Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookings during a penalty shoot-out or after full-time

I was wondering, for match summary tables, how should we denote bookings that take place during a penalty shoot-out, or after full-time? There doesn't seem to be a standard way of doing so, and our articles are currently inconsistent (for example at the 2022 World Cup, Battle of Lusail vs the final). FIFA's reports just use "PSO" and "FT", while UEFA's reports just list bookings after full-time as the last minute of stoppage time. I think this should be handled consistently, and probably with some way to denote it was during penalties/at full-time.

Here are some options:

120+6'
120+6' (pso) / 120+6' (ft)
126'
126' (pso) / 126' (ft)
pso / ft

Thoughts? Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

126' and 120+6' are not the same thing. Regardless, more information is better than less, so option 2 is probably best. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's also a question, for determining the minute, does the stoppage time clock continue to run, or is it "reset" and begin counting at 121' once the ref whistles for full-time? FIFA don't seem to do either. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Nehme says is correct. For example in a game with extra time you can have 90+3' in injury time at the end of the game and then 93' in the first half of extra time. --SuperJew (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: Yes I'm well aware, the examples were relating to cards like Denzel Dumfries against Argentina: should it be

128'

129' vs

120+9'

120+10', or neither. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go for option 2 but in capitals. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, also a tooltip would be a good idea Pksois23 (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

shootouts arent actually part of matches, and are a separate thing - which is why they dont determine the winner of a match (officially a draw) only who goes through (or wins the cup). so option 5 wors best. same for the match being over.Muur (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerway, again

Did those that contacted Soccerway get any news? I note they are adding new stats (i.e. Nathan Wood (footballer, born 1997)'s European games this week) but we're sill missing all the historical stats. They've also merged domestic league and cup games into the same tab, which is annoying. Giant Snowman 18:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a guess, but I suspect they sold the site to someone who has no idea what to do with the database. Svartner (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be willing to try to email them again? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed them recently and this is the relevant part of their reply (on 15 July): "Please rest assured that we are working tirelessly behind the scenes and are committed to reintroducing any missing information and features that you may currently find unavailable. Our goal is to make Soccerway better than ever before, and we would appreciate your patience as we make the necessary internal updates to improve the site and fix the missing data." Mattythewhite (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1927–28 in American soccer

Please add reliable sources to this unsourced article. Bearian (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leading on from this, surely all the articles in Category:St. Louis Soccer League seasons fail WP:NOTSTATS? There is a summary in the main St. Louis Soccer League article. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how any of these are notable. A local league, the majority of which are unreferenced and have little-to-no coverage, likely wouldn’t survive an AFD. Leftover remnant from a much earlier Wikipedia. Haj (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1907–08 St. Louis Soccer League season. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primeira Liga

Someone moved Primeira Liga to Liga Portugal without discussion. Please revert. SLBedit (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done - no idea why @J36723: requested the move at WP:RMTR and no idea why @Ivey: thought that was a good idea to accept... Giant Snowman 18:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the rationale given by J36723 [1] was: "The competition uses this new article name on its branding and even keeps it when it changes the sponsor in its name." Is that claim inaccurate? Robby.is.on (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sort of thing that should be discussed in a WP:RM, not unilaterally moved by a page mover.... Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree - totally inappropriate request and totally inappropriate move. Giant Snowman 20:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extra notes

In the past I published extra info but sometimes that info. could be ommited because that is already previoulsy published above or below. I would want to help because all of us were newcomers once.

Neccesary and obligatory extra information:

1) When the table doesn't show some points.

World Cup Morocco, Spain, Portugal 2026: Y we need and extra note explaining about Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.
It will be 16 cities: we need and extra note explaining 16 without centenary matches or 19 with centenary matches, depends on the section.

2) Data outside the main table:

For example, in UEFA Futsal Euro 2026 qualifying the final criterion was Romania +5, Germany –5 but that criteria wasn't shown in the table. Y: So we need a neccesary and obligatory extra note.

2024 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup: Mexico and Cameroon tied on all criteria, but the table doesn't show how many fair play points they have, because of that Y we need a neccesary and obligatory extra note.

Olympics 2024: the table shows Argentina and Morocco tied in Points, GF, GA and GD, but the final criteria is not shown in the table so Y we need a neccesary and obligatory extra note.

