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.

Sweden football teams

Recently dab-pages were created from the redirects on Sweden national under-19 football team and Sweden national under-17 football team. Unfortunately, that gives problems on the article UEFA. Issue is the template:nft links that seem to miss the option to differentiate between the men's and women's teams. Do you have any idea how to solve this? The Banner talk 23:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Banner: The template will have to be updated, and the articles too. Time for Wikipedia to stop the blatant misogyny. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The same applies to Sweden national football team that is used in several articles with templates that I can not solve at all. In this case: UEFA Euro 2020 statistics, UEFA Euro 2012 statistics, 2002 FIFA World Cup with as culprit template:International football competition statistics/Ifcs. The Banner talk 14:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess you'd need to get {{nft links}} amended to be in-line with something like {{nft/code}}, which has a list of exceptions handled by a switch. I've added Sweden to that list: do you have examples of the other templates that are causing issues? Also I see that {{nft links}} is only used on 2 main space articles, so I guess not many people will notice it. Spike 'em (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Real Betis

Hello. I just wanted to ask something-- is there a clear consensus on what we should use as Real Betis's common name in info boxes and whatnot? I see a lot of players have just "Betis", but in the opening sentence it says "Real Betis". There is a clear inconsistency. Could we try to establish a single one? Same thing for RC Celta de Vigo, there is an inconsistency. I propose using Real Betis and Celta Vigo, which are, in my opinion, the most commonly-used names for the clubs in English. Please offer your insight so we can end these inconsistencies across the Project. Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a similar issue to that of English football with the many suffixed clubs which have no ambiguity: is Blackburn sufficient, or must it be Blackburn Rovers? So for boxes it should probably use both words (or perhaps Celta de Vigo, since Racing de Santander and Sporting de Gijón seem to be preferred in boxes, maybe they should also be considered here) but the single word can be used for whatnot? Is this an instance of WP:KARLSRUHER, are Spanish clubs mentioned there? Crowsus (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Crowsus: I don't think KARLSRUHER applies here or anything like that, nor is it really comparable to English football. Here we just take the most commonly used English name for the club. That's why the clubs Atlético Madrid and Athletic Bilbao have the names they have, despite their official names. This is mostly a question of the club's common short name. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Martín Zubimendi

requesting temporary protection please due to the level of moronic transfer-vandalism over the past 36 hours. Crowsus (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Use WP:RFPPI to request protection. RedPatch (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have protected it for a week. Also interesting to see the number of edits from people who think that the article Liverpool is about the football team rather than the city..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Maps for future World Cups

The venue maps for future World Cups have changed massively, but in my opinion, for the worst. The new map with numbers is tiny and confusing. The first time this map was used was for the 2022 World Cup under the basis that not every stadium was displayed on the map due to Qatar being a small country, which made sense.

But future men's and women's World Cup hosts like Brazil don't need this map and a normal table would do a great job of showcasing the stadiums and cities together because every city and stadium can be displayed and seen perfectly well.

So while the numbered map works for Qatar, it doesn't translate at all well for other countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia. I also don't believe that it a one or the other situation, because the map makes sense for Qatar, but not for Saudi Arabia.

I believe that it makes sense to revert back to the table format for the World Cup venues for countries who are hosting solo World Cups or just the amount of stadiums are fewer.

For example, for the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup in Brazil, you don't a numbered map and this table below works perfectly.

Rio de Janeiro	Brasília	Belo Horizonte	Fortaleza
Estádio do Maracanã	Arena BRB Mané Garrincha (Estádio Nacional Mané Garrincha)	Estádio Mineirão	Arena Castelão
Capacity: 73,139	Capacity: 69,910	Capacity: 66,658	Capacity: 57,876
Porto Alegre	Belo Horizonte Brasília Fortaleza Porto Alegre São Paulo Rio de Janeiro Salvador Cuiabá Manaus Recife class=notpageimage| Location of the host cities of the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup.		Salvador
Estádio Beira-Rio			Casa de Apostas Arena Fonte Nova (Arena Fonte Nova)
Capacity: 49,055			Capacity: 47,915
São Paulo	Recife	Manaus	Cuiabá
Neo Química Arena (Arena Corinthians)	Arena Pernambuco	Arena da Amazônia	Arena Pantanal
Capacity: 47,252	Capacity: 45,440	Capacity: 42,924	Capacity: 42,788

ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. By the reason why a different map was used, was not because of the size of the country but because of copyright laws of the country preventing us from having free images of the stadiums. Tvx1 17:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you name a country that has copyright problems surrounding maps? Personally, I have never heard of that law before. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not very common. Qatar is pretty strict: https://en.as.com/soccer/the-places-where-it-is-forbidden-to-take-photos-at-the-qatar-2022-world-cup-n/

This created a lot of big blank spaces in the map and @AFC Vixen worked on a new way to display the map. Personally, I find the new style to be better for mobile versatility. The huge map above is very hard to look at on a smartphone. It is so big and it doesn't adapt to smaller screens. Chris1834 Talk 19:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen the new map/stadiums style on the phone and it doesn't adapt well either. While the map is better, you can't see the stadiums at all on the phone, so I don't think there is a clear or significant difference between both styles as they are both pretty squashed.

