Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:WPF WT:FOOTY

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, 167Auto-archiving period: 7 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles

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.

WikiProject Football

Project pages
Project talk page Task forces Portal New articles Cleanup articles Unreferenced BLPs Article alerts Popular pages
Assessment Assessment department (talk) Assessment log
Format templates Club articles Club templates National team articles National team templates National association articles National assn. templates Competition articles League season articles (Lua tables) Club seasons articles Country seasons articles Match articles Player articles Stadium articles
Other Consensus Category structure Notability criteria Fully professional leagues (talk) Template list Sources and links Booklist Members Recognised content Vital articles Project milestones Did You Know? archive
v t e

Hi all

Per this discussion, and the consensus recorded at WP:ACMILAN, there was agreement that the term "Milan" is potentially ambiguous, unless it's in prose and already clarified. The consensus is that we should use AC Milan in all of the following settings:

• The first mention in the lede and main body
• The infobox
• The career statistics table
• Section headings
• Image captions

However, this seemingly does not cover usage in tables, and as we see at 2023–24 UEFA Champions League#Teams, amongst many other examples, there is a tendency for some editors just to put "Milan" only, even where the same table may or may not include Inter Milan.

I would like to propose adding table usage to the above consensus, and then fixing up all the cases where it's used. For Italians and purists, "Milan" may make sense, but for an average English reader I think this is confusing, and having the tables say "AC Milan" throughout is clearer and better.

Or if there's a good reason why such tables are not covered by the spirit of the above consensus, I'd also be interested to know why. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(waves hand) Do it! Govvy (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: thanks. OK, I'm adding that in now. Shame there isn't more input into this discussion, but it's a unanimous consensus so far, and this would be in keeping with the previous consensus of avoiding doubt on the AC Milan / Milan debate.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If George Marsh (footballer, born 1998) has moved from Cyprus to Northern Ireland, are you suppose to remove the Expatriate men's footballers in Cyprus and English expatriate sportspeople in Cyprus categories? I never got the expat categories really, I still feel they are a waste of time. Govvy (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Expatriate men's footballers in Cyprus category includes dozens who are long retired and at least one who is dead, so it's clearly designed to include anyone who has ever been an expat footballer in Cyprus and not just those who are one at this precise moment in time...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be anyone who has ever been an expat in that country. Although I agree with the wider question of why we need these categories, when people will be in categories for the football teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

k, going back to the expat categories, I feel we don't really need them, I don't see how they are needed, it runs into over categorisation. We don't need huge amounts of categories on one biography. I feel Cristiano Ronaldo is a good example of too many cats in my opinion, maybe we can do with out them?? Govvy (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'expatriate X' category system is so big and ingrained that it would be impossible to delete the entire thing, although I see merit in it. GiantSnowman 21:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GS, I am sure a bot can be setup to deal with any big changes. Govvy (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant this is a much bigger issue than just affecting footy articles... GiantSnowman 17:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could always take the lead and get a bot to start with football-only categories like , up to other projects if they'd want to follow suitRedPatch (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will need a Wikipedia-wide consensus to get rid of these kind of cats. In any event, as stated, they are useful. GiantSnowman 15:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin take a look at Neo Quimica Arena, which has been moved incorrectly? Hack (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hack this didn't require an admin, I just moved it back to Arena Corinthians. Would need an WP:RM to move to that name, which should also be Neo Química Arena (with the accent), and which is also a sponsored name, so I don't support using that name. For future reference, if someone moves a page from one name to another, anyone can move it back as long as no changes have been made to the redirect after initial move. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the current season in the infobox, but there was some error messages about the kit images in the infobox that I couldn't see how to fix. Maybe someone else can fix the error messages? You can see the error messages when in edit mode. Govvy (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick fix, you'll want to remove "_zamalek_2324t" from both the pattern_la3 and pattern_ra3 parameters, as neither c:File:Kit left arm zamalek 2324t or c:File:Kit right arm zamalek 2324t were ever uploaded to Commons. A quick search seems to show that the sleeves are a solid colour, so there is no need to upload a pattern. Zadora13 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring here the discussion, since I posted at the article talk page a few days ago, but nobody else gave an opinion. I will just copy and paste what I wrote there:

"Analyzing FIFA's posts from the last days and also FIFA's website I definitely changed my opinion, since before that I was really undecided about how FIFA was really treating this tournament.

