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 160 | ← | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 |
For players who move clubs during a tournament year eg Mbappe this summer. How do we approach this? As it doesn't seem right to say "he won the Euros while playing for Madrid" when he's never played a game for them. This is just a hypothetical re Mbappe but their are many players who this senario would apply to and was wondering if there are any rule as to how to approach this when editing. Mn1548 ( talk) 17:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The club listed is the club for which the player last played a competitive match prior to the tournament.:) -- SuperJew ( talk) 18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to draw attention to the user Khoa41860 and his contributions , who is making false claims in the edit summaries (with "update formatting") to make significant changes to sport and football articles. This behavior is repetitive and even ignores, after some time hast passed, closed discussions, if no consensus has been reached in his favor.( example)
I have revised his last edits, which wanted to add the Czechoslovakian records at the FIFA World Cup to Slovakia, here also with false claims in the edit summaries,. Diff example. I also warned him on his talk page about this behaviour, but he deleted it so that no one else would notice that he does repetitive disruptive edits under false pretenses in the edit summary. ( Diff: deletion of the warning) Miria~01 ( talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
A number of articles in the series that includes 1880–81 in Scottish football use {{ Infobox football country season}}, followed by a separate instance of {{ Infobox}}. this is sub-optimal, and it would be better to either modify the former to include the necessary fields, or to crate a "module" sub-template to hold them. I'm not clear if this issue is limited to Scottish articles or whether others are similarly affected.
Separately, articles in the sequences that include 1971 All-Ireland Under-21 Football Championship, 1971 All-Ireland Minor Football Championship use {{ Infobox}} rather than a more specific template. Is there one that would be better? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Could Tosin Adarabioyo please be watched as it's heavily edited; might need semi-protecting? JMHamo ( talk) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
For anyone interested, I have recently created Module:Sports series for use in football articles as a replacement for the two-legged tie templates ( Template:TwoLegStart and Template:TwoLegResult). The module allows for quite customizable tables, as well as automatic bolding for the winners on aggregate. In addition, it uses {{ fbaicon}} instead of the generic {{ flagicon}}. It is also more efficient than using the two-legged tie templates, with a lower node count, post-expand include size and template argument size. I'm planning on implementing it for the next club season, having tested it quite thoroughly to ensure there are no major issues. I've added detailed documentation, which should hopefully make the features and intended usage clear enough. Let me know if you have any questions/comments/feedback. Cheers, S.A. Julio ( talk) 06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Lincoln Red Imps | Bye | N/A | — | — |
I was curious if we have an article on Mario Božiković at all, [1], maybe his career isn't notable enough for wiki standards these days. :/ Govvy ( talk) 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am looking for someone who could help contribute and help write quality articles on football clubs, leagues, players, etc. Would anyone be willing to help as I have had trouble establishing notability on my articles in the past.
Appreciatively, MintyFresh201 ( talk) 15:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This guy seems to be a fraud. Most of his stats are not available anywhere except on his LinkedIn profile and Transfermarkt. However, even those seem to be fake (e.g., Serbian First League official website report & Soccerway vs Transfermarkt). Also, according to Transfermarkt, he played 21 games for Dukla Banská Bystrica in the Slovak First League (at the age of 18!?), but there are no other records on the internet that back that up. He never played for Unirea Urziceni either. 47.201.233.193 ( talk) 21:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The kits that are shown in the infobox of Musan Salama are out of date. I don't know how to update them myself, so if someone has time to do it, I'd appreciate it. The updated kits can be found on the Finnish FA's page in this link. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 12:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, I came across the edit history of Anfield and I'm wondering what is preferred in the infobox and lede, to write " Liverpool" or " Liverpool F.C." when referring to the football club? The user who altered it into "Liverpool" claims it to be part of a consensus on here, but I can not find that.
Also, the user who made that change, "AutisticAndrew", has a young account, but has already used Twinkle a lot, usually immediately reverts any criticism and already knows how to pimp up his account with many infoboxes and links. This is similar edit behaviour to StarryNightSky11, a blocked sockmaster. Even clearer, both "AutisticAndrew" and "StarryNightSky11" prefer the option to omit "F.C." in the infoboxes/ledes of football stadiums: [3] and [4]. It is a bit suspicious... Eem dik doun in toene ( talk) 07:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
See history page and talk page (First edition section). User @ Fa30sp: keeps insisting on claiming that the next edition will be totally new. It will be a new edition under a new expanded format, always under the FIFA Club World Cup name, not a new tournament from scratch. Island92 ( talk) 15:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I've seen that a lot of their players are down by their surnames despite being better known by their given names, which wasn't the case a while ago.
For example in this template, no.1 is better known as Rüştü, 8 Tugay, 15 Nihat and 21 Emre as what they had on their shirts during their times playing in Western Europe. It is a cultural thing as according to the Surname Law (Turkey) article, having a surname only came into law for its people 68 years before the 2002 World Cup. VEO15 ( talk) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Kind of funny this one: i added some refs in Claude Gonçalves. In the #17, i was/am (just tried it now) not allowed to copy the Bulgarian title (the only option i had was to copy it from the Google search, which resulted in the sentence being only about 75% of its entirety), just the URL and the translation.
