Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 23:08, 4 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168: 7 days

WikiProject Football was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 3 March 2008.

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 9 July 2012.

On 4 August 2022, it was proposed that this page be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Association football. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Syrian flag

Why are we changing {{fb|SYR}} ( Syria) to {{fb|SYR|revolution}} ( Syria) in pages such as 2027 AFC Asian Cup qualification – third round? FIFA is still using the two-star flag on their website (similarly to FIFA not using the Taliban flag). If Afghanistan (in the same aforementioned qualification article) has the "old" flag, surely Syria should too. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, unless we know from sources that Syria want to use the "new government flag", it's WP:OR to change the flag. This is similar to Afghanistan, where most sports teams compete under the 2013 flag rather than the 2021 Taliban flag. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth noting that the Syrian Football Association has updated their logo and kit colors to reflect the green revolutionary flag. (source: https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/syrian-soccer-federation-changes-kit-colour-assad-toppled-2024-12-08/#:~:text=Dec%209%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Rebels,logo%20from%20red%20to%20green.)

I would take that as credible knowledge that the sports teams are competing under the "new" flag moving forward, but will defer to the general consensus. gingerlines (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems clear to me that their national football team are actually using the new flag and so therefore so should we. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case we decide to use the new flag, we should update {{fb|SYR}} to display

Syria, without having to add the "revolution" parameter. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be the default. Any idea how we do this? Giant Snowman 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the flag variant data ({{Country data Syria}}), but before doing so this all the historic uses of the template should be changed. Spike 'em (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there are discussions there to switch to the new flag as default, but it needs the groundwork to switch previous usage to the old flag. Spike 'em (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All historical articles first should be updated with the 1980 flag variant. However, as mentioned above, Afghanistan still compete under their previous flag. Therefore, wouldn't it be better to wait a few months until it is clear what flag they will compete under in their next international matches? S.A. Julio (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Syria#Flag discussions. Giant Snowman 11:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox football biography - Footballer full names

I've come across some footballer articles that list full names which are the same as article title (e.g. Vladimír Coufal), but I'm starting to believe those to be unnecessary even if they are sourced. As with the regular {{Infobox person}} template, should we just list full names of footballers if different from article title apart from being sourced? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but I'm starting to believe those to be unnecessary even if they are sourced. Why? If we can verify that a subject's name isn't longer than their article title and WP:COMMONNAME, that's good, I think. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Robby - if we can source the full name, that should be included, even if it is the same as the article name. Giant Snowman 11:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Arab Cup

Hi, I don't understand why this edit [1] ? Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ask the editor who made the edit? Giant Snowman 14:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We await the editor's response on this page. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason to think that they'd be reading this page, as you've not posted anything on their talk? Spike 'em (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you think the problem is talking about it on their page ? I think the problem is the modification that was made. But it doesn't matter, I made a comment on the article's talk page. regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor does not have this page or the article page on their watchlist, they will not know about your question. You may want to ping them or talk to them at their talk page. Kante4 (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question has made hundreds of housekeeping-style edits over the last few days to articles on an extremely broad range of subjects. There is nothing to indicate that they have a particular interest in that article or even in football in general, so I think it is highly unlikely they will see the message either here or on the article's talk page. @Faycal.09: I really think if you want an answer you need to post on the talk page of the editor in question..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's allright, I posted a message in the talk page of the user. I don't know what you think, however for me, this edit is not appropriate. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is solved, thanks for all. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 FIFA Intercontinental Cup

This article is just a copy of the 2024 edition, held less then a month ago. Too early. And sources used are the same. Not possible. Island92 (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inventing and jumping the gun. Island92 (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect removed. Island92 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree with the restoration of the redirect, this was not a copy of the 2024 article. Giant Snowman 15:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On average the style used was the same. Sources were the same. Tables and tournaments name related to 2025, just normal this. The rest was a copy. Island92 (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the style should be the same across similar articles, that is the whole point of our numerous Manuals of Style. Giant Snowman 15:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African Nations Championship

