Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

Abukari Damba

I have a question : in english, we can notice Abukari Damba whereas in polish it's Abubakari Damba. I don't know the correct name but in NFT, it's Abubakari Damba. So is it Abukari or Abubakari Damba ? Cordially. --FCNantes72 (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

no answer ? 2A02:8429:3D72:8901:F533:5715:360D:78E9 (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

What a tricky scenario: based on Twitter, it's the shortened version for the first name used but more than twice the pages from Google site results show the longer version. What I can say is that it is the same person but sources and other websites, including those run by his home country, are obviously inconsistent to say for definite which name Wikipedia should use for the article and talk page titles. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Iggy the Swan. I will create the article in french. Cordially. --FCNantes72 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

United States boys' national under-15 soccer team

Is the naming of this (boys rather than mens) right? GiantSnowman 10:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, 14/15 year olds clearly aren't men so that would be a weird name to use..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that they primarily compete in a competition which is called the CONCACAF Boys' Under-15 Championship -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, fair. GiantSnowman 11:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

At what age do boys become men? 🤔 --SuperJew (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That is considered to be different among humans, for me I consider between 16 and 18 when you finished growing. So I also think the naming seems right. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

So for example the Joeys Australia men's national under-17 soccer team is correctly named or should it be moved to Australia boys' national under-17 soccer team? (They're also competing in the 2024 ASEAN U-16 Boys Championship (which had it's name changed this year)) --SuperJew (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"How do WP:RS refer to the team?" would be the question to ask, I reckon? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Mostly as Joeys ([1], [2], [3]) or Subway Joeys ([4], [5]). In general Aussie media refer to the soccer teams by their nicknames. --SuperJew (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say U17 is when it becomes "Men" for football. See a bunch of U15 tournaments referred to as Boys and Girls rather than Men and Women and I believe U17 is when Fifa begins to consider caps as official "cap-tying" and requiring a one-time switch. I know they do not consider U15 matches as such when I went through the cap-tying rules. RedPatch (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

UEFA Intertoto Cup stats

Is there a consensus on if these stats should be in a Continental/Europe column or in an Other column? I corrected the table formatting for Vincent Montella yesterday to make it in line with the MOS standard and was curious where his Intertoto Cup stats with Sampdoria during the 1998–99 season should go. I put them in Europe for the time being but feel like they probably better belong in Other. My thinking is that when the competition existed it was a summer tournament for qualification into the UEFA Cup and I don't think UEFA really keeps records for the tournament either as it does with the UCL, UEL, UECL, or the old Cup Winners Cup, and so it doesn't feel like a "proper" tournament. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd count them as European matches. UEFA organised the competition so I can't see why they wouldn't count as European matches. They were essentially a precursor to the 47 million qualifying matches that we have now. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Fourth Place / Colours used to indicate results

I'm slightly curious how the current consensus surrounding the colouring for fourth place results isn't applied and is even put in place to begin with. Colour grading the background for team results makes it easier to read. It doesn't even matter about traditional gold, silver and bronze. Looking at tennis players individual performance timelines for example separate colour grading is applied for results from QF's onwards. Why isn't this the case with football?.

If there is a consensus regarding fourth place results not being colour graded then why isn't it being applied. I've being trying to edit the South Korea at the world cup article but @Snowflake91 keeps reverting. Why doesn't this change apply to any other article? The majority of articles I've come across use colour grading for fourth place teams, why are you only reverting this on one specific article? Xc4TNS (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the consensus at WP:FOOTYCOLOURS is clear. So instead of saying "all other articles are like this", go and delete it then from every other team instad of re-adding it at that specific article. And why exactly should 4th place have blue background, did they receive a blue medal or something? If semifinal should be in blue, then why not also quarterfinals in yellow, round of 16 in green, group stage in pink etc., or why exactly is 4th place / semifinal more special than 8th place / quarterfinal that it would need to be highlighted in colours? Snowflake91 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It does look like most of the other countries - at least the ones I have spot checked - have blue backgrounds for fourth place for the World Cup. But WP:FOOTYCOLOURS says No colour should be used to represent fourth place unless being used in such a competition where a team/players receive a fourth place award. In this case, specific blue colour should be used. I don't think they hand out fourth place awards at the World Cup? Should these all be removed? SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it should, but the IPs would be adding it back with a reasoning "there is a XYZ article that has blue colours", so it would need to be enforced by deleting it from ALL articles and competitions with no exception – unless there are some competitions that actually hand out 4th place medals. No medal = no background colour as there is no reason for it. If semifinals can have blue background, then I see no reason why quarterfinals can't have colours as well, and so on. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

