Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 173

Archive 170

Archive 171

Archive 172

Archive 173

Two Gillingham Town F.C. articles?

Do the clubs Gillingham Town F.C. (Kent) and Gillingham Town F.C. overlap each other? I am a little confused, are we sure it's not just one club? Because as far as I am aware, you can't have clubs registered with names that similar. Also, what's with the Portuguese name on the Gillingham Town Kent one?? I am not sure I understand that either. Regards. Govvy (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

To answer your first question, they're certainly different clubs, they come from towns that are 150 miles apart and play in different leagues. I'm not sure what the rule is with teams having the same name but it seems to be allowed as long as they never meet, there's also Wellington A.F.C. and Wellington F.C. (Herefords) with very similar names. SlimyGecko7 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

They are 100% not connected in any way, as noted above they play in different towns which simply happen to have the same name (although not pronounced in the same way!). There is no rule in England to prevent two teams having the same name. For many years there were two Ashford Towns playing at a fairly high level of non-league football and they actually played each other in 2008 (albeit only in a friendly) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

There's also Westfield F.C. (Surrey) and Westfield F.C. (Sussex) (the county names are only added for disambiguation purposes and do not form part of either club's official name - both clubs are officially registered as simply "Westfield Football Club") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I suggest the second article is moved to Gillingham Town F.C. (Dorset)? GiantSnowman 11:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

If we have 2 articles, then the pre-existing one should be moved for DAB purposes, but I'd question whether the Kent team is actually notable. From what I can tell, the highest it has played at is English Level 13, which is 3 rungs below that suggested by WP:FOOTYN. Most of the refs on the page are to the club website / linkedin page; there is some local press coverage in there, and if it weren't for a few celebrity fans they would be indistinguishable from ~1000 other teams at the same level accross the country. Spike 'em (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to change Gillingham Town F.C. to a DAB page? Govvy (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

If we keep the new article, then yes, but I would personally delete the new (Kent) one. Is there a standard way to add a hatnote for a similar term that does not have an article (or is that a tacit admission that the other page is needed)? Spike 'em (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The only way I know of would be to have the hatnote point to the most relevant article e.g. "This article relates to the Gillingham Town F.C. in Dorset. For the club of the same name based in Kent, see Kent County League" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

If it became a Gillingham Town F.C. (Kent) to Kent County League redirect, then the hatnote could simply say "This article relates to the football club in Dorset. For the club of the same name based in Kent, see Gillingham Town F.C. (Kent)", which then bounces them to KCL. GiantSnowman 12:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I have AfDed the (Kent) article. Spike 'em (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

FIFA Series

A number of TAs, and a handful of named editors, are mass adding the 'FIFA Series' honour to player articles - is this worth including? I'm inclined to say 'no'... GiantSnowman 18:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

My initial thought is no, these are just a series of international friendly matches. Though to complicate things, at least in some of the tournaments FIFA are handing out a trophy and medals... S.A. Julio (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure the existence of trophies and/or medals is too important, considering that a lot of friendly tournaments also hand them out to the winners. Raskuly (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

No, such a minor statistic. Matilda 13:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

These are luxury friendlies because they have a FIFA stamp, not real titles. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same. I'll remove it from here, then. He even had "runner-up". Geschichte (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Looking at 2026 FIFA Series (men's matches), there were 9 winners of the tournament?! Absolute nonsense. GiantSnowman 12:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not one tournament with a winner. It's a series of mini-"tournaments". --SuperJew (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

No, it is a method to monetize friendly matches, at least for the Men's game. Matilda 21:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not arguing what the motive is (on the side note though - how much money was made of Australia v Cameroon v Curacao?). I'm just mentioning the structure - there is no champion of the 2026 FIFA Series as it isn't a single tournament. This btw is aligned with not including it an honour on player articles, which I'm quite sure is what all the comments here are aligned. --SuperJew (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there's clear consensus that it's not a notable honour to include... GiantSnowman 09:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft Articles

Can some more experienced editors help point me in the right direction?

An article for Ronan Sullivan was created after being called up to the Bangladesh U-20 squad. The article was recently moved to draft space after an AfD discussion. Now a new article was created in main space and is being edited. The draft is still there. OblongBubbles (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• I've deleted the mainspace version and pointed the editor who created it towards the draft (and the deletion discussion). Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks Black Kite and Spike 'em for your help. OblongBubbles (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Conflicting notions (?)

I'm having a very hard time understanding how WP has this very different approaches on the same subject,

per WP:ELNO, we are encouraged to add no external links (or as few as possible), am i correct? Then, kindly explain how there is an option that enables to add a template called "sports links" that produces nearly ten of them, most of them (i.e. Soccerway, Worldfootball) already existing as sources for the "career statistics" section? IP/IPs has/have been adding the latter to several articles.

Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

ELNO says we should not list external links if they are used in-line as a reference. Generally, external links should be limited. I tend to remove {{sports links}} when I see them. GiantSnowman 17:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Ditto here! Thanks for the reply. RevampedEditor (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Probably an argument I'm going to lose, but I like the Soccerway etc. links at the bottom of footballer articles. Like links to commons categories, or co-ordinates at the top of geographical articles, they're convenient and familiar when placed there. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Bad category move (changes)

What's with the mass move? FastCube is doing multiple moves of Category:Football clubs in England to Category:Men's football clubs in England, which is rather poor, just because an article talks about the main men's team doesn't negate the fact that a lot of football clubs have woman's teams. I strongly suggest all these moves on the category be moved back. As the original category name is far more universal. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

No. The move is completely logical for reasons I will provide here. Yes the page titles don't indicate any sense of the segment of men's football, but the articles themselves are primarily referring to the men's teams of said club (e.g. Chelsea F.C.). If there's a women's team, a separate article is created which is what the normal procedure is on Wikipedia where the women's team articles literally follow the same procedure with the exception being the word "women" attached to the title (e.g. Chelsea F.C. Women). Through many discussions I've seen, the norm is mostly men's football being the "default"; however I will not follow that procedure with categories. Because these types of moves mean it's another step forward to better connections in category trees (as is my life's work on Wikipedia). If this move isn't made, there will be no connections of men's sport categories which harms those trees in expanding its user navigation. FastCube (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Entirely agree with the OP and came here to make the same point. Oxford United F.C., for example, has a women's first team and academy team. Although the former has its own article, that does not imply that Oxford United and similar other clubs are "men's football clubs". Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Well unfortunately that's the only problem here and why I understand your points; the naming conventions are not straightforward and hasn't been from the get-go. Because the right terminology would be to define them as club teams, not simply clubs. As the norm is mostly one club handling multiple teams (men's and women's). The problem is that it would need a huge move and discussion which could take ages. I wouldn't mind discussing about a potential move of that, but for right now and either way regardless of the naming conventions, refer to my points above accordingly. FastCube (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find your logic flawed. Oxford United W.F.C. is very much a women's team (or set of teams, or club, if you prefer), and definitely belongs in Category:Women's football clubs in England. But Oxford United F.C. is the (ungendered) parent, not the male sibling. Oxford United F.C. is (or should be) about the whole club: the men's teams and the women's teams, and not just the men's (whether or not the parent article covers the women's set-up in depth). Your categorisation tramples all over that. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the women's team at all, let alone in depth. The only occurance of the words woman / women / lady / ladies in it is in reference to an unrelated international match taking place at the club's stadium. The change in categorisation matches the de facto content of the article. Spike 'em (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Then that's an omission in the article, not a reason to recategorise it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I know it's bizarre, it's like saying they are men's only football clubs and no women work at the football clubs, let alone all the female colleagues! And no women are allowed in to support the club. It's truly bizarre categorisation. Govvy (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@FastCube: Honestly, what you're doing is what a bot might do after a conversation, but I don't know where or if such a conversation has taken place for the change in category. It feels rushed without consensus on a mass category change. And I would vote against what you're doing right now based on universals and staying neutral to category topic. Govvy (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

All because I use the cat-a-lot? If I didn't do that and "do what a bot might do", I would be saving no time on my behalf. In any case, this procedure is just a continuation on what I have been doing for about a year now (moving stuff to men's categories for better connection) which hasn't ever needed consensus or has ever been stopped because no one up until now has decided to question it. FastCube (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I support Govvy here. e.g. the West Didsbury & Chorlton A.F.C. article is about both men and women, the club records and notable players sections are about men and women, and is thus certainly a "football club", rather than a "men's football club", and the change should be reverted. U003F^? 05:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

You've just used one article example that isn't the norm of having the articles being dedicated to a specific team of the club. Once again the problem is how the categories are named, but I'm not going to ignore this move or consider reverting at the expense of not connecting men's sport categories which is the entire point of this move in the first place. FastCube (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't the changes be made on a case-by-case basis, rather than wholesale? Sometimes the change is plain wrong, as per the West article. If you want the changes to be (almost always) uncontroversial, why not instead add the "men's football club" link whilst keeping the "football club" category in place? U003F^? 06:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Because it's overcategorization. And let's not forget that the approach is moving those articles with the primary focus on the men's team (as is the majority of club team articles) with the no team distinction in place of title. Because Category:Women's association football clubs exist (which are women's teams as the primary focus of said clubs, e.g. Chelsea F.C. Women) as a subcat of Category:Association football clubs, it would make sense to make the same approach with the men's team articles at Category:Men's association football clubs (men's teams as the primary focus of said clubs, e.g. Chelsea F.C.). Because let's face it, while the base articles can mention the entire history of the club; the primary focus is one team of one segment (men's/women's) which in most cases are a men's team whilst the women's team have a seperate article of theirs and to avoid overcategorization it must be one or the other; not one over the other. There's even disambiguation notes at the top of the article (e.g. Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C., Manchester City F.C.; "This article is about the men's football club. For the women's football club, see X FC (women)") telling the user the article is mainly about the men's team of said club. FastCube (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

