Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171: 7 days

WikiProject Football was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 3 March 2008.

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 9 July 2012.

On 4 August 2022, it was proposed that this page be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Association football. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Mbappe-Haaland rivalry

What do we think about this? I say no need, but wanted to get more opinions. Kante4 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally no need, and there's a lot of SYNTH in there as well. Looks like a lot of sources, but how many of them are actually about some type of rivalry? Not many at all. Plus, the word "rivalry" is so abused these days. I bet the players themselves don't see it as one. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Plus I don't view any rivalry between two different footballers as a race to see who gets to certain goal milestones first. I am also expressing concerns if the website mbappe-haland.com, and also some other websites should be used as a reliable sources especially as the included website by me is only reserved for those two footballers with goalscoring prowess. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Giant Snowman 11:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfDed it. Kante4 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Abou Diaby

Abou Diaby 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. Z1720 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Ullevaal Stadion

Ullevaal Stadion 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. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN and inter-language links

I was updating Mozart (footballer) when I noticed this edit from @Robby.is.on, where he removed the links for Canoinhas [pt] and Sport Jaraguá [pt] (both pages which exist in the Portuguese WP but don't exist here). I've restored them now since I couldn't find any reasoning on WP:NOTBROKEN not to do so (as it was the reason for the removal in the first place), so I'm inclined to ask: is this practice correct?

Should we make use of the {{ill|}} template on these cases? I think so, as it provides options to the reader when the English WP doesn't have a proper article for them to dive into, but I'm inclined to change my way of editing if any consensus is gathered. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see WP:REDLINKS. Giant Snowman 19:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might've made a little mistake here in presenting the situation. From what I'm seeing, Robby's edit with the edit summary Fix links per WP:NOTBROKEN was to change links to specific sections on the Midfielder page (such as defensive midfielder) to the redirect page for that specific position (such as defensive midfielder). This makes sense, since if in the future there will be written a specifc page about defensive midfielder, it will already link there. The removal of links for Canoinhas and Sport Jaragua mentioned above was done by Lorde McCoy in this edit, with no edit summary. Regarding the use of the {{ill}} template, I agree it should be used in such cases. --SuperJew (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: Yep, I got it wrong. Thanks for pointing out the correct edit though :) BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ill template is useful. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery15

Can somebody please do me a favour and have a word with @Montgomery15: who is edit warring at Tom Williams (footballer, born 1980) to add in a stats box which is trying to rely on Transfermarkt, is not in-line with MOS, and basically just looks like shit? Giant Snowman 21:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I will repeat the question I asked you on my talk page: "Where, exactly, is it stated that to eschew the norm in this way is definitively wrong and must not be done?"

Our opinions differ regarding my choice of formatting, and that is fine. You have now resorted to outright hostility and bullying tactics; I invite you again to simply show me where it is stated that all users, at all times, must follow the suggested styles - and where it is stated that failure to do so is forbidden. This is all you need to do: no bringing in other people to speak for you, no disparaging remarks about the quality of my work, simply prove that the suggested style is not, in fact, a suggestion at all, but a mandate. If you are able to do so - and only if you are able to do so - I will withdraw. Montgomery15 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just see WP:TRANSFERMARKT. Kante4 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll gladly remove the references to Transfermarkt and use a better source instead - GiantSnowman's objection was of an altogether different nature. Montgomery15 (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, my issues were threefold - firstly the table was not compliant with MOS and looked simply awful; secondly the sourcing was entirely inadequate; and thirdly, you have disruptively edit warred to maintain the first two issues on the article. Giant Snowman 21:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at the article and I'm fully confident the stats table looks fine. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's after plenty of changes, @Iggy the Swan:. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's taken two editors (with more time/patience than me) to sort it out - and it's still not finished, as the post-2013 stats remain unsourced. Giant Snowman 20:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I didn't check the source before I made the comment yesterday. Certainly looks fine from the MOS point of view... Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But only because Nehme/Robby sorted it. Giant Snowman 22:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Seems like Montgomery15 hasn't edited since their cleanup. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"looks like shit" is uncivil, GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it though? It's not an attack on the person, it's a comment on their contribution. – Pee Jay 02:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a comment on their contribution, not on the person, yes. The tone is overly hostile, though. That is not how we should communicate with people who are editing in good faith. Robby.is.on (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery15 has not been editing in good faith. Giant Snowman 20:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my impression at all. What makes you assume that? They were a bit stubborn in not accepting that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players reflects community consensus. But I don't see anything suggesting they intend to harm the encyclopedia. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Neymar#Position in infobox

There's an ongoing discussion there, and your inputs are appreciated :) BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple positions in infobox

This was discussed previously, but for players with multiple positions in the infobox, how should they be listed? The currently suggested method is to use commas, though visually I think {{hlist}} provides a clearer/cleaner output visually (see WP:FLATLIST and MOS:HLIST). For example see Konrad Laimer and Alexis Saelemaekers. Thoughts? S.A. Julio (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either way is fine, as long as we're consistent. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commas more established, and my preference. Giant Snowman 20:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more established for this infobox, but {{hlist}}/{{flatlist}} are used widely across other infoboxes. For example it is standard to use for the occupation in {{Infobox person}}. And with some template coding on {{infobox football biography}}, nothing would necessarily even need to be changed on articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I'm happy to go with the flow, if it can be automatically coded. Giant Snowman 22:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499 and GiantSnowman: I've gone ahead and created Module:Footballer positions, intended for use on {{Infobox football biography}}. It will automatically convert comma, slash, or <br> to instead use {{hlist}}, with only the first position listed in capitalised. It also allows editors to use shorthand, adds links where there are none, and corrects linking mistakes (i.e. [[Goalkeeper]] → [[Goalkeeper (association football)|Goalkeeper]]).

Input	Output
`[[Goalkeeper]]`	Goalkeeper
`[[Midfielder]], [[Centre forward]]`	Midfielder centre forward
`[[Right-back]] / Defensive Midfielder`	Right-back defensive midfielder
`Attacking midfielder<br>[[Right winger]]`	Attacking midfielder right winger
`DF`	Defender
`FB, RW`	Full-back right winger
`DM, AM / CF`	Defensive midfielder attacking midfielder centre-forward

Would anyone have an issue with me implementing this on the footballer infobox? S.A. Julio (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Nehme1499 (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fantastic SAJ! --SuperJew (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really good work! Giant Snowman 18:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charly Alcaraz and soccerway

Can someone fix the link to soccerway (Citation 25). It currently goes to the homepage. The web address is https://uk.soccerway.com/player/alcaraz-carlos/lYfSUGUK/ Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm initially confused about this name, surely this is the former Southampton player Carlos Alcaraz whose page history is preserved there whereas the history of "Charly Alcaraz" shows far fewer page revisions on that history list. If that player's common first name is indeed Charly, the article Carlos Alcaraz (footballer) should be retitled to Charly Alcaraz by using the move tab rather than incorrectly doing these following two edits.[1][2] Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re Soccerway, I think the problem is that in the Soccerway template, the domain int.soccerway.com doesn't exist so that might be why we're being redirected to the home page. The problem also exists on Tim Howard, Marcelo (footballer, born 1988), Diego Costa and more. Some work needs to be done to fix these problems and Template:Soccerway is template protected so standard users can't fix by themselves. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it by using |new_id= in the template call. Spike 'em (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't work for Tim Howard. Spike 'em (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems soccerway have changed their player ids, so something will need to be done to update articles where we only have the old id. Spike 'em (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute appearances for player lists

Do we think the substitute appearances are necessary for player lists (e.g. in List of Arsenal F.C. players), or should just the apps/goals be there? (e.g. in List of Nottingham Forest F.C. players) FastCube (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just the total apps and goals. Giant Snowman 11:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with including sub appearances. It gives the reader more information about how the player was typically used by the club. Assuming it's reliably sourced, it should be fine. – Pee Jay 16:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Player notability

If the WPN:FOOTY player notability section has been superseded by Wikipedia:Notability (sports), then why isn't there a new player notability on there? FastCube (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because any criteria based solely off appearances were removed, and the fallback option is to use WP:GNG in undefined cases. There would need to be consensus formed that any new guideline gives a near certain pass of GNG as a starting point. Spike 'em (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've always used WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, the overriding policy of NFOOTY was just stripped. So you should just ignore that old policy stuff now. Govvy (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a middle ground, at least for players with a considerable number of international appearances. Svartner (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is always WP:COMMONSENSE. Giant Snowman 11:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Damallsvenskan qualifiers

What about this? I see few other specific promotion–relegation articles and I don't see this level of detail in 2025 EFL play-offs. I would say there is no lasting effect or impact of the event. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results should be merged into the main article. No need for a standalone article. Kante4 (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to a merge Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

"This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Stats in userspace indefinitely

Saw this, which was previously deleted here. What's the point of retaining it in userspace, especially when the creator has not edited it a single time in the two years since undeletion? Should it even have passed RFUD? Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]