Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

World Football Elo Ratings

I've seen mentions of this in various football related articles on Wikipedia. I've never seen a mention of it anywhere else.

Is it notable?

Not really clear from the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just seen an old AfD on the page. The Guardian coverage could pass for non-trivial, but the BBC coverage isn't in-depth. Can't access the others. There's just one source in the article itself that seems to meet our needs. Can anyone shed any light? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

FIFA themselves are adopting an ELO based ranking, so it could become redundant anyway [1]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That would presumably appear at the main FIFA rankings page, with the current system being included as 'how it used to be done'. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this is a notable topic (It probably is), the article itself is just full of ridiculous tables and trivia. Wikipedia isn't the place to just place a load of trivia like this. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Totally agree with that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Would anyone have an issue with removing all of the tables apart from the current rankings, and potentially the List of number one teams table? Everything else seems like WP:OR, and non-encyclopedic information Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Go for it. It's far more moderate that AfD which is what I'm considering. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Pared the article back myself to just the top 100 list plus background and mechanics of the system. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This brief exchange ("in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory", so to speak) does not warrant the removal of some 2-3000 constructive edits by dozens of editors over a period of 12 years. You don't even see all the edits made, as 3 or 4 previously separate articles were merged in the main page at different times after discussions that those pages were not notable enough as separate entities but were worthy as part of the main football Elo page.
At the page start in 2006, the ranking was not well-known, but it is now mentioned in ranking-related articles as if everyone is familiar with it. Read for example the above-linked Forbes article and the ESPN article on the same topic, in which both state that "[t]he new method ... is based on the Elo method", where the latter three words link to the page you have "never seen a mention of anywhere else". Nate Silver and his FiveThirtyEight buddies adore it and have used this system as a model to create Elo rankings in all kind of other sports. In the sorry betting world this rating system has been very influential as well, to the point that in 2017 and 2018 new versions of one rating system could brag that they even could outperform the Elo rating system (see Statistical association football predictions). And finally, in light of the switch to an Elo-based system by FIFA and the upcoming World Cup, there will be more interest in this page right now than perhaps ever before. And once the FIFA has adopted its new system, the page doesn't become obsolete, but should be kept as a reminder of the origin for the first (hopefully) sane FIFA ranking system and as a display of historical strengths of football teams. Great news, by the way. Hopefully, FIFA will eventually go further and implement the Elo system from the first football match on, as this should have no effect on countries' current ratings after they've played 30 or so games.
So far for the page itself. Most tables did have a source, but I added 3 or 4 more. The data almost always is represented, some in a different format, at I would remove both the meaningless "number of days as number one" and "highest ranking" tables, since 19th-century rankings in a 4-way competition are compared to those in the current 238-way competition, but others (e.g. English and Scottish fans) may have a reason to disagree. We've defended the average tables several times before on the articles' talk pages and references are given in one legend. I've created many, often very labor intensive list pages at Wikipedia and had to defend against OR multiple times (e.g. List of highest mountains on Earth and List of most expensive paintings). From these discussions, I've learned that OR was not put into place to prevent the creation of lists that reformat (e.g. from maps to text or by averaging) data that are clearly referenced/linked to on pages that logically justify any conversions in the text.
For all that, I've reverted the deletion and added 3 or 4 more references. Perhaps you can discuss further on the article page, so that other contributors may be aware what is going on.Afasmit (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The issue isn't the sourcing, it's that the information is completely superfluous. Why on earth does Wikipedia need to track the "All-time highest ratings", and then another similar table for "All-time highest ranking?", especially for the non-official ranking system.
We also have: "The biggest point gap between 1st and 2nd national team was between 14 march and 21 March 1885, when Scotland (at 2094) led by 205 points over 2nd ranked England (at 1889)." Which fails WP:NOTRIVIA. I don't have an issue with the article, simply that all the information is simply tablecruft. Why do we need to know the: "Averages by decade?" An encylopedia should not promote trivial information like this. An external link to the website is plenty for this sort of cruft. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"Is a professional footballer that plays as a X"

I've noticed this trend of listing every single position a player plays in their introduction and was wondering what the consensus is. Christiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi are the most high profile players in the world, and are probably the best example of correct formatting:

"Christiano Ronaldo is a Portuguese professional footballer who plays as a forward for Spanish club Real Madrid and the Portugal national team."

"Lionel Messi is an Argentine professional footballer who plays as a forward for Spanish club Barcelona and the Argentine national team."

We all know these players can play in many positions. Ronaldo still features as a winger occasionally, but is mostly a pure number 9 these days. Messi is the same story, and it's summed up pretty nicely if you just state they're "forwards". A forward encompasses all these positions, especially for players that change position regularly.

