 | Football Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | 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. |
|
|
| Main pages |
|---|
| Football Assessment |
| Format templates |
| Other |
There is a new editor who seems convinced that Uruguay are four time world champions because they won gold at the Olympics in the 1920s as well as the World Cup in 1930 and 1950. For example on the Germany national football team article, they added: "Germany is one of the most successful national teams in international competitions, having won four FIFA World Cups ( 1954, 1974, 1990, 2014), tied with Uruguay [1], Italy, and only one less than the most successful team, Brazil." All of their edits are related to combining the two tournaments.
Although I do not have a great deal of knowledge on this period of football, this seems very misleading. I have also asked the editor to start a talk page discussion rather than to continually reinstate their changes. Does anyone have any perspective of this?
I've placed it here as this has been done across several pages: Uruguay: [2], Germany: [3], Argentina: [4], 1930 FIFA World Cup: [5]
Pinging @ User:Kante4 as they were involved too. Kind regards Michaeldble ( talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Michaeldble ( talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Truefacts24: Pinging the editor. Those are two different tournaments and this is the first time i heard that the Olympics in 1924 and 1928 were counted as the first world cups. Can someone with more knowledge help?
Kante4 (
talk)
20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The 1928 and 1924 Olympics were special tournaments that counted as full world championships equivalent to a World Cup before the World Cup was. The World Cup started in 1930, which is a different tournament. Those particular Olympics don’t count as world cups but count as FIFA world championships equal in value and prestige. This is confirmed by fifa and is the reason why Uruguay wears 4 stars above their crest. FIFA makes countries remove stars from their crest unless they were official champions of the world. For example in the 2018 World Cup, FIFA made Egypt remove the 7 stars they wear above their crest for their Africa cup wins.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have non-Uruguayan sources available for this?
The Banner
talk
22:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- FIFA itself is the source. Have you ever watched a FIFA World Cup? If so you will view 4 stars in Uruguays crest. This is because FIFA recognizes them as 4 time world champions, otherwise they would be informed that they have to remove stars before they enter FIFAs tournament. It’s also in the FIFA museum.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources from FIFA that say this explicitly please?
Michaeldble (
talk)
22:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- On hand I have several photos that you can read of plaques in the FIFA museum in Zurich, Switzerland that display this. How should I send them? Truefacts24 ( talk) 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Here’s the Olympics themselves confirming that the 1924 tournament was the first world championship organized by FIFA
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Saying "four world championships" is very different than saying "four World Cups", which is explicitly incorrect. The vast majority of discussion about "world championships" is in reference to the
FIFA World Cup, so except for discussions in Uruguay's specific context, it would be inappropriate to make these changes to articles like
Germany.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is a completely ludicrous statement rife with bias rather than truth, especially how it was worded. Uruguay need to be included when comparing how many times a country was champion of the world. Germany would have 5 stars had they won one of those Olympics editions, but they didn’t, they lost to Uruguay 4-1 in the quarterfinal of the 1928 world championship. The World Cup is a brand name and the history of it is important as all world champions are equal, regardless of which brand they won. I specifically added the wording tied in “world titles” with… as to include the total number of times each country was champion of the world, not only the World Cup, which is the correct and fair comparison. Truefacts24 ( talk) 23:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Saying "four world championships" is very different than saying "four World Cups", which is explicitly incorrect. The vast majority of discussion about "world championships" is in reference to the
FIFA World Cup, so except for discussions in Uruguay's specific context, it would be inappropriate to make these changes to articles like
Germany.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fifa.com confirmation Truefacts24 ( talk) 23:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources from FIFA that say this explicitly please?
Michaeldble (
talk)
22:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- FIFA itself is the source. Have you ever watched a FIFA World Cup? If so you will view 4 stars in Uruguays crest. This is because FIFA recognizes them as 4 time world champions, otherwise they would be informed that they have to remove stars before they enter FIFAs tournament. It’s also in the FIFA museum.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have non-Uruguayan sources available for this?
The Banner
talk
22:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The 1928 and 1924 Olympics were special tournaments that counted as full world championships equivalent to a World Cup before the World Cup was. The World Cup started in 1930, which is a different tournament. Those particular Olympics don’t count as world cups but count as FIFA world championships equal in value and prestige. This is confirmed by fifa and is the reason why Uruguay wears 4 stars above their crest. FIFA makes countries remove stars from their crest unless they were official champions of the world. For example in the 2018 World Cup, FIFA made Egypt remove the 7 stars they wear above their crest for their Africa cup wins.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I´am from Argentina, not from Uruguay, but in this issue, uruguayans are correct: they are 4 times "World champions", because the 1924 and 1928 Olympic Games (Football) were played by Senior Teams, and the winner of those golds medals were considered the "world champions" by FIFA. There are 2 sources of FIFA I can bring, but they are in spanish [6] [7]
- FIFA created the first World Cup in 1930 because of the success of those Olympics Games, where they had the control of the Football Tournament itself. In 1930 and in 1950 Uruguay won the FIFA World Cup, but the previous 2 gold medals are considerated "world champions" too. So Uruguay has 2 FIFA World Cups, but is considered to be 4 times "World Champion". It is similar to the example of the
Intercontinental Cup of clubs and the
FIFA Club World Cup. The Intercontinental was organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL only, but the winner of the cup was (and still IS) considered the "World Champion of clubs". When FIFA took control and enlarged the tournament for other continents, the other cup dissapeared and now the World Champions of Clubs is the one which wins the FIFA Club World Cup. But, the teams who won the Intercontinental Cup are still considered World Champions of clubs... For example Sao Paulo FC is 3 times "champion of the world" because won the 1992 and 1993 Intercontinental Cup and the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup.
[8] --
Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (
talk)
23:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great sources, I had that document in Spanish and was looking for it in English, because I’ve seen it in English as well. Thanks for adding it Truefacts24 ( talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- While this may be correct, the vast majority of discussion when it comes to national football teams is about the winners of the
FIFA World Cup, not about championships that were won prior to its establishment. I don't see a reason that these changes need to be implemented across national team articles outside of the particular historical context for Uruguay. The Intercontinental Cup is its own beast, but clubs are not talked about as frequently as "world champions" in the same way that national teams are. If we want to discuss that, I would recommend a separate discussion.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- You opinion on what you think people want to talk about is irrelevant. The purpose of these articles is to inform people with facts like an encyclopedia, not adhere to narratives like a magazine. Germany had the opportunity to have one of Uruguays stars on their shirt and on their Wikipedia page but they lost to Uruguay 4-1 in the quarterfinal of the 1928 world championship. Trying to erase facts in history is disrespectful to FIFA, Uruguay, and curious readers seeking information.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
23:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is not about what I think people want to talk about, but what people actually talk about. The vast majority of discussion about national football teams is on the
FIFA World Cup, not "all football world championships, including those prior to the World Cup". Uruguay absolutely has claim to four world championships. That does not mean that it merits discussion in the leads of the pages for any other nation other than Uruguay. It is a worthy historical fact that is notably relevant to one country; every other nation broadly discusses one particular tournament i.e. the
FIFA World Cup. The fact that Uruguay has claims to four world championships only really ever comes up, except within an Uruguayan-centric context, is about the history of the World Cup or the Olympics.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- What people want to talk about or what people mostly talk about has nothing to do with the purpose of this website as an online encyclopedia which purpose is to inform people. Furthermore discussion is not the purpose of a Wikipedia page, informing is.
- The page of a national team is not about the World Cup which has its own page if people want to learn about that particular tournament. National team pages encompass all tournaments those teams were involved in.
- Truefacts24 ( talk) 23:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is not about what I think people want to talk about, but what people actually talk about. The vast majority of discussion about national football teams is on the
FIFA World Cup, not "all football world championships, including those prior to the World Cup". Uruguay absolutely has claim to four world championships. That does not mean that it merits discussion in the leads of the pages for any other nation other than Uruguay. It is a worthy historical fact that is notably relevant to one country; every other nation broadly discusses one particular tournament i.e. the
FIFA World Cup. The fact that Uruguay has claims to four world championships only really ever comes up, except within an Uruguayan-centric context, is about the history of the World Cup or the Olympics.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- You opinion on what you think people want to talk about is irrelevant. The purpose of these articles is to inform people with facts like an encyclopedia, not adhere to narratives like a magazine. Germany had the opportunity to have one of Uruguays stars on their shirt and on their Wikipedia page but they lost to Uruguay 4-1 in the quarterfinal of the 1928 world championship. Trying to erase facts in history is disrespectful to FIFA, Uruguay, and curious readers seeking information.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
23:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
( edit conflict) The whole story sounds a little murky. I could see explanations going either way and it seems to depend on who we're sourcing as well. Anyways, when mentioned it should probably be slightly elaborated on and linked to an appropriate article. -- SuperJew ( talk) 23:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The real problem here is that none of this context is obvious in most cases. Anyone not familiar with this very specific bit of footballing history from almost 100 years ago, on seeing phrases "World Cup" and "world title" together, will reasonably presume that having won a world title means having won a world cup, thus misrepresenting Uruguay as having won more World Cups than they actually have. In light of that, I have to agree with Jay's assessment that the phrasing "world title" should generally be avoided except in cases where Uruguay's 1920's titles are directly relevant, and more detailed explanation of what that phrase actually means is included.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
23:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is basically the exact point I was trying to get across. I think I am done talking in circles here, because I don't think my reasoning was being understood or acknowledged.
