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.

Soccerway replacement

Plenty have posted over the past few weeks about issues with the 'new' Soccerway - having checked on a few players' profiles today, it seems no better, with stats either having disappeared or being simply incorrect.

So, we need to plan for replacing it - what trusty databases are good for e.g. English National League / European league stats? Giant Snowman 19:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found FBref to be reliable. English stats go as far down as the National League, good coverage of the Big Five European leagues & the US, and covers a wide range of other top division leagues. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be OK, but difficult to navigate IMHO... Giant Snowman 14:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had much of an issue with FotMob. Unsure of opinions on them (I wasn't able to find anything in the WP archives), but anything within recent years seems to be solid. haj • talk 22:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks fine to me? Giant Snowman 14:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Site seems to be working still, but i agree the new outline is a darn mess. Team lineups with players completely out of position, oddly named (i.e. Chelsea's Pedro Neto is "Lomba"), ditto for managers (Atlético Madrid boss is now Diego Pablo)! Also, apparently you now can't click on them in a match sheet, and individual entries show only two seasons of stats, at best.

I still think it can be kept, but will pay attention to this discussion to see what the final decision will be. --RevampedEditor (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for at the least the next couple of weeks, we need to prioritize sources other than Soccerway. I don't know if Soccerway can be considered unreliable right now, but it sure doesn't paint the whole picture of whatever it tries to represent due to omitting information. I found FBref to be quite accurate but unnecessarily hard to navigate comfortably. I didn't like FotMob much as I found it not sufficiently detailed. I like Transfermarkt although I know we don't consider it to be reliable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing worldfootball.net into the mix as well since I haven't seen it getting any love. JTtheOG (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't plan such an early death for soccerway, hasn't been that long since they started to change things around on it. At least wait till the end of July to see how it turns out. Govvy (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely with the traffic (i.e advertising revenue) they would have been getting, partly from editors here and links from here, the high level of functionality the site had and the volume stats they had already compiled, they will go to the effort of fixing it. Crowsus (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can but hope...{{Soccerway}} is used on over 82,000 articles, and there's going to be tonnes more using it as a 'traditional' link/reference... Giant Snowman 17:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WF is good for many European countries, and goes many decades back, but isn't useful for e.g. South Africa. Soccerway's showing of minutes and unused subs were also very useful.. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA references

I've been noticing something odd in certain references provided on articles of European footballers. When it comes to providing ones from UEFA, why are those sometimes formatted as:

website=UEFA|publisher=Union of European Football Associations

Instead of:

publisher=UEFA

Is there a manual of style here on how to format it correctly?

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have possibly been filled in automatically by the "Add citation" widget which will go get the metadata from the website. Spike 'em (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that's really a question for this WikiProject, but Template:Cite web states "Having both 'publisher' and 'website' is redundant in many cases." As the template itself includes both parameters in all of the offered "blank versions" of the template at that link, it's no wonder that users have sometimes tried to fill them in. C 679 15:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation in Template:Cite web says: "The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited." I'd say that would mean we use publisher=UEFA as that is the commonly used name for the organisation publishing the work being cited. Hack (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, keep it succinct. Geschichte (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring a player retired

I noticed that Simone Zaza has just turned turned 34. He hasn't kicked a ball since 18 March 2022 in a final season in which he played only 115 minutes total. With a 4th season of inactivity approaching, he's clearly retired. The problem is, he seems to have never officially declared his retirement. I'm hesitant to add it without a source even though it's clearly true. How long should we wait before accepting the inevitable and declaring him a former footballer? Valenciano (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can safely change "is an Italian professional footballer" to "is an Italian former professional footballer", as it seems clear that he isn't one any more. You don't have to specifically use the word "retired". I would say that the majority of players, especially those outside the top flight, don't actively announce their retirement, so we just have to use common sense as to when they are clearly not going to play professionally again and four years seems reasonable. If in some unusual turn of events Zaza suddenly dusts himself off and signs for another club, just change it back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - if a player has been unsigned for 1/2+ years, then feel free to consider them retired - especially if they are of a certain age... Giant Snowman 20:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree. I think 2 years is a good cut off for players who are 30+. If they are under 30, I would advise more caution as there are players who just simply go 2 years as free agents. It happens. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amundsen Girls Soccer