This process is wrongly conflating team and club. Oxford United F.C. is a football club that has men's and women's teams. Yes, the main article focuses on the men's first team (with the women's teams are in a separate article), and that may well be the case for a lot of the larger clubs, but that is a problem with the articles and very much does not make Oxford and teams like them "Men's Football Clubs". A football club is the sum of all its parts: board and managers, staff, men's first XI, academy teams, women's first XI and women's academy teams, juniors – not to mention the supporters, who are discussed at length in almost all football club articles and are very much not exclusively men. This whole process is a cure that is worse than the disease and introduces more problems than it solves. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Trust me I don't like the naming conventions either, because yes they don't make sense. I just need to make it clear that the articles primarily represent one team or the other (even if the base/men's team article can cover the entire history of a club). Because there are women's team articles that exist under the category name of "Category:Women's association football clubs", I'm just taking the same approach with the articles that's primary focus is the men's team under Category:Men's association football clubs regardless of titles. If anything, I'd be more than happy to discuss switching up the naming conventions of them from clubs to club teams to make it make sense but for right now I'm just focused on connecting the dots in the category trees. FastCube (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I see your point. But the integrity of the category tree is less important than wrongly labelling genderless football clubs as "Men's football clubs". Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Well in your case, doesn't mean it was right to have a subcat named Category:Women's association football clubs in the first place. Because as we've established; the strucutre is a sole club that they themselves operate teams of both segments (men's/women's). So because of that subcat already existing, I made this move to have both sides of the spectrum. FastCube (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The technocratic issue with the category tree is less important that context and accuracy. As I said earlier, Oxford United F.C. is the genderless parent of Oxford United W.F.C., not the male sibling. It's entirely possible (in fact, desirable) that the Oxford United article should be extended to include the women's teams. I think you're trying to impose order and consistency where it doesn't fit. And it's even less appropriate for articles like West Didsbury & Chorlton A.F.C., where there is only one article about the whole club and the women's teams are mentioned. And it's rather sexist as well as being based on flawed logic. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not good enough. You're just persevering in saying that a base article (meaning those with currently no team distinction in the title, e.g. Oxford United F.C.) which primarily focuses on the men's team is the default when it so clearly is not. What should be astronomically clear to you is that the entire context of an article (not the title, the article) indicates how to categorize it (e.g. Melbourne City FC v Melbourne Victory FC (17 December 2022); an abandoned match due to a violent pitch invasion. The title doesn't mention the incident, but that's the primary focus of the article hence them categorized by that). With that, it's clear the vast majority of base articles have a primary focus on the men's team hence the split/addition (however way you see it) of a women's team article; that is essentially the norm when it comes to writing articles about clubs. For articles like West Didsbury & Chorlton A.F.C.'s which doesn't have a primary intention for either team, I intially would've said it can stay within Category:Football clubs in England, but considering doing so would leave gaps and not bring any meaning to specifically men's and/or women's football, a better approach would be to put it under both Category:Men's football clubs in England and Category:Women's football clubs in England; provided it covers both sides. FastCube (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I think the issue is how we perceive the hierarchy. For a hypothetical club with two existing articles, one of them dealing with the women's set-up, you perceive that the genderless parent (dealing with aspects of the club in general, common to both genders) is missing, and that the existing articles are two children, one male and one female. I contend that in most cases, the genderless parent is the main article, the women's article is the female child, and the male child is the phantom. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

But you see that's the problem. The base article naming convention is simply not correct when you have two articles (the men's team article as the base article (with no disambiguator in the title), and the women's team article as a side article (with a disambiguator in the title)). The way you want them to be categorized (as it was before my move) makes zero sense to how club structures actually work. Because again, it's not one over the other, it's one or the other. The team articles in question being structured as one or the other has been the norm for all time, but they never cooperated the same way with the category structure being one over the other presumably because of how the articles are titled and this is exactly what I have fixed. Trust me when I say this would not be problem to be discussed if both articles were disambiguated as men's and women's. FastCube (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Still disagree. There are lots of aspects to most football club articles (which you seem to be insisting are exclusively concerned with the men's teams) that are plainly not limited in that way, and also apply to the women's teams: the owners, the board, the stadium, the fans, the team strip, the rivalries, and so on. There is quite possibly a historic problem with football club articles, in that (particularly for larger clubs) they don't adequately cover the women's teams. But that's solved by expanding those club articles to include sections about their women's setup (linked via a {{main}} template to a subarticle that gives more detail of the women's teams if one exists), not by deciding arbitrarily that a generic football club article is exclusively about the men's sides.

Besides, in many cases for smaller clubs (such as West Didsbury & Chorlton A.F.C., mentioned above, and doubtless many others) the article clearly and explicitly deals with the whole club, and does have a dedicated section about the women's teams, but you have still categorised that as an article about a "Men's football club". That can't be right.

I don't see any problem with having Category:Women's football clubs in England (for articles that are explicitly about women-only teams) as a subcategory of Category:Football clubs in England, regardless of whether or not there is a corresponding article for the same club in Category:Men's football clubs in England that only deals with the men's teams and explicitly excludes the women's teams. The problem is with the club articles, not the categories. Category:Men's football clubs in England should only contain articles that are (a) clearly and explicitly restricted to discussing the men's teams at that club, or (b) concerned with clubs that don't have a women's section. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I know there's aspects that don't apply to a specific team/segment (club ownership, personnel, sponsorship, rivalries, etc.), and rather the club in general, which is why in this case it would make logical sense to keep them in Category:Football clubs in England, but what I'm really trying to get at here throughout this entire discussion is that because the base articles are essentially used as the home of all the men's info, whilst having sub-articles (if you will) of women's info, it just doesn't make sense to me to have the category structure be one over the other (even if we're not disambiguating the titles as "men's"). I've just really wanted to get people into the thought that the norm of structuring these articles is by segment (men's/women's/senior/youth), rather than dedicating one as the sole club article. And in my opinion, it's the naming convention of the titles that makes people think otherwise. But with that, and talking about the base articles that appear to not have a specific team/segment dedication (e.g. West Didsbury & Chorlton A.F.C.), it would again make sense to keep them within Category:Football clubs in England; because there's no specific team/segment dedication in the article, but the problem I see with that is that doing so will make the article not fit right with the objective of categorizing club articles (and the true way of how these articles are structured; by segment). What I mean by this and to give you my perspective; is that it would look awkward to have a minority of sole-club base articles (e.g. West Didsbury & Chorlton A.F.C.) used for the entire club, and have (in my eyes) a vast majority as base articles that are also the home to men's info (e.g. Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C., Manchester City F.C., with the women's article on the side (Arsenal W.F.C., Chelsea F.C. Women, Manchester City W.F.C.). Which is why I give the idea of putting them under both Category:Men's football clubs in England and Category:Women's football clubs in England) if they cover both sides; or if it's one or the other then categorize it by one or the other, so then we keep following that same objective and leave no gaps in this category tree. While I currently don't have a personal opinion on how I think club articles should be structured, how they are currently structured now is why I think the primary objective of categorizing these club articles should be one or the other, and not one over the other. FastCube (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty clear you can't see the distinction between the term football club and the term of team. Football Clubs contain multiple youth teams, and now women teams, primarily the history will be about the men's first team, but these days these article's can contain the establishment of the youth and women teams and a bit of their history. That's if they are written right, but that's a different case on stylised prose. Govvy (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

No I definitely can, I've outlined how a club works and how its structured throughout this entire discussion. With that I've explained why I made this move; that being so the category tree follows the same structure of how a club actually functions. What you can't see and/or understand is that these club articles will primarily represent one team of said club (if it covers both teams, put it under both categories). It's clear that the norm is isn't dedicating one article as the main for the club, and is rather splitting the articles per team. And do not make the argument that the base articles with no disambiguator in the title are those sole main club articles, because as mentioned enough times they clearly primarily represent (in many cases) the men's team of a club whilst wrongfully not disambiguating "men's" in the title. The article structure has never been dedicating sole club articles, it's always been dedicating different team articles of said club. FastCube (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually no, there are a fair number of articles combining the first and second teams into a larger team, often it constitutes what the reserve teams did in the article, sounding like the first team. Wikipedia has a lot of floors. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

What you described is correct, I must clarify what I meant was that the articles are split between the two segments, men's and women's football, not solely by single team. Refer to my points above with that clarification accordingly. FastCube (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@FastCube: I see you're now edit-warring at Oxford United F.C. while your contentious edits are still under discussion here; and at present you are in a minority of one. I'm not impressed. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Dave, I have warned FastCube (and, for completeness, you) for edit warring. Whilst I know you are trying to restore the status quo pending the outcome of this discussion, repeatedly reverting FastCube is not the way to do it. If they revert you again, please let me know and I will block them. GiantSnowman 20:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, GiantSnowman. As a prolific contributor to football articles, I'm interested in your take on the issue at hand. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I am staying neutral so that I do not become INVOLVED, in case editing patterns get worse... GiantSnowman 16:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

And now you're falsely accusing me of edit warring? I made only ONE revert on Oxford United F.C. which is here, not a single other revert on that page clearly not breaking the three-revert rule. You first call my process sexist, and now this? This is just disgusting. FastCube (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, calling someone out for a single revert 5 days after the event is bad faith to me. How about you (Dave) improve the article so that there is actually a mention of the women's section in it? Spike 'em (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I apologise. I somehow thought FaceCube had reverted twice, once after we started this conversation. Genuine mistake. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Spike 'em I have added a section on the womens' team(s) to the Oxford United article as suggested. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed to me a change in categorisation that not many people would ever notice was less egregious than failing to mention the women's section at all in the article, so now that is done I won't have anything to disagree with! Spike 'em (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say they had broken 3RR. I was saying they were involved in an edit war - which they were. GiantSnowman 16:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that categories and articles about football clubs seem to be treated differently. The Chelsea F.C. article is (since FastCube's recategorisation) a member of Category:Men's football clubs in England, but the Chelsea F.C. category is in Football clubs in London, which is ultimately part of the Category:Football clubs in England tree (and not the Category:Men's football clubs in England tree). I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I simply don't understand the logic. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

That's because they haven't been moved yet. FastCube (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The categories are even more obviously not "men's football clubs" than the articles. Category:Chelsea F.C. Women is a subcategory of Category:Chelsea F.C., which I assume you are planning to move to Men's football clubs in England. How would it make sense for a category specific to a women's team to fall under a supercategory about "Men's football clubs"? Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