Jay eyem (
talk)
00:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Arguing against adding 3 words to a page (“word titles” and “Uruguay”) is an attempt to bully a nation because they’re small with only 3.4 million people and can’t easily defend their right to history and also because you want to prop up your favorite country or continent by not showing another’s achievements. A reader seeing that and reading the references will learn something and it will click in their head why they see Uruguay wearing 4 stars in FIFA world cups. Truefacts24 ( talk) 00:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is why those official documents and references are linked to the word world title which can be clicked to teach people things which frankly matter.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
00:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can always write 4 time world champions (1924 and 1928 Olympics and 1930 and 1950 World Cups). The brackets can help clear it up RedPatch ( talk) 02:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your edit on Germany stated "Germany is one of the most successful national teams in international competitions, having won four FIFA World Cups (1954, 1974, 1990, 2014), tied with Uruguay...". This is clearly false. The 1924 and 1928 Olympics were world championships won by Uruguay, but not World Cups. Your edit on Argentina similarly changed the specific wording of "appeared in a World Cup final six times" (correct) to "appeared in a Football World Championship final (The World Cup final and 1928 Olympics) 7 times" (also correct, but amended the stated fact unnecessarily). Essentially the Olympics were a gateway to Uruguay hosting the first World Cup and they won that and are deservedly lauded for that, and the Olympic wins stand on their own merit. What your edits are attempting to do is not point out that Uruguay also won 'World Championship' Olympics, which is something that possibly deserves more attention, but to add the totals of those tournaments awkwardly onto the established totals for World Cup wins, finals etc leading to confusion and argument. In contrast, nobody has changed your edit at Switzerland as you have done that one right - adding the Olympic medal without claiming that they played in the first World Cup final.
Crowsus (
talk)
04:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I never intended to put “tied with Uruguay”. If I did it was for half a second before I quickly fixed the typo. You will see all of my edits besides that typo say “tied in world titles with Uruguay & Italy” which is 100% correct, without adding Uruguay the Germany page is disrespecting Uruguay and all Uruguay fans. I am personally a fan of the Argentina national team and I want to have it said that we made it to 7 world championship finals which is better than saying 6. That is a good thing to show and teach people about. I never said 7 World Cup finals. I’m also tired of seeing people pick on Uruguay online (not on these discussions with you guys) and they tell Uruguayan fans they shouldn’t have 4 stars and they don’t understand how those Olympics count. It’s important to begin to teach people the truth so Uruguay fans can stop feeling robbed and ridiculed by history tellers and get their proper credit. This is why references are added to the end of correct phrases so people can choose to learn more. Truefacts24 ( talk) 12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is basically the exact point I was trying to get across. I think I am done talking in circles here, because I don't think my reasoning was being understood or acknowledged.
Jay eyem (
talk)
00:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It is of note that the logo of the 1930 World Cup, organized by Uruguay, reads: "1er Campeonato Mundial de Football" (emphasis added). -- Theurgist ( talk) 03:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This right here settles everything. It’s from FIFA.com Truefacts24 ( talk) 03:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have final-warned the user for introducing misleading information into articles and edit-warring. They have also attempted to circumvent their partial block from the Germany article by asking another editor to proxy for them. Any further similar activity will inevitably result in a siteblock.
Black Kite (talk)
05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Others who agree with me will inevitably add the same information as me regardless because it’s the most correct information. Most people don’t know this history and it’s a shame they don’t, and putting it on Wikipedia will inform everyone more about soccer. Nothing I’ve said is misleading, especially when I add references of proof.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said at your talkpage, you need to gain consensus for your changes. This is how Wikipedia works. Otherwise they will simply be reverted, and if the issue continues, it will be dealt with via protection and/or sanctions, which is not what anyone wants.
Black Kite (talk)
12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- If Truefacts24 edits again, somebody ping me and I'll block them for disruption and editing against consensus.
Giant
Snowman
18:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I’ve been falsely attacked. I did nothing wrong. Everything I posted was 100% factual, it’s not my fault people don’t know history, that’s why I’m trying to edit it. I never personally attacked anybody, I was falsely reported. I will continue to edit as I see fit within the bounds of the rules. I will make sure Uruguays history is known to the world. No consensus has been established against what I said, half agree with me, 2 are biased fans as shown on their page when you click on their name, and are trying to prop up their country by omitting relevant information, which insults Uruguay, and another one just hasn’t checked any of my sources from FIFA themselves.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
19:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked now for personal attacks after ample warning. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, my primary nation of choice has never won the World Cup (although the women's team have won their tournament four times). Jay eyem ( talk) 20:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I’ve been falsely attacked. I did nothing wrong. Everything I posted was 100% factual, it’s not my fault people don’t know history, that’s why I’m trying to edit it. I never personally attacked anybody, I was falsely reported. I will continue to edit as I see fit within the bounds of the rules. I will make sure Uruguays history is known to the world. No consensus has been established against what I said, half agree with me, 2 are biased fans as shown on their page when you click on their name, and are trying to prop up their country by omitting relevant information, which insults Uruguay, and another one just hasn’t checked any of my sources from FIFA themselves.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
19:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- If Truefacts24 edits again, somebody ping me and I'll block them for disruption and editing against consensus.
Giant
Snowman
18:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said at your talkpage, you need to gain consensus for your changes. This is how Wikipedia works. Otherwise they will simply be reverted, and if the issue continues, it will be dealt with via protection and/or sanctions, which is not what anyone wants.
Black Kite (talk)
12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Others who agree with me will inevitably add the same information as me regardless because it’s the most correct information. Most people don’t know this history and it’s a shame they don’t, and putting it on Wikipedia will inform everyone more about soccer. Nothing I’ve said is misleading, especially when I add references of proof.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion borders on a total lack of good faith, in mixing the historical importance of the first Olympic gold medals with the hierarchical line of World Cup champions.
Svartner (
talk)
23:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here’s FIFA document archived from FIFAs website stating the 1924 and 1928 editions of the Olympics are just as much world championships as the world cups were, please read it. [ https://web.archive.org/web/20140405000621/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mcwc/ip-201_02e_fwc-origin_8816.pdf
- FIFA would never allow Uruguay to wear 4 stars in FIFA competitions if FIFA did not consider the Uruguay senior men’s national team as officially champions of the world 4 times. This is the education everyone needs (which is what the point of Wikipedia articles is, because the public wants to become educated on subject matters) and the discussion ender on the subject matter regarding those 2 Olympics as world championship status in the same way as the World Cups that followed them.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
21:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let it go.
Seasider53 (
talk)
21:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- No.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, Truefacts24 has been indeffed for ... well, you can see why on their TP. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- No.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Uruguayan team can put 80 stars above the AUF shield and this will not make the team the FIFA World Cup champion the most times. The Olympic gold medals that precede the tournament have their due and recognized importance, but the competitions are obviously different. It's disgusting that things have reached this level...
Svartner (
talk)
01:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please tone down the rhetoric. You're not going to convince anyone with language like that, and in this discussion you don't have to. The only editor meaningfully pushing the opposing viewpoint has been blocked indefinitely and is unlikely to come back into fold any time soon.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
01:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- And is it necessary to convince a self-evident thing? But I'm glad to know in anycase that the community have already found an assertive solution. Svartner ( talk) 03:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please tone down the rhetoric. You're not going to convince anyone with language like that, and in this discussion you don't have to. The only editor meaningfully pushing the opposing viewpoint has been blocked indefinitely and is unlikely to come back into fold any time soon.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
01:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let it go.
