Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 167

Archive 160

←

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

FIFA World Cup

Taking Munir Mohamedi as an example (the only Moroccan player i currently edit), the following easy question: is the fourth place at the World Cup an honour? Last time i checked it was not, but things could have changed in the meantime (most likely they have not, found this Goal article from DECEMBER 2022 https://www.goal.com/en/news/who-gets-world-cup-winners-medal/bltc6fd5bdd2a8a8e8a; "interesting" fun fact regarding the South Korea NT on the topic)...

IP in the article has now resorted to (slight, i'll give them that) insults in edit summaries. For my part, i have performed my last reversion until i get an answer here. Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is, and personally am of the opinion that only winning it should be an honour... Ortizesp (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No, fourth is not an honour. Kante4 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sports events at Wembley Stadium

Might need wider discussion given that it doesn't only affect football, but should this category be split into two given that we have two separate articles on the 1923-2000 stadium and the 2007-present stadium.............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the 'New Wembley' inherits the legacy of the 'Old Wembley' and for all intents and purposes they are treated as the same thing from a venue point of view. I can't think of many other good examples of stadiums that had massive renovation or complete reconstruction and they did this where they acted like it was the same thing but like Soldier Field perhaps or Hampden Park follow this rule. London Stadium pre and post Olympics and its renovation thing too, I think. Camp Nou currently, furthermore. HYTEN CREW (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

2011 Copa América Team of the Tournament

Hi. There is confusion about the 2011 Copa América Team of the Tournament. The teams featured at 2011 Copa América#Team of the Tournament and at Template:2011 Copa América Team of the Tournament are different. Why is this the case? Which is the official one? Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably worth pinging Lnhbm, who created the template in 2020 with a line-up which matches the article, but then changed the line-up in the template in 2021 with no edit summary to indicate why..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I restored the correct team, per CONMEBOL official website. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

IP changing heights

This IP has been changing heights on players unsourced. Should they all be reverted? I looked a couple up briefly and I don't see these changed heights from googling them. RedPatch (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, revert. These types of edits happen quite regularly. No explanation given? No qualms about undoing. Seasider53 (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Real Betis

Hello. I just wanted to ask something-- is there a clear consensus on what we should use as Real Betis's common name in info boxes and whatnot? I see a lot of players have just "Betis", but in the opening sentence it says "Real Betis". There is a clear inconsistency. Could we try to establish a single one? Same thing for RC Celta de Vigo, there is an inconsistency. I propose using Real Betis and Celta Vigo, which are, in my opinion, the most commonly-used names for the clubs in English. Please offer your insight so we can end these inconsistencies across the Project. Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a similar issue to that of English football with the many suffixed clubs which have no ambiguity: is Blackburn sufficient, or must it be Blackburn Rovers? So for boxes it should probably use both words (or perhaps Celta de Vigo, since Racing de Santander and Sporting de Gijón seem to be preferred in boxes, maybe they should also be considered here) but the single word can be used for whatnot? Is this an instance of WP:KARLSRUHER, are Spanish clubs mentioned there? Crowsus (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Crowsus: I don't think KARLSRUHER applies here or anything like that, nor is it really comparable to English football. Here we just take the most commonly used English name for the club. That's why the clubs Atlético Madrid and Athletic Bilbao have the names they have, despite their official names. This is mostly a question of the club's common short name. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sweden football teams

Recently dab-pages were created from the redirects on Sweden national under-19 football team and Sweden national under-17 football team. Unfortunately, that gives problems on the article UEFA. Issue is the template:nft links that seem to miss the option to differentiate between the men's and women's teams. Do you have any idea how to solve this? The Banner talk 23:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Banner: The template will have to be updated, and the articles too. Time for Wikipedia to stop the blatant misogyny. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The same applies to Sweden national football team that is used in several articles with templates that I can not solve at all. In this case: UEFA Euro 2020 statistics, UEFA Euro 2012 statistics, 2002 FIFA World Cup with as culprit template:International football competition statistics/Ifcs. The Banner talk 14:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess you'd need to get {{nft links}} amended to be in-line with something like {{nft/code}}, which has a list of exceptions handled by a switch. I've added Sweden to that list: do you have examples of the other templates that are causing issues? Also I see that {{nft links}} is only used on 2 main space articles, so I guess not many people will notice it. Spike 'em (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Martín Zubimendi

requesting temporary protection please due to the level of moronic transfer-vandalism over the past 36 hours. Crowsus (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Use WP:RFPPI to request protection. RedPatch (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have protected it for a week. Also interesting to see the number of edits from people who think that the article Liverpool is about the football team rather than the city..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nacho (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nacho (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 FA Community Shield

See history page. Why refs should not be used in the infobox for referee, weather, attendance and man of the match? See other major tournaments that adopt the same practice for the article of the final, and the same finals of the same competition, such as 2023 and before. Here should be different for this edition? Why? User PeeJay creating such a problem for nothing IMOH. Island92 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Facts should not only be referenced in the infobox. If a fact appears in the body of the article without a reference, that's a problem. I don't care if the reference appears in both the infobox and the body of the article, but it certainly shouldn't only be in the infobox. – PeeJay 13:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Refs will not be only in the infobox. That's why refs in the infobox consist of ref names. Island92 (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So why did you remove the source from the {{footballbox}} template? You're arguing yourself into knots. – PeeJay 13:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Because only later the ref name (added by you) in the infobox was put. Having a ref name in the infobox which comes from the main source in the footballbox is not a problem. Island92 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And as I said, I don't care if the reference is in both places, but you can't have it only in the infobox. Are you satisfied now? – PeeJay 13:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course yes. As it stands now it is how when I added the ref in the infobox for the first time (the source complete). Then you moved the source complete in the footballbox and added the ref name in the infobox. Island92 (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like you're not understanding what I'm saying, so I've just changed the article to what I believe we should be agreeing on. If you disagree, then we still have a problem. – PeeJay 14:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The source there should not be there. It is simply a ripetition of what the infobox already displays. See 2024 UEFA Champions League final and other dozens of article finals as a prime example. Island92 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You edited it. It did not use to be like that. See 2023 final then. Island92 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The infobox should not be the primary place to see the source. It should be in the body of the article as a bare minimum; if you want to add it to the infobox too, that's fine, but it should not only be in the infobox. How many times do I have to say it? Would it help if I translated my comments to your native language? – PeeJay 15:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And it is not only put in the infobox! It's also next to "Assistant referees:". It's sufficient, rather than having another ref close to the referee name in the footballbox. It makes no sense. You changing the practice also for Champions League finals now. Ok. You can expect to deal it with user S.A. Julio about this practice. Island92 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You creating such a problem for this little aspect just today. It is used to be like that before you changing it for years and years. Island92 (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Doing something for years and years doesn't make it right, and S.A. Julio doesn't own these articles. I added the reference to a location that needed it and you removed it because you think it's too close to other instances of the same source? That's irrelevant. If the source for a fact can't be easily ascertained, add a reference; it's not difficult. You're the one creating a problem by insisting that things have to be done the same way forever more. – PeeJay 17:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That is called consistency between articles. You are changing the practice. As simple as that. Island92 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So you think things should be consistently worse than they could be? Sure, why bother trying to improve anything when we can just stay as we are forever? – PeeJay 17:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is interpretation of things. There is no point in having a double ref that displays the same thing. It's logical interpretation. So I think more people had the same view about it that worked well until your edit. I do not mean your edit has to be thrown into a bin. I can say to you you can expect your edit to be reverted, back to how it used to be. Just have a look a more than 500 article finals. You note the same structure of what we are talking about. Island92 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And as I said, just because something is done a certain way for a long time and in a lot of articles, that doesn't mean that's the perfect way to do it. A reference for the referee should be in the article body at a bare minimum, with a duplication in the infobox as a luxury. – PeeJay 17:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That's your view. Hence now I expect you to match that edit with more than 500 article final styles here. For consistency. For how it used to be until your edit. Island92 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And now I ping @S.A. Julio:, to give his take. Island92 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Changes can be made over time, no rush. If you want to make some of the edits, that would be really helpful. – PeeJay 18:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not change my view of this. Island92 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So why did you bring this here, Island92, instead of talking to PeeJay directly? Robby.is.on (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

