Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170: 7 days

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

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

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

Jill Scott honours

Hi all, I'm reaching out regarding a recent editing disagreement with user:Kingsif over the placement of Jill's bronze medal from the 2015 World Cup in the honours section. I had moved it below her gold medals from the European Championships and other tournaments, as it seems intuitive and consistent with how honours are typically ordered — with golds prioritized over lower placements.

Kingsif has reverted the edit, citing MOS guidance in support of keeping the bronze medal listed first. However, I’ve reviewed the Manual of Style, and I don’t believe it explicitly supports that interpretation — especially not in terms of giving bronze medals precedence over gold. In fact, there’s been frequent discussion around whether to include non-winning honours like runners-up finishes at all, which further suggests that golds should be given primacy.

While Kingsif argues that other player articles validate their approach, both men's and women's articles use the same MOS framework. And in my experience, the prevailing practice across these articles is to list victories (i.e., gold medals and championship wins) before second or third place finishes.

I’d really appreciate input from others here — both on the specific question of this article and the broader principle of how we prioritize honours. Thanks in advance! Rupert1904 (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd interpret the MOS as listing International honours by the level / importance of the trophy, so World Cup first, then Continental.

I certainly wouldn't put a World Cup honour below the Arnold Clark Cup or Cyprus Cup. Spike 'em (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret it this way: if they were all gold medals, then the World Cup would clearly take priority—it’s the most important, and that’s the standard we follow. And I agree with you on that. But in this case, it’s a bronze, not a gold. So they didn't even reach the final itself either. From what I’ve seen, the common approach is to weigh the level of the trophy first, but then prioritize golds over second or third-place finishes. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you’ve already made it clear you disagree with the consensus of everyone else and every other article. Repeating that doesn’t change those. Kingsif (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The order of honours should be based on the importance of the competition, in my opinion. However, in most player articles, the title won (continental level) takes precedence over a runner-up/third place in an international competition (e.g. world cup), see e.g. Michel Platini, Oliver Kahn, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge etc. Miria~01 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no actual consensus to place in order gold, silver, bronze- and in fact the MOS suggested that information on biographies should be chronological, but apparently sports fans just ignore that... My thoughts therefore would be to list in chronological order. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the French players who won the UEFA Nations League in 2020-21 but lost the World Cup final in 2022 also have the same order of the gold medal placed first. For instance Théo Hernandez, Aurélien Tchouaméni, Dayot Upamecano, Jules Koundé, and Jordan Veretout. I could pick out many other players as well to support my interpretation of the MOS and common edit practice I have seen over the years. Of course the first priority should be and is the most important competition when all are gold medals, but the standard I have seen is that the second priority is then trophy wins/golds when the most important trophy, in this case the World Cup, is a runners-up or third place finish. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: A question, regarding chronological order using Jill Scott as an example: In Option C (chronological) runner-up 2009 as European Champion would be decisive, But let's say that theoretically she was not third, but winner of the World Cup in 2015, would second place from 2009 still be decisive or would first placings be compared with each other ?

Option A (status quo: order by comp. importance) FIFA Women's World Cup third place: 2015 UEFA Women's Championship: 2022; runner-up: 2009 Cyprus Cup: 2009, 2013, 2015 Arnold Clark Cup: 2022	Option B (order by biggest title) UEFA Women's Championship: 2022; runner-up: 2009 FIFA Women's World Cup third place: 2015 Cyprus Cup: 2009, 2013, 2015 Arnold Clark Cup: 2022	Option C (chronological) UEFA Women's Championship: 2022; runner-up: 2009 Cyprus Cup: 2009, 2013, 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup third place: 2015 Arnold Clark Cup: 2022

Miria~01 (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take Luis Díaz as another example. Should his Portuguese League Cup runner-up finish with Porto be listed ahead of winning the Portuguese Super Cup? Should his Champions League runner-up medal with Liverpool be prioritized above actual league or domestic cup titles he’s won? That wouldn’t reflect the true weight of a player's achievements. Across honours sections, the consistent standard has been to rank by competition prestige when results are equivalent but victories take precedence over runner-up finishes. Prioritizing silver medals over gold distorts the significance of a player’s accomplishments. More importantly, players themselves almost universally value a trophy lift—no matter the competition—over falling short on a bigger stage. Rupert1904 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review: Draft:Mark Withers (American professional footballer)

Hi all — I’ve recently drafted an article about Mark Withers, an American professional footballer who has played in the NASL, MASL, Portugal, Andorra, and Australia (currently with Manningham United FC in NPL 2 Victoria). He is already mentioned as a redlink on multiple season pages (e.g., 2013 Atlanta Silverbacks season, 2013–14 Dallas Sidekicks season).

The draft is fully sourced and currently awaiting review: Draft:Mark Withers

If anyone in this project has time to review or provide feedback, it would be greatly appreciated! SoccerJourneyMan (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've made some improvements. Do you have a conflict of interest to disclose per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"League appearances and goals only; some data incomplete or estimated" - how do you "estimate" a player's appearances and goals? If the info isn't know definitively then don't show it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, thanks for this and agreed. This section is removed. SoccerJourneyMan (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the hyperlinks — I really appreciate it.

