Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions
→"I'm 100% Welsh": change wikilink |
|||
Line 309: | Line 309: | ||
== "I'm 100% Welsh" == |
== "I'm 100% Welsh" == |
||
The [[Gethin Jones (soccer)]] article says that he told the Bolton Wanderers match programme that "I'm 100% Welsh". Does anyone happen to have the programme in question to confirm that this is an accurate quote? [[User:Hack|Hack]] ([[User talk:Hack|talk]]) 01:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
The [[Gethin Jones (soccer, born 1995)]] article says that he told the Bolton Wanderers match programme that "I'm 100% Welsh". Does anyone happen to have the programme in question to confirm that this is an accurate quote? [[User:Hack|Hack]] ([[User talk:Hack|talk]]) 01:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:The dude who's playing right now for the [[Socceroos]]? Seems he isn't as Welsh as he thought hahaha. On a more serious note, I think the quote can be taken out - I don't think it adds much if at all. --[[User:SuperJew|SuperJew]] ([[User talk:SuperJew|talk]]) 07:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
:The dude who's playing right now for the [[Socceroos]]? Seems he isn't as Welsh as he thought hahaha. On a more serious note, I think the quote can be taken out - I don't think it adds much if at all. --[[User:SuperJew|SuperJew]] ([[User talk:SuperJew|talk]]) 07:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:19, 30 May 2024
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Football Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | WikiProject Football was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 3 March 2008. |
![]() | This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 9 July 2012. |
![]() | On 4 August 2022, it was proposed that this page be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Association football. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
![]() |
Project pages |
---|
|
FIFA Club World Cup teams in contention
Last year, there was a discussion here about whether or not to include a list of teams in contention for the FIFA Club World Cup. See here. It was decided that they were not needed.
However, someone has added such a list to the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup, but via the new 4-year ranking. There is a lengthy discussion as well.
So, are these rankings tables needed? Also, if they are kept, does pruning the tables to just teams in contention without a source fall under WP:CALC or is it WP:OR? It seems to me that calculating who is or isn't in contention is more nuanced than just basic math, and requires knowledge about how various tournaments work. See my example of Penarol here. So I think this should still have a source.
Just to be clear, I'm not really heavily for or against listing teams in contention. But if it's done, it should be done in a limited fashion (because obviously adding these tables at the beginning of 4-year cycle, for example, would be bad, because there could literally be thousands of teams in contention). And I think it needs to be properly sourced, which I don't think it is right now. I also think, giving incomplete information is bad because it leads to a half-baked article. So if we're going to list teams in contention via the 4-year ranking, we should also list the teams who may qualify by winning a competition, since the rankings tables themselves are dependent on that information. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- The situations are not the same. The previous discussion (which went for only 14 hours by the way) was someone posting bullet points of all 108 countries who might qualify (of a total of 7 who did). That is indeed overkill, and I was happy it was removed. It was easy at the time to simply click on the links to the different confederations if you wanted to see who was still in contention. This is a different case, as it is not a single competition feeding into the calculations, it is (for the remaining confederation, CONMEBOL) over four competitions. The rankings for CONMEBOL are shown at the FIFA website for all four years in a single table, so there is a primary source. That FIFA website shows the current leaders under the four-year ranking, and those 2 teams I have put into a note in the main table, as that is also clearly not WP:OR. That approach is consistent with how the notes have been displayed for all other confederations before they were finalised. At one point in this article, the table showed all of the results, so dozens and dozens of teams, and that also is not WP:OR. However, showing dozens of teams that in fact were not in contention was also misleading so that subset was removed. The criteria on the FIFA website clearly list the points available (3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 3 points for progress to each stage of the competition), so that is not WP:OR. The maximum number of points available to a team without their winning the 2024 Copa Libertadores is easily calculated: After round 3 of the group stage, it is 3 wins in the group stage, 2 wins in the round of 16, 2 wins in the quarter-finals, 2 wins in the semi-finals, draw in the final (PSO loss). Nine wins and one draw = 28 points, and progressing 4 more rounds to the final = 12 points, so total = 40 points. That to me is WP:CALC. If one of the three teams - that have already won one the three previous editions of the Copa Libertadores - wins this year, then a third team will qualify through the four-year ranking method. That process is sourced from the FIFA Website. Olimpia currently sit on 57 points, third in these rankings, so any team with less than 17 points cannot qualify by this method (57-17=40). That to me is again WP:CALC. So, overall, removing the teams that cannot qualify I would clearly consider to be WP:CALC rather than WP:OR. What would be better, obviously, is if there is also a secondary source showing the teams still in contention. As a side issue, it is not going to be a permanent feature of the FIFA Club World Cup article, as it will decrease through time as did the tables for the other confederations (and disappear entirely in November 2024). Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, my point about WP:CALC not being applicable is not that this doesn't involve routine calculations. Of course it does. It's that it involves more than just routine calculations (i.e. knowledge of how the various tournaments are structured, how teams have been drawn, etc.) That is what makes it OR. Specifically, it's WP:SYNTH. I don't think it is controversial to require a source that explicitly states the conclusion that is being made. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://espndeportes.espn.com/futbol/mundial-clubes/nota/_/id/13319277/las-posibilidades-que-tiene-nacional-de-clasificar-al-mundial-de-clubes-2025
- Translated excerpt
The maximum that can be added in a single edition of the Cup is 52 points in this hypothetical case: being runner-up by winning all the games and tying the final, this would be 37 points (twelve wins and one draw), to which would be added three to participate in the group stage and twelve to advance in the following rounds (to the round of 16, to the quarterfinals, to the semis and to the final).
- This is what I consider to be a credible source to confirm the calculation. Miria~01 (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Using this as the only source for the information that is presented at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup would be WP:SYNTH. It doesn't explicitly say which teams are "in contention" beyond National and a few others. To make a conclusion based on this would be OR. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com,, published 19 mar 2024
- The FIFA article indicates exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, before the Group stage started. Miria~01 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a great source, but where does it explicitly say what the current teams in contention are? If instead of a current ranking table, that section of the article merely contained a summary of what this source says (i.e. a list of teams that are still in contention as of the start of the group stage, perhaps including the rankings at that time from a source showing that) then this would be a perfectly good source for that. It would be outdated, but it would be backed by sources. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- But that's what WP:CALC is intended for.