Can someone help out please? Many thanks in advance, continue the good work! 2001:8A0:766E:7A00:412B:4D42:1324:691E ( talk) 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello everybody! I am quite new in the english wikipedia. The topic I´m adding is related to the count of matches in the Argentina-Brazil football rivalry article and all the related articles derived: Argentina national football team results (1920–1939), Argentina national football team results (1940–1959), Argentina national football team results (1960–1979), also in Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches), in Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches) and in Brazil national football team records and statistics.
I want you to tell me, please, the "consideration" of the sources here. If in the Wikiprojet Football is more valuable or "important" a source of Elo Ratings [5] [6] or 11v11 [7] [8] or Rsssf.com [9] that show a list of matches, or a source of FIFA that also shows the list of matches FIFA official´s page (archive). Argentina vs. Brazil head to head. February 2013. FIFA´s source is from Feb. 2013. After that date, they played 10 times, with 4 wins for Argentina, 4 wins for Brazil, and 2 ties. To see the complete list of matches according to this FIFA´s source, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches".
I only put FIFA´s source to be neutral, but there are many others sources with the complete list of matches of serious organisations or sites that differ with Elo Ratings, 11v11 and Rsssf. For example, AFA ( Argentine Football Association) [10], El Gráfico [11] and many others that agree with FIFA´s source...
My opinion is that the most important and official source in football that we can have is FIFA... No other site or association can be above FIFA. I think that any source by any web or page or organisation CAN´T be above a FIFA´s official source, because FIFA means official in the world of football, and FIFA is the major world football official organization. For me, I repeat, a single FIFA source "kills" any other source in football.
So, for you and the members of the WP Football: is an Elo ratings, 11v11, and rsssf source more important than a FIFA´s source???
Can you participate in the talk page of the article Argentina-Brazil football rivalry? [12] Thanks! Regards, Raúl Quintana Tarufetti ( talk) 22:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
In 1968, a group of athletes from Minas Gerais clubs represented the Brazilian team in a friendly match in Belo Horizonte. 50 years ago, players from América, Atlético and Cruzeiro were together, on the same side, wearing the Brazilian team's shirt, at Mineirão. On August 11, 1968, the Minas Gerais team represented Brazil, which beat Argentina 3-2, in a friendly.[15] regarding the photographics, that they played in the Brazilian shirt. Nevertheless, I would go by the FIFA source and then not count it as an official game between two national teams. However, it would probably be best to have two versions of the tables next to each other, as it is now. Miria~01 ( talk) 00:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:POV. Fortunately this is not "Wikipedia Brazil", and the count of matches and head to head between Arg and Bra was corrected by me...-- Raúl Quintana Tarufetti ( talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
"the 2013 FIFA´s source says what it says and is the only source we have from FIFAthis isn't true, we have another source from FIFA stating the total is 110 matches that is subsequent to the 2013 stats total. We therefore have a discrepancy we cannot resolve with FIFA alone.
"there must figure the 2013 FIFA´s source (as it figures with my editions, that are ultra correct) that FIFA at least until FEB. 2013 didn´t count those matches"being "correct" (in your opinion) is not the same as being verifiably supported by reliable sources. As you have conflicting totals from FIFA alone, never mind other sources, any conjecture about what FIFA did or didn't do to that date or any other is entirely your opinion.
"We have the FIFA´s source whit the complete list of matches and you question it"except it isn't a complete list as it stopped in 2013, RSSSF sources are also incomplete etc and you yourself have introduced other sources that specifically disagree about which fixtures are specifically omitted by including multiple counts of matches.
"AFA doesn´t "choose" anything to "ignore" those 6 matches as you are saying! AFA probably abides what FIFA said in 2013!"This is your opinion. We have no evidence from FIFA that this is the case, and the recent count of 110 refutes the claim. Therefore the AFA have their own count, and no explanation from them as to their reason. Taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
"So difficult to understand? The common sense says they were not First Class A matches, and it is explained in each note of the article that those 6 matches wouldn´t be Class A matches, and each source expliains why they are considered like this... 1920 because it was played 8 vs 8, 1922 because it was a Brazil B team (the same day the A team played the 1922 Copa América final), 1923 because it was an Argentina B team (the same day the A team played the 1923 Copa America final), 1956 because it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara State´s selection, 1968 (2 games) the same: it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara´s selection, and a Minas Gerais Selection..."You are attempting to combine the notes from one site (RSSSF or Goleamos) with a list of fixtures from another site (again WP:SYNTH) AND you are expressing an outcome that those sites themselves do not express (again WP:OR). You need to understand those basic tenets of wikipedia.
"you do not have any proof to say the other media or sites uses the numbers of AFA to make their articles"It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list.
"With which criteria? We don´t know."but you have already expressed a whole bunch of criteria about why you think FIFA didn't include certain matches and are trying to use other sources to explain possible logic. This is (again, again) WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
In resume, I think the article Argentina-Brazil football rivalry like it is now is ok.Absolutely not.