To make it aware for other users. To know what's their take. Island92 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to summarise the rest of the article, so shouldn't need a reference if there is one in the body of the article. See MOS:INFOBOXREF which says References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere. Spike 'em (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And to make my view on this discussion entirely clear: the referee should be referenced in the main body of the article and have no reference in the infobox. The MOS overrides any consistency / local consensus arguements. Spike 'em (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Info boxes are a quick view of information pertinent to the article. Citations are for the main body and shouldn't be in the info box at all. We are suppose to avoid adding citations to the first few lead paragraphs and the infobox. Govvy (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Poul Nielsen stats table

I am in a very slow edit war with @Kaizako10: regarding the Poul Nielsen stats table, which I have removed as it is incomplete and does not match the infobox, and they keep re-adding. Any thoughts? GiantSnowman 09:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Help me get the correct stats instead of just disregarding the hours of research I have done to find these stats. Sexy Beast (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You included two sources with your additions. https://www.kb.dk/en does not mention Nielsen. I downloaded the PDF document at https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/avis/record/doms_aviser_page%3Auuid%3A5c9b7b8d-c19d-4c37-b079-10e0f56cb19d/query/Poul%20Nielsen%20Fodbold but the text is too small to read for me, not to mention it's Danish. What does it say? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Emmanuel Saban Laryea, Ghanaian professional footballer

Greetings, while updating orphan footballer articles, I see the Laryea biography infobox Date-of-Birth shows 12 December 1995 vs. the Worldfootball.net (reliable source) shows 12.06.1990. After searching, I'm still confused if there are two players from Ghana with exact same name, and similar clubs? Any help here would be great. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

My findings:

• Soccerway: 12 December 1995
• Global Sports Archive: age 28
• Worldfootball.net: 12 June 1990
• National Football Teams: 12 December 1995

Of those four sources, worldfootball.net is the only outlier. Could be a mistake in their database. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks @Robby.is.on, will go with the 1995 dob. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Strange

2009–10 Libyan Cup has separate articles for 2009–10 Libyan Cup – Round of 32 and 2009–10 Libyan Cup – Round of 16. This seems unnecessary, so I'm inclined to merge and redirect all on sight. Geschichte (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, should be merged. Kante4 (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Found more at Libyan Cup 2008–09 – first round, and it looks very ugly. Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

A doubt

Okay. So, I haven't been here in a long long time, and I've seen WP:FPL is inactive now. NFOOTY is redirected to NSPORTS. So my question is according to these changes I've noticed, and based on WP:SPORTCRIT, is it possible for a player who hasn't played in a FPL to have an independent article given that he/she has sufficient coverage via secondary sources? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 21:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Was always possible. --SuperJew (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude and SuperJew. Just needed to get that straight. Best wishes! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on 2024–25 Serie B#Personnel and kits

Hi all, I am reaching out to request some feedback on the list of personnel, kits and sponsors on articles like (but not limited to) 2024–25 Serie B. I have just opened it and I found out the table is both huge in terms of horizontal space (which already causes problems in my laptop, so I would not even trying imagining how it would look from a much smaller screen such as a mobile phone) and filled with what I would consider being unnecessary WP:TRIVIA (such as the list of sponsors, and possibly the kit manufacturer as well), all of that without any sources provided. Any thoughts? Angelo (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Chairman not necessary, only main shirt sponsor needed. Removing those fields (and a new line for the Sassuolo co-captains) makes it fit much better. Crowsus (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I see this sponsor nonsense goes back 10 years, including some editions where there was a league-wide sponsor for the weirder places, but that got included 20 times. I haven't checked every year, but had a glance at the other 'big 5' second tiers for 2016-17, and only 2016–17 Segunda División (Spain) had presidents listed. I know they wield much more power in some places than others, but in my opinion the president doesn't need to be listed. Is there any big objection to these fields being removed from other season articles? I'd think it would be extremely fiddly and boring for creators to find all this out (not an expert on the arse cheek sponsors but I imagine they change quite often)and add it in every August, and possibly fails V and CRUFT as Angelo has suggested?? Crowsus (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Disappointed nobody else has taken the time to contribute. Pinging user:Sebas291001 by way of explanation of my reversion of their (unexplained) removal of my changes. Please explain your reasoning for including all these sponsors and presidents here so we can get the full picture and avoid an edit war, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the same user seems to have been doing the same kind of edits on several other articles, such as 2024–25 Serie A, 2024–25 Ligue 1 and 2024–25 EFL League Two, to mention the most recent ones. I personally think we really need asap a consensus on this - and I am fine with User:Crowsus's take on that, for the record. Angelo (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for reversing the changes. I have just seen the explanation and imo it seems reasonable. I had included those sponsors because all Wikipedia pages for previous seasons (2023/24, 2022/23, 2021/22, and so forth) in the top European leagues already include all sponsors used. I do believe it has some importance to include sponsors, possibly there are viewers interested in looking what sponsors are present in the team's shirt or what changes there have been. Personally, I had no problems while looking at the sponsors table in my computer, laptop and phone; but I understand some might have them. I'm open to suggestions in looking on how to "summarize" or reduce the space between the sponsors, I saw the Liga MX page has an expandable list that include all the thousands of sponsors in their kits, so I think it would be a better option. Regarding to presidents, they do have some power in Italy, but in case it's not considered relevant then I would be open to have them removed. Sebas291001 (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Ryan Carmichael

Might need an admin to sort this one out, he was moved to draft in March after an AfD, and a few days ago recreated again. However the two seem very different, I wasn't sure what to do. Did they need a hist merge to draft? Or something sorting out, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

A HISTMERGE is probably a good idea. RedPatch (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

We cannot HISTMERGE because there is now - thanks to @Hildreth gazzard: editing the draft after the mainspace article had been created - a parallel history. See WP:PARALLEL. Take what sources etc. you can from the draft and we will delete it. GiantSnowman 14:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Matthijs de Ligt and Dominic Solanke

Could an Admin please semi-protect Matthijs de Ligt & Dominic Solanke JMHamo (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

A request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase might result in action sooner. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you joking? Did you see the backlog is over 48 hours. JMHamo (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have protected De List - won't bother with Solanke given the transfer is confirmed. GiantSnowman 09:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am quite excited to see the possibility of De List to play football soon. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Bloody autocorrect! GiantSnowman 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WAFF Championship articles

At what level are we going to have these too? I was having a quick little run through the new page feed and came across this page 2024 WAFF U-16 Championship, I really don't feel that the under 16s are that notable. On the template below there is Senior, that's okay for me, Under 23, I don't mind so much, Under-19, I don't really feel there is notability there, then there is Under-16, which I feel the whole lot is not notable and probably should be deleted. What are other peoples thoughts on this? Govvy (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