But, at least in my opinion (that's why I'm bringing it up for discussion), now FIFA already decided that 2025 will be the 1st edition of a new FIFA Club World Cup since they are now treating it as "the inaugural champion" and "the inaugural edition".

On FIFA's website: "The inaugural edition of the FIFA Club World Cup will signal the start of a new era in club football history with a brand-new trophy becoming synonymous with the diversity and quality of the global game as club football brings the world together in the United States." [4] Also: "Find out the information on the new club tournament" [5]

On FIFA's Instagram: "...by the inaugural champion" [6]

But, how we will treat the old tournaments?

In my opinion, as FIFA already unified Intercontinental Cup (1960-2004) and FIFA Club World Cup (2000-2023) titles as world champions, also we already correctly treat as a continuation ("It ran from 1960 to 2004, when it was succeeded by the FIFA Club World Championship" - at Intercontinental Cup article) and now we have the new FIFA Intercontinental Cup, with almost the same format, I think the best thing to do is treat the last as a continuation, since all are Super cup like format and different tournaments from this FIFA Club World Cup (2025 onwards)." SinisterUnion (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We just had this conversation on 2029 FIFA Club World Cup a month ago. Reliable, non-primary sources are broadly considering this a continuation of the existing tournament under a new format i.e. 2025 is the 21st edition, 2029 is the 22nd edition, rather than a completely new competition. FIFA just shot themselves in the foot with regards to branding. Jay eyem (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I disagree.

First of all, as I said, I've been analyzing the latest posts and FIFA's website over the last few days, so there's a change from a month ago. There's now an emphasis on treating it as the inaugural tournament and the inaugural champion, so I think we have to adapt ourselves to the new reality.

Whether FIFA shot themselves in the foot or not is another story, but FIFA is treating this tournament as the inaugural one on its official website, what has more value than non-primary sources. Nevertheless, we already have the aforementioned non-primary sources adapting themselves to FIFA's decision to call it the new FIFA Club World Cup and 2025 as its inaugural edition, as we can see here: [1] or [2], for example. SinisterUnion (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now it doesn't mean anything. We need still to wait. The name FIFA Club World Cup is still there. Island92 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name still there and will always be, unless they change it in the future and it doesn't matter at all. This would be the same thing saying Intercontinental Cup (1960-2004) is the same tournament as the new Intercontinental Cup (2024-), what is wrong too.

The fact is the article right now is clearly in disagreement with the highest football authority that treats it as "the inaugural champion" and "the inaugural edition".

Furthermore, it is also against important and renowned non-primary sources that already adapted themselves to FIFA's decision to call it the new FIFA Club World Cup and 2025 as its inaugural edition, as everyone can see at the links I provided in my last reply. SinisterUnion (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You posted the exact same article twice and it refers to it as both inaugural and in reference to changes for an existing format. I would not describe that as clear cut at all. And can we PLEASE decide where this conversation is going to take place? It is extremely unhelpful to have conversations going here, at Talk:FIFA Club World Cup, and at Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup all at once. Jay eyem (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that this happened before in March 2024, and May 2024 (and documented at the article talk page) and now the "analysis" of the latest posts and FIFA's website over the last few days have changed from a month ago, suggested that it is WP:TOOEARLY to make any definitive changes. If it is changed, there will be some other contradictory media release, and this issue will flip-flop for months. It is better to leave things as they are for now and wait for the official tournament documentation next year (probably available by about the time of the draw) when it might be more clear or more consistent. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually the same article, sorry I pasted it wrong there. But the fact is that I only did a quick search and quickly found about 10 articles referring to a new tournament and 2025 being its inaugural edition.

