Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

Fourth Place / Colours used to indicate results

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

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

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

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

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

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

The blue background color has been used for years now. The reason I see is because those teams have played the same amount of games as both finalists. Also, it's way clearer to distinguish results by use of the blue background color. I've added a shade of beige (light brown/yellow-ish) color before, which got reverted to blue again due to uniformity. I don't think it's OK to get rid of all background colors for semi-finalist; as I said before: they have played the same amount of games as both finalists. ProudTarjaholic (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant reason, since when are the background colours decided by the number of matches played? And how exactly will the Euro 2024 semifinalist play the same number of games as the finalist if there is no third-place match at all ? Snowflake91 (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that's an irrelevant comparison, as both semi-finalist are considered getting the 3rd place by default since 1984...

Also, all 4 teams that have reached the semi-finals are mentioned in the tournaments'result tables/templates.

And we can all agree it's easier to read, as Cx4TNS mentioned before. ProudTarjaholic (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"as both semi-finalist are considered getting the 3rd place by default since 1984" – Considered by who? Wikipedia users? Cite a source, UEFA doesn't even publish official final rankings, so there are no 3rd/4th/5th/6th etc. teams, only teams eliminated in the semis, quarters, round of 16, or group stage. And no its not easier to read by any means, if anything it creates a distraction for no reason. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Blackpool F.C. league record by opponent

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

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

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

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

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

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

This only refers to Roebuck, which as SuperJew pointed out "Roebuck actually signed a pre-contract with Barca, so this case is different." [1]. None of the others are referenced as free agency transfers. CNC (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I genuinely don't understand the issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of footballers with 500 or more goals

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

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

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

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

Merge proposal: Davide Orlando, David Orlando

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

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

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Soccerdonna

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

Short-versions of names in intro

For players who use a short version of a name, does it need to be in brackets as the nickname. Ortizesp disagree on this on the page Tani Oluwaseyi. Ortizesp believes the "Tani" is needed as it's not a common English nickname, whereas I was of the view that even though Tani is not a regular nickname, it is a short-version of 'Tani'toluwa and easily inferred so writing Tanitoluwa "Tani" is not needed. Just curious about the process, if the short name is easily inferred, do we still need brackets if it's not a common name? Ayo Akinola does not have Ayomide "Ayo", so just trying to find the correct format. (PS. Ortizesp, I'm not trying to invoke any ill-will, just improve my editing for future so I do it correctly. I greatly respect all your work) RedPatch (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think Ayo Akinola should have Ayomide "Ayo" in the intro. Any player with a non-English nickname non-common hypocorism should have it in quotation marks as per the footnote at MOS:NICKNAME in the first sentence, which says: "Consider as a "common" hypocorism one that shortens in a conventionalized way, sometimes also with a diminutive suffix added, and which is derived from a name frequently used in English-speaking countries, e.g. Liz, Beth, Lizzy, Bettie, etc., from Elizabeth. If it is not conventional, it is not "common" (e.g. Nifer from Jennifer). Short forms that differ significantly from the name may be non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case. A few such forms are well-known common hypocorisms, such as Bob for Robert and Bill for William, but most are not (e.g. Reba for Rebecca). Assume that most non-English hypocorisms (e.g. Lupita for Guadalupe, Mischa for Mikhail, Sascha for Alexander or Zuzka for Zuzana) are not familiar as hypocorisms to readers of the English Wikipedia, even if well-known in their native culture." Bolded the relevant part.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ortizesp has highlighted a very important point in the MOS. Even if the article title uses the shortened name, we should introduce the player by their full name with the shortened version in quotes or otherwise indicated, such as Ayomide "Ayo" Akinola or Ayomide Akinola, better known as Ayo, then they can be referred by the shortened name throughout the rest of the article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to include "Tani" in the intro. It is plainly obvious that Tani is a shortened version of his first name, Tanitoluwa. {Tanitoluwa Oluwatimilehin Oluwaseyi (born May 15, 2000) is a professional soccer player who plays as a forward for Major League Soccer side Minnesota United.} is your first sentence. You won't find many articles where you need to separate the nickname outside of Brazilian/Portuguese football.--EchetusXe 19:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree here - we do not need this shortened name. GiantSnowman 19:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

But that plainly goes against MOS:NICKNAME. Tanitoluwa is plainly not an English name, it is Yoruba. It is not plainly obvious that Tanitoluwa would be shortened as Tani, and not "Tanito", "Tanitolu", or whatever else you could come up with. Same with Ayo Akinola. Look at pages like "Tammy Abraham" or even Tobi Adebayo-Rowling which I think should be changed. Ortizesp (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"David" is not an English name, it is Hebrew. GiantSnowman 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think what everyone means is that knowing the page is called Tani and seeing Tanitoluwa, you can fairly easily figure out 'yeah it's from the first four letters' like Matt coming from Matthew. The "non-English hypocorisms" that the bolded parts refer to are ones where it bears limited/no resemblance to the original name (Lupita for Guadalupe, Mischa for Mikhail, Sascha for Alexander or Zuzka for Zuzana) which is very different than Tanitoluwa using just the first four letters) RedPatch (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

But that's beside the point, I don't think it's reasonable to infer that Tani is short for Tanitoluwa, because as mentioned above it's not a familiar hypocorism to most non-Nigerian readers. Even if you could make a backwards inference from seeing a title, it's not common knowledge how many Yoruba names would end up as nicknames. While with the most common hypocorisms in English (Matt to Matthew, Ben to Benjamin, even Dick to Richard) are probably reasonable to know for most English speakers. Notwithstanding that a lot of Nigerian diaspora get nicknames that are not traditional in either Nigeria or their home countries, like Tammy Abraham and Timmy Abraham.Ortizesp (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)