Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:WPF WT:FOOTY

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, 167Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Football Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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.

WikiProject Football

Project pages
Project talk page Task forces Portal New articles Cleanup articles Unreferenced BLPs Article alerts Popular pages
Assessment Assessment department (talk) Assessment log
Format templates Club articles Club templates National team articles National team templates National association articles National assn. templates Competition articles League season articles (Lua tables) Club seasons articles Country seasons articles Match articles Player articles Stadium articles
Other Consensus Category structure Notability criteria Fully professional leagues (talk) Template list Sources and links Booklist Members Recognised content Vital articles Project milestones Did You Know? archive
v t e

Hi; I was wondering if this project still finds B-class criteria useful? (the B1-B6 ratings in the project banner)?

If so, as a result of the global switch to project-independent quality assessments, we're planning to move these B-class criteria to the WikiProject banner shell so they're not duplicated across projects. The B-class criteria and their behaviour won't change, I'm just wondering if people here still actively use them. DFlhb (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that the two options are:

• to keep B-class criteria, and move them to the banner shell to reflect consensus for WP:PIQA
• to remove B-class criteria ratings from WikiProject banners, if people now consider them obsolete

The latter will happen, after further discussion, if the projects currently using B-class criteria signal that they lack interest in keeping it. DFlhb (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, At this article's Talk, I posted details. For now, I left the two DOBs in the article the way I found them. It's confusing when reliable sources give different dates. Asking for expert help to determine what is correct. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less certain on this one due to fewer resources and the method I used previously is not available to access this time (i.e. the player's Instagram). Soccerway seems to be a good factual website as it is used a lot in other articles, they give it as 9 March 1989. It's a shame the "current club" does not have a Wikipedia article which takes us to their club website and you can't open up any player's profiles here which probably should lead us to the correct facts about the player. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, "teammates",

i know i should have used the article's talkpage before moving a page (thus, i somewhat apologise for that, but in my book this is an open-and-shut-case page move; also, the person who has moved the page twice, @Ortizesp:, also never used it). We have two very good English examples to illustrate why Costa Pereira should be moved (back) to Alberto Costa Pereira: it would be like naming Shaun Wright-Phillips just "Wright-Phillips", or Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain just "Oxlade-Chamberlain", as BOTH "Costa" and "Pereira" are surnames, "Alberto" being his given name.

Attentively (i'll also refrain from any actions on the page (move-wise, supposing i am still allowed to remove) until a decision is reached here) RevampedEditor (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a move if you think the page should move which will allow consensus to be reached on the article talk page. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland: I have reverted the move since it's controversial and was moved by @Ortizesp without any consensus in the first place. Cheers, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that @Ortizesp: was previously under a topic ban (at ANI) related to page moves - I hope we don't have to go back down that path... GiantSnowman 19:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a WP:RM, User:RevampedEditor is mistaken as "Alberto Costa Pereira" isn't a commonly used name (not even used once in any of the references or external links) for the player. Feel free to discuss there. I didn't think it was controversial, but I have no issues WP:RM for these kinds of moves. Cheers! Ortizesp (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As some of you may notice, this discussion on the Costa Pereira talk page is getting interesting. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

someome, an anon user it seems, keeps changing Sam Hird's stats to made up stats so if someone could deal with itMuur (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from german Wikipedia. You might take a look at this template and the link to webpage it generates. Somehow this page seems to be dead. Not really dead, it shows just just a line with some future dates, two names of football clubs and three numbers, but sure no additional information for the person in the article. And in a lot of cases you just see some 404-error page. in german Wikipedia we will delete this template. --Wurgl (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His height in the infobox, is there another source to replace the one there, because we're not suppose to use IMDB. Unless it's removed entirely. :/ Govvy (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

England Football Online, citing Lamming's 1990 An English Football Internationalist Who's Who, gives 5 ft 11+1⁄2 in (1.82 m). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K, have changed over, cheers, for those that don't know we have WP:IMDB. Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Premier League first round draft picks navigational boxes

