Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 169

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165←Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169

Clubs and/or teams?

How much concern do we want to give to the distinction between the club and the team in these articles. Strictly speaking, the club is a legal entity that employs players, owns property, can be founded or dissolved etc; the team is the collective of players and perhaps by extension those who support their efforts on the pitch. The club is a member of the HyperSuperMegaLeague; the team plays in the HyperSuperMegaLeague.

So should we allow statements like "The club play in pink with orange heptagons", or "the team appointed William Shakespeare as manager"? If a competition is won, is that the achievement of the team or the club? If two competitions have been won several decades apart, is that the achievement of the club or the team (or the teams?)

Or is it just too pedantic to raise the issue, and we just conclude that the two terms have, in the football vernacular, become interchangeable?

(thought triggered by this diff) Kevin McE (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Good point. I think the distinction needs sometimes to be made, although often the two are blurred. John (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of what is decided, one thing we should definitely avoid is "the club were founded" (or "the club were [anything else]" for that matter). The team may be plural but the club is definitely singular..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Not sure about that one Chris. I'd prefer Melchester Rovers Football Club are over Melchester Rovers Football Club is, referring to an undefined group of people that make up the club (or company, or political party, or ...). I'd say this is standard in British English, but American English would strongly favour is. Having said that, I've just read this article, which was interesting, but has left me none the wiser. U003F? 12:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Further reading suggests " British English" is too broad a brush. Let's go with some parts of the UK and elsewhere use are exclusively, other places use is or are depending on details, and other places use is (almost) exclusively. Dialects, eh? U003F? 12:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
It depends on the context IMO. Obviously "Arsenal [i.e. the actual team of players on the pitch] are winning" is fine, but in my opinion "Arsenal Football Club [i.e. the club as an organisation] were founded" sounds wrong, and "the club were founded" sounds even more wrong. Look at it this way: in the off-pitch sense, "Arsenal Football Club" does indeed refer to an undefined group of people that make up the club. But so does "the Royal Bank of Scotland", and would you say "the Royal Bank of Scotland were founded"? I personally wouldn't say that and therefore by extension wouldn't refer to the club in that way either. But that's just my opinion...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah, you're one of those detail types. But, yep, I would always say "RBS were" and, reading round, that is correct / acceptable / awful depending where you were brought up. U003F? 14:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's a question of dialect, if we look at the famously Queen's English BBC: [1] "Everton are also in the process of building a new stadium on the banks of the River Mersey at Bramley-Moore Dock, which is due to open in 2024". Pretty sure it's a corporation building a stadium and not 25 international millionaires in their 20s and early 30s. Other fields using plural on the BBC: Cambridge graduate BBC political editor Chris Mason: "Why Labour are so keen to talk about defence". [2] James Heath, director of BBC policy, Oxford graduate: "What is the problem ITV are trying to fix?" [3]. Everton, Labour and ITV are all words that appear singular but are treated as plurals because the discussion is about the decisions of multiple people within them. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
From today's featured article blurb Seattle was the reigning MLS Cup champions and were expected to play 34 matches. Yuk! Cavrdg (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
From my 1950s and 60s Australian education, a team is ALWAYS a singular entity. I acknowledge that others have been taught differently. I just wish others could acknowledge that. There is no global rule. HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@HiLo48: - true enough, but surely Cavrdg's example where the subject is treated as both singular and plural within a single 16-word sentence can't be right.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
No, it's gruesome. but I don't look to sport journalism as the epitome of English expression. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Football articles marked as not containing significant coverage

If you're looking for something different to edit, there are now over 2,500 articles tagged as not containing significant coverage within the scope of this project. Hack (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Ray Crawford

Not sure where this discussion topic should really go, or the process of moving disambiguation pages, but... I was looking up the aforementioned player, but the primary page for this name is an American racecar driver and fighter pilot Ray Crawford (196 views over 30 days), the footballer is at Ray Crawford (footballer) (972 views), while there is also the disambiguation page for Ray Crawford. Shouldn't the disambig page be the primary page, and the three Ray Crawford's the secondary pages? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sounds sensible. You want WP:RMPM for Ray Crawford → Ray Crawford (racing driver) and Ray Crawford (disambiguation) → Ray Crawford. GiantSnowman 21:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