Seasider53 (
talk)
21:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Worked on Greek football clubs in European competitions multiple times. There is an ongoing edit war with an IP user there. Need your help and someone else's neutral pov to dissolve this. Recent edit history and Talk page will guide you on this. Thank you Abudabanas ( talk) 17:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Good Evening. I am the anonymous Mr. Abudabanas is in dispute with. First of all he is lying since there is no edit war in the entry. He came, made a bunch of cancellations as he saw fit and started the war. It doesn't even allow to write there. We opened a conversation on the talk page. Because he had nothing documented, he started writing on other users' pages and asking for the entry to be locked. He does the same here. Anyway check out our chat and judge. /info/en/?search=Talk:Greek_football_clubs_in_European_competitions#Table_of_the_top_4_Greek_teams_in_the_European_cups — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:586:813D:2A91:BC4D:358E:D352:1447 ( talk) 18:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion on this. Do you think that a Round of 16 participation in a European competition should be added as a distiction or it is more proper/valid that at least a quarter-final app should be credited as a distiction for the Greek teams? Greek clubs have reached at least the quarter-finals of a European competition 19 times. Including the Round of 16 apps you will need to add another 38 times I think. Is it equitable for a team to state that they distinguished themselves when they reached a Round with 15 others? In 2024, Olympiacos became the first Greek club winning a European trophy (Conference League) and other landmarks in Greek football history are Panathinaikos as runners-up of the 1971 European Cup and twice as semi-finalists (1985, 1996). Best UEFA Cup performance by AEK Athens (semi-finals, 1977). These are the numbers. What do you think? Abudabanas ( talk) 18:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- When it comes to the round of 16 of the Champions League, the Europa League, the Conference League, of course it should. To get there you have to go through 3 qualifying rounds, from the playoffs, the group stage and the knockout stage of 32. Besides, UEFA gives a separate bonus for qualifying to the 16. If it is about the old European cups, where there were 32 teams and you got to 16 from the 2nd round, then no. 2A02:586:813D:2A91:FCD3:E7A8:FF22:8790 ( talk) 18:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I have added my opinion in the talk page. Nevechear ( talk) 00:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP (might need a range block) and semi-protected the page. Giant Snowman 10:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Could we get some eyes on 2029 FIFA Club World Cup, please?
Looks like the same issue that has been going on at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup has returned for 2029 FIFA Club World Cup, with the exact same issue that was discussed on this page not that long ago. I assume the consensus has not changed in that time, but I am open to being proved wrong. Jay eyem ( talk) 04:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have indefblocked Fa30sp for frankly being a persistent timesink (as well as casting aspersions and driving a coach and horses through 3RR). Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Currently, on the Olympic football squad 2020 and 2024 pages, the articles state The club listed is the club for which the player last played a competitive match prior to the tournament. This statement seems like a standard for the football squads articles on Wikipedia and in my opinion, this standard gives a certain tribute to the club where the player proved himself to earn a call-up to his nation to participate in a tournament.
However, the Olympics are held in the middle of the transfer window, which means several players officially moved clubs before the tournament started, being under the authority of their new clubs. In order to participate in this tournament, the players would need the permission of their current clubs. In this case I think it wouldn't be very logical to list, for example, Michael Olise as a Crystal Palace player, when in reality, he's under contract with his new club Bayern Munich, who gave him permission to participate in the tournament.
What do you guys think? Lâm ( talk) 09:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it should be the club they were contracted to at the start of the tournament.
Giant
Snowman
10:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- But we don't always know that with certainty. Clubs often will sign a player and reveal it later, etc. --
SuperJew (
talk)
20:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should follow the same rules as always. Even if some transfers were completed, vast majority of clubs have not yet played any official games in 24/25 season (save for participants of UCL/UEL/Conference League qualifiers.) If player had no chance to play a game for the new club, the old club should be listed.-- BlameRuiner ( talk) 22:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- But we don't always know that with certainty. Clubs often will sign a player and reveal it later, etc. --
SuperJew (
talk)
20:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Canada Soccer drone spying scandal § Should this be titled "Dronegate".
Kingsif (
talk)
00:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me what's the criteria of adding some managerial roles to the infobox while others are completely ignored? I mean, why Enzo Maresca's spell in the Man City EDS it's more important than Carlos Corberán's spell at the Juvenil A side of Alcorcón, when both play youth tournaments which are equally important to their nations? And why assistant roles are completely ignored when some managers spent the most of their careers in that role?
I thought the infobox was supposed to give information to the normal reader... In my opinion, omitting those spells from the infobox would actually provide an incomplete resume of the manager's career. I'd say that's valid to add youth and assistant spells to the infobox, given their importance to the actual meaning to a technical staff, but I do agree that scout/director/fitness coach roles should not appear in the managerial section, because youth manager is still a manager, and assistant is basically the second in command while the manager is suspended/expelled/absent.
What's your input over this? BRDude70 ( talk) 03:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- It should be managerial roles only, except in limited circumstances (e.g. someone who is well known for being an assistant).
Giant
Snowman
07:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, assistant roles at a national team could be added (not 100% for me) but not more.
Kante4 (
talk)
08:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- So not the assistant roles of
José Mourinho then?--
Egghead06 (
talk)
11:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think its valid and important to add assistant roles. Would help explain gaps for people who may have been an assistant in between manager roles.
RedPatch (
talk)
11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I second this as it gets quite confusing with someone like
Hansi Flick who has a 14 year gap between his stints at
TSG Hoffenheim and
Bayern Munich due to having been an assistant coach for the majority of that gap.
SparklessPlug (
talk |
contribs)
12:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- He was a manager in 2005 and was not a manager again until 2019. Where is the confusion? Wouldn't it be more confusing for someone to be a coach for six months, an assistant for a year, whilst also helping out as a coach at another side, then they stop being coach / assistant and become a manager at the original club for 14 years, only to have their "Managerial career" section of the infobox have 4 lines, 3 of which were of no significance, 3 of which were at the same club? How about just having managerial roles in the managerial section of the infobox? -- Echetus Xe 14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I second this as it gets quite confusing with someone like
Hansi Flick who has a 14 year gap between his stints at
TSG Hoffenheim and
Bayern Munich due to having been an assistant coach for the majority of that gap.
SparklessPlug (
talk |
contribs)
12:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think its valid and important to add assistant roles. Would help explain gaps for people who may have been an assistant in between manager roles.
RedPatch (
talk)
11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- So not the assistant roles of
José Mourinho then?--
Egghead06 (
talk)
11:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, assistant roles at a national team could be added (not 100% for me) but not more.
Kante4 (
talk)
08:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- How about an all or nothing approach? Either just managerial roles are allowed or any role in football is allowed e.g. assistant manager, coach, scout, etc. Allowing some roles, sometimes is creating the current confusion.--
Egghead06 (
talk)
14:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would go with nothing other than manager roles.
Kante4 (
talk)
14:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Other sports list assistant roles. Yeah, yeah
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know. However, would the basic reader be interested in seeing an assistant role... I'd think yes.
RedPatch (
talk)
15:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that assistant and youth manager roles are interesting to the common reader, other ones aren't. I'd personally would prefer to see them in the infobox as they'd show a more concise info to me without making me needing to read the entire article to understand/find those infos.
BRDude70 (
talk)
17:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Youth manager roles are OK, but why does an assistant need to be in the infobox?
Giant
Snowman
17:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why it doesn't need to? The assistant is the second in command, often replaces the manager in suspensions or health issues, and is often the closest step to a managerial role which several managers take (this and the youth manager roles). Like other users stated above, sometimes there's a big gap (like in Flick's career, where he spent 14 years in other roles) which is not clear in the infobox and is not very informative to the normal reader (in Flick's case, the period where he was an assistant of Salzburg is not clear even in the storyline either). Plus, several assistant coaches (like Milton Cruz or Marcelo Fernandes) spent a great deal of time being an caretaker/interim manager/head coach for his team while still acting as an assistant. Omitting this spell from the infobox would be confusing, IMO, like: where does this manager comes from? :)
- The current way (where assistant duties are added according to importance) is really subjective, there's no type of metric to measure this. That's why I first raised the question here. Some consistency must exist at
WP:FOOTY/Players so we can basis the edits on this, like several other cases.
BRDude70 (
talk)
12:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that, whatever is decided, showing assistant roles only for someone who is "well known for being an assistant" is a non-starter, because deciding who fits into that category is OR... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
12:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all - plenty of coaches are well known for being an assistant for all/part of their career, see e.g.
Mike Phelan, famously assistant to Sir Alex for many years,
Carlos Queiroz in the same role,
André Villas-Boas as assistant to Mourinho at a number of clubs etc etc.
Giant
Snowman
16:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman: At Phelan, the "coaching career" section begins with this sentence: "He returned to Carrow Road in December 1995, as an assistant manager to Gary Megson (another former Norwich player) and managed the club's reserve team." If that parenthesis wasn't there, this would make the normal reader either enter the article about Carrow Road, or read the previous sections, or have a pretty good knowledge of football to know that's the stadium of Norwich City. Having that info in the infobox would be way clearer and direct, TBH... And that's just an example, others might have his assistant spells very unclear in the storyline, such as Flick's period at Salzburg.