- What you explicitly ask for is a dynamic source like this FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ Confederations ranking that is updated after each game day with the information addition of eliminated clubs by the 4-year ranking . Or rather, there should always be news sources that confirm that a team no longer has a chance through the ranking after each match day. There are numerous of these news, but that would be a WP:OVERCITE, as there is no point in confirming an easy calculation again and again. These sources are more than sufficient for WP:CALC:
- Miria~01 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Again, determining which additional teams are eliminated and which ones are still in contention requires more than just a simple calculation, so WP:CALC is insufficient. To make that determination, you need to both do a calculation *and* have additional context. Any conclusions drawn from that context need to come from a source. If you draw a conclusion about which teams are currently in contention from the sources you've just provided, none of which explicitly say which teams are currently in contention, then that is WP:SYNTH. Requiring a single source that says explicitly what is being claimed is no where near WP:OVERCITE (which is not policy, unlike WP:OR). So I'm not sure what your point is with that. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a great source, but where does it explicitly say what the current teams in contention are? If instead of a current ranking table, that section of the article merely contained a summary of what this source says (i.e. a list of teams that are still in contention as of the start of the group stage, perhaps including the rankings at that time from a source showing that) then this would be a perfectly good source for that. It would be outdated, but it would be backed by sources. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Using this as the only source for the information that is presented at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup would be WP:SYNTH. It doesn't explicitly say which teams are "in contention" beyond National and a few others. To make a conclusion based on this would be OR. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, my point about WP:CALC not being applicable is not that this doesn't involve routine calculations. Of course it does. It's that it involves more than just routine calculations (i.e. knowledge of how the various tournaments are structured, how teams have been drawn, etc.) That is what makes it OR. Specifically, it's WP:SYNTH. I don't think it is controversial to require a source that explicitly states the conclusion that is being made. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned, if we had a source that also listed such a thing, then we should include it. If no other sources are talking about the teams "in contention" then we shouldn't either. Creating graphs and tables and the like for things isn't what we are here for. We summarise what sources say, rather than be the standard. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, agree with Lee Vilenski. Kante4 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com
- This FIFA article indicates exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, before the Group stage started. Now the question is whether WP:CALC could applied here after three match days have been played and show which clubs currently in contention through the 4-year ranking. Or is it really WP:SYNTH as @Bmf051 above stated. Miria~01 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's a misunderstanding here about what WP:CALC is. Can you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers and the above article?
- For example, suppose Libertad are in the semifinals and need 10 points to qualify by finishing third in the rankings out of eligible teams (assume that they cannot finish first or second). Suppose Flamengo are the only previous winner still alive. Can Libertad qualify via the rankings? It is impossible to answer that question without knowing whether Libertad and Flamengo are playing in the semifinals. If they play Flamengo, the answer is no. If they don't, the answer is yes. So this requires more information than just a basic calculation using just the numbers. WP:CALC does not apply. You're using WP:CALC to do a lot of heavy lifting here, for things that it is not intended for. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Specifically, WP:CALC mentions
Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
So this is about whether these calculations are decided by consensus as routine. My long post near the start of this section outlines my opinion on the routine nature of the calculations (points for a win, points for a draw, points for reaching the next stage) over and above what is already published on the FIFA website (the reliable source, albeit a Primary one). I would consider the comment by @Bmf 051: thatCan you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers and the above article?
is not the correct question to pose; it should rather beCan you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers, the format of the calculation of points, and the Primary reliable source?
to which the answer is Yes. Otherwise, by analogy it means most times that the status_TEAM=E is applied to a group table in a competition - before the group stage is completed - is also WP:OR. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)- "RE: It should rather be..." This is not correct. What you are talking about is WP:SYNTH: taking a routine calculation, additional information, and other miscellany, then making your own conclusion about something that is not explicitly stated. If you could make that conclusion via only a routine calculation (and there was a consensus that the calculation was correct), that would be WP:CALC and would be fine. But that isn't the case here. Instead of trying to justify why this information doesn't need to come from a source, we would be better off spending our time looking for a source or simply representing what the sources already say.
- Unfortunately, the qualification status on some pages is posted prematurely, before there is a source stating it. I think the reason people get a way with that is that often it either goes unnoticed or because the source is updated soon after the page is updated. That doesn't make this practice correct or okay. In this case with the "teams in contention" list, the lack of sources has not gone unnoticed, and the sources have not been updated after the fact, if they exist at all.
- The argument you are making is a type of WP:WHATABOUTISM. Yes the rules are broken elsewhere. So what? Bmf 051 (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Specifically, WP:CALC mentions
To add to the discussion, an alternative format is presented at the article talk page that just captures the leading teams, which is available directly from the FIFA website (a primary source), and therefore meets WP:OR and needs no additional calculations. Perhaps this format is more acceptable if having the remaining 16 teams is not. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have no issues with having just the rankings listed somewhere. As long as it continues to not make unsourced conclusions, it would indeed not be WP:OR IMHO. Though a separate page may be better, with perhaps a transclusion of part of the table on the respective annual Club World Cup page, when prudent. I think FootyRankings could be a good additional source for this, in the same way that https://kassiesa.net/uefa/ is used to supplement the UEFA coefficient page. Assuming FootyRankings is reliable.
- The good thing about this solution is that it can be carried over to future tournaments. As soon as the next 4-year cycle kicks off for each confederation (and the sources publish the tables), the new rankings can be updated on WP. The current solution of listing teams in contention would not allow us to do that, since nearly every club in the world would be "in contention" at the start of a 4-year cycle. Bmf 051 (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I consider Footy Rankings to be a better solution for referencing in any case, as this website is a) a Secondary source, which is preferred over a Primary one, b) has traction as it is used currently for articles for AFC and UEFA coefficients, and c) generally kept up-to-date. A fork to a separate small article with this information (similar to the UEFA coefficient) is still going to have the same issue with respect to WP:OR vs WP:CALC; it doesn't achieve anything, AND that article will shrink to zero as teams become mathematically unable to achieve qualification via this ranking route. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- If we are literally just summarizing the content from FootyRanking, there should not be any issue with WP:OR aside from people updating it before the source is updated. We're ideally just displaying the information from the source and nothing more. Also, just as the UEFA Coefficient page doesn't "shrink to zero" when teams are eliminated, a separate small article for the Club World Cup rankings doesn't need to either, because there's nothing wrong with leaving some teams that are qualified or eliminated. We could just establish through consensus how the table should be displayed, which teams would be included, the minimum/maximum number of teams displayed for each confederation, etc. For example, for CONMEBOL currently, it might show the teams listed in green on FootyRankings and the top 12 teams in yellow (for a total of 15). But there might also be an OFC table with just the top 5. Perhaps UEFA would have 20 teams: the 12 in green, plus 8 in white. The others could have 10. This is just an example, and I just pulled numbers out of the air; I'm not saying we need to do exactly this. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I like FootyRankings too, but it's a blog with user-generated content WP:UGC from a twitter account (https://twitter.com/FootyRankings). In my opinion it's only okay as an additional source, but never as a main source. But I'm totally on board with the idea of only showing a maximum of teams. In this regard, I would only use the number of slots that are still available for the best-ranked clubs (not yet qualified as champions) in the respective confederation. For CONMEBOL it would now be the three best placed teams (as in https://inside.fifa.com/en/fifa-rankings/mundial-de-clubes: marked in orange Currently qualified clubs). Miria~01 (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- More sources couldn't hurt, and highlighting the orange clubs from the FIFA website instead would be fine too. One negative aspect of that is that FIFA sometimes list teams who can't qualify as "currently qualified". See Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors currently, and Philadelphia Union until a day or two ago.
