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.

UEFA honour

Should this be listed as an honour?

..which was recently changed by @Виктор Не Вацко from:

  • The 10 Greatest Coaches of the UEFA era (1954—2016)

Both of those descriptions mischaracterise the source, which doesn't present the list as an 'honour' and doesn't actually say these managers are the best 10, describing it as "a series of articles tracking the careers of ten of the many coaches who had made a major impact on football since UEFA's foundation in 1954".

Might be worth a mention in a legacy section, but IMO I don't think these should be in Honours. Nzd (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not worth even mentioning. The source clearly states that it represents "a series of articles tracking the careers of ten of the many coaches who had made a major impact on football since UEFA's foundation in 1954". So in essence UEFA's web team simply decided that it would be nice to pick ten top coaches (apparently at random) and profile them on the website. They weren't voted the ten best in a poll or anything like that. This doesn't merit any sort of mention anywhere -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
When the source first came out, it was named as 'The 10 Best Coaches of All Time', and the same goes for the articles of the coaches. Then the website slightly changed the context of the project for some reason (Pretty sure the original has been archived). On top of that, the current article ends with "Read our detailed profiles to discover what made each of them special". So it's really on reader how he interprets the context. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC+2)
The Clough article from August 2016 is archived: The best ever coaches: Brian Clough. Similarly in Sept 2016: The best ever coaches: Johan Cruyff. I can't find the original introductory article for the ten.   Jts1882 | talk  10:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of the title of the articles, unless there is evidence that the coaches were voted the "best ever" in a poll or named as such by some sort of respected football authority figure, rather than just an unidentified member of UEFA's web media team, I don't think it belongs, and certainly not as an "honour" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident UEFA's official website represents UEFA and not just some random guy/group of people in the organization. This isn't Bleacher Report, we're talking about a serious organization here. Plus, writing articles about all those managers for months and putting it together suggests that the writers put some effort into the project and the list has some meaning. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC+2)
I am still of the opinion that these should be removed from the Honours sections. If this really was a notable accolade, I would expect more coverage. As it is, all I can really find is mentions by SportsKeeda and GiveMeSport (self-published) and the Daily Star (tabloid), none of which can be used to confirm the list's status IMO – the SportsKeeda article actually uses the same quote I did, yet they still titled it "UEFA announces 10 best coaches in European history". Do I have consensus to remove them? Nzd (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I would support its removal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I would support its removal : it is a media profile for a website, not an official Award. And therefore just an opinion. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 Done Nzd (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Historical logo and NFC

Since File:FC Esperia Viareggio logo.png was nominated for deletion for the following concern Wikipedia:Non-free_content#cite_note-4 (quote below). However, using historical non-free logo in article was also observed in article such as Bundesliga, should we deleted all usage of non-free historical logo from article (sorry for gallery of logos from re-foundations such as F.C. Bari), or comply with the concern:

"The NFCI#2 allowance for logos only applies to the use of the logo on the infobox or lede for the stand-alone article about the entity, and should reflect its most current logo. The use of historical logos for an entity is not allowed, unless the historical logo itself is described in the context of critical commentary about that historical logo. "

Matthew_hk tc 10:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this essentially means that if there is prose that describes the development of the logo, then it's fine to include, but not if it's only there for decoration. There are plenty of articles that contain historical logos, so it should usually be fine, as long as there is something useful to say about that specific logo. If in doubt, I'd post at WT:Copyrights or WT:Non-free content to get input from editors more au fait with these issues. Nzd (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll add (as such an editor) that commentary needs to be referenced and it needs to be about the appearance of the logo (i.e. not "the old logo was adopted in 1960") to necessitate an image. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 09:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The Bundesliga article you mentioned suffers from this. Despite having a commentary, it's hardly relevant to the article. The information regarding the 50 years logo could be made into something important, or at least non-trivial, but I can't see how 5 logos meet this. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

For whatever reason the old logo in Jiangsu Suning F.C. were deleted (Special:Diff/859041822). Originally they only displayed as a gallery without commentary. Matthew_hk tc 10:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"Top foreign goalscorers"

Is this type of record notable, or is it WP:FANCRUFT? Why differentiate Portuguese scorers from foreign ones? SLBedit (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not specifically notable, IMO . Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
But it is supported by many sources, mostly in Portuguese. SLBedit (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN discussion

