Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. 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, 167, 168Auto-archiving period: 7 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Football 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

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

Let's see if, 18 years later, i am still seeing this wrong and thus need a wiki-lesson...

Iván Balliu: i removed the "Albanian expatriate sportspeople in Portugal" category because it seems a wrong one. The subject left F.C. Arouca (thus Portugal) in June 2015, and he obtained Albanian citizenship/won his first cap in August/October 2017.

I explained that reasoning in my edit summary, was immediately reverted and the other user did not use a single word for their actions. Where do we stand regarding this, please? And if the aforementioned category is indeed correct and i had no business removing it in the first place, why is that?

Attentively, enjoy the rest of your day RevampedEditor (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct as far as I am aware, there appears to be no doubt about the citizenship timeline: he wasn't Albanian when in Portugal. Crowsus (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GiantSnowman 17:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus and @Giant, thank you very much for your inputs. I'd say thus that there seems to be a consensus, so i re-removed the category and redirected the other user to this discussion (in the edit summaries); let's see if they respect it. --RevampedEditor (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a hidden note underneath the categories explaining it. It likely is a Good Faith edit misunderstanding by the person who added it. RedPatch (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also recreated after deletion? Or was it recreated after a DRV? Govvy (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page history it was CSD/G4ed, but an admin declined as it was expanded from the previous deleted version. You'd have to AfD it again if you feel it's not worthy of an article. Spike 'em (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New AFD started: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Serie A broadcasters (2nd nomination). Everyone feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joseph, posted my thoughts on that AfD. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I've just been on the user talk of a user that amends infoboxes every week but never, ever updates the timestamp. They've been warned several times for over 12 months to do this but, as of today, they still choose not to. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no matter how many times I ask them to do it, they'll never actually do it. As this is not vandalism or disruptive editing per se, it's very hard to encourage certain users to use the timestamp. I wonder if our standard infobox template would benefit from some hidden comments that guide the user to amend the timestamp? For example, in tennis infoboxes (e.g. Aryna Sabalenka) there are many instructions such as first date is death date, second date is birth date and NEVER UPDATE UNTIL THE WTA/ATP WEBSITE IS UPDATED (usually on a Monday) - that way, there is zero excuse when someone doesn't follow protocol. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is disruptive editing - it's essentially repeatedly adding factually incorrect information to BLPs. Hidden comments still get ignored. Blocking is a much more effective way of preventing disruption... GiantSnowman 16:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don't know why people don't do it, even after several reminders. It only takes a few seconds and it helps readers to see that the info is up to date. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it might not be intentionally disruptive but it is disruptive. Periodically I see someone making such an edit on an article on my watchlist, which by itself wouldn't be too bad but I then click on their contributions and see they have made similar edits at the same time to 20 or 30 other articles, all of which I then have to fix....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an indication of a lack of competence... GiantSnowman 17:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, sadly, I think it's that WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I don't want to start the world's lamest edit war, so I'm just bringing this here for additional input.

• 9 November: I create the page Jokin Uria
• TheLongTone makes an edit with the summary "grammar" [1] This changes Uria from a "Spanish former footballer" to a "former Spanish footballer"
• I undo with the summary "he's still Spanish" [2]

• 23 November: I create the page Martín Begiristain
• TheLongTone edits with the summary "nobody has a career as a former footballer" [3].
• I revert and say that every other page I have seen uses this wording. I reference this talk page as where we can get WP:CONSENSUS for something that concerns hundreds of thousands of pages
• TheLongTone makes a second revert and says "they are all wrong" [4]

Now, I'm probably going to be accused of WP:CANVASsing like-minded people, but surely this is where we get WP:CONSENSUS on things that apply to loads of pages. I haven't seen TheLongTone editing in football before, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's going to make pages stick out if you're only making a change on one of many. You get consensus for something shared across loads of pages.

"Former Spanish footballer" is incorrect. The man is still alive and still Spanish. The wording says that he is formerly Spanish, or formerly involved in something called "Spanish football". Note the difference between "Former French horn player" and "French former horn player", or "Former Brazilian jujitsu instructor" and "Brazilian former jujitsu instructor".

Also consider that "former" can be substituted by "ex-". Would we say "Manchester United's ex-Scottish manager" or "Manchester United's Scottish ex-manager"?

This isn't even an esoteric football thing. "American former actor" [5] "Dutch former politician and former civil servant" [6] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish former as, as you said, he's still spanish and alive. Kante4 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be '[Nationality] former footballer', not 'former [Nationality] footballer'. People still retain their nationality even if retired from their profession. GiantSnowman 18:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. "Former Spanish footballer" could be interpreted to mean that he is now a French footballer or a German footballer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish former footballer is the correct form. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Grammatically the structure matters particularly if the word used is "former". If we were to use the term "retired" it would be passable. However there are plenty of instances where former reads better (such as when they have follow on careers) and the consensus on wikipedia is still "Name retired job" or "Name former job" (see Michael Caine, Gene Hackman, Jack Nicholson, Jessica Ennis-Hill, Carl Fogarty, James Toseland and so on). There's some nuance to be had in some cases I am sure (particularly where a person has a long career with multiple roles where what they are notable for changes). Koncorde (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's edit-warring about which sources can be used for his statistics. If you can help, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a bit more than that. Numerous anon IPs and one particular editor appear to wish to remove anything which shows the subject in a bad light while also emphasising his qualifications and managerial record (by expecting the reader to go through all the fixtures listed on Soccerway and adding up games, wins, etc.) No proof but such dedication might indicate a closeness to the subject and thus a conflict of interest?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous SPAs have edited the article in the same way over the past few dating back to article creation. Likely the same person each time coming up with a new account. It has been discussed on this page a few times already. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_136#James_Rowe_(football_manager) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_149#James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983),_BLP-issue. This time around it got semi-protected, but now that the 4 days for autoconfirmed status has passed, they are now re-starting the removal of info. RedPatch (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a few things that do need tidying there, I think there's better ways to deal with some of the content. But if there is a dedicated anti-content user then a request for page protection is required. Koncorde (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth remembering that this article has a long history of COI and SPA editing (I believe the creator was his mother). The edit summaries of the 'new' user editing the article suggests they may be a continuation of the former. Number 57 18:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting how they their issue is with vandalism, but then went and made this edit on another article. RedPatch (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an un-involved admin would like to up the protection-level or issue a page-block, that'd be great. But then, I'm one of the vandals. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Talk:James_Rowe_(footballer,_born_1983)#And_we_have_another_WP:EW indicates that a block is reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting [7]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]