Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171: 7 days

WikiProject Football was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 3 March 2008.

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 9 July 2012.

On 4 August 2022, it was proposed that this page be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Association football. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Recent national team debutants

I've noticed that, on pages of national team debutants, users have just added national team information on infobox and statistics without mentioning them on the article itself explicit (i.e. "He made his senior debut against [Country] in 2025" or whatever on the International career/Senior career section). I already done that on some articles like Kaio Jorge and Veljko Milosavljević. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be stated in the body and sourced accordingly. Giant Snowman 19:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? How? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red cards displayed in football boxes for matches in lower tier domestic competitions

Is there any way to search for the consensus that was made about displaying red and yellow cards (in football boxes for matches in lower tier domestic competitions) in the Archives? My understanding is that red cards are not displayed in football boxes, other than perhaps in really major competitions like the FIFA World Cup, but not generally in domestic leagues. But maybe someone can point me to where the last discussions here occurred, as there's 171 Archive pages and I have no idea how far back I should be looking. I realize red cards are displayed when its articles on individual matches (conforming to this MOS for MAtches). For Australian competitions (like A-League Men and A-League Women club season articles, or Australia Cup, red cards are not shown in football boxes). There is currently debate in Talk:2025 Australian Championship with @AFC Vixen: who considers that they are "a fundamentally important event in a football match" and cannot understand why they would be purposefully omitted. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not Matilda Maniac may be misremembering things, I'd like to share here my view that the deliberate omission of red cards on the basis of a league's position in a pyramid is arbitrary and baseless. Conveying to a reader that a team lost a player during the match better augments their understanding of the match, especially if any goals were scored afterwards. The competition the match was played in is completely irrelevant to this. If the red cards can be verified with a reliable source (WP:RS), which is the case for 2025 Australian Championship, then they should be included. — AFC Vixen 🦊 17:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally misremembered which of the 171 Archive pages some of this consensus on Red Cards was to be found. Silly me! The point was to find some information to help AFC Vixen, not to increase their frustration when they opine. The comments from PeeJay in the link provided from Archive 161 indicate that there are more examples . . . perhaps AFC Vixen can trawl through the archives at their leisure to see more of the debate. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for offending you, I just didn't know how else to convey it. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unrelated to the tier of the league, the consensus is not to include cards in the footballbox. --SuperJew (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against you or Matilda Maniac, but I am getting increasingly frustrated by people not telling me why, or at least where. Why did the consensus come to that conclusion, and where is this consensus? I've asked multiple times and still gotten neither an answer to these questions, nor at the very, very least some kind of rebuttal to my views. — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the many discussions re this. Nehme1499 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As said, it's been discussed many times on this forums. If you are really interested, you're welcome to search through the archives (a search of "yellow cards" or "red cards" will probably bring you quite a few relevant pages). We don't have any obligation to do work for you and hand it to you on a silver platter, and quite frankly (at least me personally, though I'm sure also MM from all I know about them) we have better things to do with our precious and limited time. --SuperJew (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so hostilely defensive about a consensus that you can't seem to explain? If you really have "better things to do with our precious and limited time", then why waste my time and your time? Just give your own opinion. You don't need to sift through 171 pages to do that. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion is not to include it, as is backed by the consensus. If you're really interested to find the arguments for and against the consensus, we have the same ability to search the archives. If it interests you, you can do it. --SuperJew (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is reasonable. If someone claims there is consensus for a certain position then it is incumbent on them to at least help find evidence of that consensus. Spike 'em (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the consensus should be better documented. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus should be updated more - maybe there are a few editors here with the time to take it on themselves. But it's also not reasonable to expect someone to sift through the archives to find backing for a consensus which is brought up every few months and always resolves to the same point. Also Nehme1499 brought an example of one of the many discussions, and it doesn't seem to be good enough, so it gets hard to assume good faith on this one. --SuperJew (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being inflammatory by suggesting that I think Neheme1499's effort was not "good enough", and accusing me of acting in bad faith? I appreciate that it may be frustrating having somebody bring up the same topic once "every few months", but getting this openly angry at an editor that's oblivious to that, as I was, for asking a simple "why" and "where" is no way to conduct yourself. Neheme1499 and Spike 'em's efforts to answer my "where" were more than satisfactory, and I thank them wholeheartedly. What's not "good enough" is your behaviour, and you should reflect on that. I'm disengaging from this discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, I did look into adding this to the Consensus page so I had a more detailed search.

