Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

2011 Copa América Team of the Tournament

Hi. There is confusion about the 2011 Copa América Team of the Tournament. The teams featured at 2011 Copa América#Team of the Tournament and at Template:2011 Copa América Team of the Tournament are different. Why is this the case? Which is the official one? Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably worth pinging Lnhbm, who created the template in 2020 with a line-up which matches the article, but then changed the line-up in the template in 2021 with no edit summary to indicate why..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I restored the correct team, per CONMEBOL official website. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sweden football teams

Recently dab-pages were created from the redirects on Sweden national under-19 football team and Sweden national under-17 football team. Unfortunately, that gives problems on the article UEFA. Issue is the template:nft links that seem to miss the option to differentiate between the men's and women's teams. Do you have any idea how to solve this? The Banner talk 23:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@The Banner: The template will have to be updated, and the articles too. Time for Wikipedia to stop the blatant misogyny. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The same applies to Sweden national football team that is used in several articles with templates that I can not solve at all. In this case: UEFA Euro 2020 statistics, UEFA Euro 2012 statistics, 2002 FIFA World Cup with as culprit template:International football competition statistics/Ifcs. The Banner talk 14:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess you'd need to get {{nft links}} amended to be in-line with something like {{nft/code}}, which has a list of exceptions handled by a switch. I've added Sweden to that list: do you have examples of the other templates that are causing issues? Also I see that {{nft links}} is only used on 2 main space articles, so I guess not many people will notice it. Spike 'em (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Real Betis

Hello. I just wanted to ask something-- is there a clear consensus on what we should use as Real Betis's common name in info boxes and whatnot? I see a lot of players have just "Betis", but in the opening sentence it says "Real Betis". There is a clear inconsistency. Could we try to establish a single one? Same thing for RC Celta de Vigo, there is an inconsistency. I propose using Real Betis and Celta Vigo, which are, in my opinion, the most commonly-used names for the clubs in English. Please offer your insight so we can end these inconsistencies across the Project. Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a similar issue to that of English football with the many suffixed clubs which have no ambiguity: is Blackburn sufficient, or must it be Blackburn Rovers? So for boxes it should probably use both words (or perhaps Celta de Vigo, since Racing de Santander and Sporting de Gijón seem to be preferred in boxes, maybe they should also be considered here) but the single word can be used for whatnot? Is this an instance of WP:KARLSRUHER, are Spanish clubs mentioned there? Crowsus (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Crowsus: I don't think KARLSRUHER applies here or anything like that, nor is it really comparable to English football. Here we just take the most commonly used English name for the club. That's why the clubs Atlético Madrid and Athletic Bilbao have the names they have, despite their official names. This is mostly a question of the club's common short name. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

IP changing heights

This IP has been changing heights on players unsourced. Should they all be reverted? I looked a couple up briefly and I don't see these changed heights from googling them. RedPatch (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, revert. These types of edits happen quite regularly. No explanation given? No qualms about undoing. Seasider53 (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Martín Zubimendi

requesting temporary protection please due to the level of moronic transfer-vandalism over the past 36 hours. Crowsus (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Use WP:RFPPI to request protection. RedPatch (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have protected it for a week. Also interesting to see the number of edits from people who think that the article Liverpool is about the football team rather than the city..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Maps for future World Cups

The venue maps for future World Cups have changed massively, but in my opinion, for the worst. The new map with numbers is tiny and confusing. The first time this map was used was for the 2022 World Cup under the basis that not every stadium was displayed on the map due to Qatar being a small country, which made sense.

But future men's and women's World Cup hosts like Brazil don't need this map and a normal table would do a great job of showcasing the stadiums and cities together because every city and stadium can be displayed and seen perfectly well.

So while the numbered map works for Qatar, it doesn't translate at all well for other countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia. I also don't believe that it a one or the other situation, because the map makes sense for Qatar, but not for Saudi Arabia.

I believe that it makes sense to revert back to the table format for the World Cup venues for countries who are hosting solo World Cups or just the amount of stadiums are fewer.

For example, for the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup in Brazil, you don't a numbered map and this table below works perfectly.

Rio de Janeiro	Brasília	Belo Horizonte	Fortaleza
Estádio do Maracanã	Arena BRB Mané Garrincha (Estádio Nacional Mané Garrincha)	Estádio Mineirão	Arena Castelão
Capacity: 73,139	Capacity: 69,910	Capacity: 66,658	Capacity: 57,876
Porto Alegre	Belo Horizonte Brasília Fortaleza Porto Alegre São Paulo Rio de Janeiro Salvador Cuiabá Manaus Recife class=notpageimage| Location of the host cities of the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup.		Salvador
Estádio Beira-Rio			Casa de Apostas Arena Fonte Nova (Arena Fonte Nova)
Capacity: 49,055			Capacity: 47,915
São Paulo	Recife	Manaus	Cuiabá
Neo Química Arena (Arena Corinthians)	Arena Pernambuco	Arena da Amazônia	Arena Pantanal
Capacity: 47,252	Capacity: 45,440	Capacity: 42,924	Capacity: 42,788

ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 FA Community Shield

See history page. Why refs should not be used in the infobox for referee, weather, attendance and man of the match? See other major tournaments that adopt the same practice for the article of the final, and the same finals of the same competition, such as 2023 and before. Here should be different for this edition? Why? User PeeJay creating such a problem for nothing IMOH. Island92 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Facts should not only be referenced in the infobox. If a fact appears in the body of the article without a reference, that's a problem. I don't care if the reference appears in both the infobox and the body of the article, but it certainly shouldn't only be in the infobox. – PeeJay 13:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Refs will not be only in the infobox. That's why refs in the infobox consist of ref names. Island92 (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So why did you remove the source from the {{footballbox}} template? You're arguing yourself into knots. – PeeJay 13:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Because only later the ref name (added by you) in the infobox was put. Having a ref name in the infobox which comes from the main source in the footballbox is not a problem. Island92 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And as I said, I don't care if the reference is in both places, but you can't have it only in the infobox. Are you satisfied now? – PeeJay 13:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course yes. As it stands now it is how when I added the ref in the infobox for the first time (the source complete). Then you moved the source complete in the footballbox and added the ref name in the infobox. Island92 (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like you're not understanding what I'm saying, so I've just changed the article to what I believe we should be agreeing on. If you disagree, then we still have a problem. – PeeJay 14:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The source there should not be there. It is simply a ripetition of what the infobox already displays. See 2024 UEFA Champions League final and other dozens of article finals as a prime example. Island92 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You edited it. It did not use to be like that. See 2023 final then. Island92 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The infobox should not be the primary place to see the source. It should be in the body of the article as a bare minimum; if you want to add it to the infobox too, that's fine, but it should not only be in the infobox. How many times do I have to say it? Would it help if I translated my comments to your native language? – PeeJay 15:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And it is not only put in the infobox! It's also next to "Assistant referees:". It's sufficient, rather than having another ref close to the referee name in the footballbox. It makes no sense. You changing the practice also for Champions League finals now. Ok. You can expect to deal it with user S.A. Julio about this practice. Island92 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You creating such a problem for this little aspect just today. It is used to be like that before you changing it for years and years. Island92 (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Doing something for years and years doesn't make it right, and S.A. Julio doesn't own these articles. I added the reference to a location that needed it and you removed it because you think it's too close to other instances of the same source? That's irrelevant. If the source for a fact can't be easily ascertained, add a reference; it's not difficult. You're the one creating a problem by insisting that things have to be done the same way forever more. – PeeJay 17:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That is called consistency between articles. You are changing the practice. As simple as that. Island92 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So you think things should be consistently worse than they could be? Sure, why bother trying to improve anything when we can just stay as we are forever? – PeeJay 17:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is interpretation of things. There is no point in having a double ref that displays the same thing. It's logical interpretation. So I think more people had the same view about it that worked well until your edit. I do not mean your edit has to be thrown into a bin. I can say to you you can expect your edit to be reverted, back to how it used to be. Just have a look a more than 500 article finals. You note the same structure of what we are talking about. Island92 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And as I said, just because something is done a certain way for a long time and in a lot of articles, that doesn't mean that's the perfect way to do it. A reference for the referee should be in the article body at a bare minimum, with a duplication in the infobox as a luxury. – PeeJay 17:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That's your view. Hence now I expect you to match that edit with more than 500 article final styles here. For consistency. For how it used to be until your edit. Island92 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And now I ping @S.A. Julio:, to give his take. Island92 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Changes can be made over time, no rush. If you want to make some of the edits, that would be really helpful. – PeeJay 18:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not change my view of this. Island92 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So why did you bring this here, Island92, instead of talking to PeeJay directly? Robby.is.on (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

To make it aware for other users. To know what's their take. Island92 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to summarise the rest of the article, so shouldn't need a reference if there is one in the body of the article. See MOS:INFOBOXREF which says References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere. Spike 'em (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And to make my view on this discussion entirely clear: the referee should be referenced in the main body of the article and have no reference in the infobox. The MOS overrides any consistency / local consensus arguements. Spike 'em (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Info boxes are a quick view of information pertinent to the article. Citations are for the main body and shouldn't be in the info box at all. We are suppose to avoid adding citations to the first few lead paragraphs and the infobox. Govvy (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nacho (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nacho (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Matthijs de Ligt and Dominic Solanke

Could an Admin please semi-protect Matthijs de Ligt & Dominic Solanke JMHamo (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

A request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase might result in action sooner. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you joking? Did you see the backlog is over 48 hours. JMHamo (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)