BRDude70 (
talk)
16:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- GS's example really limits this to Premier League and Champions League level teams. Of course there's gonna be extensive coverage of everything related to these teams, including the assistant coaches. This is why we now get the articles for 15-year-olds with 0 senior career to speak of but which were signed by so-and-so English club. What about hundreds of other coaches who had significantly long assistant spells but at a lower level of media attention? Not worthy? -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 21:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman: At Phelan, the "coaching career" section begins with this sentence: "He returned to Carrow Road in December 1995, as an assistant manager to Gary Megson (another former Norwich player) and managed the club's reserve team." If that parenthesis wasn't there, this would make the normal reader either enter the article about Carrow Road, or read the previous sections, or have a pretty good knowledge of football to know that's the stadium of Norwich City. Having that info in the infobox would be way clearer and direct, TBH... And that's just an example, others might have his assistant spells very unclear in the storyline, such as Flick's period at Salzburg.
BRDude70 (
talk)
16:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all - plenty of coaches are well known for being an assistant for all/part of their career, see e.g.
Mike Phelan, famously assistant to Sir Alex for many years,
Carlos Queiroz in the same role,
André Villas-Boas as assistant to Mourinho at a number of clubs etc etc.
Giant
Snowman
16:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that, whatever is decided, showing assistant roles only for someone who is "well known for being an assistant" is a non-starter, because deciding who fits into that category is OR... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
12:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Youth manager roles are OK, but why does an assistant need to be in the infobox?
Giant
Snowman
17:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that assistant and youth manager roles are interesting to the common reader, other ones aren't. I'd personally would prefer to see them in the infobox as they'd show a more concise info to me without making me needing to read the entire article to understand/find those infos.
BRDude70 (
talk)
17:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Other sports list assistant roles. Yeah, yeah
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know. However, would the basic reader be interested in seeing an assistant role... I'd think yes.
RedPatch (
talk)
15:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would go with nothing other than manager roles.
Kante4 (
talk)
14:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- How about an all or nothing approach? Either just managerial roles are allowed or any role in football is allowed e.g. assistant manager, coach, scout, etc. Allowing some roles, sometimes is creating the current confusion.--
Egghead06 (
talk)
14:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Some users are including Denmark as Olympic champions for the 1896 demonstration match and the unofficial edition of 1906. What is the correct format for the template? Svartner ( talk) 03:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
If anyone has a spare few minutes (likely more; I do not currently), this IP has been attempting to improve articles by changing "secure" to "secured", or vice-versa, but many of them are not the correct option. I suspect English is not their first language. Good intentions, just creating a lot of errors. Seasider53 ( talk) 07:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- their edits appear to be correct from what I have checked...
Crowsus (
talk)
11:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- With this edit one correction is correct and one is not correct. Echetus Xe 12:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Or rather, two Jayden Reid's. There is a Jayden Reid who is English and a Jayden Reid (soccer) who is American, both were born in 2001. I'm unfamiliar with how to go forward with the articles, if we need a disambiguous page or to have a better clarification in the article names or what.
I know there are two Antony's, but they are respectively labeled "footballer, born 2000" and "footballer, born 2001".
I just need a little help here, its nothing huge. HYTEN CREW ( talk) 16:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a headnote to each article pointing to their namesakes - I think this is sufficient (though I've also added links to the
Reid (surname) article). The English player article was started in 2021, so is presumably the primary topic, while the American is a more recent (2024) creation.
Paul W (
talk)
16:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the decision is to disambig in the end (i.e. neither is a primary), then can be done by month of birth as one is in April and one is in August. Also IMO can be (and would be preferable) done by nationality, but the consensus on the project is to prefer birth year + month if needed. --
SuperJew (
talk)
18:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we were to disambiguate, then the relevant naming convention
WP:NCSP#Association football (soccer) would seem to prefer nationality, as "English footballer" and "American soccer" are surely more conclusive (i.e. helpful to the reader) than going down to month of birth. cheers,
Struway2 (
talk)
18:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I agree. However that was not the consensus reached on this talk page in recent discussions. But maybe it needs to be reopened. --
SuperJew (
talk)
18:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please link the discussion? I can't find it and I'd like to evaluate the parameters they decided on.
HYTEN CREW (
talk)
19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- From a quick search got this (and the discussion following it) and this. I might be misreading the discussions, but I'm also going off that in my experience the main disambiguator is year/birthdate, while nationality is rarer (and the ones which I have seen have been replaced by birth mostly). For example Adama Traoré (footballer, born 1990) and Adama Traoré (footballer, born 1996) are not Adama Traoré (Ivorian footballer) and Adama Traoré (Spanish footballer). (always love this one remembering when they played against each other in 2022 and both scored too) -- SuperJew ( talk) 19:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please link the discussion? I can't find it and I'd like to evaluate the parameters they decided on.
HYTEN CREW (
talk)
19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I agree. However that was not the consensus reached on this talk page in recent discussions. But maybe it needs to be reopened. --
SuperJew (
talk)
18:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we were to disambiguate, then the relevant naming convention
WP:NCSP#Association football (soccer) would seem to prefer nationality, as "English footballer" and "American soccer" are surely more conclusive (i.e. helpful to the reader) than going down to month of birth. cheers,
Struway2 (
talk)
18:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the decision is to disambig in the end (i.e. neither is a primary), then can be done by month of birth as one is in April and one is in August. Also IMO can be (and would be preferable) done by nationality, but the consensus on the project is to prefer birth year + month if needed. --
SuperJew (
talk)
18:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neither seems primary, so disambiguation needed. I get that the project prefers YOB, but given they are April 2001 and August 2001, nationality is MUCH clearer. Also, consensus can change, and while I have previously supported (and still do use the YOB), I personally would prefer the nationality method to become a new standard. I get nationality can be a bit fluid in football, but if I was quizzed on players, I could pick out their nationality with much better accuracy than I could their YOB, which this makes more sense for a title IMO.
RedPatch (
talk)
01:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, if and when a DAB page is created,
Jayden Reed should probably be included on it.
RedPatch (
talk)
01:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I dabed by nationality in this case, and sometimes agree it's a better disambiguator than age except for cases of dual-nats, or worse players dabbed by multiple national team. Ironically, also created the DAB page for one of the players brothers too, Tyler Reid.--
Ortizesp (
talk)
13:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good! Giant Snowman 16:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I dabed by nationality in this case, and sometimes agree it's a better disambiguator than age except for cases of dual-nats, or worse players dabbed by multiple national team. Ironically, also created the DAB page for one of the players brothers too, Tyler Reid.--
Ortizesp (
talk)
13:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, if and when a DAB page is created,
Jayden Reed should probably be included on it.
RedPatch (
talk)
01:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
FIFA 100 Footballer Positions
I'm working on the FIFA 100 article and I'd like to bring it to FLC in the near future. Is it OR to display the position of each player without a source for each individual one (and on top of that a table highlighting the number of players in the list by position)? Some players also played in multiple positions (e.g. Forward/Midfielder). As a follow-up, is it OR to show each player's career span?
The FIFA 100 list itself as published doesn't show neither the positions nor, obviously, the active playing years for the players in it. Sgubaldo ( talk) 18:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe to start just do GK DF MF FW like many other lists do, but it is probably best to just do the primary position for each player if you were to want to elaborate each player's positions but idk I could be wrong. HYTEN CREW ( talk) 18:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the GA nomination for Stadio Olimpico, an stadium in Rome which is home to the Italian teams SS Lazio and AS Roma. The nominator is Italian, and is having difficulty actioning my concerns/suggestions. We were hoping that he could get some support so the nomination doesn't automatically fail. The biggest issue right now is the excessive detail the article is going into regarding stadium history which is not seen in other stadiums at GA. The article is also going through a GA nom on the Italian wiki. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
The article discuses the stadium and also the happenings of the City of Milan, AC Milan, and Inter Milan. There are lots and lots of "Milans" and it gets quite confusing when past the first paragraph AC Milan gets shortened to just Milan. Should we use Rossoneri and Nerazzurri or just not shorten it and use the full names (AC Milan and Inter Milan) or what. Also there is little consistency between calling it "San Siro" like " Old Trafford" or "the San Siro" like " the Emirates". HYTEN CREW ( talk) 19:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Taking Munir Mohamedi as an example (the only Moroccan player i currently edit), the following easy question: is the fourth place at the World Cup an honour? Last time i checked it was not, but things could have changed in the meantime (most likely they have not, found this Goal article from DECEMBER 2022 https://www.goal.com/en/news/who-gets-world-cup-winners-medal/bltc6fd5bdd2a8a8e8a; "interesting" fun fact regarding the South Korea NT on the topic)...
IP in the article has now resorted to (slight, i'll give them that) insults in edit summaries. For my part, i have performed my last reversion until i get an answer here. Attentively RevampedEditor ( talk) 01:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it is, and personally am of the opinion that only winning it should be an honour...