Do appearances in the African Nations Championship count as senior national team appearances? For what national team should we attribute those appearances on player articles? Some nations don't have an A' or B team article to which those appearances can be attributed to. It's just commonly displayed as the main national team itself. Example, the Ivory Coast national football team competed in the 2022 African Nations Championship, but for Patrick Ouotro, which I am currently making, I don't know whether I should list those appearances as senior Ivory Coast appearances or as Ivory Coast A' or Ivory Coast B appearances. Unclear.
Note: I just saw on the Algeria A' article in French here that "FIFA counts these appearances as first team international appearances and does not distinguish between the first team and the A' team." Thoughts or input? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the 2014 tournament, they count as full international matches.[2] Hack (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing at FIFA World Cup awards

Hi folks. Today I noticed that much of the sourcing at FIFA World Cup awards refers to threads on a forum called "BigSoccer". We don't usually consider forum threads WP:reliable sources so I'm almost ready to remove them and replace them by "citation needed" tags.

However, at least some of the forum threads contain images of football magazines which might verify the content the inline references are supposed the verify. Then again, it appears to be impossible to open larger and readable versions of the images if one is not signed up and logged in to the forum.

What to do? Pinging @DAlexxXD: who made many of the additions. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All citations from BigSoccer had the pictures of magazines. Some of the pictures have disappeared from the website now and I don't really know if there's anything to do about it. I'm aware of this issue, but there's really no way to fix it, but all of them had 2001:14BB:66B:7C8E:0:0:4889:5101 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should be citing those magazines in any case, not a forum where the info might be from them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation in Titles of Footballers

NOTICE: This discussion was originally created as a discussion on January 2nd. However, after upon further discussion, it was realized that this is more than two page problem and affects multiple pages.

As it currently stands, the naming conventions for footballers who have the same name but were born in different years are supposed to be disambiguated as (footballer, born (year)) in the title.

However, this contradicts with Wikipedia’s policy of maintaining an encyclopedia tone. This naming convention is weird and could be handled in an alternative way while being as concise and precise. This caveat for naming disambiguation is weird and could be handled differently in a way that is similar to the pages of royalty when there are multiple people of the same name.

The way the royalty project handles it is that they do the (born year-death year). Although different from the royalty wikiproject as it is relating to soccer players, it would be much more encyclopedic to do (footballer, birth date-death date), while also simultaneously having it as (born year) if the footballer isn’t dead. What are your thoughts on this?

Another alternative is to do positions such as if they are a different nationality and position, or id they are the same nationality but different positions. If there were two of the same positions and nationalty, I can see the years being applied but if that doesn’t occur.

For example: John Neal (English forward) and John Neal (English defender).

If that wasn’t possible then I could see this being used:

John Neal (English forward, 1955-1999) John Neal (English forward, born 1999)

I suppose I am trying to establish, does the year trump the position naming convention or should the position and nationality naming convention trump the year convention? Reader of Information (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis does a long and well established naming convention, used in literally tens of thousands of articles, "contradict with Wikipedia's policy of maintaining an encyclopedia [sic] tone"? Footballers aren't royalty, even if they do get paid like them... Giant Snowman 19:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that positions aren't fixed. I can think of any number of footballers who (a) there would be a huge argument about their main position, and/or (b) played at multiple positions during their career. Date of birth is fixed and unambiguous. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The concern about ambiguous or changing positions is valid and not unreasonable, but it does not preclude position-based disambiguation from being useful in many cases. When a player's primary position is widely recognized—such as a goalkeeper or forward—this method aligns with Wikipedia’s emphasis on clarity and naturalness. For cases where positions are unclear or disputed, other qualifiers like nationality or year can be used as fallback options. This flexible hierarchy ensures both accuracy and consistency while minimizing overprecision. Reader of Information (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to address your comments in addition to my arguments so I’m adding it here under the comments as I had drafted it separately from the argument:

While the current naming convention has been in place for a long time and is used widely, its alignment with Wikipedia’s core policies—such as WP:CRITERIA (naturalness, consistency, conciseness)—must always take precedence. A long-standing convention does not mean it is above reevaluation. If a naming convention can be improved to better align with policies and enhance user experience, it should be adapted. For example, relying on "footballer, born YYYY" often creates overprecision, whereas position or nationality-based disambiguation is more intuitive and adheres to the principle of naturalness. Reader of Information (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to further clarify that the consensus reached in this discussion will apply solely to soccer/football articles that fall under the scope of this Wikiproject. Articles within the scope of other Wikiprojects, such as the Military History Wikiproject, would not be affected by this consensus unless a similar discussion and agreement take place on their respective discussion pages. I respect the autonomy of each Wikiproject and recognize that their unique subject matter may use different approaches. Reader of Information (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is necessary to clarify what this discussion is aiming to establish, as it seems to be misunderstood as it is layered. This discussion post is aiming to establish four things.

The first is to determine which of the following take precedence when they contradict each other: the soccer/football naming conventions or Wikipedia's Manual of Style and policies and guidelines.

The second is to determine whether the disambiguation format "footballer, born YYYY" violates Wikipedia's article title polices, specifically the policies of naturalness, title disambiguation consistency, and overprecision.

The third is to establish consensus on whether nationality and year should be used together, especially given that a prior RfC concluded there was no clear consensus on this matter.

The fourth and final goal is to establish whether there is a specific order of disambiguation that must be followed. In other words, when multiple forms of disambiguation are needed, what is the order of priority? For example:

1. Position?

2. Year?

3. Nationality?

———

With the purpose established, I hereby present my argument.

This argument states that the current format violates Wikipedia's naturalness, title disambiguation consistency, and overprecision policies. The disambiguation section under the naming conventions for people guideline explicitly advises against this, except for certain situations, stating:

"Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, as readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it. Disambiguating by vital year may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and same specific disambiguation qualifier. In these cases, use Name (qualifier, born YYYY) with a comma and born unabbreviated (not b.) … However, if all people with ambiguous names have the same qualifier (e.g., occupation), then the qualifier may be omitted (to avoid overprecision): Charles Hawtrey (born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (born 1914)."

Per the naming conventions of sportspeople and the naming conventions of people, this would mean that the titles would have to be "born YYYY", NOT "footballer, born YYYY".

A caveat exists which can pave the way to not have to use "footballer, born YYYY", except when necessary. The guidelines suggest using other intuitive identifiers such as occupation, which in this case would mean position. The sportspeople naming conventions page supports this by stating:

"If one of the footballers is, for example, a goalkeeper, use "(goalkeeper)", or other position as appropriate."

In other words, both conventions combined are indicate that the titles should be based on position first, as it is a more logical and natural disambiguation method than birth years.

For example, instead of:

- "John Smith (footballer, born 1990)"

It should be:

- "John Smith (goalkeeper)"

If further clarification is needed, nationality can be added:

- "John Smith (English goalkeeper)"

Birth years should only be used as a last resort:

- "John Smith (English goalkeeper, born 1990)"

On top of that, in the title disambiguation consistency guideline, it states,

"Although individual projects may develop their own standards for naming subjects within a given field, it must be noted that some topics are of importance to multiple fields, and may have a disambiguator only reflecting one of those fields."

To summarize, I propose the following hierarchy for disambiguation:

1. Position.

2. Nationality.

3. Year (only if ambiguity remains).

This method avoids overprecision, adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines, and ensures titles remain clear, concise, and consistent.

Courtesy Pings

@GiantSnowman: Courtesy Ping

@Black Kite: Courtesy Ping

That is my response to y'all's comments, sorry that it took so long as I was drafting this to make sure it said everything I wanted to say lol. I hope this helps!

Cheers,

Reader of Information (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. Giant Snowman 16:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your hierarchy is totally wrong. It should go year of birth, and then position/nationality depending on context. The latter two are changeable, YOB is not. Giant Snowman 16:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR:

This discussion seeks to clarify the following:

1. Whether soccer/football naming conventions or Wikipedia’s Manual of Style and policies take precedence when they conflict.

