| Revision as of 09:51, 31 October 2018 editHhkohh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers37,571 edits →I have been forced to open this new section....: Replying to HiLo48 (reply-link)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:23, 15 January 2025 edit undoMuur (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,966 edits →Listing National Team Youth Stats |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to bottom}} |
|
{{Skip to bottom}} |
|
{{Confused|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject American football|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian rules football|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Canadian football}} |
|
{{Confused|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject American football|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian rules football|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Canadian football}} |
|
|
{{skip to talk}} |
|
{{talkheader|wp=yes|search=yes|WT:WPF|WT:FOOTY}} |
|
|
|
{{talkheader|wp=yes|WT:WPF|WT:FOOTY}} |
|
{{Football}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Football}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 120 |
|
|counter = 168 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(7d) |
|
|algo = old(7d) |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-03-03/WikiProject report|writer= ]|||day =3|month=March|year=2008}} |
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|
{{tmbox | text = '''This WikiProject was featured on the ] at the Signpost on 9 July 2012.'''}} |
|
|target = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Archive index |
|
|
|
{{old move|date=4 August 2022|destination=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Association football|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1103882285#Requested move 4 August 2022}} |
|
|mask = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros = 0 |
|
|
|indexhere = no |
|
|
|template = User:rellis/archive template |
|
|
}}{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=7|index=/Archive index}} |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-03-03/WikiProject report|writer= ]|||day =3|month=March|year=2008}} |
|
|
{{tmbox | text = '''This WikiProject was featured on the ] at the Signpost on 9 July 2012.}} |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/navigation}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/navigation}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Supercoppa italiana == |
|
== Sports table color proposal (AFC) == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I make you aware of the talk page of ]. ] (]) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
*Most previous related discussion: ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:As I have previously mentioned on the article's talk page, I believe the current title of this page, "2024 Supercoppa Italiana," is incorrect and should be updated to reflect the new format of the competition. Specifically, it should be renamed to "2024–25 Supercoppa Italiana," or an equivalent variant, to align with the official naming conventions used by the organizers and other credible sources. |
|
*As pre-discussion in ], per ''Champions League/Copa Libertadores Top in country green1, lighter green for earlier rounds'' in ]. So I think preliminary round 2 in ] uses green2 is very strange because if both one team entered play-off round and one team entered preliminary round 2 all uses green2, it will confuse readers and preliminary round 2 is earlier than play-off round. So I proposed '''group stage should be green1, play-off round should be green2, preliminary round 2 should be green3 and preliminary round 1 should be green4'''. Due to some reasons, this discussion is only limited to AFC leagues. Thoughts? ] (]) 16:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:'''Key Points to Consider:''' |
|
|
:*'''Competition Format Change''': The format of the Supercoppa Italiana has recently changed from a one-off match in August (marking the start of the Italian football season) to a four-team tournament held in January of the following year. This shift is significant and reflects a change in how the tournament is structured, which should be reflected in its title. |
|
|
:*'''Official Naming from Lega Serie A:''' Lega Serie A, the tournament's official organizer, has consistently referred to this edition as the ''2024–25'' Supercoppa Italiana (or variations such as '''SUPERCUP 2025''' and '''SUPERCOPPA ITALIANA 2024/2025''') in their official communications. This includes press releases, match reports, and promotional materials, all of which clearly state that Milan are the winners of the '''2025''' edition, not the 2024 edition. |
|
|
:*'''External Media Sources:''' Reputable media outlets, such as Mediaset (the official domestic TV broadcast partner) and Sky Sport Italia, have labeled this competition as the '''2024–25''' edition. Milan, the winning club, also refers to themselves as the '''2025''' champions on their official website and social media channels. This widespread consistency across various authoritative sources further strengthens the argument for renaming the article. |
|
|
:*'''Historical Precedent for Naming Conventions:''' As I have previously outlined in the talk page, when the formats of other football leagues and cups change (e.g., Serie A/Italian Football Championship change after the ], Bundesliga/German Football Championship change after the ], ], Svenska Cupen change after ], the Russian Premier League change after ], Magyar Kupa, Indian Super League change after ], etc.), the naming of articles is updated to reflect the new competition structure. This is a well-established precedent that we should follow in this case. The new format of the Supercoppa Italiana warrants a similar adjustment to the article title. |