2024–25 Liverpool F.C. season

I was just looking at some stats on the page, but do we really need all that? Overkill on the Liverpool article surely. Govvy (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Removed assists and G/A total. Kante4 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I'd say everything in the "Statistics" section apart from the first table ("Appearances") is not required. The "Goals" table, which would be OK, is actually spurious because the goals information is in the "Appearances" table anyway, and the other tables are stats overkill. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, we definitely don't need a goals table which literally duplicates the table above but with only half the columns -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Removed. GiantSnowman 18:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
....and just over an hour later it's back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...and now it's gone again. Further eyes welcome. GiantSnowman 21:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Why is it overkill? Goals table is redundant yes, but assist, clean sheet and disciplinary record tables are useful, shows information that cannot be found elsewhere in the appearances and goals table. Also, I don't think there is a "consensus" by two or three users saying it is redundant then simply removing all the tables instantly ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 23:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Assists has been discussed many times on this talk page and the consensus is that it's not a verifiable stat which definition changes between countries, leagues, statisticians and can't be reliably used. --SuperJew (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
So we should keep clean sheet and disciplinary records? ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 03:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with that. Some people may claim it violates WP:STATS --SuperJew (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@ChampsRT: - are we going to see any actual prose in the article at any point to supplement the endless tables? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Now it's reverse overkill, I would put the goals table back. That is kind of easier for those who have difficult with maths to read. I also believe it's applicable for MOS:ACCESS positive. Govvy (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, probably put back goals, clean sheet and disciplinary records ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 14:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I thought "Goals table is redundant yes"??? GiantSnowman 18:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: We could add a "summary" section, to emphasise on how many assists each player or the top player has in that month. ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 14:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@ChampsRT: - I wasn't really thinking that niche/trivial. The article desperately needs quality prose covering Liverpool's season in general, not just something as minor as assists. At the moment there's literally one sentence of prose about Liverpool's Premier League campaign. See 1921–22 Cardiff City F.C. season for an example of a club season article which has reached Featured Article status and contains high quality prose about the club's season. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
My only qualms with that Cardiff FA article is the incompleteness of the results tables, the key should be below a table, normally in a slightly smaller font. Still, I don't know why you should set an historic content over recent content the same principals. There is room to have different styles for articles. No need to always be so generic. Govvy (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I was only using that FA example to make a point that we should be aiming for decent amounts of quality prose in season articles, not a perfunctory hundred or so words of prose and then loads and loads and loads and loads of tables...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The alternative view is that they should also be as similar as possible so that most of them aren't so godawful to read. Seasider53 (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Wanted to chime in and say that we should probably nail down a project standard for what tables are acceptable and try to harmonize as many season articles as possible. I've been reverted for merely suggesting that a redundant goals & assists table doesn't belong in an article that has a measly 2 lines of prose. There's also a rush for editors to create new articles for the upcoming season that get sent back to draftspace or rejected by AfC for being incomplete (and often without any real citations), so some better pruning is needed. SounderBruce 23:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I do think that sometimes it is hard to add prose to describe statistics, maybe through match reports published? I can't really think of other ways to have longer descriptions while being cited and not redundant. ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 03:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
There shouldn't just be prose "to describe statistics", there should be good quality prose to describe the season as a whole. Take a look at the Cardiff FA I linked above. There's five paragraphs of prose describing their Football League campaign. That's how it should be - the prose should be the main focus of the article and any tables should be additional to it. At the moment too many season articles are the other way round - they just have loads and loads of tables with a couple of sentences of prose chucked in almost as an afterthought -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Keeping to a norm

I also like to point out, there is a new norm across loads of season pages for a group of statistics; goals, discipline, clean sheets. Honestly I don't have anything against this, however we need to set some better formatting across the board to apply here. I also strongly suggest to put the goals table back on the Liverpool page, because for the younger audience, like my 8 year-old who looks at stats, that's a lot easier to read than the larger table. I believe it's also helpful for those with learning disabilities who enjoy sports. Some of these people with these disabilities actually like seeing statistics on wikipedia, they don't know many other places to get them. So I believe we need to consider this type of reader. Regards, Govvy (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The "norm" of season articles change every season and often throughout a season. There is no norm across the project. The same club will have different layouts and formats from season to seaosn unless an editor pays attention and fights for consistency, either enforcing some sort of order by updating past articles or reverting current season articles to the same as the prior season. EchetusXe 19:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I think we should set a format for club seasons to follow, which makes things much easier as to which tables or features to add into the page or not. I do believe stats is an important part of football that should be listed in each club season article, to show how much the team or the players have achieved that season. ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 03:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Which could be achieved by simply linking to a reliable stats source elsewhere on the Internet, with the advantage that (a) they'd always be up to date, and (b) no-one has to spend lots of time updating them every match. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
There is already a WP:FOOTY page which "sets a format for club seasons to follow". See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. I agree with thoughts above though, not every page has to be exactly the same. There should be an emphasis on prose though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps the MOS needs updating, which should be done through consensus - but then we need to insist that season articles stick to it, that is the whole point. GiantSnowman 14:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