- I can't vouch for how the information from FootyRankings is generated or who generates it or how reliable it is, but is it's content coming from Twitter or is it just a website that also happens to publish its content on Twitter? Bmf 051 (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The latter. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just to illustrate what I mean: User:Bmf_051/sandbox/FIFA Club World Cup 4-year ranking. The general idea I'm thinking would be to always list some set number of clubs for each confederation (based on the number of teams that qualify, I went with 20 for UEFA, 15 for CONMEBOL, 5 for OFC, and 10 for the rest; I just picked these numbers out of the air). Then prioritize listing teams who have or may qualify over teams who cannot qualify, since that's the main point of the tables. Note that this information is entirely pulled from FootyRankings and FIFA - with the exception of Philadelphia Union and Club America's status, since they are still listed as potentially being able to qualify on FootyRankings. However, we can probably find one-off sources for stuff like that (i.e. when either website has not been kept up-to-date). I also updated Real Madrid and Bayern Munich's points, before the source has been updated. But updating point totals (and NOT concluding anything about qualifying status from them) is something that would fall under WP:CALC with a source for the match result.
- Again, not saying we need to do it this way. But this is one way we might avoid having the tables shrink to zero or having it get too unwieldy with hundreds of teams. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Another idea is to have a template with the full ranking (or much of it) in a conditional table. That way it never shrinks to zero. But for contexts where we would like to keep it small (such as on the FIFA Club World Cup page for the current season), we give a parameter to collapse the table to just the teams in contention according to the sources.
- Truncated table (default)
{{User:Bmf 051/sandbox/Template:FIFA Club World Cup 4-year ranking (CONMEBOL)}}
- I like FootyRankings too, but it's a blog with user-generated content WP:UGC from a twitter account (https://twitter.com/FootyRankings). In my opinion it's only okay as an additional source, but never as a main source. But I'm totally on board with the idea of only showing a maximum of teams. In this regard, I would only use the number of slots that are still available for the best-ranked clubs (not yet qualified as champions) in the respective confederation. For CONMEBOL it would now be the three best placed teams (as in https://inside.fifa.com/en/fifa-rankings/mundial-de-clubes: marked in orange Currently qualified clubs). Miria~01 (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- If we are literally just summarizing the content from FootyRanking, there should not be any issue with WP:OR aside from people updating it before the source is updated. We're ideally just displaying the information from the source and nothing more. Also, just as the UEFA Coefficient page doesn't "shrink to zero" when teams are eliminated, a separate small article for the Club World Cup rankings doesn't need to either, because there's nothing wrong with leaving some teams that are qualified or eliminated. We could just establish through consensus how the table should be displayed, which teams would be included, the minimum/maximum number of teams displayed for each confederation, etc. For example, for CONMEBOL currently, it might show the teams listed in green on FootyRankings and the top 12 teams in yellow (for a total of 15). But there might also be an OFC table with just the top 5. Perhaps UEFA would have 20 teams: the 12 in green, plus 8 in white. The others could have 10. This is just an example, and I just pulled numbers out of the air; I'm not saying we need to do exactly this. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I consider Footy Rankings to be a better solution for referencing in any case, as this website is a) a Secondary source, which is preferred over a Primary one, b) has traction as it is used currently for articles for AFC and UEFA coefficients, and c) generally kept up-to-date. A fork to a separate small article with this information (similar to the UEFA coefficient) is still going to have the same issue with respect to WP:OR vs WP:CALC; it doesn't achieve anything, AND that article will shrink to zero as teams become mathematically unable to achieve qualification via this ranking route. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Rank | Club | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
43* | 39 | 37 | 13† | 132 |
2 | ![]() |
46 | 52* | 20 | 7† | 125 |
3 | ![]() |
38 | 26 | 17 | 15† | 96 |
4 | ![]() |
28 | 40* | 11† | 79 | |
5 | ![]() |
22 | 23 | 19 | 13† | 77 |
6 | ![]() |
18 | 18 | 35 | 71 | |
8 | ![]() |
20 | 11 | 26 | 57 | |
10 | ![]() |
11 | 10 | 19 | 10† | 50 |
13 | ![]() |
8 | 11 | 19 | 7† | 45 |
14 | ![]() |
16 | 14 | 7 | 8† | 45 |
16 | ![]() |
24 | 13† | 37 | ||
17 | ![]() |
24 | 13† | 37 | ||
18 | ![]() |
25 | 12† | 37 | ||
20 | ![]() |
9 | 9 | 9 | 10† | 37 |
21 | ![]() |
27 | 7† | 34 |
- Full table (parameter)
- Only shows the first 21 teams, because I'm lazy
{{User:Bmf 051/sandbox/Template:FIFA Club World Cup 4-year ranking (CONMEBOL)|fulltable=true}}
Rank | Club | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
43* | 39 | 37 | 13† | 132 |
2 | ![]() |
46 | 52* | 20 | 7† | 125 |
3 | ![]() |
38 | 26 | 17 | 15† | 96 |
4 | ![]() |
28 | 40* | 11† | 79 | |
5 | ![]() |
22 | 23 | 19 | 13† | 77 |
6 | ![]() |
18 | 18 | 35 | 71 | |
7 | ![]() |
37 | 22 | 59 | ||
8 | ![]() |
20 | 11 | 26 | 57 | |
9 | ![]() |
18 | 34 | 52 | ||
10 | ![]() |
11 | 10 | 19 | 10† | 50 |
11 | ![]() |
19 | 30 | 49 | ||
12 | ![]() |
21 | 27 | 48 | ||
13 | ![]() |
8 | 11 | 19 | 7† | 45 |
14 | ![]() |
16 | 14 | 7 | 8† | 45 |
15 | ![]() |
30 | 7 | 5† | 42 | |
16 | ![]() |
24 | 13† | 37 | ||
17 | ![]() |
24 | 13† | 37 | ||
18 | ![]() |
25 | 12† | 37 | ||
19 | ![]() |
19 | 18 | 37 | ||
20 | ![]() |
9 | 9 | 9 | 10† | 37 |
21 | ![]() |
27 | 7† | 34 |
- This would require editors to have some knowledge of conditional tables. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Matilda Maniac@Miria~01 Since there seems to be agreement that we would all be fine with just showing the information from FIFA's website and perhaps supplemented by FootyRankings, I think I will update the table with that info when I get a chance. Basically adding some of the unlisted contenders from FootyRankings and highlighting the "current qualifiers" as per FIFA.