However, some users have taken the initiative to changing introductions to stuff like this "X is a player who plays as a right winger but can also play on the left wing and as a centre forward." This issue also expands to the infobox with multiple positions listed. Which is correct?Danieletorino2 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It should definately be what they are primarily. If they have two positions, (Maybe they equally play as right back and right winger, per se), then it should say "who plays as a defender and midfielder for..." The prose later in the article should be where the article goes in depth as to exactly where the players position is. The lede is a summary of the whole article. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Use the primary position in the lede, and relegate the other positions to a 'playing style' section. GiantSnowman 08:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Personally I think it should just stick to the format of goalkeeper/defender/midfielder/striker for their primary position. There's no point in being specific about what location they play, as was pointed out above, given many do play outside of their CM, LW or RB supposed positions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
What about players who play as a defender or as a forward let's say? --SuperJew (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd hope this would be a primary/secondary thing. If not, then just say defender and forward, if they really do play both the same amount. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Stadium venue template

If you're using the Owner field and it's going to be the exact same information as Operator do we then need to use the Operator field? Because that seems a bit redundant to me. Also I can't remember how to get to the venue template, and it's not listed here. WP:WikiProject Football/Templates. Govvy (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It's here: {{Infobox venue}}. Number 57 10:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks 57, I added it on the footy project template list, hope that helps others, I also started a conversation there if anyone is interested. Govvy (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

About a user inventing players and changing results

Hi, I discovered that 징플 (talk · contribs) is adding completely invented players and changing scores and tables at Spanish football articles. It would be good to stop him. Asturkian (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. GiantSnowman 09:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

League in lead section

Hey, a minor thing between me and ‎Mattythewhite (talk · contribs) at Sam Morsy where i removed the league from the lead section but got reverted. Now the question is, is the league in the lead section needed? I know we had the discussion before but could not find it somehow. I think it should be left out as teams get promoted/relegated and editors won't update the player articles and it gets outdated (i saw it a couple of times (Freiburg e.g.)). Searching for input, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Your search for past discussions possibly overloaded the system as it's cropped up so many times... I'm of the opinion that this is a pertinent detail that our readers will likely want to be aware of when accessing an active player's biography. The concern that they may become outdated can be shared with other aspects of biographies like statistics, which become outdated *far* more often than the division in the lead, but of course no-one would suggest we remove them. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
If the league in the lead is out of date then the article is out of date. Removing the league from the lead and the article is still out of date, unless you update it, in which case just update the lead.--EchetusXe 23:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure i understand it correct. If the league is not mentioned, how can it be out of date? And it can still be, even when the caps are updated from editors. Kante4 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
A players is promoted or is relegated and it is not mentioned in the article?--EchetusXe 12:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep, could happen and i saw it with Freiburg (e.g.) a while back. When there are aticles without much prose, it is likely. Kante4 (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's needed, because I've seen it out-of-date far too frequently and I think the country is more useful for the reader. GiantSnowman 13:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
How is something more *generic* more useful for our readers? I can't see how "Spanish club Barcelona" is more informative than "La Liga club Barcelona". Football clubs are primarily associated with the league in which they participate, rather than the country in which they are based. There's enough undue emphasis on nationality on football-related articles as it is. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Because one would suspect that people will find 'Moroccan club' more useful/understandable than 'Botola club' etc. GiantSnowman 13:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
For English clubs, could we not just use the club's current league template from the {{English football updater}}? That would negate the argument about leagues in the lead being out of date. LTFC 95 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't see why not. Good thinking, Batman! Mattythewhite (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Also good for me for the English clubs. Kante4 (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Fenerbahçe S.K. first three seasons

I see the 1909-10 season they joined the Istanbul Football League so a lot more could be added to the page and possibly pass GNG, however that season lacks GNG at the moment. I was wondering if we have any Turkish editors around here that maybe know if the 1907 to 1909 season and can fix them up, willing to give the articles a chance before they goto the gun. Govvy (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

current Leeds United season

It seems there are two current Leeds United season pages: one with "F.C." and one with "A.F.C.". Based on the recent years it seems to me "F.C." is the correct name. Could someone merge A.F.C. into F.C.? --SuperJew (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 09:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you GiantSnowman! --SuperJew (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


Can I get some expert eyes on the above draft? The player apparently played for Albirex Niigata Singapore, which is a fully-professional club going by the project list, but there is a dearth of in-depth, reliable sources. Do you feel this particular player is worthy of an article? Thanks! ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

In other words, they meet the letter of WP:NFOOTY #2 but fail GNG. I, too, am interested in your thoughts. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
The player meets WP:NFOOTY due to their 10 games playing in the Singapore premier league as per the Soccer way reference. Saying that while it should be accepted it could do with expanding also. NZFC(talk) 03:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup group stage green shading may be confusing

The 2018 FIFA World Cup#Group stage shows each group with 2 of the 4 teams in green, labeled as "Advance to Knockout Stage". This suggests to me that those 2 teams have qualified to advance. But in fact, the advancement hasn't yet been determined. It looks like I'm the fourth editor to voice concern about this misleading format on the talk page.

I proposed that we change it to be similar as it was during the World Cup Group Stage in 2014. In 2014 Wikipedia had green for countries that would definitely advance and pink for countries that would definitely not advance. Here is an example of how it looked partway through the group round in 2014: See especially group F which at that moment had Argentina in green, Nigeria and Iran in white, and Bosnia and Herzegovina in pink. I went ahead and changed 2018 similarly but S.A. Julio informed me it should be discussed here at WT:FOOTY first to gain consensus.