US woso amateur teams in infobox

Hi all, I'm wondering whether to include USL W League, United Women's Soccer, and Women's Premier Soccer League teams in players' infoboxes and stat tables. These are amateur leagues mostly for college students during the summer and not part of the American soccer pyramid. Most players' articles currently don't mention participation in them even in prose such as most of the now pros on this roster. Hal Hershfelt, though, does include them as a counterexample. My inclination is that they can look misleading in infoboxes in a place where you would expect to see only pro clubs (def in favor of prose mentions though). Pinging @American Money if they'd like to share their perspective. Thoughts welcome. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I typically include those three leagues. Stats are not as easily found which is why they're usually missed Imo RedPatch (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Definitely not easily found ... which to me is another reason they might seem too trivial to include. Ally Sentnor, e.g., made just one appearance for Racing Louisville (USL W) in 2023 and at least one (but seemingly just the one) for Downtown United Soccer Club (WPSL) in 2022. Hardly key info. By contrast, for Nádia Gomes, returning to play in the USL W is a key part of her biography. Maybe we could require independent sourcing to make them infobox-worthy? Just a thought. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Male players have equivalent statistics from USL League Two / USL PDL included, so it would be consistent to include them in women's soccer biographies. I consider it to be the same as European players have their youth academies listed in the infobox even if they aren't well-covered in sources. SounderBruce 03:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Bruce - we do it for men, I don't see why not women. GiantSnowman 14:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks all. I'm still a bit skeptical that they'd always be due but the USL2 comparison is useful. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think UNDUE comes into it, especially if the club they played for / league they played in have articles... GiantSnowman 08:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Academy players in club navbox

Should academy players who have played senior games be included in the club's navbox, despite not being listed as a first-team player in the club's website? For example, I argue that Mikey Ghossaini should be included in {{Melbourne City FC squad}} as he has made 8 apps for City this season. SuperJew argues that he's not a first-team player and should not be included. Nehme1499 15:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if a player is making first-team appearances, then they are clearly in the first-team and should be in the navbox. GiantSnowman 15:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, 8 league appearances is clearly part of the 1st team squad. Spike 'em (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
1st team squad are players who are signed to senior contracts. Not anyone who makes an appearance. Do you see him on the club's squad page? --SuperJew (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
What does the average reader expect to see / find useful in the 1st team squad navbox? You want to willingly exclude a player who is evidently a regular part of the 1st team squad? Spike 'em (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
So what about an academy player who was subbed on 5 minutes at the end of a match because half the senior squad was injured/on international duty he should also be added? He's clearly not actually part of the 1st team squad.
And the average reader expects to see the senior team squad, as they'd see on the club website. --SuperJew (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Who is Lachie Charles (also in the infobox)? Meanwhile, if someone is playing regularly I'd expect to see them in the template. There are always going to be edge cases here. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Lachie Charles is a Melbourne City player who has signed a senior contract. --SuperJew (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
He does not appear on the website squad list you are so insistent on using, and his senior contract does not start until July Charles’ senior contract officially starts on July 1, 2025, and includes a trigger for a further two years. Spike 'em (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Fair point, he shouldn't be in the navbox. --SuperJew (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I'd expect to see all the players who are likely to play for the first team, regardless of the type of contract they hold. This demonstrably includes Ghossaini. If this means temporarily including edge cases, then so be it. Spike 'em (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Same for Raúl Asencio (footballer, born 2003), he still is not listed in the teams website but he is a regular starter for Real the last months so he should be in the navbox (plus the infobox). Kante4 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

For me personally, I'd include them. The Edge cases for me make it hard to find a hard and fast rule. If an academy player was in the lineup from August through January, then stops appearing in February and you're there wondering whether they should be there when they were consistently there for months. I'd say, if they played then leave them for the season. RedPatch (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Clear consensus here I think. GiantSnowman 18:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and added an entry to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus. Nehme1499 19:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Tuchel

Can somebody with more time than me please take the axe to Thomas Tuchel, how this is a GA is an embarrassment - do we really need details of every PSG player bought? etc. etc. GiantSnowman 18:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Alan Buckett

Can somebody do me a favour and delete Alan Buckett, please? Just found out he's Bill Baggett, so I've added all his managerial content in the Bill Baggett article. No reason for the Alan Buckett article to be around anymore.

I've always thought John Begget is the same bloke too, but I've hit a dead end every time I've tried to find out more.

Cheers. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 16:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. U003F? 16:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Out of interest, given that's quite a name difference, what's the reason for the discrepancy? GiantSnowman 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Could be anything really. Reckon it's probably "Bill Baggett" being transliterated poorly into Greek half a century ago that's lead to a random name of Alan Buckett. That's why I'm convinced John Begget is him too - Baggett and Begget very similar sounding names, John is Bill's middle name and Bill Baggett has a blank few years when John Begget is manager of Galatasaray. Just can't seem to find anything definitive to say they're the same person. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 00:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Knew they were the same people, found an Evening Standard article talking about an ex-Bolton and Reading playing called "William Bagget" going out to manage Galatasaray. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 00:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
John Begget, as was before the redirect, did have some quite different info to the main article: dates and places of birth and death, teams played for. Do you know where that info came from? U003F? 06:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Hard to remember now, but vaguely remember it being from a Turkish source. More than enough evidence to confirm they're all the same people, luckily. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 20:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and move Soccer in Australia to Association football in Australia

I have opened an RM to apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in regards to naming conventions for football in Australia and move the page Soccer in Australia to Association football in Australia. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Assists tables

I've noticed a few articles with assists tables, do with not have a consensus against them? Govvy (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

We do. You're welcome to remove --SuperJew (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on linking referees who don't have articles? Most pages I've seen don't do it, but quite a few do, so I was just wondering if there is a standard practice. Wburrow (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

You should redlink if the subject is likely to be notable. It isn't a one size fits all model. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
See WP:REDLINKS, there should only be red links of the topic is notable. GiantSnowman 20:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I was wondering... Is there any referee that pass WP:GNG? Please provide me IRS significant coverage of football referee. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Pierluigi Collina U003F? 14:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Loads of referees are notable, what a silly question. GiantSnowman 16:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

2024–25 Ferencvárosi TC season

Whats the Kit usage all about? I don't understand the table. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Apart from being completely unreferenced (and probably unreferenceable, as personal research), it is utterly excessive detail and of little interest to anyone other than the editor who created it. It should be deleted, but we need the comments of the editor ((user:Cakesam] first, otherwise this would almost certainly spark an edit war. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I have removed it. GiantSnowman 13:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
It's essentially WP:FANCRUFT AND WP:TRIVIA. Not necessary for an article and definitely not standard. The images of the kits are fine, but match by match usage is superfluous. RedPatch (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Another thing is penalties taken, penalties saving, own goals, Hat-tricks, Suspensions, Injuries, Captains, Number of players by country. Those are all trivia stuff, WP:STATS and not needed i would say. Kante4 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

More than 99% of the edits on this page are all from one user @Cakesam and worth noting that he's added the same level of detail to several other Hungarian clubs' season pages - see his user page for links ColchesterSid (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I would like to know why it is a problem if the article is detailed? The listed statistical indicators can be found in the seasonal articles of several other clubs. By the way, I would like to see someone else edit the article, but not many people have edited it yet. On the other hand, I don't want to see outdated information in the article, so I prefer to update it whenever I can. This is how it happened that 99% of the edits were made by me. In my opinion, what a fellow editor doesn't want to see in the article is just an opinion, maybe many people like to look at these statistical indicators. I trust that you will appreciate the time and energy I put into editing the article and will not delete it. Regards, Cakesam (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
@Cakesam: I respect that you're trying to make a good article, however the amount of data in the tables does seem overkill. It might be better if you can write prose about the season than adding obscure facts in tables. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Ronaldo Dejesús

Hi, I've seen that usually a list of player registrations from FIFA is enough to confirm what someone's name actually is. This player, whose page has just been moved, was at the 2024 Olympics so I would appreciate if anyone has a source to confirm the matter. There's this page from the Olympics, which says "De Jesus" but I don't know if it was ever meant to be authoritative. [4] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I know some people like to claim it's not considered a reliable source because it is social media, but I always say, there's no better source than how the player writes their own name. On his own Instagram, he doesn't have a space, so I'd say no space. RedPatch (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Agree with RedPatch - I used Instagram at Ziyad Larkeche to decide whether or not to include an accent... GiantSnowman 18:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

2024–25 Galatasaray S.K. season

I removed some content which I feel was too much, but it got reverted, [5], does someone else want to deal with this guy? Govvy (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Baller League

Simple question. Is the Baller League notable?Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

No idea, I don't know much about the league. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
If it's covered in detail by Reliable Sources, then yes. Looks similar to the Kings League and Queens League in Spain and The Soccer Tournament in the United States. RedPatch (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
This, this, this, this, this, etc. While it all looks like a bit of a circus to a jaded old man like me, it certainly seems notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Chris - it's nonsense, but it's notable. GiantSnowman 17:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, notable as a TV show/social media enterprise - but not in itself notable from a football point of view. I think there is a potential danger that on individual player/manager pages that this is given (undeserved) equal footing with "proper" football. So for example, if John Terry's team won the Baller League - would that get added to his list of honours as a manager? ColchesterSid (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Barnett

Anybody know if Thomas Barnett (footballer, born 1908) was the father of Thomas Barnett (footballer, born 1936)? Identical full names, from the same area (15 miles), dates match up... GiantSnowman 21:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Nations League honour question

Should the CONCACAF Nations League title be included as an honour in player articles of players who played earlier on in the competition but that weren't called up to the 2025 CONCACAF Nations League Finals? Example: Guillermo Ochoa. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

My intuition is yes so I've gone with that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Barry Hugman website is down

It's been 404 for a few days... GiantSnowman 15:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I've got his email address so I've sent him a message to ask... ColchesterSid (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Hopefully the site will come back up, but luckily last year I ensured all 26,000+ player profiles were archived on the Wayback Machine. So there is a fallback option for Template:Hugman in the worst-case scenario. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
You legend, thank you! GiantSnowman 18:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
I've not had any reply to my email ColchesterSid (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
This summer ENFA will move to a new site. It will probably be free to use. [6]. Maybe that’s the reason the site is gone, there is not much information on Hugman’s site that can’t be found on ENFA. Cattivi (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Date errors in articles

The following pages have date errors which I couldn't fix. If anyone is familiar here with these pages, please take a look.

Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym: - how do you identify these errors? I had a look at the Northampton one but can't see anything obviously wrong..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Done a few... you probably looked after I'd fixed the Northampton one, there was a great big red error msg which has now gone away. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
That one seems to be fixed already.
It is date formating issues being reported by {{Start Date}} and similar.
For the final one as an example, the years are at the end, instead of start of the dates. Do a regexp search and replace of {{Start date\|([0-9]+)\|([0-9]+)\|(196[0-9])\|df=y}} with {{Start date|$3|$2|$1|df=y}}. Spike 'em (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't clear, I know why the error is showing, I've added the code to identify bad dates. In these specific articles, I couldn't decide what the correct date was, for one reason or another. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude search for "error" in the article and you'll find it. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

All done it seems, thanks to all that did the fixes. Kante4 (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

A sockpuppet has done grievous harm to hundreds of articles

User Special:Contributions/Timmy96 was banned in 2023 for a lack of competence. They clearly had severe educational shortcomings and would add vast amounts of fundamentally inadequate text to articles on mostly quite obscure footballers. They are still editing in defiance of their ban. One of their most characteristic habits is using the phrase "it wasn't until on". You can currently find this phrase in 236 articles ([7]). Where possible, it would be ideal if people could revert these articles to before the addition of the substandard material (quite easy to find in article histories, will be a single edit with a very large diff, generally at least 50,000 bytes in size). Where the user managed to get their material into the article some time ago, a lot more work will unfortunately be required to return the articles to a state of any quality. Going forward, if a few users regularly search for the phrase "it wasn't until on" and revert on sight, perhaps the banned user might eventually get the message. 94.119.32.15 (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

A problem I have is that the user who added the disputed content to Eiji Kawashima in July 2924 was user:94.119.128.1, and the user who edited Antti Niemi (footballer) in July 2024 was user:94.119.41.22. Both rather close to the user name of the IP who raised this query. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
And the problem you have with two IP addresses being similar is what, exactly? 94.119.32.69 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
@94.119.32.15: The proper place to raise this concern would be WP:SPI since that is where the editors with the permissions to verify sockpuppetry will see your concerns.
@Daemonickangaroo2018: Just because this IP address is similar to other IP addresses that were involved in content disputes does not mean they are the same person; even if it were the same IP address, that still does not mean it's the same person because some ISPs use dynamic IP addressing. If you have a legitimate concern regarding this user, then go to WP:AN. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
There is no need for a sockpuppet investigation. The sockpuppetry is blindingly obvious, and further confirmation of it would not do anything to undo the damage that the sockpuppet has caused. Do you want that damage to be undone, or are you not particularly bothered by hundreds of articles containing grossly substandard material? 94.119.32.69 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
@94.119.32.69: Not all administrators have the checkuser permission required to verify sockpuppetry, and not all checkusers are admins. They also can't just use the permission without a valid reason, such as an SPI investigation. Admins could then take the necessary action. Request a case there if you really want it to stop. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Loan returns

I have seen "loan returns" included in tables of transfers on club season articles, such as 2024–25 VfB Stuttgart season. Is there any consensus on their inclusion in these tables? It seems silly to include them in a table of transfers but I wanted to check there was consensus on the matter before I start removing them because it is fairly widespread. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Why would you not include them? It's a player movement. --SuperJew (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, I would keep them. Nehme1499 21:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
It isn't a transfer though, a player having been out on loan in the previous season doesn't relate to the current season at all. Also, most third party sources I've cone across don't consider loan returns as transfers, e.g. Sky Sports, BBC Sport, kicker. The only exception to this is I am aware of is Transfermarkt. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
So change the name of the table to "squad changes" like in the Stuttgart source. You're just arguing semantics. The question is should we list the changes in the squad between and during seasons. My opinion (and others here too and I would argue the average reader) is yes to list all changes. At the end of the day, a fan wants to know which players the club has it's disposal, not only which players came in on a "transfer". What's next? only listing paid for transfers since free transfers are free? --SuperJew (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Surely the squad list will let the reader know which players are available? The fact that a player was on loan the previous season is pretty inconsequential, particularly as that info is available on the previous season's page. Incoming / outgoing transfers are events that happen during the season concerned, loan returns are not. Spike 'em (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Surely the squad list will let the reader know which players are available? So let's get rid of transfers too? Maybe the fact that a player player for a different club the previous season is pretty inconsequential, particularly as that info is available on that club's previous season's page? --SuperJew (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Incoming / outgoing transfers are events that happen during the season concerned, loan returns are not. Spike 'em (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
A loan return after the last game of the 2024-25 season was played doesn't affect the 2024-25 season in any way. --SuperJew (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Been through this. Doesn’t matter; people will do what they want. Seasider53 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I'd only list single-season loans in the season that they happen, for both the lending and borrowing team. Spike 'em (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the article 2024–25 VfB Stuttgart season; I don't like that loans and transfers are mixed into one table. They should be separated. And players returning from a loan return to the club at the end of the season. Not the following season. So they shouldn't even be on that list.
I've spoken about this issue to death, I personally don't think there should be any table about a player returning from a loan. In fact I believe we should just write it out in prose. It would be far better to simple write a paragraph on players who were out on loan last season and have return to the squad for this season. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Say the final match of the season is in April 2025, the player returns from loan June 2025 - why list it in that season's page? it's irrelevant to that season already. Again look at how the source handles it. --SuperJew (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
In fact I believe we should just write it out in prose - and that in one sentence sums up the problems with most season articles (at least those covering the last 20 years or so) which invariably consist of loads of chaotic-looking tables and almost no prose...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
If the last game is in April, then why would the loanee hang around for another 2 months? Spike 'em (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
That's when the contract is until in most cases. What is the loanee actually doing? probably on vacation as it's off-season, not training with either club and will return to parent club for pre-season training around June. --SuperJew (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Obviously this only covers England, but the FA's official regulations ([8]) state that "Long Term Loan Transfers shall be for a full Playing Season; or from any date prior to 31st August to any date between 1st and 31st January; or from any date between 1st and 31st January (the January transfer window) to the end of the Playing Season" and separately defines the Playing Season as "the period between the date on which the first league fixture in the Competition is played each year until the date on which the last league fixture in the Competition is played. For Clubs participating in play off matches this does include the period when play off matches are played." This indicates that loans end as soon as the last game of the league season has been played and not in June -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@SuperJew: the problem with referring to what sources do here is that returns from loans are rarely covered, Stuttgart even covering players coming back from loans at all feels like an exception rather than a rule (I've come not come across many clubs that do this), with the exception of loans being terminated early, and third party sources certainly don't tend to cover loan returns as transfers. Its so much easier to read with loans in a separate table to permanent transfers where the start and end date of a loan is given, and is consistent with how loans tend to be reported on, and this information certainly shouldn't be contained only in the article for a different season to the one the loan took place in. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm really not understanding why you think loans/loan returns should be treated any differently than transfers. Or why it's easier to read in separate tables. Both are movement of player from different club to this club. --SuperJew (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Loans are fundamentally very different to permanent transfers, it's ridiculous to treat them as if they aren't. Putting them separately from other transfers rather than this mess of a format allows all the information on the loan to be consolidated in one place such as the start and end date of the loan being given together. Take 2008–09_Huddersfield_Town_A.F.C._season#Players in and out as an example (ignoring the issues with sourcing here) - the loans mean this takes up so much more space than it needs to, for every loan its unclear what the duration is without a significant amount of scrolling up and down or Ctrl+F and this is without the issue of the return date from the loan being listed on a different article, because at least the loan returns are put in the same season here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
So the table is not formatted well. Look at 2024–25 Melbourne Victory FC season for example: Badolato was loaned in for a period of 5 months. On the Huddersfield article I also don't know what the duration of contract signed is for permanent transfers, unlike the Melbourne Victory article. Can you actually explain what the fundamental difference is? Both transfers and loans have a start date and an end of contract date. Loanees can be recalled while permanent players can be sold/terminated. What is actually the difference? --SuperJew (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
@SuperJew: sorry for the delayed reply, I've been offline for a few days. Firstly, that is actually a very nicely formatted table, not seen contract length used in these tables before and it does address the main issue I have with the Stuttgart article, that is not giving the length of the loan directly. However, looking at other articles with this format to see how it handles loans out, 2024–25 Sydney FC season doesn't give the duration of outgoing loans. I don't see how to address this in a manner that makes sense other than simply putting loans separately to regular transfers - contract length for outgoing transfers is clearly superfluous but duration of loans out isn't. The types of information readers want to know and is relevant to transfers is different for loans and permanent deals, so it makes sense to put them separately. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
That's a fair point about the outgoing loans. Can be easily solved by adding to the column "1 year loan" for example or adding to the ref./note column. Either seems to me to be easier and make more sense than to have separate tables. --SuperJew (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
No-one is saying not to mention loans, just to do so once, in the season that the loan happens. When the loan takes place the start and end points are known, usually within the same season, so makes sense to record so they information there. Spike 'em (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
loan return for sure shouldnt be listed, especially when you have teams like chelsea and theri 100 strong loan army.Muur (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

"Plays for"

This IP Special:Contributions/152.169.179.184 keeps changing "represents X national team" to "plays for X national team" particularly on the pages of players who are born in one country that play for another. Thoughts? To me the former sounds better/more formal. RedPatch (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

In all fairness, grammatically his edit makes more sense. You represent a country, and play for a team. So it's either "represents X internationally" or "plays for X national team". Nehme1499 01:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Nehme1499. I would never say, for example, that Harry Kane "represents the England national team". He either "represents England" or "plays for the England national team" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Agree that those are the two options, but as I think it's better to clarify it's a national team, I suggest "plays for the X national team". GiantSnowman 09:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with GiantSnowman; "plays for [Country] national football team" sounds better. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Clueless editor

Not so much a vandal, but NST12052002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unusually clueless on how to edit Wikipedia. I suggest that an admin who read this, follows the user and issues a block, for instance 1 week, the next time the user bypasses or neglects the advice on their talk page. Geschichte (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:CIR applies... GiantSnowman 16:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

footballdatabase.eu

I noticed Robby.is.on removing links to footballdatabase.eu , then a conversation saying the website is user generated. So a website, in order to edit anything on it, a user first needs to go through a strict interview. It's not exactly a traditional user generated site like you think. You actually need to prove you're reliable. So again, I strongly feel it needs another review. Govvy (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  • footballdatabase.eu ToU

1.4. Selection of users to contribute to the site
Users will be selected on written request (forms accessible once registered and connected to the site) following an exchange with a site administrator. Once their application to contribute to the site has been validated, users will be given privileged and limited access to their area, allowing them to make all the necessary changes and additions (content, data, photos, club logos, etc.). This access is limited and may be suspended or canceled at any time in the event of a serious breach of these general conditions, in particular with regard to respect for intellectual property. Govvy (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, FootballDatabase.eu has been on our football-specific list of unreliable sources at WP:WPFLINKSNO since a discussion from December 2023 at Reliable sources/Noticeboard found it to be user-generated. This was based on BlackKite's findings that "[…] users who buy credits can provide information. This is therefore UGC and is not reliable." Robby.is.on (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, and I've just logged on and the system is still the same. Whilst it's better than your stereotypical UGC, I'm unconvinced that it's reliable enough to not be regarded as one, if you see what I mean. Black Kite (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
If we can't use footballdatabase.eu, why are there still social media to provide references? These are user-generated contents too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
There are clear explanations when social media can be used as references. Read WP:SOCIALS. --SuperJew (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1924–25 Swedish football Division 2#Requested move 26 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1924–25 Swedish football Division 2#Requested move 26 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 12:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

List of foreign [insert league] players - criteria for born abroad players

Hi there! Lately I've been updating the List of foreign Ekstraklasa players article, based on similar pages created for other leagues. Not sure how to proceed with players born abroad who hold a Polish citizenship, whether they've represented Poland/were eligible at any point of their career or not. Different lists have different approaches, even if they list the same criteria in their ledes. I've looked whether a consensus had been reached here in the past, but found nothing in the archives. Here are six 'groups' of players with different characteristics - I was wondering what others think about how/if they should be included in said list.

As of now, groups 1 & 5 (and most of 3) are included in the Ekstraklasa list, under their countries of birth, with appropriate notes. Any and all feedback regarding proper criteria, and way of listing these (under their place of birth/current sporting nationality/separate section, etc.) would be appreciated, especially from those who have worked on similar lists in the past. I'm not looking to set a new hard standard for other "List of foreign X players" to follow, unless their editors and other experienced WP:Footy participants agree on an approach that would suit these articles best. Thanks a lot, take care, enjoy your weekend KibolLP (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Accessibility issues at 2013–14 Wellington Phoenix FC season

Kia ora! I'm working through a list of issues in relation to articles within WikiProject New Zealand, and have come across the article in the title. It's been flagged for accessibility issues in relation to the statistics section due to its use of colours. Unfortunately I don't know enough about how football articles are structured to fix it without likely breaking things, so I'm wondering whether someone here might have time to take a look and help resolve the issue? Turnagra (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

all the match by match details are complete overkill, and looks like the person filling them in lost interest. I'd delete some of the tables and remove any columns that represent individual games (which I think would remove the need for colours) in the rest. If I was on desktop I'd do now, but visual editing on phone is too tricky! Spike 'em (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Actually, given the first table only includes 2/3 of the games it is pretty meaningless as a historic record so I'd delete all the tables and start from scratch. The next season (linked in the infobox) has a far more normal table, showing total appearances and goals, without the need for colours. Spike 'em (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I have removed the match by match statistics, and hence the need for colours. However, the section is unreferenced and out of date, so I've added 2 other maintenence tags, as I don't have the time or inclination to do anything else with it.
Have a look at 2014–15 Wellington Phoenix FC season#Statistics which has all the stats in a single, referenced table. Spike 'em (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, appreciate you taking a look at this! I'll try and find some time to address those issues and the earlier seasons Turnagra (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Also, it seems that multiple previous seasons have the same accessibility issues with excessively detailed stats tables. Spike 'em (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for approval: ROVA Roșiori draft

Hello!

I have recently created a draft for the defunct Romanian football club ROVA Roșiori. The club played several seasons in Divizia B (second tier) and Divizia C (third tier), and I believe it deserves a Wikipedia page based on its history.

I would appreciate it if someone from the football community could review the draft and provide feedback or approve it for publication.

Here is the link to the draft: [Draft:ROVA_Roșiori](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ROVA_Roșiori)

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance! Alexandru1223 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible hoax?

I've seen that Real Madrid (Puerto Rico) has just had a PROD added and has not had a source since 2009, which is supposedly the year in which it was founded. I've tried searching about this club but can only find sources discussing the more well known Real Madrid. If they played in the Puerto Rico Soccer League then it shouldn't be hard to find sources and the club should be notable but I can't find anything, although I'm not too familiar with Puerto Rican sources. If this is a hoax, then it's one of the longest lasting of all time on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and has lasted longer than Nelson Larios. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It may not be a hoax, rather a franchise agreement that was announced but never came to fruition. There have been franchise/affiliate teams in Puerto Rico (River Plate, Sevilla etc) but looking at the various leagues/competitions around that time it looks very ad hoc ColchesterSid (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Besides Sevilla FC, has there ever been another club with the stolen name from Real Madrid in Puerto Rico? The article neither provides even official website. I'm also not familiar with news media from smaller countries like Puerto Rico. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_169&oldid=1285913998"