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.

Reserve teams in the infobox pt. 2

See this 2020 discussion. Thoughts on adding an arrow and "(reserve)" next to reserve teams in the infobox? Filippo Ranocchia's infobox looks very weird the way it does right now. If he were to move permanently to Monza, the clubs would be listed as (numbers represent the chronological order): 1. Juventus, 2. → Perugia (loan), 4. → Vicenza (loan), 5. → Monza (loan), 3. Juventus U23, 6. Monza.

It would make more sense to put Juventus U23 between Perugia and Vicenza, and list it as "→ Juventus U23 (reserve)". This makes it clear that it is neither a loan nor a permanent transfer to the reserve team. Also, it makes sure that the subsequent loaned teams (Vicenza, Monza) refer to the parent team (Juventus), not the reserves (U23). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I support this for players going back and forth (if a player plays for the B team, then joins the A team without going back, I assume we would keep it as status quo?). I feel like I commented on this in a different previous thread before. It does make sense, especially for the ones like you showed where other loans get in the way. RedPatch (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's only necessary when a reserve-team spell is sandwiched between loans. Under normal circumstances, the reserve team would just be displayed normally in the infobox without the senior team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Other opinions? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok but I'd write (res.) rather than (reserves) not to get an umproportionally big table. Dr Salvus 16:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with both, but I'd rather use a tooltip as such for (res.). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you think doing what I've done at Luca Clemenza? From 2017 to 2022, he was loaned 3948303 times. He spent the 2019-20 season with Juventus U23, what do you think having 2019–2020 → Juventus U23 (res.), with a narrow. I don't like the absence of a narrow (Idk why). Dr Salvus 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this solution, it looks much better with an arrow. I've been bold and have applied the same change to Filippo Ranocchia. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not the case to do what Nehme is doing when he player debuted with Juventus U23. Dr Salvus 18:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For instance: let's see Nicolò Fagioli. Fagioli debuted for Juventus U23 in 2018 and for the first team in 2021. So having, "2018– Juventus" and "2018–2021 -> Juventus U23 (res.) wouldn't have sense. Nehme1499's change has been reverted by me. Dr Salvus 18:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Have changed idea. I approve his changes. Dr Salvus 22:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(I am one who often changes idea) I've had another thought and I've changed my mind (again):

If the player debuted first for the reserve team, there shouldn't be the first team first in the infobox. Dr Salvus 20:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

If the player only played for the reserve team and not the parent team, the parent team should not be in the infobox. If the reserve team spell is sandwiched between loan spells, an arrow + (res.) is ideal. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And if the player played for both?

• If the reserve team debut came first, arrow + (res)
• if the first-team debut came first (thing that can happen), there should be arrow + res. And the first team name should be put first in the infobox.

I wish I hadn't changed idea, there will be some work to do. I may start tomorrow. Dr Salvus 22:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on the circumstance. If a player played in 2017–18 for the reserves, in 2018–19 on loan to team A, and in 2019–20 for the reserves, I would put all three with arrows, with the parent club as the first club. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And what to do at Mohamed Ihattaren? In January, he was loaned to Ajax by Juventus. He only debuted for them after he had played for its reserves. How should his infobox look like? Dr Salvus 12:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is correct. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Had he debuted for Jong Ajax after playing for Ajax, how should it have been? Dr Salvus 12:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You would swap the two. I don't see the issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also have added the tooltip to Jong Ajax. Dr Salvus 13:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No, because Jong Ajax is not Juventus' reserve team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stuart1234 isn't respecting this rule at Adrien Rabiot. Dr Salvus 22:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no rule. The changes you made were ridiculous. The infobox is absolutely correct and easy to read as it is now. Stuart1234 (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Rabiot's career with PSG B began in 2012 and ended in 2014. His career with the PSG first-team began in 2012 and ended in 2019. Why are you only proposing to display his career with PSG B in two spells but not the first-team? Stuart1234 (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

PSG B do not loan players! Dr Salvus 23:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

PSG (the club) sends players on loan (which includes PSG B). His career at PSG B never ended when going on loan just as his career with the PSG first-team never ended. I just can't see why displaying PSG B twice in the infobox, in two different formats, helps the reader or is an improvement on how it is now. Stuart1234 (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

