Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    WikiProject iconFootball Project‑class
    WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
    ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

    Request for comment: FCSB v CSA Steaua București[edit]

    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    There is consensus that FCSB is the successor to the Steaua Bucharest club. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Does FCSB or CSA Steaua București (football) represent the 20th-century Steaua Bucharest club? Scolaire (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For context, see FC Steaua București records dispute. Scolaire (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Poll (Steaua)[edit]

    • FCSB. There is continuity between the club formed in 1947 and FCSB; the current CSA Steaua only exists from 2017. Scolaire (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • FCSB They are the ones who kept the top division status, so are clearly the continuation IMO. Number 57 13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • FCSB Just follow the players. The Banner talk 22:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Correction [reply]

    Discussion (Steaua)[edit]

    You have rushed the RFC. Where are the sources? GiantSnowman 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You said, "Somebody please open a RFC, I'm sick of this argument and the disruption." I did. The sources are in the article I linked to. --Scolaire (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is full of misinformation. Cezxmer (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also sources at Talk:FC Steaua București records dispute and Cezxmer's talk page, as well as his post in the section above this one. --Scolaire (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't be serious. Cezxmer (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am completely serious. The Banner talk 23:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Tomorrow PSG buys the whole Barcelona team. Congratulations in advance to PSG for winning the UCL :D
    At least have the decency to read what I posted. You also commented on my talk page and I gave you a reply. If this is your response, then I'm forced to believe that you have bad intentions or that you're a troll. Cezxmer (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF. The Banner talk 00:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but how is "Just follow the players" open for discussion? How is that even an argument? I have given my thoughts on the matter. I also tried to provide sources. If you want to discuss, I'm here for it. But don't come with a verdict based on one sentence, on a debate as complex as this, if you want to have a serious discussion. Cezxmer (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clearly an argument that does not fit in your point of view. Sorry for that. But who is playing where is in this confusing case a valid argument as the players were not involved in all legal arguments. They just did their job. If you play for entity A or any other letter in the alphabet, they all have to earn a living. The Banner talk 10:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If company B hires all of the employees of company A, that does not mean that company B = company A.
    No one is disputing the legitimacy or motives of the players. This is a debate about the illegal use of a trademark, proven in court. And I have to ask you to provide sources for your claims, because this is the first time I have heard that the identity of a club is determined by the players. Cezxmer (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Company A overnight changes name and legal status into Company B with the same staff on the payroll, it is still a valid successor. Despite later court cases. The Banner talk 16:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should not decide this Sources describe a prominent dispute, and we have an article on the dispute. Not only do we not have to take a side, Wikipedia should absolutely not take a side. That's massive WP:OR, especially sending people to the article on the dispute to suggest, what, reading the sources and making a decision? If reliable sources definitively say one or the other is a successor, we go with it. If they disagree to the point it is unclear, we write that sources disagree. Especially when there is a legal aspect and Wikipedia deciding one or the other is "right" could be harmful. Continue writing there is a dispute and close this as both a technically malformed RfC and a terrible idea. Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Recently there was a lot of edit warring and POV-pushing. That has to stop. Allowing that to go on is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Stating OR as fact is not in the best interests of Wikipedia, and can't be easily prevented by protecting articles like the disruption you describe can. Kingsif (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Kingsif: A link cannot go to two different articles. Either we use [[FCSB|Steaua București]] or [[CSA Steaua București (football)|Steaua București]] to link to the old Steaua. At the moment, links are being changed back and forth, and different pipes are being used in different articles; this is highly undesirable. Scolaire (talk) 12:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        We don’t have to link one or the other, either. Protect the articles if there is warring Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't understand you. Are you saying that all references to pre-1998 Steaua should be unlinked? And that this should be enforced by protecting all articles with "Steaua București" in them? Scolaire (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, sort of. We should not be linking (wikilinking nor connecting in prose) either of the disputed articles to the original team, and there is no reason or need to do so. Besides edit disputes, I don't even know how editors have got it in their heads that something needs to be done. Just have an article on the pre-1998 team, which should contain the information on the succession dispute, and mention the dispute at the articles of the two more recent teams. No side taking is needed at all. If people start trying to take sides, protect the articles. Kingsif (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you're saying we should create CSA Steaua București (football, 1947–1998), which will have the same content as FCSB, CSA Steaua București (football) and History of FC Steaua București. We should then edit the 100+ articles that mention Steaua to link to this new article, and if anybody reverts, have the articles protected. Have I got it? Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for why we have got it into our heads that something needs to be done, not every change is an edit dispute (see these edits for instance, which were not part of edit wars), but every change is disruptive. A reader should not click a link today, and find themselves at a different article than when they clicked it yesterday. Not to mention articles like this version of Eternal derby (Romania) – a fixture that goes back to 1948 – that had only "FCSB" in the text and infobox, and "Steaua" in the tables. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please go to User talk:Cezxmer#CSA Steaua records dispute (copy) to read the copy of my archived comment from this page.
    I would also like to add that, it is extremely confusing for me to read the arguments of the other editors that participated in this discussion since the whole CSA Steaua v. FC Fcsb dispute is similar to the B-SAD v. C.F. Os Belenenses
    Literally just read my comment and then the B-SAD#Background and legal status Cezxmer (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have put in a request to Wikipedia:Closure requests to have this closed. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kai Rooney[edit]