A case similar to what happened with the CAFA articles, even though the WAFF senior competition is longer-lasting. I personally have no problem with maintaining the U-16 competition, as long as there are sources. Svartner (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Jim Fraser

Hi football fans, doing some research into the 1968–69 European Cup Winners' Cup. Seems like a Jim Fraser scored for Dunfermline in the semi finals. Wonder if it is the same Jim Fraser as Jim Fraser (Scottish footballer), currently an unsourced stub with no Dunfermline details in the infobox, or category, but who was at least playing in the Scottish league during the period. Found a few sources [1][2][3] but unclear if this refers to the same individual. Any help appreciated. Thanks, C679 08:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cloudz679: - see [4]. It's not the same guy -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Dukla Prague

Would some of you footy Wiki afficionados mind heading over to Talk:FK_Dukla_Prague#Merge_proposal. I'll be plainly honest, I was looking for the Dukla Prague in Europe article to see their results, there isn't one in English but I found it in Czech and some other languages; but I also noticed that Dukla Prague and FK Dukla Prague are treated as one in the Czech Wikipedia and some others but not in English, which seems a bit odd. I wondered if it was us at English wiki being a bit fussy & pedantic with legal technicalities, if it was a dated oversight, or if fans of the Czech club over there were being a bit overenthusiastic. Please don't bite my head off for querying this, if you feel like doing so I can guarantee you any reason you have for rejecting (or accepting) the merge 'suggestion' isn't as obvious or straightforward to outside non WP Football folk as you think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is a common situation in some countries, especially Belgium: an old club goes defunct, someone takes an unrelated club and gives it the old clubs' colours, badge and stadium. It's a bit different from the situation where a completely new phoenix club is created after the old one goes defunct; this seems common in Italy. I think it's probably wise to keep the two Dukla Pragues apart, actually. Geschichte (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Maps for future World Cups

The venue maps for future World Cups have changed massively, but in my opinion, for the worst. The new map with numbers is tiny and confusing. The first time this map was used was for the 2022 World Cup under the basis that not every stadium was displayed on the map due to Qatar being a small country, which made sense.

But future men's and women's World Cup hosts like Brazil don't need this map and a normal table would do a great job of showcasing the stadiums and cities together because every city and stadium can be displayed and seen perfectly well.

So while the numbered map works for Qatar, it doesn't translate at all well for other countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia. I also don't believe that it a one or the other situation, because the map makes sense for Qatar, but not for Saudi Arabia.

I believe that it makes sense to revert back to the table format for the World Cup venues for countries who are hosting solo World Cups or just the amount of stadiums are fewer.

For example, for the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup in Brazil, you don't a numbered map and this table below works perfectly.

Rio de Janeiro	Brasília	Belo Horizonte	Fortaleza
Estádio do Maracanã	Arena BRB Mané Garrincha (Estádio Nacional Mané Garrincha)	Estádio Mineirão	Arena Castelão
Capacity: 73,139	Capacity: 69,910	Capacity: 66,658	Capacity: 57,876
Porto Alegre	Belo Horizonte Brasília Fortaleza Porto Alegre São Paulo Rio de Janeiro Salvador Cuiabá Manaus Recife class=notpageimage| Location of the host cities of the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup.		Salvador
Estádio Beira-Rio			Casa de Apostas Arena Fonte Nova (Arena Fonte Nova)
Capacity: 49,055			Capacity: 47,915
São Paulo	Recife	Manaus	Cuiabá
Neo Química Arena (Arena Corinthians)	Arena Pernambuco	Arena da Amazônia	Arena Pantanal
Capacity: 47,252	Capacity: 45,440	Capacity: 42,924	Capacity: 42,788

ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. By the reason why a different map was used, was not because of the size of the country but because of copyright laws of the country preventing us from having free images of the stadiums. Tvx1 17:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you name a country that has copyright problems surrounding maps? Personally, I have never heard of that law before. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not very common. Qatar is pretty strict: https://en.as.com/soccer/the-places-where-it-is-forbidden-to-take-photos-at-the-qatar-2022-world-cup-n/

This created a lot of big blank spaces in the map and @AFC Vixen worked on a new way to display the map. Personally, I find the new style to be better for mobile versatility. The huge map above is very hard to look at on a smartphone. It is so big and it doesn't adapt to smaller screens. Chris1834 Talk 19:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen the new map/stadiums style on the phone and it doesn't adapt well either. While the map is better, you can't see the stadiums at all on the phone, so I don't think there is a clear or significant difference between both styles as they are both pretty squashed.

I use my laptop a lot more than my phone and I don't think that the slight improvement the new map makes for phone users is enough that laptop/computer users need to be hindered by the changes. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not with the map! With images of the stadiums. There is no freedom of panorama in Qatar! Tvx1 10:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@ILoveSport2006, Tvx1, and Chris1834: Personally, I loathe these table–map hybrids. They take extraordinary amounts of space and don't allow for sorting of data by name or capacity among other possible sortable data points. It's my understanding that most editors want images of every single venue used by a tournament, and I'm convinced that's the only reason these table–map hybrids are still widely used – there'd be no need for them otherwise. With that said, I did propose a compromise at Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup to retain a gallery of images using a carousel, though that didn't attract any response, and I've since discovered that it displays terribly on mobile. Otherwise, here's another idea of what I'd replace the above with:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Many venues built for the 2014 FIFA World Cup, such as the Estádio Nacional (pictured), will be reused.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc aliquet orci vel felis iaculis vestibulum. Proin semper nisi et lectus mollis blandit. Donec et magna scelerisque, facilisis mauris vel, bibendum ipsum. Pellentesque efficitur elit ante, a facilisis nisl dignissim a. Morbi dapibus sem eu enim tristique, in hendrerit augue tincidunt.^[1][2] Phasellus faucibus risus vitae suscipit pellentesque. Cras faucibus mattis porttitor. Vivamus lacus felis, tempus quis sapien id, feugiat tempus ligula.^[3] Duis sit amet scelerisque lectus. Suspendisse facilisis augue sapien, maximus tincidunt nibh posuere id. Etiam aliquet augue nisl, non vehicula metus semper ut. Morbi quis ultricies erat.^[1][3][4]

Quisque non volutpat velit, ut feugiat erat. Curabitur a vulputate tortor, at consequat quam. Integer a enim molestie, lobortis ante nec, efficitur enim. Nunc commodo tristique metus, eget bibendum mauris faucibus at.^[1] Donec scelerisque, nisi vel vehicula ultrices, augue quam consectetur lectus, in scelerisque nisi neque a ipsum. Duis ac pretium lectus. Suspendisse eget cursus diam. Quisque odio tortor, accumsan eget leo eget, blandit pretium ipsum. Maecenas condimentum tincidunt efficitur. Vestibulum non commodo metus. Suspendisse scelerisque congue erat sed pellentesque.^[2][5] Maecenas sed pretium eros. Maecenas arcu eros, tempus quis felis vitae, cursus facilisis nunc. Pellentesque efficitur elit ante, a facilisis nisl digniss.^[6]

1500km
900miles

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

  

(Interactive map; click the ▢ to view)
Host cities nominated in the CBF's bid for the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup.

