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

Would some editors here please help explain the consensus not to add assists to league pages? I have reverted Alza08 twice on 2023–24 A-League Men and do not wish to get blocked for edit-warring. Alza08 is not listening and is claiming that other league pages list assists. --SuperJew (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some examples from a quick search: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_12#Assists, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_78#Assists_in_season_article, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_164#Assist_table_to_club_season_articles. Also, the MoS for league seasons doesn't include assists. --SuperJew (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why people put assists on season pages, it's overkill and we have WP:NOSTATS to cover a degree of overkill. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given some goals are not assisted by a team mate, such as the opposition giving the ball away to the goalscorer, penalties and own goals, I consider assists as an incomplete list of facts on how goals are created. e.g. the top of the report from this game did not name the Newcastle player who assisted the own goal by Deniz Undav last year while a Premier League match yesterday did not have an assist when the BBC compiled the report. I can see SuperJew has taken away assists tables already. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assists should not be included, not least per WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 11:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Kolya77 is also objecting to removal of assists on Moldovan Super Liga pages (for example) and would like to challenge the consensus here. --SuperJew (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I think this consensus should be properly documented and codified (maybe on the league season page MoS?) so there is a proper link to show users claiming there is no such consensus. --SuperJew (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus for this. GiantSnowman 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of assists there. --SuperJew (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I meant to add it there. GiantSnowman 12:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to remove them, but meeting pushback and don't want to be in an edit war. --SuperJew (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss this , but this will lead nowhere, usually it will be as Mr Snowman wants. Have a good day guys.Kolya77 (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it will be as the community agrees. If that's the level of your contributions then I suggest you stop posting. GiantSnowman 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you're the one who was asking to discuss again and again, but when given the opportunity seems you are not interested to discuss. --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this multiple times, just because this user don't like the outcome, that's too bad. Consensus is against adding it, and it's a clear violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, there are many articles with top assists listed. If anyone wants to join me in trying to clear them out, that'd be good. --SuperJew (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kowalczyk900 is re-adding assists to 2023–24 Premier League with no explanation and I'm on verge of editwar. --SuperJew (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a clear mention of assists is required in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus prior to any attempts to start removing top assists sections from any article. And I would be very careful in making any changes to North American league articles, where assists are considered really important (and sometimes have associated awards and attract referenceable media attention), and where there would be considerable pushback. Perhaps concentrate on non-North American articles more generally, and see how much traction or opposition ensues from those edits. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added. Feel free to improve my wording. --SuperJew (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didnt see this post earlier. It presents to me like a circular argument, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus should really be referencing one of the many previous discussions around assists rather than this current one. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GiantSnowman 14:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's interested in seeing what the 2024–25 English club-season articles are going to look like (including overly detailed squad tables and everyone's favourite round-by-round league positions), have a lookie here. Maybe we can nip it in the bud now, saving ourselves hours of work in the summer. Seasider53 (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why wait? Just look at the Singapore 2024–25 season articles. Rumours sections! Youth teams results! Women's results! Dougal18 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely pertinent to next season to know how much money a club paid to sign players anything up to nine years earlier.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did I guess who drafted that Liverpool article, full of nonsense...?! GiantSnowman 13:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next season’s West Ham page uses the rumoured transfer fee on many occasions where the actual fee was undisclosed. What was wrong with the current season with no fees, no "first signed" dates and no youth team players with zero appearances in the squad list?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That level of detail is not needed. GiantSnowman 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't see how "contract expiry date" is in any way relevant. Has anyone ever looked at 1967–68 Manchester United F.C. season and thought "well, it's good, but what I really want to know is when George Best's contract was going to expire"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the verifiability of lots of this superfluous information is questionable. GiantSnowman 15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible *cries in fancruft* Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this being overkill and way too much info. Since we talk about those articles, i ping @Skyblueshaun:, so he can join the discussion. Kante4 (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, sorry if you think this is overkill, I just took the inspiration from here, and here, and here for example. If someone could send me a draft season article then that would be appreciated. Most League Two and some League One clubs won't have season articles if not created. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons has been in existence for 17 years. GiantSnowman 15:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll use that template in future, may I add a "Released" section in the "Transfer" section please, so we can see what players were released/let go before joining a new subsequent club. Also I'll use the "footballbox collapsible" template for matches. Again, thank you. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That club seasons template clearly states that there are MOS:ACCESS issues with footballbox collapsible. It would be advisable to use one of the other formats. You could also just use the footballbox (ie- get rid of the collapsible function) as that gets around most of the problems with it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow and red cards are still not part of the match summaries in the WP:FOOTY manual of style, by the way. Only goals should be listed outside of the attendance, referee etc. I don't understand why you include such irrelevant information, making so much work for yourself, when maybe three other readers find it useful. Seasider53 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only editor to use yellow and red cards, Most of the season articles I come across do include cards. Skyblueshaun (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See confirmation bias. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 18:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do or do we Not include cards then, If I am being warned to stop then so should everyone else. Skyblueshaun (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to be copying other articles. Don’t, and you’ll be fine. Seasider53 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This says "Goals scored and optionally cards issued". Dougal18 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation has been like that for almost 15 years, consensus appears to have changed since then. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really complain about that if it's currently part of the documentation. I don't know that it's worth discussing its removal either, considering there's so much else that we need to clamp down on regarding the current state of season articles. Seasider53 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to dwell on this, but I just noticed the visual editor doesn't have a field for cards (unless I'm misunderstanding its functionality), so maybe their non-inclusion is worth enforcing... Seasider53 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one better here? Skyblueshaun (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re going by the season template, nobody can have any qualms. Seasider53 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that still has position-by-round, which has been deemed useless in WP:FOOTY discussions of yore. Seasider53 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't include colours in the transfers tables. It's unneccessary decoration which can make it hard for some users to read. --SuperJew (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that Leeds are definitely getting promoted, that'll save a lot of stress over the next four weeks... Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this article, here, this wasn't created by me but also includes the first team squad table. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, again. GiantSnowman 11:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Results-by-round appears to be in some 2024–25 club-season articles, but not all. I think that's a nice balance, because if you don't think the section should be appearing in articles, you won't get annoyed all the time. Seasider53 (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at Crystal Palace F.C. and went to Crystal Palace National Sports Centre, however, it's not exactly clear but I assume this was this Crystal Palace first ground? Was there an original older name for the ground? Govvy (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article is seemingly about the stadium built in 1964. Their first stadium - on the site of the 'National Sports Centre' - was just called 'Crystal Palace Stadium' I think? GiantSnowman 20:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