A discussion had been started on the NFOOTY essay with regards to some additional wording. Input is welcome. Cheers, Number 57 23:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Just flagging this up again as it's now been suggested that the section on club notability be deleted entirely. Cheers, Number 57 15:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
So, as virtually no-one from the project has commented there, the text has been reinserted based on the comments from non-members. @Govvy, Pharaoh of the Wizards, SportingFlyer, Fenix down, Smartyllama, Kivo, and Rillington: You've all cited FOOTYN in recent discussions so thought you should be aware that based on the new wording, you're apparently no longer allowed to. Number 57 08:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
N%7, only just seen this as have been busy IRL recently. To my mind, that discussion changes nothing. I don't cite FOOTYN as a guideline, merely as a means to describing a long standing consensus that is supported by a lot of AfDs. I'll continue citing FOOTYN for shorthand, but just point people to recent AfDs illustrating the consensus described. Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It could be worth adding a few AFDs to FOOTYN that support that viewpoint. GiantSnowman 09:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Felix Götze

User:S.A. Julio seems to think that the Felix Götze should have a "Continental" column in the article's career statistics table despite not making any appearances in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League. In addition to not making any European appearance, he hasn't even been an unused substitute in either competition. This is according to the source for his career statistics table. Do we really want columns that show zero (0) appearances throughout his career to-date or are we going to put columns in just because they were part of the club's roster? Another issue with the article is that it has a row for the senior team of Bayern Munich. According to the source, he was only an unused substitute eight times. He didn't make any appearance in any competition for the senior team. Do we really think it's needed here? Kingjeff (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

IT would make more sense for the column to say 'Other'.--EchetusXe 08:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree the column should be 'Other'. GiantSnowman 08:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 International Champions Cup

User:Walter Görlitz is taking the context out of the ICC tournament page and at the same time was harassing my talk page. Can someone fix this stupidity please. Govvy (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm responding to the actual state of the event. They want it to appear as though it's a tournament but it's not. Hotspur played Roma, Barca and Milan, but not Dortmund who somehow managed to place "second". It's not a tournament. It's a series of friendlies that the organizers have for years tried to make it appear as though it was a tournament. One year, the "winner" played four more matches than most other teams, lost two of them and "won" the tournament on wins, even though they didn't play the majority of the other teams.
I'm not harassing you, I'm warning you.
The only way for someone to fix the stupidity is for you two stop editing the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

And yet, we have the world Cup, England didn't play Brazil, and it's still a tournament, your logic is floored!! Govvy (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

And yet a team that was declared winner in that actual tournament played teams that defeated both England and Brazil. That's how an actual tournament works. the "winner" of a tournament either defeated all others (Round-robin tournament), or in the case of the FIFA world cup, came out of a group and then won in the next round. This doesn't follow any tournament rules. It's play three teams at random and whoever has the highest number of wins in the random group is declared the winner (with some tie-break rules). I won't comment any further on your logic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The ICC meets the definition of tournament, and regardless of that media are seeing it as one too. -Koppapa (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Media are selling it as one. I assume that next year's event will be sold as one as well, hence present tense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is our place to judge how meaningful a tournament it is. If sources describe it as such and report the winner, then that makes it a tournament.I support Govvy's version of the page. Spike 'em (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, the main International Champions Cup page describes it as a competition and refers to individual tournaments, so for consistency this one should too, or the wider set of articles will all need to be edited. Spike 'em (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the remarks from Spike 'em - that this is clearly a tournament (no matter how imbalanced it is or has been in the past) - and so support Govvy's version of the page. I only disagree with the rhetoric from Govvy that there was harassment involved on Govvy's talk page. Different opinions exist, fair enough ! But the comments on Govvy's talk page were appropriate. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Not a tournament like it "normally" is but still a tournament. Kante4 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Fiji national football team

So I have gone and expanded the Fiji national football team article by adding the history of the national team as a little project of mind to improve it from its start-class (that it currently is in) to possibly get it to a B at the minimum and maybe crack that GA territory (long shot but its a worth a try to getting it there). This is because I have put a peer review to see what I will need to work on for it to get a GA-status. Animation is developing 02:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently association football is a common term and does not need to be linked in team articles