2027 FIFA Women's World Cup venues

Host City	Venue	Capacity
1 Rio de Janeiro	Maracanã Stadium	73,139
2 Brasília	Estádio Nacional Mané Garrincha	69,910
3 Belo Horizonte	Mineirão	66,658
4 Fortaleza	Castelão	57,876
5 Porto Alegre	Estádio Beira-Rio	49,055
6 Salvador	Arena Fonte Nova	47,915
7 São Paulo	Neo Quimica Arena	47,252
8 Recife	Arena Pernambuco	45,440
9 Manaus	Arena da Amazônia	42,924
10 Cuiabá	Arena Pantanal	42,788

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

I'd like to direct particular attention to the use of images in the map, which is another idea I had for a compromise – I suspect most editors don't know images can be added to an {{OSM Location map}}. In articles where appropriate, a column in the wikitable noting whether the venue was pre-existing, built for the tournament, upgraded, ect. would also be helpful. — AFC Vixen 🦊 03:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't think having images of each venue on the tournament page adds much. --SuperJew (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it does. I honestly don’t prefer the proposed alternative at all. I’m als honestly puzzled by the claims that the classic format has visibility issues on mobile devices. I’m watching it and typing this on my smartphone and I have no issue seeing it. Tvx1 10:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this screenshot from my device can illustrate it for you. Compare this with screenshots of the article and map format I proposed above. Nevermind even the glaring issue of {{Location map+}} forcing a width size for the centre two columns, consider just the fact that only a portion of the table–map even fits on the screen at a legible page size. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, while on my phone, the map is fine but the stadium pictures are squashed so the new map/stadium system virtually does nothing. I also don't think it is fair that the maps got changed because one or two people do not like it. That's not enough input to change it for everyone. This talk page already has differing opinions. Personally, I think the table–map hybrids is great and should be kept. As far as I know, there was never any consensus that the new map style was the way to go for every tournament onwards. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, these days with the preview of articles on hovering, you can see the image that way easily enough. Secondly, why are stadiums different than anything else? Why not have images of all the coaches? Or all the players? Tbh personally apart from a handful, I wouldn't recognise many venues from their aerial screenshot anyway. --SuperJew (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have never needed the image for a stadium. If I want to know more about a particular stadium, I go to that article. This article is about the event and the stadium box is just massive when the stadium is a small part of the overall tournament. The relevant information about the stadium for this article is where it is and what the capacity is. The picture of the stadium is superfluous and doesn't really add necessary information for this tournament. Chris1834 Talk 13:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think stadium pictures add a lot and and is a good way to differentiate each edition by showing a different set of venues. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@SuperJew You are probably different to me, but I can recognise stadiums via their aerial screenshots. So for me, the pictures are useful. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's probably anyways an irrelevant point who can or can't recognise the stadiums from the pictures. But my point is expanded by what Chris1834 wrote. It gives an undue weight to the stadiums in comparison to other components of the tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not because it shows that for me and maybe other people, the pictures ARE relevant. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the pics are not really needed. Kante4 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Have to disagree, each venue is different and having a quick visual overview is helpful to potential readers. A sortable list with images is not an impossible proposition, plenty of FLs integrate images just fine. I also am opposed to burying images in the interactive maps, as they are not as obvious and intuitive to use; there's a reason we don't use dropdowns unless absolutely necessary. SounderBruce 05:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chris1834, ILoveSport2006, Kante4, SuperJew, and Tvx1: Would you folks be opposed to me opening an RfC on whether or not we need images of all venues in a tournament article? I feel that it'd be important to resolve this particular issue first before further discussion, and that it'd be wise to gather opinions from readers and editors who aren't necessarily sports fans, nor regularly edit sports articles. — AFC Vixen 🦊 09:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

no opposition here :) --SuperJew (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Kante4 (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to provide more traction for this discussion. Chris1834 Talk 12:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include @SounderBruce in the conversation also? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I mistakenly missed them when copy+pasting usernames. Apologies. — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for D.C. United

D.C. United has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC at WikiProject Sports

An RfC at WikiProject Sports is currently seeking a consensus on whether images of all venues in a tournament should be presented in a tournament article's § Venues section. Feel free to join in and share your thoughts! — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country

Would anyone object to this article going to AfD? Govvy (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nm, I decided to send it to AfD anyway if anyone is interested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

FIFA Series

Hey, Elditya 029 (talk · contribs) is adding the FIFA Series to the honours section of footballers. It's a friendly competition which should not be added or? Kante4 (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple champions? What a strange setup, I am not sure I quite get the tournament style. Govvy (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely not an honour, the 'competition' is just a series of friendly matches. Should be removed from all honours sections. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Also (apart from Egypt Series), these are 4-team round robin, but each team plays only 2 others. -- SuperJew (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed it from all articles i could find. Kante4 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Christian Wood (soccer)

I was trying to do some searches on the guy, but too many other people with the same name were getting in the way of searches, I was considering sending the article to AfD, unless someone else decides to do that, or someone can find decent sources or not. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling - most sources about the basketball player? I suggest send to AFD. GiantSnowman 19:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that there are two redirect targets as well, All-time Rochester Rhinos roster and 2022 Rochester New York FC season. Since he only played one season for one team. Geschichte (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Alas, I am not impressed with either of those for a redirect, does the season article even pass NSEASONS? The all time roster, is that nessessary? It's just a list, doing what a category already does. And certainly lacks sourcing. Anyway, I've decided to send the article to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Wood (soccer). Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The 'Roster' is probably the best target. GiantSnowman 18:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This guy seems even less notable. Geschichte (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Results-by-round

Back with a vengeance, thanks to ChampsRT (talk · contribs). I believe our stance was that these are useless due to fixtures being postponed and being played out of sync, hence giving a false snapshot of league positions? Seasider53 (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If someone wants to know a team's results by round, they can just look at the list of results. It's a pointless duplication of information. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me so much, but it is kinda replication of data. There are also grounds you could class it as a breach of WP:OR. But I honestly can't remember if we had a consensus against them or not. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you can look at the list of results, but wouldn't it be more clear to summarise it all in a table? Lets say if you want to check out how a team did in the previous season, you can also see what position they were in a a certain point of the season and how many points they had at that stage.

As for fixtures postponed, we can always adjust the rounds played, and we can record the positions either after the weekend fixtures or the weekday ones. I believe the results by round is a clear and concise way to show how a team performed in a season. ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 00:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I recall being a part of the previous discussion, and the consensus at the time was that "results by round" tables are discouraged precisely for the reasons cited by Seasider53. For example, if the Manchester Derby were to be postponed, the "Round X" results of Man U and Man City would not be accurate. The match is still officially part of "Round X" even if it is played during the week of "Round Q" two months later. While not WP:OR, it introduces misleading information since it appears that a result was recorded during the season before it actually occurred. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If they are postponed, we can change the order of the round numbers, such as moving round 18 to be behind round 27 etc. As for the rankings for that round, we can record the position at the time where the match finished for the affected teams, whilst the unaffected teams will have their position recorded on the next gameweek they play. ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 05:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

All of the above sounds very much like OR to me. It would be valid to show the team's position as at specific listed dates, but basing things on this nebulous concept of "gameweeks"/"round numbers" and arbitrarily moving matches around just smacks of OR -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to include a team's league position after the match, there are ways to do that within the list of results and that should achieve your aims without the need for an extra table. See 2023–24 Kilmarnock F.C. season#Premiership as one example. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for a Leeds United task force

Hi, all. If you are interested in helping to improve coverage of articles related to Leeds United, please consider joining a proposed task force. I've created a pilot page which illustrates some objectives. Any questions, please ask. Thank you. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has been heavily involved in the Manchester United task force over the years, I'll say that I doubt a Leeds United task force would get sufficient membership to warrant creation. I suggest you create to-do lists in your own userspace. What would creating a task force actually help you to do that you can't do without one? – PeeJay 17:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay, this project is a task force, if you ever need help with something just ask here. Everyone else has different clubs, but overall, a lot of people have resources that can help you if you're looking for something. Govvy (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Joao Ortiz#Requested move 9 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Joao Ortiz#Requested move 9 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 USL Championship Playoffs#Requested move 9 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 USL Championship Playoffs#Requested move 9 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Swedish club names

I was prompted to look up Gunnar Gren a few days ago and was frustrated by the state of the article, I did not read long before being met with the line 'He made his Allsvenskan debut on 1 May 1938 against Malmö, which resulted in a scoreless draw.'