This comes back to the naming convention problem. Why no disambiguation from the base articles (or its base categories) makes the process all confusing. But the approach here is actually simple: because they are eponymous categories we do the same categorization process for the articles. Of course the club articles won't line-up (e.g. Chelsea F.C. Women as part of eponymous Category:Chelsea F.C.), but unfortunately this is the only form of club connection in categories between the two sides and removing that article would lose that connection. The only way to fix this would be to disambiguate the base articles (and categories) as "men's", and use them as subpages for newly created parents as actual base club articles/categories (e.g. Category:Chelsea F.C. → Chelsea F.C. (men) / Chelsea F.C. Women), but obviously that's not a thing right now and it's another process (and discussion) entirely. So the former will have to do. FastCube (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you're solving a problem that doesn't exist. Or at least, you've chosen a problematic, brute-force solution, whereas the better long-term solution would be to "de-gender" the football club articles and categories. If someone wants to write articles about Chelsea F.C. (men) or create Category:Chelsea F.C. (men) as children of the parent article/category then they could, but assuming that Chelsea F.C. or Category:Chelsea F.C. are limited to the men's side of things feels exclusionary. Which is, I think, back where we started: the cure is worse than the perceived disease. Much better to make the club articles inclusive as I (partly) did at Oxford. And in many cases, particularly the smaller clubs, it's already been done: many of them already have a section about the women's set-up at that club. I don't see much purpose in moving (almost) all English football clubs en masse down a level from Category:Football clubs in England to Category:Men's football clubs in England, apart from a perceived need for symmetry with Category:Women's football clubs in England. Football clubs aren't like people: they aren't binary male or female. (Even applying a gender to non-binary people is problematic, but that's another story.) Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself in this discussion and not responding to your specified thoughts (if not, please let me know): That's still no excuse to let the men's info be part of the base article and not let that related category of Category:Men's football clubs in England be defined in them. Why is it that the norm here (in structuring club articles) is clearly more on distinction (e.g. Arsenal F.C., Arsenal W.F.C., Arsenal F.C. Under-21s and Academy, Arsenal W.F.C. Academy), yet we're still letting the men's senior info be part of the so-called "default"/base article (with no disambiguator in the title) and enforce no distinction in the categories. I know your argument here is that the base articles can be inclusive enough to make it be about the entire club. But to me, no matter how inclusive the base article can be covering as much about the entire club as possible to make it fit in only Category:Football clubs in England doesn't really solve the problem, because since we're still using the base article for men's info, you're simply leaving out what truly defines the article when again: the clear norm (of structuring club articles) is distinction for each article over unification under one article. It won't even be worth making the base articles inclusive about the entire club in question, because there wouldn't be much of a difference between the base articles in it's current form (with the men's info), in comparison to just an article dedicated to only men's info. They would be almost identical. We should categorize by it's distinction (men's/women's/senior/youth) accordingly because that's the clear norm here. Not by title. But by article context. I even brought this up very early in the discussion where not defining categories in relation to the article hurts the category trees and loses connection. What if someone started at Category:Men's association football and they want to get to Chelsea F.C.; the home of men's Chelsea info? If the related category isn't there it wouldn't make this navigation possible because there's no connection there. Given everything I've unfolded, I don't know how else to prove that this is move is logical and not without good reason. At least for right now (what the current structure is). FastCube (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:TLDR... GiantSnowman 17:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

We have an impasse. FastCube is determined to impose his (I'm getting he's male) rigid category structure for technical (and I would say pedantic) reasons, with no obvious consensus or support from other editors. Effectively, this means that all football clubs in England (apart from exclusively women's clubs) are now labelled as "men's football clubs" by default, including small clubs with documented and active women's sections (but which are unlikely to ever have separate articles dedicated to those solely female elements). All to achieve some illusory Men's/Women's symmetry in the category tree that nobody asked for. I give up. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

I have nominated Anfield for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). Alyo (chat·edits) 15:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Red cards in match info boxes

I am in the habit of adding any red cards for a match into the match's info box; specifically, I am referring to match info boxes made using Template:Football box and Template:Football box collapsible. I have recently had several of these edits undone.

I believe red cards are an essential piece of information for any match info box; they have a demonstrable effect on the outcome of a game, and many real-world media outlets and football scores websites will include red card information along with goals in their goalsheets for a given game. If any of you feel the same way, I think it'd be great to say so here; perhaps we could popularize this practice.

M89565c (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This has come up a few times before and the consensus has always been the same - that red cards shouldn't be included. You can search through the archives for the previous discussions if you're curious about it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

They shouldn't be included. Red cards are not goals. Though they are at least key events in a match, rather than polluting an infobox with 7 entirely meaningless yellow cards. EchetusXe 11:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

What consensus? Technically goals, yellow and red cards are classed as incidents or game information. The standard practice on all other websites is to include that information in one form or another. Why not wikipedia?? Besides, the coded data is in the template, why put it there if you don't use it?? Govvy (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It is "standard practice" on some websites, not all of them. Most recent discussion that I can see is here which reached the same conclusion. Feel free to search for and read through the others. It is a fair point though that the template documentation hasn't been updated so that is perhaps something we should look at. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

That's surprisingly limited and not a consensus, and a few editors there said to include red cards. To be frank, I don't really want yellow cards because it's too much clutter for me. But for red cards and goals I believe that's important information. A red card can change a game just as much as a goal. And as I said, that is not a consensus against red cards. That's down to choice preferences, so please don't remove red cards under the president that's it's against consensus. That there is just wrong. Govvy (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

No YC, for sure. RC i was/am mehhh ok if someone wants to add it. Kante4 (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Govvy, those were my thoughts exactly. I don't think it's necessary to include yellows, but reds are notable enough to include (and rare enough that they won't cause clutter in the box). I especially don't believe in removing red cards that other users have already taken the time to add in. @Kante4 I am not heavily involved in this WikiProject and its community, although I make many edits on football-related articles. What would be the proper procedure (and who would I speak to) to try to make putting in red cards (or at least leaving them alone when others add them) an official policy of ours? M89565c (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Try to gain a consensus here but i doubt there will be a clear one. Kante4 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

After looking into some of the earlier archives, I see that much of the opposition seems to be centered on the fact that red cards would go into the goals1 and goals2 parameters for the football box and collapsible football box templates; some people believe that cards shouldn't be included because the parameter names suggest that only goals belong there. @EchetusXe brings up this point here, and @DenSportgladeSkåningen alludes to it in some edit summaries of his/hers.

I disagree with this logic. If you look at the example given on the collapsible football box template's page, you can see that card information is included within the goals parameters of the template. The example on the regular football box template page does not have card information, but the method for including cards is mentioned in the "see also" section. I think it's clear that the goals1 and goals2 parameters are also meant to provide space for cards if editors are able to include them. I don't believe in putting in all yellow cards, because that can make the box cluttered, but red cards are more important and much rarer. M89565c (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

No red cards as per previous consensus. Matilda 10:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I have added a note to the collapsible template documentation warning of this disagreement. Spike 'em (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

And as to the discussion point: definitely no to yellow cards; red cards I'm ambivalent about. Spike 'em (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for FC Bayern Munich

FC Bayern Munich 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) 18:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Clarification of inclusion criteria for ‘Other domestic titles’ (national vs secondary competitions)

I would like to ask for input on a classification issue regarding the “Other domestic titles” column in the article on lists of football clubs by competitive honours (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_clubs_by_competitive_honours_won).

The core problem is how to interpret the article’s definition of domestic competitions as “top-level nationwide competitions organized by a single national federation,” specifically what is meant by "top-level", and how consistently that definition is applied across different countries.

In the case of Club Nacional de Football and other Uruguayan clubs, there are several historical competitions (e.g. Campeonato Competencia, Torneo Cuadrangular AUF, Liga Mayor) that were organized by the Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol and involved first-division teams (either all or some top teams, for example, top-10, top-8, etc). Some secondary sources (including press summaries and historical works) treat these as part of the club’s official honours, yet they are currently excluded or disputed in the table.

The disagreement appears to stem from two different ways of interpreting the criteria. One is a structural approach, where competitions are included if they are federation-organized, involve top-division teams, and operate at a national level. The other is a more selective approach, where only certain competitions are included based on perceived importance or prominence, even if others meet the structural definition. The latter can be difficult to apply consistently, as it introduces a degree of subjectivity that is not clearly defined in the article itself.

There are also related consistency concerns across countries. For example, similar ambiguities appear when comparing with clubs like Linfield F.C., where some competitions are clearly regional and excluded, but others may be national in scope yet are not consistently treated.

Additionally, Uruguay presents a structural peculiarity: it historically lacks a single clearly defined “main national cup” comparable to other countries, with multiple federation-organized competitions instead falling under what is currently grouped as “other domestic titles.” This complicates direct comparisons with countries that have a clearer hierarchy of competitions.

So the main question is:

Should inclusion in “Other domestic titles” be based strictly on structural criteria (federation-organized, top-division, nationwide), or should an additional filter (e.g. perceived importance, prominence in major summaries) be applied?

Clarification on this point would help determine how to treat these Uruguayan competitions and ensure the criteria are applied consistently across different leagues and historical contexts.

There has already been some discussion on the articles talk page. I was recommended to come resolve this issue here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_football_clubs_by_competitive_honours_won Bossproplays (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:TLDR... GiantSnowman 17:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue concerns the phrase “top-level nationwide competitions organized by a national federation,” particularly the meaning of “top-level” and whether the criteria are applied consistently across countries.

Several federation-organized competitions involving first-division teams are often recognized as official honours in secondary sources but are excluded or disputed in the table. This creates uncertainty about whether inclusion should follow:

a structural approach (federation-organized, national scope, involving top-division teams), or

a selective approach (based on perceived importance or prominence).

The selective approach introduces subjectivity and may lead to inconsistent treatment between countries. This is further complicated by differences in national competition structures, such as Uruguay lacking a single dominant national cup. Bossproplays (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Please explain the problem in clear, simple English. GiantSnowman 18:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

on "lists of football clubs by competitive honours", there is a table where I added some trophies to a club and these were later removed from the count and left as a note. They follow the pages definition of "club honor", but there is a disagreement on what "top-level" means. If it simply means the fist divion clubs, for example, or if prestige and "importance" matter. I believe they don't as it is subjective. I was directed here by my mentor to resolve the issue. Bossproplays (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

To me, 'top level' means top division in a particular country, as opposed to otherwise prestigious/important. GiantSnowman 20:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

yes I would agree. So I'm going to add the trophies back. If somebody modifies them, do I direct them here? I don't exactly know how to proceed from here. Bossproplays (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Guildford City F.C. badge

I'm not sure how to fix this - the Guildford City badge added on 20th January is expanding the infobox to squash/fill the page. How do I fix this? ColchesterSid (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! ColchesterSid (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the club has surrendered copyright on their own badge by uploading it to Commons under a CC license....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bernabéu (stadium)#Requested move 26 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bernabéu (stadium)#Requested move 26 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Football Derby (Requesting for AfD discussion)

So, far I know a football derby need to satisfy, an established rivalry, geographical proximity, a history of matches of finals or winning trophies in mutiple championships, league or cups and ofcourse significan coverage.

The article South Indian Derby seems to be an original research and totally from a fan's point of view, was created by a banned user who declared himslef as Kerala Blasters fan, where as it seems like there may be a rivalry between Chennaiyin and Bengaluru may become a reality where with Kerala it's a far cry. I am requesting for all of your valuable insight at the AfD. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please be careful of WP:CANVASS. GiantSnowman 20:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Ronaldo – disambiguation discussion

Discussion at Talk:Ronaldo#Requested move 10 April 2026 about whether the page should be a disambiguation page. Input from WikiProject Football would be appreciated. ~2026-22170-94 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Mentioning a specific match on player article

Hear me out and let's discuss. Certain notable matches have their own Wikipedia pages. They are usually mentioned and linked from specific player pages. For example Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink article mentions and links to Battle of Nuremberg (2006 FIFA World Cup) and 2009 Scottish League Cup final. Other example, Gonçalo Guedes links to 2019 UEFA Nations League final and 2019 Copa del Rey final.

Now, there is this infamous match, Disgrace of Gijón. It was "soft" match-fixing by stopping actual playing after the first goal, which resulted in West Germany and Austria advancing to next stage of World Cup, and knocking out Algeria. This match resulted in subsequent rule change by FIFA for final group stage matches to be played simultaneously.