    Just found out there is an article about the 14-year-old son of Wayne Rooney at Kai Rooney. I honestly have many reservations about the subject's notability, what do you guys think about that? Angelo (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If he was not son of Wayne, would he have an article based on the references given. I’m saying not.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to Wayne's article IMO. GiantSnowman 10:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy tag @Davidlofgren1996: as the article's original creator and primary editor to date -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Egghead06: Why's that a question? He is the son of a famous former footballer and that adds to his notability. More sources will write about the son of Wayne Rooney if he does something in football than they would write about the son of GiantSnowman or ChrisTheDude. The question should be whether the sources satisfy GNG. I would say they do. --SuperJew (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And no coincidence that seven of the nine references given, refer to him as Wayne’s son. As for if he does something in football, wouldn’t it be better to wait until he does?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And almost all of the sources are just a few lines on Kai, and then information about Wayne. More coverage than most youth players would get, but not convinced it's WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion on this, just feel it is relevant to mention that Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. through AfD led to a re-direct - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. Both of these are probably similar situations, so feel whatever outcome is decided here could apply to CRjr as well. RedPatch (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All-Island Cup[edit]

    With the second edition of the All-Island Cup starting up this weekend, it seems that the article could use a potential reformat or split, as currently it reads primarily as an article for the 2023 tournament. Having three separate articles emerge (All-Island Cup, 2023 All-Island Cup, 2024 All-Island Cup) would be the best case scenario as far as I can tell, with the main and 2023 articles emerging from the current main article.

    I'm not super familiar with procedure as far as what is the best choice in this situation, so wanted to bring it to the project's attention. Cheers! Christiangamer7 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Christiangamer7: as the creator of the page, I think splitting it would not be the best idea for the moment because it is fairly threadbare (and when I wrote it I struggled to find sources) and would be 3 barebones stubs if it was split. But I am happy to support that once there is more independent information avaliable for the Cup and the individual editions. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was about to ask if you then thought it was good to start with a 2024 edition section in the same vein as what you laid out so far, and I see you already started such haha
    Well whatever the consensus ends up being I'll look to help find some more citations to add for 2023 and 2024. Christiangamer7 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Football Star report and who's DD?[edit]