As a reader, I have no idea which Malmö club it was Gunnar Gren made his debut against in 1938 without clicking the link unless I happen to know which Malmö club played in the same series as Gårda BK in 1938, a degree of knowledge that it is very ambitious to expect from any reader. Were they in the same series as Malmö FF, IFK Malmö or Malmö BI? I have no idea, and neither will any other reader.

As it turns out the article used to specify that it was Malmö FF Gren debuted against, but someone has recently shortened all the Swedish club names in the article, creating the ambiguity.

Now, I could just edit that line in the Gunnar Gren article and move on, but this is a persistent issue I have come across in multiple articles about Swedish football, where one or a small number of editors shorten Swedish club names from the formal and unambiguous full name to the ambiguous and informal short name, for example someone recently edited the article on Jimmy Thelin to change all mentions of Jönköpings Södra IF from the specific and formal name to the non-specific (and arguably incorrect) 'Jönköping'.

These edits mostly seem to be made by one or a small number of editors with no knowledge of the Swedish language and little or no contextual knowledge about Swedish football (shortening the names without removing the possessive s at the end of many of them, like shortening Djurgårdens IF to 'Djurgårdens' instead of Djurgården, is a dead give-away that the person(s) making these edits does not have even a very basic understanding of Swedish)

Swedish football clubs do not 'own' location names, referring to Malmö FF as just 'Malmö', like in the Gunnar Gren article that sparked this complaint, is not only confusing to the reader but also an expression of the biases of the editor. Malmö FF, IFK Malmö, Malmö City FC and historical clubs like Malmö BI all have equal claim to the name of the city.

To make a comparison with English football, talking about Malmö FF as 'Malmö' is akin to talking about Manchester City as Manchester or Sheffield United as Sheffield, it works in informal contexts where other contextual cues makes it clear which club is being referred to, like in a conversation with friends or during a match broadcast, in formal contexts it is confusing and biased, fans of Manchester United and Sheffield Wednesday are bound to take offence. It is absolutely not acceptable in an encyclopaedic context where clarity and neutrality is important.

Malmö is not a unique case, in fact it is the norm in Swedish football. 'Göteborg' can refer to IFK Göteborg, but also to women's club Göteborg FC, or Göteborgs FF, occasionally to GAIS, and to historic clubs like Göteborgs IK or Göteborgs AIK, who Gunnar Gren played for. Beyond that, there are three different clubs named Trelleborg, three different clubs from Eskilstuna with the city in their name have played in Allsvenskan, you cannot talk about GIF Sundsvall as Sundsvall or Kalmar FF as Kalmar without getting angry hate mail from IFK Sundsvall and Kalmar AIK supporters and then there is the confusing, frustrating mess that is Karlstad football and countless other examples.

You cannot choose who gets to be 'Malmö' in the article on Allsvenskan in 1959, who gets to be 'Skövde' in the article about Sargon Abraham or who gets to be 'Karlstad' in the article on 2024 Ettan without engaging in some form of personal bias.

Now, some Swedish football clubs do have truly unique short names, either because they come from a very small town like Mjällby AIF, are named after a neighbourhood like Örgryte IS, an object from mythology like IK Sleipner or a specific geographical feature like Utsiktens BK, but for the sake of consistency I argue that the long name should always be used. It is simply the solution that asks the least from both editors and readers.

I therefore propose that:

- Infoboxes, article headers and first mentions in article texts and similar always use the long club names for Swedish clubs, as has been the norm in articles about Swedish football

- Club articles be amended to make note that 'Malmö', 'Göteborg', 'Jönköping' etc. is informal and non-specific language

91.128.201.156 (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Seasider53 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the links on the article you questioned, I can understand where you're coming from, because the one that bothers me is when people remove the AC from AC Milan in infoboxes or in the article. Do there forget there is Inter Milan also?? Govvy (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to tag users into these conversations? The person who made the edits on the Gunnar Gren and the Jimmy Thelin article is now make the same edits on the Sven-Göran Eriksson article ¨¨¨¨ 91.128.201.156 (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@LightingMan01. See this, this and this edit. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 13:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I doubt they will responding, judging by their nuking of their talk page whenever the they are left a message. Seasider53 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Robbie Fowler

Robbie Fowler has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack Clarke (footballer, born 2000) stats?

They don't much up with soccerway however I think they match up with soccerbase, maybe someone who is better with stats can double check its all okay. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just that Soccerway include playoffs in with regular season matches, but Soccerbase don't and neither does Wikipedia. The stats look OK to me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

k, don't know why soccerway does that, cheer Struway. Govvy (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a common problem. For players outside the UK, I often use worldfootball.net to differentiate play-off appearances. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Soccerway is arguably the most reliable source overall since it has reports on basically all the games that are accurate, but yeah they tend to mush stuff up and there are occasionally some small errors. In leagues where there are play-offs, I always look up the league season and see what the play-offs games were and then look to see if the player played in those games. Checking out other sources is a good option too-- Soccerbase, I like. WorldFootball.net is often erroneous for obscure players but for players that are well-document, it's good. FootballDatabase.eu can be an option too although I'm not sure how accurate it is, it's hit or miss. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. FootballDatabase.eu is on our list of deprecated sources at WP:WPFLINKSNO. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that Soccerway regards playoff matches in Norway as league matches. Norway has its own site fotball.no (Template:NFF) which should be double-checked - in case anyone writes about that country, which they probably don't... Soccerway is also garbage for youth international matches. WorldFootball.net is often bad for second-tier leagues, and don't mark loans as loans. Both sites have some erroneous positions. Checking multiple sources is good. Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

List of foreign footballers in the Persian Gulf Pro League

Is this normal? I've never seen a list of foreigners in the Premier League, seems wrong somehow. Govvy (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's at List of foreign Premier League players. There are loads of such articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Blimey, that Premier League one is outdated, I don't know, seems pointless to me, because the list would be off the chart and paradoxical. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It has no sources at all (as does its partner 1920-2000 one) and would almost certainly be deleted at AfD unless such a source exists. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely that a single source exists listing all foreign PL players for its entire 30+ year history, so you'd potentially be looking at individually sourcing well over 2500 players, a number which is of course going to continue to balloon given that dozens of new foreign players join the PL every season..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually I stand corrected, the one and only source in the article does actually allow users to bring up all PL players of any given nationality using filters. There's probably still the question of whether we need an article listing nearly 3000 players.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Would be perfectly fine with deleting these for every league. They're mostly just trivia- especially for large leagues like the Premier League where a large percentage of players are foreign. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like for some leagues, such as the Premier League, where foreign players are a large percentage and there are no (afaik?) restrictions on foreign players, there isn't much point to such an article. However, there are many smaller leagues which have restrictions on number of foreign players and then such pages are more managable and also more notable. --SuperJew (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention the constant need to maintain these lists, shall we have a quick consensus, on who is for deleting, to start with List of foreign Premier League players? Govvy (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that any different than the constant need to maintain squad lists (both in club articles and in the navboxes)? I don't disagree about the need, but I don't think it is a relevant consideration if to keep or delete. --SuperJew (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that as a sort of start, several second-tier leagues have had their lists deleted. For the country that started this thread, Iran, it happened via PROD; for some countries it was through AFD including Norway and Albania. Second tier often have bigger problems with verifiability.