If you want I can send all the examples later, but as you can see, in addition to all the other arguments already presented here and that FIFA is considering it as the inaugural edition (which I noticed was more emphasized in the most recent posts, for example: [3]; [4] - saying inaugural champion in the video; [5] - saying new club tournament), we have important non-primary sources treating the tournament this way too.

To avoid making it too boring, I gave only 2 examples in my last reply, but here are a few more: [6] (AP News); [7] (Sportbuzz); [8] (Inside World Football); [9] (Inside World Football); [10] (Diario AS).

Also, we have Confederations treating 2025 edition as the inaugural one, for example: [11].

So, in my opinion, all the requirements are met to make this change (I know it will take some work, involving the creation of new articles, adaptation of others, but we cannot leave an article as important as this one against the facts that are imposed on us, going against the highest authority in world football and the most important non-primary sources). SinisterUnion (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your reply I clicked on the first source my eyes went back to. It happened to be the AP News link. It states "inaugural 32-team Club World Cup". This doesn't state it is new, it states it is the first 32-team version. Later it states "A relaunched and lucrative Club World Cup". Neither of these points to a definitive first year of a brand new tournament. The facts are that FIFA has gone back and forth about how they refer to it which has been the problem all year. People wanted to change it and then FIFA deleted all reference to it being the first of a totally new tournament and started to refer to it as a new format. Now it seems they are starting to revert back to it being a new tournament. Based on all this, I would agree with Matilda that no changes should be made until official docs are published. Chris1834 Talk 15:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of non-RS saying he has signed on loan - nothing official/reliable that I can see? GiantSnowman 20:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.juventus.com/it/news/articoli/next-gen-luis-semedo-in-prestito-dal-sunderland , dated 31 August. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie! GiantSnowman 09:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I spotted the stats list at Scotland national football team manager is an exact duplicate for the one at Scotland national football team#Statistical record, the latter hadn't been updated recently so having a single source on both pages would surely be better all round. I have tried to create a transclusion using <onlyinclude>{{#invoke:transcludable section|main|section=Manager|text= [start] and }}</onlyinclude> [end] which has worked on other pages, but on this it's giving the error message Warning: Scotland national football team manager (edit) is calling Module:Transcludable section with more than one value for the "style" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help). Probably due to the way the table itself is formatted but I don't see any major flaws in that and my knowledge of the coding isn't good enough to work out how to get past it. Any experts have an idea? Many thanks. Crowsus (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: The issue is that you cannot pass a standardly-formatted wikitable to Module:Transcludable section, as it will interpret the pipe characters as parameters. You would have to use a workaround to pass the table to pass the table to the module, such as {{!}}.

However, Module:Transcludable section is really only meant for pages that you are transcluding multiple sections from. Given Scotland national football team manager has no pages transcluding it, you can just use onlyinclude tags or labeled section transclusion to copy the content to the Scotland national team article. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That should be enough to play about with it based on your suggestion till I get it to work (or don't, and give up due to my own stupidity). Crowsus (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why I haven't been able to transclude the yearly tables at List of Scottish Professional Football League monthly award winners into the annual pages e.g. 2024–25 Scottish Professional Football League - are you able to explain the workaround, would I need to add {{!}} before every single vertical pipe character in the table? Boothy m (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just like to point out, and I've often seen people voting at AfDs that when a football club doesn't show notability some people redirect a football club article to a league article. Well, considering football clubs get promoted, relegated, can change leagues, this is ill-advised. So please consider an alt location like the article of the town the club is in. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet football clubs can change town as well! GiantSnowman 09:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's much less common, and in most of the cases when it does happen, the club's name changes too. --SuperJew (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]