I use my laptop a lot more than my phone and I don't think that the slight improvement the new map makes for phone users is enough that laptop/computer users need to be hindered by the changes. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not with the map! With images of the stadiums. There is no freedom of panorama in Qatar! Tvx1 10:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@ILoveSport2006, Tvx1, and Chris1834: Personally, I loathe these table–map hybrids. They take extraordinary amounts of space and don't allow for sorting of data by name or capacity among other possible sortable data points. It's my understanding that most editors want images of every single venue used by a tournament, and I'm convinced that's the only reason these table–map hybrids are still widely used – there'd be no need for them otherwise. With that said, I did propose a compromise at Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup to retain a gallery of images using a carousel, though that didn't attract any response, and I've since discovered that it displays terribly on mobile. Otherwise, here's another idea of what I'd replace the above with:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Many venues built for the 2014 FIFA World Cup, such as the Estádio Nacional (pictured), will be reused.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc aliquet orci vel felis iaculis vestibulum. Proin semper nisi et lectus mollis blandit. Donec et magna scelerisque, facilisis mauris vel, bibendum ipsum. Pellentesque efficitur elit ante, a facilisis nisl dignissim a. Morbi dapibus sem eu enim tristique, in hendrerit augue tincidunt.^[1][2] Phasellus faucibus risus vitae suscipit pellentesque. Cras faucibus mattis porttitor. Vivamus lacus felis, tempus quis sapien id, feugiat tempus ligula.^[3] Duis sit amet scelerisque lectus. Suspendisse facilisis augue sapien, maximus tincidunt nibh posuere id. Etiam aliquet augue nisl, non vehicula metus semper ut. Morbi quis ultricies erat.^[1][3][4]

Quisque non volutpat velit, ut feugiat erat. Curabitur a vulputate tortor, at consequat quam. Integer a enim molestie, lobortis ante nec, efficitur enim. Nunc commodo tristique metus, eget bibendum mauris faucibus at.^[1] Donec scelerisque, nisi vel vehicula ultrices, augue quam consectetur lectus, in scelerisque nisi neque a ipsum. Duis ac pretium lectus. Suspendisse eget cursus diam. Quisque odio tortor, accumsan eget leo eget, blandit pretium ipsum. Maecenas condimentum tincidunt efficitur. Vestibulum non commodo metus. Suspendisse scelerisque congue erat sed pellentesque.^[2][5] Maecenas sed pretium eros. Maecenas arcu eros, tempus quis felis vitae, cursus facilisis nunc. Pellentesque efficitur elit ante, a facilisis nisl digniss.^[6]

1500km
900miles

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

  

(Interactive map; click the ▢ to view)
Host cities nominated in the CBF's bid for the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup.

2027 FIFA Women's World Cup venues

Host City	Venue	Capacity
1 Rio de Janeiro	Maracanã Stadium	73,139
2 Brasília	Estádio Nacional Mané Garrincha	69,910
3 Belo Horizonte	Mineirão	66,658
4 Fortaleza	Castelão	57,876
5 Porto Alegre	Estádio Beira-Rio	49,055
6 Salvador	Arena Fonte Nova	47,915
7 São Paulo	Neo Quimica Arena	47,252
8 Recife	Arena Pernambuco	45,440
9 Manaus	Arena da Amazônia	42,924
10 Cuiabá	Arena Pantanal	42,788