A fuller list of discussions, many of which fail to come to a conclusion:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 39#Red_Cards_in_Match_Results : no consensus? (Dec 2009)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 73#Red Cards in footballbox summaries : Focuses on cup competition seasonal article, against (Sep 2012)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_89#Club season articles and match info. Starts out against, conversation restarted, fizzles out with no consensus (Aug 2014)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 104#Red cards in football box: Leans against using (Aug 2016)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_149#Red cards in national cups no consensus (November 2021]]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 155#2022–23 Juventus F.C. season Single club seasonal article : Leans against (July 2022)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 161#Need to update the Template Football box & Red Card info Aforementioned discussion : Firmly against (July 2023)

Spike 'em (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I genuinely appreciate this, as now I can finally have a chance at understanding why some editors oppose this idea. I'll be disengaging from this discussion now. — AFC Vixen 🦊 18:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of B.G. Sports Club

The article B.G. Sports Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 5 years. The Portuguese article has only one source. Fails the relevant notability guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honours

Just improved José Manuel Ochotorena's article dramatically (RIP kind sir!), only to find this edit (that i reverted, now i write here, for a draft of the "Honours - Part Umpteenth" movie coming to a wiki-cinema near you!).

Surely this is wrong no (GK coach honours!)? What's the limit, honours for kitmen and the lady that sells tickets at Anfield?!

Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has come and reinstated the stuff! For the second time, i ask: we don't add goalkeeping/assistant manager honours in a related section (OK in prose, and even that i feel - in Ochotorena's case at least - is overkill), do we?

Attentively --RevampedEditor (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReliableRaccoon: care to explain why the revert? Plus, you referenced the same link several times, when you should've added a name to the ref (i.e. <ref name="Liverpool_Evening">{{cite web [...] }}</ref> in the ref with a link and then <ref name="Liverpool_Evening"/> in the other places where you want to use the same ref.

As for the opinion, I don't see a problem adding the honours if the spells are in the infobox, but I am against having GK coach or lower coach roles in it. More opinions might be needed, and I think this discussion does link up to #Assistant and youth roles in the infobox (again) below. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need a reference which clearly states a person has won an honour, not just a general 'the team won the honour so they must have done'. Giant Snowman 19:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i see where you are coming from, but that was not what i asked. If the discussion below says that only managerial roles go in the infoboxes, my question is one of a similar nature: ONLY players and managers get an honour (duly sourced), no? The others, EVEN in case of a source, should only be mentioned in prose, no? RevampedEditor (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Sporting Delhi#Requested move 22 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sporting Delhi#Requested move 22 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Moghavemat Mersad Shiraz F.C.

The article Moghavemat Mersad Shiraz F.C. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 5 years. Tagged for notability concerns for 17 months. Fails the relevant notability guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant and youth roles in the infobox (again)

Hello! This discussion was raised a year ago, no consensus was reached and there's still some confusion whether we should or shouldn't add the assistant and youth managerial spells in the infobox.

I'm still going to say yes to both, and I think we should actually discuss it again to finally gather consensus over the subject, or maybe put it to vote.

@Number 57 notifying you :) BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it fills in an obvious gap in the career, but I fear this will just lead to the roles being added across the board because that article has it. Seasider53 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seasider53: I don't see any problem on reverting those. People will learn as much as they learnt not to add assistant/youth manager spells in the current form. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying a resounding yes, any and all coaching positions belong there. It's called an infobox and should therefore inform, not withhold information. This has many facets, such as managing a large youth team being more notable than a weak senior team, etc. Geschichte (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: I'd only stick with assistant manager and youth manager roles. Being the physio of the under-18 team of Bradford City would be too much/trivia for me... BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stick with what i was saying in the linked discussion. Only manager roles of a first-team should be included. Kante4 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You did not provide a reason in the discussion. Geschichte (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think assistant/goalkeeping roles should be included. Otherwise, looking at an infobox, you could be thinking "Why didn't he do anything for 4 years" and it turns out he was an assistant, which is a useful and important role and pertinent to their career. We'll include a youth club a player played with at age 5 in their youth section, but won't include an assistant manager role? Seems cynical to me. Consensus can change, just like how we used to say once senior career started youth career was over (even if it was just a random cup 5 minute cameo appearance against a low tier club and then they didn't play senior again for three years), even though the two can overlap - which we now acknowledge and allow overlapping. RedPatch (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We literally had this same question about a month or two ago here. And people agreed that manager/head coach roles only, not assistant, not youth coach, not goalkeeping coach. This is getting boringly repetitive that people who don't like that consensus just keep on posting here again and again about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be manager/head coach roles only - but that can include youth teams (especially those that play in the same prams as parent clubs). We should not include any/all coaching/scouting etc. roles. Giant Snowman 10:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or directors of football. Seasider53 (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you reverting the edit was spot on. Giant Snowman 11:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overly detailed?

Please see 2020 Myanmar National League#Matches. Do you agree that the section should be trimmed or deleted? Geschichte (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your rationale for doing so? Seasider53 (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are season articles for each club, that is the appropriate place for week by week matches. However, if they don't exist, the main season article is the only appropriate place. This is the same situation as for the Australian W-League, where the matches were kept in the main season article for many years, but in recent years each club has its own season article, so the matches are displayed there for each club. There was discussion on this either at this Talk page, or at the equivalent talk page for the Project Football Australia task force. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers staff

Want to know who, say, the club's head of soft tissue therapy is? Find out here. Seasider53 (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, and given the case they get an honour too no (see the "Honours" discussion above i started, and the mess at José Manuel Ochotorena)?! RevampedEditor (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]