2. If the current disambiguation format (“footballer, born YYYY”) violates Wikipedia’s article title policies on naturalness, consistency, and avoiding overprecision.

3. Whether nationality and birth year should be used together for disambiguation, given past lack of consensus.

4. The correct order of disambiguation (position, nationality, year).

The argument proposes prioritizing position as the primary disambiguator, followed by nationality, with birth year used only as a last resort. This aligns with Wikipedia guidelines and avoids unnecessary complexity, ensuring clear and consistent article titles.

For example:

Instead of "John Smith (footballer, born 1990)", use "John Smith (goalkeeper)" or "John Smith (English goalkeeper)". Only resort to "John Smith (English goalkeeper, born 1990)" if ambiguity persists.

This discussion’s consensus will only apply to soccer/football articles, leaving other Wikiprojects unaffected unless similar discussions occur in their respective scopes.

(Generated by AI since I’m not drafting another long thing. I took over a day to draft that.) Reader of Information (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use AI. Respectfully, if you took an entire day to draft your earlier post, I suggest you find something better to do with your time.

To save you further hassle - our naming conventions are well established and appropriate. Your suggestions are bad. Giant Snowman 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman Look man, I don’t know what your problem with me is, but respectfully knock it off. At this point, you’re not being constructive to the conversation. Reader of Information (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that you are trying to fix something that isn't broken, and wasting everyone's time in doing so - first at the aborted RM, and now here. Giant Snowman 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look man, I disagree. I am not by any means trying to waste anybody’s time. I feel that the disambiguation order is quite unclear on the guidelines and are a reason to suffice for it needing to be clarified and I am trying to build consensus on what people feel like the disambiguation order should be. This is a COMMUNITY consensus and discussion so please contribute or just get out of here. This is getting ridiculous. If anyone is wasting anyone’s time, it’s you. Please stop. Reader of Information (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCSP says, for footballers, "use the most conclusive of the following steps", which in practice is most often year of birth. The only change I would therefore make would be this. Giant Snowman 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most conclusive? But what criteria makes it most conclusive? That itself is ambigous. It could mean anything. Heck there are some who are (born YYYY) and others (born MM YYYY). The very existence of those two disparities makes it clear that it is not as clear as it is supposed to be. Reader of Information (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We add month only when the year is insufficient (an aside - please find me an example where a footballer is disambiguated MM YYYY where no other footballer born the same year exists). That is pure WP:COMMONSENSE. If you don't understand it, then WP:CIR applies. Giant Snowman 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don’t think your supposed to be making a change of something when the very thing in question is in debate? Reader of Information (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD - and it's not in debate, you started a pointless discussion that is going nowhere. Giant Snowman 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold only works when it isn’t contested. It currently would be considered contested. Reader of Information (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to revert. But to quote Black Kite, the only other editor to comment here, "Date of birth is fixed and unambiguous". Giant Snowman 21:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also like to point out that “my suggestions are bad” is not a valid reason to oppose something. Reader of Information (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be polite. ~~I can be rude if you need me to.~~ Giant Snowman 21:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening others editors with hostility is not behaviour I'd expect from an admin. What happened to WP:AGF? Spike 'em (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, apologies - my frustration got the better of me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I apologize. I am only trying to make a change that I feel would be more intuitive and easier (especially for linking). Reader of Information (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous and is becoming an argument when this post was intended to gain consensus. I’m sick of this. I got better things to do than argue with you as this is getting frustrating. Reader of Information (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained to you how we disambiguate footballers. If you want more info or guidance, we will give it to you. If you do not understand, then you should not edit in that area. Giant Snowman 21:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Barnard (sportsman)

Hello all. Just wondering if anyone has access to Pompey: The History of Portsmouth Football Club (ISBN 0903852500). Just after a page number for the single reference in which it is used. Also, looking at GA/FA down the line, so any expansion of his football section also appreciated. Cheers. AA (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]