Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WPF)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Draft:Ryan Lau[edit]

Dear football experts: Is this a notable player? Or should the draft be allowed to go stale and be deleted?—Anne Delong (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If he did indeed play for Hawaii Tsunami, then he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. However, this suggests he never made a first-team appearance. Number 57 20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to verify whether Lau ever did play. The page cited by Number 57 shows no players played any minutes, despite many of them scoring goals and assists, so I will not take that page as gospel. — Jkudlick tcs 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, I misread the table. Number 57 14:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have found no mention of Lau at soccerway or at RSSSF, which is where anything was most likely to appear. None of the references given provide any verifiable proof that Lau actually played. At this point, I have to presume he did not set foot on the pitch. If that one page at showed even a single goal or assist, that would be some evidence that he played, even if it wasn't a WP:RS. Alas, I'm tagging under WP:G13. — Jkudlick tcs 14:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I wouldn't have known where to look.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Navbox templates[edit]

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw(talk) 01:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Big problem[edit]

Can someone help to protect 2 pages against vandalism : El Clásico and List of El Clásico matches. This pages were vandalized several times in last 24 hours ! We need to block anonymous users to edit it ! Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

About leagues templates[edit]

We have the following templates:

Why we need that {{Top level men's association football leagues around the world}} ? --IM-yb (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

We need it to keep all the leagues together. (my opinion)--Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Strangely, the individual confederation templates seem to be much more complete than the overall template. For example, the overall template includes no leagues from UNCAF and only two from CFU while the CONCACAF template includes pretty much all CONCACAF members. I'll play in my sandbox to see how easily all the confederation templates could be combined into a single navbox. — Jkudlick tcs 22:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean we need both templates, the overall template is summary, but is also good to keep it.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If the summary is incomplete, then it either needs to be updated or replaced. I used {{Navboxes}} to consolidate all the confederation navboxes at my sandbox, but I can see a drawback in them due to the nations all being listed alphabetically instead of by sub-confederation. — Jkudlick tcs 14:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The overall one is not needed. Where would you put that monster. Also no real connection between leagues. The continental ones at least have a champions league that connects them. -Koppapa (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is, if that template change their content from recognized to not recognized leagues, will be useful. --IM-yb (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We have a same template {{National football teams}}, but that has links for more information than the other separately (for each confederation) templates. --IM-yb (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


Does Template:Navboxes' list1 param has a limit? I mean, I was editing Dorival Júnior and, when the page has 14 templates under Navboxes, it appears normally. However, after adding a 15th to it, it simply gives me (at least) a wikilink to the template itself. MYS77 18:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

...and page was automatically included in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. --XXN, 18:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, and strangely, Vanderlei Luxemburgo has more templates than Dorival, and it's working just fine. MYS77 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
See my comments at Template_talk:Navboxes#Limit of templates? Basically, all these Brazilian football managers navboxes need to be ditched. --NSH002 (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of Categories: FC United of Manchester[edit]

Should F.C. United of Manchester be ordered under "F" or "M"? Should AFC Telford United be ordered under "A" or "T"? I haven't found anything from the manual of style to state which one. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

They should be listed under "M" and "T", respectively. For example, A.F.C. Bournemouth is listed under "B" in its categories. — Jkudlick tcs 11:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree about Telford, but not about FC United; unlike most football clubs where the FC/AFC is not used in normal speech, they are primarily known as "FC United", and I think people would expect to find them listed under F rather than M. Number 57 11:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I changed the default sort on FC United some years back (although I changed it to sort under "United") and was reverted for that exact same reason -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with sorting under F. It's always referred to as FC United, not as anything Manchester-related. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll concede sorting FC United under F as the other editors have more experience with English football than I do. And it makes sense. — Jkudlick tcs 13:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Final Edits on Man Utd-Liverpool Rivalry[edit]

Despite some very good editing being done on the article by other users recently, a few issues remain that hurts the factual nature and reliability of the article. First the information about what the club websites count as trophies seriously must be amended. It is clear that the previous edit revolved around making a comparison that wasn't there as both clubs distinguish trophies differently. United view all national honours as "major" [1] while liverpool only see season-long trophies as such [2]; thus they both claim to be more successful as they lead each other in their respective counts [3] [4]. This is the reality and a far cry from what the prior editor did of comparing the honour counts when liverpool add youth and reserve trophies and United don't and conveniently not mentioning it. This version will nicely tie into the two sides in the media as is reported, with some favouring liverpool's 41-39 count and others favouring United by 62-59 count. That rubbish about 49 "others" just has to go because they are literally youth and reserve honours that United simply display on a different page away from senior honours (and if you added United's equivalents, they'd still be ahead). So a restructuring of that where it is acknowledged both clubs go off of different counts that leads into how media back both counts, thus solidifying each one's claim as more successful should be in order as it would be factual, logically structured and interesting.