|
|
:*'''Addressing Counterarguments:''' The main counterargument raised by ] is based on theoretical concerns about future format changes and potential inconsistencies in naming. However, these concerns are speculative and not grounded in verifiable sources. Misplaced Pages guidelines emphasize accuracy and facts, and speculation about future changes or potential inconsistencies is not appropriate in this context. As I’ve shown with multiple examples of other tournaments and leagues, when formats change from a calendar year to May-August/autumn-spring and vice versa, article titles are updated accordingly, and we should do the same here. |
|
|
:*'''Conclusion:''' To ensure that Misplaced Pages accurately reflects the current state of the competition, I strongly urge that we rename this article to '''2024–25 Supercoppa Italiana''' (or an appropriate variant) in line with the naming conventions established by Lega Serie A and other reliable sources. This will maintain consistency with similar instances across Misplaced Pages and ensure that we provide our readers with correct and verifiable information. |
|
|
:] (]) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Most obviously Serie A themselves (per link provided by Island on other Talk page) say Milan won 24-25. and there's no inconsistency on that page in the numbering convention or missing dates / years dating back to 88/89 even if historic naming was simply the year the single match was held (however looking at earlier history there are already multiple instances of the final being held in a different year to when originally intended such as 88, 96, 2014). Should be clear - historic numbering does not prevent fixing it in the present or future. As an aside, before the "we need secondary sources" horn is sounded - there is no issue for basic facts where no interpretation is required to use Primary sources on wikipedia. |
|
|
:::First argument against presented by Island seems to be about the Espana edition, where we literally skip 2019 without any issue because... reasons... so not sure why that's relevant. |
|
|
:::Secondary arguments against appear to be a variation of personal preference where each example given there literally already is an example to hand or it's a case of ]. |
|
|
:::Article states in intro that qualification was via preceding seasons "2023–24 Serie A and 2023–24 Coppa Italia" and sources seem consistently (at least those used in the article) in describing as being part of the 24-25 calendar (and so equally prior editions too at least going back to the switch to the January fixtures) so there's unlikely to be any confusion if in the future the competition reverts from 2025-26 to 2026 (and is in fact an argument in favour of using calendar seasons to keep them clearly segregated perpetually). |
|
|
:::Separately I think the 4 team split from 2 teams in the template is more problematic for both Italia and Espana than any change in naming convention or ] if they decided to revert format - but we can fix it WHEN it is an issue (if ever). ] (]) 17:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And if we needed any more proof, Milan are selling special shirts in their club shop commemorating the win as '''2024-25''' winners. |
|
|
::::* |
|
|
::::* |
|
|
::::I've moved the page back to 2024-25 and made edits accordingly on player articles and club season articles. I will do the same for the 2023-24 edition which is currently and incorrectly named 2023. ] (]) 15:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Can an administrator please move the article for 2023 edition to 2023-24 and the subsequent final to 2024 rather than 2023? ] (]) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Where is the consensus for all this? ] (]) 16:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::2024-25 comes directly from the organizers of the competition, their official website, their TV broadcaster partner, and the club that won the tournament. There is no argument to be made for 2024. ] (]) 17:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The move you made are such bolds. There should have been at least a consensus reached for that ] (]) 17:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Why is this discussion taking places across 2 talk pages, and why are editors making contested changes before the discussion has come to a conclusion? If there is no consensus, then the page moves should be reverted and a proper RM started. ] (]) 18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::And why does the 2023 version need a separare article for the final? It is a 3 game tournament, and there is nothing in the final article that could not be covered in the main article? ] (]) 18:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::The article was incorrectly named when it was created. There is no consensus for it to be called 2024 Supercoppa Italiana. That naming is blatanly incorrect and goes against the official communication from the organizers of the competition, the domestic TV broadcaster in Italy, the winners of the competition, and other sources as well. It is the 2024-25 edition and the only argument to not call it that is because one editor doesn't like the way 2024-25 looks and is speculating about unverifiable, possible future events which we don't do on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::If it was created with that name, and there is disagreement about moving it now, then it should stay there until positive consensus is obtained. The formal way to do this is via a requested move. The ] is not necessarily the correct name for an article, and it seems there is also only one editor who wants to move the article. ] (]) 19:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Again? It is not the fact I don't like it. There is a current practice that matches the name of all previous editions of the tournament, despite how Lega Serie A has called it lately. There is no consensus to move the page, not to how to call the article since its creation. ] (]) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I have moved article back to the origial name per ], suggest a proper ] is done to formalise this. ] (]) 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::In fact, why not start it myself! Fire away... ] (]) 19:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