- If someone else wants to do this before I do, that would be fine with me too. And if you don't agree with that, speak up. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding your suggestion, I don't see any consensus with a conditional tables in a template, no another user supported this proposal either. The main idea is to show only the clubs that are in contention and not additional those that have already qualified, like the winners of the continental championships or have long qualifying tables with a permanent number of clubs based on an arbitrarily determined number. The described alternative to current practice, if it is rejected in a consensus because of WP:CALC, would be this (suggested also by @Matilda Maniac in the Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup#Eligible teams 4-year ranking):
- This would require editors to have some knowledge of conditional tables. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Leading teams still in contention for qualification through four-year confederations rankings Format and Legend as per the existing table | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Miria~01 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just noticed this reply. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting anything about the conditional tables idea. If you read the post, you will see that I believed we had agreed to at least update the table to match the source: that's why I said "just show the information from" the sources. Regardless, with the Inside FIFA source, the table now does exactly that, so it's a moot point (for now, at least). But I'm not sure where you concluded I was saying anything about the conditional tables idea. These were two separate ideas, two different posts, two different days. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not see that a consensus has been reached for change at this forum. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- If @Bmf 051: has concerns with WP:OR, then the alternative proposed seems to be suggesting changes that also don't meet that criterion. Bmf 051's proposition to have a separate article may have merit (like the UEFA or AFC coefficient ranking articles), but I wonder if that would meet WP:GNG as a stand-alone article forking out of the Club World cup article. A table that slowly shrinks appears to me to be the most appropriate course; it is shrinking each gameday as fewer teams are in contention. It is showing teams in contention rather than all teams coloured by whether they are in contention. The latter would be unwieldy. The addition to the table by @Miria~01: of a note in the Total column (which I think from a procedural perspective was very cheeky given the table was subject to debate here) nevertheless is useful as it clearly provides the result of the calculation for maximum points available. It is therefore easy to see that the remaining teams are still in contention, and there's the reference available (whether a primary source from FIFA, or whether replaced by a secondary source from Footy rankings). Regarding the 2029 Club World Cup article, such a table for teams in contention probably does not need to be developed until the 2028 competitions are underway (or at least well into the 2027 competitions). Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think I've done all I can to explain to you why I think this approach is WP:OR and I don't wish to do it again. What you've said about it being "easy to see" is a bandwagon fallacy. And as I've said, having the calculation is still not enough information to conclude who is in contention. For example, the added note doesn't explain why Barcelona is not in contention. The table as-is is unsourced. I removed it as such, and it was restored despite the person restoring it not providing a source per WP:PROVEIT. This is just going around in circles. Regardless of what (if anything) replaces this table, it is unsourced and I don't think there has been a good argument for why it should remain. I will ask an admin who I've run into a few times in WP:FOOTY discussions such as this one for their objective opinion.
- @GiantSnowman, would you mind informally weighing in on this? I believe the table 2025 FIFA Club World Cup#Teams still in contention for qualification through four-year confederations rankings is WP:OR and I removed it as such. The information is not sourced. It was restored, the argument from others being that it is WP:CALC. But as I've said above, determining who is in contention based on the rankings requires more than a trivial calculation (see my example involving Libertad above for when this can happen; there are certainly other examples). They're using WP:CALC to do some pretty heavy-lifting to avoid providing a source, which I think is not the purpose of WP:CALC. Should this table be allowed to stay despite lacking a source? I think it should be removed until either properly sourced or rewritten in such a way as to not make unsourced conclusions. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Source to back up current calculation.
Can qualify as 2024 Champions (27 clubs) – 1 spot: ...
inside.fifa.com, Monday 13 May 2024
Can qualify via Ranking (13 clubs) – 2 spots...
As things stand ahead of Matchday 5, other South American teams still have the opportunity to be one of the 32 clubs at the inaugural tournament in the United States next year.
A maximum 37 points are now available to non-champions: 12 by reaching the various knockout phase rounds, 25 in matches. This means:
•All non-Brazilian teams still in the competition currently with 20 points or more can qualify via the ranking BUT ONLY if one of the Brazilian trio of former champions, Palmeiras, Flamengo or Fluminense, win the 2024 Libertadores. This would open up a third rankings pathway spot, and teams could overtake Club Olimpia (PAR, 57 points), who are not in this season’s CONMEBOL Libertadores.
•All non-Brazilian teams with 34 points or more can overtake Boca Juniors (ARG, 71 points), who are not active this season, for the guaranteed second qualifying spot.
•All non-Brazilian teams with 40 points or more can still overtake River Plate (ARG, 77 points), who are active this season.- And for scenarios there is always a source at FIFA and other news sites. For e.g. as it was for the River Plate scenario before the Matchday 4, how with a win they will be direct qualified via ranking. FIFA.com, 6 May 2024
- Before the Group stage started, these articles from FIFA and ESPN, already mentioned in the discussion, indicate exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, how the calculation works and how many points are available:
- That's why your arguments that there are no sources are untenable. And the calculation is trivial (explained also in the provide sources above): after every match day max. of 3 points less available, and additional 3 points less when a stage (group, knockout) is finished. If the maximum point yield is less than surpassing the still in contention leading third best-placed team at the ranking,[1] then you can no longer qualify via the ranking. Miria~01 (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, the Inside FIFA reference is a perfectly good source for the current information on the page. That is all I'm asking for: a source that backs this up. Keep in mind that as teams drop out of contention, we will still need to find sources to support that. Hopefully similar articles are published by FIFA that will allow this information to remain up-to-date.
- I do not agree with your last paragraph. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE. If it isn't, it shouldn't be here. And I think you are abusing the intent of WP:CALC. The issue isn't whether calculating the point totals is trivial. The issue is that making a conclusion about who is in contention based on that calculation often requires more than just a calculation. These conclusions still need to be sourced. I'm hoping @GiantSnowman can still informally weigh in on that, as that's still the point of contention here. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- What does it mean
@GiantSnowman, would you mind informally weighing in on this?