According to Fenix down (talk · contribs) association football is a common term and does not need to be linked in team articles. It seems to me that this would require a lot of rework. I'm all in favour of correctly applying WP:OVERLINK, but not sure that it's being applied correctly as national and professional teams do have a strong association with the term. Any concern with the suggestion it's an overlink? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to summon those football (soccer) or soccer or association football WP:ENGVAR edit, it seem leave those link "as is" are the best option. Also in the past i linked them to Football in Italy, so may be good to link to football in foo, e.g. Football in England for English footballer, English football club. Matthew_hk tc 17:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree to remove link to such as Youtube (non-football article) (See [1]). This applies WP:OVERLINK Hhkohh (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
And this edit seems overlink to Chicago Hhkohh (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Fenix is wrong. 'Soccer' is an abbreviation. It is not 'overlinking' to direct that to "association football". It is a common courtesy. The MOS on COMMONWORDS is very clear. Soccer as a term is strongly regionalised, per Names for association football. Koncorde (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

IP editor inventing

The (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is inventing players at several articles. Can we do anything for avoiding it? Thank you. Asturkian (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Asturkian: Report to an admin or WP:AIV to let admin block IP Hhkohh (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Asturkian:, assume good faith on updating squad list (even they did not provide reliable source).
But in that ip user case in specific, quick sending warning from level 1 to 4 (or quick sending level 3 for questionable edits after unblock), and report to WP:AIV after passing the 4th warning. Matthew_hk tc 12:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but I must learn this way of work. I was just going to mention him at WP:AIV. Asturkian (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Just reported. It rather need clean up crew for articles such as A.C. Milan seasons , Valencia CF seasons and many articles. Matthew_hk tc 12:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Likely the same person as Special:Contributions/ who caused havoc between blocks in 2016/17. Same Korean ISP, and the 49 address was static for a loooong time. A long block may be in order here. Gricehead (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems all cleaned up now. I caught one, but others have done most of the week. Pinging @GiantSnowman: who seems to have caught a lot of the stuff over a week ago. Also pinging @Widr: who blocked the 49 address several times. Gricehead (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Gricehead and Matthew hk: let me know if they re-appear, I'll mass revert and block. GiantSnowman 09:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────, @GiantSnowman: just now around 9:30 (UTC) Matthew_hk tc 10:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 10:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up on infobox timestamps

Following on from this discussion on infobox timestamps, I have now moved the template I created into mainspace. This is now titled {{Footyiu}}.

I'm not precious about the wording ('incomplete' may be be better than 'not quite right', for example), and moving this to mainspace gives other editors the opportunity to make any changes and makes it more accessible for use (it can now be added as a custom warning in Twinkle).

I had been holding off from using it myself as I wanted to address the issue of MDY dates. Based on the previous discussion, I have created a template to use instead of 5 tildes in articles where MDY dates are in place. {{mdytime}} is basically just {{currentdate}} but without the day of the week. It should obviously be substituted.

I have proposed that this be added to the documentation of {{Infobox football biography}}, along with the suggestions made by @Struway2 in the previous discussion. Please comment on the template talk page.

Thanks, Nzd (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

In the wording.....One or more "were"....--Egghead06 (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Amended. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of editors like Saksapoiss (talk · contribs) who change timestamps without updating goals/caps. SLBedit (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this should be in a separate thread, as it's only tenuously linked to this topic. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Like I have previously stated, I take an example from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs) who surprisingly happens to be a Wikipedia administrator, so I believe he must know the best. Saksapoiss (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
He reverted me for not explaining the revert. Please stop changing timestamps just because. SLBedit (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If you are "surprised" by me being an admin, why would you take an example from me...? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It was meant as an emphasis that I would rather take my example from an admin. Saksapoiss (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Being an admin doesn't necessarily mean what I say or do is gospel, it means that I have been trusted with a few additional technical tools. Back to the issue, I don't see what the problem is with the timestamps you've used. They're in line with what the template documentation recommends, and with the proposed wording linked above. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
What's the point of updating timestamp when the stats don't change? Unless timestamp wasn't properly updated when stats were changed, there's no reason to change it. SLBedit (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Toshack at Tractor Sazi

Can anyone read Persian? IP editors have been changing his and the club page to say he's gone, without providing any sources. It's not really clear via Google Translate whether this article confirms it. Nzd (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Frändefors IF

Hi – can anyone tell me if the Swedish team Frändefors IF are notable enough for their own article? As far as I can tell, they have never risen above the fifth tier of Swedish football, and they don't appear to pass WP:GNG, so they look like a candidate for AfD. I don't know anything about the history of this club, or what level a club has to achieve for this WikiProject to be considered notable, so I am hoping someone can answer. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Elo ranking

Hi, what is the consensus regarding the Elo ranking increase/decrease on the national football team infoboxes? Should it be based on the previous month (as per the FIFA rating) or on a yearly basis (which is explicit in the World Football Elo Ratings' table).