: |
|
|
In my opinion it is very straightforward. This is an encyclopedia and should be providing straightforward facts to the reader. This competition was part of the 2024–25 season and should be titled as such. The final was played in 2025 and should be titled as such. If the 2025–26 final happens to be played in 2025 as well, the articles can be suffixed with the month (there are numerous precedents for this, the most obvious in my mind being in the ] which has changed its schedule numerous times with some calendar years having no finals and some having two, and it's all sorted out with minimal fuss). This should apply to all the four-team tournaments for the Italian and Spanish competitions. It's unfortunate that previous two-team finals have been played outwith the named calendar year but in each case this has been adequately explained and is not really the same as the expanded versions which are a simple matter of scheduling, and in my opinion readers will easily understand the difference in naming conventions to accompany the difference in formats, as opposed to finding the names to be misleading in order to align with the older format, as is currently the case. Titling an article with a single year when none of it occurred in that year (and there are no extenuating circumstances such as Covid delays) is farcical. ] (]) 22:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move at ] == |
|
:I can't tell the difference between the two shades, seems the same to me. ] (]) 17:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
::I can tell the difference when green1 row is next to green2, but in the current case in {{t|2018–19 A-League table}}, the rows in the order green1, yellow1, green2, i can't tell the difference. ] ]] 18:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Clearing it up (I may've mis-interpreted you Hhkohh), but if the A-League had a team which qualified for the Preliminary Round 2 and Preliminary Round 1, they wouldn't both have Green2. The worse stage qualifier would use Green3. - ] (]) 17:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can somebody answer me at ]? (I think its from the 5th or the 6th of January the match.) Thanks! --] (]) 19:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
== Swaziland is now Eswatini == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{done}} ]] 10:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
The article for the country formerly known as Swaziland has now been moved to ]. Unfortunately, it seems like they're keeping the 'SWZ' ]. I've updated several pages that were using the {{fb* templates, otherwise they'd be displaying the name Eswatini which wouldn't be accurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== fba template for the Palestinian Football Association == |
|
Also, a question about the football biography infobox, what is the policy, do they play for Swaziland up to a certain date and a second row for Eswatini ? ] (]) 13:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was looking at the ] page and a link to the ] page using the fba template is broken like this {{fba|PLE}} at the time of this comment (a working one would look like {{fba|ENG}} ) and does not link to the football association page. Does anyone with actual access to the documentation know what is going on? Also, should this be mentioned at the talk page over at the template instead? Thanks. ] (]) 02:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:May be wait for ] at ]? ] ]] 13:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:This isn't a case of a nation being disestablished and then re-founded, they just renamed themselves; there's no need to have separate rows for pre- and post-eSwatini appearances. My first question would be, how does FIFA refer to the nation now? If they call it Swaziland, there's no need to change anything; if they've changed to eSwatini, I would say any player who made their last appearance before the name change should keep using "Swaziland", while anyone who has appeared since they changed their name should use "eSwatini". – ]] 13:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed with {{u|PeeJay2K3}}. I think FR Yugoslavia was grouped with Serbia and Montenegro, but i don't remember for the case of Serbia and SFR Yugoslavia. For Swaziland , no need to separate listing of the caps. ] ]] 14:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::FR Yugoslavia same way just got renamed to Serbia and Montenegro, that is the reason why they are together. As MatthewHK says, we have to wait that last RM and then just move the country name in all football-related articles, but without separating results or absolutelly anything else. ] (]) 14:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ping|FkpCascais}}, for the name, the article title and "country" name may be not in sync, so FIFA did make a factor, not only the RM. For example the article title use ], but the team use more formal FIFA style ]. Also, Taiwan (aka the original Republic of China), was banned to use China, so it is odd to call ]. ] ]] 14:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|PeeJay2K3}} , and the refer to it as Eswatini. ] (]) 14:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::That answers my question then! Swaziland for everyone who played before the name change (the official name change, not the date FIFA changed its database), and eSwatini for everyone after. – ]] 14:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{re|Erikwesley}} Thanks for mentioning, it's been corrected. The issue had to do with the recent move of the country article, ], and how {{tl|fba}} works. ] (]) 10:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::{{ping|TheBigJagielka}} Stick to ] at the moment. The big E and small e problem, just wait for the ] in the main article ] to settle. ] ]] 14:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:(I didn't hit save on this earlier!) Done. (Added Palestine to {{tl|fba/list}}) ] (]) 15:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