However, it used to be normal for newspapers to report/list all the foreign players in a league at a given time. In the Norwegian press, this was even done for England and Italy. But that was a long time ago when foreign players were few and far between.

A final point is that a large number of players are not "foreign" to Country A in that they were born there, they just represent another country. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I prodded List of foreign footballers in Iran 1920–2000, strange scope compared to the others mentioned aboive. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

regarding your final point, there just needs to be a clear definition of what the meaning of "foreign player" is. Many leagues have rules for "visa players" --SuperJew (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Champions League

I don't wanna sound too harsh, but I just took a peek at the UEFA Champions League's article, along with the History of the European Cup and UEFA Champions League. I have to say I was a bit let down by the current state of both articles. I'm pretty sure most of the editors in this project contribute to European football, so I hope somebody comes along and does justice to both articles. I would have given it a go but I don't wanna to ruin it with my Indian English, and my vacations ends tomorrow. My bucket list is pretty full already and hopefully somebody does the needful. Regards. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 20:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

expat categories

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Neo Quimica Arena

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

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)

Zamalek SC

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)

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)

AC Milan (redux)

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)

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

@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)

Luís Semedo at Juventus

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

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)

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

Redirection football club articles

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)

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

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)

Newcastle United F.C. listed for Good article reassessment

Newcastle United F.C. has been listed under Good article reassessment. If you have anything to add, please do by adding to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with transclusion

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Wow, turns out it was really easy! All I had to do for mine was (check in edit mode to see the coding):

[on Scotland national football team manager]

(table is here)

[save]

[on Scotland national football team]

(Replace existing table with)

The following table provides a summary of the complete record of each Scotland manager, including their progress in both the World Cup and the European Championship. Statistically the most successful manager was Alex McLeish, who won seven of the ten games in his first spell. Discounting managers who took charge of less than ten games, the least successful manager was George Burley, with just three wins in 14 games.

Name	Scotland career	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost	Win %	PPG
Selection committee	1872–1953	231	139	42	50	060.17	1.99
Andy Beattie	1954	6	2	1	3	033.33	1.17
Selection committee	1954–1957	23	10	7	6	043.48	1.61
Dawson Walker	1958	6	1	2	3	016.67	0.83
Matt Busby	1958	2	1	1	0	050.00	2
Andy Beattie	1959–1960	12	3	3	6	025.00	1
Ian McColl	1960–1965	28	17	3	8	060.71	1.93
Jock Stein	1965–1966	7	3	1	3	042.86	1.43
John Prentice	1966	4	0	1	3	000.00	0.25
Malky McDonald	1966–1967	2	1	1	0	050.00	2
Bobby Brown	1967–1971	33	14	8	11	042.42	1.52
Tommy Docherty	1971–1972	12	7	2	3	058.33	1.92
Willie Ormond	1973–1977	38	18	8	12	047.37	1.63
Ally MacLeod	1977–1978	17	7	5	5	041.18	1.53
Jock Stein	1978–1985	61	26	12	23	042.62	1.48
Alex Ferguson	1985–1986	10	3	4	3	030.00	1.3
Andy Roxburgh	1986–1993	61	23	19	19	037.70	1.44
Craig Brown	1993–2002	71	32	18	21	045.07	1.61
Berti Vogts	2002–2004	32	9	7	16	028.13	1.06
Tommy Burns	2004	1	0	0	1	000.00	0
Walter Smith	2004–2007	16	7	5	4	043.75	1.63
Alex McLeish	2007	10	7	0	3	070.00	2.1
George Burley	2008–2009	14	3	3	8	021.43	0.86
Craig Levein	2009–2012	24	10	5	9	041.67	1.46
Billy Stark	2012	1	1	0	0	100.00	3
Gordon Strachan	2013–2017	40	19	9	12	047.50	1.65
Malky Mackay	2017	1	0	0	1	000.00	0
Alex McLeish	2018–2019	12	5	0	7	041.67	1.25
Steve Clarke	2019–present	60	25	14	21	041.67	1.48
Totals		835	393	181	261	047.07	1.63

Last updated: Portugal v Scotland, 8 September 2024. Statistics include official FIFA-recognised matches, five matches from the 1967 SFA tour that were reclassified as full internationals in 2021, and a match against a Hong Kong League XI played on 23 May 2002 that the Scottish Football Association includes in its statistical totals.

[save]

Hopefully yours is equally straightforward, if not feel free to give me a shout - since I am now an expert having completed the process once. Crowsus (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References

References

Technical help on Lafarge Foot Avenir

Hello, I need technical help on Lafarge Foot Avenir#2024. England and France should have 4 points each despite having 3 draws since they each won a penalty shoot-out that gave them a bonus point. See source in line above. If you can make it 4 points that would be helpful. The France vs Portugal shoot-out was cancelled due to rain FYI. If you can add a lower-alpha note for that I'd appreciate it (I'm not feeling too hot rn). Cheers. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: Thanks :-) Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

User:EnglishDude98

Assistance needed with EnglishDude98 (talk · contribs) please, who has a habit of creating mainspace article about non-notable footballers and/or creating mainspace articles which already exist in user/draft space. Ignored the majority of my messages and they continue. The next step will be a block, which I am trying to avoid. GiantSnowman 17:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll help you tomorrow if I can, if still needed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

They appear to have calmed down and said they will stop. GiantSnowman 17:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I take it back, he is still at it - he has just created Dylan Mitchell even though a draft already exists in draft space. GiantSnowman 20:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Olympic Football Tournament

Why include olympic titles won by the olympic teams in the honors of the senior national teams? FIFA counts the olympic titles for senior national teams from 1908 to 1948, the rest of medals are honors for the olympic teams (amateur team and now under-23 team) Alphafelidae (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how each team deals, Brazil separates the Olympic/Pan American history from the full A team. Svartner (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

For the men's Olympic tournaments, they are under-23 events (since 1950s), and so should be listed on the under-23s/Olympic football team's articles, not the senior team article. Apart from the winners 1908-1948 which were the senior teams. For women's Olympic tournaments, I believe they are senior events, and thus should be listed at the senior teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, the tournament became an under-23 event in 1992. Only amateurs were allowed from 1908 to 1980, while for 1984 and 1988 professionals that did not appear in a World Cup were allowed (source from RSSSF). Matches from 1908 to 1956 were considered official "A" internationals (source from IFFHS). The history between 1960 and 1988 is complicated, as FIFA does not recognise these as "A" internationals. Many national associations considered these matches full internationals at the time, only to later downgrade them. However some national associations still count them in their "A" team records (for example Norway). For East Germany's records, they only count the Olympic matches they played against other "A" teams. So I would say it's hardly clear cut, but from 1960 onward, honours belong on the Olympic team article. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Steaua links

Cezxmer makes disruptive edits by changing FCSB links to CSA Steaua ones, which is against the consensus. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This RFC was a joke and it needs to be redone. Zero WP:RS and superficial comments. It's not that I disagree, but this is a complex dispute that can't be reduced to simple sophisms. It also doesn't help that there aren't many English sources. Cezxmer (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The reality is that the RfC represents the current consensus, and the links should not be modified without further discussion and changed consensus. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The reality is that you are changing the links from a club founded in 1947 to a club founded in 2003. Cezxmer (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

2025 FIFA Club World Cup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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)

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: [5] or [6], for example. SinisterUnion (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [7]; [8] - saying inaugural champion in the video; [9] - 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: [10] (AP News); [11] (Sportbuzz); [12] (Inside World Football); [13] (Inside World Football); [14] (Diario AS).