Ortizesp (
talk)
21:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, fourth is not an honour. Kante4 ( talk) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
|
| Football Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Main pages |
|---|
| Football Assessment |
| Format templates |
| Other |
There is a new editor who seems convinced that Uruguay are four time world champions because they won gold at the Olympics in the 1920s as well as the World Cup in 1930 and 1950. For example on the Germany national football team article, they added: "Germany is one of the most successful national teams in international competitions, having won four FIFA World Cups ( 1954, 1974, 1990, 2014), tied with Uruguay [1], Italy, and only one less than the most successful team, Brazil." All of their edits are related to combining the two tournaments.
Although I do not have a great deal of knowledge on this period of football, this seems very misleading. I have also asked the editor to start a talk page discussion rather than to continually reinstate their changes. Does anyone have any perspective of this?
I've placed it here as this has been done across several pages: Uruguay: [2], Germany: [3], Argentina: [4], 1930 FIFA World Cup: [5]
Pinging @ User:Kante4 as they were involved too. Kind regards Michaeldble ( talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Michaeldble ( talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Truefacts24: Pinging the editor. Those are two different tournaments and this is the first time i heard that the Olympics in 1924 and 1928 were counted as the first world cups. Can someone with more knowledge help?
Kante4 (
talk)
20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The 1928 and 1924 Olympics were special tournaments that counted as full world championships equivalent to a World Cup before the World Cup was. The World Cup started in 1930, which is a different tournament. Those particular Olympics don’t count as world cups but count as FIFA world championships equal in value and prestige. This is confirmed by fifa and is the reason why Uruguay wears 4 stars above their crest. FIFA makes countries remove stars from their crest unless they were official champions of the world. For example in the 2018 World Cup, FIFA made Egypt remove the 7 stars they wear above their crest for their Africa cup wins.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have non-Uruguayan sources available for this?
The Banner
talk
22:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- FIFA itself is the source. Have you ever watched a FIFA World Cup? If so you will view 4 stars in Uruguays crest. This is because FIFA recognizes them as 4 time world champions, otherwise they would be informed that they have to remove stars before they enter FIFAs tournament. It’s also in the FIFA museum.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources from FIFA that say this explicitly please?
Michaeldble (
talk)
22:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- On hand I have several photos that you can read of plaques in the FIFA museum in Zurich, Switzerland that display this. How should I send them? Truefacts24 ( talk) 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Here’s the Olympics themselves confirming that the 1924 tournament was the first world championship organized by FIFA
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Saying "four world championships" is very different than saying "four World Cups", which is explicitly incorrect. The vast majority of discussion about "world championships" is in reference to the
FIFA World Cup, so except for discussions in Uruguay's specific context, it would be inappropriate to make these changes to articles like
Germany.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is a completely ludicrous statement rife with bias rather than truth, especially how it was worded. Uruguay need to be included when comparing how many times a country was champion of the world. Germany would have 5 stars had they won one of those Olympics editions, but they didn’t, they lost to Uruguay 4-1 in the quarterfinal of the 1928 world championship. The World Cup is a brand name and the history of it is important as all world champions are equal, regardless of which brand they won. I specifically added the wording tied in “world titles” with… as to include the total number of times each country was champion of the world, not only the World Cup, which is the correct and fair comparison. Truefacts24 ( talk) 23:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Saying "four world championships" is very different than saying "four World Cups", which is explicitly incorrect. The vast majority of discussion about "world championships" is in reference to the
FIFA World Cup, so except for discussions in Uruguay's specific context, it would be inappropriate to make these changes to articles like
Germany.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fifa.com confirmation Truefacts24 ( talk) 23:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources from FIFA that say this explicitly please?
Michaeldble (
talk)
22:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- FIFA itself is the source. Have you ever watched a FIFA World Cup? If so you will view 4 stars in Uruguays crest. This is because FIFA recognizes them as 4 time world champions, otherwise they would be informed that they have to remove stars before they enter FIFAs tournament. It’s also in the FIFA museum.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have non-Uruguayan sources available for this?
The Banner
talk
22:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The 1928 and 1924 Olympics were special tournaments that counted as full world championships equivalent to a World Cup before the World Cup was. The World Cup started in 1930, which is a different tournament. Those particular Olympics don’t count as world cups but count as FIFA world championships equal in value and prestige. This is confirmed by fifa and is the reason why Uruguay wears 4 stars above their crest. FIFA makes countries remove stars from their crest unless they were official champions of the world. For example in the 2018 World Cup, FIFA made Egypt remove the 7 stars they wear above their crest for their Africa cup wins.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I´am from Argentina, not from Uruguay, but in this issue, uruguayans are correct: they are 4 times "World champions", because the 1924 and 1928 Olympic Games (Football) were played by Senior Teams, and the winner of those golds medals were considered the "world champions" by FIFA. There are 2 sources of FIFA I can bring, but they are in spanish [6] [7]
- FIFA created the first World Cup in 1930 because of the success of those Olympics Games, where they had the control of the Football Tournament itself. In 1930 and in 1950 Uruguay won the FIFA World Cup, but the previous 2 gold medals are considerated "world champions" too. So Uruguay has 2 FIFA World Cups, but is considered to be 4 times "World Champion". It is similar to the example of the
Intercontinental Cup of clubs and the
FIFA Club World Cup. The Intercontinental was organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL only, but the winner of the cup was (and still IS) considered the "World Champion of clubs". When FIFA took control and enlarged the tournament for other continents, the other cup dissapeared and now the World Champions of Clubs is the one which wins the FIFA Club World Cup. But, the teams who won the Intercontinental Cup are still considered World Champions of clubs... For example Sao Paulo FC is 3 times "champion of the world" because won the 1992 and 1993 Intercontinental Cup and the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup.
[8] --
Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (
talk)
23:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great sources, I had that document in Spanish and was looking for it in English, because I’ve seen it in English as well. Thanks for adding it Truefacts24 ( talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- While this may be correct, the vast majority of discussion when it comes to national football teams is about the winners of the
FIFA World Cup, not about championships that were won prior to its establishment. I don't see a reason that these changes need to be implemented across national team articles outside of the particular historical context for Uruguay. The Intercontinental Cup is its own beast, but clubs are not talked about as frequently as "world champions" in the same way that national teams are. If we want to discuss that, I would recommend a separate discussion.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- You opinion on what you think people want to talk about is irrelevant. The purpose of these articles is to inform people with facts like an encyclopedia, not adhere to narratives like a magazine. Germany had the opportunity to have one of Uruguays stars on their shirt and on their Wikipedia page but they lost to Uruguay 4-1 in the quarterfinal of the 1928 world championship. Trying to erase facts in history is disrespectful to FIFA, Uruguay, and curious readers seeking information.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
23:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is not about what I think people want to talk about, but what people actually talk about. The vast majority of discussion about national football teams is on the
FIFA World Cup, not "all football world championships, including those prior to the World Cup". Uruguay absolutely has claim to four world championships. That does not mean that it merits discussion in the leads of the pages for any other nation other than Uruguay. It is a worthy historical fact that is notably relevant to one country; every other nation broadly discusses one particular tournament i.e. the
FIFA World Cup. The fact that Uruguay has claims to four world championships only really ever comes up, except within an Uruguayan-centric context, is about the history of the World Cup or the Olympics.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- What people want to talk about or what people mostly talk about has nothing to do with the purpose of this website as an online encyclopedia which purpose is to inform people. Furthermore discussion is not the purpose of a Wikipedia page, informing is.
- The page of a national team is not about the World Cup which has its own page if people want to learn about that particular tournament. National team pages encompass all tournaments those teams were involved in.
- Truefacts24 ( talk) 23:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is not about what I think people want to talk about, but what people actually talk about. The vast majority of discussion about national football teams is on the
FIFA World Cup, not "all football world championships, including those prior to the World Cup". Uruguay absolutely has claim to four world championships. That does not mean that it merits discussion in the leads of the pages for any other nation other than Uruguay. It is a worthy historical fact that is notably relevant to one country; every other nation broadly discusses one particular tournament i.e. the
FIFA World Cup. The fact that Uruguay has claims to four world championships only really ever comes up, except within an Uruguayan-centric context, is about the history of the World Cup or the Olympics.
Jay eyem (
talk)
23:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- You opinion on what you think people want to talk about is irrelevant. The purpose of these articles is to inform people with facts like an encyclopedia, not adhere to narratives like a magazine. Germany had the opportunity to have one of Uruguays stars on their shirt and on their Wikipedia page but they lost to Uruguay 4-1 in the quarterfinal of the 1928 world championship. Trying to erase facts in history is disrespectful to FIFA, Uruguay, and curious readers seeking information.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
23:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
( edit conflict) The whole story sounds a little murky. I could see explanations going either way and it seems to depend on who we're sourcing as well. Anyways, when mentioned it should probably be slightly elaborated on and linked to an appropriate article. -- SuperJew ( talk) 23:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The real problem here is that none of this context is obvious in most cases. Anyone not familiar with this very specific bit of footballing history from almost 100 years ago, on seeing phrases "World Cup" and "world title" together, will reasonably presume that having won a world title means having won a world cup, thus misrepresenting Uruguay as having won more World Cups than they actually have. In light of that, I have to agree with Jay's assessment that the phrasing "world title" should generally be avoided except in cases where Uruguay's 1920's titles are directly relevant, and more detailed explanation of what that phrase actually means is included.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
23:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is basically the exact point I was trying to get across. I think I am done talking in circles here, because I don't think my reasoning was being understood or acknowledged.