this isn't true, we have another source from FIFA stating the total is 110 matches that is subsequent to the 2013 stats total. We therefore have a discrepancy we cannot resolve with FIFA alone.The only source of FIFA that shows the complete list of matches is this, the one from 2013. Give me another that shows the list of matches. Of course, as I said and I put in the article (I put the 3 versions, not as others did who only counted one version of the head to head) there are 3 (three) FIFA´s source that do not agree themselves: 2013 (ARG 1 match above, with the complete list of matches [49], 2023 in spanish (tied in 42 each) [50] and 2023 in english (BRA 2 matches above) [51]. Fortunately, I included the 3 sources ;-)
being "correct" (in your opinion) is not the same as being verifiably supported by reliable sources. As you have conflicting totals from FIFA alone, never mind other sources, any conjecture about what FIFA did or didn't do to that date or any other is entirely your opinion.As I proved in this discussion, there are a lot of sources an verifiable (serious sources) that also counts as this source. El Gráfico and AFA (with the full list of matches). Do you knok that the AFA is the football association of the current FIFA´s World Champion? ;-) I saw you edited that in the article that Brazil has 6 World Cups, and I had to correct it... I assume it was a typing error of you... But, this is not the discussion. I accept all the sources that express the 3 versions of the list of match. I´m not blind, and meanwhile FIFA doesn´t clarify the head to head, the article must be as it is, with all the notes and the 3 versions of the count of matches.
except it isn't a complete list as it stopped in 2013, RSSSF sources are also incomplete etc and you yourself have introduced other sources that specifically disagree about which fixtures are specifically omitted by including multiple counts of matches.I clarify in the "Notes". After that date, they played 10 times, wit 4 ARG wins, 4 BRA wins and 2 ties... It´s easy to prove! But as I said, I do not deny the other FIFA sources! What I object to is the way the article was before I came: with only Brazil´s point of view. As you can see, (I wish yo can) other user still ties to mix sources and take a part of the same sources he uses to "prove" something, but erasing parts of the same sources that say things he try to rule out. The 1920, 1956 and 1968 matches are the example. In this answer, I show the crux of the matter. This is WP:POV. Clarely. And you do not say anythng to him, Koncorde. It seems to be a war agaisnt me...
This is your opinion. We have no evidence from FIFA that this is the case, and the recent count of 110 refutes the claim. Therefore the AFA have their own count, and no explanation from them as to their reason. Taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.I said that because you said the other media took the AFA´s numbers, and that AFA "choose" the 2013 FIFA´s source to rule out a few matches... You do not a proof to assert that the other media (Clarín, Olé, TyC Sports, El Gráfico, and so) took the AFA´s numbers... So, it goes to you: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-) We have what we have: a lot of different sources. Many of them say one thing, many of them another, and many of them another. The article is clear as it is. Don´t drown in a glass of water, please.
You are attempting to combine the notes from one site (RSSSF or Goleamos) with a list of fixtures from another site (again WP:SYNTH) AND you are expressing an outcome that those sites themselves do not express (again WP:OR). You need to understand those basic tenets of wikipedia.I don´t attempt anything. I only show with sources each case of each match and why they are not considered A mathces according to a few sources: it is explained in each note of the article that those 6 matches wouldn´t be Class A matches, and each source expliains why they are considered like this... 1920 because it was played 8 vs 8, 1922 because it was a Brazil B team (the same day the A team played the 1922 Copa América final), 1923 because it was an Argentina B team (the same day the A team played the 1923 Copa America final), 1956 because it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara State´s selection, 1968 (2 games) the same: it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara´s selection, and a Minas Gerais Selection. Evrything figures in the sources. The one who makes WP:SYNTH is another, not me...
It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list.As I said, you don´t have any proof to say that. Any... So, it goes to you again: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-)
but you have already expressed a whole bunch of criteria about why you think FIFA didn't include certain matches and are trying to use other sources to explain possible logic. This is (again, again) WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.No, no, no. Do not confuse other users: a lot of sources I gave expressed about why a few matches do not count. I don´t kow if FIFA consider them, because in the source of 2013 do not consider 6 matches (you can see), in the 2023 source it considers 5 of the 6 controversial matches (42 vs 42), and in the 2023 source in english considers 43 vs 41 for Brazil.
It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list.Again. As I said, you don´t have any proof to say that. Any... So, it goes to you again: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-) So, playing your "game" I can tell you that AFA could have taken the numbers according to the 2013 FIFA´s source... ;-) And perhaps, brazilian media count from a CBF source, I don´t know from where thay took their numbers. The knot of the matter is those 6 matches; friendlies with no importance from the stone age, comparing with the official mathces, where Argentina dominates ;-). FIFA itself doesn´t agree in 2023...
it's a mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, poorly written and terribly structured. I haven't reverted out of politeness so far as I have tried to find alternative authoritative reliable sourcing for the match listings - but this is not endorsement of the content as presentedAs I said several times: if there are grammathical mistakes, or style mistakes, please correct them! But the content, the 3 versions, the notes with sources about each controversial match must stay.
First: remove any claims to "many sources" or similar POV words (WP:OR). Make clear which source is being referred to, why, and with proper attribution. The Libros AFA document, and the AFA site list of results is perfectly adequate to state "The AFA does not consider matches X and Y in their official totals as they are against State Selections". This should be made clear for all such games with clear sourcing, not through aggregated sources (WP:SYNTH) that provide no rationale or description
remove directions to readers to have to follow specific instructions on archived sites of incomplete lists where you then use other sites to explain why they are omitted. It's unnecessary when there are list of such games already available, and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. This ends up a game of error by omission of one list or another rather than clarifying the definition. We should be specifying the inclusion / exclusion criteria once, in context.
what goes in the infobox is up for debate - but as the authoritative source, FIFAs most recent counts would arguably be the most relevant. But whatever the outcome the current notes are not appropriate from both a basic function of the infobox and legibility.
I have proposed the merge of some content at Edelmira Calvetó into Supporters of FC Barcelona. Please contribute to the discussion. Kingsif ( talk) 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
There was the Turkish National Division from 1937 to 1950; the Turkish Federation Cup from 1956 to 1958; and Süper Lig from 1959 onwards. What was the league system between 1950 and 1956? Trying to work out what leagues Coşkun Taş played in (for categorisation purposes), as he was active in Turkey between 1951 and 1959. Giant Snowman 17:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone know of an example of a Module:Sports table for football, where there is an additional column for 'bonus points' or points carried forward from a previous phase ? I am looking to develop a better solution to the league tables for 2022–23 Lebanese Premier League and 2023–24 Lebanese Premier League, where the competition is split after a certain number of matches into an upper section and lower section. However, only half the points from the first round carry forward, which I think necessitates two tables (all teams before the split, and a second split table). I can't easily find where to get the additional column, except for in the templates associated with Module:Sports table/Rugby, from which I'm assuming the coding is not transferrable. It has been done already without additional columns by using the adjust_points_ and a comment for each team, but that seems quite inelegant. Matilda Maniac ( talk) 07:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure some of you noticed on your watchlists aggressive vandal edits going on for the last few days. I first noticed it on Gary Medel's page. Upon further check, it seems that all these vandal sockpuppets target current players of Boca Juniors. What's the most efficient way to deal with this? I guess some kind of temporary IP ban is needed? Reporting individual users to ANI seems useless. I submitted a couple of pages for increasing protection, but no action was taken (on account that many more pages need protection and not just one). -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 10:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
https://x.com/clubleonfc/status/1805647574088794494 47.161.79.245 ( talk) 19:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
It's existed for 17 years but do we need this article breaking out one specific decade from the main article History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874–1961)? I've never come across any other article as specific as "[Club] in [decade]"......... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links lists englandstats.com as reliable. I'm doing a GA review of Norman Hunter (footballer) and am checking source reliability. Per this page the site is the work of one fan. Can anyone point me at a discussion of why this site is considered reliable? I'm not suggesting the site has incorrect data, just looking for e.g. evidence that the site is treated as reliable by professional journalists, for example, or endorsements by professional football statisticians. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. Besides the site raised by Mike above, there are three others cited for Norman Hunter and elsewhere, including some reviewed articles. These are:
Obviously, the last two are not fully secure. I would prefer not to use them, but I'd be interested in knowing what others think. Thanks. PearlyGigs ( talk) 07:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on if these stats should be in a Continental/Europe column or in an Other column? I corrected the table formatting for Vincent Montella yesterday to make it in line with the MOS standard and was curious where his Intertoto Cup stats with Sampdoria during the 1998–99 season should go. I put them in Europe for the time being but feel like they probably better belong in Other. My thinking is that when the competition existed it was a summer tournament for qualification into the UEFA Cup and I don't think UEFA really keeps records for the tournament either as it does with the UCL, UEL, UECL, or the old Cup Winners Cup, and so it doesn't feel like a "proper" tournament. Thanks. Rupert1904 ( talk) 16:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I have a question : in english, we can notice Abukari Damba whereas in polish it's Abubakari Damba. I don't know the correct name but in NFT, it's Abubakari Damba. So is it Abukari or Abubakari Damba ? Cordially. -- FCNantes72 ( talk) 22:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Is the naming of this (boys rather than mens) right? Giant Snowman 10:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
What would be the best option for this article? It hasn't been updated in three years, nor is it likely to be updated at this point. Seasider53 ( talk) 15:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I propose merging Davide Orlando into David Orlando. Please see Talk:David Orlando. Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 09:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Should List of footballers with 500 or more goals be renamed to List of men's footballers with 500 or more goals (it's a redirect, as that was its former name) now that there is an article about women's prolific, over 300 goals, scorers ( List of women's footballers with 300 or more goals)? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen ( talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Just adding the reason I am asking is mainly because I don't know how to do it when the new name is a redirect, as, last time I tried to move/rename an article to a previous name, it didn't let me do it. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen ( talk) 14:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion ongoing: over whether to include player transfers in the list after becoming "unattached" from English clubs. For context, examples concern the transfers of former WSL players:
Mary Earps,
Lucia Garcia,
Ellie Roebuck and
Esme Morgan. Opinions from editors are appreciated. Apologies in advance for the length of the discussion.
CNC (
talk)
22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
"Roebuck actually signed a pre-contract with Barca, so this case is different."[78]. None of the others are referenced as free agency transfers. CNC ( talk) 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Well I personally tired of the ownership CNC took of the page so I stepped back from actively editing it. Now exactly what I feared is happening - only the big names and transfers which are atrractive to CNC are being updated, while other transfers are being ignored, even though I brought them up on the talk page. I hope I'm not the only one that sees the irony that in CNC's quest to "be providing a more complete picture"
(his words) they've created a situation where the page is much less up to date and much less of a complete picture. --
SuperJew (
talk)
10:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I genuinely don't understand the issue
Should a club without an English Wkipedia article have its own category page for players who have played for that club? For instance, I've found that Alsancak Yeşilova from Northern Cyprus does not have an article, but has a category for its players at Category:Alsancak Yeşilova footballers. Curious on whether or not the article for the club should always be created before the category page for its players. IDontHaveSkype ( talk) 01:37, 4 July 2024 (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 160 | ← | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 |
For players who move clubs during a tournament year eg Mbappe this summer. How do we approach this? As it doesn't seem right to say "he won the Euros while playing for Madrid" when he's never played a game for them. This is just a hypothetical re Mbappe but their are many players who this senario would apply to and was wondering if there are any rule as to how to approach this when editing. Mn1548 ( talk) 17:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The club listed is the club for which the player last played a competitive match prior to the tournament.:) -- SuperJew ( talk) 18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to draw attention to the user Khoa41860 and his contributions , who is making false claims in the edit summaries (with "update formatting") to make significant changes to sport and football articles. This behavior is repetitive and even ignores, after some time hast passed, closed discussions, if no consensus has been reached in his favor.( example)
I have revised his last edits, which wanted to add the Czechoslovakian records at the FIFA World Cup to Slovakia, here also with false claims in the edit summaries,. Diff example. I also warned him on his talk page about this behaviour, but he deleted it so that no one else would notice that he does repetitive disruptive edits under false pretenses in the edit summary. ( Diff: deletion of the warning) Miria~01 ( talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
A number of articles in the series that includes 1880–81 in Scottish football use {{ Infobox football country season}}, followed by a separate instance of {{ Infobox}}. this is sub-optimal, and it would be better to either modify the former to include the necessary fields, or to crate a "module" sub-template to hold them. I'm not clear if this issue is limited to Scottish articles or whether others are similarly affected.
Separately, articles in the sequences that include 1971 All-Ireland Under-21 Football Championship, 1971 All-Ireland Minor Football Championship use {{ Infobox}} rather than a more specific template. Is there one that would be better? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Could Tosin Adarabioyo please be watched as it's heavily edited; might need semi-protecting? JMHamo ( talk) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
For anyone interested, I have recently created Module:Sports series for use in football articles as a replacement for the two-legged tie templates ( Template:TwoLegStart and Template:TwoLegResult). The module allows for quite customizable tables, as well as automatic bolding for the winners on aggregate. In addition, it uses {{ fbaicon}} instead of the generic {{ flagicon}}. It is also more efficient than using the two-legged tie templates, with a lower node count, post-expand include size and template argument size. I'm planning on implementing it for the next club season, having tested it quite thoroughly to ensure there are no major issues. I've added detailed documentation, which should hopefully make the features and intended usage clear enough. Let me know if you have any questions/comments/feedback. Cheers, S.A. Julio ( talk) 06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Team 1 | Agg. | Team 2 | 1st leg | 2nd leg |
---|---|---|---|---|
Lincoln Red Imps | Bye | N/A | — | — |
I was curious if we have an article on Mario Božiković at all, [1], maybe his career isn't notable enough for wiki standards these days. :/ Govvy ( talk) 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am looking for someone who could help contribute and help write quality articles on football clubs, leagues, players, etc. Would anyone be willing to help as I have had trouble establishing notability on my articles in the past.
Appreciatively, MintyFresh201 ( talk) 15:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This guy seems to be a fraud. Most of his stats are not available anywhere except on his LinkedIn profile and Transfermarkt. However, even those seem to be fake (e.g., Serbian First League official website report & Soccerway vs Transfermarkt). Also, according to Transfermarkt, he played 21 games for Dukla Banská Bystrica in the Slovak First League (at the age of 18!?), but there are no other records on the internet that back that up. He never played for Unirea Urziceni either. 47.201.233.193 ( talk) 21:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The kits that are shown in the infobox of Musan Salama are out of date. I don't know how to update them myself, so if someone has time to do it, I'd appreciate it. The updated kits can be found on the Finnish FA's page in this link. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 12:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, I came across the edit history of Anfield and I'm wondering what is preferred in the infobox and lede, to write " Liverpool" or " Liverpool F.C." when referring to the football club? The user who altered it into "Liverpool" claims it to be part of a consensus on here, but I can not find that.
Also, the user who made that change, "AutisticAndrew", has a young account, but has already used Twinkle a lot, usually immediately reverts any criticism and already knows how to pimp up his account with many infoboxes and links. This is similar edit behaviour to StarryNightSky11, a blocked sockmaster. Even clearer, both "AutisticAndrew" and "StarryNightSky11" prefer the option to omit "F.C." in the infoboxes/ledes of football stadiums: [3] and [4]. It is a bit suspicious... Eem dik doun in toene ( talk) 07:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
See history page and talk page (First edition section). User @ Fa30sp: keeps insisting on claiming that the next edition will be totally new. It will be a new edition under a new expanded format, always under the FIFA Club World Cup name, not a new tournament from scratch. Island92 ( talk) 15:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I've seen that a lot of their players are down by their surnames despite being better known by their given names, which wasn't the case a while ago.
For example in this template, no.1 is better known as Rüştü, 8 Tugay, 15 Nihat and 21 Emre as what they had on their shirts during their times playing in Western Europe. It is a cultural thing as according to the Surname Law (Turkey) article, having a surname only came into law for its people 68 years before the 2002 World Cup. VEO15 ( talk) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Kind of funny this one: i added some refs in Claude Gonçalves. In the #17, i was/am (just tried it now) not allowed to copy the Bulgarian title (the only option i had was to copy it from the Google search, which resulted in the sentence being only about 75% of its entirety), just the URL and the translation.
Can someone help out please? Many thanks in advance, continue the good work! 2001:8A0:766E:7A00:412B:4D42:1324:691E ( talk) 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello everybody! I am quite new in the english wikipedia. The topic I´m adding is related to the count of matches in the Argentina-Brazil football rivalry article and all the related articles derived: Argentina national football team results (1920–1939), Argentina national football team results (1940–1959), Argentina national football team results (1960–1979), also in Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches), in Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches) and in Brazil national football team records and statistics.
I want you to tell me, please, the "consideration" of the sources here. If in the Wikiprojet Football is more valuable or "important" a source of Elo Ratings [5] [6] or 11v11 [7] [8] or Rsssf.com [9] that show a list of matches, or a source of FIFA that also shows the list of matches FIFA official´s page (archive). Argentina vs. Brazil head to head. February 2013. FIFA´s source is from Feb. 2013. After that date, they played 10 times, with 4 wins for Argentina, 4 wins for Brazil, and 2 ties. To see the complete list of matches according to this FIFA´s source, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches".
I only put FIFA´s source to be neutral, but there are many others sources with the complete list of matches of serious organisations or sites that differ with Elo Ratings, 11v11 and Rsssf. For example, AFA ( Argentine Football Association) [10], El Gráfico [11] and many others that agree with FIFA´s source...
My opinion is that the most important and official source in football that we can have is FIFA... No other site or association can be above FIFA. I think that any source by any web or page or organisation CAN´T be above a FIFA´s official source, because FIFA means official in the world of football, and FIFA is the major world football official organization. For me, I repeat, a single FIFA source "kills" any other source in football.
So, for you and the members of the WP Football: is an Elo ratings, 11v11, and rsssf source more important than a FIFA´s source???
Can you participate in the talk page of the article Argentina-Brazil football rivalry? [12] Thanks! Regards, Raúl Quintana Tarufetti ( talk) 22:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
In 1968, a group of athletes from Minas Gerais clubs represented the Brazilian team in a friendly match in Belo Horizonte. 50 years ago, players from América, Atlético and Cruzeiro were together, on the same side, wearing the Brazilian team's shirt, at Mineirão. On August 11, 1968, the Minas Gerais team represented Brazil, which beat Argentina 3-2, in a friendly.[15] regarding the photographics, that they played in the Brazilian shirt. Nevertheless, I would go by the FIFA source and then not count it as an official game between two national teams. However, it would probably be best to have two versions of the tables next to each other, as it is now. Miria~01 ( talk) 00:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:POV. Fortunately this is not "Wikipedia Brazil", and the count of matches and head to head between Arg and Bra was corrected by me...-- Raúl Quintana Tarufetti ( talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
"the 2013 FIFA´s source says what it says and is the only source we have from FIFAthis isn't true, we have another source from FIFA stating the total is 110 matches that is subsequent to the 2013 stats total. We therefore have a discrepancy we cannot resolve with FIFA alone.
"there must figure the 2013 FIFA´s source (as it figures with my editions, that are ultra correct) that FIFA at least until FEB. 2013 didn´t count those matches"being "correct" (in your opinion) is not the same as being verifiably supported by reliable sources. As you have conflicting totals from FIFA alone, never mind other sources, any conjecture about what FIFA did or didn't do to that date or any other is entirely your opinion.
"We have the FIFA´s source whit the complete list of matches and you question it"except it isn't a complete list as it stopped in 2013, RSSSF sources are also incomplete etc and you yourself have introduced other sources that specifically disagree about which fixtures are specifically omitted by including multiple counts of matches.
"AFA doesn´t "choose" anything to "ignore" those 6 matches as you are saying! AFA probably abides what FIFA said in 2013!"This is your opinion. We have no evidence from FIFA that this is the case, and the recent count of 110 refutes the claim. Therefore the AFA have their own count, and no explanation from them as to their reason. Taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
"So difficult to understand? The common sense says they were not First Class A matches, and it is explained in each note of the article that those 6 matches wouldn´t be Class A matches, and each source expliains why they are considered like this... 1920 because it was played 8 vs 8, 1922 because it was a Brazil B team (the same day the A team played the 1922 Copa América final), 1923 because it was an Argentina B team (the same day the A team played the 1923 Copa America final), 1956 because it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara State´s selection, 1968 (2 games) the same: it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara´s selection, and a Minas Gerais Selection..."You are attempting to combine the notes from one site (RSSSF or Goleamos) with a list of fixtures from another site (again WP:SYNTH) AND you are expressing an outcome that those sites themselves do not express (again WP:OR). You need to understand those basic tenets of wikipedia.
"you do not have any proof to say the other media or sites uses the numbers of AFA to make their articles"It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list.