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Amundsen Girls Soccer and assess it? My guess is that most high school girl's soccer teams would probably not be considered notable enough for a stand-alone article about them to exist, but this team does seem to have a bit of history to it and there might be enough reliable source coverage (outside typical game results stuff) for it to be OK to keep in the mainspace. It was, for reference, created a just a few weeks ago and has been edited quite a bit since then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Lane Tech Girls Soccer to this discussion as well since it's another recently created stand-alone article about a high school girls' scoccer team that probably needs a non-involved notability assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, a bunch of match reports in local paper does not make a notable topic. Noting that article creator @Milicz: is a SPA focussing on soccer in Illinois. Giant Snowman 20:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman I find it disappointing to see my work dismissed as "a bunch of match reports in a local paper," especially when the Chicago Tribune, a major national newspaper, featured in-depth, multi-page coverage of girls' soccer during the 1990s. The Amundsen Girls Soccer article draws directly from those pieces, which covered not just individual games but the broader story of the CPL’s creation of a girls' soccer league. Amundsen was a key early participant in that league, and its inclusion is part of the larger narrative of expanding athletic opportunities for girls in public schools—a historically significant development, not trivia.

@Marchjuly asked for a neutral assessment, which I fully support. False aspersions like yours @GiantSnowman are discouraging. They don’t just undermine civil collaboration—they’re the reason many long-time editors walk away. Let’s focus on evaluating content on its merits, not assumptions about contributors. Accusing me of being a single-purpose account is just false. My recent focus on Illinois high school girls’ soccer reflects an effort to document a historically underrepresented subject—one that is supported by reliable, non-trivial coverage in major outlets like the Chicago Tribune. There’s no promotional intent here. If researching and writing about neglected topics with independent sources is labeled “promotional,” then we’re discouraging the very kind of editorial work Wikipedia needs to stay comprehensive and equitable. Milicz (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing might be in good faith but it is ultimately disruptive, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois ODP and this which are a time drain on editors with better things to do. Giant Snowman 07:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed article creator Milicz has been blocked for sockpuppetry RedPatch (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent both articles to AfD since high school teams are generally not notable. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also CPL Girls Soccer Championship Final which was recently created by the same RedPatch (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article creator is a sockpuppet, then tag as WP:G5 and save everyone time... Giant Snowman 10:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ignore that - Millicz is the sockpuppeteer so G5 won't apply here. Giant Snowman 10:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 1896 Summer Olympics

I was wondering what other editors thought about Football at the 1896 Summer Olympics, which is not recognised by the International Olympic Committee (source). There is a strong consensus from historians that in fact no tournament was played in 1896 (even demonstration/unofficial), for example see this document produced by Bill Mallon and Volker Kluge for the International Society of Olympic Historians. Further reliable sources support this, such as the Olympic Studies Centere here and IFFHS here. However the article treats the rumoured tournament as a fact. The article heavily relies on an RSSSF page (here) and the questionably-reliable Topend Sports (here). However, both pages are based off the work of a single person, Nitzan Zilburg, and I can find little information about him to prove his reliability. Otherwise the article relies on an interview with an elderly Greek footballer 75 years later and a questionable FIFA newsletter from 1976, which was not even founded by 1896 (and is contradicted by most other FIFA sources, for example here, here and here).

I think the article should either be entirely reworked or redirected to the main Olympic page. Clearly the tournament should not be presented as a indisputable fact, as currently the lead sentence tries to emphasize. Thoughts? S.A. Julio (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of miss information, Greece in fact wanted to have football at the Olympics, so they organised an exhibition match before the the Olympics, however after the defeat they were embarrassed and the Crown Prince who was in attendance ordered all coverage to be destroyed and decided against it at the time. There is very little evidence how it all went down there are some first hand accounts, but all the sources are not just a needle in a haystack, far worse than that! Govvy (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking it is probably ideal, and it would be very interesting. Like a planned film that was never made, we write about the plans and what did happen and what didn't and why (rather than act like it got made) - and a parallel to that is appropriate here. Kingsif (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a colleague of Bill Mallon from the days of Olympedia.org we should probably combine our knowledge at this point Topcardi (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Topcardi, I know you've edited around the 1900 and 1904 Olympic football games before, do you have other sources to bring to the table? Perhaps it's better (@S.A. Julio and Govvy:) to move this to the article talk and have a plan for improvement? Kingsif (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I can't help you anymore than what I said above, my knowledge is generational knowledge. Govvy (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland flag

On multiple season articles such as 2025–26 Norwich City F.C. season e.g [1], the Northern Irish flag is being used for player's location birthplace. This is inconsistent with Flag of Northern Ireland- NI has no official flag. Whilst the Ulster Banner is the flag used by the NI football team, it is wrong to use for the location/country of NI in "place of birth" columns on articles or similar. Courtesy ping to Bbt400 as I have recently reverted them- though they aren't the only user or article where the NI flag is used to depict the country on football articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at football games on TV, I've seen a green flag with the Northern Ireland federation crest in the middle before. But generally they tend to Ulster flag. I always find it weird on those squad tables, place of birth, signed from, date signed, fee and contract end have no relevance to the season. Why do people keep adding those columns which also kinda breach WP:OR. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I can't see how any of those columns are relevant. None of the club/season articles that have reached FA status have them -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: It's a bit of a complicated matter but the Ulster Banner is used to depict NI in sporting or general events and is the commonly used one. St Patrick's Saltire is more used for Royal occasions due to it's links with the Union Jack but is rarely if ever used to mark nationality. It's goes further into the usual loyalists vs unionists which is why there isn't strictly a official flag. The Ulster Banner was used under the previous government but when it got abolished they basically haven't got round to an new official one. Generally though it's the one to use on NI articles. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When being used to depict Northern Ireland national football team, that is fine, as they use the Ulster Banner. However in places where articles are referring to the country of Northern Ireland (rather than the Football team), it's not an acceptable use, as the country of Northern Ireland has no official flag. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that flags in on football pages represent sporting nationality. I look on the page Liverpool F.C. and the country links are to the Egyptian Football Association, Uruguayan Football Association etc. Not the countries themselves. The following statements are both true: 1. The area called Northern Ireland has no official flag, and 2. The Northern Ireland national football team uses the Ulster banner, as recognised by FIFA [2]. After all, if we were just going by a player's citizenship, Northern Ireland/Wales/Scotland/England would never be options at all. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just seen this was brought up about a birthplace which is obviously in a country, not an FA. Then again, I personally wouldn't think that's encyclopedic information for one season's squad list, and if it was, I wouldn't use flags at all. Too many questions. Would we change shades of colour/size of shields to match the specific day the player was born? This happens more often to flags than you would think. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Players who left UCL finalist during season

Hello. Do we list the UEFA Champions League (or runner-up for it) as an honour in the articles of players who were transferred or loaned out during the season and did make an appearance in the group stage/league phase? What's the procedure for players such as Marco Asensio, Randal Kolo Muani, João Cancelo, or Edinson Cavani? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly it might just be better already to remove team honours from players articles and avoid all these pointless discussions. --SuperJew (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's pointless about it? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources say about the players' honours? Giant Snowman 18:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look. In the meantime, how did we previously address this issue? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it that only the registered players for the final stage are automatically considered by UEFA to have the honour, but a club can put in a request for other players to be recognised? So, it depends if the club did that or not? Kingsif (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK I found an article on RMC Sport which says that UEFA is very strict and does not see them as winners, but that their club can still give them a medal if they want. I assume that this means that unless a reliable source proves they have a medal, we shouldn't include it? Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that we would find a reliable source detailing a club giving out such a medal. That sounds very much like the sort of thing that would happen "behind closed doors" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely what it would be is the club's official website's player profile, where honours are often listed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Swansea City A.F.C. season

I was going to edit the squad list, but OMG, what horrible code! I wasn't sure what to do with it! I honestly don't understand the point of the EU bit column! Not to mention all the other irrelevant stuff! So I am putting this out there for anyone that wants too, please, please sort it out! lol. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EU (as linked in the header) is a status in association football is whether a football player is considered a citizen of the European Union (EU) for the purposes of labour law within domestic European football leagues. There are different rules for which players are eligible for EU status in different European leagues, and leagues have different rules on how many players from outside the EU may be registered. Players within European league systems who are not considered European citizens are known as "non-EU".. It's relevant. Is it overkill? Probably. --SuperJew (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Nuno Mendes (footballer, born 2002)#Requested move 9 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nuno Mendes (footballer, born 2002)#Requested move 9 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia national under-23 football team

In a bit of an edit war with Governor Sheng on the article of Croatia national under-23 football team and feel this needs to be talked about: the article in fact represents an under-23 national football team which in most cases would mean that team is an Olympic team and/or one that takes part in the Olympics. I feel Croatia U23 is neither despite their presence as an under-23 team. Since they've also never qualified for the Olympics, I don't believe an assumption can be made on this team being an Olympic team so I removed all information relating to the Olympics and some matches (since some are referred to under-21s matches according to Croatia's FA). Even they themselves don't programme an under-23s team on their national team match database and some actual under-21 matches are listed on the under-23 article. FastCube (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the article, I was *very* cautious about the sources, reading every single one of them. Every game has a proper reference, and for this, I used the archives of Slobodna Dalmacija (which were then free but are now members-only) and Večernji list (members-only). All of the sources, unequivocally, refer to the Croatian team as "under-23". The news articles are contemporary to the games played, and from reliable newspaper in Croatia. They are a secondary source, while the Croatian Football Association (HNS) is a primary source. Per WP:PSTS, secondary sources take precedence over primary sources.

The HNS reports clearly contradict the secondary sources. An example of this is a 1996 match between Brazil and Croatia. The source used in the article, but also other available sources, such as Večernji list, 24 sata (24 sata), Germanijak etc., all refer to the Croatian team as U-23. This is also evident from the match itself. Also, the rooster says it all. Many players are way older then 21. For example, Milan Rapaić, who scorred for Croatia, was a 23-year-old then. Governor Sheng (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Cambodia national football team results (1980–1989) into Cambodia national football team results

Hi all, I've started a merge discussion here. I've not initiated one before so please let me know if there's anything else required. I'm not sure if there is a policy that says each decade of results for a national football team should have its own article but it seems absurd to have one in this case since no official matches were played. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football rivalries

I think this might need to be looked at as it has spiralled out of control a bit IMO. The referencing seems adequate, but the scope of the information on individual people seems uncontrolled and potentially almost limitless. From just glancing through, there are multiple examples of managerial rivalries - the two issues I see with this are that the interpretation of rivalry may greatly vary and even with reputable sourcing can be given undue weight fromcomments ein motional post-match interviews etc, and inevitably there are going to be these kind of interactions in every nation in every era, probably too many to list coherently in a worldwide list article. There is a similar argument for the player rivalries: I saw something for one of Maradona's (many) rivals being Pietro Vierchowod, based on interviews where he said that was his toughest opponent - to me, that isn't a rivalry i.e an ongoing grudge. In addition, the formatting of multiple vertical columns makes it difficult to read. Crowsus (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Icardi + Maxi López - Both former husbands of Wanda Nara. lol Echetus Xe 23:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the example EchetusXe mentioned, these are incredibly loose definitions of what constitutes a rivalry. I personally think this should be trimmed down to just club and national team rivalries. Haj (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“The two had an argument during training over Djalminha's lack of playing time, with Djalminha headbutting his manger.” Messi rules. Except when he doesn’t. The guy has 50,000 edits, so I dread to think what might need cleaned up. Seasider53 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the silliest and least credible aspects of all our articles on football. I would support any effort to remove any mention of any rivalry anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and removed the entire section on individual rivalries. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would WP:TNT the article, seems nonsensical to me. Govvy (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with doing the first part of WP:TNT - Blow it up! But I can't see any point in starting over. There can never be agreement on what a rivalry is, between either teams or individuals. Do any other sports have such articles? HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA college football rivalry games comes to mind, where anything included on the list has a standalone article regarding the game(s) or trophies at stake, which theoretically implies they pass GNG. I believe that could be a starting point for here. Haj (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be an excellent basis for inclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure that throughout the decade I've been on here, I have spend a lot of time cleaning up articles and adding reliable sources and I have promoted a lot of articles to Good Article status; coming from an academic background, factchecking and sourcing are very important to me. I was merely attempting to clean up this page without deleting content that might lead to edit wars, as users kept adding people without a reliable source or summary of what exactly led rivalry, as was the case with Djalminja. But I agree that this page got out of control, and I was considering creating a discussion about it (although in the past when I've attempted to do so, other users have not always responded and the discussion was archived), so I thank you for removing it and coming to consensus with your discussion.

Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I had seen the edit history, and the article was certainly not in good shape prior to your edits. I don’t think you did anything wrong with referencing these, and the guideline for inclusion is seemingly non-existent. I still think perhaps some individual rivalries (i.e. Messi and Ronaldo) could be there, but of course plenty of them were questionable. Haj (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]