..or even just 'Crystal Palace'? GiantSnowman 20:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. this which refers to the stadium as just 'Crystal Palace'. GiantSnowman 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find it seems to have been referred to simply as ‘The Sports Center’ or ‘The Sports Stadium’ while Palace where there. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe I can go with Crystal Palace Stadium and make it a redirect to the National Sports Centre article. That would cover the historic value in my view. Govvy (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Pròssia (talk · contribs) is changing match results after penalties from "Draw" to "Win" or "Loss" and cites the IFAB (see the discussion at Real Madrid). Has there anything changed from before where it was counted as a draw (as far as i can remember it was)? Kante4 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to bring the IFAB, as seems can be interperated either way. Searching for "penalt" there are 238 mentions, so I'll start with the first few and later keep looking. The first one seems to support the penalty shoot-out is part of the match: entering the field at the start of the match until after the match has ended, including during the half-time interval, extra time and penalties (penalty shoot-out). However the next reference seems to support the pso isn't part of the match: A player who is still serving a temporary dismissal at the end of the match is permitted to take part in penalties (penalty shoot-out). Will look further later :) --SuperJew (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I think it's quite clear. At the end of page 87: Penalties (penalty shoot-out) are taken after the match has ended. Quite clearly the pso is not part of the match. --SuperJew (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just found this article with a pretty definitive quote: [IFAB Technical Director David] Elleray stated, “Law 10 makes it clear that a match is drawn, won or lost according to the number of goals both teams score ‘normal’ time or in ‘normal’ time + extra time. “‘Away goals’ and ‘kicks from the penalty mark’ (KFPM) are not part of the match itself and only are used to determine a ‘winning team’ where one is required. For KFPM, this is made clear in the next section of Law 10.” Wburrow (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is only an interpretation of the Law. Says literally this: The official Laws of the Game, which are the responsibility of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) could be interpreted in other ways, but we have always held the belief that they explain the situation as we understood it.