"With which criteria? We don´t know."but you have already expressed a whole bunch of criteria about why you think FIFA didn't include certain matches and are trying to use other sources to explain possible logic. This is (again, again) WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
In resume, I think the article Argentina-Brazil football rivalry like it is now is ok.Absolutely not.
this isn't true, we have another source from FIFA stating the total is 110 matches that is subsequent to the 2013 stats total. We therefore have a discrepancy we cannot resolve with FIFA alone.The only source of FIFA that shows the complete list of matches is this, the one from 2013. Give me another that shows the list of matches. Of course, as I said and I put in the article (I put the 3 versions, not as others did who only counted one version of the head to head) there are 3 (three) FIFA´s source that do not agree themselves: 2013 (ARG 1 match above, with the complete list of matches [49], 2023 in spanish (tied in 42 each) [50] and 2023 in english (BRA 2 matches above) [51]. Fortunately, I included the 3 sources ;-)
being "correct" (in your opinion) is not the same as being verifiably supported by reliable sources. As you have conflicting totals from FIFA alone, never mind other sources, any conjecture about what FIFA did or didn't do to that date or any other is entirely your opinion.As I proved in this discussion, there are a lot of sources an verifiable (serious sources) that also counts as this source. El Gráfico and AFA (with the full list of matches). Do you knok that the AFA is the football association of the current FIFA´s World Champion? ;-) I saw you edited that in the article that Brazil has 6 World Cups, and I had to correct it... I assume it was a typing error of you... But, this is not the discussion. I accept all the sources that express the 3 versions of the list of match. I´m not blind, and meanwhile FIFA doesn´t clarify the head to head, the article must be as it is, with all the notes and the 3 versions of the count of matches.
except it isn't a complete list as it stopped in 2013, RSSSF sources are also incomplete etc and you yourself have introduced other sources that specifically disagree about which fixtures are specifically omitted by including multiple counts of matches.I clarify in the "Notes". After that date, they played 10 times, wit 4 ARG wins, 4 BRA wins and 2 ties... It´s easy to prove! But as I said, I do not deny the other FIFA sources! What I object to is the way the article was before I came: with only Brazil´s point of view. As you can see, (I wish yo can) other user still ties to mix sources and take a part of the same sources he uses to "prove" something, but erasing parts of the same sources that say things he try to rule out. The 1920, 1956 and 1968 matches are the example. In this answer, I show the crux of the matter. This is WP:POV. Clarely. And you do not say anythng to him, Koncorde. It seems to be a war agaisnt me...
This is your opinion. We have no evidence from FIFA that this is the case, and the recent count of 110 refutes the claim. Therefore the AFA have their own count, and no explanation from them as to their reason. Taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.I said that because you said the other media took the AFA´s numbers, and that AFA "choose" the 2013 FIFA´s source to rule out a few matches... You do not a proof to assert that the other media (Clarín, Olé, TyC Sports, El Gráfico, and so) took the AFA´s numbers... So, it goes to you: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-) We have what we have: a lot of different sources. Many of them say one thing, many of them another, and many of them another. The article is clear as it is. Don´t drown in a glass of water, please.
You are attempting to combine the notes from one site (RSSSF or Goleamos) with a list of fixtures from another site (again WP:SYNTH) AND you are expressing an outcome that those sites themselves do not express (again WP:OR). You need to understand those basic tenets of wikipedia.I don´t attempt anything. I only show with sources each case of each match and why they are not considered A mathces according to a few sources: it is explained in each note of the article that those 6 matches wouldn´t be Class A matches, and each source expliains why they are considered like this... 1920 because it was played 8 vs 8, 1922 because it was a Brazil B team (the same day the A team played the 1922 Copa América final), 1923 because it was an Argentina B team (the same day the A team played the 1923 Copa America final), 1956 because it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara State´s selection, 1968 (2 games) the same: it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara´s selection, and a Minas Gerais Selection. Evrything figures in the sources. The one who makes WP:SYNTH is another, not me...
It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list.As I said, you don´t have any proof to say that. Any... So, it goes to you again: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-)
but you have already expressed a whole bunch of criteria about why you think FIFA didn't include certain matches and are trying to use other sources to explain possible logic. This is (again, again) WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.No, no, no. Do not confuse other users: a lot of sources I gave expressed about why a few matches do not count. I don´t kow if FIFA consider them, because in the source of 2013 do not consider 6 matches (you can see), in the 2023 source it considers 5 of the 6 controversial matches (42 vs 42), and in the 2023 source in english considers 43 vs 41 for Brazil.
It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list.Again. As I said, you don´t have any proof to say that. Any... So, it goes to you again: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-) So, playing your "game" I can tell you that AFA could have taken the numbers according to the 2013 FIFA´s source... ;-) And perhaps, brazilian media count from a CBF source, I don´t know from where thay took their numbers. The knot of the matter is those 6 matches; friendlies with no importance from the stone age, comparing with the official mathces, where Argentina dominates ;-). FIFA itself doesn´t agree in 2023...
it's a mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, poorly written and terribly structured. I haven't reverted out of politeness so far as I have tried to find alternative authoritative reliable sourcing for the match listings - but this is not endorsement of the content as presentedAs I said several times: if there are grammathical mistakes, or style mistakes, please correct them! But the content, the 3 versions, the notes with sources about each controversial match must stay.
First: remove any claims to "many sources" or similar POV words (WP:OR). Make clear which source is being referred to, why, and with proper attribution. The Libros AFA document, and the AFA site list of results is perfectly adequate to state "The AFA does not consider matches X and Y in their official totals as they are against State Selections". This should be made clear for all such games with clear sourcing, not through aggregated sources (WP:SYNTH) that provide no rationale or description
remove directions to readers to have to follow specific instructions on archived sites of incomplete lists where you then use other sites to explain why they are omitted. It's unnecessary when there are list of such games already available, and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. This ends up a game of error by omission of one list or another rather than clarifying the definition. We should be specifying the inclusion / exclusion criteria once, in context.
what goes in the infobox is up for debate - but as the authoritative source, FIFAs most recent counts would arguably be the most relevant. But whatever the outcome the current notes are not appropriate from both a basic function of the infobox and legibility.
I have proposed the merge of some content at Edelmira Calvetó into Supporters of FC Barcelona. Please contribute to the discussion. Kingsif ( talk) 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
There was the Turkish National Division from 1937 to 1950; the Turkish Federation Cup from 1956 to 1958; and Süper Lig from 1959 onwards. What was the league system between 1950 and 1956? Trying to work out what leagues Coşkun Taş played in (for categorisation purposes), as he was active in Turkey between 1951 and 1959. Giant Snowman 17:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone know of an example of a Module:Sports table for football, where there is an additional column for 'bonus points' or points carried forward from a previous phase ? I am looking to develop a better solution to the league tables for 2022–23 Lebanese Premier League and 2023–24 Lebanese Premier League, where the competition is split after a certain number of matches into an upper section and lower section. However, only half the points from the first round carry forward, which I think necessitates two tables (all teams before the split, and a second split table). I can't easily find where to get the additional column, except for in the templates associated with Module:Sports table/Rugby, from which I'm assuming the coding is not transferrable. It has been done already without additional columns by using the adjust_points_ and a comment for each team, but that seems quite inelegant. Matilda Maniac ( talk) 07:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure some of you noticed on your watchlists aggressive vandal edits going on for the last few days. I first noticed it on Gary Medel's page. Upon further check, it seems that all these vandal sockpuppets target current players of Boca Juniors. What's the most efficient way to deal with this? I guess some kind of temporary IP ban is needed? Reporting individual users to ANI seems useless. I submitted a couple of pages for increasing protection, but no action was taken (on account that many more pages need protection and not just one). -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 10:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
https://x.com/clubleonfc/status/1805647574088794494 47.161.79.245 ( talk) 19:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
It's existed for 17 years but do we need this article breaking out one specific decade from the main article History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874–1961)? I've never come across any other article as specific as "[Club] in [decade]"......... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links lists englandstats.com as reliable. I'm doing a GA review of Norman Hunter (footballer) and am checking source reliability. Per this page the site is the work of one fan. Can anyone point me at a discussion of why this site is considered reliable? I'm not suggesting the site has incorrect data, just looking for e.g. evidence that the site is treated as reliable by professional journalists, for example, or endorsements by professional football statisticians. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. Besides the site raised by Mike above, there are three others cited for Norman Hunter and elsewhere, including some reviewed articles. These are:
Obviously, the last two are not fully secure. I would prefer not to use them, but I'd be interested in knowing what others think. Thanks. PearlyGigs ( talk) 07:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on if these stats should be in a Continental/Europe column or in an Other column? I corrected the table formatting for Vincent Montella yesterday to make it in line with the MOS standard and was curious where his Intertoto Cup stats with Sampdoria during the 1998–99 season should go. I put them in Europe for the time being but feel like they probably better belong in Other. My thinking is that when the competition existed it was a summer tournament for qualification into the UEFA Cup and I don't think UEFA really keeps records for the tournament either as it does with the UCL, UEL, UECL, or the old Cup Winners Cup, and so it doesn't feel like a "proper" tournament. Thanks. Rupert1904 ( talk) 16:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I have a question : in english, we can notice Abukari Damba whereas in polish it's Abubakari Damba. I don't know the correct name but in NFT, it's Abubakari Damba. So is it Abukari or Abubakari Damba ? Cordially. -- FCNantes72 ( talk) 22:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Is the naming of this (boys rather than mens) right? Giant Snowman 10:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
What would be the best option for this article? It hasn't been updated in three years, nor is it likely to be updated at this point. Seasider53 ( talk) 15:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I propose merging Davide Orlando into David Orlando. Please see Talk:David Orlando. Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 09:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Should List of footballers with 500 or more goals be renamed to List of men's footballers with 500 or more goals (it's a redirect, as that was its former name) now that there is an article about women's prolific, over 300 goals, scorers ( List of women's footballers with 300 or more goals)? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen ( talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Just adding the reason I am asking is mainly because I don't know how to do it when the new name is a redirect, as, last time I tried to move/rename an article to a previous name, it didn't let me do it. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen ( talk) 14:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion ongoing: over whether to include player transfers in the list after becoming "unattached" from English clubs. For context, examples concern the transfers of former WSL players:
Mary Earps,
Lucia Garcia,
Ellie Roebuck and
Esme Morgan. Opinions from editors are appreciated. Apologies in advance for the length of the discussion.
CNC (
talk)
22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
"Roebuck actually signed a pre-contract with Barca, so this case is different."[78]. None of the others are referenced as free agency transfers. CNC ( talk) 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Well I personally tired of the ownership CNC took of the page so I stepped back from actively editing it. Now exactly what I feared is happening - only the big names and transfers which are atrractive to CNC are being updated, while other transfers are being ignored, even though I brought them up on the talk page. I hope I'm not the only one that sees the irony that in CNC's quest to "be providing a more complete picture"
(his words) they've created a situation where the page is much less up to date and much less of a complete picture. --
SuperJew (
talk)
10:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I genuinely don't understand the issue
Should a club without an English Wkipedia article have its own category page for players who have played for that club? For instance, I've found that Alsancak Yeşilova from Northern Cyprus does not have an article, but has a category for its players at Category:Alsancak Yeşilova footballers. Curious on whether or not the article for the club should always be created before the category page for its players. IDontHaveSkype ( talk) 01:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)