![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | → | Archive 165 |
I've removed the pipe-link [Association football|football] in the FIFA World Cup pages that didn't use "soccer", so that "association football" is shown, rather then just "football". I've done this so that American & Canadian readers wouldn't be confused by the sports name. This isn't a fight over who owns the name "football". Just an aid for those of us who think gridiron football or any other type of football, when we see "football". GoodDay ( talk) 02:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
PS: IF a discussion on this was held before & a consensus was obtained. Please, let me know what that consensus is. GoodDay ( talk) 03:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that 'twice' Tvx1, you've reverted my changes to the intros with a claim of 'no consensus'. Yet it appears you're basically the only editor who's doing the reverting. I hope you're not suggesting that 'your support' is required, for a consensus. GoodDay ( talk) 14:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I've also noticed that the linked-page is called Association football, rather then "Football". Seeing as there is a page called Football, which covers multiple sports? It would appear that association football is not the primary topic. GoodDay ( talk) 14:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Note - Perhaps in the 'new year' & after the FIFA tournament has ended. I'll likely open an RFC on this matter. I don't understand something, though. Both here & at another discussion, a majority of editors have supported my argument. But, nobody else has undone Tvx1's reverts. GoodDay ( talk) 01:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The sport is called "association football." The article on the sport is called "Association football." The article on the FIFA World Cup calls the sport "association football." I don't know why we would want to refer to the sport as something different on this page. As for evidence of confusion, I would suggest you google the word "football" and see what comes up. Most of the hits I got weren't for association football. My point here is that in a large portion of the English-speaking world, football is not what first comes to mind when one hears the word "football." Why would be want to use a term that means different things to different people, not an unambiguous one? Why would we use a different term that the one used in the article on the sport itself? It's true that the wikilink clears up ambiguity, but only if the reader thinks there is ambiguity and decides to click on it. For many readers, "football" is unambiguous, so there's no need to click on the link. The problem is that "football" in this article doesn't mean what they think it means. Instant Comma ( talk) 16:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe all the objections to changing "football" in the opening to "association football" have been addressed. If not, please let me know what I have missed. Instant Comma ( talk) 17:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. On the article of Yassine Bounou, what should the nationality in the lede be? Moroccan, or should it be omitted and explained further down in the lede, since he was born in Canada and has Canadian citizenship? Moroccan IP editors keep on changing it back to 'Moroccan professional footballer', albeit in GF, but probably with some bias too. I argue that it should be 'professional footballer [...] and the Morocco national team' and further down, 'Born in Canada to Moroccan parents..' Paul Vaurie ( talk) 06:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
But leaving the lede without mentioning his Moroccan nationality (that he acquired Jus sanguinis and that is also the place where he was raised and his sporting nationality) is giving weight to the trivial fact of his birth in Canada. And the fact that he never identified himself as a Canadian or a Canadian-Moroccan, he never lived or played in a team/club or even visited Canada. It even says in the guideline MOS:NATIONALITY Similarly, neither previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability. The only relevant nationality in Bounou's case is the Moroccan one. 196.119.118.98 ( talk) 08:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
goalscorer/s or goal-scorer/s or goal scorer/s? 2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 ( talk) 18:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Domestic matches in India till the 1960s were often of less than 90 minutes. Sometimes they lasted 60 minutes but I don't know what duration was used when.
When a report says that a goal was scored in the 10th minute of the second half, and you don't know the duration of the match, is there a standard way in Wikipedia of representing it ? Facing this problem while filling the results in some articles like 1950–51 Santosh Trophy. At the moment, I am using the format "10(2)" with an explanation but this appears a bit awkward. Tintin 13:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I think it would be preferable to standardise English football club honours section format, almost like an info-box, to make it easier for the viewer to asses/compare different club's trophies. currently this section seems to be a bit of a free for all.
I've tried to alter the format of many clubs based on the format used by Manchester United F.C., Liverpool F.C., Chelsea F.C. etc, as they are some of the biggest clubs in the country and the articles have achieved Wikipedia:Featured article status. Their style of format, includes 'bolding' the name of the league and the "champions", however, apparently this is not correct, as it counts as excessive bolding. If that is the case, then surely these articles should be edited? Joseph1891 ( talk) 10:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
But where do we draw the line between adding the bracket and leaving them out? Of course the reader can count to two, but I thought it just makes more sense with an honour to summarise the amount won. Joseph1891 ( talk) 16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@EchetusXe, Ok thanks, coming across a bit strongly there. Both myself and Govvy believe this, no one was going to change anything yet. How would gaining promotion ever count as an honour? If York have only won one league title and two Fa trophy’s… we’ll then they’ve only won one league and two FA trophy’s. Promotion should be included in the “records and statistics”. But now you’ve changed it to “and achievements” this is no longer an issue for York’s article. Joseph1891 ( talk) 13:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Muur: You know, that Bournemouth source, says they were given a trophy, but I don't see photographic evidence! lol. Govvy ( talk) 11:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Govy Bro, there’s literally a photo of them lifting the trophy. Joseph1891 ( talk) 11:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Only five of the teams in Liga MX have 2022-23 season articles. That isn't very good for what I would predict to be the perhaps the 8th best league in the world. Anybody want to join me on a crusade to fix this? Ijustlikefootball ( talk) 22:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
After the consensus on the RM on the article was to move from Final to final, should all "Final" articles also be moved, even if they're not World Cup finals? For example, shouldn't the consensus there apply to 2022 Coupe de France Final? Paul Vaurie ( talk) 04:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski, Stevie fae Scotland, and GoodDay: Is this permission to move all Coupe de France Final articles to the uncapitalized “final”? Paul Vaurie ( talk) 21:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1993 UEFA Champions League Final#Requested move 22 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
What about creating categories for players who took part to a determinate academy? Dr Salvus 13:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Request for input at Youssouf Fofana (footballer). Paul Vaurie ( talk) 07:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Over the last few months I have been compiling notes offline concerning the various clubs that have played in the National League (English football) (or its predecessors, the Alliance Premier League and the Football Conference) since the creation of that league at the start of the 1979-80 season. Today I set up two categories:
I then populated Category:National League (English football) clubs without a problem, and began to populate Category:Former National League (English football) clubs, initially by moving clubs out of Category:National League (English football). I was part-way through this task (working alphabetically, I had reached the clubs beginning with S and T when a quick refresh of the category page showed that many of the clubs had vanished from Category:Former National League (English football) clubs. Investigating, I found that they had been moved to Category:National League (English football) clubs by Number 57 ( talk · contribs) despite the inclusion criterion at the top of that category page. So I started User talk:Number 57#Categories for National League (English football) where you will find two posts from each of myself and Number 57.
So, I am asking this WikiProject: is it appropriate for the clubs to be categorised by current/former status, or should all the clubs be in one category regardless of whether they presently play in that league or not? -- Redrose64 🦌 ( talk) 20:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Anyone who want to participate further on this talk page section - as the opening sentence has been changed once again I've noticed. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 22:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Between yesterday and today, I've worked extensively on the coach's page, by adding several bits of information on his early life, his coaching CV and various other aspects.
Since I'm still slowly learning the fundamentals of Wikipedia, I've tried my best to keep grammar, formatting and quotes as polished as possible, while trying to edit boldly. However, I'd really appreciate any type of feedback on my contributions (@ ShelfSkewed already gave me his, by the way), should you have enough time to do so.
Oltrepier ( talk) 21:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this might look like to be off-topic but could be helpful for me anyway. Loaning players for more than 12 months would not be doable according to FIFA's rules. Nevertheless, I've seen Juventus loan two players until June 2024. How's this even possible? Dr Salvus 16:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
At the bottom of the FIFA link you provided, it says "Players aged 21 and younger and club-trained players will be exempt from these limitations." For that player, is she under 21? That could be how she's allowed to do an 18 month loan. RedPatch ( talk) 20:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It also says "At domestic level, FIFA’s member associations will be granted a period of three years to implement rules for a loan system that is in line with the principles established at international level." Given its a domestic loan, it still falls into that 3 year grace period, where the rules don't need to match international rules yet RedPatch ( talk) 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
What is the minimum international goals needed for one of these articles? Just enquiring about the necessity of this article for a player who scored 36 goals. Should this be sent to AFD? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 21:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with deletion of all earlier articles except list of goals scored by Ronaldo Nazario as it is player who had most international titles (along with Casillas AFAIR) and it is no way to keep Alfredo Di Stéfano list who never played World Cup in international career but no Brazilian Ronaldo's and per my comments here. I would also remove mentioned article (Issam Jemâa list) by ItsKesha and some other articles but would back for sure Nazario's one. Best regards. Dawid2009 ( talk) 12:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I am still surprised that Harry Kane's page hasn't been recreated considering he is the current all-time England top scorer. Govvy ( talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to bring this page to your attention, since I've finished my extensive re-work on it just a few hours ago.
I'd hugely appreciate any kind of feedback, and I also wanted to know if the page could be eligible for a WP:DYK or a WP:GA nomination, although it might still be too soon for it.
