.

So, since the direct translation ("selection") is by no means of common usage in English, then "football squad" is a far better option than "national team", as the "Selecció" is indeed a football squad, yet not a national team.

"Catalonia football team" makes it sound as if it were a club (Catalonia FC), and not a regional selection of players. As the native name is translates literally to "Selection of Catalonia" or "Catalan Selection", I belive "Football Squad of Catalonia" conveys the original meaning far better. The Chumbo One (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I've reverted them all, and will encourage the mover to use WP:RM. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Not undiscussed, I left a request 2 weeks ago here, absolutely no one answered, so, assuming a lack of readers or a lack of interest (its a regional footbal matter after all) I made the changes myself.

Wouldn't call "a bunch of significant changes" to what for the most part accounts to removing the word "national" where suitable. The Chumbo One (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not entirely accurate to say "absolutely no one answered", as you'll see from the archive page, but as I said at your talk, these discussions do tend to fizzle out.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with making a bold move. But now your moves have been reversed, you'll need to go through the requested move procedure. You should expect rather more response with a WP:RM than you got with your original opinion piece, because some sort of agreement needs to be reached for the move to take place, what new title to use, etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You moved several pages without a requested move on a politically contentious topic and then accused myself of ideologically driven editing. You also tried to change what was discussed in the past by editing the archive page, despite the fact that the very top of the page says NOT to do that. And what little feedback you did receive should not have led you to a consensus to make these changes. There's being bold, and then there are making personal attacks and moving pages without consensus. Jay eyem (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

An editor directly translating a Spanish title sounds like WP:OR to me, and we should be using a name commonly used in English language sources.Spike 'em (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That is literally the problem that the previous title had... not only a lack of research... but also a terrible literal translation with total disregard of the context.

If you want sources, here you have the official website of the Catalan Federation, you´ll see that they always use the term "Selecció Catalana Absoluta masculina", not a trace of "national", "Selecció" only refers to a hand-picked selection of players, there are no national connotations with the term. As a matter of fact, there are even provincial "Selections", such as the "Selección Granadina", the team of the province of Granada, which I am sure absolutely no one would translate as "national" just because that's what the first out of context result in the dictionary says. The Chumbo One (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the link of the Catalan Federation: https://www.fcf.cat/seleccio-absoluta The Chumbo One (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I will also replicate here a comment that was deleted from another Talk on the grounds that is an "old archived discussion" (not even two weeks old...):

The correct translation for "Selección Española" is NOT "Spain National Team", it just translates to "selection [of football players] of Spain". People often mistranslate "Selección" as "national team" because the literal translation (selection) is not used in English and they just pick the first entry they find in the dictionary with complete disregard to the context, but there is absolutely no "national" connotation in the word "selecció" (in Catalan) or "selección" (in Spanish).

Every other regional team uses the same name ("Selección Andaluza", "Selección de Castilla la Mancha"...) and it is used even for provincial teams, such as "Selección Granadina de Fútbol", the team of the province of Granada, and I'm sure you will all agree that translating these as a "national team" for the lack of a better dictionary entry would be beyond absurd.

The fact that the Squad of Catalonia plays matches against national teams means absolutely nothing. Other regional squads do as well. For instance, the squad of Andalusia has matches against Morocco, Estonia, Chile and even China. They are just meaningless friendlies.

You cannot compare the intranational regional status of the UK with that of Spain, they are completely different. The status of Gibraltar or Scotland is by no means the same as that of Catalonia or any other Spanish autonomous community.

And no, the Spanish Constitution does NOT acknowledge Catalonia as a nation, it merely talks about "nationalities" (historical nationalities), a term much debated, as a completely ambiguous and undefined recognition of the different cultural/linguistic/historical identities within Spain, which also encompasses several other cultural regions besides than Catalonia and the Basque Country. It is by no means akin to the "national" status of, say, Scotland. And most importantly, it has an ethnical meaning that has nothing to do with the Regional Football Team of Catalonia, which is not the team of those who are "ethnically Catalan", so to speak, but of those who are from the autonomous community (administrative subdivision) of Catalonia, independently of their ethnical/cultural background. It is so relaxed and trivial that even players who are not Catalan in any way like Iniesta or Reina have played in it. Yes, that same Iniesta from La Mancha who gave Spain a World Cup. The Chumbo One (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_119#Mark_Bradley_(footballer,_born_1988)

Took me a while, but I have found the conversation which I remember being discussed on this page.

I can't seem to think why we have an image like that on the Mark Bradley (footballer, born 1988) infobox, surely it should be a photo of him actually in a football kit or other football related job. I doubt this infobox image here is appropriate enough to be honest.

FYI: an article on my watchlist has had the picture changed from a football related one to one which is not. Given one of the responses from the archived conversation, I won't name that article and therefore left that alone for now so the revert is not in my contributions. In most cases, lead photos are of people in football kits or acting as a manager, not on their holidays or other out of football activities. These type of photos I think should reach a consensus on if they to be kept or not.

Option 1 - Keep the Mark Bradley (footballer, born 1988) and similar photos in there.

Option 2 - remove due to that being out of scope for not using football kit/manager outfits.

Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would only include a photo of someone if it shows them doing the activity they're notable for, e.g. playing football? As long as there's a clear view of the subject's appearance, and there's nothing particularly inappropriate in the picture, then it should be fine. I actually cropped the current version of the image you refer to from the original, in which Bradley can be seen standing topless on a boat holding a fish, which, to me, would not be suitable for inclusion. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:1998–99 in Dutch football

I created a quick template for that season, might need to be fixed up better. Govvy (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There is already an existing article so I don't think we need a new one, but it is a complete and utter car crash. I'm happy to help with it.

Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Car crash?? Govvy (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe thats a bit too much, but it does need a bit of improvement (sorry). As I said, I'm happy to help.

Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said it was only done in a short period in order to add to 1998–99 Willem II season (and a few other season pages), which was proposed for deletion. :/ Govvy (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I meant that the existing article is a bit of a mess. Sorry for any misunderstanding it may have caused.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)