? A single user you are cherry-picking to get involved to demonstrate the consensus you believe that you have? If consensus is now reached by your preferred committee of one, can I ask that no changes are made until after the Matchday 5 is completed, as to remove it during this three-day process is going to cause edit warring for sure? Yet I still do not see that this is a case of WP:CALC abuse, as per my original post here. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)- Quite the opposite of cherry-picking. I hardly have interacted with @GiantSnowman. But from the conversations I've been a part of in which they have been involved, they seem like a fair and even-handed admin who is active in WP:FOOTY and willing to offer help. As the conversation was going around in circles, I was hoping an unbiased third-party could give some advice on whether they think declaring teams in/out of contention requires a source or if, like you said, it requires no source due to WP:CALC. I was honestly tired of going backwards and forwards on this, and was hoping to get an answer while also avoiding being accused of WP:CANVASSING. GiantSnowman was just the first person I thought of.
- As for not changing anything, I have no intention of "deleting" the current table, because the source provided above from Inside FIFA supports its inclusion. I also have no issues with the numbers in the table being updated (because *that* is IMO covered by WP:CALC). My issue is with declaring teams in/out of contention without a source, and claiming it's okay because of WP:CALC and not something more nuanced. i.e. I think removing teams from the table without a source could potentially be WP:OR. But hopefully, Inside FIFA will provide another article that supports those changes.
- I am unsure why this has suddenly become hostile and accusatory. I feel like this conversation has been quite civil up to this point. I do not appreciate being accused of edit-warring when I've in total made one revert on the page in question. Engaging in WP:BRD is not edit-warring. Bmf 051 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have not repeat not accused you of edit warring at all, but I am just reflecting that ANYONE deleting the table just now in the middle of lots of other people editing this article in the middle of Matchday 5, and not everyone editing well (see todays reverts), will likely cause reverting and restoring left-right-centre. If it has to change because consensus is reached here, do it on the weekend. As a separate issue, it does look to me that WP:CANVASSING is evident. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- How does this not fit under WP:APPNOTE? Limited notification, I described both sides of the argument (WP:OR vs. WP:CALC) to the best of my understanding, I made no assumptions about the admin's opinion, and I did it openly. Asking an admin for help is not canvassing.
- I think I deserve an explanation. If you're going to accuse me of something, you need to provide some reasoning. If you truly think I'm WP:CANVASSING, there are ways you can address it. Why have you not taken any of those steps? Bmf 051 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have no views on this topic to 'weigh in'. GiantSnowman 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have not repeat not accused you of edit warring at all, but I am just reflecting that ANYONE deleting the table just now in the middle of lots of other people editing this article in the middle of Matchday 5, and not everyone editing well (see todays reverts), will likely cause reverting and restoring left-right-centre. If it has to change because consensus is reached here, do it on the weekend. As a separate issue, it does look to me that WP:CANVASSING is evident. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- What does it mean
- As was mentioned earlier, I considered that this article was the appropriate place for the tables of teams in contention, rather than a fork to a separate article on qualification. I note that 2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualifying has now been created and has now been nominated for deletion (link here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualifying). Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The result of the AFD process was to Delete. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
[Seasons] in English football articles
I've been looking at the recent few season articles, e.g. 2023–24 in English football with the sections "Managerial changes". The only changes included in there are just for the teams eligible for the EFL Cup, Because English women's football clubs are also in these articles and some of them have had managerial changes as well, I think it would make sense to have those changes on the appropriate article since coverage gets increasingly popular. Same could be said with retirements for the same reason regarding popularity. Thoughts? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seconded, I see no reason why women's players and coaches shouldn't be listed in these sections. Macosal (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- why do we even list managerial changes? We don't mention all other transfers, we don't mention ownership changes or the like. It all seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski makes a good point. Managerial changes are not as significant as the team's performances during the season. Also relevant information can be found in the respective division season articles, placing them on the English football season articles can be too large, which is likely with all the transfers in a season. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've got to say, the retirement and deaths section also seems pretty arbritrary. Asamoah Gyan is listed in the English football retirement because he played two seasons in English football. We aren't the "recent deaths" section. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski makes a good point. Managerial changes are not as significant as the team's performances during the season. Also relevant information can be found in the respective division season articles, placing them on the English football season articles can be too large, which is likely with all the transfers in a season. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- why do we even list managerial changes? We don't mention all other transfers, we don't mention ownership changes or the like. It all seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
UEFA club final shootouts
I see Category:Association football penalty shoot-outs was deleted, my main question is to check in advance if it is felt a list of shootouts in UEFA club competition finals would be notable? Obviously don't want to put it together then have it deleted.
On a side point, while I was looking into that I came upon European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics, which I've seen before but don't recall being quite so bloated. Is NOTSTATS completely ignored on a statistics article? Overlinking as well (e.g 200+ links to Real Madrid). Could do with a tidy up IMO. Crowsus (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- There was some discussion of how much stats is too much for a stats-specific page when FIFA World Cup records and statistics went to AfD in 2022. My interpretation of the result was that sourcing all the stats to a WP:RS was imperative to show notability as well as accuracy. There was a major clean up effort, and while the page is still very long, everything in it is now properly sourced. Wburrow (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that is needed. -Koppapa (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Discovery plus
I tried for a whole hour to see if I can watch the Europa League final, I thought you can watch it for free, but I've had nothing but paywalls, how about the rest of you? Anyone tried? Govvy (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM, this is for discussion editing Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- no need to be so PC, I asked a straight question about football, and this is a football project!! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, a Wikipedia football project, not a media streaming football project. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- no need to be so PC, I asked a straight question about football, and this is a football project!! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Match report discussion style
Per this discussion on WikiProject Football, it appears to be the best course of action to edit match report external links to full cited templates because of WP:LINKROT. I have made a WP:BOTREQ to apply this to other pages, but it seems further consensus is required. Feel free to leave comments about this here, whether opposing or supporting this argument. Pinging @Stevie fae Scotland as they have been implementing this in some pages. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- We bit surprised at that. The policy is reasonably clear and it wouldn't be policy if it wasn't consensus. Thanks for bringing this up though, hopefully a few more weigh in and express their views and you can progress with the request. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Stevie. What is the policy that you are referring too? I didn't know we had one for match reports. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not specific to match reports, it's the same as the policy for every reference. Yoblyblob has linked to the policy on linkrot which impacts bare urls, the format that many of the match reports are included in articles. WP:CITE is also applicable. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I thought you were implying there was a policy against making this change.