As above, should not be used. Kante4 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Blackpool F.C. league record by opponent

What would be the best option for this article? It hasn't been updated in three years, nor is it likely to be updated at this point. Seasider53 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement regarding List of English women's football transfers summer 2024

 Discussion ongoing: over whether to include player transfers in the list after becoming "unattached" from English clubs. For context, examples concern the transfers of former WSL players: Mary Earps, Lucia Garcia, Ellie Roebuck and Esme Morgan. Opinions from editors are appreciated. Apologies in advance for the length of the discussion. CNC (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the appropriate place for further discussion rather than the article talk page, and the apology section is either irrelevant or a bit WP:POINTY. Since when is brevity of discussion a criterion? Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure the issue has been resolved because CNC isn't listening to anyone else's input and closes any attempts at discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I especially like that the explanation that the transfer between two clubs wasn't actually a transfer between the two clubs is hidden behind a link to a footnote that nobody is likely to read without (other than someone picking holes in the format). Completely misleading information. Seasider53 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This only refers to Roebuck, which as SuperJew pointed out "Roebuck actually signed a pre-contract with Barca, so this case is different." [6]. None of the others are referenced as free agency transfers. CNC (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

But you’re expecting this to be the format if it happens again? It just hurts my brain how far apart people can be on what constitutes useful information. That’s the never-ending struggle. Seasider53 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

While this has been the format in the past with 60 examples, but I'm not suggesting that. Like others in that long-winded discussion, I think it's best to follow what reliable sources say; either it's from free agency, or a free transfer. Naturally with less news-worthy transfers it might not be so clear, as clubs don't necessarily specify (they usually don't and are often quite vague about the type of transfer) . Regarding Roebuck, the note should include that she signed a pre-contract, because although she was unattached, she was far from a "free" agent while under contract. CNC (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I personally tired of the ownership CNC took of the page so I stepped back from actively editing it. Now exactly what I feared is happening - only the big names and transfers which are atrractive to CNC are being updated, while other transfers are being ignored, even though I brought them up on the talk page. I hope I'm not the only one that sees the irony that in CNC's quest to "be providing a more complete picture" (his words) they've created a situation where the page is much less up to date and much less of a complete picture. --SuperJew (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside how uncivil that conversation got, I genuinely do not understand the issue with later changing the club from "unattached" to whatever club they are joining. That has been a pretty well established way of writing out transfer articles for a long time now, and it makes sense. Most people are not just interested in the fact that they left one team, but also where they are going. Just because it happened by way of a free transfer after the contract runs out doesn't mean that it makes more sense to list someone as "unattached" rather than the club to which they ended up going just because they may have been briefly out of contract. Jay eyem (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, “this is the way it’s always been done” should least apply to WP:FOOTBALL articles compared to any other facet of Wikipedia, such is the desire of our editors to create their own policies. Seasider53 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Which is not a wrong line of reasoning and which is why I added a justification for continuing to do so. Why are the technicalities of "the only thing that is relevant is that they were released" the important part and not "this is the club to which they are moving"? Which of those provides a more complete picture of what is happening? Or am I misunderstanding what the conversation is about? Jay eyem (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

More complete ≠ accurate, as has been discussed. When we need footnotes to explain “jk, the player wasn’t really signed by Barcelona from Real Madrid”, we’ve already left the bounds of credibility. Seasider53 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So essentially the solution is to have a giant list of all of the players that were released from their contracts? How is that evenly remotely helpful information? And why is that a more important option than just saying the club to which they transferred? The term "free transfer" is pretty well understood, I don't understand why the timing is so important. Are the only transfers that can be called "free transfers" those that occur as soon as the transfer window opens in that scenario? I genuinely don't understand the issue. Jay eyem (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand the issue

Undertake some genuine research. I can't help you there.