I'm not insisting we follow the same way as 2014. Various other solutions would be fine---for example, S.A. Julio writes that "Advancement/elimination before the group stage is completed is denoted with status letters, not in the qualification column." I think status letters are a reasonable way to indicate the status. The only part I think must be changed is that we shouldn't have particular teams labeled as "Advance to Knockout Stage" before their advancement is determined, because it incorrectly suggests that the advancement has been determined already. How can we solve this? Krubo (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a fairly standard to show progression in this way on Wikipedia in ongoing competitions - eg see 2018 Major League Soccer season#Regular season, 2018 Allsvenskan#League table, Super League XXIII#Table, 2018–19 Rugby Europe International Championships, etc etc. That's not to say that there's no reason to change it - I'm perfectly happy with the way the 2014 WC was done too - just pointing out that the convention is relatively well established and we could infer therefore that it's not generally confusing people. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The tables are obvious to regular contributors or readers, because they are used to them. When multiple people comment that they are unclear, then that means it might be possible to improve upon these tables. Please note though that the 2014 tables violated MOS:COLOR and that group tables and league tables used to have different styles, which is not reasonable either. To stay MOS-compliant, it would probably best to clarify the way these things are phrased, change "Advance to XX" into something more appropriate. The eliminated and letter E is/can be used when teams are eliminated from proceeding. CRwikiCA talk 02:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I found some past conversations about this issue: 1, 2, 3. In particular, Candidates Tournament 2018 had a similar conversation about how green shading was making some users think a qualification was already final. It's a good point that the 2014 style violates MOS:COLOR, which says that colors should only be a supplementary visual cue. How about if we write in the Qualification column "Top 2 teams per group will advance to knockout stage" (and shade in light gray) while the group is in progress, and then change it to "Advance to knockout stage" (and shade in green) once the advancement is certain? Krubo (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
While tables for the group stage of tournaments such as the World Cup are simple (top 2 advance), this is not the case for standard league tables (i.e. Template:2018–19 Bundesliga table). I'm not sure what a better solution for both tables would be, maybe the wording could possibly be modified (instead of "advance to"), as CRwikiCA mentioned. However, I don't think advancement/elimination while the group is in progress should be denoted in the qualification column. Could a note be added (possibly following the date, or on a new line) to display before the group finishes, such as "Qualification not secured unless noted"? This could be enabled optionally with a parameter, or could display if |update=complete is not true. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
<Reduce indent> Does the line break WP:MOS? Isn't the presence of the line in and of itself indicative - the colour of it is supplementary? A thick line illustrating the positions without color highlighting in the background before qualification is secured and then shading plus the codes when secured might work. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This is what we used to do, I'm pretty sure. Makes sense to me. – PeeJay 15:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A combination of adding colour once qualification is a fact and phrasing the wording differently can work. Template:Ping:S.A. Julio The module already allows the option to add a note to things like this, e.g.:
Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Qualification
1  Japan 1 1 0 0 2 1 +1 3[a] Advance to knockout stage[b]
2  Senegal 1 1 0 0 2 1 +1 3[a]
3  Poland 1 0 0 1 1 2 −1 0[c]
4  Colombia 1 0 0 1 1 2 −1 0[c]
Updated to match(es) played on 19 June 2018. Source: FIFA
Rules for classification: Group stage tiebreakers
  1. ^ a b Fair play points: Japan −1, Senegal −2.
  2. ^ Don't be so sure.
  3. ^ a b Fair play points: Poland −1, Colombia −6.

CRwikiCA talk 02:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should use the style with green after the group is finished, as green to me suggests a final result. For groups in progress, would the following be acceptable to everyone?

Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Potential qualification[a]
1  Japan 1 1 0 0 2 1 +1 3[b] Advancement to knockout stage
2  Senegal 1 1 0 0 2 1 +1 3[b]
3  Poland 1 0 0 1 1 2 −1 0[c]
4  Colombia 1 0 0 1 1 2 −1 0[c]
Updated to match(es) played on 19 June 2018. Source: FIFA
Rules for classification: Group stage tiebreakers
  1. ^ Qualification not secured unless noted
  2. ^ a b Fair play points: Japan −1, Senegal −2.
  3. ^ a b Fair play points: Poland −1, Colombia −6.

Krubo (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Other solutions will cunfuse some reader as well. I'd keep things the way they are and be consistent across all leagues/tournaments. -Koppapa (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It is fine was it is/was. Kante4 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

5-a-side football qualification at the 2020 Summer Paralympics

Hi. The 2018 IBSA Blind Football World Championships took place in Madrid this June. I went to a few of the games with the goal of getting pictures for articles about sportspeople, countries and teams as Paralympic image licensing during the Games means you cannot legally upload photos to Commons. :( Need to get photos before hand as a result. The photos are on Commons sorted by team at Blind football teams, and 2018 IBSA Blind Football World Championships. These may be useful for anyone wanting to work on articles about players, teams and qualification for 5-a-side football at the 2020 Summer Paralympics. --LauraHale (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