Oltrepier ( talk) 12:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I've abbandoned this article, which I wanted to bring to FL status. Would anyone be keen to do so? I'll give credit to whoever takes this. Dr Salvus 15:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, Sunday League football (as in the concept of a completely separate set-up organised on Sundays when football is primarily played on Saturdays, not the notion of football being played on Sundays in general) is pretty much a UK-specific phenomenon. Do we really need separate articles on the general concept and on the specifics of it in England......? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 09:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia:NFOOTY no longer exist as an article in its own right? The link now goes to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people where there is no specific football sub-section. Does that mean anything goes? Daemonickangaroo2018 ( talk) 09:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Bbllo: has been continuing to edit national teams' names out of their pages and instead replacing them with the word it. This has happened on the following pages:
I've also not had a response to my Talk message attempting to resolve the matter and was wondering if someone could do a sock check?
Felixsv7 ( talk) 09:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs how we should be formatting this section then? Joseph1891 ( talk) 11:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland I agree, anyone else have any thoughts? Be good to reach a consensus on this. Joseph1891 ( talk) 12:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
So do we agree that tables are the better format? Joseph1891 ( talk) 21:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that for club articles only, tables are fine. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 07:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
However, note that my opinion is not consensus. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 07:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Tables are not so great if you're listening to an article being read. Although it's a small amount, there are specialist browsers for the visually impaired, hard of hearing where, keeping it simple is better. This should be considered with WP:ACCESS. There is a reason to be cautious when creating a table on what information is going into one and why. You really don't need a table for honours. You should use them sparingly if you can in my opinion. Govvy ( talk) 10:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Govvy OK, it’s seems you are the only one so far who dislikes the table format idea, what I don’t understand is why the table format is shown in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs if it isn’t being used? I thought that article was a template for how we should be formatting club articles? I don’t really see how a table makes it harder for some readers, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Juventus etc format their honours sections like this. To me, and clearly some fellow editors, a table format makes honours more simple to observe, not the opposite. Joseph1891 ( talk) 10:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
So would it be possible for everyone to say whether or not they’d prefer a table format: yes/no? etc Joseph1891 ( talk) 10:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Anyone else? Yes/no Joseph1891 ( talk) 11:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I would go with tables. Much easier and better structured. Kante4 ( talk) 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1956 European Cup Final#Requested move 6 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
It should be looked up if he did this with more articles. Hannelsen ( talk) 21:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Where do we source the referee's teams from that we are posting in articles? Such as this one taken from 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B
Tomaž Klančnik ( Slovenia)
Andraž Kovačič ( Slovenia)
Karen Díaz Medina ( Mexico)
Assistant video assistant referees:
Paweł Sokolnicki ( Poland)
Stand-by assistant video assistant referee:
Vasile Marinescu ( Romania)
Do we have a source for listing these people? I get it's a World Cup, but what does a Stand-by VAR referee do that is important to note? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a reason why user @ S.A. Julio: added both Stand-byes also for the final, as he did the same starting from the quarter-finals in 2022 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Why has it to be omitted for the most important match of the tournament? User S.A. Julio doens't add unsourced information.-- Island92 ( talk) 17:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Source added.-- Island92 ( talk) 17:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Before you said unsourced. Now that the source is there is not suitable anyway. I consider them to have the same value, set all by FIFA, included, as included in 2022 FIFA World Cup knockout stage.-- Island92 ( talk) 05:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
This list of referees should be included at all. I don't understand why for this final a new style is being adapted. Island92 ( talk) 11:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
There is no point in insisting then. You will happily go through group stages articles and knockout phases articles as well given that you say either and either. The prose mentions all of them, whereas the below list doesn't match with it. I find this policy incorrect. Regards. Island92 ( talk) 12:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Current players in a former country. Is it only me that thinks this article does not make sense? Should be split by the actual countries. Pelmeen10 ( talk) 11:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
We need to actually reach a consensus then, can people put: “yes” if they would like to format honours sections like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs with the table format, or “no” if they would like to stick the current format. Cheers. Joseph1891 ( talk) 09:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read.If all we're listing are competition names and years/seasons, we don't need the added complications of table structure. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The layout we use right nowCould you share where that is documented? As mentioned above, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs has a table. Robby.is.on ( talk) 13:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The majority voted “no” . No consensus was reached, the current format should be maintained then, thanks everyone. :) Joseph1891 ( talk) 13:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, sorry I’ll leave Wikipedia Joseph1891 ( talk) 16:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
No clearly I’m more of a disruption. I’m still just not really too experienced with the website and all I ever really wanted was help/explanations etc. just wanted to try and help make the articles on non-League football more polished, but I’ve obviously I’ve done a poor job, I’ve been pretty rude myself, not anyone else’s fault now I look at it… think it would be easier/better for everyone if I left, can’t seem to get much right on the site. Joseph1891 ( talk) 16:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
One last thing on the honours sections
So we've determined that the tables were not a great format, just wasn't sure how to actually format the bulleted lists?
For example @ Number 5 7 believes this is the correct way to format honours sections:
Option 1: (taken from Altrincham F.C.)
However I thought this would count as MOS:BOLD? maybe not.
I thought this was how we should be formatting honours sections:
seems more in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players which I thought was what we were basing this section on?
Option 2:
League
Cups
I'm not sure what people's thoughts are on this, is option 1 better or option 2? Joseph1891 ( talk) 13:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I can't believe I just read through all of that! Ugh, And if ain't broke don't fix it! Govvy ( talk) 16:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Huijsen started his Juventus U23 career yesterday. Do I put 2021-2023 or 2021-2022 in the youth career section? His last youth match was in 2022, but played his first senior game in 2023. Dr Salvus 22:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been here for nearly 17 years, but maybe something happened and i did not notice, so here it goes:
Zeca (footballer, born 1988). OK, a Greek citizen now and also playing for the national team, but he spent nearly six seasons in Greece as a Portuguese citizen (before naturalisation), so he should get the "Expatriate footballers in Greece"/"Portuguese expatriate sportspeople in Greece" no? Or those have to go the minute a subject becomes naturalised? Makes no sense at all (like removing a club category when a player leaves for another one, i have seen that happen here), in my humble opinion.
Attentively 2001:8A0:7643:2400:D1FF:BEF3:7AE9:9F7 ( talk) 23:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@
OGBC1992: is of the view that if a footballer has an honour (OBE, CBE etc.) then it should be mentioned in the name=
parameter of the infobox. I disagree. What are wider views?
Giant
Snowman
13:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
name=
parameter is NOT an "infobox parameter for post-nominals" (it is a parameter for the name only) and therefore they should not be included.
Giant
Snowman
14:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Just curious, does Marcus Rashford having a dog merit inclusion on his article? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 22:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Good man @ ItsKesha: All my warmest wishes, RossButsy ( talk) 01:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've seen users including fixtures that have yet to be announced, see Hong Kong or Japan. Currently the template does not have any guidance for future unannounced fixtures but I don't feel they should be included - what are other people's opinions? Felixsv7 ( talk) 10:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Many months ago, i opened up the same topic [ [3]]. It was agreed upon to completely remove u-23 honors from the first team senior articles, as they didn't win it. Not a single regular on here disagreed with it. I knew it wasn't up to me, and it still isn't up to me, but is this still the consensus??? I had an edit war with a user on the Germany national team. He wanted the medal to stay on the article, as long as note stated that they didn't win it. I stated that it was already agreed upon here on the footballproject, to remove it. The user reported me for edit warring, which got declined.. His logic was that as long as we keep a note on the article, then it's okay. Is it tho??? I rather want a note suggesting why the honor is NOT there, rather than explaining why an honor that the team of this article didn't even win, is there. By that users logic, can we add any u-17, u20 honor to the senior articles, as long as they say btw they didn't win it, but here it is?? I would love to hear any input from anybody here. I will accept ANY consensus that will be met.. i simply tried to uphold what i thought was agreed upon back then. Speun ( talk) 20:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Just wondering, with regard to a recent addition at Marcus Rashford: is a club source with a quote from the manager saying "And now to get out the potential, I believe when Marcus's positioning is on the back of the defending line, there is almost no better player in the world" sufficient sourcing for us to claim that said player is "Considered one of the best players in the world" in the opening paragraph of the lead in their biography? Mattythewhite ( talk) 21:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
Crossposting this request from Village pump:
Correcting Page edit.
Thanks
Anas1712 (
talk)
12:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to ask if there's anyone who is familiar with the upcoming tournament and, in that case, willing to help me update the page, please. I was searching for information about the squads, when I ran into reports about at least three teams - Uganda, Morocco and Libya - threatening to withdraw from the CHAN, at just a few weeks from its beginning. (although Uganda has since made a U-turn from their original decision). And it doesn't end there, apparently...
I know that CAF competitions are not strange to controversy, unfortunately, but I'm still shocked this time: if I didn't make this research, I wouldn't even know about that, because there are no real reports on the confederation's website. Plus, the article itself hasn't been updated, yet, so it actually looked like everything was going smoothly to me...
I think we should definitely keep monitoring this page, as the tournament is just about to start. What do you think about it?