How does a reader make sense of why some of his appearances for PSG B are displayed in the same manner as the first-team but others have a little arrow and brackets next to them? Stuart1234 (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree - we should not use arrows for B teams. GiantSnowman 08:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It depends. If the reserve-team spell is sandwiched between loans, I would keep the arrow (for example at Luca Clemenza. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Fourth place

Hi all, I was thinking that it might be good to standardise the colour used in tables for fourth place. Currently, both a pale yellow and a blue are used across different pages but I’ve recently seen something of a push towards the blue. Does anybody have any suggestions as to what to do here? Vesuvio14 (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's wise to not overuse colours, and the tables will use tournament qualification colour coding and not placement finishing generally. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Fourth place should only be coloured in tournaments with a 3rd/4th place playoff. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Any suggestion on which colour to use though? Vesuvio14 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

How about none? GiantSnowman 13:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with none, as this is compliant with MOS:COLOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I would rather see none used for fourth (as 4th isn't a medal like Gold, Silver and Bronze) but did think current consensus was   for fourth place, as per this template. I have actually raised this issue before as I keep coming across it and find people edit warring on the use of the colour and the table designs. It would be good to get a confirmed consensus and add it here. — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with having no colour for a fourth place finish. Teams/players do not get a medal for that. Kante4 (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

None for above. Dr Salvus 12:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

See my comment on /Archive 153#Are 4th place honors? before deciding on some general guideline without room for exceptions. – Elisson • T • C • 14:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I’d have to agree about removing any colour and removing it from honours; as you have said, fourth place isn’t usually given an award. However, as per Elisson’s comment, if there is a particular award then I see no problem with keeping it in those cases. Vesuvio14 (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The colour, if specified, should be transparent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with general rule being to not have a 4th colour but can be used in situations like Elisson point out. I don't think the 4th place should be used in most tables though.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 04:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

International Federation of Football History & Statistics awards

I'm looking for advice on a collection of content that may be problematic. Category:International Federation of Football History & Statistics has a collection of awards given by International Federation of Football History & Statistics (IFFHS). Almost none of the articles cite any independent sources and given the superficial importance of IFFHS and my preliminary research into independent sources, I suspect most of these articles would fail the general notability guideline. That being said, someone has obviously spent a large amount of time on the articles with links to IFFHS and tables with the award winners.

I would appreciate input from others on the best approach to these articles. Should they be redirected or merged into the IFFHS article? Or taken to Articles for Deletion one by one? -Eóin (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest either delete or create a new article called List of International Federation of Football History & Statistics awards or similar and merge them all there. GiantSnowman 14:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed most of the content was already covered in the main article and there was excessive detail on many of the pages so I have redirected several of the articles to the main page. The redirected articles I could not establish notability for an independent article. Other awards that had (some) mentions online I tagged for needing independent sources or potential notability issues. I left a courtesy note on the editor's talk page who created these articles, User:GaiusAD. -Eóin (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The article must be explain the organisation's history and functions. Exist third sources about it (a.e. Italian Guerin Sportivo or Spanish Don Balon have covered it) and, as written in the NPOV article, its criticism is explained after. As the organisation publishes many lists and awards, its better made an article for this.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C. rivalry - F.C. Barcelona Rivalry NPOV

Hi all, if anyone is able to do a neutral rewrite of Chelsea F.C. rivalry - F.C. Barcelona Rivalry that'd be great. It's currently written like a tabloid piece! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Surely deletion would be better: none of the sources seem to discuss a rivalry between the 2 teams in detail. Most of them are either dealing with the teams separately, or players trash talking the other team. Spike 'em (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, these rivalry articles are getting a bit out of hand now. It seems like any combination of two clubs that have played each other a few times and where there's been the odd bit of handbags is now fair game for an article on their rivalry, which is daft IMO. Note also that the capitalisation of the title is wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I found an article in The Independent which might contribute towards GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A "rivalry" that is basically founded on one match (the 2009 semi-final)? That's just daft and it should go to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Burn with fire. Nothing in the article says anything about a rivalry and why this specific fixture would be notable, just that these two teams have played matches against each other (and, *surprise* wanted the same players). – Elisson • T • C • 14:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea F.C. - F.C. Barcelona rivalry if anyone on either side sees fit to comment. Spike 'em (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

All football clubs are rivals, otherwise you can't have leagues or cup competitions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've speedy deleted it as most of it was a direct copy of [1] which of course wasn't in the refs! Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote on this talk page