2023 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship: Despite having better goal diff overall., Germany is under Netherlands so Y we need a neccesary and obligatory extra note about why Netherlands won the 1st possition having lower GD overall than Germany.

Unneccesary and no obligatory extra information: (When the table already shows the criteria)

1) Norway 9pts and Nigeria 6pts: N we don't need and extra note explaining that Norway has 9 and Nigeria has 6pts. because the table shows it. An extra note could de repeated information.

2) Albania won 1st possition with 4pts and +4 and Poland 4pts and +2: N we don't need and extra note explaining that Albania has better GD because the table shows it. An extra note could de repeated information. If Poland were on 1st place (despite havig lower GD) Y we need an extra note.

3) 2022 UEFA wome's Euro: After tied, Sweden has better Goal difference overall than Netherlands and that info is already puslished in the table with the letters GD so N we don't need and extra note moreover we have the section Tiebreakers so an extra note could be repeated info. twice.

4) UEFA Women's Euro 2025: Switzerland has 4 +1 and Finland has 4 +zero. Since the final criterion was GD overall N we don't need and extra note because it is published in the table with the letter GD moreover we have the section Tiebreakers so an extra note could be repeated info. twice. Unreal situation: If Finland qualified with 4 +zero but Switzerland didn't (with better GD) so yes, we would need and extra note.

I hope helping many user because in the past I always put too many extra notes, some necessary and some unnecessary. Rey1996ss (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Geschichte (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using third-party databases for DOB

Hi, it's been helpfully corrected by User:Crowsus that Findlay Curtis was born in June and not October 2006, per this source [2]. I created this page and I used the date of birth as listed on databases such as Soccerway and Soccerbase.

There was no DOB on the official Rangers profile when he made his debut. There would be issues of privacy (many youth players don't make it and become ordinary Joes like you and me), as well as child protection. This brings up the point - how can we trust third-party databases when the clubs themselves won't publish this information? Personal information such as DOB is one of the key things covered by WP:BLP privacy regulations.

I think there's no problem at all when we use Soccerway/Soccerbase as a third-party reference for a widely known fact, like Harry Kane's birthday. But in limited circumstances, we have to wonder how they know things that the general public don't. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issues in trusting the reliable databases with things like this. Giant Snowman 12:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah for me it comes down to WP:V and WP:RS - the Scotsman article makes it sound like the incorrect info was invented here, but in fact it was replicated from another site which is not known for wild inaccuracies. So it's all fine in terms of the normal processes. And as for the 'professional' journalists who clearly got their info straight from here or soccerbase/way without checking properly, even though they had the means to do so directly with the club and player, more fool them. Crowsus (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lionel Messi #RFC - Which Image for InfoBox?

There is an RFC discussion at Talk:Lionel Messi #RFC - Which Image for InfoBox? that may be to the interest of members of this WikiProject. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Scott honours

Hi all, I'm reaching out regarding a recent editing disagreement with user:Kingsif over the placement of Jill's bronze medal from the 2015 World Cup in the honours section. I had moved it below her gold medals from the European Championships and other tournaments, as it seems intuitive and consistent with how honours are typically ordered — with golds prioritized over lower placements.

Kingsif has reverted the edit, citing MOS guidance in support of keeping the bronze medal listed first. However, I’ve reviewed the Manual of Style, and I don’t believe it explicitly supports that interpretation — especially not in terms of giving bronze medals precedence over gold. In fact, there’s been frequent discussion around whether to include non-winning honours like runners-up finishes at all, which further suggests that golds should be given primacy.

While Kingsif argues that other player articles validate their approach, both men's and women's articles use the same MOS framework. And in my experience, the prevailing practice across these articles is to list victories (i.e., gold medals and championship wins) before second or third place finishes.

I’d really appreciate input from others here — both on the specific question of this article and the broader principle of how we prioritize honours. Thanks in advance! Rupert1904 (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd interpret the MOS as listing International honours by the level / importance of the trophy, so World Cup first, then Continental.