Do we really need this many navboxes related to the CPL draft? I certainly think we don't need the Number Two picks one... GiantSnowman 18:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely don't need Number Two picks. RedPatch (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the rest seem fine, but the Number Two picks doesn't make any sense to me. I know the CPL draft doesn't have the exposure of the MLS SuperDraft, and even that doesn't have templates for second picks as far as I know. The others seem fine, although it would be nice to turn some of those redlinks into articles. Jay eyem (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redlinked players either never signed contracts or signed but never made appearances. I know NFOOTY isn't a thing, but the redlinked guys don't really pass GNG, so articles for them aren't really appropriate for them yet. RedPatch (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion based on this discussion: See here for the discussion RedPatch (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, didn't realize that. Not a great look when navboxes are full of redlinks. Wondering if we even need the full draft in each of those templates then, rather than just a first round. Jay eyem (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given its only two rounds, leaving both is okay. The early years changed the redlinks to nolinks, so maybe we can just keep that formatting, change it from a redlink to a nolink, after a year if they don't get a page?

That's fair, I am mostly just concerned about all of the redlinks. Since the draft is so short I think the links could be removed until they have an article and leave the entire draft in the template. Jay eyem (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely starting to feel the template creep on Canadian Premier League articles in general. Let's continue to keep an eye on it. BLAIXX 14:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently proposed a move to the article AC Milan in European football at its talk page. You can find more there, but I proposed a move to AC Milan in international football. My rationale was based on the fact that the club had played and won trophies in competitions beyond just Europe (like the Club World Cup) and also that many other major teams had articles on their non-domestic football titled in the same way.

Looking deeper at the articles' histories, they were started as xxx in European football (such as Liverpool's) and most were changed to xxx in international football around the start of September 2020 by a single editor who took a talk page discussion as evidence that this was justified.

Someone brought up the point that international football is mainly used to describe national teams, which I agree with. However, I still don't think xxx in European football is the right title for clubs that have played in intercontinental competitions. Intercontinental competitions like the Club World Cup and its predecessor have both been referred to as international in their respective there. Even in the main Liverpool article (which is a featured article), non-domestic trophies and competitions are referred to as international. I feel like this is something that needs to be a lot more consistent than it is right now and some consensus as to what the convention should be.

I'd appreciate some input here or on the talk page from other members of this WikiProject because I couldn't find anything about this in the naming conventions section. I hope this doesn't count as canvassing. I apologise if that's the case. Regards, Sgubaldo (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"International competition" is fine. We don't need to specify the sport's name in the title. SounderBruce 03:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also works and makes sense. HawkAussie (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should specify that it's football, as some teams have other sports team of the same name e.g. FC Barcelona also has a basketball team of the same name, Nordic countries tend to have multiple sports teams with the name of the sports club for all of them. So needs to be clear it's about football and not any other sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like @Joseph2302 said, I do think it’s worth mentioning the word ‘football’, my concern was moreso with the word ’international’. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They do not play 'international' football though - they are not a country. GiantSnowman 19:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to include "football" then we have basically circled back to the original issue, unless someone can come up with an alternative word to "international" to use in this context. I can't think of one, personally, other than the totally unwieldy "So-and-so F.C. in continental and intercontinental football" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm struggling to think of an alternative. GiantSnowman 19:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why the discussion seems to be split between locations (here and at the article's talk page). I think since there is an active RM currently, all the discussion should be there at the article's talk page under the RM section. --SuperJew (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am Portuguese and did know of this, but here's the following:

i edit(ed) this article extensively since i've been here, but turns out it was added in September 2020 he played in Canada. Same info was added by same user in (for example) Matateu, from the same Canadian newspaper. With no URL in both cases, i had to enter the paper's website and browse the archives; i was able to perform a search in Mr. Matateu's case and find the URL, not in Mr. Shéu, so, the question:

I suppose the Canadian National Soccer League was pretty much amateur in the 1980s, as was the MLS methinks, but i was wondering if in light of this new info (also, no proof he played any matches there) we must remove the "See also" section because then he will not have played his entire career in one club?