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

I'd like to direct particular attention to the use of images in the map, which is another idea I had for a compromise – I suspect most editors don't know images can be added to an {{OSM Location map}}. In articles where appropriate, a column in the wikitable noting whether the venue was pre-existing, built for the tournament, upgraded, ect. would also be helpful. — AFC Vixen 🦊 03:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't think having images of each venue on the tournament page adds much. --SuperJew (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it does. I honestly don’t prefer the proposed alternative at all. I’m als honestly puzzled by the claims that the classic format has visibility issues on mobile devices. I’m watching it and typing this on my smartphone and I have no issue seeing it. Tvx1 10:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this screenshot from my device can illustrate it for you. Compare this with screenshots of the article and map format I proposed above. Nevermind even the glaring issue of {{Location map+}} forcing a width size for the centre two columns, consider just the fact that only a portion of the table–map even fits on the screen at a legible page size. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, while on my phone, the map is fine but the stadium pictures are squashed so the new map/stadium system virtually does nothing. I also don't think it is fair that the maps got changed because one or two people do not like it. That's not enough input to change it for everyone. This talk page already has differing opinions. Personally, I think the table–map hybrids is great and should be kept. As far as I know, there was never any consensus that the new map style was the way to go for every tournament onwards. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, these days with the preview of articles on hovering, you can see the image that way easily enough. Secondly, why are stadiums different than anything else? Why not have images of all the coaches? Or all the players? Tbh personally apart from a handful, I wouldn't recognise many venues from their aerial screenshot anyway. --SuperJew (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have never needed the image for a stadium. If I want to know more about a particular stadium, I go to that article. This article is about the event and the stadium box is just massive when the stadium is a small part of the overall tournament. The relevant information about the stadium for this article is where it is and what the capacity is. The picture of the stadium is superfluous and doesn't really add necessary information for this tournament. Chris1834 Talk 13:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think stadium pictures add a lot and and is a good way to differentiate each edition by showing a different set of venues. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@SuperJew You are probably different to me, but I can recognise stadiums via their aerial screenshots. So for me, the pictures are useful. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's probably anyways an irrelevant point who can or can't recognise the stadiums from the pictures. But my point is expanded by what Chris1834 wrote. It gives an undue weight to the stadiums in comparison to other components of the tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not because it shows that for me and maybe other people, the pictures ARE relevant. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the pics are not really needed. Kante4 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 FA Community Shield

See history page. Why refs should not be used in the infobox for referee, weather, attendance and man of the match? See other major tournaments that adopt the same practice for the article of the final, and the same finals of the same competition, such as 2023 and before. Here should be different for this edition? Why? User PeeJay creating such a problem for nothing IMOH. Island92 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Facts should not only be referenced in the infobox. If a fact appears in the body of the article without a reference, that's a problem. I don't care if the reference appears in both the infobox and the body of the article, but it certainly shouldn't only be in the infobox. – PeeJay 13:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Refs will not be only in the infobox. That's why refs in the infobox consist of ref names. Island92 (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So why did you remove the source from the {{footballbox}} template? You're arguing yourself into knots. – PeeJay 13:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Because only later the ref name (added by you) in the infobox was put. Having a ref name in the infobox which comes from the main source in the footballbox is not a problem. Island92 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And as I said, I don't care if the reference is in both places, but you can't have it only in the infobox. Are you satisfied now? – PeeJay 13:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course yes. As it stands now it is how when I added the ref in the infobox for the first time (the source complete). Then you moved the source complete in the footballbox and added the ref name in the infobox. Island92 (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like you're not understanding what I'm saying, so I've just changed the article to what I believe we should be agreeing on. If you disagree, then we still have a problem. – PeeJay 14:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The source there should not be there. It is simply a ripetition of what the infobox already displays. See 2024 UEFA Champions League final and other dozens of article finals as a prime example. Island92 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You edited it. It did not use to be like that. See 2023 final then. Island92 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The infobox should not be the primary place to see the source. It should be in the body of the article as a bare minimum; if you want to add it to the infobox too, that's fine, but it should not only be in the infobox. How many times do I have to say it? Would it help if I translated my comments to your native language? – PeeJay 15:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And it is not only put in the infobox! It's also next to "Assistant referees:". It's sufficient, rather than having another ref close to the referee name in the footballbox. It makes no sense. You changing the practice also for Champions League finals now. Ok. You can expect to deal it with user S.A. Julio about this practice. Island92 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You creating such a problem for this little aspect just today. It is used to be like that before you changing it for years and years. Island92 (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Doing something for years and years doesn't make it right, and S.A. Julio doesn't own these articles. I added the reference to a location that needed it and you removed it because you think it's too close to other instances of the same source? That's irrelevant. If the source for a fact can't be easily ascertained, add a reference; it's not difficult. You're the one creating a problem by insisting that things have to be done the same way forever more. – PeeJay 17:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That is called consistency between articles. You are changing the practice. As simple as that. Island92 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So you think things should be consistently worse than they could be? Sure, why bother trying to improve anything when we can just stay as we are forever? – PeeJay 17:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is interpretation of things. There is no point in having a double ref that displays the same thing. It's logical interpretation. So I think more people had the same view about it that worked well until your edit. I do not mean your edit has to be thrown into a bin. I can say to you you can expect your edit to be reverted, back to how it used to be. Just have a look a more than 500 article finals. You note the same structure of what we are talking about. Island92 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And as I said, just because something is done a certain way for a long time and in a lot of articles, that doesn't mean that's the perfect way to do it. A reference for the referee should be in the article body at a bare minimum, with a duplication in the infobox as a luxury. – PeeJay 17:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That's your view. Hence now I expect you to match that edit with more than 500 article final styles here. For consistency. For how it used to be until your edit. Island92 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And now I ping @S.A. Julio:, to give his take. Island92 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Changes can be made over time, no rush. If you want to make some of the edits, that would be really helpful. – PeeJay 18:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not change my view of this. Island92 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So why did you bring this here, Island92, instead of talking to PeeJay directly? Robby.is.on (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