    I was working on Walter Tull a bit and this section; The match report of the game away to Bristol City in October 1909 by Football Star reporter, "DD", was headlined "Football and the Colour Prejudice", possibly the first time racial abuse was headlined in a football report.[citation needed] "DD" emphasised how Tull remained professional and composed despite the intense provocation: "He is Hotspur's most brainy forward ... so clean in mind and method as to be a model for all white men who play football ... Tull was the best forward on the field." Firstly, who is DD? Why is it written DD on the article? And can anyone find the Football Star report in the newspaper archive at all? Because unless I can improve that, I felt like removing the whole section from the article. Regards. Govvy (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sports reports in newspapers in those days were often signed with what could be termed nicknames rather than the writer's actual full name. In writing articles on Gillingham seasons from before the First World War I have come across many articles which were written by "Citizen", "Man of Kent" and so on. The article can be found here although you will need a British Newspaper Archive subscription to read it. The publication is actually the Daily News (maybe the article was syndicated across multiple papers.....?), but it contains the exact quote shown above and is signed D.D. So your citation would be:

    {{cite web|url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000051/19091004/170/0008|title=Hotspur at Bristol: Football and the Colour Prejudice|date=4 October 1909|accessdate=22 March 2024|work= [[Daily News (UK)|Daily News]]|author="D.D."|url-access=subscription|via=[[British Newspaper Archive]]}}

    Hope this helps!-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thank you, I added the cite to the page, however I couldn't login to see it. I was wondering if I needed to add a note to accompany the cite or not. Govvy (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistant manager roles in infobox[edit]

    Reprising the discussion that took place here (and possibly more recently), since EndzoneEnthusiast (talk · contribs) is adamant about the inclusion of Mikel Arteta's assistant role in his infobox, but is seemingly averse to discussing it. Has the infobox documentation been changed to allow other roles to be included? I only ask because I'm unable to bring up that information currently. If it has changed, I'll happily revert my edits at Brian Kidd and Mike Phelan. I hope it isn't a case of editors just going rogue again. 15:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Seasider53 (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, I see it was it discussed last month. Seems that the instructions still apply. Seasider53 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is that assistant coach roles should be included in the infobox. But I wouldn't extend that to other non-head coach roles. Only assistant coach. I display that as is done at Thierry Oleksiak, for example. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nice, but it isn't correct. Seasider53 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, no assistant roles. Kante4 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Manager/head coach roles only. "I like other things too" isn't a valid reason to add them. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should only include notable roles - for somebody like Arteta, that does not include any non-managerial roles. GiantSnowman 15:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, should we also remove assistant coach roles from the infoboxes of notable managers like Zinedine Zidane, Nuri Şahin, and Thierry Henry? EndzoneEnthusiast 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done checkY. Seasider53 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    National Games[edit]

    Hello, I wanted to know that the number of national games should only be counted by the number of games played by the player in FIFAday or all the games outside and inside FIFAday are considered for Wikipedia. Ab10sport (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We only count 'official' international games, if that's what you are asking. GiantSnowman 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean international games that are outside the calendar of friendlies and FIFA tournaments Ab10sport (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they official or not? GiantSnowman 17:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are called non-FIFADey games, and this is my question: are they considered official games and should we include them in the number of national football players' games? Ab10sport (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If FIFA doesn't consider them official matches, then we do not include them in players' articles. Some matches outside the official calendar could be considered official, but that is entirely within FIFA's discretion. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So how do we know if FIFA accepts them or not? Ab10sport (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally they count unless stated otherwise. I wouldn't read much into it, friendlies and the like count for our purposes generally. Ortizesp (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Really we should only be counting caps for matches that the national association counts as an official "A" internationals. What FIFA decides is irrelevant to how a national association internally decides to award caps. England counts caps for matches against the Rest of the World or Europe. It would make no sense for us to exclude these matches from the count of England players, such as Jimmy Greaves or Bobby Charlton, when the FA awards caps for such matches. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ultras[edit]

    Hello everyone! I have noticed that the article Ultras only mentions football fans, even though many other sports have ultras and it's not exclusive to only football. For example ice hockey in Europe has a big ultras culture. Basketball also has European groups that can be considered ultras. One great example of this is the Finnish ice hockey fan group Osasto 41, which you can find on google. Ultras culture is growing in among ice hockey fans in Europe. Should the article change? – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe create a draft article about hockey ultras, and then if needed the current 'ultras' about football can be moved to Ultras (association football) and Ultras can become a disambiguation page. GiantSnowman 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What about Debbie Day[edit]