@FAdesdae378: please provide a rationale for removing the hatnote on this page. You said it is against guidelines – what guidelines are you refering to? You say it is on the main page, yes that is true. But it is not a valid reason to remove the hatnote from this talk page. It clearly serves a purpose as a few editors arrive at this talk page directly and may confuse it for related WikiProject talk pages. – Elisson • T • C • 21:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of any other talk page that is hatnoted. The hatnote on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football is useful enough for editors. FAdesdae378 21:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop with your non-answers. A user arriving directly at this project talk page will not see the hatnote on the project page. Since there is no drawback in keeping the hatnote on the talk page, revert back to the stable version. You not having seen a hatnote on another talk page is not a reason for removing it here. – Elisson • T • C • 21:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I am here to improve the encyclopedia. Please give me an example of a talk page that is hatnoted. Also please give me evidence that users often arrive directly at this page. FAdesdae378 21:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to provide you with anything. You on the other hand need to provide a reason for why your change in any way improves the encyclopedia. – Elisson • T • C • 21:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Having a hatnote here takes up space. Users can find the hatnote at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football by clicking "Project page" in the top left. FAdesdae378 21:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Another non-answer. I'm convinced that you simply don't want to WP:LISTEN. I have replaced the hatnote and admonish you not to remove it without consensus here. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the hatnote is useful. We have an example of less than a month ago where a user came to post here and it was actually meant for another WikiProject. So clearly, the page can be mis-identified and thus the hatnote can help identify the correct page which is the purpose of Wikipedia:Hatnote RedPatch (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and other users have posted on here before asking questions about American football and Australian rules football. FAdesdae378 wants evidence that users often arrive directly at this page. Well, maybe it's not often, but it does happen periodically, so I see no harm in keeping the hatnote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Many times I've seen (and also made) edits with the summary referencing a discussion on this page or requesting to further discuss at WT:FOOTY, which brings users directly here. --SuperJew (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2022