To make it aware for other users. To know what's their take. Island92 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to summarise the rest of the article, so shouldn't need a reference if there is one in the body of the article. See MOS:INFOBOXREF which says References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere. Spike 'em (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And to make my view on this discussion entirely clear: the referee should be referenced in the main body of the article and have no reference in the infobox. The MOS overrides any consistency / local consensus arguements. Spike 'em (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Info boxes are a quick view of information pertinent to the article. Citations are for the main body and shouldn't be in the info box at all. We are suppose to avoid adding citations to the first few lead paragraphs and the infobox. Govvy (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nacho (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nacho (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Matthijs de Ligt and Dominic Solanke

Could an Admin please semi-protect Matthijs de Ligt & Dominic Solanke JMHamo (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

A request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase might result in action sooner. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you joking? Did you see the backlog is over 48 hours. JMHamo (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have protected De List - won't bother with Solanke given the transfer is confirmed. GiantSnowman 09:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am quite excited to see the possibility of De List to play football soon. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Poul Nielsen stats table

I am in a very slow edit war with @Kaizako10: regarding the Poul Nielsen stats table, which I have removed as it is incomplete and does not match the infobox, and they keep re-adding. Any thoughts? GiantSnowman 09:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Help me get the correct stats instead of just disregarding the hours of research I have done to find these stats. Sexy Beast (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You included two sources with your additions. https://www.kb.dk/en does not mention Nielsen. I downloaded the PDF document at https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/avis/record/doms_aviser_page%3Auuid%3A5c9b7b8d-c19d-4c37-b079-10e0f56cb19d/query/Poul%20Nielsen%20Fodbold but the text is too small to read for me, not to mention it's Danish. What does it say? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on 2024–25 Serie B#Personnel and kits

Hi all, I am reaching out to request some feedback on the list of personnel, kits and sponsors on articles like (but not limited to) 2024–25 Serie B. I have just opened it and I found out the table is both huge in terms of horizontal space (which already causes problems in my laptop, so I would not even trying imagining how it would look from a much smaller screen such as a mobile phone) and filled with what I would consider being unnecessary WP:TRIVIA (such as the list of sponsors, and possibly the kit manufacturer as well), all of that without any sources provided. Any thoughts? Angelo (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Chairman not necessary, only main shirt sponsor needed. Removing those fields (and a new line for the Sassuolo co-captains) makes it fit much better. Crowsus (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I see this sponsor nonsense goes back 10 years, including some editions where there was a league-wide sponsor for the weirder places, but that got included 20 times. I haven't checked every year, but had a glance at the other 'big 5' second tiers for 2016-17, and only 2016–17 Segunda División (Spain) had presidents listed. I know they wield much more power in some places than others, but in my opinion the president doesn't need to be listed. Is there any big objection to these fields being removed from other season articles? I'd think it would be extremely fiddly and boring for creators to find all this out (not an expert on the arse cheek sponsors but I imagine they change quite often)and add it in every August, and possibly fails V and CRUFT as Angelo has suggested?? Crowsus (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Disappointed nobody else has taken the time to contribute. Pinging user:Sebas291001 by way of explanation of my reversion of their (unexplained) removal of my changes. Please explain your reasoning for including all these sponsors and presidents here so we can get the full picture and avoid an edit war, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

WAFF Championship articles

At what level are we going to have these too? I was having a quick little run through the new page feed and came across this page 2024 WAFF U-16 Championship, I really don't feel that the under 16s are that notable. On the template below there is Senior, that's okay for me, Under 23, I don't mind so much, Under-19, I don't really feel there is notability there, then there is Under-16, which I feel the whole lot is not notable and probably should be deleted. What are other peoples thoughts on this? Govvy (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Emmanuel Saban Laryea, Ghanaian professional footballer

Greetings, while updating orphan footballer articles, I see the Laryea biography infobox Date-of-Birth shows 12 December 1995 vs. the Worldfootball.net (reliable source) shows 12.06.1990. After searching, I'm still confused if there are two players from Ghana with exact same name, and similar clubs? Any help here would be great. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

My findings:

• Soccerway: 12 December 1995
• Global Sports Archive: age 28
• Worldfootball.net: 12 June 1990
• National Football Teams: 12 December 1995

Of those four sources, worldfootball.net is the only outlier. Could be a mistake in their database. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks @Robby.is.on, will go with the 1995 dob. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Strange

2009–10 Libyan Cup has separate articles for 2009–10 Libyan Cup – Round of 32 and 2009–10 Libyan Cup – Round of 16. This seems unnecessary, so I'm inclined to merge and redirect all on sight. Geschichte (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, should be merged. Kante4 (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)