24 players played in this match and every single one of them has his own Wiki article. But from what I see, only 2 player articles mention it and link to the match. In my opinion player pages should mention and link to this match. To underline its notability, here is a comparison of pageviews for a few selected matches.

Please share your opinion whether you agree that it should be mentioned. How to phrase it tastefully? Tupungato (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Is a player's participation in a match (whether or not that match has a separate, standalone article) notable to that player's career? First match, first goal, finals of competitions - yes. GiantSnowman 17:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Is Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink participation in 2009 Scottish League Cup final in which he was subbed in 120th minute notable to that player's career?

Lothar Matthäus page already mentions Disgrace of Gijón, but he was only a substitute, and it was a minor match of his career, compared to many other players.--Tupungato (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Who cares what other articles do? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. GiantSnowman 18:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This should be treated case-by-case. Is there anything meaningful to add from reliable sources about a given player's involvement in the match? (i.e. something beyond "X player played in Y match") It's not a good practice to shoehorn a link without context. Left guide (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

According to media, there was one player who attempted to play and didn't take part in the "act of nonagression", but he didn't get passes from team mates (Walter Schachner).--Tupungato (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Links don't need to be bidirectional; only mention the match on a player's page if there is something notable about their appearance in it. Spike 'em (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I concur. We shouldn't force mention of a match into the article of every player who took part simply because the match has an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

My rationale is different, though. Disgrace of Gijón is more important, more consequential, and more present in the media, than, for example, 2015 AFC Asian Cup final or Guerin Sportivo All-Star Team. The player article is detailed enough to mention all the years he got into Guerin Sportivo All-Star Team.--Tupungato (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be based on your personal preference, nothing else... GiantSnowman 17:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

If the player's article has a sentence saying something like "he was selected for the squad for the 1982 World Cup", IMO it would be acceptable to add something like "he played in X matches in the tournament including the group stage fixture against Austria / West Germany that became known as the 'Disgrace of Gijón'" (anyone interested in what that involved can then follow the link). If the article is so rubbish that it doesn't even mention participation in the World Cup, mentioning a specific match would be unduly specific and look odd on the page, and there's no need to explain what happened in the match, that's what the link is for. PS Walter Schachner's article already mentions the match. PPS any relevant Germans should also have "and the 3–1 loss to Italy in the final" which by any measure is more significant. Crowsus (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not based on my personal preference. I specifically included link to Wikipedia viewership metrics. I can also post them here to illustrate my point, here are Wikipedia pages with average monthly viewership in 3 years:

2019 UEFA Nations League Finals - 9443

1982 FIFA World Cup final - 6759

Disgrace of Gijón - 6656

2019 Copa del Rey final - 974

2009 Scottish League Cup final - 160

Disgrace of Gijon has viewership comparable with World Cup finals. There are articles about this match in New York Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, etc. Tupungato (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

that is all irrelevant, the issue is whether or not it makes sense to include a link given the condition and length of each article. For Paul Breitner, I would have thought he would have enough content but on looking at it, his long and successful playing career is summarised in just 3 paragraphs, so not really suitable as it stands. For Hans Krankl, the international section is already worded in a way that mentioning it would make sense. Uli Stielike maybe (West Germany v France is already mentioned there but not actually linked, ditto the final), Felix Magath probably not suitable due to existing wording, Bruno Pezzey maybe, Herbert Prohaska probably not, etc.

I'm curious why you feel the need to highlight this match further, since as you have pointed out it already gets the same views as the final of that year - looks like it is getting all the attention it deserves? Nobody is saying it's not a notable match and therefore a valid article so there is no need to mention sources, and there are already ample links (including in the navbox for Algeria which is slightly ropey as they didn't play in it - but totally understandable as they were the affected nation and the place where it is remembered the most). Crowsus (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

World Cup draw

Hello!

I'm editing the Pelé page and could use some help understanding this segment:

"Pelé made the draw for the qualification groups for the 2006 FIFA World Cup finals."

What does that mean? Isn't the draw when they put the teams into groups for the group stage? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

There's also a draw for all the groups in the qualifying rounds. That draw took place in December 2003. This describes the upcoming draw and mentions that former footballer Abedi Pele will be one of a number of people making the draw, who of course is not the same person as former footballer Pelé. Maybe an editor got confused.......? The article does mentions that the Brazilian Pelé would be among those in attendance but only as a "guest of honour" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to take that sentence out until (or if) I can find evidence that Pelé actually participated in that draw. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

2026 CAF Scandal

I nominated this article for deletion for it failing WP:GNG, it got removed by the original creator. Can this be looked at further? FastCube (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This is just a WP:CFORK from the tournament / final articles, where the situation is covered in more detail. It also has WP:NPOV issues. This should at best be a redirect to 2025 Africa Cup of Nations#Disciplinary ruling until a fuller article can be written at the end of the appeals process. Spike 'em (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Ridiculous to have a separate three-sentence article when the subject is covered in more depth in the tournament article. Also the title is incorrectly capitalised and (arguably) not NPOV -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article to be a redirect, and I also created the redirect 2026 CAF scandal. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Pichichi

Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on whether Liga F Golden Boot should be merged with Pichichi, since according to the first article, they are the same thing for female players. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

If anything, merge Pichichi into Liga F Golden Boot, which is the "official" Spanish award, not something run similarly by a private entity. Matilda 04:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I've been trying to find sources that clarify the situation—for women, is the Golden Boot the same award as the Pichichi (as in, a single trophy, one award ceremony, etc.), or is the Pichichi automatically given to the Golden Boot winner, meaning that the player gets two separate awards for the same thing?

The Pichichi page says "Since the 2014–15 season, the top scorer of the women's Liga F is also awarded the Pichichi Trophy", but the cited source doesn't back that up. The Pichichi page lists female winners starting in 2005, when the Golden Boot started, but that entire table is uncited.

The Golden Boot page says the award is "also known as the Pichichi" but that isn't cited either! I can't find any English-language sources that clear up this situation. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Folarin Balogun nationality

Another day, another nationality dispute - this time at Folarin Balogun. Born in USA to Nigerian parents; spent entire life in UK and represented England youth; plays senior for USA. Please discuss on article talk page. GiantSnowman 17:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada

There is a requested move regarding adding "men's" to the title of the above-mentioned article that members of this group may be interested in. The purpose being to avoid confusion with Prominent women's sports leagues in the United States and Canada and to clearly define the leagues that should be included in the article. Assadzadeh (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:FC Armavir#Requested move 16 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:FC Armavir#Requested move 16 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Jordan Hadaway

Can someone please help me expand the Jordan Hadaway article, using either existing or new sources, so it's eligible for WP:DYK? I think it's an interesting one. GiantSnowman 08:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Now at Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Hadaway... GiantSnowman 08:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Category:Southampton F.C. Women managers

Just discovered there is both a: Category:Southampton F.C. Women managers and a: Category:Southampton Women's F.C. managers - you can find this at Simon Parker (football manager). I'm not too experienced with Categories so i'll leave it to someone else :)

It turns out there are two Southampton women's clubs. I await the trouting. Best, RossEvans19 (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

1994 FIFA World Cup

A heads up: 1994 FIFA World Cup has been chosen for a WikiEdu course and has already seen some edits of questionable quality and relevance. I have raised concerns with the listed instructor, but think that a notice here is also warranted. SounderBruce 03:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Megan Rapinoe

Megan Rapinoe 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. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

And now for something completely unrelated

From where i stand, :@User:Vlove1 seems to have the habit of adding the IMDb to sportspeoples' external links. In my humble opinion, not only does that go against WP:ELNO but also, in my humble opinion ("wink wink, nudge nudge"!) is completely unnecessary to the subject's line of work/career.

Cases where it could be a good addition (again, in my opinion): Vinny Jones (this one tops all of them), David Beckham, Michael Jordan or Cristiano Ronaldo (Jordan starred in a couple of movies if i'm correct, ALL have been subjected to quite a few documentaries). But what does José Santamaría have to do with the movie industry? Vlove1 added the link, i removed it on the aforementioned grounds but was reverted (thus, gave up, what do i care if it stays!).

Attentively, happy weekend everyone RevampedEditor (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

He doesn’t have to do with the movie industry, he has credits from past sports events. So what if I have a habit of adding IMDb like I don’t add every single one as I research which one has their own page and leave those that haven’t. I don’t know why you’re getting your knickers in a twist with this, not fair! Vlove1 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

See WP:IMDB. GiantSnowman 12:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Not getting my knickers in a twist, my kind fellow user, i just found it to be a strange addition that is all! That's why i came to this forum to settle my doubts, and notified/pinged you about it. Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Nothing strange about it, there’s all types of people on IMDb. That’s why I just add em if they relate to the person and if they don’t, I move on. Vlove1 (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed for footballers, with the exception of e.g. Vinny Jones who had a successful acting career after retiring as a player. GiantSnowman 13:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Eric Cantona is another one who springs into my mind… Tvx1 00:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I found this thread because I also found this odd that a lot of "non-actors" or film people have IMDb templates. I have begun removing many of them, as there is no reason imo to have an IMDb link for sportspeople or politicians (unless they previously were actors, like Arnold or Reagan). Natg 19 (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

2029 FIFA Club World Cup

I think some action is required at 2029 FIFA Club World Cup. The article currently has sections listing qualified teams and qualification progress for each confederation. These sections are original research in their entirety, because the FIFA has not even annouced how many teams will be participating, let alone how they can qualify, nor even a venue for the event. The official site for the CWC is still only displaying the info on the 2025 event. Everything that is in the aforementioned sections currently is completely unverifiable.Tvx1 19:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:FORK the qualification section into a stand-alone article, but send that to draftspace. That aligns with the format for 2025, which has a separate qualification article. Matilda 22:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It is all unverified. We went through the same thing in the 2025 qualification period because FIFA takes forever to make things public. Matilda's option is probably the best way forward. Chris1834 Talk 13:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep, could also quote WP:CRYSTAL. Until there are more details the article should be severely pruned. Spike 'em (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Slot allocation and qualification boldly removed from the article by @Tvx1: I will restore those sections as a new article in draft space today or tomorrow, so that information can be updated and modified for when FIFA finally decides its actually a 48 team tournament, or a 64 team tournament, or a 96 team tournament, which ever makes the most money. Matilda 03:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I have generated an article in Draft space for this : Draft:2029 FIFA Club World Cup qualification. Matilda ^talk 22:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Obed Ansah

The article Obed Ansah has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for 14 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced WP:BLP.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mai Anbessa FC

The article Mai Anbessa FC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is not notable for Wikipedia, there is almost no information about the club.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. CarLover100 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Franz Carr's career stats

Hi folks. Franz Carr's career statistics is partly unsourced. Specifically, I have been unable to find sources for appearances in

• the 1994–95 First Division season with Sheffield United
• "Other" competitions.

Apart from the sources used in the table, there's a Soccerbase profile () which seems to be incomplete before 1997.

Does anyone have an idea where to look? Robby.is.on (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Carr didn't make any appearances for Sheffield United in that season (source: Rothman's Football Yearbook 1995-96, p.313). He joined Leicester on loan just three weeks into the season without having featured for United, and made the move permanent a few weeks later. The 1994-95 Sheff U stats in the table are wrong/fake -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Chris. I have removed the numbers. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Simon Ferry

this vast addition looks like the work of an editor some of you will be familiar with who adopted certain footballer biographies as projects, adding 'missing' (very often irrelevant) details with poor grammar, flow, structure etc. From what I remember they were very resistant to advice and pleas for sense and I presume eventually got banned - and now returned nderan IP? Crowsus (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree this looks to be a DUCK of Timmy96 (talk · contribs) who has been banned - therefore WP:DENY applies. GiantSnowman 17:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

yeah that's him. Unfortunate that he's now just wasting his own time. Crowsus (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Supporters of FC Barcelona

Supporters of FC Barcelona 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) 02:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Martín Satriano

Hi everyone! Martín Satriano joined Getafe on loan from Lyon on 16 January this year. It was supposed to be a loan deal until the end of this season. However, Getafe made the move permanent on March 30 (when the transfer window was closed). How should this be displayed in the infobox?

1 - Display the loan spell from 16 January to 30 March, and count the matches from 31 March onwards under the permanent spell.

2 - Display the loan spell from 16 January to 30 June. Once the transfer window/new season begins on 1st July, count matches from the next season onwards under the permanent spell.

What is the right option here? Thank you in advance. TijibaTwix (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@TijibaTwix: I would personally use the first option as the club statement from Getafe seems to indicate that he has signed effective immediately "[He has] signed for the rest of the season and four more seasons." REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

FYI: 1906 Sheriff of London Charity Shield Interesting correspondence with Liverpool FC.

I emailed Liverpool a while back why they didn't include the honour on https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours and I got a response.

---

Thank you for your patience.

I have been advised the below by our Museum Curator:

For many years, the 1906 Sheriff of London Charity Shield was included on our honours list and even featured on the front of the matchday programme for a spell in the 1930s.

Why that changed, I honestly don’t know – my guess is that because it was a fixture played against a non-league team it wasn’t deemed a ‘major’ trophy - but having done research into this I am aware of how prestigious it was at the time and that it was the forerunner to the FA Charity/Community Shield and agree, therefore, that it should be referenced.

I will speak with the relevant people within the club and look to get this reinstated.

I hope this helps, if there is anything else we can help with, please let us know.

Kind regards,

---

So it looks like they will change the number from 16 back to 17 on their own website which would also match List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

That's cool EchetusXe 17:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Signatures of footballers

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Signatures of living people regarding mass addition of signatures to the footballers to infoboxes. GiantSnowman 18:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone help me towards making a translation of a Nigerian footballer's article

Hello everyone. I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but my draft article has been declined. I know that there weren't enough references, but unfortunately, there are more references about the player, which I didn't know where to implement. If anyone wants to help me to create an article from the Italian Wikipedia, I would be really grateful. Draft:Ezekiel Mbah CarLover100 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) is the key to the question whether the article can be kept. If there's significant coverage, for example longer newspaper articles, about the subject, then you could place these items on the article's Talk page, at Draft talk:Ezekiel Mbah, for others to use.

As far as I can tell, the Italian article at it: Ezekiel Mbah isn't of much help. It doesn't seem to have any content the English draft doesn't have and it doesn't have any significant coverage – Transfermarkt is unreliable (see WP:WPFLINKSNO) and the other two references are also database entries. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I’ll try to fix the article as much as I could. CarLover100 (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Wrexham A.F.C. Young Player of the Year

I have no issues at all with a 'Player of the Year' navbox, and plenty of them in Category:Association football club Player of the Year navigational boxes - but what about {{Wrexham A.F.C. Young Player of the Year}}? I think it's overkill, and as far as I can see, the only one of its kind... GiantSnowman 21:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I always felt it was overkill. EchetusXe 10:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Nea Salamis Famagusta FC

Nea Salamis Famagusta FC 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) 02:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

BEFORE check on North derby

This is apparently a fairly recent derby, and I can find little to nothing confirming that the matchup is actually referred to as the North derby. Would any UK editors be able to weigh in or identify sources that I'm missing? Google is very bare and I'm going to AfD this if no one finds anything. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Honours

As we tend to see this sort of thing being added to player/manager articles at this time of year, can I confirm that the consensus is that gaining promotion by finishing third (or even second) is not considered an "honour" in the sense of what goes in an "Honours" section....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If no trophies or medals are given, then there is no honour! Govvy (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've seen photos of third place teams getting promoted getting a trophy, so it's meaningless. GiantSnowman 17:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Retained lists – outgoing players

As retained lists are being released throughout the EFL, could players who are out of contract and leaving the club be put in an 'outgoing players' category on the club's page similar to when on loan, or is it better leaving them in the squad box until 30th June? Bobster1001 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I would endorse that. It would potentially save seven weeks of them being edited in and out of the club's article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to include them in an 'outgoing players' sub-section of the 'current squad' section.

As a wider general reminder, in the English system, contracts end on 30 June (so players leave clubs on that date) and begin on 1 July (so players join new clubs on that date). Please wait until those dates before updating player articles etc. GiantSnowman 17:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Àngel Rangel

Any Swans people out there, to "be aware" of the subject's whereabouts? I visited Pontardawe Town A.F.C. official website, could not retrieve any pertinent info. Also, this quick Google search yielded nothing solid as well (https://www.google.com/search?q=%C3%A1ngel+rangel+manager+pontardawe&sca_esv=8639ec9b40ab010a&rlz=1C1GCEU_pt-PTPT1141PT1141&ei=RIH8af32BYvti-gPmqmEyA0&ved=0ahUKEwj9qMXbkqeUAxWL9gIHHZoUAdkQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%C3%A1ngel+rangel+manager+pontardawe&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIMOhbmdlbCByYW5nZWwgbWFuYWdlciBwb250YXJkYXdlMgUQABjvBTIFEAAY7wUyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEiRKlDQC1i5InABeACQAQCYAZQBoAG8B6oBAzIuNrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCBqAClQXCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIXEC4Y3AYYuAYY2gYY2AIYyAMYsAPYAQHCAgcQIRgKGKABmAMAiAYBkAYFugYECAEYGZIHAzIuNKAHnRqyBwMxLjS4B4cFwgcHMC4yLjMuMcgHGIAIAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp; one LinkedIn post by him does indicate he was also in charge of the club's under-15s)...

Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

From the articles about his appointment as U12s manager, it was because his son was in that age group. 3 seasons later, his son is in the U15s. On the surface, it seems he is doing what many parents do as coaches in grass-roots sports : following their child through the system. I guess Pontardawe made a big deal of it at the time, but similar to other clubs at those levels, they won't list age group managers anywhere. He has retired from top-level football and not sure there is anything else worthy of note about him since. Spike 'em (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Juan Alvina#Requested move 30 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Juan Alvina#Requested move 30 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:SEASONS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:SEASONS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 8 § Wikipedia:SEASONS until a consensus is reached. George Ho (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Collin McCamy

This article has been proposed for deletion. Please review and improve. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Bearian:, we usually have about a handful of football-related AfDs daily: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football. Is there a reason to highlight this particular one? Robby.is.on (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, he might be notable, but since I don't follow football/soccer any more, I'm not sure. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of Sunderland A.F.C.

History of Sunderland A.F.C. 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) 14:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

League season – top assists

Hello, is there currently a consensus that assists should not be included in league season statistics? Is there any justification for them being available in one league season and not in others? I only see them rarely (and not at all in the top leagues), so I thought the consensus was still that they are against WP:NOTSTATS. I personally also believe that this is too much detail and they should not appear. This topic was opened in Talk:2025–26 First Professional Football League (Bulgaria)#Statistics when I removed them from the Bulgarian league, so I'm moving the discussion here. FromCzech (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

There have been many discussions (feel free to search the archives) and the consensus is not to include them. Not neccesarily NOTSTATS, but also as they aren't clearly understood what they are and different sources count them differently (for example if player A is fouled in the box and player B converts, does player A get an assist? or if player C passes and player D converts after turning towards goal, does player C get an assist?) --SuperJew (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

FromCzech has removed the assist section per WP:FOOTY consensus now twice. I find that them trying to apply WP:FOOTY's standards goes against WP:PROJ.

The consensus, as far as what I was linked, was simply discussions where two sides disagreed, and outside of 1 heated discussion about a Ukrainian league season page, it was mostly about personal player article pages.

I agree that assists, as a statistical metric that is judged differently by different sources for different leagues, has no place in player article pages in the statistics part - you can't really compare assists as listed by ESPN for a US League to assists as listed by another source for Ligue 1, for instance, in the context of a player that played in both.

The above makes sense. What doesn't make sense is applying said logic en masse to a League season page where we have credible sources:

• Bulgarian-Football is a go-to statistical website that has been around for over 3 decades. This is what is used throughout this season's page and previous ones.
• Efbetleague.com is the official League website - the data is also available there, clearly stipulated for each team's players.

WP:NOSTATS does not apply to assists in this specific case, thus consensus (even if applying it doesn't break WP:PROJ) is also not applicable - we have an official source plus a high-quality source, whether the assists logged by either of those (and we can argue which one should be used) are comparable to another league's sourced assists should not matter for their inclusion.--Yupyuphello (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

As there has been no traction on the topic for 4 days now, if no discussion is going to be held, I'll be proceeding with adding back the top assists, as I see no logical reason to omit a statistic that is sourced properly and fits the context of the page. --Yupyuphello (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

SuperJew commented on the topic. Btw WP:PROJ is an informational page, not policy or guideline. FromCzech (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

There is consensus from previous discussions to not add assists. If you want to start a new discussion, go ahead. Kante4 (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Premier League at FAR

I have nominated Premier League for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Joshua King (footballer, born 1992)

Joshua King (footballer, born 1992) 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) 02:33, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Club records and statistics as lists?

I don't feel it makes sense that the club records and statistics articles are titled as "Lists" (e.g. List of FC Barcelona records and statistics), when the way they are styled is a run-down of records and statistics, not styled as a list. It's even inconsistent with competition records and statistics articles (e.g. European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics; not titled as a list and styled the exact same as the clubs). Can we agree to remove the "list" factor to the club articles? FastCube (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

12 of them are Featured Lists, so they are clearly considered to be lists. Some list-class articles have "List of" in the title and others don't, there's no hard and fast rule -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2025 Greek Super Cup#Requested move 5 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Greek Super Cup#Requested move 5 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Listing for discussion of Template:Editnotices/Page/List of FIFA World Cup top goalscorers

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of FIFA World Cup top goalscorers has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Left guide (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Previous Appearances in the Total Field as Pop Ups

In 2026 FIFA U-17 World Cup & 2026 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup, pop ups have been added to the total field that list all previous appearances by that team. This is inconsistent with other articles of the same type and I feel gets ridiculous at some point. If these were added to the 2026 World Cup article, some of these lists would be huge. I deleted them from the Women's article and they were put back. So I am asking for other opinions before moving forward with deleting them again. Chris1834 Talk 19:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Please can you clarify what you mean by 'pop ups'? GiantSnowman 20:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, They are using this abbr coding: 9th which creates a the dashed line under it and when scrolled over makes additional information appear in a box. Chris1834 Talk 21:15, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

t you, thanks - no, that shouldn't be used IMHO. If that info is merited, it should be in a separate column, rather than abbreviation coding.o GiantSnowman 21:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The box is called a "tooltip" and its appearance and behaviour vary between browsers. Some don't display it at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't work on my MacBook... GiantSnowman 19:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Should be in a separate column, if at all. --SuperJew (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, tooltips don't work when viewing an article on a mobile device, and I am sure I read somewhere that the vast majority of WP article views are on mobile devices, so hiding significant information behind a functionality that doesn't work for mobile viewers should definitely be discouraged -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup § Issues with the post-expand include size

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup § Issues with the post-expand include size, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Foreign player tables (again).

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 172#RfC on "Foreign players" tables in season articles. The indescriminate list of foreign players tables are back. See 2025–26 Super League (Indonesia). Could we keep an eye out for this? They've also readded the position by rounds and is again sourced to Instagram. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That RfC was never closed somehow, maybe that should be done first so we have a "results" what we can refer to? Kante4 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I was also surprised. I didn't think you could just archive active RfCs like that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't make out a clear consensus in the RfC so what do you propose, Lee? Robby.is.on (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Probably a formal close would be a start. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

From my understanding, the RfC tag is typically removed automatically 30 days after it opens, after which it is subject to being automatically archived like any other thread due to no activity. An interested party can post a close request to WP:CR, and ask the future closer to unarchive the thread in tandem with closing it. Left guide (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think you could just archive active RfCs like that. This is the archiving edit, timed at 15:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC). Notice that the first line after the section heading is

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 14:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1774188067}}

which is one week earlier than the actual archiving, so no problem there. The {{rfc}} tag had already been removed in this edit at 13:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC), and the entry was removed from WP:RFC/SOC at that time - this was twelve days before archiving. The last post to the RfC was at 08:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC), i.e. three weeks before archiving, so the RfC wasn't exactly "active" when it was archived. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Anwegmann removed this table as per consensus. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The Beach Ball Game, but not Battle of the Bridge: What makes a match worthy of Wikipedia?

The New York Times, for your enjoyment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

lmao, the New York Times wrote about my "work". Straight from the horse's mouth: I created the beach ball game article because I kept seeing retrospectives of it, this confirming a lasting impact past the news coverage. And as the NYT notes, the entire life of the ball is noted, from being punched onto the pitch, causing the goal, being confiscated, given to a Liverpool fan, auctioned for charity, bought by a Sunderland fan, then given to the National Football Museum. I had noticed similar WTF articles about games of American sport, such as baseball fans damning their teams by catching the ball. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• The Beach Ball Game? Tiny Particle (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sunderland A.F.C. 1–0 Liverpool F.C. (2009). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed that! Spike 'em (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Noting that the other headline item may not have an article, but there's a decent section: Chelsea_F.C.–Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C._rivalry#2016:_'Battle_of_the_Bridge'. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I do find it weird that whenever there is media coverage of Wikipedia, it always seems to treat it as some kind of centralised, mysterious presence, as if decisions are not made by consensus and can be found with a short search. Timmeh (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Event comparison articles

I can't see how any of the articles in Category:Association football comparisons meet WP:LISTN. These are all big stat table dumps that have been written to give a comparison between teams representing countries that doesn't exist. Whilst there are things like the national co-efficient in UEFA, we should be talking about that, not making up our own metrics, or even suggesting that a nation is somehow better than others because of how it's teams have reached in a competition. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree with you. I spot checked one and it looks like WP:OR and contains no refs either. So what about AFD? C679 04:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Juan José Rodríguez#Requested move 20 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Juan José Rodríguez#Requested move 20 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-30321-15 (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Year in Continent articles

I was wondering about the Year in Continent articles, for example 2025–26 in Asian Football, 2025–26 in European football etc. It will be a nice place to have all the continental leagues, tournaments on a single page. I would like to hear opinions. Footy2000♡ (🗨) 07:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

So for UEFA there are 50+ leagues, to have them on a single page is probably not a great idea. If somebody wanted to see all the data at the same time they could load all the pages - or get an AI summary... C679 04:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

By leagues I meant continental leagues of Champions League, Europa, Conference, Women's UCL and Youth UCL. Regardless, I think 50+ league winners can still be mentioned in an overview table instead of displaying the full tables. Footy2000♡ (🗨) 16:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't think that this is needed. I mean we have 2026 in association football. Kante4 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Stadium naming dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Premier League Cup (football)

There is a requested move discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Premier League Cup (football) regarding how stadiums are named in English football, specifically on the matter of paid for sponsored names v traditional unsponsored name that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Leagues mens football in Vanuatu

The ABM Galaxy plays both divisions (VFF and Port Vila), that is, I think the Port Vila clubs that play in both leagues, and not as shown on the page Canon58 (talk) Canon58 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

RSSSF confirms that Port Vila teams only didn't enter the VFF Champions League in 2016-2019. That means that since 2020 one team (probably the Port Vila League champions) plays in both. For example in 2025 Galaxy won the 2024-25 Port Vila League and the 2025 VFF Champions League. SlimyGecko7 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Should I edit the article? Canon58 (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Something else I've noticed is that the Port Vila league champion doesn't qualify for OFC Champions Canon58 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Sam Hird

I have no idea why, but you can see in the history of this lower league player that there's an anon users for years who modifies this player's stats with made up ones. ive had to fix this 3 times now, and it ends up unnoticed for years at a time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hird&action=history you can see in history this has been going on for close to two decades and its always anon users. its odd one person is obsessed with this specific player. other users have been battling it long before i first noticed this *five years ago*. so there's a user that has been dedicated to trolling this page for *twenty years* I went as far back as 2007, and it was happening there. when you look the IPs, a lot of them get banned (one actually has their ban lifted in 1 week) for their troll edits specifically on this player. so theyre using VPNs for the sole reason of trolling this player..?Muur (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Luís Machado#Requested move 23 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Luís Machado#Requested move 23 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-30712-68 (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sebastián González#Requested move 23 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sebastián González#Requested move 23 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-30712-68 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYDEL

A polite reminder that WP:FOOTYDEL exists, listing deletion discussions/page moves etc. - and noting that it hasn't been updated in the 8 days I have been away on holiday. Many hands make light work, and more assistance there would be very much appreciated. GiantSnowman 14:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Giovanni Pérez#Requested move 25 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Giovanni Pérez#Requested move 25 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-31272-74 (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Oleksandr Pyshchur#Requested move 25 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oleksandr Pyshchur#Requested move 25 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-31272-74 (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring regarding maps on English leagues season pages

An IP editor has been changing format of maps on English leagues season pages (Premier League and lower leagues). I restored the longstanding format of maps at 2025–26 Premier League and 2026–27 Premier League. However, the IP editor (probably the same editor) then reverted without explanation at 2025–26 page and also reverted at 2026–27 claiming We are moving to a new map format for the 2026/27 season. Have these format changes been discussed anywhere? Or is it a one editor crusade to change it without consensus? – sbaio 16:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering why they changed so suddenly. I'd like to know too if this is a new general concensus or not. RollonLaurent (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not see this as an improvement. You may want to invite the editor (and hope he engages in the discussion). Kante4 (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I have put the original formatting of the maps back on these pages linked in the discussion. Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: 2026–27 EFL League One and 2026–27 EFL League Two were also changed by probably the same IP editor. – sbaio 20:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed back to the original map format. Some of the next seasons team names in League One overlap wherever they are placed when you use preview or save the edit. Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Please undo your changes, the new map format is just better in everyway, and if your gonna change them back, atleast put the correct teams and make them not overlap. Its a pain having to undo them all because I'm not able to because of "intermediate changes" ~2026-26158-13 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, we usually handle things like this in a Bold, revert, discuss cycle. You boldly made changes to these articles, it has been reverted, and now it's being discussed. Please don't reintroduce your changes until there is a consensus that we should. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I was the one who originally updated the 2025-26 Premier League map, and then another editor updated the other pages. To be honest I didn't even think it would be a discussion as the new format would been seen as obviously superior and this mirrors changes made to similar maps on other sports pages. I have pasted the two different versions of the maps below, if anyone has opinions, note you can click in the little square on the top right of the new maps and zoom into locations as much as you like Jopal22 (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Huge changes like this certainly need consensus. In addition, the updated map does not even work when using phone. Therefore, it is not "obviously superior" in any way. – sbaio 05:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure they need to be discussed for every article which we want to change; and similar changes have already been made across other sporting pages including football. They have been there a while so (I suppose wrongly) assumed consensus was already in favour e.g. UEFA Euro 2024, UEFA Euro 2028, 2022 FIFA World Cup, 2026 FIFA World Cup, 2030 FIFA World Cup Jopal22 (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It should have been discussed. Seeing it now next to eachother, i stay with what i said, it's not an improvement. Kante4 (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

i prefer the look/functionality of the new map, other than 1 major point: when you use the zoom functionality it replaces the labels with a numbered pin, so you then lose the team names. Spike 'em (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

You can click on the numbers and it will give you the team name. Jopal22 (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I figured that out, but still think it is a major functional flaw. Spike 'em (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Affected pages have been protected for 1 week. Maybe now the IP editor will be willing to discuss it. – sbaio 18:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I prefer the new map. It's an improvement in functionality on the old one. Easier to read and allows for zooming in to see the teams' stadium locations. The clarity is partly illustrated by the fact that Greater London has to have a separate insert map to make it even legible. Del_Usion23 (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Stadiums and locations

London

Aston Villa

Bournemouth

Brighton &
Hove Albion

Coventry City

Everton

Ipswich
Town

Leeds United

Liverpool

Manchester City

Manchester
United

Newcastle United

Nottingham
Forest

Sunderland

London teams:
Arsenal
Brentford
Chelsea
Crystal Palace
Fulham

Locations of the 2026–27 Premier League teams

Arsenal

Brentford

Chelsea

Crystal
Palace

Fulham

Greater London Premier League football clubs

Premier League teams for the 2026–27 season

40km
25miles

Sunderland

Nottingham Forest

Newcastle United

Manchester United

Manchester City

Liverpool

Leeds United

Ipswich Town

Fulham

Everton

Crystal Palace

Coventry City

Chelsea

Brighton & Hove Albion

Brentford

Bournemouth

Aston Villa

Arsenal

   

RfC on Nationality in the lede (Can we finally come to a consensus on this?)