For transparency, I am Mark Withers, the subject of the draft. I’m contributing with the goal of keeping the article neutral and well-sourced. I am starting to work on articles about American soccer players who have played overseas.

I will disclose on the COI now. Thanks for the quick help with the page Robby.is.on. Any further edits are welcome. SoccerJourneyMan (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, please see WP:AUTOBIO. Giant Snowman 15:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reviewed the guideline and have added a disclosure on my user page, I think all correctly?

My intention is to keep the draft neutral, well-sourced, and open to improvements from other editors. Asking for and appreciate any feedback to help ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

I have made changes per Robbie.is.on and ChrisTheDude suggested. SoccerJourneyMan (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Club Atlético River Plate#Requested move 23 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Club Atlético River Plate#Requested move 23 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2013–14 Republika Srpska Cup

The article 2013–14 Republika Srpska Cup has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 12 years. Tagged for Notability concerns also for 12 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. Half of the teams in the article have no article themselves. Tournament organizers are from a country that isn't recognized by most countries.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The creator was blocked for creating unsourced articles like this. Bearian (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: The PROD was removed with no explanation, so I sent the article to AfD. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Stoners

There look to have been two iterations of a club by this name, one in the 70s/80s and one in the 2000s. Is it worth disambiguating and create a dab page at the base, even if the former club becomes a redirect to the league? It's caused some confusion for me at Stephen Constantine (trying to work out how he played for the new team in his 40s when he was already managing, when of course he must have played for the old team)? Giant Snowman 15:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2007 Stoners should probably be a footnote in an article about the 1979–83 team. Hack (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute between me (HalfOfAnOrange) and Blethering Scot over future fixture results

So we have a dispute over future results (mostly regarding the 2025–26 Premier League) with him claiming that I cannot display future fixture results since somehow that goes against a previously established consensus (I am not familiar with whatever this consensus is since I have no clue when it was decided) while I stated that since the fixtures were announced and can be moved in the even broadcasting, weather, or club success changes the fixture, they can displayed at any time. I would like to have some input from the greater project since this could solve our mediation. I did request an admin help mediate as well.

Currently as it stands, I have created a temporary solution where the future matches are hidden but are still embedded in the source code and depending on what is decided here, I can either remove the hider or keep it with editors to update any future matches (preferably those in BST or GMT as I am on the other side of the pond and cannot update it in real time). HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You posted on my talk page and then came here when I didn't bite - WP:FORUMSHOPPING. As I said there, as far as I can recall, we do not post fixtures for copyright reasons. Giant Snowman 21:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BS asked me to put it here since he claims that I didn't want to talk to him. I am not aware of all of the previous discussions related to footy. What is considered posting a fixture though, usually the scores are updated after the match ends, am I wrong? HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider this to be a dispute by any means. I advised consensus is that we do not display fixture lists, and told you to come here, before you then went to GS and then chose to come here. However as I have now said in multiple places we are not the news, we are not a fixture site. We cannot state these matches will take place, and as such we are essentially being a crystal ball. As GS says copyright is another reason, but I cant remember the specifics of that. I am sure other users will remember the specifics.Blethering Scot 21:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean that we cannot state that these matches will take place? Every single match is listed on the Premier League website, and even when a game is moved for weather or because of a clash with a cup tie, these games are still considered that game week's specific match. So if the Liverpool vs Bournemouth Premier League game which opens the season needs to be postponed for whatever reason it will still be an official matchweek 1 fixture no matter when it is played.

https://www.premierleague.com/en/matches?competition=8&season=2025&matchweek=1&month=08 Scubaspyro (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for easier discussion maybe redirect all discussion on single place

i recommend it here, rather than these two (User talk:GiantSnowman#Blethering Scot and User talk:HalfOfAnOrange#Fixture Lists)

for copyright reason, quick search based on this fixture is not copyright (if i understand it correctly)

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-17218968 Lokiretro (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is multiple discussions in archive about copyright for fixtures, but its not the reason I removed the lists. That was simply because we are not a news or fixture site and consensus has always been we don't host them. The same applies in multiple projects. For example we cant list cast lists in plays or musical articles until the show is open, even if next day. Same principal we know what is scheduled to happen, but not what will. Blethering Scot 21:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

copyright reason is offered from @GiantSnowman and i dont know if it will apply on wikipedia

if the reason is wp:crystallball i think it match point 1 Lokiretro (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by point 1? Blethering Scot 21:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also can you link to consensus?