Also, we have Confederations treating 2025 edition as the inaugural one, for example: [15].

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)

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)

Yes, for AP News source you read you can go and argue that, but you cannot reach a conclusion based solely on that source, since I have included several sources (I suggest read all them to reach a better conclusion) that prove that non-primary sources adapted themselves with the way FIFA is treating this tournament: "the inaugural champion" and "the inaugural edition".

I also suggest to watch an official video from about 10 days ago, which is very enlightening on how they are treating the tournament, on FIFA's Instagram saying "...by the inaugural champion" [6] that proves the way the football governing body decided to treat the tournament.

And this is not a move FIFA's doing from 10 days ago only, they are treating the tournament like that since at least begin of June, as I was able to verify here through quick research.

Finally and most important, I found the official text/document on FIFA's website to prove it (even more) and there we can see, for example, this: "Find out all the information on the new club tournament with details of qualified teams, dates, competition format, hosts, tickets and more"; "New tournament will be played for the first time in 2025"; "FIFA's new prime club competition - the FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ - will grace the world stage in June and July 2025, when 32 of the globe's leading teams gather in the USA for the inaugural edition." [16]

So, now, I don't see any other way, other than adapting ourselves to the new reality. As I said before, I know it's going to take some work, but that's why we editors are here. We can't leave an article as important as this one outdated, wrong and and in disagreement with both FIFA and a lot of important non-primary sources. SinisterUnion (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see another path, and that is to wait for a while. I'll bet that FIFA says something different when the 2024 Copa Libertadores is completed, like "this is the fourth appearance by São Paulo" (or some such), and that will trigger a new round of people wanting to change the article back. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're doing a futurology exercise here.

I think it is completely wrong and lazy don't adapt ourselves (Wikipedia) to reality, waiting that FIFA could change how they treat this tournament in the future.

What we can do is a behavioral analysis, based on actions already taken and since June at least, FIFA has been emphasizing on treating this tournament as the inaugural edition where there will be the inaugural champion of this new tournament. This has become stronger and more emphasized in recent days, as we can see here: [17]

Now, if you really want to do a futurology exercise (where we use the trend) what we can conclude based on the information we have is that the trend is (since this movement has been going on since June and we are getting closer and closer to the tournament) to continue considering it as an inaugural tournament and its champion as the inaugural one too. SinisterUnion (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

FIFA's website was pretty clear it was a new competition last year...then they deleted all mention of it and it looked to be a continuation. Now it seems they are leaning in to it being a new tournament again...but they have flipped flopped more than once. So, just because it is currently being billed that way, doesn't negate all of the past. You have way more editors currently against the change and all you are doing is trying to force your opinion on everyone else. This is why we get consensus. You don't have it...if anything there is consensus against making the change. Chris1834 Talk 14:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't have consensus at all against making the change, you are giving an example from last year, you are against FIFA and a lot of important non-primary sources. It just looks lazy not wanting to adapt to the new reality. SinisterUnion (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a change of format, but the competition is the same, returning to the failed idea of ​​2000/2001, as a tournament with a group stage. The new competition is the FIFA Intercontinental Cup, which inherits the previous format. I understand the confusion of those who are not so familiar with the topic, but upon careful analysis it becomes clear. Svartner (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources that show that the new competition in fact is the FIFA Intercontinental Cup (Coupe Intercontinentale de la FIFA): [18] [19]. Svartner (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but reading your comment looks like you didn't read all replies, since you just posted one source from 9 months ago. I suggest you to read everything to understand what is happening and become more familiar with the changes on FIFA's treatment on this tournament (also important non-primary sources too).

If you too busy to do that, I suggest you read this reply where I give a resume of what is just happening with this situation more recently.

Also, the 2nd source you posted (the one from FIFA) just endorses my argument, where it says "The inaugural edition will be played later this year" about the FIFA Intercontinental Cup. So, how can you argue that FIFA Intercontinental Cup will be a new competition but 2025 FIFA Club World Cup (that FIFA treats same way: inaugural edition/inaugural champion) won't? Inconsistent. SinisterUnion (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I read everything, the issue is that some people and media outlets are confusing the change in format of the competition as being a new tournament. It already happened from 2000/2001 to 2005, and now it returns to its original groups format. Svartner (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If you really read everything it's more worrying than I imagined. Either you don't want to accept the new reality or you don't want to work.. or both.

Nobody is "confusing" the change in format of the competition, it is FIFA (international governing body of association football) saying this is a new tournament and also a lot of important secondary coverage examples, from important media, to prove the fact is truly "noteworthy". So, following Wikipedia guidelines, it is worth making a change to the article to correct it. SinisterUnion (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

TO @SinisterUnion: pretty poor form to go and make the changes to the article anyway, despite their being no consensus reached at this site, on the basis that the arguments presented here are not valid and that you must follow Wikipedia guidelines regardless. Consensus now needs to be established here first; also be mindful about WP:3RR, and its application in this case. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

SinisterUnion you need simply to wait. There were other two users in the past convinced about the same thing, insisting on editing the article because it needed to be like that. See history page. As a result, they were blocked from editing. You appear to back up the same evidence because of those sources. Please wait and see for the time being. You edited again the article, soon reverted because wait is needed now, despite those sources. Island92 (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright guys, as soon as new information and news emerges I will post it here to continue updating you.

Just in time, the last one was published today by ESPN: "The inaugural tournament, in which 32 teams from across the globe will compete..." [20] SinisterUnion (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

From the same source "launch the expanded version of the tournament". These are some of the issues we are talking about. How can you have an expanded tournament that is brand new? You either have a brand new tournament that has 32 teams or you have a revamped, expanded tournament. Chris1834 Talk 18:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You are completely misinterpreting, it says "expanded version of the tournament" not "expanded tournament" like you interpreted.

Contextualizing, in the article the author is talking about the tournaments that have already defined the clubs that were world champions (Intercontinental Cup, FIFA Club World Cup/Championship (2000-23) and now the inaugural FIFA Club World Cup in 2025).

An expanded version of the tournament does not mean an "expanded tournament" like you said, it means a different version, expanded one, comparing to the old tournament (otherwise he would say expanded tournament too). That's why in the same article the same author says: "The inaugural tournament, in which 32 teams from across the globe will compete...".

So, on the contrary, your argument and the sentence you highlighted only endorses that it is a new tournament. SinisterUnion (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It cannot be a new tournament. The name FIFA Club World Cup is still there. The format has changed, only. FIFA Intercontinental Cup is a brand new tournament. 2025 FIFA Club World Cup will be a new expanded tournament which 32 teams from across the globe will compete at. For the time being we should not add nothing to it. Island92 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Not only can it be a new tournament, but it will be. You just giving your opinion that doesn't change anything in the world. FIFA says so, as do several extremely relevant secondary sources, such as ESPN, for example, and these are the only relevant thing here.

With each example you give, you contradict yourself and unintentionally argue in my favor.