To start, I want to make clear that this is one of the several central things I have focused on for some years now, and I have made thousands of edits about this. So I feel like I understand what the standard, nearly universal practices are related to a player's nationality in the lede. The problem I have found of late is that some editors, some very experienced and some not experienced at all, have started insisting on practices that are different than what is widely practiced across this WikiProject. This has been brought up here a few times, and each time either a small group of editors argue in circles, citing very specific examples to go against standard practice, becoming unwilling to budge for the sake of consensus, or a weak consensus is agreed upon for a few years before it falls apart again. So this is my attempt to come to a final consensus on the matter, or at least open the discussion to try to seek one out and state clearly what I have observed to be the standard practice related to this topic. I want to make clear, too, that I am not particularly partial to any specific suggestion here, although I do think is best to follow the most common, widespread practice rather than to change for the sake of changing.

I ask that we all show willingness to listen to other editors' ideas and allow for the fact that no consensus can ever be wholly perfect. There will always be WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Standard Practices (as I have observed over the last few years and thousands of edits):

1) When a player is born in one country and either has never played for a national team or currently/most recently has played for that same country's national team the lede reads: [Player] is a [nationality] professional footballer who plays for [club] and the [national team]. (Example: Lionel Messi)

2) When a player is born in one country but plays/most recently played for another country's national team the lede reads: [Player] is a professional footballer who plays for [club]. Born in [birth country], he plays for the [national team]. (Example: Alejandro Zendejas)

3) When a player is born in one country, but there is an obvious, sourced reason for that birth that disconnects them from their birth country (like being born to a footballing father who happens to be playing in that country at the time of their birth), and they play for the national team of their parent(s) the lede reads like #1: [Player] is a [nationality] who plays for [club] and the [national team]. (Examples: Erling Haaland and Gio Reyna)

• Both examples provided for this practice (#3) were born to foreign fathers who were professional footballers at the time of their son's birth. In both cases, sources clearly show that their births in England were happenstance and did not result in a clear connection to that country (or clear citizenship or eligibility to play for the England national team). In Gio Reyna's case (and possibly Haaland's case), for example, both parents were foreign to the country in which he was born. Please note, too, that this is only a historically reliable practice when the player plays for the national team of the country of his parent(s). Without clear, explicit sourcing stating otherwise, there is no way to establish a player's connection to a country outside of that in which he was born, even if he lived for a long time in another country or his parent(s) were natives of another country (hence the universal practice of #1 above). (Again, this is not me arguing for this. This is me stating my observations over many years and thousands of interactions with it specifically.)

Suggested Consensus: We follow, at the very least, #1 and #2 above universally unless there is clear, explicit, sourced evidence suggesting otherwise (Erling Haaland and Gio Reyna serving as two excellent examples of this), in which case we should also follow #3.

I know that other people will find examples outside of these three standard practices. I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. I understand that there are probably decent reasons why those other examples are the way that they are, but we all need to realize that a standard approach and universal practice must exist to avoid constant and frustrating arguments on talk pages that go nowhere and allow for nowhere to turn. If you have a demonstrably better practice or set of practices that you think we, as a whole project, should follow, I'm very much open to them. Please, though, recognize that the above examples are extremely widespread and nearly universal throughout this project and have been standard practice for many years before you seek to make an argument for something entirely new.

I appreciate your collective time with both this topic and the project as a whole. Anwegmann (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

As a first step, we need to follow the site-wide consensus at MOS:NATIONALITY which the underling ethos is In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident (my bolding). This would in many cases go against your point 1: if a player was born and brought up in the same country, then I'd agree with the point, but not if they don't. I'd also disagree with your point 2 on the same basis : if a player grows up in a country and goes on to play for that country (having been born elsewhere) then I'd directly describe them as being of that nationality. (p.s. could you sign your post) Spike 'em (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It also gives an example of someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country which would deal with many footballers differently than point 1. Spike 'em (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to be clear, again, that these points are not my points. They are the most common practices I have noted across this WikiProject. So I'm not arguing for them, per se. I'm stating my observation that to change the project's practices away from them would affect nearly every player article in this WP. As a result, without clear guidelines or a summation of how we might incorporate what you are advocating, the implementation of your suggestion is impractical, given how widely established the above rules are throughout this WikiProject. Anwegmann (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement, largely, with what you are suggetsing- but there are players like Folarin Balogun who are more complex and need to be dealt with separately, and which this proposal does not cover. GiantSnowman 14:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Can we come up with a standard practice for players like Balogun? For example, something like:

  4) When there is explicit, citable sources showing that a player identifies with the country in which they were raised, rather than the country in which they were born and/or that which they represent internationally, the lede should read: [Player] is a professional footballer who plays for [club] and [national team].

  The key to this would be the explicit, citable sources, trying to avoid editors' assumptions about a player's identity, which, especially with inexperienced editors/IPs, can be extremely nationalistic and unproductive. This, to a degree, plays into the same standard of evidence established in #3 above. We shouldn't just rely on what we, as editors, think but rather what citable sources tell us about a player's identity. So without explicit, citable sources saying otherwise, we should default to #1 above. Anwegmann (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  You are not going to have those kind of sources about players, so it's pointless. GiantSnowman 19:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Then how does one judge it? By just making an assumption? That doesn't seem right, especially if the player's national representation aligns with where they were born, for example, rather than with where they were raised. That's why #1 above serves as the safest default unless there are sources that show otherwise. Anwegmann (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Bit confused, we have had consensus on this for the last decade at least. I have probably missed some specific instances recently, but people repeatedly being wrong about something isn't evidence that re-asserting the consensus will have any meaningful impact on people being repeatedly wrong until its added to the relevant MOS template. Summarised:

• Known uncontroversial single nationals without representation: "x is a y footballer who plays for z" (i.e. English born in England, no indication of other affiliation or representation)
• Known single nationals with representation: "x is a y footballer who plays for z and the y national football team" (i.e. English born in England, represents England)
• Known dual nationals by birth without representation: "x is a footballer who plays for z" and in second paragraph can deal with eligibility, where they were born, what colour passport they speculatively own. (i.e. English born in Jamaica, but could represent any home nation)
• Known dual nationals by birth with representation: "x is a footballer who plays for z and the y national team" and in second paragraph can deal with eligibility, where they were born, what colour passport they speculatively own (i.e. English born in Jamaica, but has selected a national representation)
• Known dual nationals by heritage without representation: "x is a footballer who plays for z" and in second paragraph can deal with eligibility, where they were born, what colour passport they speculatively own. (i.e. Brazilian with Spanish passport)
• Known dual nationals by heritage with representation: "x is a footballer who plays for z and the y national team" and in second paragraph can deal with eligibility, where they were born, what colour passport they speculatively own (i.e. Brazilian-Spanish born in Brazil, represents Spain)
• Changed affiliation at junior: "x is a footballer who plays for z and the y national team." and in second paragraph can deal with the controversy of their switched allegiance (i.e. English born, but played for Ireland due to heritage at junior levels, but plays for England at senior)
• Changed affiliation at senior: "x is a y footballer who plays for z and the y national team. They previously represented / also represented yy" (i.e. former Yugoslavia)
• Represent two identifies (national & regional): "x is a y footballer who plays for the y national team, and the yy other team" (i.e. Basque representatives)
• Mixed eligibility due to reasons (such as refugee status): see any of the above because frankly we're guessing at the specifics, so should only go by what is clearly evidenced. (i.e. Balogun is "a footballer who plays for x and y national team" and leave the rest to the second paragraph)

Stuff that should never be used in first sentence and should be consigned to background, or second para of lead ONLY IF NOTABLE and needs to be clearly cited when used:

• "X born" (particularly complex around changing international boundaries with former USSR, and often meaningless)
• /insert ethnic background/
• /insert religious sub-group/
• /insert portmanteau ethnic group/
• /of y descent/

By no means exhaustive, but we're talking fringe edge cases that would take about 30 seconds to not get horribly wrong. Koncorde (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this in large part, and it falls in line with what I have observed and noted above. I also recognize that we've have a practical consensus about this for very long time. The problem is that more and more editors, especially inexperienced ones, don't know that and have been rather insistent about practices outside of those listed above. Given that it is difficult to find a single example of the consensus being arrived at (the John Brooks example cited in the template is quite unclear and does not really represent the broader consensus very well), I am here trying to make that consensus clear and citable. You have helped do that. Anwegmann (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record, here are the discussions currently cited in the MOS template:

• First John Brooks Discussion
• Second John Brooks Discussion
• No Hyphenated Nationalities
• Flags Next to Names

I hope this can also help consolidate the various discussions that have gone into this consensus. Anwegmann (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Painful to read. WP:FOOTBALL has always tried to balance the wikipedia policy of nationality with the actual national representative status that they are more likely to be known as. To see people still struggling to cope with the idea that the colour of their passport or citizenship of various countries is necessarily relevant within the first 10 words still baffles me.

Brooks present first two sentences at the moment seem benign versions, but not necessarily my preferred way of doing it because it has effectively caused a functional split between his German-ness, and the later lead paragraph about his other representation. Editorially its poor. Its treated almost dismissively. You could read it as his German-ness not being relevant (bearing in mind his American-ness has not been explained at this point) or promoting his German-ness over his American-ness just because he happened to be born and lived there. Neither is objective or ideal (and reading some of the commentary emphasising one nationality over another is just emphatically bad. It'd be much better in a seperate sentence entirely stating the fuller context.

In other editors defence it isn't just a WP:FOOTBALL problem, bad editorial choices are rife. Koncorde (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Career stats boxes

The standard is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics, and yet a number of editors ignore the same, even after having being directed there. What can we do about them? GiantSnowman 19:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what they are doing that is not standard? EchetusXe 21:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Removing parent club rows for loan spells, and adding '—' to total columns. GiantSnowman 21:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I came across this example just now which also removed valid links to competitions. Crowsus (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

In this example, the first wikilink removed was to a season article for the competition, rather than the competition article itself, which is arguably an "Easter egg" link, as editors probably wouldn't expect to be taken to it. The second wikilink removed was to an article which had already been linked in the table.

And I don't think there's a problem with "—" being used in total columns, as long it's only done where all the related season columns also use them. The table at the career MoS only uses "—" in single-season spells, so there isn't an instance of a total column using it as an example there. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the stance on replacing "National cup"/"Cup" with the direct, Wikilinked name of the cup in the titles of the statistics box? Example: Warren Zaïre-Emery#Career statistics, where it directly says Coupe de France without a note. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

If the player has only ever played in e.g. France, it's fine for me. GiantSnowman 19:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

2025–26 in English football

Does anyone find the size/detail of this article to be excessive? It's just endless tables and results. And the little prose that does exist is 100% unsourced. Surely the article could be trimmed down somewhat? I think WP:NOTSTATS also could apply. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes - I've removed the 'diary of the season' nonsense for a start. GiantSnowman 17:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

French Ligue 3 question

Hey guys. At the start of the 2026–27 season, the French football pyramid is slightly changing: the league is creating a professional Ligue 3. It's essentially replacing the Championnat National while making it professional and putting it under a new brand, but it's unclear if it is a renaming of the league or an entirely new creation. It's also unclear what the new names for the former Championnat National 2 and Championnat National 3 will be. You can see Ligue 1's announcement about Ligue 3 here.
My question to the community is, how do you think we should treat the creation of Ligue 3? Do we create a new article, or do we change the content and retitle Championnat National? Basically, is it a new, separate league that should have its own article and is not regarded as a continuation of the National, or is it a renaming of the National and should be treated as a simple rebrand for that league (and those below)? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Probably best to wait a little. We'll get a good handle on how the media handles it and we'll follow suit. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Update: this source makes it pretty clear that the change is a rebranding of the N2 and N3, not the creation of new leagues. The Ligue 3 is also being treated as a continuation of the National. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Sherriff of London Shield

FYI, there's an ongoing discussion about whether to include this competition on this page. I'm sure this has come up a few times before, but it would be good to get some more voices on this, as it's currently going round in circles. NapHit (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It's already in the lede of that article as the precursor to the Community Shield. Given that we include the Fairs Cup alongside its successor UEFA Europa League in honours sections, I think it would be fine to include the Sheriff Shield alongside Charity/Community Shield honours. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Indonesian Premier League results articles

Hey, y'all. I want to know if articles like 2011–12 Indonesian Premier League result and 2013 Indonesian Premier League fixture and result should remain or just be deleted (speedy or otherwise)? The articles aren't complete, they still have some results and all missing but also think this kind of article is usually only done on continental cup competitions if not they're covered in any participating club's season article. RollonLaurent (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

100% delete. Even if they had grammatically correct titles, weren't in reverse chronological order in violation of the MOS, and were actually complete, separate articles with this level of detail would not be needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree, totally unnecessary content fork and entirely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 09:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll propose it then. RollonLaurent (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

First international match in national team infobox

I was taking a look at Vietnam national football team, and I noticed that two matches are listed as the team's first: the first game as "South Vietnam" (1949), and the first as "Vietnam" (1983). Given that Vietnam inherited South Vietnam's record, wouldn't it make sense to just list the 1949 match as the first? This applies to all countries in similar situations. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's OK to include both in this situation. GiantSnowman 09:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If we agree on including both, we should at lease decide on how to display it. I'm not sure the excessive use of <hr> is appropriate. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vitinha (footballer, born February 2000)#Requested move 30 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vitinha (footballer, born February 2000)#Requested move 30 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. QalasQalas (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Interest in a football-themed DYK set?

Over at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, I suggested the possibility of running either a FIFA World Cup-themed or association football-themed set for the day of the 2026 FIFA World Cup final (19 July), and was wanting to see if there was any interest here in potentially helping out with it should the idea go through.

I've already got some article nominated for DYK that would work for it (eg. Brazil v France (1958 FIFA World Cup) and Rappresentativa OPBG), plus some others I'm currently working on as we speak (one of which is a 5x expansion of Rudi Glöckner), but I was hoping to see if some of you guys would be on board with helping with it. ShadowBallX (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'm down. I have Template:Did you know nominations/Deportivo Toluca FC 6–0 Club América (2003) in queue and will probably nominate 2026 CONCACAF Champions Cup final to DYK if it doesn't make it to ITN (low chances so far). I would add Toluca's goalkeeper to the mix since I expanded it 5x but that may lean too specific on Toluca which we may want to avoid. Let me know how I can help. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Expansion of the A-League Men#Requested move 2 June 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Expansion of the A-League Men#Requested move 2 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Patronymic names

Hello there. Regarding the inclusion of Albanian patronymic names in the lead/infobox, could someone please clarify which interpretation is correct in this discussion: Eni.Sukthi.Durrës^‎Albania 14:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

As a note, this is the edit in question. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Partially yes, but if you look at the subsequent edits, the citizenship information sourced from the presidential decree was restored, while the patronymic name was left unchanged, which is why this specific point is being discussed here. Eni.Sukthi.Durrës^‎Albania 15:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

To summarise, it seems that in Albania people have middle names almost exclusively for civil/administrative records. With that being the case, should they be excluded from Albanian football players' full names/Wikipedia articles? EchetusXe 21:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

MOS:FULLNAME says, Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version in most cases. I don't see a reason to override the MOS here. Wburrow (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

To summarise, it seems that in Albania people have middle names almost exclusively for civil/administrative records - isn't that the same in most countries? I mean....most British people have a middle name but it's basically only ever used on official documentation. If you met the current England captain and asked him who he was, I doubt he would reply "I'm Harry Edward Kane"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wburrow: @ChrisTheDude: I may not be fully understanding MOS:FULLNAME here, but how would this apply in cases such as Iván Balliu? His full Spanish name includes the maternal surname Campeny, and after receiving Albanian citizenship his name appeared as "Iván Salvador Balliu Campeny", incorporating both naming systems. Would all of those elements then need to be included in the lead and infobox? And how would similar cases such as Mërgim Mavraj be treated? Eni.Sukthi.Durrës^‎Albania 00:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd use the most complete name that meets WP:V. Wburrow (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I think I agree.

Btw, could someone take a look at Mërgim Mavraj? The article has long carried maintenance tags and a Stub-Class assessment, but it has been substantially expanded and improved recently and I think the tags and assessment still need updating? Thanks. Eni.Sukthi.Durrës^‎Albania 11:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Can u help me I live in Madhya Pradesh India and I like to know are there any tournament happening in my region

I want to play tournament so i contacted u i also played for my school ~2026-32824-56 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the wrong place to ask that sort of question. Spike 'em (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Changes to the number of matches in World Cup qualification

Spuddie79 (talk · contribs) changed the number of matches in a bunch of World Cup qualification articles. It looks like vandalism to me since the numbers are different from what is in the continental confederations qualification articles.-- Jahalive (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted and warned them. GiantSnowman 20:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've done this, the changes I made were to make the data consistent with the matches that make up the teams individual World Cup records (as per their wikipedia pages). If the individual confederation pages are different then I can look into that but it's more difficult now that you've removed all of the changes I made. ~2026-32833-67 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

We don't understand why you've done this. Show your work and use edit summaries to avoid misunderstandings.--Jahalive (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Stadium names in foreign language ("Estadio" v "Stadium")?

Hello, new here to WikiProject Football. What is the policy on naming conventions for stadiums? We have a lot of Estadio [Insert Name] across dozens of articles about stadiums. Estadio is the Spanish word for Stadium. Should they be renamed to English?

Example: Estadio Nemesio Diez -> Nemesio Diez Stadium, among many others.

I don't think MOS:NONENGTITLE applies here hence why I'm asking. Thank you, Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

What do English language sources call the stadium? Most of the links on that page are either in Spanish, or are dead and unarchived, so difficult to say without more information. Spike 'em (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

NONENGTITLE is for titles of works, such as books or films, not for the names of articles. WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable guideline here. I would point out tht there is precedent for non-translation, with grounds like Stade de France and many others in Category:Football venues in France. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, COMMONNAME applies. Whilst looking for examples, I found that Aztec Stadium didn't redirect to Estadio Azteca despite it being used all over the Internet, instead it redirected to a minor US stadium that was never actually known by that name ... gotta love Wikipedia sometimes. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Many sources in English use "Nemesio Diez Stadium" AP News ESPN Diario AS. I feel like this would apply to many stadiums in the Spanish-speaking world (with the exception of the most iconic ones like Estadio Azteca which many sources in English may refer to it as such). River Plate's stadium is also referred to in English as "Monumental Stadium" by several sources but I would presume getting consensus to change this to English would be difficult. AP News Unsure how to proceed but if it's okay with everyone I can request renames for the least controversial ones. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 03:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say the default should be to not translate, per say Stadio Olimpico, which lists the (rarely used) English translation in the first sentence. Shoehorning in a translated stadium name grates (to my ears). In the UK at least, my impression is that the norm is to use the native name. So I'd propose any changes done on a case-by-case basis, rather than wholesale. U003F^? 07:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Should be discussed case by case, definitely. That's why a WP:RM exists. A clear example of this is at Talk:Bernabéu (stadium). One single stadium might generate a ton of different views over the article name (I was the one who thought this name was wrong myself) and yet other people thought differently... BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Most Scottish FA profile links no longer working

Looks like the SFA have rebuilt/redesigned their website recently. The "SFA Profile" links for current players, and some historic ones, are still working, but the majority have been broken. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Please provide two or three examples - for each one, the name of the Wikipedia article; the broken link currently found in that article; and what it should be fixed to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's a previous version of Archie Gray which links to SFA via Template:SFA player and his Scottish Football Association player ID (populated from his wikidata). The correct new URL, if any, isn't obvious at all from the SFA site. U003F^? 00:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't find anything on the website that might give information about individual players. Perhaps it's all been taken off; they wouldn't be the first website to do this. I don't find a search feature on the website either. Maybe you need to be registered and logged in in order to get full features.

What I was hoping for is that they had retained the player IDs but changed the URL path, from e.g. https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/players/?pid=113074 to perhaps https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/profiles/?player-id=113074 and then we could amend the template accordingly, and for the non-template instances put in a request at WP:URLREQ. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The profile links appear to be moving to https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/en/teams/mens-team/firstname-surname. They may still be in the process of moving some over as neither Archie nor Archibald Gray works in that format. Evidently still has teething errors though as Hughie Gallacher (https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/en/teams/mens-team/hugh-gallacher) is listed as having been born 82 years after his first Scotland appearance. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Fabio Pandolfi

Is this player notable enough yet for an article? He’s an 18-year old yet to make a first team appearance. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Still WP:TOOSOON – not enough independent significant coverage to meet WP:SPORTCRIT, IMO. Looks like a good candidate for draftification since it seems likely that more SIGCOV will be forthcoming. Wburrow (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree it should be draftified. GiantSnowman 19:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2026–27 UEFA Champions League § Teams table format

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2026–27 UEFA Champions League § Teams table format. SocietyBox (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Terry McDermott?

Fairly certain that the footballer in the far right of this photograph is Terry McDermott, taken from a preseason tournament between Ajax and Liverpool in 1977. If so, can someone crop the photograph to a decent size, as the image for McDermott's article? APM (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@AmorPatiturMoras:  Done. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vicente de la Mata (born 1944)#Requested move 8 June 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vicente de la Mata (born 1944)#Requested move 8 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-33972-71 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)