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: 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.

Topic ban

Sorry if this is not the appropriate place for this discussion, but after meticulously editing Dominik Chong-Qui I noticed that it had just been created and something about it was very off, I checked the user that created the article, User:Das_osmnezz, and noticed that they have been having issues previously via their Talk page. It seems as if this user is not really improving. Almost all of the articles follow a similar flow in the way they are written, for example Shawn van Eerden, Rok_Kidrič, Tomislav Gudelj, Lasse Rieß, and Dominik Chong-Qui. I do not feel as if this is in the spirit of why this wiki project was created, I also believe that this individual is just creating more of a burden for all other editors. Ewyourfaceew (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly so confused what is wrong with let alone bannable about Shawn van Eerden, Rok Kidrič, Lasse Rieß, or Tomislav Gudelj I have been improving, if you compare to the articles brought up in my talk page they are way more improbed in terms of formatting especially... also I have been going back to my past articles and improving them too... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Born in Alpharetta, Georgia, United States, he is a native of Alpharetta, Georgia, United States. C’mon brother… JTtheOG (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I was thinking about the way it sounded as I wrote the sentence, should have listened to my second thoughts... will correct that in my old and future articles. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These weren't bad. The ones in the past that were one sentence long and then a bunch of refbombing like Fernando D'Amico were though. RedPatch (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do you seem to love creating articles for the sake of creating them, you rarely even attempt to add to them after you create them. I bet at least 90% of all articles you have ever created could be deleted for lack of nobility.

I mean you JUST created Giovanna Yun and you don’t even know how many appearances she has for any of her clubs or her national team? Are you going through the correct channels to create articles? There is no way this is a notable individual. Ewyourfaceew (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add an alternative viewpoint, I'd say that Fernando D'Amico and Giovanna Yun are great stubs. There is a lot of good to be had from creating very short but well-referenced articles of notable subjects. A lot of editors are too timid to start new articles themselves, but once an article is in place, particularly with some helpful references, they are happy to expand. "If you build it, he will come" U003F ^? 09:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I vehemently disagree that Fernando D'Amico is a great stub. it's nothing but a stat profile. You really need four references (in the lead, I might add) for "Argentine former professional footballer who played as a midfielder."? Quickly browsing the Spanish wiki for the individual, there is a ton more info on that article than the English version that the user hasn't copied over. They do not even make any attempts to add to their stub articles that they created! Ewyourfaceew (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally have been going back and editing my old articles... I will gladly add that one to the list... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When is there a rule that an article creator must add to their stub articles? Thank you Das osmnezz for your efforts to help build an encyclopedia, and if you are fluent in Spanish, have some consideration as to what other components from the Spanish Wikipedia can be appended as relevant to the English Wikipedia. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30k edits over 9 years is not a new editor. Poor quality fire-and-forget stubs are a detriment to the project. Spike 'em (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'd say that a one-sentence stub plus infobox, categorisation and decent references is great. It's no Featured Article, but it's a start, and much better than no article at all. Four references is not unreasonable (for a once-sentence stub) to show the notability of the subject. U003F ^? 13:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lasse Rieß was created after the draft equilavent already existed, which is a common issue from this article creator. By checking the latest talk page archive of Das osmnezz, specifically at the section User_talk:Das_osmnezz/Archive_8#Danny_McGrath, the creation of an article where a draft equivalent already exists definitely hasn't stopped despite these warnings: [1][2][3]. It's no use to move a draft article to mainspace by deleting a better version when the draft is accepted. And actually in this case, the draft was once in mainspace before but was moved due to it not being ready.[4] Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find this allegation crazy cuz I have moved so many drafts users have created to mainspace before... ppl have made articles of players when I have had drafts of the same players too... if I think that a user is unlikely to work on a draft or far from mainspace quality I sometimes make the article myself... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being well-acquainted with this user and his contributions, I thought this Dominik Chong-Qui was a creation from over two years ago, seeing as Das Osmnezz has always pleaded that his criticised pages came from a different time and his new ones are better. No, it's from this week. This has all the same problems as ever. Something that I noticed was that the layout of sentences across articles were always the same "Is a native of" "Has been described as" "In year, he joined nationality club". This is common in people who are not 100% fluent in English, but Das Osmnezz's disclosed biographical information shows this is probably not the case. Instead, my conclusion is that these are copy and paste jobs with a little bit changed each time; sometimes I have found that these bits haven't been changed and the sentences and categories make no sense. I gave constructive advice last time that Das Osmnezz would be better editing about one particular league or team instead of this scattershot approach where very little is actually written about the players. Also, contributing to any of the 6 million other pages on this website is an endeavour of equal worth to creating for the sake of it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, he is a user who clearly understood the project's policies and has evolved a lot in his conduct. I think it is unnecessary to bring it up again. Svartner (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they not go through the correct avenues to create pages then if they’ve grown a lot? Go on any of the “featured articles” on their page and they’re all the same two sentence since they’ve started. Evolving is one thing, improving is another. Ewyourfaceew (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said this many times above, but I literally have been going back and editing my old articles, including Fernando D'Amico mentioned above... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. (again)