Jay eyem (
talk)
00:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Arguing against adding 3 words to a page (“word titles” and “Uruguay”) is an attempt to bully a nation because they’re small with only 3.4 million people and can’t easily defend their right to history and also because you want to prop up your favorite country or continent by not showing another’s achievements. A reader seeing that and reading the references will learn something and it will click in their head why they see Uruguay wearing 4 stars in FIFA world cups. Truefacts24 ( talk) 00:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is why those official documents and references are linked to the word world title which can be clicked to teach people things which frankly matter.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
00:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can always write 4 time world champions (1924 and 1928 Olympics and 1930 and 1950 World Cups). The brackets can help clear it up RedPatch ( talk) 02:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your edit on Germany stated "Germany is one of the most successful national teams in international competitions, having won four FIFA World Cups (1954, 1974, 1990, 2014), tied with Uruguay...". This is clearly false. The 1924 and 1928 Olympics were world championships won by Uruguay, but not World Cups. Your edit on Argentina similarly changed the specific wording of "appeared in a World Cup final six times" (correct) to "appeared in a Football World Championship final (The World Cup final and 1928 Olympics) 7 times" (also correct, but amended the stated fact unnecessarily). Essentially the Olympics were a gateway to Uruguay hosting the first World Cup and they won that and are deservedly lauded for that, and the Olympic wins stand on their own merit. What your edits are attempting to do is not point out that Uruguay also won 'World Championship' Olympics, which is something that possibly deserves more attention, but to add the totals of those tournaments awkwardly onto the established totals for World Cup wins, finals etc leading to confusion and argument. In contrast, nobody has changed your edit at Switzerland as you have done that one right - adding the Olympic medal without claiming that they played in the first World Cup final.
Crowsus (
talk)
04:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I never intended to put “tied with Uruguay”. If I did it was for half a second before I quickly fixed the typo. You will see all of my edits besides that typo say “tied in world titles with Uruguay & Italy” which is 100% correct, without adding Uruguay the Germany page is disrespecting Uruguay and all Uruguay fans. I am personally a fan of the Argentina national team and I want to have it said that we made it to 7 world championship finals which is better than saying 6. That is a good thing to show and teach people about. I never said 7 World Cup finals. I’m also tired of seeing people pick on Uruguay online (not on these discussions with you guys) and they tell Uruguayan fans they shouldn’t have 4 stars and they don’t understand how those Olympics count. It’s important to begin to teach people the truth so Uruguay fans can stop feeling robbed and ridiculed by history tellers and get their proper credit. This is why references are added to the end of correct phrases so people can choose to learn more. Truefacts24 ( talk) 12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is basically the exact point I was trying to get across. I think I am done talking in circles here, because I don't think my reasoning was being understood or acknowledged.
Jay eyem (
talk)
00:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It is of note that the logo of the 1930 World Cup, organized by Uruguay, reads: "1er Campeonato Mundial de Football" (emphasis added). -- Theurgist ( talk) 03:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This right here settles everything. It’s from FIFA.com Truefacts24 ( talk) 03:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have final-warned the user for introducing misleading information into articles and edit-warring. They have also attempted to circumvent their partial block from the Germany article by asking another editor to proxy for them. Any further similar activity will inevitably result in a siteblock.
Black Kite (talk)
05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Others who agree with me will inevitably add the same information as me regardless because it’s the most correct information. Most people don’t know this history and it’s a shame they don’t, and putting it on Wikipedia will inform everyone more about soccer. Nothing I’ve said is misleading, especially when I add references of proof.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said at your talkpage, you need to gain consensus for your changes. This is how Wikipedia works. Otherwise they will simply be reverted, and if the issue continues, it will be dealt with via protection and/or sanctions, which is not what anyone wants.
Black Kite (talk)
12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- If Truefacts24 edits again, somebody ping me and I'll block them for disruption and editing against consensus.
Giant
Snowman
18:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I’ve been falsely attacked. I did nothing wrong. Everything I posted was 100% factual, it’s not my fault people don’t know history, that’s why I’m trying to edit it. I never personally attacked anybody, I was falsely reported. I will continue to edit as I see fit within the bounds of the rules. I will make sure Uruguays history is known to the world. No consensus has been established against what I said, half agree with me, 2 are biased fans as shown on their page when you click on their name, and are trying to prop up their country by omitting relevant information, which insults Uruguay, and another one just hasn’t checked any of my sources from FIFA themselves.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
19:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked now for personal attacks after ample warning. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, my primary nation of choice has never won the World Cup (although the women's team have won their tournament four times). Jay eyem ( talk) 20:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I’ve been falsely attacked. I did nothing wrong. Everything I posted was 100% factual, it’s not my fault people don’t know history, that’s why I’m trying to edit it. I never personally attacked anybody, I was falsely reported. I will continue to edit as I see fit within the bounds of the rules. I will make sure Uruguays history is known to the world. No consensus has been established against what I said, half agree with me, 2 are biased fans as shown on their page when you click on their name, and are trying to prop up their country by omitting relevant information, which insults Uruguay, and another one just hasn’t checked any of my sources from FIFA themselves.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
19:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- If Truefacts24 edits again, somebody ping me and I'll block them for disruption and editing against consensus.
Giant
Snowman
18:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said at your talkpage, you need to gain consensus for your changes. This is how Wikipedia works. Otherwise they will simply be reverted, and if the issue continues, it will be dealt with via protection and/or sanctions, which is not what anyone wants.
Black Kite (talk)
12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Others who agree with me will inevitably add the same information as me regardless because it’s the most correct information. Most people don’t know this history and it’s a shame they don’t, and putting it on Wikipedia will inform everyone more about soccer. Nothing I’ve said is misleading, especially when I add references of proof.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion borders on a total lack of good faith, in mixing the historical importance of the first Olympic gold medals with the hierarchical line of World Cup champions.
Svartner (
talk)
23:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here’s FIFA document archived from FIFAs website stating the 1924 and 1928 editions of the Olympics are just as much world championships as the world cups were, please read it. [ https://web.archive.org/web/20140405000621/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mcwc/ip-201_02e_fwc-origin_8816.pdf
- FIFA would never allow Uruguay to wear 4 stars in FIFA competitions if FIFA did not consider the Uruguay senior men’s national team as officially champions of the world 4 times. This is the education everyone needs (which is what the point of Wikipedia articles is, because the public wants to become educated on subject matters) and the discussion ender on the subject matter regarding those 2 Olympics as world championship status in the same way as the World Cups that followed them.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
21:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let it go.
Seasider53 (
talk)
21:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- No.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, Truefacts24 has been indeffed for ... well, you can see why on their TP. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- No.
Truefacts24 (
talk)
22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Uruguayan team can put 80 stars above the AUF shield and this will not make the team the FIFA World Cup champion the most times. The Olympic gold medals that precede the tournament have their due and recognized importance, but the competitions are obviously different. It's disgusting that things have reached this level...
Svartner (
talk)
01:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please tone down the rhetoric. You're not going to convince anyone with language like that, and in this discussion you don't have to. The only editor meaningfully pushing the opposing viewpoint has been blocked indefinitely and is unlikely to come back into fold any time soon.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
01:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- And is it necessary to convince a self-evident thing? But I'm glad to know in anycase that the community have already found an assertive solution. Svartner ( talk) 03:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please tone down the rhetoric. You're not going to convince anyone with language like that, and in this discussion you don't have to. The only editor meaningfully pushing the opposing viewpoint has been blocked indefinitely and is unlikely to come back into fold any time soon.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
01:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let it go.