We are in a regulatory contradiction with IFAB and FIFA. The IFAB considers extra time and penalty kicks to have the same status (procedures to determine a winning team) so if the penalty kicks are tied at a statistical level, the extra time would still be the same. But FIFA makes a distinction between extra time and penalty kicks. I think that extra time should have the same status as penalties as the IFAB says (it's who writes the rules). So all ties. Pròssia (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see (p.77) of the IFAB laws: The Duration of the Match. Can explain me why extra-time and penalties are not mentioned? Pròssia (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi football editors, my modifications are based on current and official regulations. See IFAB rules 23/24 (p. 87): https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/laws-of-the-game-2023-24?l=en

Extra time and penalty shootouts are an extension of the match due to the fact that there was no winner in 90m. The referee cannot declare the end of the match until there is a winner in it. In the penalty shoot-out, the players who have contested the regulation time take part and players outside of this cannot participate. Also, looking at most sports chronicles, there is a tendency to say that the match was won in penalty shootout or after penalty shootout. The rules of the game are clear.

Question: Why a game won or lost in extra time is not declared as a draw? Is extra time different from a penalty shootout? No. They are simply extensions of the same match. The IFAB rules put it in the same category both. The game ends once the penalties have been taken. It cannot end earlier because there is no winner. I think the logic is pretty clear.

The rules are very clear: When competition rules require a winning team after a home-and-away tie, the only permitted procedures to determinate a winning team are:

- away goals rule

- extra time

- penalties

A combination may be used.

UEFA decided to eliminate away goals and could perfectly determine penalties after 90m. without doing extra time. They are all ways to end the game. Each competition chooses its own.

Oficial rules of the game: https://www.theifab.com/laws-of-the-game-documents/?language=all&year=2023%2F24 Pròssia (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between determining a winner for purposes of advancement in a tournament and determining a winner for statistical purposes. The rules you're quoting are focused on advancement, but don't address how to keep statistics. I can't immediately find a document stating how to handle PSOs for statistical purposes, but there are documents that show how this is handled in practice. Here is a FIFA Fact Sheet showing the records of each team at the World Cup through 2014. If you look at Italy's WC match results, you can see that FIFA clearly considers matches that go to PSO to be draws, and matches decided during ET to be wins/loses. Wburrow (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rules also say matches last 90 minutes. My view, the only consistent way to do it is to take results at 90 minutes. However, statistical convention as Wburrow points out is to count matches which go to penalties as draws and matches which are decided in extra time as win/loss. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland:@Wburrow:@SuperJew:@Iggy the Swan:@PeeJay:

Please, see (page 77) of the IFAB laws: The Duration of the Match. Can explain me why extra-time and penalties are not mentioned? Pròssia (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland:@Wburrow:@SuperJew:@Iggy the Swan:@PeeJay:

Please, see (page 170 — Football Terms) of the IFAB 23/24 laws: Penalties (penalty shoot-out): Method of deciding the result of a match. Pròssia (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the written rules are not fully consistent in how they describe what is or is not technically part of the match. But remember that these rules don't exist to determine which matches get a W, D, or L next to them on Wikipedia - they exist to determine which team advances (or is crowned champion) after a match that's tied after normal time, and they are unambiguous when applied to their purpose.

So how do we interpret the rules and resolve the statistical inconsistency? The good news is that we don't have to: it's not up to us. We have to present what's found in reliable sources. I've already provided sources showing that the Technical Director of IFAB and the statisticians at FIFA consider extra time, but not penalties, to be part of the match. Presenting an interpretation that contradicts the conclusion of the sources would constitute WP:OR. Wburrow (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are in a regulatory contradiction with IFAB and FIFA. The IFAB considers extra time and penalty kicks to have the same status (procedures to determine a winning team) so if the penalty kicks are tied at a statistical level, the extra time would still be the same. But FIFA makes a distinction between extra time and penalty kicks. I think that extra time should have the same status as penalties as the IFAB says (it's who writes the rules). So all ties. Pròssia (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a more basic discussion I've responded in once, now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 162#Can I get some extra eyes...... - cannot guarantee the IP and the user linked in the opening edit of this section are the same person. At the time, I was not aware of the green text from the sources linked in this section, just the basic understanding of the managerial stats specialist editor, Saintandy7, saying a draw is a draw before penalty shootout takes place. For those who are not aware: the same text from the Real Madrid season page has possibly been copied off the Talk:2023–24 Manchester City F.C. season page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we start changing things now, that's going to cause all sorts of problems for historical statistics. Either way, factually, penalty shoot-outs are not part of the match; they are only used to determine which team progresses to the next stage of a tournament (or who wins the tournament in the case of a final). If the scores in a single match are level after 90 minutes or after extra time, that match is drawn regardless of anything that happens in a subsequent penalty shoot-out. – PeeJay 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, matches which go to penalties as draws and matches which are decided in extra time as win/loss? And how to explain that: 1. (page 77) of the IFAB 23/24 laws: The Duration of the Match. Can explain me why extra-time and penalties are not mentioned? 2. (page 170 — Football Terms Definitions) of the IFAB 23/24 laws: Penalties (penalty shoot-out): Method of deciding the result of a match. Pròssia (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Laws of the Game literally say in Law 10 "Penalties (penalty shoot-out) are taken after the match has ended", i.e. the match is over, the result has been confirmed as a draw, hence the need for the shoot-out. You surely can't be so dense as to think that we're incapable of the same level of lawyering as you about this. But no, sure, feel free to continue picking and choosing which bits you want to support your case... – PeeJay 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland:@Wburrow:@SuperJew:@Iggy the Swan:@PeeJay:@SportingFlyer:@ColchesterSid:

Official UEFA report of Man.City–Real Madrid: Literally say: Agg: 4-4 – Real Madrid win on penalties. Yes, win on penalties and not win the penalty shoot-out. So, as per UEFA official report, Real Madrid won on penalties the match. See: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/match/2040496--man-city-vs-real-madrid/matchinfo/ Pròssia (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways. You quote the IFAB, which specifically says penalties take place after the match, and then you claim Real Madrid wins the match because they won the penalty kick shootout. UEFA could be more specific and say "Real Madrid win the tie on penalties," but they're not interested in being verbose just for our conversation here. SportingFlyer T·C 05:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning historic statistics - I assume that in the days when European ties were determined by the toss of a coin we statistically record those matches as draws? For example - Liverpool v Koln European Cup 1964-65 quarter final there were three draws followed by a coin toss - you would not say Liverpool won because they guessed heads or tails ColchesterSid (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The match itself was a draw. A penalty shoot-out is a glorified coin toss, so actual coin tosses should be treated the same way. – PeeJay 22:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing in the IFAB laws which state that a game is considered drawn at full-time even if extra time is required. It does specifically say penalty kicks take place after the match but says nothing about extra time, and it's clear from previous statistics that games won or lost in extra time are still considered wins and losses. These changes should be reverted. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As others have stated, the penalty shoot-out is not part of the match, so the final result prior to the shoot-out is counted for statistical purposes. Otherwise we would be saying Aston Villa just won both legs against Lille, which is patently false. I have seen some articles which separately colour the score of the penalty shoot-out, such as at Croatia national football team results (2020–present)#2023, though I am not sure what others think of this. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colour should never be the sole determinant for information display, and I honestly cannot tell the difference there. SportingFlyer T·C 05:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of this side-issue escalating and derailing the main topic . . . . colouring the score of the penalty shoot-outs AND the two-legged aggregates at Croatia national football team results (2010–2019) and Croatia national football team results (2020–present) is quite hard to see on a laptop or on a mobile phone, and constitutes WP:ICONDECORATION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matilda Maniac (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For statistical purposes, matches won on penalties are draws. See for example this recent article about the Champions' League: [1]: While Manchester City's defeat by Real Madrid ends their Champions League hopes, as penalties do not count in coefficient terms, the game ended in a draw, and this is how FIFA/UEFA categorise all penalty shootouts for statistical purposes. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would especially make no sense if the penalty shoot-out determined the result of the game in the case of Aston Villa's match last night. We'd have to say that, what, Villa won the match 1–2? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with recording them as draws. Penalties are a tie-breaker for purposes of advancement. CTD's point is evidence of that. RedPatch (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that JpTheNotSoSuperior has gone through some articles changing the crest format image from *.png to *.svg formatting. I am not sure what's going on, why it needs changing, am I missing something?