- I agree these should be reference style. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not specific to match reports, it's the same as the policy for every reference. Yoblyblob has linked to the policy on linkrot which impacts bare urls, the format that many of the match reports are included in articles. WP:CITE is also applicable. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Stevie. What is the policy that you are referring too? I didn't know we had one for match reports. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Tranmere Rovers F.C. listed for Good article reassessment
Tranmere Rovers F.C. has been listed under Good article reassessment. If you have anything to add, please do by adding to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Runners-up as honors?
Having observed several additions and reversions of runner-up finishes in Atalanta BC#Honours (page history), I wanted to ask what the consensus is for their inclusion. My impression is that they are included for historically less titled clubs (since second-place finishes are still a big deal for such clubs) but not for clubs used to domestic or international success. Even so, I'm not sure where the line is drawn. Complex/Rational 14:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think it depends on if you get something for it. Is it an honour to finish second when there's no medals? We (I think) classify play-off finals where you win a cup as an honour, so I think the same logic goes for second places. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- second place gives medal, tho?Muur (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
AFC Cup
Please can someone help me on AFC Cup page. The tournament has been renamed to AFC Champions League Two (see here) and I have made a request for the page title to be moved to AFC Champions League Two. However, User:MMMM97 is continually moving the page to incorrect names like "AFC Champions League (2)" and "AFC Champions League two" rather than waiting for it to be moved properly. I have informed them to stop doing this on both their own talk page and my talk page but they will not listen. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately due to these persistent page moves from User:MMMM97, the page move request from AFC Cup to AFC Champions League Two is now listed as a malformed request as per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Malformed requests, as User:MMMM97 has now decided to move the page to AFC Champions League -2 for some unknown reason. If someone who is more experienced with page moves can help me to get this page moved properly, that would be much appreciated. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like the page move request has gone through now, although we will have to deal with the ridiculous page title of AFC Champions League -2 (minus two?) until the move is done. Hashim-afc (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Now need to follow due process, unless these moves are construed as vandalism, which this forum can likely assist with. I note that both @Hashim-afc: and @MMMM97: appear to have broken WP:3RR during the course of mutliple edits and reverts to multiple articles over the past several hours. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- As well as moving the AFC Cup page during the move discussion which is not allowed per notice made by RMCD bot so the latter who was pinged above was also warned about this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Matilda Maniac: @Iggy the Swan: Someone else has moved the page again, now it's at AFC Champions League Two (no, not "AFC Champions League Two" which is still a redirect, but "AFC Champions League %E2%80%8CTwo"). It's becoming a mess now. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have reverted the move and now fully protected the page from being moved again (I hope...) GiantSnowman 13:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've also deleted all the nonsense redirects as well. GiantSnowman 13:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Glad to see the article and talk page affected has gone back whence they came. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've also deleted all the nonsense redirects as well. GiantSnowman 13:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have reverted the move and now fully protected the page from being moved again (I hope...) GiantSnowman 13:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Matilda Maniac: @Iggy the Swan: Someone else has moved the page again, now it's at AFC Champions League Two (no, not "AFC Champions League Two" which is still a redirect, but "AFC Champions League %E2%80%8CTwo"). It's becoming a mess now. Hashim-afc (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- As well as moving the AFC Cup page during the move discussion which is not allowed per notice made by RMCD bot so the latter who was pinged above was also warned about this. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Now need to follow due process, unless these moves are construed as vandalism, which this forum can likely assist with. I note that both @Hashim-afc: and @MMMM97: appear to have broken WP:3RR during the course of mutliple edits and reverts to multiple articles over the past several hours. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like the page move request has gone through now, although we will have to deal with the ridiculous page title of AFC Champions League -2 (minus two?) until the move is done. Hashim-afc (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Summer football transfers
A polite reminder - in the English system, contracts end on 30 June (so 'released' players leave clubs on that date) and begin on 1 July (so 'released' players join new clubs on that date). The transfer window will open on 14 June (per this) for other transfers.
In Scotland, I think it is 31 May / 1 June for 'released' players leaving/joining, respectively. GiantSnowman 10:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Vincent Kompany
I'm on three reverts so would someone mind reverting the latest unsourced/premature addition to Vincent Kompany? Thanks. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reverted, warned, and I've upped the protection to 'admin only' as the disruption has been ongoing for a few days. GiantSnowman 15:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Good afternoon,
i don't feel like this player's name should be hyphenated, but maybe i could be in the wrong there! What i do know for sure is that "García" carries an accent, i tried to move the page but was not allowed.
Can anyone fix that? Attentively, continue the good work everyone RevampedEditor (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seemingly known as 'Calvo-Garcia' in England, but happy with a move to Alex Calvo-García? GiantSnowman 18:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Indeed, that would be a great move! If you can accommodate... --RevampedEditor (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
If an admin could look at the talk page, I couldn't care less about what people say about Greenwood but some IP has randomly decided to name a vulnerable woman with a right to privacy. Please can this be revdeled Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have done so, as they continued to post it, I've also page protected the talk page in lieu of a block for two days. I have to logout now, but please let an admin know if it continues or has any additional issues. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- This issue is now continuing in this exact talk page section. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Think this needs admin interference and probably a block GiantSnowman. --SuperJew (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP making these edits this morning -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've protected this page to prevent further disruption. If it happens again elsewhere, just report it directly to WP:OVERSIGHT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP making these edits this morning -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Think this needs admin interference and probably a block GiantSnowman. --SuperJew (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Use of RSSSF to establish notability.
For a long time on Wikipedia, RSSSF has been used as source; there is nothing wrong with that, it is reliable by almost all standards. The problem I have seen is that there are a massive number of season pages that exclusively use RSSSF as a single source- and these pages are not tagged with the single source marking, and get by page reviews quickly due to page reviewers seemingly viewing these as acceptable. Examples include nearly every page of the São Tomé and Príncipe Championship, DPR Korea Premier Football League (which has non-substantive articles such as 1985 DPR Korea Football League, and the rest of the 80s, alongside the 90s), all of the Tonga Major League seasons, and many others. These pages are unfit for inclusion on Wikipedia, and I was looking for comment on the best way to deal with them.
It is my personal opinion that each page that exclusively uses RSSSF should be removed, or at least merged into a larger article if sources can be found to establish that. Interested to hear other thoughts, thanks! Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Often, something is better than nothing. There will be other sources which will help establish notability for some, if not all, of these articles so it would perhaps be more useful to look for them and improve the articles. If they are genuinely not notable, take them to WP:AfD. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding my recent two discussions
I am recreating my recent two discussions for a better debate, this time combined, as I think the first parts of both discussions above were not discussed slightly further enough, while the second might be duplicated from the first except it was about managers with known playing career.
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 165#References on Football Players with Senior NT Appearances
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 165#Manager articles
Regarding the first discussion, apart from using match reports and being unreferenced as problems, I have seen some of them not clarified. I mean... Despite their senior international career being stated on infobox, on the article itself, there is no clear statement like "Having represented various youth teams, [Name] debuted for [national team] in a friendly match against [opponent]." but rather stating short fact like being called up (e.g. "In [Year]/On [full date], [Name] was called up for matches against [Country opponent 1] and [Country opponent 2] at the UEFA Nations League.") or simply left not added.
I also want to add that, apart from being external links, database sources (EU-football-info, Soccerway, WorldFootball, etc.) only should be used to reference career statistics.
Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- "I also want to add that, apart from being external links, database sources (EU-football-info, Soccerway, WorldFootball, etc.) only should be used for to reference career statistics" - says who? GiantSnowman 10:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree with the OP. I see things like "XYZ scored his first career goal on Date against Team"(ref)boxscore(ref). The boxscore simply says he scored, says nothing about it being a debut/first goal/etc. Reference should be something that specifically mentions the fact, which a boxscore does not. RedPatch (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- That is not what the OP said though. GiantSnowman 13:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- She referenced his original posts, which did mention that. Ie. Kylian Mbappe Ref 178 (On 31 August 2017, Mbappé scored his first senior international goal in a 2018 World Cup qualification match against the Netherlands [ref looks to be a boxscore - its not opening for me right now though].. RedPatch (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Editors do the same with match reports though - John Smith scored his first goal on 1 January, here's a BBC report simply saying he played and scored, nothing about it being 'first'. GiantSnowman 13:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe those should be used either, unless it's specifically stated in the article/report. Some reports will mention it, some won't. If it isn't, it should be used IMO RedPatch (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fully agreed - that's a basic tenet of sourcing. However, I still have issue with the OP's broad statement that "database sources [...] only should be used for to reference career statistics". GiantSnowman 13:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe those should be used either, unless it's specifically stated in the article/report. Some reports will mention it, some won't. If it isn't, it should be used IMO RedPatch (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Editors do the same with match reports though - John Smith scored his first goal on 1 January, here's a BBC report simply saying he played and scored, nothing about it being 'first'. GiantSnowman 13:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- She referenced his original posts, which did mention that. Ie. Kylian Mbappe Ref 178 (On 31 August 2017, Mbappé scored his first senior international goal in a 2018 World Cup qualification match against the Netherlands [ref looks to be a boxscore - its not opening for me right now though].. RedPatch (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- That is not what the OP said though. GiantSnowman 13:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree with the OP. I see things like "XYZ scored his first career goal on Date against Team"(ref)boxscore(ref). The boxscore simply says he scored, says nothing about it being a debut/first goal/etc. Reference should be something that specifically mentions the fact, which a boxscore does not. RedPatch (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- @RedPatch: What does OP mean? I am a girl and not a boy. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I fixed my post. OP means Original Post. RedPatch (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: That is not what the OP said, though. Oh, I meant to say what RedPatch initially replied with! Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Pele's International Goals
I'm planning to rewrite and tidy up List of international goals scored by Pelé in hopes of getting it to FL status. Both the list and the main article state that he scored 77 goals in 92 appearances. However, this includes a match played on 6 November 1968 (in which he did not score) against the 'rest of the world', which FIFA does not recognise (see the match here, the note at the bottom here and this article). Should I stick with 77 goals in 92 appearances or use the official FIFA data of 77 in 91? Sgubaldo (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- If he didn't score, it probably doesn't matter. If you do include it, as long as you explain that the match is considered unofficial, it'll be fine. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the Brazilian Football Confederation recognize the match as official, then it should be counted. The CBF decides how caps are awarded, not FIFA. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, I'll add a note to the main article as well. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
New national team
Uruguayan Football Association created a new national team in April which will only include players from Uruguayan leagues. As per the federation, it is a new project and not the usual Uruguay senior team. Their sporting director confirmed the same. This team is about to play its first match this week against Costa Rica (who are expected to field their normal senior team).
Anyway, this national team is called as Selección del Medio Local by the Uruguayan federation. How should we name this team in English? These are few options I thought of:
1) Uruguay national football B team (like England B, France B etc.)
2) Uruguay A' national football team (like Algeria A' and Nigeria A' which are local national teams of those countries)
3) Uruguay League XI national football team (like Denmark League XI)
4) Uruguay local national football team
Since I am not sure about the name and WP:GNG, it is currently located at Draft:Uruguay A' national football team. Your suggestions and comments are welcome. Kokoeist (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Category:National A' association football teams, although I'm not sure that a separate article for any of these countries is needed. As far as I am aware, full caps are awarded when they play, it is simply a decision by the FA to only play local players (e.g. for African Nations Championship). GiantSnowman 18:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- sounds like it technically still counts as the official team, and could tank their rankings etc. shuld prob just count as actual first team matches.Muur (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Statements in the link above ('confirmed the same') indicate pretty strongly that it is not the full team, particularly that there is no requirement to release the players and a few club coaches said they wouldn't do so. It is not clarified whether Uruguay or Costa Rica's ranking points will be affected, or if either nation will award caps. It would maybe be better to wait til this match is played to determine the exact status of this team; often there are better sources after the fact. Would be interesting if other countries started doing this too (and easier to group them together on the site)... Crowsus (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- appearances for nigeria a and algeria a count as full international caps. though based on them being outside the fifa calender and what not, they may count as unofficial fifa matches.Muur (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Statements in the link above ('confirmed the same') indicate pretty strongly that it is not the full team, particularly that there is no requirement to release the players and a few club coaches said they wouldn't do so. It is not clarified whether Uruguay or Costa Rica's ranking points will be affected, or if either nation will award caps. It would maybe be better to wait til this match is played to determine the exact status of this team; often there are better sources after the fact. Would be interesting if other countries started doing this too (and easier to group them together on the site)... Crowsus (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- sounds like it technically still counts as the official team, and could tank their rankings etc. shuld prob just count as actual first team matches.Muur (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The article isn't very clear, but is the former Burton Albion goalkeeper and Neil Warnock's assistant the same person who played for Sheffield Wednesday and Mansfield Town in the Football League (making 6 appearances for the latter)? The Mansfield stint in the infobox was added by an IP over a decade ago without a source, so I'm unsure whether it's correct. Also, according to Warnock in a press conference last year, Evans had died a week earlier. Any help would be appreciated. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) ..
- The article "Evans gets a new role" from when Warnock joined Notts County, mentions that Evans had played for Boston FC and Mansfield Town. Hack (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Career statistics - qualifying tournaments for cups
Today I have added some notes for Ernst Wilimowski in his career statistics regarding the goals and number of games in the German Cup, as these high numbers in the National Cup column give a wrong impression.