::::Once Eswatini/eSwatini is decided, all articles/templates/categories under {{cat|Football in Swaziland}} should also be moved. I've seen CAF use "ESW" as the country code, however it is unlikely that FIFA's trigramme has been changed. ] is also likely to be moved soon, therefore all articles which use {{tl|fb}}, {{tl|fbw}}, etc. or a flag template need to be adjusted if referring to the country on 18 April 2018 or prior, i.e. <code><nowiki>{{fb|SWZ|name=Swaziland}}</nowiki></code> to display {{fb|SWZ|name=Swaziland}}. ] (]) 15:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
== Listing National Team Youth Stats == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you list national team youth stats, for example when a U20 team plays at a U19 tournament. Given the roster would be U19, would they be considered U19 or U20 stats. For example, I was at ] for separating U19 and U20 stats based on the profile at the , which in the game log lists which matches took place at U19/U16 events. Courtest ping to {{ping|Snowflake91}}. TIA ] (]) 17:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Could someone more skilled with "roster" pages take a look at this page? I saw it on ], but it doesn't seem well contained, or meet the MOS. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 08:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: The profile at KFA doesn't separate anything, everything is listed under "senior", "U17" and "U20" (and a special entry for Universiade), and is reflected as such in the infobox on Wiki article. Why? Because South Korea, in this example, has no U16 or U19 teams at all, only U17, U20 and U23. So techically they send U20 team to the U-19 tournament, they just include the players that are still eligible to play...simple. ] (]) 17:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:Should be re-named to ] in-line with standard naming conventions (I'm aware ''all'' the 'soccer' pages use the 'roster' format, no idea why they have to be different), converted into table format with basic stats (dates and games only) and sourced. ]] 08:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Note: there was a similar discussion to this a couple years ago ], where the outcome was to separate based on the match age (ie. U22 and U23 not just U23) ] (]) 18:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thats basically advocating ], we should simply go by what the sources say. If the Korean Football Association treat those games as U20 games, then we should treat them as U20 games as well, and not separating caps by ourselves. ] (]) 18:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
::::But they're not technically U20 games. The ] is a U19 tournament and AFC and FIFA would consider them U19 teams. Even though it's the U20 coach, the roster would still be restricted to the U19 players, making it a U19 team] (]) 19:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Despite being a really highly sourced article, it waffles a lot into ], specifically regarding what teams are classed as "Galacticos", (Like, seriously, ] were Galacticos? And, also the information on why the Real Madrid team was deemed to have failed is not sourced.{{whom?}} It's such a big article, it probably needs cleanup '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 12:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::The name of the team is actually not something decided by FIFA, but it's decided by the national football association. They can send whatever team they want and call it whatever they want, as long as the players meet age requirements. I'm gonna guess there, but this is probably due to the Korean age system which is +1 older compared to the rest of the world - so if someone is born on 13 January 2006, it would turn 20 today in Korea, not 19 – and this is why they have U20 and U17 teams, while U16 or U19 doesn't exist. ] (]) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:Yeah, part of it seems to be a mirror of ]. ] (]) 17:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::south korea actually scrapped that system. anyway, id go with however fifa list the stats.] (]) 03:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
::Removed the complete list. I mean the only two having a ref with the name galacticos were the idonesian team, well..., and the New York Cosmos. But that one was a blog with no other google hits. SO not worth keeping too. And the season to season section should be shortened as well. Random wins noted there ect. Make it a single section and mention their biggest accompishments, like winning the Champions League three times in a row. -] (]) 19:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== MLS clarification. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just wondering, is it more important for us to have the MLS tables shown as W-L-T, to maintain some form of consistency between American sporting articles, or is it more important to have them align with every other country football articles and show W-D-L. Also, is it specifically more important to have the word "Tied" used over "Drawn"? |