FC designation on national team articles

There are significant inconsistencies on the Canada men's national team article with regard to the inclusion of FC or similar designations. For some reason, European and non-North American based clubs like Liverpool FC seem to have the FC removed due to redundancy, yet other teams, like Vancouver Whitecaps FC have the 'FC' unnecessarily attaches while "Vancouver Whitecaps" alone would have sufficed. I removed all FC and SC designation to gain consistency among clubs. Other national team articles like Panama, and Belgium do not include the FC designation for MLS clubs, they keep it consistent. As an encyclopedia, I feel Wikipedia needs to have one standard for something like this. DrJenkins365 (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are some cases where it is helpful to leave it unpiped (e.g. Toronto FC as opposed to Toronto, FC Dallas as opposed to Dallas, or New York City FC as opposed to New York City) just because you'll pretty much never see that piped anywhere in major media outlets. There are also some cases that are weird about this e.g. teams with older iterations that have specifically tried to differentiate themselves from those older teams, e.g. Seattle Sounders FC is different from Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps FC is different from Vancouver Whitecaps, etc. Then you have a weird case with Columbus Crew SC where the "SC" was added later and is used just as often if not more often than just the word "Crew" or "Columbus Crew". It's kind of a case by case basis. Jay eyem (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kit manufacturer and sponsor tables

It looks like Govvy (talk · contribs) and I are about to engage in an edit war at Leeds United F.C. over a table used to list the kit sponsors and manufacturers. So, I thought it'd be best to bring here for wider discussion. The current version of the article uses a table to list the history of these things. I am of the opinion that these don't look very good, and over-emphasis what is fairly irrelevant info. Prose should be used wherever possible in articles (for issues such as accessibility) and I don't think that this information is sufficiently complex or in need of comparison to warrant table usage as described in MOS:TABLE. I had changed this section to prose (as is present on articles such as Arsenal F.C., Everton F.C., Liverpool F.C., Manchester United F.C., etc.), but it was reverted. It might be useful to get a general consensus for how this information should be presented. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't personally see why anyone would care which company manufactured a team's kit fifteen years ago, but maybe that's just me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Totally agree. This obsession with kits is one of the things that make soccer articles look silly. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
And again, it's not about the table, it's about the manner and ettiequte editors go about editing wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
That's a bit disingenuous - when you said "your edits on Leeds United are horrible and uncalled for" on my talkpage that didn't seemed like a shining example of good manners.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk)
Ilikeeatingwaffles, really? I don't know what you call an edit-war, but reverting you two isn't one. You did a mass change without adequate explanation, you didn't even mention any concerns on the talk-page, the way I see it, you were being disruptive to the article. If you have concerns about an article take it to that article's talk page first before doing mass changes like you did back there on Leeds United thanks. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I said that an edit war was about to happen. I didn't consider the change to be a "mass" one, and it was bringing in line with other articles, as noted above. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Youth players included in transfers in club season articles

Hi, I'm noticing some editing habits recently where youth players who graduate from a club's academy and sign their first professional contract are being added to the transfers in section of club season articles. As they were already on the books of the club, it does not make sense to me to include them as a transfer in. Also, youth players who are released at the end of their scholarship are being added to the transfers out section, despite them never playing for the first team. Is there any long-standing consensus on these two issues? Many thanks in advance. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am against the idea. They are already at the club, they aren't a new signing.--EchetusXe 22:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd expect to see all new player in those articles and would include the first group (at least in prose then, if not in the table). Wouldn't include the second because its not relevant to the first team's season. -Koppapa (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
On a club's season page you can have them on a separate section "from youth squad" for players who are promoted from youth to senior squad. --SuperJew (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Renewing a contract isn't a transfer and shouldn't be in a transfer list, releasing a player is not a transfer and shouldn't be in a transfer list, contracts and released players should be in seperate tables. I did separate them on 2018–19 Manchester City F.C. season but got reverted, the current Man City season page is an example of confusing a reader!! Govvy (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I've always included details of youth graduates in prose. If this is already in prose, I don't think an additional table is necessary. Likewise, I've also always included contract renewals or new contracts in prose and not in additional tables. I don't agree about not including released players in transfers out, and consensus still appears to be to include them there rather than in a separate table.
In terms of youth players who are released without graduating, where do we draw the line on including them in transfers out? In club season articles, we generally include all players in the player stats section who have been part of a matchday squad for a first team match. As such, if a youth player has been included in a matchday squad, is that sufficient to include them in transfers out considering they are included in player stats? Also, if a youth player has made a first team appearance and is released without graduating, should they be included as they played a part in the first team's season? Finally, if youth players have not been involved with the first team and are sent out on a youth loan or work experience, should they be included in loans out? LTFC 95 (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that a youth player turning pro should be included in the prose and not as a 'transfer' in a table. GiantSnowman 12:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps "transfer" is a problematic term, but I reckon the average reader wants to know all the movements in and out of the senior squad. --SuperJew (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hence why it's most suitable for prose - "John Smith, John Jones, and John Johnson signed their first one-year professional contracts with the club on 19 June 2018" is all that is needed. GiantSnowman 13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

John Herron (footballer)

Would someone be kind enough to take a look at the edits made by IPs and User:Aiden nisbett to this article. The editor (I'm assuming that it's the same person) claims to be working directly with Herron, and is frequently changing the infobox stats, as well as making unsourced changes which paint his 'client' in a better light. I'm afraid I don't have the time at the moment to keep reverting their edits, nor to look up the rules that this editor is breaking, which I'd imagine are quite a few. Exxy (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the page to the last version by Exxy and also left warning messages at the account TP. Eagleash (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Are the national federations the hosts or the national men's teams the hosts?