He was a champion playing for the Portugal under-15 team, does he already have the notoriety to have his own article? It seems to me that it is only a matter of time. Svartner (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Giant Snowman 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with the old WP:NFOOTY for other reasons, it definitely had a point with a line in the sand for football notability being playing in a senior league. It brings up a good paradox - if these kids of professionals are really such generational talents of youth football, why aren't they in senior football yet? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he's 15? Giant Snowman 19:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making it clear that I am not necessary advocating for recreation, but warning that from now on there will be many more sources available. Examples: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Svartner (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and they just recreated it again. Svartner (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortizesp you need to gain consensus to overturn the AfD that said to merge / redirect these pages, rather than edit warring. Spike 'em (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I gain consensus then, I don't see any prompts on any of the Cristiano Ronaldo Jr pages saying that I need to do this. I through proper response from you would be PRODing or AFDing the page.@Spike 'em: Ortizesp (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering... Is there any relative of a footballer that passes WP:GNG in their own? Can anyone provide examples of independent coverage about them? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? Cristiano Ronaldo's girlfriend and sister have Wikipedia pages, and much of their fame comes through him. Tons of other athletes have famous relatives. Ortizesp (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the player becomes professional, it is natural for coverage to emerge regardless of the father or other notable relative. Example. Svartner (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American club seasons navbox split

Hello! I've started a TfD discussion on whether the "Club seasons" section of {{2025 in American soccer}} and its predecessors should be split, or duplicate navboxes should be merged into it. I'd very much appreciate those reading this to give their opinion. Thank you! — AFC Vixen 🦊 18:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 OFC Women's Champions League knockout stage

There has recently been completed the 2025 OFC Women's Champions League tournament. It has an article, obviously, but also has a separate article (generated by @Kezyfooty:) about the 2025 OFC Women's Champions League knockout stage (2 semi-final matches and the final) and another separate article on the 2025 OFC Women's Champions League final. This seems to be to be overkill for the existence of the middle article. There is nothing in the knockout stage article for the semifinals that isn't in the main article (it provides no additional information), and it similarly summarizes the information in the final. Should this be considered as a WP:Speedy deletion, as there appears to be little to merge into the main article? Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matilda Maniac: The knockout stage article is not speedy eligible since the only applicable criterion requires that there be no mergeable information; the main article does not include the {{football box}}es for the semi-final matches. I will put it up for AfD requesting a merge to the main article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, speedily going to an AfD for a Merge seems an appropriate process route to take. I would wait until @Kezyfooty: has had sufficient time to respond first. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for these two articles to be merged. It had just been created in-line with the men's competition. Kezyfooty (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese footballer AfD

Is there a noticeboard incident regarding Gonta-Kun, the main creator of non-notable Japanese footballers, being blocked? I've looked at his talk page and found nothing. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:CentralAuth/Gonta-Kun shows global block in June 2019. Was blocked on ko.wiki before that as a sock of User:Japan Football, who is listed as being blocked in 2013 as a sock of someone else on here. Spike 'em (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nameless User (talk · contribs · count · page moves · logs) is the same guy as Gonta-kun? At least there are several stubs created by him that are based on WP:NFOOTY. Svartner (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else thinks so, at they are marked as a suspected sock of the same person as Japan Football mentioned above. Spike 'em (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honours section – Tottenham players

After the recent 2024–25 UEFA Europa League finals, the winning club Tottenham received 50 medals from UEFA and dedicated them also to players who were not on the roster for this year's European Cups (Antonín Kinský, Fraser Forster, Timo Werner, Sergio Reguilón; see for example this source). Various users, especially IPs, add winning the 2024–25 Cup as an achievement in the Honours section for these players, which I completely disagree with. Can we agree here whether it belongs there? In my opinion, receiving a medal and winning a cup are two different things in this case, and especially from an encyclopedic point of view, listing it among the Honours is misleading. FromCzech (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only odd one out is Forster, he is registered and played four Europa League games. However the club can distribute how they see fit of their allotted medals and can give to under registered players who haven't played. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FromCzech: - what criteria would you use to determine which players had "truly" won the competition.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply be in the club's roster for the competition. Now it is basically unsourced information (the currently used source do not contain their names – of course). FromCzech (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So let's say Forster is OK, but what the rest? I don't question that they shouldn't get a medal from the club if the club wants it, but I question that it should be included in the Honours section when they couldn't play a single minute. FromCzech (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look during my lunch break, Kinský played for SK Slavia Prague in the Europa this season, so not sure he could play for Tottenham this season. Werner like Forster has played for Tottenham in the Europa so also qualifies in essence. I am not sure how reliable that football.london article is. The only one I couldn't work out is Reguilón. But how strict do you want to be? Govvy (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also did some extra research and you are right that Werner played the group stage of the cup and was left off the roster for the playoffs. Reguilon didn't play a minute for the club in the UEL (but I'm not sure if he was also on the roster for at least for the group stage or not at all). Kinský was definitely not on the roster, he only transferred to Tottenham in January and was no eligibile to play for them in the UEL. So I suggest deleting it at least from Kinský. FromCzech (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the "Should Messi be credited with the 2005 Supercopa de España when he wasn't in the squad in either leg of the tournament?". The consensus on that one was "no, he should not" even though Barcelona credit him with it on their website (see here). Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honours section on club pages

I've had to revert the Tottenham page a few times over this, it's a rather interesting issue. But a lot of what you call the third world and over a billion people that have access to wikipedia on a mobile can only view on a mobile. This is a billion people accessing content. Which makes it just as important to be able to read the content. So we come up to tables, a lot of tables make content unreadable to these people simply by being in a table. For example the Manchester United page the honours are completely unreadable for a mini browser here. It basically violates MOS:RESOL. This is what I am trying to avoid with the Tottenham page. So maybe people can be more aware of these issues. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supercopa de España

Can someone take a look at Supercopa de España? Someone has moved all the individual season pages e.g. 2025 Supercopa de España was moved to 2024 Supercopa de España, 2024 Supercopa de España was moved to 2023 Supercopa de España etc. It is causing confusion as the links to each edition (for example the links in Supercopa de España#Finals by year) are now linking to the wrong year and seems a mess. Hashim-afc (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have raised this at the talk page of @GiantSnowman: as it was already brought up there, but happy for anyone with appropriate access seeing it here to perform the necessary fixes... Crowsus (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, those page moves are also causing navigation issues on the infoboxes, example on 2024 Supercopa de España where the 2024 is currently in bold, i.e. 2024. Same applies to the 'last appearance as' column where the same links are also seen as bold text when looking at the articles. It should be wise to return those pages whence they came since they were moved without any discussion and would also fix the linking issue. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say when moving forward to the immediate later year, it currently moves forward two years instead of one which is what the infoboxes are supposed to be used properly. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in club page current squad

Hi, I want to ask. When do we change the current squad of the team? For example, in Bali United already two players are confirmed to be out of the team. It's mentioned in the club's website. Do we remove it when it was announced or wait until 1 June or 1 July? Wira rhea (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]