|
|
|
|
|
If it's more important for us to have them Americanised, could someone explain to me why it's the case? It's always just been something I've noticed and been unsure about bringing to a talk page to potentially change. - ] (]) 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:America related article use American English and grammar. Except the standardization of article title to other similar article in the rest of the world (thread ]), it seem fine to have their own variant. Even they use their own style in the squad list (such as ]) ] (]) 17:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::But is that the correct way we should go about it, rather than having it conform to more of the template currently used by the rest of the world? - ] (]) 17:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I am not an expert in grammar variant. So not sure American use draw or tie actually, but source also used W-L-T format. ] (]) 17:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I personally can't stand how the MLS puts draws after the loss column. It's particularly confusing to someone who consumes the MLS article from outside the U.S., and it's also not something other U.S. websites necessarily copy as far as I know (checked Soccerway, RSSSF, ESPN/Soccernet, TSN, CBC which all use the internationally recognised way. Sports Illustrated uses the way used on the official MLS website.) I'd be in favor of using W-D-L, as per usual. ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 06:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Can anyone else give some feedback on this? Is there grounds for trying to change the MLS tables to conform to the other football tables? - ] (]) 13:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I think there are grounds to change it, but even though I can't find the RfC/consensus I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere, and the decision rationalised. It is pretty stupid the way it stands. ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 13:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: I supposed there are two opposing arguments and perhaps the decision should be based on who is the main audience for the pages. From a global football perspective, it would be better to use the same format across all football articles. From an American sports perspective, it would be better to use the same format as other American sports (the current state). The question is who is looking at the articles most, soccer fans trying to find out about another soccer league or American sports fans trying to find out about another sport in their city or country. Unless we can find statistics on this question, I think it will be hard to find consensus for change. <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] |] </span> 14:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::{{re|Jts1882}} Considering Canadian and a decent number if not a majority of U.S. news websites show MLS tables in the worldwide version, it's not as if there's a strong "American sports" bias here... I'm not sure why MLS chooses to have their "official table" be outside the norm, though. ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 14:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: I'd prefer the W-D-L for uniformity. The W-L-T format for American sports is a because American sports generally have no draws or rarely (an NFL "draw" rarely ends in a tie after overtime). US soccer also went this route until recently so have this legacy. As they now allow draws the W-D-L format makes more sense. My main point is I think it might be hard to find a consensus for change, given the articles currently follow American sports style and the league in question follows the W-L-T format. <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] |] </span> 14:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::: I'd be willing to try, though. ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 20:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Off-topic, is there a way to mass invite those user that edited the ] article? May be someone good in wording (definitely not my English writing level) to post some notice on that talk page, and may be in user talk too? ] (]) 23:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Yes, if someone proposes an RfC, those people can easily invited to participate if done properly per ]. ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 23:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mohamed Hamdy - date of birth == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could someone familiar with Egyptian football confirm if the Mohamed Hamdy at Soccerway (born 1995) is the same person as the player of the same name at ] (born 1993). Someone has created a draft for a ] with the birth year 1995 and I'm a bit confused. ] (]) 11:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:They appear to be the same player. <strike>I'll reject the draft</strike> draft has not yet been submitted, not sure if it falls under a speedy. ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 14:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==2018 Leicester City F.C. helicopter crash== |
|
|
Is there anyone in the Leicester area that is able to take photographs of the flowers and other tributes laid in the wake of the ]. An image would be useful in the article. ] (]) 17:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Would anyone mind taking a look at ], which I suspect the subject of the article has been editing to add unsourced statistics, removing clubs he played and adding some content that is probably not notable. Thanks, ] (]) 01:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Reverted and warned. ]] 14:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fábio Lopes == |
|
|
|
|
|
Three footballers at ], all with 3 different ways of disambiguating. I'd suggest we go for year of birth? ]] 14:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: ] should probably just use the full name, '''Fábio Rogério Correa Lopes'''. <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] |] </span> 15:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Birth year always seems best to me, keeps it consistent. ] (]) 15:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Full name disambiguation is often useless with Brazilian footballers. It's best to go with their most ] and birth year. ] (]) 02:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] birth year == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've been doing some work on Hoddle's article, collection sources etc. His birth year, has 1957, has 1958, I would consider Telegraph more reliable, just wanted to check with other people for sources and which is better to go with. ] (]) 15:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Every source I've read recently said he's 61, so born in 1957. ]] 15:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::hmm, okay, Telegraph is normally very reliable. ] (]) 15:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's a basic profile, it could easily be a typo - and reliable sources are not infallible. Compare with , etc. etc. ]] 15:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hoddle was presented with a 61st birthday cake by Robbie Savage on Saturday, before his collapse . ] (]) 15:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::yep, I've emailed Telegraph they have a mistake on their factfile, see if they fix it, shame what happened to Hoddle, I wish him well. ] (]) 16:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Bob Goodwin's book gives "Born: Hayes, Middlesex, 27 October 1957". <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> ] |] </span> 21:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Actually, wikipedia is not meant for the "truth", but reporting the most popular version on external ], or sometimes, multiple version if the alternative version had other evidence, that was list out by that reliable source. (and dam, i can't find the specific essay/MoS/guide that was linked by others in ANI, but only ]). |
|
|
|
|
|
::::And in this case, it seem just a typo in ''Telegraph''. ] (]) 02:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== F.C. or FC ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently there is inconsistency in naming football clubs. For example, check ]. For Football Club, some articles use acronym with dots, while others use it in plain form.] 17:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:It seems that most clubs have the dots (four times as many that don't), so perhaps the ones that don't should be moved for consistency. ] ]] 19:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::See the talk page at ] for a recent discussion. ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 02:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The debate of "dot" never end. Also, some ] was slipped from discussion , such as ] was moved by speedy route, claiming official source did not had dot. Also the inconsistency was also observed in Portuguese club article. ] (]) 02:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Should teams that move up to MLS have a new article created? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, there is a discussion happening at ] that potentially has broader impact on other American soccer teams' articles. FC Cincinnati is moving up from United Soccer League (USL) to Major League Soccer (MLS) beginning with the 2019 season. The discussion is about whether the USL team and the MLS team should be covered in one comprehensive article, or in two separate articles. More community input and perspectives would be appreciated to help the discussion move along. Thanks, ] (]) 01:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 30 October 2018 == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''not moved'''. ] close. Consider a move to WikiProject Association football if the current name is considered ambiguous. <small>(])</small> ] (]) 07:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Soccer}} – the sport is soccer, not football. ] (]) 02:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. FIFA just call it football and most of the population of the world know association football is football not soccer. ] (]) 02:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' The latter part of the rationale that "the sport is soccer, not football" is patently false. ] (]) 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' this is a ridiculous waste of time. ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 02:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reply|Matthew hk|Mattythewhite|SportingFlyer}} NFL is football, FIFA is soccer. and it is NOT "patently false", and it is extremely rude to call is ridiculous. ] (]) 02:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Football is the more commonly used term. I'm inclined to agree with SportingFlyer's point above. ] (]) 02:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' I wish it was called ''soccer'' all over the world. It would prevent all the double takes I experience because I was brought up with it being called soccer where I live, and it's never going going to be called football by most people here. But I know it's called ''football'' in most English speaking countries. There's a handful of exceptions, which you can see by noting where you are taken by ], ], ] and ] (and possibly others). It would seem that our OP is influenced by the latter two (or perhaps only the last one). ] is an ongoing problem for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose and move to SNOW close.''' ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) 02:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' So stupid. It is FIFA, the majority of the countries that play the game call it Football and this all just seems like a ] from the nominee. <span style="background-color: black">]</span>]] 02:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's probably more accurate to blame this on ignorance, rather than stupidity. (They aren't the same thing.) And the good thing is, ignorance can be cured. ] (]) 02:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Compromise''' is it possible to create a separate WikiProject page for people who prefer to call it soccer? ] (]) 02:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 |