I certainly wouldn't put a World Cup honour below the Arnold Clark Cup or Cyprus Cup. Spike 'em (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret it this way: if they were all gold medals, then the World Cup would clearly take priority—it’s the most important, and that’s the standard we follow. And I agree with you on that. But in this case, it’s a bronze, not a gold. So they didn't even reach the final itself either. From what I’ve seen, the common approach is to weigh the level of the trophy first, but then prioritize golds over second or third-place finishes. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you’ve already made it clear you disagree with the consensus of everyone else and every other article. Repeating that doesn’t change those. Kingsif (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The order of honours should be based on the importance of the competition, in my opinion. However, in most player articles, the title won (continental level) takes precedence over a runner-up/third place in an international competition (e.g. world cup), see e.g. Michel Platini, Oliver Kahn, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge etc. Miria~01 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no actual consensus to place in order gold, silver, bronze- and in fact the MOS suggested that information on biographies should be chronological, but apparently sports fans just ignore that... My thoughts therefore would be to list in chronological order. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the French players who won the UEFA Nations League in 2020-21 but lost the World Cup final in 2022 also have the same order of the gold medal placed first. For instance Théo Hernandez, Aurélien Tchouaméni, Dayot Upamecano, Jules Koundé, and Jordan Veretout. I could pick out many other players as well to support my interpretation of the MOS and common edit practice I have seen over the years. Of course the first priority should be and is the most important competition when all are gold medals, but the standard I have seen is that the second priority is then trophy wins/golds when the most important trophy, in this case the World Cup, is a runners-up or third place finish. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: A question, regarding chronological order using Jill Scott as an example: In Option C (chronological) runner-up 2009 as European Champion would be decisive, But let's say that theoretically she was not third, but winner of the World Cup in 2015, would second place from 2009 still be decisive or would first placings be compared with each other ?

Option A (status quo: order by comp. importance) FIFA Women's World Cup third place: 2015 UEFA Women's Championship: 2022; runner-up: 2009 Cyprus Cup: 2009, 2013, 2015 Arnold Clark Cup: 2022	Option B (order by biggest title) UEFA Women's Championship: 2022; runner-up: 2009 FIFA Women's World Cup third place: 2015 Cyprus Cup: 2009, 2013, 2015 Arnold Clark Cup: 2022	Option C (chronological) UEFA Women's Championship: 2022; runner-up: 2009 Cyprus Cup: 2009, 2013, 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup third place: 2015 Arnold Clark Cup: 2022

Miria~01 (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take Luis Díaz as another example. Should his Portuguese League Cup runner-up finish with Porto be listed ahead of winning the Portuguese Super Cup? Should his Champions League runner-up medal with Liverpool be prioritized above actual league or domestic cup titles he’s won? That wouldn’t reflect the true weight of a player's achievements. Across honours sections, the consistent standard has been to rank by competition prestige when results are equivalent but victories take precedence over runner-up finishes. Prioritizing silver medals over gold distorts the significance of a player’s accomplishments. More importantly, players themselves almost universally value a trophy lift—no matter the competition—over falling short on a bigger stage. Rupert1904 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review: Draft:Mark Withers (American professional footballer)

Hi all — I’ve recently drafted an article about Mark Withers, an American professional footballer who has played in the NASL, MASL, Portugal, Andorra, and Australia (currently with Manningham United FC in NPL 2 Victoria). He is already mentioned as a redlink on multiple season pages (e.g., 2013 Atlanta Silverbacks season, 2013–14 Dallas Sidekicks season).

The draft is fully sourced and currently awaiting review: Draft:Mark Withers

If anyone in this project has time to review or provide feedback, it would be greatly appreciated! SoccerJourneyMan (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've made some improvements. Do you have a conflict of interest to disclose per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"League appearances and goals only; some data incomplete or estimated" - how do you "estimate" a player's appearances and goals? If the info isn't know definitively then don't show it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the hyperlinks — I really appreciate it.

For transparency, I am Mark Withers, the subject of the draft. I’m contributing with the goal of keeping the article neutral and well-sourced. I am starting to work on articles about American soccer players who have played overseas.

I will disclose on the COI now. Thanks for the quick help with the page Robby.is.on. Any further edits are welcome. SoccerJourneyMan (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, please see WP:AUTOBIO. Giant Snowman 15:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]