• Huddersfield Town
• Colchester United
• Bradford City
• Millwall, I reverted this, I think the colour change isn't black, but a very dark blue.
• Blyth Spartans
• Newport County
• Salford City
• Stevenage
• Brighton

I am I a bit unclear why we need changing to svg formatting.. But I am a bit lost why these needed changing. Do they need to be reverting? Govvy (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first thing you should do before opening this up for wider discussion here is to ask them on their Talk page. Seems like you haven't? Robby.is.on (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I opened it here for an open discussion! :/ Govvy (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JpTheNotSoSuperior can best explain their motives. If you then find their reasoning lacking or if the two of you can't reach a common understanding, you can still bring the issue here. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IUP#FORMAT does suggest Drawings, icons, logos, maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. I believe that these scale better between large and small screens for simple images like logos, but not 100% on the details about that. Either way, having a discussion about maybe doing mass changes is better than just doing them. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the colour change isn't black, but a very dark blue" - Wasn't this a bit in Father Ted? EchetusXe 16:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone make the tables transclude for me, thank you. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taça de Portugal top scorers seems a little weird to me. I haven't seen a top goalscorer navbox for cups before, and there is none for the FA Cup etc. Isn't this overly detailed, who really keeps tabs on cup goalscorers? Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some here. Kante4 (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taça de Portugal winning managers too. It has a category where I see very few national cup winner templates, though there are many for national teams. In my opinion, both templates I mentioned are examples of overly detailed statistics. Football fans have a propensity for that. Geschichte (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised on the talk page the possibility of a Featured Article review. The history section is bloated compared to the edition that passed in 2007. [2] Personally, I think approaches like on Liverpool F.C. with no history sub-headings but just links at the top are better, as this is a page about a whole club, not its history.

There are seven unsourced paragraphs in the history section, all from the pre-Internet era. Users with books on the history of Villa are advised to help. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this alert. I've responded on the talk page on my own views about this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've clicked through a lot of football manager pages who were footballers before switching to manager career, including Pavel Dochev. Despite this, there's no evidence of them being one, even a sourced "Playing career" section. I don't want to remove the clubs they've played for on infobox without permission, so I would suggest anyone else to do this with references, which are mostly archived news. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you remove that? Have you looked at the other language wikipedias? Govvy (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the other language wikipedias Yes, on Bulgarian Wikipedia for Dochev. After translation, there are no sources on his "playing career" section (first section) which certainly will not help copy over English article. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CuteDolphin712: Pavel Dochev's playing career is supported by his Worldfootball.net (https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/pavel-dotchev/) and NFT (https://www.national-football-teams.com/player/26936/Pavel_Dochev.html) profiles, linked in the "External links" section. Removing his playing career would be highly inappropriate. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Football Teams and WorldFootball are primary sources without secondary content/coverage.

Sure, removing "Playing career" on infobox is inappropriate for such players like him, especially if we don't have same section with more detailed clarification by adding sources (e.g. When the manager ended their playing career). I thought we had to only do that, or am I wrong? Does this also apply to active players? Hmm... I guess those kinda spoil people who are new to the football figure! CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Worldfootball.net and NFT are not primary sources, at least not per our definition. They are databases, not newspaper articles, so they're not suitable for prose but they're fine for verifying infobox content.

I thought we had to only do that, or am I wrong? Does this also apply to active players? Hmm... I guess those kinda spoil people who are new to the football figure! I'm sorry, I don't understand that. Could you rephrase? Robby.is.on (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're also fine for prose, if the content cited is a basic fact like "PlayerName scored two goals against TeamName on Date". What they're not suitable for is demonstrating notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CuteDolphin712, I respectfully suggest you leave football bios alone for a while, until you are able to edit them from a place of more knowledge. GiantSnowman 20:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're also fine for prose, if the content cited is a basic fact like "PlayerName scored two goals against TeamName on Date". Are you sure, Struway2? Don't we need non-database sourcing to demonstrate content is worthy of inclusion per WP:DUE? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of non-database sourcing and requirement to supply it within the article are two different things. At the level of "PlayerName scored two goals against TeamName on Date", there's plenty of non-database sourcing available to show the worth of any brace of goals, and editors make a value judgment as to whether that particular brace was important enough in PlayerName's career to warrant inclusion in their article. Once the editor decides to include, then a database entry can verify the fact. The example wasn't about how to write a better article, but what form of verification is acceptable for a bare statistical fact at a basic level. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on Sorry if I don't talk too well :( Maybe... I meant if the playing career is detailed, is that against WP:FAN or something?

Anyway, I kinda agree with Struway2 statement that database sources are inappropriate to demonstrate notability!

CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant if the playing career is detailed, is that against WP:FAN or something? Whether content is worthy of inclusion is determined by coverage in reliable sources.

Looking at Pavel Dochev: Dochev spent many seasons in the first tier of Bulgarian football and the third tier of German football. I think most experienced editors of football articles will tell you that this usually means there is significant coverage. There's no guarantee there is but it's a good rule of thumb.

Your initial statement there's no evidence of them being [a footballer] was inaccurate as his playing career is verifiable through the database entries I mentioned. The next step would be to search for coverage in newspapers and the like. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following month, a fellow user added several honours to this player, sourcing some of them. Yesterday, i took it upon myself to source the rest, but here's the deal:

they inserted that player/country won the 1977 Central American Games, which is what is shown in the pertinent page of tournament. The ref accompanying it (which is what i used to source honour, this one https://www.rsssf.org/tablesc/cag78.html), however, mentions that they won the QUALIFYING tournament (also the only rankings shown in the WP page), and in the finals they lost FOUR matches in FIVE while conceding a whopping 21 goals, finishing second-bottom (at least if i'm reading it well)!

So in my view i feel this "honour" should be removed, but i come here for "enlightenment" first. Attentively 193.137.135.5 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to that RSSSF source, El Salvador won the football tournament at the 1977 Central American Games, which also acted as a qualifier for the football tournament at the 1978 Central American and Caribbean Games, which is a different competition. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChrisTheDude I see, DIFFERENT competition. I got it now, honour stays! Many thanks. --193.137.135.5 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be moved to John Eggett? Two source material refer to him in title as John Eggett, it was also known as Jack Eggett and he seemed to have been nicknamed Jack. Govvy (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is a common diminutive of John. Given that there are plenty sources which call him Jack eg this one, from one of his former clubs, I don't see an issue with leaving the article where it is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has been making large numbers of rapid and unsourced changes to football related articles. I have already reverted quite a few, but there are probably hundreds. Could someone have a look? I suspect vandalism but would like to be sure. The IP has been blocked while this gets sorted out. It's extremely late here and I will check in tomorrow. If the edits appear to be disruptive, any experienced editor should feel free to just roll them back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks like 90 reverted; 296 to go ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all of their still current edits. I think close to 400. This reminds me of someone I blocked a while ago doing similar stuff. They may be the same person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To let you know that User:Назар Кусий is back (after a block in late 2023), adding external links to their related stats and betting sites once again (they were unblocked recently : @PhilKnight:). I do not think that they are here to build an encyclopedia. Block again ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked them again. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AFC Champions League is being rebranded in the following season to AFC Champions League Elite, at which time there should probably be an examination as to whether to change the name of the AFC Champions League article to AFC Champions League Elite. However, a new article has just been created called AFC Champions League Elite (ACLE). So the question posed is whether this new article should just be speedily deleted, on the basis that the AFC Champions League article will be renamed (perhaps in a month or two) and two separate articles for the same competition are not warranted. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help, the article was vandalised by an IP on 6 August 2017, making the maths on the tables completely wrong, it's never been fixed, and there are a couple of edits in between, I was looking at trying to restore the article, but keep the future edits, but my previews looks odd. I didn't want to fuck up the article. Can someone else help fix the tables back to normal so the maths add up again. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question, not directly related to your query - why is one of the columns headed "goal ratio"? This term was literally never used (at least not in England). The correct term was "goal average" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of the goal ratio, but tables are still broken! I might just have to revert back to the edits before August 2017 then if no one else fixes it before me... Govvy (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected Spurs' record, which seemed to be the only issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't, goals are all wrong in the first table, Tottenham came second in the league not Bristol Rovers, and the third table goals are all wrong. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what RSSSF says. What source do you have that is wildly different....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that 2017 IP the same day, undoing all his edits, so I'm not sure what he did is the problem. These historic season articles were better off with simple tables before they were overcomplicated. The "goal ratio" thing was added here [3] during the mass expansion of templates on all these articles. The maths was changed here [4]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Spurs played 12 games, won 7 and lost 5, they never drew a game. The third table down, total 309 goals for and 274 total against? How is that even equal? Goals for and against are always equal. Govvy (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Spurs scored 26 goals only only let in 13 goal in that league. :/ Govvy (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Govvy (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the reference I originally used for this article, Spurs' record was Pl12 W7 D0 L5 GF26 GA15. I assume it's been changed to 6-1-5-16-15 because someone's found a different reference and changed it. As for Division Two, in the original reference I used, the total goals for and against were 304-274, hence I added the note about totals not balancing. I assume the original tables were wrong, so...? My reference shows Welton having scored 23, not 28 (goal average of 0.5), so that's been changed somewhere, but as you say, still miles off. I also don't know why Welton were above Weymouth, given their goal averages suggest it should be the other way round. My guess is that somebody made a mistake historically, and Weymouth actually conceded 53 goals, not 23. That would fix the goal difference across the whole division, and give Weymouth a goal average of 0.471, explaining why they're below Welton. But that's just my guess... Unless someone has a reference which makes them add up? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Goodwin's Complete Record lists the twelve Spurs games, which add up to a record of P12, W7, D0, L5, F26, A15, Pts14. On the same page there is a league table showing Spurs record as P12, W6, D1, L5, F16, A15, Pts13. The match record is confirmed at Topspurs, so the 6-1-5-16-15 is an error derived from the book. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Soar records all the games in Tottenham Hotspur The Official Illustrated History 1882–1995, not one draw list for the Western League in the results. I have both books here. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are discrepancies in sources and football databases regarding Jardel's number of goals in the 1999-2000 season. That's why I wanted to ask if anyone has an official source (like perhaps from the governing body Liga Portugal itself) for the top scorers list from 1999-2000?
In most Wiki articles (e.g. 1999–2000 FC Porto season or Mário Jardel) the number of goals is listed with 38 as it is according to this sources:
Mario Jardel 1999/2000 - zerozero.pt or infordesporto.pt.The problem is also increased by the fact that sources then state the total number of goals across all competitions as 56[6] instead of 55 .