    Before I proceed I wish to know if these articles are sufficient to make a Debbie Day article. Man City's Lauren Hemp presents Worcester Lioness with special cap | Evesham Journal and BBC Hereford & Worcester on X: "Debbie Day from #Worcestershire was among the first players to represent England between 1976 and 1978 ⚽️ 🦁 ⚽️ 🎧Listen here👉 https://t.co/lwSaOh47AA" / X (twitter.com) Dwanyewest (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No. 5 sentences isn't enough. Q+A Interviews don't count either. Dougal18 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about three sentences?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s an essay on deletion policy and as it says using it as an argument is "generally unsound and unconvincing". I see no reason why the article for England Woman’s International footballer, Debbie Day should not be created.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to create in draft and then it will be easier for people to take a view on notability. GiantSnowman 13:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dwanyewest:, and there’s your way forward.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious editing[edit]

    An ip range has been making a large number of rapid edits on football related articles some of which are sending up yellow flags and tripping the edit filter. Could someone knowledgable on the subject take a look at their recent history? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Most edits seem fine - such as this; some seem less fine (although good faith) - such as adding flags which violates WP:MOSFLAG and this which is appears to be a good faith but flawed attempt at a grammar change. No major concerns from me. GiantSnowman 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other edits like this - addition of an unsourced list of people - are, however, more concerning. GiantSnowman 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks GiantSnowman. Sounds like this is not a vandal running amok which was my main concern. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nothing looks like vandalism. GiantSnowman 18:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem and GiantSnowman: I'm not so sure. I've just undone a good half of this morning's contributions, where they've added random Japanese subjects to football roles unsourced; changed multiple instances of coach and assistant coach to manager and assistant manager contrary to the websites of the relevant employers; and added random inaccurate content such as "Born in Serbia he plays for Spain internationally" at Stefan Bajcetic, who was born in Vigo, Spain. Less easy to check the many changes to clubs with Arabic-language websites. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman @Struway2 I have posted a notification on their talk page alerting them to this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changes like this are good faith, even if incorrect. GiantSnowman 18:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A single change like that is likely good faith, and I undid that one with an edit summary that explained why it was incorrect. Systematically changing the standard US head coach to manager and arbitrarily dividing the assistant coaches into one (occasionally two) assistant manager(s) and the rest as first-team coaches isn't vandalism, but it's certainly disruptive. I'm generally quite good at AGF, but when they appoint Yoshika Matsubara as assistant head coach of Plymouth Argyle and Yusaku Ueno as "general coordinator" for the Brazilian national team when neither team's website contains that person's name and Google doesn't find any relevant connections, and add "Born in <country1> represents <country2> internationally" to subjects whose sourced birthplace is <country2> (as at e.g. Junnosuke Schneider as well as at Bajcetic as mentioned above), it's not easy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those Japanese-related edits are definitely vandalism and do not seem to link with the other editing pattern; very bizarre. GiantSnowman 21:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem and GiantSnowman: OK, so far this morning they've involved themselves in filling the vacancies at Vietnam national football team and Vietnam national under-23 football team caused by the departure of Philippe Troussier. They appointed Yoshiro Moriyama as manager of the senior team and then half an hour later un-appointed him on his own page, and added him at least twice at to the team page (reverted by others). They made three different appointments to the under-23 team (reverted by others). And they continued their fiddling with the Thailand women's national football team with a series of coaching appointments, in particular that of Kiyotaka Ishimaru as coach; as of Sunday just gone, Mr Ishimaru was head coach of Ehime FC, that club's website is very up-to-date, and they don't seem to realise he's left. Reverted by me and accompanied by a final warning. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman @Struway2 That's enough for me. I have blocked the /64 range x 60 hrs. If this resumes after the block expires, I will consider something a bit longer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this has gone from good faith into vandalism - good block. GiantSnowman 19:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The main (nay, the only!) concern here is the player's international appearances: NFT.com gives him 96 caps (if you count the non-FIFA apps, in my 17 years of editing i came to realise there are occasions where you even add those to the totals), whereas RSSSF gives him 101 caps, noting that the match against Jordan is not to be counted.