The high numbers are due to the fact that the statistics include regional preliminary qualifying tournaments, not recognized as official games by the German Football Association (DFB) for the German Cup, to select the regional Reichsgau representatives in that time. Even though I have included the explanations in the notes, actually, in my opinion, such qualifying tournaments have no good evidence for goals of players, such as match reports to back it up, and the numbers used in the career statistics for these qualifying tournaments are closer to WP:OR calculated from other sources like this: https://docs.ufpr.br/~mmsabino/sstatistics/willimowski.html or https://www.rsssf.org/players/pwillimowskidata.html.
My question is whether there is any further consensus beyond this information here WP:WPFCONSENSUS#Statistics and WP:FOOTY/Players#Career statistics, if such matches/goals in qualifying tournaments for club competitions, besides UEFA Qualifying rounds, should be or should be not included in the player career statistics. Miria~01 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean fa cup (English) qualifying rounds are official matches. Muur (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Moses Swaibu
Moses Swaibu could use more eyes. In the past week two IPs, likely the same person, have removed reliably sourced content and added poorly sourced content. Per WP:DUE, I think it would be fair to update the article to mention Swaibu's activity since going to prison, using articles from The Athletic [2] and The Guardian [3]. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Timo Werner loan spells?
Should we be adding two loan spells for Timo in the infobox and stats? [4] Govvy (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I personally would just leave it as one since it got extended before his current deal expired. Ortizesp (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
"I'm 100% Welsh"
The Gethin Jones (soccer, born 1995) article says that he told the Bolton Wanderers match programme that "I'm 100% Welsh". Does anyone happen to have the programme in question to confirm that this is an accurate quote? Hack (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The dude who's playing right now for the Socceroos? Seems he isn't as Welsh as he thought hahaha. On a more serious note, I think the quote can be taken out - I don't think it adds much if at all. --SuperJew (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I used to have that one, but don't any more. In that season, they sent out free matchday programs to all season ticket holders as part of the fact we couldn't go due to covid and I do remember this quote. Also to note, I'm not the one who added the quote. I don't have them though, they were digital match day programmes and after reading them I'd always delete the email. Based on looking up, it seems to be from the one against tranmere which someone is selling here [5] (didnt even know they sold physical ones that year, but turns out they did which feels pointless as all season ticket holders got free digital versions anyway) but yeah, jones has done the standard "im not good enough for the country i care about so will play for one who wants me" like all those guys who are english that play for lesser national teams just so they can play internationals. he will still consider himself 100% welsh I imagine and just played for the kangaroos because it gets him international football. tho there's no sourcing for this stuff, from what i hear his parents were in austraila at the time on expired work visas and left because they were deported when jones was a few years old and didnt return for 2 decades and just did cuz of his football career.Muur (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The only online version with this quote I found was Reddit but I think there is a problem, user generated content.
- I should think the page move to the current title seems right as he plays with the Socceroos now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- i actually mentioned that here (whether we should change him to soccer) after his international debut, and consensus was to keep him at football as the first 20 years of his career he was a welsh footballer and he still said football in his interviews for Australia and as such is a footballer not a soccer player. some other players using the same reasoning were shown with a link to Scott Arfield whos listed as a footballer due to 95% of his career being in england. that being Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_164#Gethin_Jones_(footballer,_born_1995) here so it should probably be moved bac to the original name. seems someones changed arfield to soccer since wihtout permission i guess?Muur (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I should think the page move to the current title seems right as he plays with the Socceroos now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The only online version with this quote I found was Reddit but I think there is a problem, user generated content.
- I used to have that one, but don't any more. In that season, they sent out free matchday programs to all season ticket holders as part of the fact we couldn't go due to covid and I do remember this quote. Also to note, I'm not the one who added the quote. I don't have them though, they were digital match day programmes and after reading them I'd always delete the email. Based on looking up, it seems to be from the one against tranmere which someone is selling here [5] (didnt even know they sold physical ones that year, but turns out they did which feels pointless as all season ticket holders got free digital versions anyway) but yeah, jones has done the standard "im not good enough for the country i care about so will play for one who wants me" like all those guys who are english that play for lesser national teams just so they can play internationals. he will still consider himself 100% welsh I imagine and just played for the kangaroos because it gets him international football. tho there's no sourcing for this stuff, from what i hear his parents were in austraila at the time on expired work visas and left because they were deported when jones was a few years old and didnt return for 2 decades and just did cuz of his football career.Muur (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Default sort for clubs
Why are AFC Bournemouth sorted by "AFC" and not by "Bournemouth"? The "AFC" or "FC" is a prefix or suffix that the vast majority of clubs have, it isn't in the main part of the name and it doesn't seem useful for sorting, as you just end up with all the "AFC..." clubs sorted together. Similarly, to have AFC Wimbledon and Wimbledon FC sorted at either end of the alphabet doesn't make sense, it is logical that they should be together (not because the clubs share any kind of relationship but because they both have the name Wimbledon). Do we have a guideline on how to sort clubs? Or is it that the complexity of handling potentially different formats of club names just makes it easier to sort every club by its full name? --Jameboy (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- There isn't even consistency as AFC Blackpool is set to default sort under B..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would say sort without standard prefixes (such as FC/AFC/SC) --SuperJew (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it does seem to be in their team name. That’s why Bournemouth start the season above arsenal in the official pl table. Muur (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is also a Bournemouth FC, so I guess to prevent ambiguity, the sorting with prefixes might be needed. Though it is unlikely any time within the next few years both Bournemouth football clubs will play against each other in the league. And since AFC Bournemouth were promoted back, they are listed below Arsenal and Aston Villa when it comes to the list of teams alphabetically, as well as the current league table in 2024–25 Premier League. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- seems the prremier league does indeed list them below arsenal and villa on the official tables (i looked at historic tables via the wayback machine for when everyone played 0 matches). which is funny as i remmeber an interview where tehy said they named themselves afc bournemouth to be the first team in the tables listed above arsenal. the championship table site only goes to august 2023 on the wayback machine so im not sure what the url was before that to see how the efl lsited them in their last championship season.Muur (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is also a Bournemouth FC, so I guess to prevent ambiguity, the sorting with prefixes might be needed. Though it is unlikely any time within the next few years both Bournemouth football clubs will play against each other in the league. And since AFC Bournemouth were promoted back, they are listed below Arsenal and Aston Villa when it comes to the list of teams alphabetically, as well as the current league table in 2024–25 Premier League. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it does seem to be in their team name. That’s why Bournemouth start the season above arsenal in the official pl table. Muur (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)