Divisional movements for Italian clubs

Editor Ballistiq (talk · contribs) has recently added little tables to several Italian club articles with what they describe as "divisional movements" - see Torino_F.C.#Divisional_movements for an example. These are lists of how many seasons a club has been in each division, including number of promotions and relegations - qualifying for a UEFA competition is also listed as a promotion. Instinctively this looks like a needless insertion of a table and possibly comes under the WP:NOTSTATS umbrella. So many football club articles have too many tables and too many needless statistics, and I reckon that this sort of thing is unnecessary and detracts from the prose of the article. Does the project have an opinion on these tables? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. List of Torino F.C. seasons serves a similar purpose and works a lot better than some summary table. – PeeJay 08:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I also think they are not needed and should all be removed. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 12:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't hugely object to them, but qualifying for Europe should 100% not be listed as a "promotion" from Serie A -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

List of goalscoring goalkeepers

Couple of queries on this:

  1. Should we include keepers who scored when playing outfield (e.g. Jorge Campos, Alan Fettis, Tony Read), or perhaps have a separate list on the same article for them?
  2. Should we limit it to two goals or more? I'm sure if every professional keeper who had scored one goal at some point was included, the list would be far too long for an article.

Thoughts? Cheers, Number 57 12:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Short answer - no and yes respectively.
Long answer - no, simply note in the text that they sometimes played outfield; and yes, goalkeepers with only one goal can remain in the related category.
Also - de-bold it and stop with the 'currently active' element. GiantSnowman 13:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

New Articles

Hi, I've just noticed there's a page listing new Football related articles. How are pages added here? Is it a manual job the article creator needs to do, or are they picked up based on a template in their talk page (if so, which one)? Also, as the new pages I've created/seen don't have anything in the talk page with regards to importance/quality, how can I get the articles rated appropriately - is there a defined process for this? Thanks, --Philk84 Talk Contributions 12:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding to the 'new article' list is a manual addition; as for rating please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment. GiantSnowman 13:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This one is done automatically and is more comprehensive (although it has the occasional 'miss' in terms of picking up non-football stuff): User:AlexNewArtBot/AssociationFootballSearchResult. I'd highly recommend watching this page for anyone interested in reviewing new articles. Number 57 13:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Philk84: Yes, this is a manual process. Just add *{{la|ARTICLENAME}} within the relevant date, per the instructions at the top of the page. When you create articles, you should add the relevant project tags to the talk page. Feel free to use this as a template. When adding the WPFooty tag without the ratings, the article will be added to Category:Unassessed football articles and Category:Unknown-importance football articles, meaning someone will come along and rate it. Nzd (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks GiantSnowman and Nzd - I've added the pages and the appropriate talk page templates  Done. --Philk84 Talk Contributions 13:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

European Cup updates - need checking

Hi all, I've noticed that the IP user 178.758.29.45 has been updating some European Cup and Italian stats and figures. Can someone take a look and confirm if they are all vandalism? I've reverted one, and I've seen that @Shellwood: has reverted some more, but can someone double check that they've all been corrected? What's the procedure for reporting people like this? I see their talk page already has some warning about nonconstructive/disruptive edits. --Philk84 Talk Contributions 07:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

England under 23s?

Writing up the remarkable story of Kevin Beattie's life, I came across the rather brilliant story of how he 'went missing' on international duty (almost as good as the injury caused by a large poo).

It seems from the sources that this happened while on call by England national under-23 football team. As you can see, that's a redirect to the under 21s article, which other than mentioning that under 23s are eligible, doesn't mention its predecessor, which is a bit of an omission.

Any ideas for best fix?

Two articles? A history section in the under 21s? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Two articles seems fair. The under-23 national teams were a regular feature for a long time until UEFA basically rebadged it as an "under-21" tournament after 1976. 23 years old used to be a hard limit for the "under-23" team, whereas now you just need to have the 21st birthday in the year that the European qualifying starts to be eligible for the "under-21" team. e.g. qualifying for the 2019 Euros started in 2017, so anyone born after 1 January 1996 is eligible. Hence why you often get 23 year olds playing for under-21 teams in the tournament finals. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:17, 21 September 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