    Why this discrepancy, can someone shed some light on this please? Plus, i have just searched the web (both in English and in Portuguese - we have several Arab news outlets in English and he is of Portuguese descent) for info on such an important milestone (the 100 FIFA club), found absolutely nothing. For example, if you Google the Qatar/Uzbekistan match, supposedly his 100th appearance, he even converted the decisive penalty, ZERO results for that (https://www.google.com/search?q=r%C3%B3-r%C3%B3+100+caps+qatar+uzbekistan&sca_esv=c1f14eea029e1e8c&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1GCEU_pt-PTPT906PT906&ei=l7oCZoiINfOtkdUPzvmoiAk&udm=&oq=r%C3%B3-r%C3%B3+100+caps+qatar+uzbe&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiG3LDsy1yw7MgMTAwIGNhcHMgcWF0YXIgdXpiZSoCCAAyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFIpxNQjgVYjwtwAXgBkAEAmAGmAaAB5gSqAQMwLjW4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgagAokFwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA5gDAIgGAZAGCJIHAzEuNaAHrhM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1).

    I reverted an IP once on this matter, but now reinstated their version and come here to see if we can reach some consensus. Attentively, sorry for any incovenience. RevampedEditor (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The discrepancies come from caps 79, 80, 83 and 85-87 in the RSSSF list, and the January match against Jordan in the NFT list. Those RSSSF discrepancies were in the run-up to the World Cup, probably a matter of whether they were unofficial "test" matches or A internationals. Qatar were playing a lot of unofficial matches at the time to prepare for the tournament, including against club sides. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimmy Greaves Harv error,[edit]

    There appears to be a Harv error: linked from CITEREFGreavesScott2004 displayed on my page, but I can't locate the error on the page. For those that know about harv errors, can someone find and fix it? Because I was struggling to see where the error is coming from. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raúl Quintana Tarufetti[edit]

    Appears to be a single-purpose account that changes the head-to-head of matches in Argentina–Brazil football rivalry and Brazil national football team records and statistics, ignoring the sources presented and forcing WP:POV. I reverted the edits, but the user repeatedly changes the information, what is the best way to proceed? Svartner (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uruguay vs Basque Country[edit]

    Uruguay played a friendly against Basque Country on this 23rd, which ended in a 1-1 draw. Since Basque Country is not a FIFA member, match was a Non-FIFA friendly. However, Uruguayan Football Association consider this as an official match and added it to player's profiles on their official website (auf.org.uy). They even mentioned it was goalscorer Matías Vecino's 70th match with the NT and congratulated him on their social media platforms. 16 Uruguayan players (including 3 debutants) got minutes in that game.

    In this context, how should we display it on players' pages? As of now, it is added normally like any other international match on players' infoboxes. A note has been added under the 'International' section in 'Career statistics' for all those 16 players (for example, see Franco Israel or Luciano Rodríguez). As it is recognized by the players' NT football association, is this the right way to do it? Thanks in advance. Kokoeist (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd count it, we even measure caps by the Basque Country national team. Ortizesp (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We count it: it's the Uruguay FA who award caps, not FIFA. All the other opponents in their complete list are likely FIFA members, since there's been such a thing, but if for some reason they're counting this one as an official international then that's what it is. For comparison, the English FA count England v Rest of the World in 1963, which isn't a "FIFA friendly", and so do we. Might be an idea to source the stats table note to that complete list, or even better use the appropriate player page from auf.org.uy as the actual source for the stats (once they get round to updating them). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]