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football → Wikipedia:WikiProject Association football – I suggest moving this page to avoid confusion with other WikiProjects about sports named "football". FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think association football is PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support It would be a harmless and helpful clarification for those parts of the world where multiple codes of football are played by significant numbers of people, such as the USA, Canada, Australia and South Africa. In those countries "football" does not mean the sport addressed by this project. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Multiple codes are played in the UK by significant numbers of people: Association football; Rugby League; Rugby Union, not to mention imported forms of gridiron. In south Wales, Rugby Union is very much the dominant code, just as Rugby League is dominant in Lancashire and Yorkshire outside the major cities. Then there are of course the codes played only in schools, colleges and universities, such as the Eton wall game. But if you simply say "football", it is the Association code that is universally understood. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not where I come from. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose seems very stable here with minimal confusion. PRIMARY also holds for me. Spike 'em (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  But it's apparent you're not from one of the countries I mentioned, where confusion is inevitable. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose other than that one time, no one has ever actually confused this for anything but association football. so it doenst need changing cuz on one gets confused.Muur (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Based on the edit history of this page, there doesn't seem to be much confusion. It's quite rare that you see a discussion created about a different code of football on this page which would mean that editors looking for the American football/Canadian football/Australian rules football Wikiprojects know where to go. The project has also been static at this page for at least the 12 years I've been editing Wikipedia which again would suggest there was little confusion. The hatnotes at the top of the main project page are sufficient enough to direct users to the project they are looking for if this was not it. Pageviews for both the main project pages and their associated talk pages also suggest that association football is the primary topic. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as it would likely cause more problems than it solves. The suggested move is also clear case of WP:DISRUPTIVE rather than an honest attempt at solving a (non-)issue. – Elisson • T • C • 09:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  How could it CAUSE problems, and how is it disruptive? Using the name proposed here for Australian articles doesn't cause any problems. HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hundreds of thousands of incoming links that would stop working for the first point, and it is my impression that the proposer is doing this for disruptive reasons following the edit war over hatnotes. Spike 'em (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  What Spike 'em said. The proposer got mad that they didn't get to remove the hatnote from the talk page because it actually is useful and doesn't have any downside to it, so instead they propose to move the project not to solve any potential confusion issues but rather to prove a WP:POINT. – Elisson • T • C • 13:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Please consider the proposal on its merits, not on the basis of what you think about the proposer. That's obviously not how we are supposed to work here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Have I not considered the proposal on its merits? My sole reason for my oppose was that it will cause issues rather than solve issues. That I pointed out the obviously highly disruptive behaviour by the proposer was not part of my reasoning for opposing. I am just tired of seeing dozens of contributors discussing this (in my view) non-issue instead of making meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia. – Elisson • T • C • 23:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment People are saying there is no confusion. I can assure everyone there IS confusion. I edit a lot of articles with "football" in the name, probably a majority of them about Australian football, but I also contribute here, and on Association football articles. Every time I see this one, I have to pause until I figure which "football" it's talking about. In Australia, after years of agonising debate, we came up with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), precisely because there IS confusion on this matter. No code there gets to use the name "football" alone. I would be interested to know of any of the oppose votes are coming from the USA, Canada, Australia and South Africa. HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't about a mainspace article so I'm not sure how your experience of mainspace articles are relevant to the discussion (do you say there is a lot of confusion among people reaching this page?). I don't have a problem with a move from a consistency/confusion-reduction perspective (if I had known what I know today I'd probably have created "WikiProject Association football" instead of "WikiProject Football" back in 2005—or more likely it would have been the awful "WikiProject Football (soccer)" as the mainspace article was named at that time ...). But the miniscule improvement it would be compared to the administrative work and broken links a move would create is just not worth it for me. – Elisson • T • C • 13:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, I don't say there IS A LOT confusion. That's obvious if you read what I wrote. It's provocative to misrepresent and exaggerate my position. In Australian articles, "Association football" is used. The use of the word "awful" there puzzles me though. How is it awful? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  It was a question from me. As your comment did not cover this page at all and only mentioned confusion regarding the mainspace articles (which is not relevant for this page), I wanted to know if you had any experience of confusion regarding this page. It has happened a few times but isn't frequent as far as I know, so that's why I asked. I, in retrospect, really hate the old use of football (soccer) both because of the parentheses and because it used an alternative term as disambiguator which wasn't following guidelines. – Elisson • T • C • 23:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Australian solution was to use soccer. (Note the Wikilink.) Soccer is probably the most common name for the game here. I'm not arguing for that for this global article because I know some people have a strong opposition to that name. (I still don't know why.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support – The title of this project should match the title of the article about the sport (Association football). All the other WikiProjects relating to codes of football use their full names (c.f. Wikipedia:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football), so why shouldn't this one? I'm not fussed if it doesn't move, but I think it probably should. – PeeJay 11:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support Per PeeJay. It would match the main article name, which is the same point I mentioned a couple of weeks ago when this was also brought up. Again like PeeJay, I'm not fussed whether it moves or not, but the consistency argument makes sense to me. RedPatch (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per PeeJay, RedPatch and HiLo48. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per PeeJay. Football itself is a general article about different types of sports, meaning that the community already decided that the term alone is too ambiguous and should not be used for any one type. Gonnym (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose the apparent WP:POINTy nomination; see the section regarding the removal and restoration of the hatnote on this talk page. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "Soccer" is the only football that matters and the most popular sport in the world. Dr Salvus 19:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if you're just being facetious, but goodness me, what a poor take the first half of that sentence is. – PeeJay 20:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  The entire comment is obviously unhelpful, and must be ignored by anyone wanting a sensible conclusion to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per PRIMARY. I suppose we could move it to soccer if American football fans are okay with their article moving to gridiron. Seasider53 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  PRIMARY doesn't really apply. If it did, we could move Association football to Football, but that would be ridiculous. – PeeJay 20:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Appears to be attempting to fix a problem that isn't really a major issue. There's a hatnote on the page taking you to the other Projects with one click. The others appear to be quite moribund as well - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football have both had one edit in the last two months, whilst Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football has had 35. This page has had over 800. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Or to paraphrase "The other sports are irrelevant". Yours is neither a helpful nor diplomatic comment. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You're putting words in my mouth there. This is a pretty standard metric at WP:RM - which page are most users looking for? Black Kite (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but as an Australian I'd suggest the relative numbers for this page and the Australian one simply reflect the populations of fans involved. Some might argue that's perfectly fair anyway. I just don't like seeing minorities ignored. (Especially when I'm part of one.) But I won't fight hard. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose While I understand the reason for the possible move, I don't believe it is that big of an issue that it requires the disruption to do so. I believe it is adequately covered by the hatnote currently but wouldn't be upset if consensus did decide to change. I do however agree with Jkudlick that this is a WP:POINTy nomination from FAdesdae378, who going by the discussion above regarding the Hatnote, that this move suggestion is more about being disruptive and trying to win an arguement, than being beneficial.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose American checking in here (since it was asked for, apparently). Besides this being a clearly POINTy nomination, the most common form of "football" globally is association football. Any English speaker outside of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe Ireland or South Africa would immediately recognize the term "football" as meaning "association football" as opposed to its various other codes e.g. American, Canadian, Australian rules, etc, and I think editors from those countries would share that view. Plus, in some of the countries where "football" does NOT usually mean "association football", the terms "soccer" and "football" are often still used interchangeably (this is true in the USA and Canada, and I've got to imagine it is true elsewhere). This proposal is attempting to fix a problem that doesn't really exist; articles where there is a primary code being used already just use the term "football" and link it to their given code. This change would create unnecessary pain of redirecting all existing links to various pages in the project namespace. As an aside, as long as we are using personal anecdotes here, I generally refer to the major codes here as "soccer" and "American football". Jay eyem (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Apparently, missing one instance of quotes has brought in the grammar police, so I've added quotes to the first use of the term "football" in my piece. Seems like selective reading, but whatever. Jay eyem (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to hope you can see the irony in the fact that you wrote "...the most common form of football globally is association football"? HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant contribution to the thread, not surprised that was your takeaway. Bugs you that an American disagreed with you, doesn't it? I've seen you go on and on for this particular topic before, so not sure why you are expecting this to go any differently. But please, feel free to respond to yet another person that disagreed with you with pointless observations, I'm sure that can only bolster your argument. Jay eyem (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

