Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Onegreatjoke (talk | contribs) at 00:40, 16 April 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
    WikiProject iconFootball Project‑class
    WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
    ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Assists should not be included, not least per WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 11:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus for this. GiantSnowman 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no mention of assists there. --SuperJew (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - I meant to add it there. GiantSnowman 12:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    How did I guess who drafted that Liverpool article, full of nonsense...?! GiantSnowman 13:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That level of detail is not needed. GiantSnowman 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Also the verifiability of lots of this superfluous information is questionable. GiantSnowman 15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Horrible *cries in fancruft* Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons has been in existence for 17 years. GiantSnowman 15:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    See confirmation bias. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 18:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You claim to be copying other articles. Don’t, and you’ll be fine. Seasider53 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This says "Goals scored and optionally cards issued". Dougal18 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Is this one better here? Skyblueshaun (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you’re going by the season template, nobody can have any qualms. Seasider53 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, again. GiantSnowman 11:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Yes - I have reverted. GiantSnowman 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    because 'football' is notoriously ambiguous. GiantSnowman 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    There isn't a lot there, but three citations that may be of use: [1], [2] and [3] Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thanks both, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Lovely, thanks both. GiantSnowman 10:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Miria~01 It's not written anywhere that a playoff cannot be cosidered a national cup, and it's not my definition becuse 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 national cup 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)[reply]


    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)[reply]