Oltrepier ( talk) 14:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Can someone who knows check if this [4] is right or not? I have no idea, but there might be shenanigans. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello all. I have expanded the above article on an important figure in the early history of Southampton F.C.. My area is cricket, so there isn't all that much about his time as president of Southampton F.C., so I'm leaving a note here to see if anyone wishes to expand upon his time as a football administrator. Cheers, StickyWicket ( talk) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Can someone explain why he's shown on his infobox as having a senior career ending in 2023, when his last game was in 2022? Mark Viduka had a similar story, retiring from all forms of football in 2009, but we only show his national career until 2007, as that was his last game for the Socceroos (even though he was still active until his retirement)? Why one rule for one and not the other? Why isn't Ryan Giggs shown as a Man Utd player until 2016, as he was at the club until then?- J man708 ( talk) 22:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I know this seems a bit over the top, and sounds like drivel, but I just wanted to apologise to everyone at wiki talk football for all of the hassle I've caused, including Number 5 7, even though I recently reverted one of your edits on the Dartford page, shortly afterwards I suddenly realised; What I am really doing? It's not up to me what or what doesn't go on other clubs articles. Truth is I'm 18, have lots of other things going on, and have only been using the site for around 4 months now, so I think in the process of learning, I've taken my frustration out on fellow editors, which is of course unacceptable. I've been extremely rude to everyone, and a bit of nuisance - just wanted to apologise. A lot of the things I said I didn't mean, just generally quite a sensitive bloke, and let stuff get to me a tad too much. All the silly tier debates, honours sections formatting etc. I'll be leaving Wikipedia now, at least for a decent bit of time, I may create another account labelled "BCFC" or something to check up on the Bath City article here and there, (actually arranged to meet the club photographer to get some more quality photos on there) but apart from that I'll be off. Thanks so much everyone, keep up your amazing editing. Joseph1891 ( talk) 00:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Could anyone keep an eye at the infobox of Daley Blind? An IP doesn't seem to understand that only domestic league matches belong there. -- Jaellee ( talk) 16:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I consider this a bad redirect per the AfD result. @ Fram, GiantSnowman, Joseph2302, and Struway2: Would you peeps mind if I redirected and merged some of the content into Esher? Which is the town where the club played and I truly believe is the right venue for this information and redirect. Regards. Govvy ( talk) 10:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria: ... Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. But there are still going to be a lot of them.
@ Govvy: in the meantime, I see no reason why the sport section of Esher shouldn't be expanded a little. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 11:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.(Italics as in original) cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, I had some time I changed the whole sport section around at Esher and redirected there, some of your comments above seem a bit at odds to me. So I am being WP:BOLD! Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 10:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm seeking some input into this discussion regarding the notability of some content that has recently been added to the opening sentence of the article's lead. Mattythewhite ( talk) 21:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. It has recently come to my attention that the new demonym for the country of Burkina Faso is Burkinabè and no longer Burkinabé. I just wanted to put this here because I still see a lot of football articles with the old demonym. Please just keep that in mind. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 20:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Apparently something changed between 1994 (the date of this document) and today for legifrance.gouv.fr to have updated their tableThat can probably explained by what toponymie.gouv.qc.ca calls the "emerging trend". Robby.is.on ( talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I have just learned that User:Pelotas moved the Belgian First Division A article to the name Belgian Pro League without requesting an RM. Although some could see this as WP:BOLD, I think that it could be a controversial move and should require an RM. However, since the move has already been made, what can be done? An RM to move it to the old title to prove that the new title is better? Paul Vaurie ( talk) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Are monthly awards, such as “goal of the month” or “save of the month” sufficiently noteworthy to include in a player’s Honours section? While I’m here, what about “Player of the Month”? Daemonickangaroo2018 ( talk) 06:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I’m new on here, I hope it’s OK to ask this question on here. My question regards Jimmy Greaves who scored 268 in 381 matches for Spurs. However Spurs do not include his 2 Charity Shield appearances and 2 goals. Does Wikipedia have to agree with Spurs’ official goal total of 266 in 379? Harry Kane is soon to bring this record into the spotlight. Some might say as long as it’s sourced, but there are also many websites that show his full 268 goals. Greaves scored 220 league, 32 FA Cup, 5 League Cup, 4 European Cup, 5 Cup Winners Cup and 2 Charity Shield goals, 268 goals. Other players all have their Charity/Community Shield goals counted, Nunez and Alvarez the latest for example. I recently edited his article, twice it has been replaced back to 266, when in fact he scored 268 for Spurs. Spare Koppers ( talk) 11:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Spare Koppers: per The Spurs Alphabet: isbn 0-9514862-8-4
Regards Govvy ( talk) 11:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Jimmy's article is pretty good, I am wondering how close to FA class it is. Govvy ( talk) 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I was going to write a longer RfC comment discussing the main issues here and some year-specific past discussions, but have determined to keep it short and sweet, and general. We have two questions, some !vote options, and a simple information table. As there seems to be no dispute regarding the consistent use of dmy date format, there is no question on this and the result should not be taken to affect this. As women's football culture is distinct from men's, there is no question on the women's tournament and the result should not be taken to affect this. Kingsif ( talk) 22:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
As English variety is concerned, and this can be contentious in relation to the sport, neutral notice to please refrain from arguments that pit the United States and the United Kingdom against each other.
Tournament | ENGVAR | Term |
---|---|---|
1930 Uruguay | Commonwealth | football |
1934 Italy | British | football |
1938 France | Comm | football |
1950 Brazil | Brit | football |
1954 Switzerland | Brit | football |
1958 Sweden | Comm | football |
1962 Chile | United States | football |
1966 England | Brit (template) Comm (practice) |
football |
1970 Mexico | Comm | football |
1974 West Germany | Brit (template) Comm (practice) |
football |
1978 Argentina | Mixed (Use of "recognising", "symbolized", "commercialized", "installed" as some examples of conflicting vocab...) |
football |
1982 Spain | Brit | football |
1986 Mexico | Comm | football |
1990 Italy | Brit (template) Comm (practice) |
football |
1994 United States | US | soccer |
1998 France | Comm | football |
2002 Korea Japan | Mixed (Use of "organized", "favourites") |
football |
2006 Germany | Comm | football |
2010 South Africa | Mixed (Use of "favored" and "favourably". One on top of the other. Also "minimise", "colours", "against", "organisers", "kilometre". Describing costs in £ primarily would suggest Brit intention) |
football (except in the proper name of flagship stadium Soccer City) |
2014 Brazil | Brit (template) Comm (practice) |
football |
2018 Russia | Brit (template) Mixed (one use of "organized" in lead, rest Commonwealth) |
football (one use of soccer) |
2022 Qatar | Brit (template) Mixed (one use of "traveling", otherwise British) |
football |
2026 United States, Mexico, Canada | US (template and practice) | soccer (one use of football) |
2030 (unawarded) | Brit (template and practice) | football |
2034 (unawarded) | Comm | football |
Does this have to do with the intros, where currently we've got [Association football|football] & [Association football|soccer]? GoodDay ( talk) 22:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic
|
---|
|
I've requested input from Wikipedia:Sports. -- GoodDay ( talk) 23:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Also off-topic
|
---|
Maybe it was already attempted, but if not. Why hasn't anyone opened up an RM at Association football, to get it moved to Football? GoodDay ( talk) 02:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Someone needs to update Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football, so that the teams are in the correct sections. Also the categories of these userboxes should be updated. Catfurball ( talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
In a club season article, when a matchday is brought forward (i.e., date has been changed), should it appear before or after previous non-played matchdays (e.g. matchday 10 is to be played before matchday 8)? SLBedit ( talk) 21:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
why does/should FC St. Pauli get displayed as such in player articles instead of St. Pauli? FC Barcelona gets listed as Barcelona so where;s the consistency? Muur ( talk) 07:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
In German football, it is not common practice to list clubs by just the town/city names. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a guideline or consensus here about not linking a club twice in {{ Football box collapsible}} on club season articles? Sakiv ( talk · contribs) thinks so. SLBedit ( talk) 20:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello!
As I'm working on one of my drafts, I need to introduce complete statistics for the player's spell at Celtic's B Team, which has been competing in the Lowland Football League (one half of Scotland's fifth tier league) in the last few years. However, I'm struggling to find sources that include detailed statistics for players competing in that championship. Apparently, of all the sites I visited, only Transfermarkt collects data for each player, but obviously I can't use them. Plus, as @ Robby.is.on and I discussed over here, fan-made sources are not a solution, either.
So, does anyone know about other potentially useful sources I can take advantage of?
Oltrepier ( talk) 19:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
In a continued effort to make Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams an accurate representation of best practice for National Team pages, does anyone have a preference regarding the following:
This is by no means an exhaustive list and I've just tried to find examples of the points I'm looking to clarify. Any input would be appriciated!
Felixsv7 ( talk) 09:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I've just finished working on a test page for the player, so I wanted to ask for your opinion on it.
I don't know if he already fulfills WP:GNG, but I still want to try...
Oltrepier ( talk) 10:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I've just noticed that someone uploaded a new image on the player's page, but the source looks unclear: plus, I'm not familiar with Commons' guidelines on pictures taken from social networks...
Could anybody take a look at it, please?
Oltrepier ( talk) 08:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Could a admin protect the page for Moises Caicedo before all the IP vandals from around the world heavily edit the page following his new agency releasing a pre-prepared statement trying to force a transfer through? Would request through the usual pages for protection but this normally takes 12 hours or so and I can envisage at least 100 edits will need reverting by then RM-Taylor ( talk) 22:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Page has had semi-protection on it twice in the last month I believe so may be one to keep an eye on for a while. RM-Taylor ( talk) 17:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I came across FC Twente in European football, which appears to be simply a list of all games played by FC Twente in UEFA competitions. This strikes me (a very much non-footy person) as something that would be against WP:NOTDATABASE, but I wanted to check with people frequenting this talk page before going to AfD. Is there any precedence with these kinds of articles? Ljleppan ( talk) 19:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to inform you that I've just opened a discussion for a test page I recently created about this player (not to be confused with his older brother, Josh Oluwayemi).
If you have enough time, as well as experience with football in Scotland and the UK, please leave your suggestions down there: every kind of help is appreciated!
Oltrepier ( talk) 14:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I feel that the semi-recent game between Stevenege and Aston Villa might deserve a Wikipedia page. Other FA Cup giant killings have their own Wikipedia pages ( Wrexham 2-1 Arsenal and Burnley 0-1 Lincoln City are the big ones in my mind), and multiple places have reported on the game as an upset ( The Athletic, Globe and Mail, Sky Sports, Reuters, ESPN, The Guardian, BBC Sports, and technically if you want to count it as ok for sports The Sun). Would it count as notable enough? WikipeidaNeko ( talk) 01:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
First of all, please read a below discussion.
Gareth Bale as a "player" in 2023?
This discussion seemed to fizzle out without consensus. So I start a new discussion about same issue.
Currently, Instructions for the Infobox at Template:Infobox_football_biography, where it says that the Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club".
In my humble opinion, "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club". This provision have many problems.
(1) First, we have to understand the difference between Two consecutive year season system and One year season system.
I think it is important to draw a clear line between two season system and one season system.
Let's see the career years in Gareth Bale infobox
If Bale was retired in January 2023 in the European Football League, Maybe no big misunderstanding. Because he retired in the middle of 2022-2023 season (January 2023 is the part of 2022-2023 season). But Bale was retired in January 2023 after he finished 2022 MLS season and before the start of 2023 MLS season (January 2023 is not the part of MLS 2023 season).
All wikipedia readers are not knowledgeable about football including football league season system.
Therefore current club years at infobox cause three misunderstandings to readers.
Firstly, Bale played for Los Angeles FC both in 2022 season and 2023 season for two years.
Secondly, Major League Soccer season is ongoing in January 2023 like European Football League season.
Thirdly, Bale's last international match was in 2022 and Bale's last club match is in 2023
(2) Bale signed a 1 year contract in June 2022. So Bale was contracted at LAFC until he retired in January 2023. Under current provision, There is no problem.
But We can't know detailed contract years of all football players. Bale is very very famous footballer, So we can find his contract year in press very easily.
But Contract years of many football players are undisclosed in press or even in unknown players case, We don't find any contract information in press.
So We need a common and general provision in club years at infobox.
I will say it again, Current club years at European Professional football League with two year season (2022-23 season, 2023-24 season) don't cause big misunderstanding. But club years at Major League Soccer, K League, J.League, Chinese Super League and so on with one year season (2022 season, 2023 season) cause misunderstanding.
Many football player career in Major League Soccer, K League, J.League, Chinese Super League as belows.
For example
- 2005: First contracted with XX FC but didn't appear in the any matches for the XX FC .
- 2006–2010: Appeared in the matches for the XX FC.
- 2011–2022: Originally, contracted with XX FC until 2013. But he transferred to YY FC in January or February in 2011 (After he finished 2010 season in XX FC and before the start of 2011 season) and he appeared in the matches for the only YY FC during 2011–2022
- 2023: still under contract in 2023 or 2024 with YY FC, But he retire or terminate contract in January or February in 2023 (Before the start of 2023 season), then don't find new club.
- 2024: Revese a retirement dicision and contract 1 year with ZZ FC but he don't appear in any matches due to heavy injury.
Therefore, I hope that We revise provision at Template:Infobox football biography as belows in order to convey clear information about various player career cases.
Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club but last year of list that the player has been played/capped/appeared at each club or the player has been completed player registration in the league and club
To put it simply, We synchronize club years in infobox and club years in club career statistics table.
Then, we give a description about detailed contract information including contract year in club career section.
Thanks for reading. Footwiks ( talk) 12:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club, so that's what we should use, not when they play which is how it's done for national teams (
A list of years that the player has played for each national team). -- SuperJew ( talk) 13:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I announce my immediate retirement from ... footballwhich would time it to the point the statement was made. Spike 'em ( talk) 14:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This started as a discussion about proposed changes to the Template:Infobox football biography but is degenerating into a discussion about Gareth Bale's retirement. Can editors try to keep on topic. Daemonickangaroo2018 ( talk) 15:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Op just seemed mad the previous discussion had everyone say bale for 2023 and then brought it back up hoping it'd end different this time and it didn't. Muur ( talk) 15:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I have a question and suggestion.
(1) Question
I repeat, Major League Soccer can't register Bale as 2023 season official MLS player. Also Bale is not the part of 2023 season LAFC roaster.
But Do we have to add 2023 lines with all 0 stats in his career statistics table like club years of infobox?
Club | Season | League | National Cup | League Cup | Continental | Other | Total | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Division | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | ||
Los Angeles FC | 2022 | MLS | 12 | 2 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 13 | 3 | |||
2023 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Career total | 394 | 141 | 32 | 7 | 15 | 3 | 98 | 27 | 14 | 7 | 553 | 185 |
(2) Suggestion
How about adding months in club years in all players infobox as belows?
2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)
=>
06/2022–01/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2) or June 2022–January 2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)
(Date format, Anything is fine for me)
Let's compare the Bale's club years and some player's club years
Club years including months in infobox can convey intuitive information and prevent misuderstanding to readers.
That is to say,
=> We can easily realize that Bale joined the LAFC in the middle of 2022 season and Bale left the LAFC before the opening of 2023 season.
=> We can easily realize that some player spent full two seasons for LAFC.
But in current infobox Club years of Bale and some player are same as belows
Therefore, Readers have to find a detailed club years information in their club career section. First, this cause inconvenience and generally famous footballers article have detailed club career section including contract years. So if readers can't find detailed club years information, especailly unknown footballers, This can cause misunderstanding about club years.
I checked out Bale articles at other language wikipedias.
There is a just difference of view on the players club career.
They can both be right.
In conculsion, In my humble opinion, Club period including month information in infobox become a good compromise. Footwiks ( talk) 05:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
What seems to have been forgotten here once again is that this is meant to be a discussion about the instructions for football player infoboxes, not about Gareth Bale. At present, the instructions say that the Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club". As far as Gareth Bales is concerned, it appears that he was under contact until he announced his retirement in January 2023, unless someone can provide a source showing that his actual retirement fell in 2022. That being so, there is no point in discussing Bale further until the main point is resolved.
The main point of this discussion should be about a possible change to the infobox instructions. The OP has made various proposals, most of which, such as showing months in the infobox, are unworkable. It seems to me that, if this discussion is to continue, it should be on the infobox talk page, where contributors can stay focussed on the subject at hand,and leave any discussion about Bale to another day. Daemonickangaroo2018 ( talk) 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
There are so many similar retirement or transfer situations like Bale's situation, So I want to find a fundamental solution to revise instructions of current club years of footballer player.
Additionally, So many players who play for in the league with one year season retire or transfer in January or February.
Good afternoon, everyone!
While editing here and there, I've run into this page and found out about the atrocious state it finds itself in: from the lack of citations, to poor writing and not updated rosters, the whole article is definitely in dire straits as of now.
I don't know if I'll have enough time to work on it directly in the next few days, so I wanted to ask for some much needed help (including from the likes of @ Dr Salvus and @ Nehme1499, if they can), please...
I think this section from the club's article on it.wiki could be a great place to start, in order to get some useful sources and organize the page properly.
Let me know if you can help me!
Oltrepier ( talk) 15:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
History of FC Barcelona has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
A new user is vehemently arguing that Transfermarkt is a reliable source and also confers notability and is edit warring it back into articles. Disruptive behaviour aside, given that the discussion about Transfermarkt was almost a decade ago, do we need to revise our community stance? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I created this shortcut ages ago, WP:WPFLINKSNO, did want to expand on the bottom of that section. Unless it's put to a whole new page. But ye, there is a whole load of reasons for transfermarkt. Govvy ( talk) 08:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever seen this before when a user has been going through player's articles and updates their appearance count by one when the matches has not even started yet. This person had ran through the entire Manchester United v Crystal Palace starting 22, possibly from this lineup and has started doing the same to Wolves v Liverpool players. The warnings GS and myself had put on there today are presumably ignored. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 14:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I've just come across 2022–23 National League South which appears to be a WP:DUPLICATE of 2022–23 National League as I always assumed that we always had the National League leagues (NL, North and South) together as one article. Can someone more versed with non-league have a look at this and see if it needs a merge/redirect please? The C of E God Save the King! ( talk) 08:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | → | Archive 165 |
I've removed the pipe-link [Association football|football] in the FIFA World Cup pages that didn't use "soccer", so that "association football" is shown, rather then just "football". I've done this so that American & Canadian readers wouldn't be confused by the sports name. This isn't a fight over who owns the name "football". Just an aid for those of us who think gridiron football or any other type of football, when we see "football". GoodDay ( talk) 02:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
PS: IF a discussion on this was held before & a consensus was obtained. Please, let me know what that consensus is. GoodDay ( talk) 03:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that 'twice' Tvx1, you've reverted my changes to the intros with a claim of 'no consensus'. Yet it appears you're basically the only editor who's doing the reverting. I hope you're not suggesting that 'your support' is required, for a consensus. GoodDay ( talk) 14:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I've also noticed that the linked-page is called Association football, rather then "Football". Seeing as there is a page called Football, which covers multiple sports? It would appear that association football is not the primary topic. GoodDay ( talk) 14:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Note - Perhaps in the 'new year' & after the FIFA tournament has ended. I'll likely open an RFC on this matter. I don't understand something, though. Both here & at another discussion, a majority of editors have supported my argument. But, nobody else has undone Tvx1's reverts. GoodDay ( talk) 01:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The sport is called "association football." The article on the sport is called "Association football." The article on the FIFA World Cup calls the sport "association football." I don't know why we would want to refer to the sport as something different on this page. As for evidence of confusion, I would suggest you google the word "football" and see what comes up. Most of the hits I got weren't for association football. My point here is that in a large portion of the English-speaking world, football is not what first comes to mind when one hears the word "football." Why would be want to use a term that means different things to different people, not an unambiguous one? Why would we use a different term that the one used in the article on the sport itself? It's true that the wikilink clears up ambiguity, but only if the reader thinks there is ambiguity and decides to click on it. For many readers, "football" is unambiguous, so there's no need to click on the link. The problem is that "football" in this article doesn't mean what they think it means. Instant Comma ( talk) 16:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe all the objections to changing "football" in the opening to "association football" have been addressed. If not, please let me know what I have missed. Instant Comma ( talk) 17:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. On the article of Yassine Bounou, what should the nationality in the lede be? Moroccan, or should it be omitted and explained further down in the lede, since he was born in Canada and has Canadian citizenship? Moroccan IP editors keep on changing it back to 'Moroccan professional footballer', albeit in GF, but probably with some bias too. I argue that it should be 'professional footballer [...] and the Morocco national team' and further down, 'Born in Canada to Moroccan parents..' Paul Vaurie ( talk) 06:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
But leaving the lede without mentioning his Moroccan nationality (that he acquired Jus sanguinis and that is also the place where he was raised and his sporting nationality) is giving weight to the trivial fact of his birth in Canada. And the fact that he never identified himself as a Canadian or a Canadian-Moroccan, he never lived or played in a team/club or even visited Canada. It even says in the guideline MOS:NATIONALITY Similarly, neither previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability. The only relevant nationality in Bounou's case is the Moroccan one. 196.119.118.98 ( talk) 08:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
goalscorer/s or goal-scorer/s or goal scorer/s? 2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 ( talk) 18:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Domestic matches in India till the 1960s were often of less than 90 minutes. Sometimes they lasted 60 minutes but I don't know what duration was used when.
When a report says that a goal was scored in the 10th minute of the second half, and you don't know the duration of the match, is there a standard way in Wikipedia of representing it ? Facing this problem while filling the results in some articles like 1950–51 Santosh Trophy. At the moment, I am using the format "10(2)" with an explanation but this appears a bit awkward. Tintin 13:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I think it would be preferable to standardise English football club honours section format, almost like an info-box, to make it easier for the viewer to asses/compare different club's trophies. currently this section seems to be a bit of a free for all.
I've tried to alter the format of many clubs based on the format used by Manchester United F.C., Liverpool F.C., Chelsea F.C. etc, as they are some of the biggest clubs in the country and the articles have achieved Wikipedia:Featured article status. Their style of format, includes 'bolding' the name of the league and the "champions", however, apparently this is not correct, as it counts as excessive bolding. If that is the case, then surely these articles should be edited? Joseph1891 ( talk) 10:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
But where do we draw the line between adding the bracket and leaving them out? Of course the reader can count to two, but I thought it just makes more sense with an honour to summarise the amount won. Joseph1891 ( talk) 16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@EchetusXe, Ok thanks, coming across a bit strongly there. Both myself and Govvy believe this, no one was going to change anything yet. How would gaining promotion ever count as an honour? If York have only won one league title and two Fa trophy’s… we’ll then they’ve only won one league and two FA trophy’s. Promotion should be included in the “records and statistics”. But now you’ve changed it to “and achievements” this is no longer an issue for York’s article. Joseph1891 ( talk) 13:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Muur: You know, that Bournemouth source, says they were given a trophy, but I don't see photographic evidence! lol. Govvy ( talk) 11:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Govy Bro, there’s literally a photo of them lifting the trophy. Joseph1891 ( talk) 11:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Only five of the teams in Liga MX have 2022-23 season articles. That isn't very good for what I would predict to be the perhaps the 8th best league in the world. Anybody want to join me on a crusade to fix this? Ijustlikefootball ( talk) 22:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
After the consensus on the RM on the article was to move from Final to final, should all "Final" articles also be moved, even if they're not World Cup finals? For example, shouldn't the consensus there apply to 2022 Coupe de France Final? Paul Vaurie ( talk) 04:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski, Stevie fae Scotland, and GoodDay: Is this permission to move all Coupe de France Final articles to the uncapitalized “final”? Paul Vaurie ( talk) 21:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1993 UEFA Champions League Final#Requested move 22 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
What about creating categories for players who took part to a determinate academy? Dr Salvus 13:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Request for input at Youssouf Fofana (footballer). Paul Vaurie ( talk) 07:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Over the last few months I have been compiling notes offline concerning the various clubs that have played in the National League (English football) (or its predecessors, the Alliance Premier League and the Football Conference) since the creation of that league at the start of the 1979-80 season. Today I set up two categories:
I then populated Category:National League (English football) clubs without a problem, and began to populate Category:Former National League (English football) clubs, initially by moving clubs out of Category:National League (English football). I was part-way through this task (working alphabetically, I had reached the clubs beginning with S and T when a quick refresh of the category page showed that many of the clubs had vanished from Category:Former National League (English football) clubs. Investigating, I found that they had been moved to Category:National League (English football) clubs by Number 57 ( talk · contribs) despite the inclusion criterion at the top of that category page. So I started User talk:Number 57#Categories for National League (English football) where you will find two posts from each of myself and Number 57.
So, I am asking this WikiProject: is it appropriate for the clubs to be categorised by current/former status, or should all the clubs be in one category regardless of whether they presently play in that league or not? -- Redrose64 🦌 ( talk) 20:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Anyone who want to participate further on this talk page section - as the opening sentence has been changed once again I've noticed. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 22:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Between yesterday and today, I've worked extensively on the coach's page, by adding several bits of information on his early life, his coaching CV and various other aspects.
Since I'm still slowly learning the fundamentals of Wikipedia, I've tried my best to keep grammar, formatting and quotes as polished as possible, while trying to edit boldly. However, I'd really appreciate any type of feedback on my contributions (@ ShelfSkewed already gave me his, by the way), should you have enough time to do so.
Oltrepier ( talk) 21:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this might look like to be off-topic but could be helpful for me anyway. Loaning players for more than 12 months would not be doable according to FIFA's rules. Nevertheless, I've seen Juventus loan two players until June 2024. How's this even possible? Dr Salvus 16:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
At the bottom of the FIFA link you provided, it says "Players aged 21 and younger and club-trained players will be exempt from these limitations." For that player, is she under 21? That could be how she's allowed to do an 18 month loan. RedPatch ( talk) 20:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It also says "At domestic level, FIFA’s member associations will be granted a period of three years to implement rules for a loan system that is in line with the principles established at international level." Given its a domestic loan, it still falls into that 3 year grace period, where the rules don't need to match international rules yet RedPatch ( talk) 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
What is the minimum international goals needed for one of these articles? Just enquiring about the necessity of this article for a player who scored 36 goals. Should this be sent to AFD? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 21:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with deletion of all earlier articles except list of goals scored by Ronaldo Nazario as it is player who had most international titles (along with Casillas AFAIR) and it is no way to keep Alfredo Di Stéfano list who never played World Cup in international career but no Brazilian Ronaldo's and per my comments here. I would also remove mentioned article (Issam Jemâa list) by ItsKesha and some other articles but would back for sure Nazario's one. Best regards. Dawid2009 ( talk) 12:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I am still surprised that Harry Kane's page hasn't been recreated considering he is the current all-time England top scorer. Govvy ( talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to bring this page to your attention, since I've finished my extensive re-work on it just a few hours ago.
I'd hugely appreciate any kind of feedback, and I also wanted to know if the page could be eligible for a WP:DYK or a WP:GA nomination, although it might still be too soon for it.
Oltrepier ( talk) 12:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I've abbandoned this article, which I wanted to bring to FL status. Would anyone be keen to do so? I'll give credit to whoever takes this. Dr Salvus 15:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, Sunday League football (as in the concept of a completely separate set-up organised on Sundays when football is primarily played on Saturdays, not the notion of football being played on Sundays in general) is pretty much a UK-specific phenomenon. Do we really need separate articles on the general concept and on the specifics of it in England......? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 09:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia:NFOOTY no longer exist as an article in its own right? The link now goes to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people where there is no specific football sub-section. Does that mean anything goes? Daemonickangaroo2018 ( talk) 09:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Bbllo: has been continuing to edit national teams' names out of their pages and instead replacing them with the word it. This has happened on the following pages:
I've also not had a response to my Talk message attempting to resolve the matter and was wondering if someone could do a sock check?
Felixsv7 ( talk) 09:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs how we should be formatting this section then? Joseph1891 ( talk) 11:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Stevie fae Scotland I agree, anyone else have any thoughts? Be good to reach a consensus on this. Joseph1891 ( talk) 12:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
So do we agree that tables are the better format? Joseph1891 ( talk) 21:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that for club articles only, tables are fine. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 07:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
However, note that my opinion is not consensus. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 07:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Tables are not so great if you're listening to an article being read. Although it's a small amount, there are specialist browsers for the visually impaired, hard of hearing where, keeping it simple is better. This should be considered with WP:ACCESS. There is a reason to be cautious when creating a table on what information is going into one and why. You really don't need a table for honours. You should use them sparingly if you can in my opinion. Govvy ( talk) 10:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Govvy OK, it’s seems you are the only one so far who dislikes the table format idea, what I don’t understand is why the table format is shown in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs if it isn’t being used? I thought that article was a template for how we should be formatting club articles? I don’t really see how a table makes it harder for some readers, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Juventus etc format their honours sections like this. To me, and clearly some fellow editors, a table format makes honours more simple to observe, not the opposite. Joseph1891 ( talk) 10:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
So would it be possible for everyone to say whether or not they’d prefer a table format: yes/no? etc Joseph1891 ( talk) 10:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Anyone else? Yes/no Joseph1891 ( talk) 11:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I would go with tables. Much easier and better structured. Kante4 ( talk) 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1956 European Cup Final#Requested move 6 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 21:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
It should be looked up if he did this with more articles. Hannelsen ( talk) 21:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Where do we source the referee's teams from that we are posting in articles? Such as this one taken from 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B
Tomaž Klančnik ( Slovenia)
Andraž Kovačič ( Slovenia)
Karen Díaz Medina ( Mexico)
Assistant video assistant referees:
Paweł Sokolnicki ( Poland)
Stand-by assistant video assistant referee:
Vasile Marinescu ( Romania)
Do we have a source for listing these people? I get it's a World Cup, but what does a Stand-by VAR referee do that is important to note? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a reason why user @ S.A. Julio: added both Stand-byes also for the final, as he did the same starting from the quarter-finals in 2022 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Why has it to be omitted for the most important match of the tournament? User S.A. Julio doens't add unsourced information.-- Island92 ( talk) 17:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Source added.-- Island92 ( talk) 17:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Before you said unsourced. Now that the source is there is not suitable anyway. I consider them to have the same value, set all by FIFA, included, as included in 2022 FIFA World Cup knockout stage.-- Island92 ( talk) 05:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
This list of referees should be included at all. I don't understand why for this final a new style is being adapted. Island92 ( talk) 11:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
There is no point in insisting then. You will happily go through group stages articles and knockout phases articles as well given that you say either and either. The prose mentions all of them, whereas the below list doesn't match with it. I find this policy incorrect. Regards. Island92 ( talk) 12:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Current players in a former country. Is it only me that thinks this article does not make sense? Should be split by the actual countries. Pelmeen10 ( talk) 11:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
We need to actually reach a consensus then, can people put: “yes” if they would like to format honours sections like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs with the table format, or “no” if they would like to stick the current format. Cheers. Joseph1891 ( talk) 09:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read.If all we're listing are competition names and years/seasons, we don't need the added complications of table structure. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The layout we use right nowCould you share where that is documented? As mentioned above, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs has a table. Robby.is.on ( talk) 13:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The majority voted “no” . No consensus was reached, the current format should be maintained then, thanks everyone. :) Joseph1891 ( talk) 13:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, sorry I’ll leave Wikipedia Joseph1891 ( talk) 16:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
No clearly I’m more of a disruption. I’m still just not really too experienced with the website and all I ever really wanted was help/explanations etc. just wanted to try and help make the articles on non-League football more polished, but I’ve obviously I’ve done a poor job, I’ve been pretty rude myself, not anyone else’s fault now I look at it… think it would be easier/better for everyone if I left, can’t seem to get much right on the site. Joseph1891 ( talk) 16:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
One last thing on the honours sections
So we've determined that the tables were not a great format, just wasn't sure how to actually format the bulleted lists?
For example @ Number 5 7 believes this is the correct way to format honours sections:
Option 1: (taken from Altrincham F.C.)
However I thought this would count as MOS:BOLD? maybe not.
I thought this was how we should be formatting honours sections:
seems more in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players which I thought was what we were basing this section on?
Option 2:
League
Cups
I'm not sure what people's thoughts are on this, is option 1 better or option 2? Joseph1891 ( talk) 13:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I can't believe I just read through all of that! Ugh, And if ain't broke don't fix it! Govvy ( talk) 16:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Huijsen started his Juventus U23 career yesterday. Do I put 2021-2023 or 2021-2022 in the youth career section? His last youth match was in 2022, but played his first senior game in 2023. Dr Salvus 22:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been here for nearly 17 years, but maybe something happened and i did not notice, so here it goes:
Zeca (footballer, born 1988). OK, a Greek citizen now and also playing for the national team, but he spent nearly six seasons in Greece as a Portuguese citizen (before naturalisation), so he should get the "Expatriate footballers in Greece"/"Portuguese expatriate sportspeople in Greece" no? Or those have to go the minute a subject becomes naturalised? Makes no sense at all (like removing a club category when a player leaves for another one, i have seen that happen here), in my humble opinion.
Attentively 2001:8A0:7643:2400:D1FF:BEF3:7AE9:9F7 ( talk) 23:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@
OGBC1992: is of the view that if a footballer has an honour (OBE, CBE etc.) then it should be mentioned in the name=
parameter of the infobox. I disagree. What are wider views?
Giant
Snowman
13:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
name=
parameter is NOT an "infobox parameter for post-nominals" (it is a parameter for the name only) and therefore they should not be included.
Giant
Snowman
14:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Just curious, does Marcus Rashford having a dog merit inclusion on his article? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 22:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Good man @ ItsKesha: All my warmest wishes, RossButsy ( talk) 01:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've seen users including fixtures that have yet to be announced, see Hong Kong or Japan. Currently the template does not have any guidance for future unannounced fixtures but I don't feel they should be included - what are other people's opinions? Felixsv7 ( talk) 10:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Many months ago, i opened up the same topic [ [3]]. It was agreed upon to completely remove u-23 honors from the first team senior articles, as they didn't win it. Not a single regular on here disagreed with it. I knew it wasn't up to me, and it still isn't up to me, but is this still the consensus??? I had an edit war with a user on the Germany national team. He wanted the medal to stay on the article, as long as note stated that they didn't win it. I stated that it was already agreed upon here on the footballproject, to remove it. The user reported me for edit warring, which got declined.. His logic was that as long as we keep a note on the article, then it's okay. Is it tho??? I rather want a note suggesting why the honor is NOT there, rather than explaining why an honor that the team of this article didn't even win, is there. By that users logic, can we add any u-17, u20 honor to the senior articles, as long as they say btw they didn't win it, but here it is?? I would love to hear any input from anybody here. I will accept ANY consensus that will be met.. i simply tried to uphold what i thought was agreed upon back then. Speun ( talk) 20:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Just wondering, with regard to a recent addition at Marcus Rashford: is a club source with a quote from the manager saying "And now to get out the potential, I believe when Marcus's positioning is on the back of the defending line, there is almost no better player in the world" sufficient sourcing for us to claim that said player is "Considered one of the best players in the world" in the opening paragraph of the lead in their biography? Mattythewhite ( talk) 21:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
Crossposting this request from Village pump:
Correcting Page edit.
Thanks
Anas1712 (
talk)
12:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to ask if there's anyone who is familiar with the upcoming tournament and, in that case, willing to help me update the page, please. I was searching for information about the squads, when I ran into reports about at least three teams - Uganda, Morocco and Libya - threatening to withdraw from the CHAN, at just a few weeks from its beginning. (although Uganda has since made a U-turn from their original decision). And it doesn't end there, apparently...
I know that CAF competitions are not strange to controversy, unfortunately, but I'm still shocked this time: if I didn't make this research, I wouldn't even know about that, because there are no real reports on the confederation's website. Plus, the article itself hasn't been updated, yet, so it actually looked like everything was going smoothly to me...
I think we should definitely keep monitoring this page, as the tournament is just about to start. What do you think about it?
Oltrepier ( talk) 14:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Can someone who knows check if this [4] is right or not? I have no idea, but there might be shenanigans. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello all. I have expanded the above article on an important figure in the early history of Southampton F.C.. My area is cricket, so there isn't all that much about his time as president of Southampton F.C., so I'm leaving a note here to see if anyone wishes to expand upon his time as a football administrator. Cheers, StickyWicket ( talk) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Can someone explain why he's shown on his infobox as having a senior career ending in 2023, when his last game was in 2022? Mark Viduka had a similar story, retiring from all forms of football in 2009, but we only show his national career until 2007, as that was his last game for the Socceroos (even though he was still active until his retirement)? Why one rule for one and not the other? Why isn't Ryan Giggs shown as a Man Utd player until 2016, as he was at the club until then?- J man708 ( talk) 22:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I know this seems a bit over the top, and sounds like drivel, but I just wanted to apologise to everyone at wiki talk football for all of the hassle I've caused, including Number 5 7, even though I recently reverted one of your edits on the Dartford page, shortly afterwards I suddenly realised; What I am really doing? It's not up to me what or what doesn't go on other clubs articles. Truth is I'm 18, have lots of other things going on, and have only been using the site for around 4 months now, so I think in the process of learning, I've taken my frustration out on fellow editors, which is of course unacceptable. I've been extremely rude to everyone, and a bit of nuisance - just wanted to apologise. A lot of the things I said I didn't mean, just generally quite a sensitive bloke, and let stuff get to me a tad too much. All the silly tier debates, honours sections formatting etc. I'll be leaving Wikipedia now, at least for a decent bit of time, I may create another account labelled "BCFC" or something to check up on the Bath City article here and there, (actually arranged to meet the club photographer to get some more quality photos on there) but apart from that I'll be off. Thanks so much everyone, keep up your amazing editing. Joseph1891 ( talk) 00:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Could anyone keep an eye at the infobox of Daley Blind? An IP doesn't seem to understand that only domestic league matches belong there. -- Jaellee ( talk) 16:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I consider this a bad redirect per the AfD result. @ Fram, GiantSnowman, Joseph2302, and Struway2: Would you peeps mind if I redirected and merged some of the content into Esher? Which is the town where the club played and I truly believe is the right venue for this information and redirect. Regards. Govvy ( talk) 10:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria: ... Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. But there are still going to be a lot of them.
@ Govvy: in the meantime, I see no reason why the sport section of Esher shouldn't be expanded a little. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 11:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.(Italics as in original) cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, I had some time I changed the whole sport section around at Esher and redirected there, some of your comments above seem a bit at odds to me. So I am being WP:BOLD! Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 10:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm seeking some input into this discussion regarding the notability of some content that has recently been added to the opening sentence of the article's lead. Mattythewhite ( talk) 21:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. It has recently come to my attention that the new demonym for the country of Burkina Faso is Burkinabè and no longer Burkinabé. I just wanted to put this here because I still see a lot of football articles with the old demonym. Please just keep that in mind. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 20:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Apparently something changed between 1994 (the date of this document) and today for legifrance.gouv.fr to have updated their tableThat can probably explained by what toponymie.gouv.qc.ca calls the "emerging trend". Robby.is.on ( talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I have just learned that User:Pelotas moved the Belgian First Division A article to the name Belgian Pro League without requesting an RM. Although some could see this as WP:BOLD, I think that it could be a controversial move and should require an RM. However, since the move has already been made, what can be done? An RM to move it to the old title to prove that the new title is better? Paul Vaurie ( talk) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Are monthly awards, such as “goal of the month” or “save of the month” sufficiently noteworthy to include in a player’s Honours section? While I’m here, what about “Player of the Month”? Daemonickangaroo2018 ( talk) 06:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I’m new on here, I hope it’s OK to ask this question on here. My question regards Jimmy Greaves who scored 268 in 381 matches for Spurs. However Spurs do not include his 2 Charity Shield appearances and 2 goals. Does Wikipedia have to agree with Spurs’ official goal total of 266 in 379? Harry Kane is soon to bring this record into the spotlight. Some might say as long as it’s sourced, but there are also many websites that show his full 268 goals. Greaves scored 220 league, 32 FA Cup, 5 League Cup, 4 European Cup, 5 Cup Winners Cup and 2 Charity Shield goals, 268 goals. Other players all have their Charity/Community Shield goals counted, Nunez and Alvarez the latest for example. I recently edited his article, twice it has been replaced back to 266, when in fact he scored 268 for Spurs. Spare Koppers ( talk) 11:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Spare Koppers: per The Spurs Alphabet: isbn 0-9514862-8-4
Regards Govvy ( talk) 11:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Jimmy's article is pretty good, I am wondering how close to FA class it is. Govvy ( talk) 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I was going to write a longer RfC comment discussing the main issues here and some year-specific past discussions, but have determined to keep it short and sweet, and general. We have two questions, some !vote options, and a simple information table. As there seems to be no dispute regarding the consistent use of dmy date format, there is no question on this and the result should not be taken to affect this. As women's football culture is distinct from men's, there is no question on the women's tournament and the result should not be taken to affect this. Kingsif ( talk) 22:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
As English variety is concerned, and this can be contentious in relation to the sport, neutral notice to please refrain from arguments that pit the United States and the United Kingdom against each other.
Tournament | ENGVAR | Term |
---|---|---|
1930 Uruguay | Commonwealth | football |
1934 Italy | British | football |
1938 France | Comm | football |
1950 Brazil | Brit | football |
1954 Switzerland | Brit | football |
1958 Sweden | Comm | football |
1962 Chile | United States | football |
1966 England | Brit (template) Comm (practice) |
football |
1970 Mexico | Comm | football |
1974 West Germany | Brit (template) Comm (practice) |
football |
1978 Argentina | Mixed (Use of "recognising", "symbolized", "commercialized", "installed" as some examples of conflicting vocab...) |
football |
1982 Spain | Brit | football |
1986 Mexico | Comm | football |
1990 Italy | Brit (template) Comm (practice) |
football |
1994 United States | US | soccer |
1998 France | Comm | football |
2002 Korea Japan | Mixed (Use of "organized", "favourites") |
football |
2006 Germany | Comm | football |
2010 South Africa | Mixed (Use of "favored" and "favourably". One on top of the other. Also "minimise", "colours", "against", "organisers", "kilometre". Describing costs in £ primarily would suggest Brit intention) |
football (except in the proper name of flagship stadium Soccer City) |
2014 Brazil | Brit (template) Comm (practice) |
football |
2018 Russia | Brit (template) Mixed (one use of "organized" in lead, rest Commonwealth) |
football (one use of soccer) |
2022 Qatar | Brit (template) Mixed (one use of "traveling", otherwise British) |
football |
2026 United States, Mexico, Canada | US (template and practice) | soccer (one use of football) |
2030 (unawarded) | Brit (template and practice) | football |
2034 (unawarded) | Comm | football |
Does this have to do with the intros, where currently we've got [Association football|football] & [Association football|soccer]? GoodDay ( talk) 22:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic
|
---|
|
I've requested input from Wikipedia:Sports. -- GoodDay ( talk) 23:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Also off-topic
|
---|
Maybe it was already attempted, but if not. Why hasn't anyone opened up an RM at Association football, to get it moved to Football? GoodDay ( talk) 02:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Someone needs to update Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football, so that the teams are in the correct sections. Also the categories of these userboxes should be updated. Catfurball ( talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
In a club season article, when a matchday is brought forward (i.e., date has been changed), should it appear before or after previous non-played matchdays (e.g. matchday 10 is to be played before matchday 8)? SLBedit ( talk) 21:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
why does/should FC St. Pauli get displayed as such in player articles instead of St. Pauli? FC Barcelona gets listed as Barcelona so where;s the consistency? Muur ( talk) 07:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
In German football, it is not common practice to list clubs by just the town/city names. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a guideline or consensus here about not linking a club twice in {{ Football box collapsible}} on club season articles? Sakiv ( talk · contribs) thinks so. SLBedit ( talk) 20:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello!
As I'm working on one of my drafts, I need to introduce complete statistics for the player's spell at Celtic's B Team, which has been competing in the Lowland Football League (one half of Scotland's fifth tier league) in the last few years. However, I'm struggling to find sources that include detailed statistics for players competing in that championship. Apparently, of all the sites I visited, only Transfermarkt collects data for each player, but obviously I can't use them. Plus, as @ Robby.is.on and I discussed over here, fan-made sources are not a solution, either.
So, does anyone know about other potentially useful sources I can take advantage of?
Oltrepier ( talk) 19:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
In a continued effort to make Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams an accurate representation of best practice for National Team pages, does anyone have a preference regarding the following:
This is by no means an exhaustive list and I've just tried to find examples of the points I'm looking to clarify. Any input would be appriciated!
Felixsv7 ( talk) 09:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I've just finished working on a test page for the player, so I wanted to ask for your opinion on it.
I don't know if he already fulfills WP:GNG, but I still want to try...
Oltrepier ( talk) 10:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I've just noticed that someone uploaded a new image on the player's page, but the source looks unclear: plus, I'm not familiar with Commons' guidelines on pictures taken from social networks...
Could anybody take a look at it, please?
Oltrepier ( talk) 08:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Could a admin protect the page for Moises Caicedo before all the IP vandals from around the world heavily edit the page following his new agency releasing a pre-prepared statement trying to force a transfer through? Would request through the usual pages for protection but this normally takes 12 hours or so and I can envisage at least 100 edits will need reverting by then RM-Taylor ( talk) 22:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Page has had semi-protection on it twice in the last month I believe so may be one to keep an eye on for a while. RM-Taylor ( talk) 17:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I came across FC Twente in European football, which appears to be simply a list of all games played by FC Twente in UEFA competitions. This strikes me (a very much non-footy person) as something that would be against WP:NOTDATABASE, but I wanted to check with people frequenting this talk page before going to AfD. Is there any precedence with these kinds of articles? Ljleppan ( talk) 19:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to inform you that I've just opened a discussion for a test page I recently created about this player (not to be confused with his older brother, Josh Oluwayemi).
If you have enough time, as well as experience with football in Scotland and the UK, please leave your suggestions down there: every kind of help is appreciated!
Oltrepier ( talk) 14:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I feel that the semi-recent game between Stevenege and Aston Villa might deserve a Wikipedia page. Other FA Cup giant killings have their own Wikipedia pages ( Wrexham 2-1 Arsenal and Burnley 0-1 Lincoln City are the big ones in my mind), and multiple places have reported on the game as an upset ( The Athletic, Globe and Mail, Sky Sports, Reuters, ESPN, The Guardian, BBC Sports, and technically if you want to count it as ok for sports The Sun). Would it count as notable enough? WikipeidaNeko ( talk) 01:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
First of all, please read a below discussion.
Gareth Bale as a "player" in 2023?
This discussion seemed to fizzle out without consensus. So I start a new discussion about same issue.
Currently, Instructions for the Infobox at Template:Infobox_football_biography, where it says that the Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club".
In my humble opinion, "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club". This provision have many problems.
(1) First, we have to understand the difference between Two consecutive year season system and One year season system.
I think it is important to draw a clear line between two season system and one season system.
Let's see the career years in Gareth Bale infobox
If Bale was retired in January 2023 in the European Football League, Maybe no big misunderstanding. Because he retired in the middle of 2022-2023 season (January 2023 is the part of 2022-2023 season). But Bale was retired in January 2023 after he finished 2022 MLS season and before the start of 2023 MLS season (January 2023 is not the part of MLS 2023 season).
All wikipedia readers are not knowledgeable about football including football league season system.
Therefore current club years at infobox cause three misunderstandings to readers.
Firstly, Bale played for Los Angeles FC both in 2022 season and 2023 season for two years.
Secondly, Major League Soccer season is ongoing in January 2023 like European Football League season.
Thirdly, Bale's last international match was in 2022 and Bale's last club match is in 2023
(2) Bale signed a 1 year contract in June 2022. So Bale was contracted at LAFC until he retired in January 2023. Under current provision, There is no problem.
But We can't know detailed contract years of all football players. Bale is very very famous footballer, So we can find his contract year in press very easily.
But Contract years of many football players are undisclosed in press or even in unknown players case, We don't find any contract information in press.
So We need a common and general provision in club years at infobox.
I will say it again, Current club years at European Professional football League with two year season (2022-23 season, 2023-24 season) don't cause big misunderstanding. But club years at Major League Soccer, K League, J.League, Chinese Super League and so on with one year season (2022 season, 2023 season) cause misunderstanding.
Many football player career in Major League Soccer, K League, J.League, Chinese Super League as belows.
For example
- 2005: First contracted with XX FC but didn't appear in the any matches for the XX FC .
- 2006–2010: Appeared in the matches for the XX FC.
- 2011–2022: Originally, contracted with XX FC until 2013. But he transferred to YY FC in January or February in 2011 (After he finished 2010 season in XX FC and before the start of 2011 season) and he appeared in the matches for the only YY FC during 2011–2022
- 2023: still under contract in 2023 or 2024 with YY FC, But he retire or terminate contract in January or February in 2023 (Before the start of 2023 season), then don't find new club.
- 2024: Revese a retirement dicision and contract 1 year with ZZ FC but he don't appear in any matches due to heavy injury.
Therefore, I hope that We revise provision at Template:Infobox football biography as belows in order to convey clear information about various player career cases.
Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club but last year of list that the player has been played/capped/appeared at each club or the player has been completed player registration in the league and club
To put it simply, We synchronize club years in infobox and club years in club career statistics table.
Then, we give a description about detailed contract information including contract year in club career section.
Thanks for reading. Footwiks ( talk) 12:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club, so that's what we should use, not when they play which is how it's done for national teams (
A list of years that the player has played for each national team). -- SuperJew ( talk) 13:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I announce my immediate retirement from ... footballwhich would time it to the point the statement was made. Spike 'em ( talk) 14:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This started as a discussion about proposed changes to the Template:Infobox football biography but is degenerating into a discussion about Gareth Bale's retirement. Can editors try to keep on topic. Daemonickangaroo2018 ( talk) 15:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Op just seemed mad the previous discussion had everyone say bale for 2023 and then brought it back up hoping it'd end different this time and it didn't. Muur ( talk) 15:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I have a question and suggestion.
(1) Question
I repeat, Major League Soccer can't register Bale as 2023 season official MLS player. Also Bale is not the part of 2023 season LAFC roaster.
But Do we have to add 2023 lines with all 0 stats in his career statistics table like club years of infobox?
Club | Season | League | National Cup | League Cup | Continental | Other | Total | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Division | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | ||
Los Angeles FC | 2022 | MLS | 12 | 2 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 13 | 3 | |||
2023 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Career total | 394 | 141 | 32 | 7 | 15 | 3 | 98 | 27 | 14 | 7 | 553 | 185 |
(2) Suggestion
How about adding months in club years in all players infobox as belows?
2022–2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)
=>
06/2022–01/2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2) or June 2022–January 2023 Los Angeles FC 12 (2)
(Date format, Anything is fine for me)
Let's compare the Bale's club years and some player's club years
Club years including months in infobox can convey intuitive information and prevent misuderstanding to readers.
That is to say,
=> We can easily realize that Bale joined the LAFC in the middle of 2022 season and Bale left the LAFC before the opening of 2023 season.
=> We can easily realize that some player spent full two seasons for LAFC.
But in current infobox Club years of Bale and some player are same as belows
Therefore, Readers have to find a detailed club years information in their club career section. First, this cause inconvenience and generally famous footballers article have detailed club career section including contract years. So if readers can't find detailed club years information, especailly unknown footballers, This can cause misunderstanding about club years.
I checked out Bale articles at other language wikipedias.
There is a just difference of view on the players club career.
They can both be right.
In conculsion, In my humble opinion, Club period including month information in infobox become a good compromise. Footwiks ( talk) 05:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
What seems to have been forgotten here once again is that this is meant to be a discussion about the instructions for football player infoboxes, not about Gareth Bale. At present, the instructions say that the Club years line should show "A list of years that the player has been contracted at each club". As far as Gareth Bales is concerned, it appears that he was under contact until he announced his retirement in January 2023, unless someone can provide a source showing that his actual retirement fell in 2022. That being so, there is no point in discussing Bale further until the main point is resolved.
The main point of this discussion should be about a possible change to the infobox instructions. The OP has made various proposals, most of which, such as showing months in the infobox, are unworkable. It seems to me that, if this discussion is to continue, it should be on the infobox talk page, where contributors can stay focussed on the subject at hand,and leave any discussion about Bale to another day. Daemonickangaroo2018 ( talk) 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
There are so many similar retirement or transfer situations like Bale's situation, So I want to find a fundamental solution to revise instructions of current club years of footballer player.
Additionally, So many players who play for in the league with one year season retire or transfer in January or February.
Good afternoon, everyone!
While editing here and there, I've run into this page and found out about the atrocious state it finds itself in: from the lack of citations, to poor writing and not updated rosters, the whole article is definitely in dire straits as of now.
I don't know if I'll have enough time to work on it directly in the next few days, so I wanted to ask for some much needed help (including from the likes of @ Dr Salvus and @ Nehme1499, if they can), please...
I think this section from the club's article on it.wiki could be a great place to start, in order to get some useful sources and organize the page properly.
Let me know if you can help me!
Oltrepier ( talk) 15:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
History of FC Barcelona has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
A new user is vehemently arguing that Transfermarkt is a reliable source and also confers notability and is edit warring it back into articles. Disruptive behaviour aside, given that the discussion about Transfermarkt was almost a decade ago, do we need to revise our community stance? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I created this shortcut ages ago, WP:WPFLINKSNO, did want to expand on the bottom of that section. Unless it's put to a whole new page. But ye, there is a whole load of reasons for transfermarkt. Govvy ( talk) 08:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever seen this before when a user has been going through player's articles and updates their appearance count by one when the matches has not even started yet. This person had ran through the entire Manchester United v Crystal Palace starting 22, possibly from this lineup and has started doing the same to Wolves v Liverpool players. The warnings GS and myself had put on there today are presumably ignored. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 14:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I've just come across 2022–23 National League South which appears to be a WP:DUPLICATE of 2022–23 National League as I always assumed that we always had the National League leagues (NL, North and South) together as one article. Can someone more versed with non-league have a look at this and see if it needs a merge/redirect please? The C of E God Save the King! ( talk) 08:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)