Seasider53 (
talk)
21:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Worked on Greek football clubs in European competitions multiple times. There is an ongoing edit war with an IP user there. Need your help and someone else's neutral pov to dissolve this. Recent edit history and Talk page will guide you on this. Thank you Abudabanas ( talk) 17:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Good Evening. I am the anonymous Mr. Abudabanas is in dispute with. First of all he is lying since there is no edit war in the entry. He came, made a bunch of cancellations as he saw fit and started the war. It doesn't even allow to write there. We opened a conversation on the talk page. Because he had nothing documented, he started writing on other users' pages and asking for the entry to be locked. He does the same here. Anyway check out our chat and judge. /info/en/?search=Talk:Greek_football_clubs_in_European_competitions#Table_of_the_top_4_Greek_teams_in_the_European_cups — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:586:813D:2A91:BC4D:358E:D352:1447 ( talk) 18:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion on this. Do you think that a Round of 16 participation in a European competition should be added as a distiction or it is more proper/valid that at least a quarter-final app should be credited as a distiction for the Greek teams? Greek clubs have reached at least the quarter-finals of a European competition 19 times. Including the Round of 16 apps you will need to add another 38 times I think. Is it equitable for a team to state that they distinguished themselves when they reached a Round with 15 others? In 2024, Olympiacos became the first Greek club winning a European trophy (Conference League) and other landmarks in Greek football history are Panathinaikos as runners-up of the 1971 European Cup and twice as semi-finalists (1985, 1996). Best UEFA Cup performance by AEK Athens (semi-finals, 1977). These are the numbers. What do you think? Abudabanas ( talk) 18:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- When it comes to the round of 16 of the Champions League, the Europa League, the Conference League, of course it should. To get there you have to go through 3 qualifying rounds, from the playoffs, the group stage and the knockout stage of 32. Besides, UEFA gives a separate bonus for qualifying to the 16. If it is about the old European cups, where there were 32 teams and you got to 16 from the 2nd round, then no. 2A02:586:813D:2A91:FCD3:E7A8:FF22:8790 ( talk) 18:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I have added my opinion in the talk page. Nevechear ( talk) 00:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP (might need a range block) and semi-protected the page. Giant Snowman 10:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Could we get some eyes on 2029 FIFA Club World Cup, please?
Looks like the same issue that has been going on at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup has returned for 2029 FIFA Club World Cup, with the exact same issue that was discussed on this page not that long ago. I assume the consensus has not changed in that time, but I am open to being proved wrong. Jay eyem ( talk) 04:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have indefblocked Fa30sp for frankly being a persistent timesink (as well as casting aspersions and driving a coach and horses through 3RR). Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Currently, on the Olympic football squad 2020 and 2024 pages, the articles state The club listed is the club for which the player last played a competitive match prior to the tournament. This statement seems like a standard for the football squads articles on Wikipedia and in my opinion, this standard gives a certain tribute to the club where the player proved himself to earn a call-up to his nation to participate in a tournament.
However, the Olympics are held in the middle of the transfer window, which means several players officially moved clubs before the tournament started, being under the authority of their new clubs. In order to participate in this tournament, the players would need the permission of their current clubs. In this case I think it wouldn't be very logical to list, for example, Michael Olise as a Crystal Palace player, when in reality, he's under contract with his new club Bayern Munich, who gave him permission to participate in the tournament.
What do you guys think? Lâm ( talk) 09:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it should be the club they were contracted to at the start of the tournament.
Giant
Snowman
10:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- But we don't always know that with certainty. Clubs often will sign a player and reveal it later, etc. --
SuperJew (
talk)
20:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should follow the same rules as always. Even if some transfers were completed, vast majority of clubs have not yet played any official games in 24/25 season (save for participants of UCL/UEL/Conference League qualifiers.) If player had no chance to play a game for the new club, the old club should be listed.-- BlameRuiner ( talk) 22:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- But we don't always know that with certainty. Clubs often will sign a player and reveal it later, etc. --
SuperJew (
talk)
20:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Canada Soccer drone spying scandal § Should this be titled "Dronegate".
Kingsif (
talk)
00:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me what's the criteria of adding some managerial roles to the infobox while others are completely ignored? I mean, why Enzo Maresca's spell in the Man City EDS it's more important than Carlos Corberán's spell at the Juvenil A side of Alcorcón, when both play youth tournaments which are equally important to their nations? And why assistant roles are completely ignored when some managers spent the most of their careers in that role?
I thought the infobox was supposed to give information to the normal reader... In my opinion, omitting those spells from the infobox would actually provide an incomplete resume of the manager's career. I'd say that's valid to add youth and assistant spells to the infobox, given their importance to the actual meaning to a technical staff, but I do agree that scout/director/fitness coach roles should not appear in the managerial section, because youth manager is still a manager, and assistant is basically the second in command while the manager is suspended/expelled/absent.
What's your input over this? BRDude70 ( talk) 03:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- It should be managerial roles only, except in limited circumstances (e.g. someone who is well known for being an assistant).
Giant
Snowman
07:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, assistant roles at a national team could be added (not 100% for me) but not more.
Kante4 (
talk)
08:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- So not the assistant roles of
José Mourinho then?--
Egghead06 (
talk)
11:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think its valid and important to add assistant roles. Would help explain gaps for people who may have been an assistant in between manager roles.
RedPatch (
talk)
11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I second this as it gets quite confusing with someone like
Hansi Flick who has a 14 year gap between his stints at
TSG Hoffenheim and
Bayern Munich due to having been an assistant coach for the majority of that gap.
SparklessPlug (
talk |
contribs)
12:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- He was a manager in 2005 and was not a manager again until 2019. Where is the confusion? Wouldn't it be more confusing for someone to be a coach for six months, an assistant for a year, whilst also helping out as a coach at another side, then they stop being coach / assistant and become a manager at the original club for 14 years, only to have their "Managerial career" section of the infobox have 4 lines, 3 of which were of no significance, 3 of which were at the same club? How about just having managerial roles in the managerial section of the infobox? -- Echetus Xe 14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I second this as it gets quite confusing with someone like
Hansi Flick who has a 14 year gap between his stints at
TSG Hoffenheim and
Bayern Munich due to having been an assistant coach for the majority of that gap.
SparklessPlug (
talk |
contribs)
12:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think its valid and important to add assistant roles. Would help explain gaps for people who may have been an assistant in between manager roles.
RedPatch (
talk)
11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- So not the assistant roles of
José Mourinho then?--
Egghead06 (
talk)
11:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, assistant roles at a national team could be added (not 100% for me) but not more.
Kante4 (
talk)
08:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- How about an all or nothing approach? Either just managerial roles are allowed or any role in football is allowed e.g. assistant manager, coach, scout, etc. Allowing some roles, sometimes is creating the current confusion.--
Egghead06 (
talk)
14:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would go with nothing other than manager roles.
Kante4 (
talk)
14:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Other sports list assistant roles. Yeah, yeah
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know. However, would the basic reader be interested in seeing an assistant role... I'd think yes.
RedPatch (
talk)
15:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that assistant and youth manager roles are interesting to the common reader, other ones aren't. I'd personally would prefer to see them in the infobox as they'd show a more concise info to me without making me needing to read the entire article to understand/find those infos.
BRDude70 (
talk)
17:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Youth manager roles are OK, but why does an assistant need to be in the infobox?
Giant
Snowman
17:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why it doesn't need to? The assistant is the second in command, often replaces the manager in suspensions or health issues, and is often the closest step to a managerial role which several managers take (this and the youth manager roles). Like other users stated above, sometimes there's a big gap (like in Flick's career, where he spent 14 years in other roles) which is not clear in the infobox and is not very informative to the normal reader (in Flick's case, the period where he was an assistant of Salzburg is not clear even in the storyline either). Plus, several assistant coaches (like Milton Cruz or Marcelo Fernandes) spent a great deal of time being an caretaker/interim manager/head coach for his team while still acting as an assistant. Omitting this spell from the infobox would be confusing, IMO, like: where does this manager comes from? :)
- The current way (where assistant duties are added according to importance) is really subjective, there's no type of metric to measure this. That's why I first raised the question here. Some consistency must exist at
WP:FOOTY/Players so we can basis the edits on this, like several other cases.
BRDude70 (
talk)
12:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that, whatever is decided, showing assistant roles only for someone who is "well known for being an assistant" is a non-starter, because deciding who fits into that category is OR... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
12:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all - plenty of coaches are well known for being an assistant for all/part of their career, see e.g.
Mike Phelan, famously assistant to Sir Alex for many years,
Carlos Queiroz in the same role,
André Villas-Boas as assistant to Mourinho at a number of clubs etc etc.
Giant
Snowman
16:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman: At Phelan, the "coaching career" section begins with this sentence: "He returned to Carrow Road in December 1995, as an assistant manager to Gary Megson (another former Norwich player) and managed the club's reserve team." If that parenthesis wasn't there, this would make the normal reader either enter the article about Carrow Road, or read the previous sections, or have a pretty good knowledge of football to know that's the stadium of Norwich City. Having that info in the infobox would be way clearer and direct, TBH... And that's just an example, others might have his assistant spells very unclear in the storyline, such as Flick's period at Salzburg.