But these reliable sources have 37 goals in the league for Jardel in the 1999-2000 season:
Record (Portuguese newspaper) [7][8],worldfootball.net,RSSSF, footballdatabase.eu [9] and Besoccer [10]

Apparently it's about one game where this discrepancy comes from in different sources:

So the question is whether someone has a better source (like perhaps from the governing body Liga Portugal itself) or even a video link to the game in question to check it out. Miria~01 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor comment: per WP:WPFLINKSNO, FootballDatabase.eu should not be used. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither should ZeroZero - I trust WorldFootball. GiantSnowman 20:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the difference in sources is due to the method of the goal. I tried to search for the different goal and could not find it. I think we should follow the most reliable sources, which consider that Jardel scored 37 goals. --Mishary94 (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody with access to ENFA or other sources confirm Willie Frame's league statistics for Gateshead in 1931/32? Would really appreciate the help. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add later but Michael Joyce's book says 6 apps in 31/32 ColchesterSid (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything approaching a confirmed DOB would also be very helpful! Crowsus (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce is vague - DOB is for William G Frame is "Larkhall 1898" and no date of death. It also has two extra clubs - sequence of clubs is shown as Larkhall Thistle, Clyde, St Bernards (loan), Motherwell, St Mirren (trial), Dunfermline Athletic, 1931 Gateshead 6/0, Bray Unknowns, Linfield, Motherwell. Oddly Joyce lists him as a goalkeeper - maybe a mistake? ColchesterSid (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what happened to Johnny Orr who played for Blackburn Rovers during the 1910s? Hack (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of Michael Joyce's book lists no clubs for him after Blackburn so unless someone can dredge up another source then we have to assume that either he retired or the information simply isn't known -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I asked because a Scottish guy with the same name ends up in Melbourne during the early 1920s and plays for Australia in 1924. It's probably a different person but the dates match up. Hack (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Litster's database has him as 'Retired' from 1920 but then resurfacing at Leith Athletic in July 1924 (2 seasons in Scottish 3rd tier, 35 league app / 14 goals), depending on the Australia dates it might still be him, but came back home...? I'll try to get a source. Crowsus (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...British Newspaper Archive actually has him playing for Leith as early as 1922 (they had closed down for WWI and were non league at that point until 1924, explaining the discrepancy) so looking less likely. Also a snippet from a benefit game in 1926 which doesn't mention any time in Australia. I can see that the other Johnny Orr was pretty prominent in the mid 1920s; you've probably seen a passing mention here. Crowsus (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lfchistorc profile, worldfootball.net profile. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]