i think for this mass edit you should notify everyone involved Lokiretro (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only people that are currently involved are in this thread and anyone who has been in the project when that consensus was reached. If members want to find previous discussions they can search the archive as I don't have time or energy to do so, but I recall what GS stated around copyright being one of the reasons at the time. I have been here since 2008 and we never have included future fixtures by default in that time. My reason as previously stated however was not copyright, but we are not a news or fixture site and yes we are not crystal balls. Encyclopaedias should be factual, and we cant guarantee they will be. In addition some of the fixture lists i have seen today had notes such as Selected for Sky TV. Its not the type of site Wikipedia is.Blethering Scot 21:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

looking at how many football club season article done it, i think something is wrong

about wp:crystalball

I have been here since 2008 and we never have included future fixtures by default in that time. My reason as previously stated however was not copyright, but we are not a news or fixture site and yes we are not crystal balls. Encyclopaedias should be factual, and we cant guarantee they will be.

if the reason is wp:crystallba@ll i think it match point 1

I am not sure what you mean by point 1?

in wp:crystalball point 1 stated Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. and i think football fixture with citation already match that requirement

about sky tv thing. the edit you mention is an addition in note section but there are sometime it is reasonable. sometime the match is picked for tv and change kickoff time and or date from first planned fixture

if future fixture somehow not approved, i agree with @HalfOfAnOrange solution. rather than remove it completely comment it out, so future wikipedia editor have easier time with the fixture Lokiretro (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated I have no issue with it at all. Its probably the best solution, but editors need to be careful when unhiding them to make sure they are exactly as the should be. For example kick off and date not changed. I used to make that mistake so know it happens. Blethering Scot 22:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC it was copyrighted years back but not anymore and at some point we had a discussion and it was ok to post the whole fixture list. Kante4 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a claim for copyright in fixture lists, but the ECJ threw that out over a decade ago now. I don't know why we wouldn't include them if we're eventually going to display them anyways - we do for World Cup Qualifying, for instance. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i assume you and @Kante4 talk about this https://www.bbc.com/news/business-17218968

also @Kante4 do you know which discussion is it? i ask @Blethering Scot but blethering scot don't have time or energy to do so

searching "consensus football fixture" give to much result

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=consensus+football+fixture&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns126=1&ns127=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&ns1728=1&ns1729=1 Lokiretro (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will have them once they have happened. Fixtures change all the time, and its not something we can guarantee will happen. We used to have a note at bottom of season articles under fixtures that stated something along the lines of for fixtures see club site. It then got removed when season was complete. Blethering Scot 22:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this discussion and this. Kante4 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks kante4

i assume this is the latest consensus about football fixture Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 101#Fixtures Lists in Club Season Articles? this is different to what @Blethering Scot said Lokiretro (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But was discussed multiple times over the years. It was in place when i started editing in 2008, so there is consensus going further back than that. I should also add there is consensus about future events in loads of areas of Wikipedia. We need to be wary of becoming a fan forum, rather than an encycolpedia. Blethering Scot 22:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i thought we will use latest consensus

i think i will wait it out and watch the discussion for now Lokiretro (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season#Premiership is an example. See note below fixtures. Blethering Scot 22:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

your link to club fixture is 404 on that section http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/fixtures/first Lokiretro (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. It will be because the season was completed in 2019. They really should have been removed when season ended and all fixtures were listed. I went searching to see if I could find one, to show what was done when seasons were ongoing. I actually found a couple yesterday when going through articles, but couldnt find a diff so went hunting instead.Blethering Scot 22:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SportingFlyer on this one, and would be in support of including scheduled fixtures. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify your agreement is in relation to them not being copyrighted. That's not the principal focus of the discussion, so would like to here your actual thoughts. Blethering Scot 22:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia. Whilst crystal ball talks about verification it also talks about dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. I strongly believe that the season is notable, as are fixtures once they take place, but a list of changeable dates is not encyclopaedic. Blethering Scot 23:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, my agreement is with their reasoning for including them. Regarding WP:CRYSTAL, it also says "a schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified", and I believe this applies here. If they're scheduled, they're verifiable. I understand you don't agree with including them, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, just stating my thoughts on this. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering the Premier League and other leagues announce them months in advance, that is clearly verifiable. Not to mention the amount of sports analysts who talk about upcoming matches providing more credence to each match. Even for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, all of the matches are scheduled for certain days with only times and teams waiting to be announced. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also states that dates change. Why are we managing that. Do we expect all users to know they need to manage that? There is so many section of what is not that this fits into. The bigger question is why from an encyclopaedic standpoint do we need to include them. What are we providing that isn't available and also 100% correct on news sites, club sites, league sites. Maintaining these is a huge amount of work, and is not always going to be correct. Blethering Scot 23:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What we provide is a simplified easy way to view the season without having to see much fluff. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership in Season Articles

Looking to see what the consensus regarding owners in season articles currently is. I have noticed a few like Swansea City where there is a detailed breakdown of the owners and their ownership percentage. Its not then sourced in article, and seems overly detailed for an infobox of the season. Blethering Scot 21:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025–26 Bolton Wanderers F.C. season is another example. I was going to remove as unsourced but would rather get an opinion whether its ok.Blethering Scot 23:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]