BRDude70 (
talk)
16:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- GS's example really limits this to Premier League and Champions League level teams. Of course there's gonna be extensive coverage of everything related to these teams, including the assistant coaches. This is why we now get the articles for 15-year-olds with 0 senior career to speak of but which were signed by so-and-so English club. What about hundreds of other coaches who had significantly long assistant spells but at a lower level of media attention? Not worthy? -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 21:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
GiantSnowman: At Phelan, the "coaching career" section begins with this sentence: "He returned to Carrow Road in December 1995, as an assistant manager to Gary Megson (another former Norwich player) and managed the club's reserve team." If that parenthesis wasn't there, this would make the normal reader either enter the article about Carrow Road, or read the previous sections, or have a pretty good knowledge of football to know that's the stadium of Norwich City. Having that info in the infobox would be way clearer and direct, TBH... And that's just an example, others might have his assistant spells very unclear in the storyline, such as Flick's period at Salzburg.
BRDude70 (
talk)
16:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all - plenty of coaches are well known for being an assistant for all/part of their career, see e.g.
Mike Phelan, famously assistant to Sir Alex for many years,
Carlos Queiroz in the same role,
André Villas-Boas as assistant to Mourinho at a number of clubs etc etc.
Giant
Snowman
16:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that, whatever is decided, showing assistant roles only for someone who is "well known for being an assistant" is a non-starter, because deciding who fits into that category is OR... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
12:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Youth manager roles are OK, but why does an assistant need to be in the infobox?
Giant
Snowman
17:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that assistant and youth manager roles are interesting to the common reader, other ones aren't. I'd personally would prefer to see them in the infobox as they'd show a more concise info to me without making me needing to read the entire article to understand/find those infos.
BRDude70 (
talk)
17:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Other sports list assistant roles. Yeah, yeah
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know. However, would the basic reader be interested in seeing an assistant role... I'd think yes.
RedPatch (
talk)
15:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would go with nothing other than manager roles.
Kante4 (
talk)
14:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- How about an all or nothing approach? Either just managerial roles are allowed or any role in football is allowed e.g. assistant manager, coach, scout, etc. Allowing some roles, sometimes is creating the current confusion.--
Egghead06 (
talk)
14:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Some users are including Denmark as Olympic champions for the 1896 demonstration match and the unofficial edition of 1906. What is the correct format for the template? Svartner ( talk) 03:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
If anyone has a spare few minutes (likely more; I do not currently), this IP has been attempting to improve articles by changing "secure" to "secured", or vice-versa, but many of them are not the correct option. I suspect English is not their first language. Good intentions, just creating a lot of errors. Seasider53 ( talk) 07:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- their edits appear to be correct from what I have checked...
Crowsus (
talk)
11:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- With this edit one correction is correct and one is not correct. Echetus Xe 12:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Or rather, two Jayden Reid's. There is a Jayden Reid who is English and a Jayden Reid (soccer) who is American, both were born in 2001. I'm unfamiliar with how to go forward with the articles, if we need a disambiguous page or to have a better clarification in the article names or what.
I know there are two Antony's, but they are respectively labeled "footballer, born 2000" and "footballer, born 2001".
I just need a little help here, its nothing huge. HYTEN CREW ( talk) 16:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a headnote to each article pointing to their namesakes - I think this is sufficient (though I've also added links to the
Reid (surname) article). The English player article was started in 2021, so is presumably the primary topic, while the American is a more recent (2024) creation.
Paul W (
talk)
16:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the decision is to disambig in the end (i.e. neither is a primary), then can be done by month of birth as one is in April and one is in August. Also IMO can be (and would be preferable) done by nationality, but the consensus on the project is to prefer birth year + month if needed. --
SuperJew (
talk)
18:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we were to disambiguate, then the relevant naming convention
WP:NCSP#Association football (soccer) would seem to prefer nationality, as "English footballer" and "American soccer" are surely more conclusive (i.e. helpful to the reader) than going down to month of birth. cheers,
Struway2 (
talk)
18:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I agree. However that was not the consensus reached on this talk page in recent discussions. But maybe it needs to be reopened. --
SuperJew (
talk)
18:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please link the discussion? I can't find it and I'd like to evaluate the parameters they decided on.
HYTEN CREW (
talk)
19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- From a quick search got this (and the discussion following it) and this. I might be misreading the discussions, but I'm also going off that in my experience the main disambiguator is year/birthdate, while nationality is rarer (and the ones which I have seen have been replaced by birth mostly). For example Adama Traoré (footballer, born 1990) and Adama Traoré (footballer, born 1996) are not Adama Traoré (Ivorian footballer) and Adama Traoré (Spanish footballer). (always love this one remembering when they played against each other in 2022 and both scored too) -- SuperJew ( talk) 19:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please link the discussion? I can't find it and I'd like to evaluate the parameters they decided on.
HYTEN CREW (
talk)
19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I agree. However that was not the consensus reached on this talk page in recent discussions. But maybe it needs to be reopened. --
SuperJew (
talk)
18:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we were to disambiguate, then the relevant naming convention
WP:NCSP#Association football (soccer) would seem to prefer nationality, as "English footballer" and "American soccer" are surely more conclusive (i.e. helpful to the reader) than going down to month of birth. cheers,
Struway2 (
talk)
18:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the decision is to disambig in the end (i.e. neither is a primary), then can be done by month of birth as one is in April and one is in August. Also IMO can be (and would be preferable) done by nationality, but the consensus on the project is to prefer birth year + month if needed. --
SuperJew (
talk)
18:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neither seems primary, so disambiguation needed. I get that the project prefers YOB, but given they are April 2001 and August 2001, nationality is MUCH clearer. Also, consensus can change, and while I have previously supported (and still do use the YOB), I personally would prefer the nationality method to become a new standard. I get nationality can be a bit fluid in football, but if I was quizzed on players, I could pick out their nationality with much better accuracy than I could their YOB, which this makes more sense for a title IMO.
RedPatch (
talk)
01:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, if and when a DAB page is created,
Jayden Reed should probably be included on it.
RedPatch (
talk)
01:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I dabed by nationality in this case, and sometimes agree it's a better disambiguator than age except for cases of dual-nats, or worse players dabbed by multiple national team. Ironically, also created the DAB page for one of the players brothers too, Tyler Reid.--
Ortizesp (
talk)
13:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good! Giant Snowman 16:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I dabed by nationality in this case, and sometimes agree it's a better disambiguator than age except for cases of dual-nats, or worse players dabbed by multiple national team. Ironically, also created the DAB page for one of the players brothers too, Tyler Reid.--
Ortizesp (
talk)
13:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, if and when a DAB page is created,
Jayden Reed should probably be included on it.
RedPatch (
talk)
01:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
FIFA 100 Footballer Positions
I'm working on the FIFA 100 article and I'd like to bring it to FLC in the near future. Is it OR to display the position of each player without a source for each individual one (and on top of that a table highlighting the number of players in the list by position)? Some players also played in multiple positions (e.g. Forward/Midfielder). As a follow-up, is it OR to show each player's career span?
The FIFA 100 list itself as published doesn't show neither the positions nor, obviously, the active playing years for the players in it. Sgubaldo ( talk) 18:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe to start just do GK DF MF FW like many other lists do, but it is probably best to just do the primary position for each player if you were to want to elaborate each player's positions but idk I could be wrong. HYTEN CREW ( talk) 18:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the GA nomination for Stadio Olimpico, an stadium in Rome which is home to the Italian teams SS Lazio and AS Roma. The nominator is Italian, and is having difficulty actioning my concerns/suggestions. We were hoping that he could get some support so the nomination doesn't automatically fail. The biggest issue right now is the excessive detail the article is going into regarding stadium history which is not seen in other stadiums at GA. The article is also going through a GA nom on the Italian wiki. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
The article discuses the stadium and also the happenings of the City of Milan, AC Milan, and Inter Milan. There are lots and lots of "Milans" and it gets quite confusing when past the first paragraph AC Milan gets shortened to just Milan. Should we use Rossoneri and Nerazzurri or just not shorten it and use the full names (AC Milan and Inter Milan) or what. Also there is little consistency between calling it "San Siro" like " Old Trafford" or "the San Siro" like " the Emirates". HYTEN CREW ( talk) 19:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Taking Munir Mohamedi as an example (the only Moroccan player i currently edit), the following easy question: is the fourth place at the World Cup an honour? Last time i checked it was not, but things could have changed in the meantime (most likely they have not, found this Goal article from DECEMBER 2022 https://www.goal.com/en/news/who-gets-world-cup-winners-medal/bltc6fd5bdd2a8a8e8a; "interesting" fun fact regarding the South Korea NT on the topic)...
IP in the article has now resorted to (slight, i'll give them that) insults in edit summaries. For my part, i have performed my last reversion until i get an answer here. Attentively RevampedEditor ( talk) 01:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it is, and personally am of the opinion that only winning it should be an honour...
Ortizesp (
talk)
21:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, fourth is not an honour. Kante4 ( talk) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)