Template:FIFA World Cup Hosts makes it seems as though it's the national men's teams who are the hosts. I believe it is the federations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur that the national federations are the hosts, as it is the federations who bid to host the tournaments, not the teams. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 02:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Third this, it is better linked to the federations as the hosts. NZFC(talk) 03:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Do we need this template *at all*? We already have Template:FIFA World Cup to link the actual tournaments. If we really want to link the hosts (which I'm not convinced we do) it could be added to that navbox. Jellyman (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
If there is any need for the template (not sure there is either) then I'd have thought it should be named World Cup Host Federations to make it obvious? Or if a section within the navbox, labelled Host Federations? Crowsus (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I am with Jellyman on this one, I don't think we need that hosts template. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I've nominated the template for deletion. Jellyman (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

List of 2018 FIFA World Cup controversies

Flipping the bird bit at the bottom of the page, Should this be removed? It's come from Fox News, which can be deemed unreliable and has been kind of dismissed by other news agencies in the end. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a little bit against removing it, as the BBC covered the situation. That should be reliable enough. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Plenty of reliable sources covered it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
What did the BBC cover exactly? They didn't cover the situation, they pointed to Fox News stewing the pot. They didn't exactly repeat Fox News, the primary sources haven't been used, this is all on third-party source to the subject. There-for it's not exactly news worthy for wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
If we are going to keep this segment of news on the page, one BBC source is not good enough, should have multiple sourcing and maybe a primary source from Fox News for the point of origin. Govvy (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the BBC coverage was of Fox's behaviour, not of whatever birds may have been tipped over. All of this is about the interpretation by some people in one culture of something done half a world away. Only the perpetrator knows what actually went on, and the intention. Wikipedia certainly doesn't know. It does not belong in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Request to help me undo

Can someone help me undo this edit, what a mess this article is. Hhkohh (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Already done Hhkohh (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I've warned the IP as well. GiantSnowman 16:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks:-) Hhkohh (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Bernd Leno

Has been transferred from Beyer Leverkusen to Arsenal — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWWriter (talkcontribs) 20:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It's apparently still "subject to the completion of regulatory processes".[2] Nzd (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yugoslavia templates

{{fb|FR Yugoslavia}} and {{fb|FRY}} used to point, rightly, to the FR Yugoslavia/Serbia&Montenegro team (1992–2006) article, but they now point, wrongly, to the SFR Yugoslavia/Kingdom of Yugoslavia/KSCS team (1920–1992) article. Why? I took a quick look at Template:Country data FR Yugoslavia and its history, but I wasn't able to figure out. --Theurgist (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have been caused by the removal of the altvar parameter, I've submitted an edit request to restore it. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

UK 2030 "bid"

Is United Kingdom 2030 FIFA World Cup bid really necessary at this stage? There is no official bid as yet, the article is based entirely on newspaper speculation regarding "secret talks" and various people saying what they think of a hypothetical bid, should it ever come about. It has also been a magnet for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, with people adding extensive lists of potential venues based purely on their own combining of current grounds and their capacities with FIFA requirements. Jellyman (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect candidate for deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Too soon. It's a possible bid. Better to wait until it's reality.....and the article is supported by some dodgy tabloid refs. Delete.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The content itself is decent as a start to the article if and when a bid is officially announced, until then its just a hypothetical and doesn't justify an article at this stage.Crowsus (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Potentially better to simply move to user/draft space. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
This is very speculative. FA haven't said whether they will bid, or how it would be structured if there is one (i.e. England alone as in their 2006 and 2018 bids, joint with Scotland and Wales, or even bringing in Northern Ireland). David Gill made some comments at the congress before this World Cup that were non-committal. Probably should be a redirect to the 2030 FIFA World Cup article at this point. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It's far too speculative - I'd suggest it is deleted. GiantSnowman 09:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

In light of the reactions here, I've nominated it for deletion. Jellyman (talk)

List of England international footballers (alphabetical)

The result of this discussion last November was that List of England international footballers (alphabetical) should be merged into List of England international footballers, although no real decision was made about how this should be done. As the originator of the "Alphabetical" article (albeit under a different user name), I am prepared to put in the legwork, but need to agree what result is wanted first.