|
|
::No ] (]) 02:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::No <span style="background-color: black">]</span>]] 02:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
you can't just say no without giving a reason. ] (]) 02:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 |
|
|
:I actually agree with that. Several replies here have been a little too terse and arrogant, possibly showing a similar level of ignorance to that you seemed to display when you made this request. I simply don't believe it's needed. The page ] does obviously exist, and brings you here, so my answer would be that a separate page simply isn't needed. ] (]) 03:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with that as well, including possibly myself - but at the same time, there's a distinct lack of patience I have about this from someone who has made a number of edits to the encyclopedia, whose moves out of nowhere (including deleting redirects) are bordering on vandalism, if they haven't already crossed that line. ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 03:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The redirect from ] was created in 2007; only the ] was deleted recently to make way for move. ] (]) 03:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{edit conflict|2}} {{ping|SportsFan007}} I'm sorry about my terseness. My reasoning is that Misplaced Pages is an international project, and in much of the world ] is the sport that people think of when you say "football". There may be an interesting argument to be made about a move perhaps to "WikiProject Association football" (thereby aligning it with the mainspace article), but indeed, this is why a lot of editors quickly disagreed with your proposal. Your compromise solution is unsatisfactory because a parallel project would, for all intents and purposes, be the same project with a different name. If you are interested in starting a sub-group specifically for major league soccer in the United States, maybe we could do that? ] (]) 03:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thank you ], I wouldn't be opposed to that idea or a soccer in the united states sub-group. ] (]) 03:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 |
|
|
:::::Hmm, I took a look around, and I found this: ]. So it looks like this kind of subgroup already exists in some form. ] (]) 03:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Creating different names for the same projects would only be confusing. On your logic I'd prefer to use Wikiproject Gridiron, for instance... ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 03:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*{{re|SportsFan007}} ] is the only allowable forum to challenge the closure of an RM. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) 02:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*{{re|SportsFan007}} you can't just remove the redirect and turn the page to your one man army wikiproject. ] (]) 03:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Where do I go to request a sepearate wikiproject page? ] (]) 03:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Comment''' I take some responsibility for suggesting this RM proposal (after reverting an out-of-process move of the talk page), and there may be an argument for moving this to '''WikiProject Association Football''', but the existing proposal will never pass, and should be withdrawn. ] (], ]) 03:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose and SNOW close''' waste of time. ] (]) 04:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose and SNOW close''' - as an American user, this was a patently worthless nom. Just because the sport is known as soccer in the United States does not mean that it is known that way around the world (hint: it isn't). We already have a task force dedicated to American and Canadian soccer (which was already mentioned above by Mz7), and we already have a desperate need to reduce the ] that falls across large parts of Misplaced Pages. An argument can be made to move the page to "WikiProject Association Football", but I won't be the user to make it. I hold that the status quo works perfectly fine: WikiProject Football for association football, WikiProject American Football for the gridiron sport that is almost solely played in the United States. We don't need a separate wikiproject, we don't need a renamed page; the current setup is perfectly fine. Also, initially moving the page without any discussion is a terrible look – this is certainly not the place to be ], under any circumstances. ] (]) 04:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose and SNOW close''' Football is the most ] globally the most popular sport in every country in Africa ,South and central America,Europe and also Asia as the whole.the term Football almost exclusively refers to Association Football except USA to a lesser extent to Canada and Australia.Even CNN use the term to describe the game and most International versions of all news channels use Football . ] (]) 06:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::You didn't need to mention popularity, and may be off the mark just a little with Asia. Cricket definitely outranks football in popularity in India, amd there's a lot of people there. But I broadly agree with your conclusion re the name of the game and this article. ] (]) 06:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: The term Football is extensively and exclusively used in Asia for Association Football and Asia as a whole in 48 countries in over 42 countries ,Football is the most popular .] (]) 06:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Out of curiosity, what do you you all mean by “SNOW close”? ] (]) 06:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 |
|
|
::A look at ] will answer that question. ] (]) 06:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{reply|HiLo48}} Thank you so much!!!!! ] (]) 06:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 |
|
|
*'''SNOW close''' - I debated doing this myself but since NAC closures, even by page movers, are controversial in the first place I decided a SNOW close would be over the line. Best, ] (]) 06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose and SNOW close''' – {{re|SportsFan007}}, I recommend reading the intro to our article on ]. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia used around the world, not just in the United States, so we take a global perspective on word choice. –] (]) 07:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Good gosh no! We are not slanging it up here just to appease the yanks, there is a world outside the USA you know! The rest of the world call it football for that is it's name and thus so should the project reflect that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 07:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
== I have been forced to open this new section.... == |
|
|
|
|
|
...to point out a falsehood in the final comment. The "rest of the world" does '''NOT''' call it football! I am not American, and I call it soccer. ] (]) 08:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes and already stated by {{u| Pharaoh of the Wizards}}. But ] of Australia also commonly use football during their free broadcasting of UCL and Premier League. As well as a MoS stated Australia-related articles should use football (soccer). ] (]) 08:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually, ] says to use soccer to refer to Association football in Australia-related articles. --] (]) 09:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Because Australia has about four different major football codes. I've used football and soccer interchangeably, depending on the audience. ] ''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>'' 09:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|HiLo48}}, FIFA says football is football unless you are Australian and American where soccer is soccer ] (]) 09:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
]. Not *this* debate per se, but this has been done to death (and beyond) many times. ] (]) 09:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I don't know who you are accusing of holding a stick. All I did was correct a false claim. Why the rest of the above comments exist I have no idea. Soccer fans do seem to get very excited at times. ] (]) 09:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|HiLo48}}, but I call it football... Can you provide FIFA source about calling soccer? ] (]) 09:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
In my opinion it is very straightforward. This is an encyclopedia and should be providing straightforward facts to the reader. This competition was part of the 2024–25 season and should be titled as such. The final was played in 2025 and should be titled as such. If the 2025–26 final happens to be played in 2025 as well, the articles can be suffixed with the month (there are numerous precedents for this, the most obvious in my mind being in the Scottish League Cup which has changed its schedule numerous times with some calendar years having no finals and some having two, and it's all sorted out with minimal fuss). This should apply to all the four-team tournaments for the Italian and Spanish competitions. It's unfortunate that previous two-team finals have been played outwith the named calendar year but in each case this has been adequately explained and is not really the same as the expanded versions which are a simple matter of scheduling, and in my opinion readers will easily understand the difference in naming conventions to accompany the difference in formats, as opposed to finding the names to be misleading in order to align with the older format, as is currently the case. Titling an article with a single year when none of it occurred in that year (and there are no extenuating circumstances such as Covid delays) is farcical. Crowsus (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
How do you list national team youth stats, for example when a U20 team plays at a U19 tournament. Given the roster would be U19, would they be considered U19 or U20 stats. For example, I was reverted at Hong Hye-ji for separating U19 and U20 stats based on the profile at the Korea Football Association, which in the game log lists which matches took place at U19/U16 events. Courtest ping to @Snowflake91:. TIA RedPatch (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Done 
Palestine at the time of this comment (a working one would look like 
England ) and does not link to the football association page. Does anyone with actual access to the documentation know what is going on? Also, should this be mentioned at the talk page over at the template instead? Thanks. Erikwesley (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)