Also, the use of FIFA and UEFA as primarily sources has to be removed. Despite being governing bodies, they are rife with corruption and even more importantly, their websites are inconsistent and display great bias. FIFA don't list the community shield as a major trophy for english clubs but lists other countries' exact equivalents as major [5] [6] While also including regional titles as major trophies for other clubs [7] (Note the Cairo league). UEFA meanwhile refer to competitions like the community shield as the first trophy of the season and as silverware in match reports but then don't count it as even a club honour on their website club histories [8]. They also exclude competitions like the club World Cup and Fairs Cup from club histories because they weren't competitions run by them. Since neither organisation ever explicitly states what constitutes a trophy, major or otherwise, it is likely that the club histories are composed by a series of random, opinionated writers who all publish based on their personal opinion of what is a trophy. This is not the kind of reliable info needed for an encyclopaedia. there is a clear reason that no other article of this nature or anywhere else on wikipedia cites the FIFA website or UEFA website as a source and that's because it is totally unreliable. Changes must be made to remove it and stick to the only credible sources which are the clubs and mainstream media. Davefelmer (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not this nonsense again. Two comments; firstly, the statements about FIFA and UEFA not being reliable sources are ridiculous and you will get nowhere making nonsense claims like that. Secondly, I thought the previous discussion had ended in agreement that the best thing to do was to remove the total trophy count from the introduction, as otherwise it just ends up in rival supporters endlessly willy waving. Number 57 16:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I just tidied the body up, standardised the table and added citations, figured to let other people decide what content went in the lede. Agree with the changes by 57. Koncorde (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it nonesense? Look at the sources, they are totally internally inconsistent! How can that be reliable. Neither specifies what they deem a trophy let alone a "major" trophy so how can that be used?

In any case, surely we can reach an agreement that the website information is totally false. We did have agreement on almost everything last time but the website stuff is a major issue and should be amended. Davefelmer (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FIFA and UEFA websites are perfectly acceptable to use, even though they are themselves quite flawed because they are organising bodies. Not all competitions are covered by these organisations, but for this reason we can (and probably should) use multiple sources. Only if there are inconsistencies along the lines of different sources claiming different winners of the same competition in a given year is there a problem. There is no good source for what is a "major" honour, so let's not use that term. I agree with Number 57 that removing a total trophy count is the best course of action. Such a count assumes that all trophies are equal (whatever that means) and is typically used to try and push a point of view. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
While not providing the type of confusion where two teams are claimed to have won the same troohy, there are blatant inaccuracies that mean they shouldnt be used. FIFA do list trophies as "major honours" yet give no information of what constitutes a "major" achievement. This is shown where by some trophies count for some clubs as major but their exact equivalents in other countries do not. It also inserts regional trophies as major for some clubs but not others. UEFA meanwhile have a clear vested interest in their competitions, and don't include any trophies like the old UEFA Cup because it wasn't on their jurisdiction, despite being on FIFA's. Furthermore, they don't corroborate any counts by either the club or media. They are inconsistent stand-alones so have no merit of inclusion. The media stuff and club website information directly corresponds so i accept to include all that, although there is some poor wording and info there that should be rearranged. Davefelmer (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This goes back to our discussion over 2 months ago regarding Arsenal and the most successful clubs list. Their websites are not reliable enough for us to claim that are 100% of all the available data, but they are reliable enough for the data that they do hold in the same way that we can use a club page for what it does contain, but it doesn't mean we remove content because their webpage doesn't match (as websites are often incomplete records).
What this means is we can use 2, 3, 4 or dozens of sources to back up simple things such as tables, or lists, or corroborate facts. When it comes to meta-analysis we need to be very careful not to stray into the territory of synthesising articles - which is why, typically, the articles only speak in general terms and / or provide as many alternative views as possible in order to try and stay neutral. That FIFA and UEFA are not themselves neutral about their own competitions is really by-the-by.
My original edits to this article tidied up the obvious stuff with the table (which was a blatant synthesis) but what meta-analysis we source / use from third parties is really up to the editors of the article to make the most sense.
Do we even need to go into debates of who is the most successful team? Well there are several sourced articles debating the matter, so it is clearly something notable about the rivalry. Are FIFA and UEFA part of that debate? Probably not, but they do provide two equivalent measures of titles. It's a bit synthesis, but more like meta analysis as far as I'm concerned.
Could the article be written better? Yes, probably. If you would like to practice / test some of your changes or ideas without fear of 1RR or similar then please use my user sandbox and I will be happy to help / discuss. Koncorde (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You say it yourself, the websites are not reliable to present all the information. They both use the subjective "major" honour count which cannot be backed nor accurately stated and used. They are internally inconsistent and exclude competitions. It is patently written by random writers with their opinions of what is a trophy. Furthermore, the FIFA site is poorly updated, saying liverpool's last trophy was in 2005 and not the 2012 league cup while saying United have been champions 8 times in 13 years which isn't true anymore. Clubs like wigan etc are missing their recent trophy wins like the FA cup of 2013. Add to this the internal inconsistencies and there is no way it can be used as reliable evidence. Not to mention that neither club nor any media use either the count provided by FIFA or UEFA, most likely because of the recognisation at their inaccuracies and unreliability.

I've made a proposed edit on your sandbox as you suggested (thanks for offering). There, I've provided the right information as to the club websites and linked it to the media divide to create a neutral informative debate on how there are two sides to who is more successful. I've removed the mentions of FIFA and UEFA for the above reasons, however, FIFA is still used in the bottom of the honour section and maybe throw UEFA in there too if you really want to keep them somewhere. I know you keep saying it isn't the idea to remove sources, but if they are blatantly inaccurate, unreliable and don't belong, there is good reason to do so. Davefelmer (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

FLC: List of FC Porto records and statistics[edit]

I nominated List of FC Porto records and statistics for featured list. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, you can do it here. Appreciate your feedback! Parutakupiu (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Regional competitions shouldn't be included in a list "encompassing the club's major honours" and you acknowledge they don't count as official above the honours section so there's no reason to have them as they are misleading. Davefelmer (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
They are official titles, but only at regional not national level. But you're right: considering how the section is presented, they should not be listed. Perhaps in a more specific and all-encompassing List of FC Porto honours. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't really see a point in making a whole new section just to add all the same info plus some regional awards. Keep it as is, without the regionals. Davefelmer (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Dave, this is where you are going wrong repeatedly. The club won that silverware, and while it is not considered significant in the roll-call of honours that are compared between divisions they are nonetheless significant for Porto historically. We do not blank reliably sourced information, and should not be seeking to remove it particularly from what is a "List of records and statistics" which should be as comprehensive as possible. Koncorde (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Koncorde, thanks for your input. I actually agree with your view, but Dave had a point considering how the section intro was kind of snubbing those regional titles. Parutakupiu (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Per previous discussion with Dave, if there is a problem then we should look at the context. In this case the issue is that the article mentioned "official" honours. Well they're all official honours, so that's the problem. Remove the contextual problem and hey presto the article makes sense. So all we need to clarify is what the 74 competition count is referring to so we move the in-line note further up the sentence. There are better solutions to most things than just removing content. Koncorde (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Simple solution and we keep relevant info. Thank you so much, Koncorde. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


User:Alexiulian25 has been doing a number of unconstructive edits recently, in particular on Ballon d'Or (1956–2009), where he has changed the table format to one that is worse and does not meet guidelines. Despite repeatedly telling him that flags cannot be used to identify nationality by themself as per MOS:FLAGS, he has ignored this and cited examples in other lists as justification for his edits. He has also removed sortablility from the table, which is extremely helpful for users. I'm approaching 3RR on this page so I cannot revert his edits, much more, if someone could revert his changes and restore the old table that would be great. NapHit (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks better, and other articles are same : FIFA Ballon d'Or !!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers
UEFA Best Player in Europe Award
World Soccer (magazine) - Here you have the flag in front of the player !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree that Naphit's version is better than the alternative. Having clubs in a separate column makes the table more legible. Number 57 13:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The table in format you talk is to long, you have to scroll down double to can reach the bottom and is harder to read not being one line for a player ! Look now how tidy it looks, you can see better the players in table (not having spaces and multiple lines for one edition) : Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) and is same like FIFA Ballon d'Or.
None of those lists are featured and you still completely miss the point. MOS:FLAGS states "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details." That is why we have the name of the country as well as the flag! NapHit (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I know that the readers are not familiar with the flag but in this format England "Name of the player" if you go with the arrow on the flag it will appear the name of the country !!! Thats why I say is repeating in format you explain to me.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you've broken the 3RR rule now, and you refuse to accept my point even though other editors agree on the table. Wikipedia is consensus based, please adher to this and the guidelines. NapHit (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem here is that no one respect or care about the rules. Check other thousand of articles and you will see nothing of this rules, I was unlucky to get in this trouble because this articles is on the featured list otherwise no one will say nothing !!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And why no one says about this articles : FIFA Ballon d'Or ? Because is not on the featured list, it is unjust to sort articles how you want guys. Why FIFA Ballon d'Or should be less important?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If I would change the format of FIFA Ballon d'Or no one would say something, because is not on featured list. Lets be honest and leave the page how I modified it, and you better focus to create the missing editions without a page of Ballon d'Or.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"if you go with the arrow on the flag it will appear the name of the country" - people looking at Wikipedia on a phone or tablet cannot do that, hence why the name has to appear too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
What you said is true, but this rule is only applied for this article, how I showed you above, the rest of articles do not have implement this. Can you show me another article with this format apart of FIFA World Player of the Year on whole Wikipedia football ? and I will revert my edit. I promise!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's an idea, how about you change the other articles to meet the guidelines that these two pages meet? It's not that these articles are more important it's that the guidelines have simply been applied to them. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, but lets make somehow to be more compact, the lines more compact, instead of Points to use "Pts" (and an explanation for it) for a smaller column, the name of the team to be between (ex: England Blackpool), because the player should be in the main outline. And maybe it will fit better and to not make the table so long, imaging you have to scroll it down if you use a tablet, it should be compact.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC) It is there an option to shrunk a bit the team flag also ?
Or to shrunk the (ENG) ? from |  Matthews, StanleyStanley Matthews (ENG)
The fact that you keep chopping and changing your table only highlights why the previous table was better. It's been the table for a very long time, it meets all of our guidelines (again reducing the size of the tem names is great for people with accessibility issues and poor eyesight). Three users have expressed their preference for the other table, I think this issue is clear cut. NapHit (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is beyond a joke now, you continue to change the table to a format that is outdated and not useful to the reader, based on your personal preference. We have multiple editors here stating why the name of the country needs to be included with the flag, so as to meet our guidelines. Wikipedia is not your own personal fiefdom, where you get your own way, it's based on consensus. You seem unable to grasp this concept. There was a reason the table was this way, because it met our guidelines, you're edits mean it now does not, so seeing as you're fond of logic, where is the logic in that? NapHit (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Oceania taskforce[edit]

If anyone is interested in beginning an Oceania taskforce, I would be committed to setting up it and organising the group in general. This is my second time asking, with last time receiving no respondents (sadly)... I am very passionate about football and the Oceanic Football Confederation is the most lacking confederation (in terms of information on Wikipedia) in the world. I may already have one or two other people who will readily join the taskforce. To submit your interest, sign your name on my talk page (talk). Thanks heaps! Lawrencedepe (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What is your next plan? Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to set up a page for the taskforce that clearly outlines all the Oceanic countries, leagues, their completion status and some outcomes for the taskforce I would like to be worked upon. The group of editors part of the taskforce could then easily see where editing is necessary, resulting in better quality OFC articles. Lawrencedepe (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Ya sure, why not. I do like the ASB Premiership and have a liking for countries like Fiji and Soloman Islands (hardest challenge in FIFA World Cup 2006!). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Marquinhos (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

See requested move discussion on talk page and comment please. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

English football leagues and new names[edit]

Hi, I just spotted User:Santiago Claudio renaming links to next season (diff) from "2016–17 Football League Two" to "2016–17 English League Two" (change in bold), and I was wondering if this was correct?

Then I saw Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 99#The Football League to be renamed/rebranded "English Football League", where it was discussed shortly between User:Jmorrison230582, User:Number 57, User:Cliftonian and User:EchetusXe how this renaming should be.

To me it sound like The Football League would like to use EFL (for English Football League) just like we have NHL (National Hockey League), KHL (Kontinental Hockey League) and so on in hockey. So either it should be "2016–17 English Football League Two" or "2016–17 EFL League Two" or something but not removing the word football and just English League? Qed237 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait and see how the League renders it before we change our format. I had come to the same conclusion as Qed237—that they were going to talk about the "EFL Championship" and "EFL League One"—but let's wait and see what they do. Changing the links now violates WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
IMO the better title would be "2016–17 English Football League Two" etc. "English League Two" is wrong, but agree with Cliftonian that we should probably wait and see. Number 57 14:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay I reverted the changes, calling it "English League Two" and "English Championship" seems wrong. Qed237 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Football vs soccer[edit]

It doesn't appear that these are the same Argentine player, is this way of distinguishing them okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: The usual way would be Pablo Hernán Gómez (born XXXX), but it appears we don't know the birthdate of one of them. The next option is to differentiate based on position (e.g. Pablo Hernán Gómez (midfielder). Number 57 17:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Number 57 thanks, I have had a brief look to guesstimate the d.o.b. of the second one, with no luck. Moved as suggested. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanchez is apperently albanian[edit]

Same editor as before? Now after this edit Arsenal and Chilean player Alexis Sánchez he is apperently of partial [[Arbëreshë people|Italian-Albanian]] origin. Qed237 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biar122. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Should the editor doing this also be included, the edit summary seems like a response to my edit [1] removing content added by the Sanchez editor. Qed237 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Struway2: Sorry forgot to ping. Qed237 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Added, thank you. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)