I would suggest that the List of England international footballers article should stay much as it is but be moved to List of England international footballers (10 or more caps). Because of size issues, the rest should be split into two articles List of England international footballers (3–9 caps) and List of England international footballers (1–2 caps). For your information, as at 7 June 2018, (if my calculations are correct) the number of capped players are as follows:

1 cap - 359 players
2 caps - 184
3 caps - 134
4 caps - 63
5 caps - 70
6 caps - 44
7 caps - 32
8 caps - 34
9 caps - 22
10+ caps - 295

Thus splitting as I propose would give 543 in the first article, 399 in the second and 295 in the third. If we split off the "one cap wonders", 2-3 and 4-9, this would make the articles more equal in size, i.e. 359, 318, 265 ans 295. Any thoughts/input would be most welcome. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back! I quite like the idea of splitting off the "one cap wonders". Nzd (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I had the same issue recently with List of Wales international footballers (alphabetical) which is extremely large and rather difficult to edit (particularly in mobile which I primarily use). Along the same lines, I moved List of Wales international footballers to players with 25+ caps which worked out nicely for size and seems to be the general cut off point on similar pages. Obviously England have a substantial amount of players to include so I would be leaning towards your idea of a list for players with just one cap to keep numbers down in others, if a consensus would support four separate lists. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I would be comfortable with either, but would like to see the formatting, referencing etc they use follow that of List of England international footballers, which IMO is very nearly FL standard. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now started work on this, starting with the proposed List of England international footballers (2–3 caps) - see my sandbox for what I have done so far. Before I steam on, can you take a look and let me know if you are happy with the basic presentation. Table 1 is my proposal, while Table 2 is a repository for those players yet to be moved across to the new layout. Cheers Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks better, but I would still recommend matching the layout at List of England international footballers#Players, for consistency and because this list nearly attained FL status. The main things I'd recommend are including a position column (, which you're already using, list them), centre aligning the caps and goals columns and and renaming the other column headings. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Matty - I'm happy to take your advice. It's very much a work in progress. There are two things on List of England international footballers that I dislike. Firstly, it needs an explanation of the order in which the players are primarily sorted (i.e number of caps in descending order, date of debut and thane alphabetical by surname) which I will add in due course. More importantly, i think that the headings should be changed from "Date of last match" and "Final match against" to substitute "latest" for "last" and "final", as many of the players on these lists are still active. Cheers. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:2018 FIFA World Cup

Should the national teams taking part be added to this category also? Govvy (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say no. They aren't added in previous editions --SuperJew (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

1994 World Cup Group F tiebreak confusion

The Group F section in the page for the 1994 World Cup reads: "the Dutch win the group because of having scored more goals against Belgium and Saudi Arabia"

It's possible that FIFA's tiebreak rules were different in 1994, but the current rules read (in part):

The ranking of each team in each group shall be determined as follows:
a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
b) goal difference in all group matches;
c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings shall be determined as follows:
d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned

It seems to me that the tie between the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia is decided by (d), the result in their head-to-head match. Am I misunderstanding the tiebreak rules or is the article in error? Or were there different tiebreak rules back then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachyng (talkcontribs) 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree. Taking a look at Group E, (Where everyone finished on 4 points!!) which was similar, Ireland finished 2nd due to a head-to-head result, with the Goals for also splitting the rest up. I'd like to see a reliable source state this, however. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski and Zachyng: I think the only change in tiebreakers so far was the introduction of goal difference (instead of goal average, back from 1970). Someone just misunderstood the case or used wrong expression. In group F, we have 3 teams with 6 points (criterion a) and +1 goal difference (b). Netherlands and Saudi Arabia scored more goals than Belgium (c), then head-to-head result (d) is used for the remaining 2. Group E is similar: after a (all had 4 points) and b (0 for all), we use c (Mexico won the group while Norway eliminated) then d (Republic of Ireland vs Italy). Centaur271188 (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Template: Soccerway vs Soccerbase

Hey everyone, I hope you're all enjoying the World Cup. I was just wondering, when the Soccerbase season template is used it shows |website=Soccerbase |publisher=Centurycomm
When the Soccerway template is used it only shows |website=Soccerway without |publisher=Perform Group
I noticed many people who do it the long way show the Perform Group as the publisher. Example: [1]
So my question is: Why is it different? Does it need adding to make it the same as Soccerbase? Thanks --Nelly GTFC (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ "R. Miller". Soccerway. Perform Group. Retrieved 31 May 2018. 
The Soccerway template was created to be used for external links. It shouldn't be used as an in-line citation. LTFC 95 (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Why not? The reality is that the Soccerway template is often used in-line - so we should make it suitable. GiantSnowman 08:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I support making the template more suitable for use as an in-line citation. I was pointing out that the template documentation states that the template displays an external link. LTFC 95 (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it depends how the template is most often used (Or, more ideally, a field that would allow it to be denoted as an external link, rather than a reference. I'd mention that the External link is a rather easy thing to create, whilst a reference has a lot more fields. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Germany Confederations Cup squad

Is it necessary to list Leroy Sané and Diego Demme in the table at 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup squads#Germany? These two players were withdrawn from the squad due to injury prior to the start of the tournament, and the DFB decided not to replace them and instead had a squad of only 21 players (mentioned here). I don't see a purpose to include these players in the table, the situation is already explained in the prose (as is done with other injuries/withdrawals). Thoughts? S.A. Julio (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
They are still in the official squad listing though.. --SuperJew (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as the DFB elected not to replace the players, FIFA did not have any new players to add to the list (and the PDF therefore remained the same). That does not change the fact that Sané and Demme were not part of the tournament (just as they should not be listed as winners). S.A. Julio (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Did they get medals? --Theurgist (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Go against the guidelines or not?