WTF? I made a single, half humorous observation. You sunk the boot in. I found that a lot with soccer fans in Australia who couldn't handle the fact that the name "football" was already take when they wanted it all for their own use. Hey, I'm not obsessed with this issue. I can see the fans of the word "football" will win here. I just think truth, information, a global view, and logic are important. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol yes, the fact that I have seen you make this argument on several different occasions, and that you have responded to four other oppose votes in a day old thread, DEFINITELY leads me to believe you are not "obsessed" with this issue, sure. And spare the platitudes; pretty sure the "global view" on the matter would more clearly recognize "association football" as the code most clearly associated with the term "football". Or do you think only Anglo editors edit Wikipedia? Jay eyem (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what the point of that comment is. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Nor I with any of your responses to me so far, but here we are. I'd love to stay up and chat, but I really don't think that's a productive use of anyone's time so I'm going to sleep. Maybe don't respond to a bunch of comments you disagree with if it doesn't advance the discussion, even if it's uncivil, I guarantee that won't help your argument. Jay eyem (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: In case this goes through, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Renaming a WikiProject before moving any page. Also, given how WikiProjects have historically worked, it seems that a local consensus would be overriding of what people from completely different and unrelated projects think. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose': Football not meaning Association Football is mostly a US-exclusive phenomenon. On article space I would have supported the change, but not for a long-standing WikiProject to satisfy the concerns of local ambiguity of a single country. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't America only, the rest of the world call it football. A case of WP:AINT here I think. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per BlackKite - not a problem that needs fixing. GiantSnowman 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose If it ain't broken, don't fix it and per above. Kante4 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose seems very WP:POINTy to be honest. It's not causing an issue and moving it would cause far more problems than it solves. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with a possible female Welsh football player

I'm looking at possibly creating an article for Gemma Lewis who is currently coach of the Wellington Phoenix Women's and NZ Under 20 women's teams. I'd say from the last couple of years and her coaching history, there is enough to meet WP:GNG but what I am finding difficult and interesting, is I can't find much on her playing career which I thought, would help the article more easily pass. Newspaper articles talk about her supposedly playing for Cardiff City and Chelsea as well as being a Wales international (or at least a junior one), but I just can't find anything that really backs this up. The best I've found is this from one Cardiff City reserves appearance. Am I just looking in the wrong places or has her playing career being "embellished" and just become a repeating rumour? — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just a thought - Lewis isn't a married name is it? Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Haven't seen anything in any source that indicates she has a partner and/or been married unfortunately. Had thought might be something like that as well.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 19:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything of significance. The Walesonline, if the same person, suggests her name has been Gemma Lewis since 2009 which would lead me to guess it's her original name. She has been known as Gemma Lewis since at least 2014, there is reference to her being appointed as a development officer on Page 37 here, this is corroborated by another link below, she talks about getting into coaching here from May 2020. There's some reasonable info on her as a coach from BBAFC, NZ Federationand FIFA which might give GNG. Koncorde (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

We can't use it as a source, but playmakerstats has her featuring in two 2005–06 UEFA Women's Cup games for Cardiff City, if that helps you find any sources. Gricehead (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Koncorde and Gricehead:, I think i'll still go ahead but not put down much about her player career. I believe her coaching will still allow her to pass GNG.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism in UEFA club competition records and statistics

This Indonesian IP and his socks insist in vandalising this article, related since the title with men's club competitions, reverting any explained edition (a.e. add FC Barcelona records in women's football and futsal althrough that was added in the more related UEFA competitions article and deleting without reason sourcered information about Chelsea, etc. This is not the first time which thus article id vandalised with the same modus operandi. Please check and block the page, thanks.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Help Desk question about Alex Mitchell (English footballer)

Would one of the members of Footy mind trying to help this user out. Their question seems to be about adding a column to a table in Alex Mitchell (English footballer). -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nehme1499. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Marlon Santos

1. Marlon (footballer, born 1995) (born April 1995), midfielder for Birmingham Legion FC
2. Marlon Santos (born September 1995), defender for Monza

Both are commonly known as "Marlon", with "Marlon Santos" also sometimes used. I don't think either can be seen as PRIMARY. What should we do? Moving them respectively to Marlon (footballer, born April 1995) and Marlon (footballer, born September 1995) might be the only solution, and redirect Marlon (footballer, born 1995) and Marlon Santos to Marlon. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Though, on second thought, I don't think the Birmingham Legion FC player passes WP:GNG. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Support the second option and disambiguate by motnh, seeing as the WP:COMMONNAME for both seems to be just "Marlon". And then create a DAB at Marlon Santos, and add them both to Marlon. And both pass GNG IMO, but if you want to AFD go for it.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ortizesp: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlon (footballer, born 1995). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I found and added some sources to the nominated page. What do you all think? RedPatch (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please share your thoughts directly at the deletion page? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Doping claims in 1996 UEFA Champions League Final

The are an (re)opened discussion here for any interesed user.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Redirect of English Football Transfers

Came across this redirect which apparently redirects to Transfer (association football). Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect to Category:English football transfer lists or to Template:English football transfers? And while we're on this subject, does anyone know where I can find a list of transfers for women in England? Or do we not have such a page on Wikipedia yet? --SuperJew (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That's honestly such a strange redirect. Would it be standard to redirect something from the article namespace to a category or template? Because I can't see any particularly sensible target for that redirect otherwise. Jay eyem (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd honestly just delete it. No page links to it, and it uses incorrect capitalisation anyway. I don't think it's a feasible redirect to have. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean I got to it by searching in the searchbox "english football transfers", as I was looking for the category or template I linked above (was looking if there's a list of transfers for women in England). The average reader would probably not think first to search for "List of English football transfers summer 20xx" or "List of English football transfers winter 20xx–xx" --SuperJew (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Can we create a list of Lists of English football transfers and retarget it there? BilledMammal (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Alan Ball, Jr

As the wiki article on this prominent player and manager appears to be less frequently edited and visited than I would have imagined it could, I kindly draw the attention of Alan Ball afficianados, in particular those with access to biographical information, towards to a talkpoint I wrote a few days ago.

I would like to bring into the paragraph on his early life, pre leaving school, information from a Shropshire newspaper that sheds light on his years in Oswestry when his father was player-manager of Oswestry Town, as it is based on interview with the then 19 year old Ball, who gives retrospective credit to the experience he gained. This would add to and possibly amend what the paragraph currently says. However I notice the paragraph lacks any citations unlike the majority of others in the page, so have raised a citation need to encourage others to check up the accuracy. I envisage adding the information harmoniously into the paragraph when I have given others chance to scrutinise and provide citations. Talkpoint is headed 'Birth and Early Career with Blackpool' (subsection of Club career).Cloptonson (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Interest in Article Sourcing Task Force?

Several years ago, this project was faced with a systematic deletion of thousands of completed unsourced BLPs when BLPPROD was introduced. I remember that we organized and worked tirelessly to sort through the completely unsourced BLPs and source the ones that could pass NFOOTBALL (which existed at the time). We are now faced with a systematic deletion of thousands of poorly sourced BLPs following the deprecation of NFOOTBALL. I find myself struggling to identify and prioritize poorly sourced BLPs to improve to GNG-level sourcing, and I thought it may be useful if we as a project start a task force to do so. I also think sharing of resources can be very useful as well. For example, Mundo Deportivo has a free digitized online archive here that is very useful in sourcing articles about La Liga footballers (particularly if they played in the Catalan region). I'm sure we have editors with knowledge of other useful and free archives that we could build into a database to help interested editors in this effort. Any interest? Anyone willing to get it started? (I'm technically limited, so I'm happy to take on various tasks, but I can't promise I'll organize or use the tools properly). Jogurney (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a wonderful idea. There are many notable stubs out there being nominated for deletion, and we need to improve the quality of our articles, rather than focussing just on quantity. GiantSnowman 08:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree! Though I don't know how much I will be able to contribute. Either way, just resources such as digital newspaper archives, lists of editors to contact for various regions, clubs, etc., would be very nice to have. – Elisson • T • C • 13:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we can build out a database of sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links. At the moment, most of the links are to statistics databases (not helpful for GNG sourcing), but we can add newspaper archives, etc. Jogurney (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the latest on notability/sports and mass deletion? There are so many ANI and RFCs, that I've kind of lost track what is going on. If anyone can point me in the direction of the latest pertinent discussions it would be greatly appreciated.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPORTCRIT is the current standard. Jogurney (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a great initiative, Jogurney. Going forward, I will try add sources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I've started a page (User:Jogurney/Association football BLP cleanup) that lists likely notable football biographies that appear to lack SIGCOV in their current state (I'm picking players that appeared at a FIFA World Cup finals or made 100+ appearances in La Liga or a similarly-covered competition). Please feel free to add or work on sourcing (and strike out sourced articles). Jogurney (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Pre-contracts in infobox

For Pre-contracts we do not put them in the infobox until the contract actually begins correct? I had put it in hidden code to only show it once the contract begins, but got reverted on Kyle Hiebert as the user wants to show it. It should stay hidden right? It's already in the prose that a precontract starts on January 1. RedPatch (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, only show the spell once it actually starts. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - it should stay hidden until they actually sign. GiantSnowman 08:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Newcastle related players

Hi folks, in the future if you see any IP editing with the edit summary "Time", it is likely all edits made are disruptive so we should revert them all upon checking the difference first. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Today's page move

Would this move be the sort of move which potentially should have been discussed first - while I was looking at the titles of the references alone they are half Marlon, half Marlon Santos. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think the issue is that there are 2 players who are both sometimes called Marlon Santos. I think DAB at base name is a good and BOLD call by the mover, but the exact disambiguation for each individual player can be discussed. Feel free to discuss at WP:RM if you see fit.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this one probably should have gone through a RM, since it wasn't a 100% obvious move. It had been briefly mentioned above at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Marlon_Santos, but that quickly became focused on whether it was an AfD candidate. I feel like in cases where two varieties of name are both commonly used, the full name (Marlon Santos) is better than just the single name (Marlon) as it's easier to find. RedPatch (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Both players are mainly known as "Marlon", and sometimes as "Marlon Santos". We could move Marlon (footballer, born April 1995) and Marlon (footballer, born September 1995) to Marlon Santos (footballer, born April 1995) and Marlon Santos (footballer, born September 1995) respectively, but I don't really think it's ideal. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly, I hadn't heard of either prior to it being posted here last week, although for the April-born player, when I was improving the article, I came across this link, which showed that he wears "Santos" on his jersey, which had me considering doing a RM to Marlon Santos after the AfD concluded.. For that player at least, I think Marlon Santos is justified, the other one I've never looked at and Nehme is a better expert of the Italian league, so leaving that one at simply Marlon may be the better option. RedPatch (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For the April guy, I see 52 instances of "Marlon", compared to 17 of "Marlon Santos". Soccerway, for e.g., also uses "Marlon". I hadn't noticed the shirt name, though. Feel free to open a RM if you believe the page should be moved to Marlon Santos (footballer, born April 1995), but it doesn't really help in making the disambiguator shorter. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to be careful when constructing Google searches for comparison purposes: of your 50-odd instances of just Marlon, most don't refer to Marlon Santos, so it's no real surprise they don't include his surname. E.g. this one is the caption of a picture of Marlon Williams, an American footballer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that entry is part of the 52. If I'm not mistaken, the true number of results is shown in the last page (6, in this case). If I go back one page, it tells me that the results are 136. I'm guessing that the false positive with Marlon Williams is part of the 80 results which don't show Marlon the footballer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I get 55 on the last page rather than 52, all 55 of which show – the initial number is pretty meaningless – but most of them don't relate to Marlon the footballer. A baseball player, a drug dealer, a boxer, a Marlon Ramírez, this one doesn't seem to display the word Marlon at all, ... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Then idk how to get the correct results. I've enclosed "marlon" and "Birmingham Legion" in quotation marks, so it should only display results with those specific strings. Am I doing something wrong? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, RL got in the way. Even if it only displayed results with those specific strings, there's no reason why they should all apply to Marlon Santos. The Marlon Ramirez result is quite legitimate: it contains "Birmingham Legion" (FC Tulsa's previous opponent) and "Marlon" (an FC Tulsa player) and doesn't contain "Santos". And the last one I linked might have contained "Marlon" in one of the sidebars or dropdowns in the version Google found which had gone by the time it reached me? I can't think of a way to construct a search to pick up only results about Marlon Santos without the surname. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

2020 DPMM FC season

Came across this while random article patrolling. One match was played and then COVID hit. Is there anything that should be done with pages like this? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete or redirect. GiantSnowman 19:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

On loan players

Can I please get input on Template:Chelsea F.C. squad. Sarr is out on loan, not left the club, should he be hidden with < !--- or removed completely in your opinion? Chelsdog is edit warring. JMHamo (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC) JMHamo (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

what difference does it make? Edit-warring over hidden text is utterly pointless. Spike 'em (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring is pointless, but standard is to 'hide' the player (so that when they return from the loan, they can be easily re-added). GiantSnowman 19:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree @GiantSnowman: that edit warring is pointless but I guess on Wikipedia these days, you can do what you want and not follow established standards JMHamo (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup results table

A few days ago, Fma12 changed the format of the FIFA World Cup results table without discussion (before, after). Same for other competitions such as the FIFA Arab Cup. Thoughts on these changes? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don' know which would be the problem so the changes were minimal in both cases: a sortable table and an item to count number of editions. I don't think a consensus has to be required for such changes. Fma12 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For example, I think it looked better with the alternating blue and white colours, as it made it easier to read. Also, I don't think the gold, silver and bronze medals are necessary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the overkill with the icons and as a whole it's not an improvement, tbh. (Same was done at Women's FIH Hockey World Cup and Men's FIH Hockey World Cup and got reverted, btw, so i do think a (overall?) consensus should be reached before doing this changes at several tournaments in different sports). Kante4 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

FMO, the flagicons on host cities/countries and the light blue addition are far more unnecessary than any sortable paramether I can add to those tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fma12 (talk • contribs)

I'm not a fan of either if I'm honest. I don't understand why we need medal images, or flagicons, or alternating colours. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The only reason why I added the medal images was because sortable paramethers don't allow to change background colors (probably a synthax I don't know is needed). Furthermore, I think football articles on wp are plenty overloaded of icons (per example on national teams honours just like this case) Fma12 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the before table, though could ditch the coloured rows. The separated sets of columns works well, medal icons in headers add nothing. Spike 'em (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

What are the sections of a stadium called?

In a football stadium, what are the four sides called? The two "short" seating spaces are called "curva" in Italian, while the two "long" sides "tribuna". Is there a distinction between the stands for the press and the one on the opposite side? Image for reference. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There aren't distinct words in English for the facilities on any particular side of the pitch, they are all just called stands. Going back to when grounds tended to only have seats on one or at most two sides and then terracing (often without even a roof) on the others, the side(s) with seats were the grandstands, gradually abbreviated over time to stands, and the others were just "the terraces". Nowadays, with terracing gone, all sides are just "stands" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a few Ends left too, and these will be behind one of the goals! Spike 'em (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)