Attentively, happy weekend y'all! RevampedEditor (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the title correct? I thought there was suppose to be a space between Chievo and Verona. Govvy (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See its talk page. Should always be your first port of call. Seasider53 (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I still questioned it. I wasn't too sure. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My other question, is the club still in existence? Or is it defunct now? Govvy (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Be nice if there was an article about it. Seasider53 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2022, the award has not been awarded for what players do throughout a calendar year, but rather a football season. I would suggest that we not put "Inter Miami" next to Messi in the page, because he received the trophy for what he did with PSG (and obviously Argentina). Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources identify the Ballon d'Or winner as "Inter Miami player Lionel Messi". We should not be going against the tide of sources. SounderBruce 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add list all clubs played for during the season? GiantSnowman 21:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ye it covers the period of july 1st 2022 - june 30th 2023. he was a psg player.Muur (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this player, whether this would fall under WP:NOTNEWS, pretty tragic what happened, but SIGNOV? Govvy (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite possible. GiantSnowman 20:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs moving back, Govvy (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a lot of Paradygmaty moves look wrong to me, moves without consensus, etc, seems highly disruptive. [1]. Govvy (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move and left the user a message. GiantSnowman 20:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Robert Kidiaba page, it says he played 5 matches at the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup which sounds impossible as the highest number of matches you can play at a single CWC tournament is 4, but I found out he actually played 5 matches at two FIFA Club World Cup tournaments but the source referenced seems to be unavailable.

Can Soccerway, Transfermarkt and/or WorldFootball.net be used as a good replacement in order to use the correct information. Jõsé ^hola 06:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the mention of the number of appearances Kidiaba made and instead added the achievement of reaching the final with TP Mazembe which arguably is more notable. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This confirms he made 3 appearances in the 2010 tournament, and this confirms he made 2 appearances in the 2009 tournament - so it's 5 appearances overall. GiantSnowman 10:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an archive copy of the older FIFA player page (the one with content, rather than just huge print and links to videos) HERE. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the link, thanks. GiantSnowman 11:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I nominated these articles for deletion; Sikiru Alimi and Kadisha Martina on WP:RFD. I would love to see your contributions. Jõsé ^hola 07:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to ask fellow users to keep an eye on RobertoSanchez1990, who is creating articles on new, unannounced tournaments and friendlies without much care for facts or sourcing. Much of the information is speculative, and they don't seem to understand the draft process (copying-and-pasting impatiently instead of improving the draft when rejected). SounderBruce 07:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anyone find any evidence that 2024 Audi Cup is actually a thing? I can't. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Manchester United, Erik ten Hag has managed 79 matches and won 50 of those at Manchester United [2].

However according to the source in the article on his Erik ten Hag#Managerial statistics he has managed 78 and rather won 49, as shown here [3]. Same as this on soccerbase; [4]. Interestingly though not reliable, Transfermarkt states that he has managed 78 and won 50 [5].

Can anyone get other sources to provide references for either of them? Thank you. Ampimd (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Man U count as the 79th match because I can only count 78 competitive matches since he took over. I'd go with the source on the page or Soccebase. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The Manchester United site also claims they have won 30 Premiership games in his charge, which is false. Their record in 2022-23 was 23-6-9, and this season it is 6-0-5, making 29-6-14 in total. The reason that transfermarkt is showing 50-8-20 and Soccerbase is showing 49-9-20 is the penalty shoot-out win over Brighton in the FA Cup last season. TM counts it as a win, Soccerbase as a draw. These figures are correct as far as I can see, depending on which value of a penalty shoot-out you use.

• 2022/23 - 38 PL, 6 FAC, 6 EFLC, 12 UEFAEL. Total: 62
• 2023/24 - 11 PL, 2 EFLC, 3 UEFACL. Total: 16

So where are Manchester United getting the 79th game from? I don't know, but I strongly suspect it's someone on their editorial team who can't add up. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve fae Scotland's right, that's definitely 78 matches and the Brighton penalty shootout must have been recognised as a win. I think Ten Hag is be the quickest manager to reach 50 wins, which this news article agrees.[6]. I suspect the 79 might be a typo. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]