You say "It cannot be a new tournament. The name FIFA Club World Cup is still there." Well, you say that Intercontinental Cup is a new tournament, but it has the same name as the competition held from 1960 to 2004, so they would be the same tournament based on your arguments.

So this just shows how weak and wrong are your arguments, desperately trying to find some final argument, a needle in a haystack, that still fits into a narrative to defend that it is the same tournament, which is, nowadays, defend the indefensible. SinisterUnion (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Stop inventing. The previous tournament ran from 1960 to 2004 was called just Intercontinental Cup, NOT FIFA Intercontinental Cup. It was endorsed by UEFA and CONBEMOL. On 16 December 2022, the FIFA Council approved the expansion of the FIFA Club World Cup from seven to thirty-two teams beginning in 2025. The 2023 tournament was therefore the last played under the previous format. However, confederations expressed to FIFA the need for the champions of their top club competitions to still play each other annually to "stimulate competitiveness". Therefore, on 14 March 2023, the FIFA Council approved a concept for an annual club competition beginning in 2024, later named as the FIFA Intercontinental Cup. It will feature the champions of the top club competitions of the six confederations of FIFA, namely the AFC Champions League, CAF Champions League, CONCACAF Champions Cup, Copa Libertadores, OFC Champions League and UEFA Champions League. The inaugural edition of the tournament is scheduled to take place in December 2024. Island92 (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I will draw for you.

I'm not inventing, I'm just using your own argument in another situation (which in this case doesn't favor you) and exposing your contradiction.

You used as argument that "It cannot be a new tournament. The name FIFA Club World Cup is still there." I said that argument is very weak and wrong since Intercontinental Cup (1960-2004) is not the same tournament as the new Intercontinental Cup created, although they both have Intercontinental Cup in their names. It doesn't mean they are the same tournament and the same applies for the new FIFA Club World Cup.

Also, at the time of its creation in 2000, the old tournament name was FIFA Club World Championship, not changing it until 2006. SinisterUnion (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest everyone reading all discussion, but if you don't have time I will help you summarizing the situation:

The international governing body of association football (FIFA) says 2025 is the inaugural edition and thats a fact. We can visit the tournament's official website to check, the tournament's guide on FIFA's official website, any article there (like the last one published) or any social media post from FIFA's official profiles (like this for example where it also says inaugural champion in the video).

Also, we have all important non-primary sources saying the same thing. 2025 FIFA Club World Cup is the inaugural edition of a new tournament, the same way FIFA says, as we can see at the last article published by ESPN a couple of days ago, just to give one example as I'm only summarizing here (for more examples read the full discussion, there a lot more there).

So, we have FIFA and all important non-primary sources saying the same thing, but we don't have consensus here. The valid arguments against this are that we should wait longer to see if FIFA will keep it that way.

Now, if we research we do find news from last year that this tournament was already being considered the inaugural one. But, what I really want to highlight here is that at least since June, FIFA has only been saying this tournament is the inaugural one, as we can see here, for example.

So, we already have (at least) 3 months of consolidation here, in my opinion more than enough to make a change. But I hope to hear more people's opinions and I fully respect them, whether they are in favor or against mine, this being my last comment in this discussion. Have a good one. SinisterUnion (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

A change should not be made, at least now. Firstly, I see no consensus, secondly, there is still a long time ahead before the tournament being held, hence just waiting does not cost anything. The closer we are to the tournament, the better. It cannot be considered new. It's only new because a new format involved more teams will be used. You can provide all the sources you want. "The inaugural edition under a new-expanded format". Island92 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Please stop posting the exact same sources over and over again. The ESPN source simultaneously calls the tournament "inaugural" while also talking about its history being developed from the Intercontinental Cup and describing the tournament's expansion. The AP article you shared does the exact same thing. It is abundantly clear that FIFA is trying to shift the usage of the name "FIFA Club World Cup" to this new format while seemingly ignoring the last 20+ years or shifting the history of the old tournament over to this FIFA Intercontinental Cup or something. A lot of these articles are pretty clearly repeating FIFA's marketing spin, and even then they are not keeping it straight. You posting multiple paragraphs saying the same thing over and over again is not advancing the discussion at all. Genuinely it may just be a matter of time before this might change, because right now this is far from straightforward. Jay eyem (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The FIFA Intercontinental Cup is the competition that will start from scratch, the previous Intercontinental Cup was organized by Toyota. Svartner (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I said it was my last comment in this discussion, however, with the emergence of new developments, I feel obliged to inform you here.

I applied for a ticket to watch the tournament and when registering my interest on FIFA's website, I came across the following message: "Join us at the first ever FIFA Club World Cup 2025™!" [21]

Also, an erratum to my last comment. While talking to a friend who is a Borussia Dortmund fan, he corrected me when I said that at least since June FIFA has only been treating it as the inaugural edition of its tournament. No. This has been going on since at least March when Borussia Dortmund's participation in the tournament was announced by FIFA: "German team become the latest club to qualify for the first edition of the new global tournament". [22] SinisterUnion (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"Join us at the first ever FIFA Club World Cup 2025." It doesn't mean anything it will be new from scratch. "German team become the latest club to qualify for the first edition of the new global tournament" it means just because more teams will be involved in this edition. As I said multiple times, you can provide all the sources you desire, but it is not a new tournament from zero. I've had enough of this talk, explaining things multiple times without no logical response. And I bet I'm not the only one who thinks that. This user instead insists on posting every source that claims it's new. It doesn't always work the same way on Wikipedia. Just wait. Island92 (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I read the discussion and that arguments from @Island92 catch me. “1st ever FIFA Club World Cup 2025 doesn't mean anything that it will be new from scratch” he said! I read that and it means exactly that it will be new from scratch! Now, about the German club you said “it means just because more teams will be involved in this edition”. No man, I read “the first edition of the new global tournament” and it means exactly the first edition of the new global tournament lol! I'm just starting out as a Wikipedia editor, and I'm still thinking about whether or not to create an account to become a hardcore editor, and I'm shocked by the (low) quality of the comments posted here by this Island guy. And no, I'm not trying to cause trouble because I've only just arrived. But this has to be exposed and we can't have these childish comments like this, trying to make bizarre interpretations against what is written in the sources provided by other users. It is terrible to have such childish comments influenting an important discussion. My opinion we should adopt FIFA’s definition on this tournament, being 2025 FIFA Club World CUP TM the 1st edition! Signed 45.178.63.78 (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Not now, despite those sources. The closer we are to the tournament, the better. The same claimed by other users as well. Is that difficult to just wait? Despite those sources all claiming this phantomatic new edition, things work slightly different here on Wikipedia. For the time being, the best solution is to wait and not rushing any interpretation that it could be a new tournament or not. Island92 (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Rather than judging me on those childish comments or not, I think I've got more experience here on Wikipedia than you. Just look at my contributions. Apparently, you "have only just arrived" which means you need to get used to how it works here. Take it as a suggestion, not a critic. Island92 (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are considering creating an account, you should start by reading WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. These comments have added nothing to this discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's focus on the discussion, by the way, another piece of news published by FIFA on its social media yesterday. They published it on Instagram stories and also on Facebook. [23] Open quotes: "...gave them enough points to qualify for the new tournament in the USA". [24]

Once again, this is in line with what FIFA has been preaching, as I said before, at least since March. So, I can't agree more that it's bizarre not to make a change after almost 6 months of stabilization in the way FIFA treats this tournament, namely, as being the 1st edition. SinisterUnion (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.