That aside, inclusivity of information is the aim, not selectivity. Seasider53 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want to explain the merits of your argument, suit yourself. And I would think "inclusivity" would be including where players are transferring, not just leaving them as unattached. Jay eyem (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the returns from loan should not be there. Seasider53 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree re: loans, this was previously removed but was swiftly reverted. Do you think there is any use in having the "transfers" to unattached in this list, as these aren't even transfers (ie between clubs)? They are also are not unattachment dates (ie contract expiry) but merely announcement dates based on decisions made, around the theme of "leaving at the end of June", rather than when players are actually leaving. At least it's not included in the men's equivalent transfer list, so it's hard to understand it's inclusion in this list, apart from for curiosity sake of who's leaving where. I'm under the impression it'd be better as a "Players leaving clubs" section, prior to the transfer list. CNC (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The lines have been blurred because of the section headings and article title. If it's transfer-specific, then players released to free shouldn't be listed. They would appear if they move from free agency to a club, but (I can't even believe I'm typing this!!1) not listing the club they were released from. Seasider53 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is between yours and Jay eyem; not include end of loans; somewhat indifferent to announcements of releasing players to free agency, as is relevant for context sake, but would ideally be it's own section; reference previous clubs for players from free agency, as RS supports the idea that these are transfers between clubs, even if they technically aren't. The section wording/title is identical to the mens article, which ideally would be the working formula to follow for convenience sake. The real question appears to be at what point does our interpretation of a transfer become OR, instead of just following what RS say. CNC (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at previous articles from the same contributor, Summer 2023 and Summer 2021 for example, they are full of these free agency transfers (I assume to avoid duplicate entries which makes sense). The irony being the argument wasn't about free agency transfers, it was predominantly about listing free transfers. CNC (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is firstly that it paints an inaccurate picture. Transfers between clubs in most cases involve fees which means revenue and income.

So if for example club A sells 90% of their players while club B has their players depart at the end of their contract, in the scenario where we show the club the player moved on to regardless, it creates a false image that looks like both clubs have a lot of revenue from transfer fees.

The second issue, which is more minor but I think has been highlighted beautifully by the history of the page being discussed, is that when we get all fussy about where a player ends up at and feel so strongly about updating and including it, it takes energy and resources which could be invested in actually listing all the player movements in the leagues in scope of the page. As can be seen on the talk page of summer 2024, only half of the transfers are being added.

Regarding loans and loan returns I think they are player movements in every way and should be included. The average reader/fan is interested in what's the difference in the squad from last season, not the what kind of contract the player is on. --SuperJew (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So is the issue with the use of the term "transfer" itself? Because I completely agree with your last sentence, and I think that's largely how sources discuss transfers as well; not just the formal transfers where money is exchanged, but from where players on free transfers are signing and to where released players are going. I am not sure what other term you would use that doesn't sound clunky, though. Jay eyem (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think "player movements" can work. But as I said with the where released players are going, I think it creates a false impression (players joining from free agency after leaving at end of contract aren't creating revenue) and secondly requires energy and time to chase up. --SuperJew (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

List of footballers with 500 or more goals

Hello! Should List of footballers with 500 or more goals be renamed to List of men's footballers with 500 or more goals (it's a redirect, as that was its former name) now that there is an article about women's prolific, over 300 goals, scorers (List of women's footballers with 300 or more goals)? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Just adding the reason I am asking is mainly because I don't know how to do it when the new name is a redirect, as, last time I tried to move/rename an article to a previous name, it didn't let me do it. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In the response to your second edit, WP:RM/TR gives us instructions on how to deal with it and someone with page move rights or an admin may agree and move it. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Davide Orlando, David Orlando

I propose merging Davide Orlando into David Orlando. Please see Talk:David Orlando. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Category pages for players from a club without an English Wikipedia article

Should a club without an English Wkipedia article have its own category page for players who have played for that club? For instance, I've found that Alsancak Yeşilova from Northern Cyprus does not have an article, but has a category for its players at Category:Alsancak Yeşilova footballers. Curious on whether or not the article for the club should always be created before the category page for its players. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Soccerdonna

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Soccerdonna. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)