Interesting reasoning, take for example on-fire Denis Cheryshev: FIFA lists him as being 1,73 (and there is exactly that source to prove it). However, all of the other links (including BDFUTBOL, has played in Spain his entire career, mind you) "give" him 1,79 (, also from Spain, one centimetre more).

The question is: even though i think the other user was right to revert/compose (i am more inclined to 1,79 than the other height, and did not re-revert and instead came here), the source is now contradictory. If not even (or are that reliable, what's a poor boy to do?

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say use the official website's height if available. Cheryshev, for an example, is listed 1.79 at Villarreal's official web. MYS77 21:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if it has anything to do with the team not being at work now, but squad profiles are D-E-A-D :( --Quite A Character (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go with what the majority of sources say, there are some mistakes/typos on FIFA's PDF. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Webarchive has versions of his club profile where he is listed at 179cm. Not sure this should be considered more reliable, as clubs often exaggerate a players height, although less likely for a winger than a CB. What does the Russia federation say?   Jts1882 | talk  12:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Most sources say 179cm but a fair number say 173cm. I found a picture of four players being welcomed back to Real Madrid which makes me think 179cm is correct based on the heights of the other players.   Jts1882 | talk  13:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Great prove (the pic, that is) JTS! That is 1,79 indeed, if not taller. --Quite A Character (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass move of Inter Milan pages

Hi. Please see [3] for User:DZwarrior1's contributions moving several Inter Milan pages to FC Inter Milan... Please revert. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Already done by @Centaur271188: - and I've warned @DZwarrior1:. If they do it again let me know, I'll block ASAP. GiantSnowman 07:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman and Vaselineeeeeeee: Please be noticed that I have only taken care of articles and templates. Categories are somehow complicated, I could not simply rename them. Centaur271188 (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've moved back all the categories as well now. GiantSnowman 08:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 12:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong flags displayed in flagicon

While mentioning the flag of Peru with the Peru national football team in football pages the template displays the wrong flag.  Peru - Now looking up at the internet this is clearly the wrong flag and there is some sort of an emblem in the white portion. How can this be fixed? Can anyone please help? Cricket246 (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

According to Flag of Peru and List of flags of Peru, the official flag does not feature the coat of arms. Although both articles are poorly referenced, THIS site would appear to support that. Kosack (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so this article clears it up. Many thanks for sharing it. Actually FIFA is using the flag with the coat of arms in all their World Cup coverage so I thought maybe that's the right one. Can you please share something on the flag if Costa Rica too? I had a similar confusion there. Thanks again! Cricket246 (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The Flag of Peru article states the national ensign version, which includes the coat of arms, is "used during ceremonies in which the National Flag is hoisted in the presence of spectators." Again, it doesn't appear to be sourced but maybe that's why? What's the confusion with the Costa Rica flag? Kosack (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Same. Two versions - one without emblem and one with the emblem. But FIFA is using the one without emblem actually so I must correct myself that no confusion with that! Cricket246 (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cricket246: Yes, FIFA use the state flag of Peru with the coat of arms, as can be seen here and here. I've submitted an edit request at Template talk:Country data Peru so the correct flag is used relating to football. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request at Sergio Ramos

Greeting all - an editor posted an edit request to the Sergio Ramos article a little over two weeks ago and it has gone unanswered. The request is to rewrite the Disciplinary section and includes multiple references. It appears the editors regularly monitoring edit requests (myself included) are ill-equipped to respond to this. Could someone please take a look? Thanks much! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C. Honours

I changed the honours section to bring it more inline with what we have per MoS but got reverted, I wanted someone else to have a look for me, I really don't like the style the IP changed it too. Govvy (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Alexander AfD

It got deleted, I would of thought it would of been more sensible to redirect to Keith Alexander (footballer). Govvy (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED - and is it a valid search term? Probably not. GiantSnowman 20:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
ye, possible search term, with a couple of articles like this one around on the web! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"[Country] at the [X] FIFA World Cup"

Are any of these articles necessary? I suppose they are set up in good faith in the style of for example Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics but they're apples and oranges compared to Olympic articles in their breadth - we wouldn't have Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics men's football for example. I was just googling about the USA-Iran game from 1998 (possibly has enough lasting coverage to merit an article) and I came across Iran at the 1998 FIFA World Cup, and there's also Iran at the 2006 FIFA World Cup. These are basically just the squad list and group tables from two highly ordinary campaigns. There's no overarching category so I don't know how many of these articles exist for other countries, but I highly doubt how useful they are. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I made some searches and {{Countries at the FIFA World Cup by year}} is complete. We currently have 25 such articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
What's complete about it? It only has Brazil every WC edition (apart from the current one) and another country for some of them. They seem rather unnecessary to me. --SuperJew (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Duplicated players?

Hi all, I've been trying to make sense of the Egyptian squad at the 1934 World Cup, and it may be that the following two players are actually the same person:

  • Mustafa Kamel Mansour, d.o.b. 2 August 1914, given as the goalkeeper for the tournament by a variety of sources (11v11, BBC with extensive coverage, and again)
  • Kamel Mosaoud, d.o.b. 2 August 1914, allegedly forward, which is nowhere to be found in the reports.

However, this archived FIFA report (which is used to sustain the creation of Mosaoud wiki page) reports inverted positions (Mansour as the forward, Mosaoud as the keeper, same d.o.b), and the same does FIFA in the current web display of 1934 Egyptian squad ([4]) by also adding a third 2 August 1914 born player named Mostafa Mansour playing in a unspecified position. While to me there is little doubt about Mustafa Mansour being keeper of the squad, where is Mosaoud? Did Fifa just mess the positions up? --Tanonero (msg) 11:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Earlier FIFA report is not reliable on position. Some report just even don't list any position, such as this one. Matthew_hk tc 17:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I get that, but I am raising doubts over the existence of Kamel Mosaoud given the same d.o.b and the fact that he's sometimes reported as a goalkeeper. --Tanonero (msg) 20:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be right: Mustafa Mansour's full name is Mustafa Kamel Mansour, an indicator that probably Kamel Mosaoud and Mustafa Kamel Mansour are the same person. Also, there is no record of Kamel Mosaoud existing, not even in arabic. These are two websites that cite Mustafa Mansour's full name as "Mustafa Kamel Mansour": link 1, link 2. Also, both websites cite him as a goalkeeper. EDIT: this egyptian website, which lists the Egyptian national team in 1934 by position, doesn't list any "Kamel Mosaoud" (neither in attack or anywhere else). Nehme1499 (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Thanks. Would you mind checking the list we have here against the Egyptian website in Arabic? So, shall we propose the article for deletion? --Tanonero (msg) 21:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Lee Young-pyo - International goals confusion

In Lee Young-pyo international goals table there is one for a competition called AFC Champions League 2010, what I am confused at is that a goal for the South Korea team or a domestic club team? Govvy (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a domestic club in a continental competition. The line before backs that too. I deleted it. --SuperJew (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
k, cheers, I wasn't sure when I was looking at it, found it a little confusing myself!! Govvy (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrés Guardado

I am engaged in an edit war of sorts in this player's article (first time it happened in a long time). The other user says we are to count ALL caps, even the unofficial ones (by FIFA standards), i think differently. "gives" Mr. Guardado three unofficial caps, but RSSSF (see here only two, and if you read the explanatory notes below we don't even have any additional info as we did in for example Javad Nekounam (caps not counted by FIFA, but official for the Iranian FF); in Mr. Guardado's case, we only read that both matches (Guadeloupe and the interrupted one against Panama) are not to be counted.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Soccerway has 149 recorded caps, per this. Govvy (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy:: Soccerway does not hold a candle on NFT or RSSSF, regarding the int'l caps. Also, the latter's note says the match against Panama was SUSPENDED, how on earth are we to count that one? --Quite A Character (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Only the official ones should be used, go with NFT. Kante4 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
? One, I don't like , it's amateurish and really, who's it run by? Two, NFT?? Don't know what that is, o and three, I am only reporting what Soccerway has down for the guy, and only reporting that... Govvy (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy:: Yes, i know you are only trying to help, no problem :) NFT is, and as far as i know it's always been 100% reliable here.

Can anyone prove that NFT is actually a WP:RS? It's run solely by one guy without any oversight. Whereas, Soccerway and RSSSF are already proven to be reliable sources. Does the website of the Mexican FA record data re caps? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Quite A Character: You do realise that rsssf has only recorded up to the Croatia friendly, as for Soccerway, it has recorded a further three games of a friendly against Denmark and two World Cup games. Govvy (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mattythewhite: In early day NFT is the best available source we can get, but the emerge of other source that have the access of match reports (or at least a list of every actual game), it seem NFT is not very reliable . Moreover those non-FIFA friendly or abandoned/unfinished matches were hard to deal with. Matthew_hk tc 21:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

2003–2006 Italian flag

A few days ago, an Italian Wikipedian contacted me about a mistake in the 2003–2006 Italian flag, which is used in some pages like 2005 UEFA Champions League Final and 2006 FIFA World Cup. He wrote this in Talk:Flag of Italy but still get no reply. Here are his words:

Hi everybody, I have a question about the Italian flag used from 2003 until 2006. I think that the "current" one is quite incorrect, because the Pantone colors (Pantone 18-5642TC, Pantone 11-4201TC, Pantone 18-1660TC) are completely different from the one used in that file. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

So should we change the flag in its page and Template:Country data Italy? It will affect many articles, including those above. – Flix11 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

An Italian flag should be, green, white and red, not diminished, per infobox Italy. Govvy (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The change was because of the specified color shade in the 2003 and later 2006 (current) constitution, as per Flag of Italy#Pantone matching system. – Flix11 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA