Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.
    WikiProject Football
    Project pages
    Assessment
    Format templates
    Other

    Draft notability

    Hi there! Can someone confirm me if Draft:Vladyslav Krapyvtsov is available through WP:GNG? Thank you, BRDude70 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @BrazilianDude70: There's some minimal coverage of him in sources 1 and 2, I can't access source 3 (is it dead?), source 4 is not independent, sources 5 and 6 are OK, sources 7 and 8 are not independent. Could you perhaps find better sourcing that isn't just about him transferring (or potentially transferring to) Girona? That would help make your case.
    Personally, I still probably wouldn't object to you creating the article, but some deletionists might have an issue with it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul Vaurie: Yep, I just talked with @GiantSnowman and we both agreed that it's best to keep it in the draftspace for now... My guess is that once he makes his pro debut, more sources will surface. Thanks, BRDude70 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if the person actually receives significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course he will, any player playing at La Liga level is past due for coverage. Ortizesp (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: color winners of two-way ties

    Moved from Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup qualification § Proposal: color winners of two-way ties
     – Moved to allow for a more comprehensive discussion and consensus. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    When looking at tables of two-way ties, I often have difficulty determining at a quick glance which team won. The bold/unbold distinction is a little too subtle for my aging eyes. We have the option to color the winners green with a simple parameter addition. I've seen it used on other language wikis and think it greatly improves readability. But it's a big enough departure from the established style and affects enough different pages that I thought it'd be a good idea to start a centralized discussion first rather than just do it through WP:BOLD edits. Any thoughts, concerns, or objections? I'd be looking to apply the style on this cycle's WC qualifying pages, then previous cycles as time allows.

    Current:

    Team 1Agg. Tooltip Aggregate scoreTeam 21st leg2nd leg
    Anguilla 1–1 (4–3 p) Turks and Caicos Islands0–01–1 (a.e.t.)
    U.S. Virgin Islands 1–1 (2–4 p) British Virgin Islands1–10–0 (a.e.t.)

    Proposed:

    Team 1Agg. Tooltip Aggregate scoreTeam 21st leg2nd leg
    Anguilla 1–1 (4–3 p) Turks and Caicos Islands0–01–1 (a.e.t.)
    U.S. Virgin Islands 1–1 (2–4 p) British Virgin Islands1–10–0 (a.e.t.)

    Wburrow (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I am fine with the adjustment. It doesn't really add or take away from the look of the article overall. It is the same style used in the group standings on all these pages. If it helps someone read it easier, than the article is the better for it. Chris1834 Talk 14:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – This definitely aids with accessibility, and it follows MOS:DATATABLES#Color. I would also encourage a broader discussion at WT:FOOTY to encourage more widespread adoption. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose – If a subset of the readers can't tell from a 1-second quick glance, and they need 3-seconds to read a little text, even with "ageing eyes", then just spend 3 seconds. I consider that this Talk page (as a single tournament) is not appropriate for the proposed change, as this precedent would be used as a de facto change for many other tournaments. Take to WT:FOOTY as the right forum to encourage more widespread debate. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Wburrow, Chris1834, and Matilda Maniac as participants in the initial discussion. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - I don't see the need for it and I don't see this as making it any more obvious. The most important thing is the score and that is always there in the middle making it easy for readers to find what they want. There was a similar proposal for the Champions League with the new format this season but consensus was against. See Talk:2024–25 UEFA Champions League#League phase layout. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support The current format is fine for me, but can understand it might be harder for some people. This proposal can only add and doesn't detract so I see no reason to oppose it. --SuperJew (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - A simple and straightforward change to make things a bit more accessible to those who might struggle with the deluge of tables that are normally present on these pages. SounderBruce 08:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - current format is largely fine but this is a tad easier to understand at a glance, so no reason not to adopt this change. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Adding color would bring inconsistency across various tournaments. What about all the one-legged ties then? Look at this for example: 2024–25_FA_Cup#Third_round. Winner is in bold and that's it. If the list of ties is not collapsible, then there's no visual distinction whatsoever (e.g. UEFA_Euro_2024_qualifying_play-offs#Semi-finals).--BlameRuiner (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - We already add bold text to indicate the winners of the tie. Adding colours is unnecessary and inaccessible. – PeeJay 14:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to better understand the accessibility objection. The use of color is in addition to, not instead of, other means of conveying information, so it doesn't violate MOS:COLOR. The whole idea behind the proposal is to make the tables easier to read, which would, in my view, also make them more accessible. Can you go into a little more detail about why adding color would make it more inaccessible? Wburrow (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Bolding is sufficient. And the flags can go too. /s Seasider53 (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose — I also believing the bolding is enough. This proposal would also create immeasurable inconsistencies across the project, and implementation would have to account for different formats of displaying ties. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Jackie Smith (footballer)

    Jackie Smith (footballer) in deWP we have this link Hull City | Remembering Our Heroes: John “Jacky” Smith and there I read "… Smith had to wait until late September to make his Tigers debut, featuring against Leeds City at 21-years-old." This person was born an September 15th. In my understanding, "late September" is after the 15th. Subtracting 21 from 1905 gives 1884, but the article says 1886 and wikidata 1883. So I am a little bit confused. Is the data from Hull City's Link wrong? What can be seen in the English National Football Archive? Thanks --Wurgl (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wurgl: The Hull City piece draws from On Cloud Seven, which gives a birth date of 29 September 1883. He made his debut on 23 September 1905, which would have made him still 21 years old (just). The English National Football Archive also gives birth date of 29 Sept 1883. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks! So you may want to change the engl. article? --Wurgl (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Please see comments at Talk:Jackie Smith (footballer)#Vital dates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    PSV Eindhoven

    I have started to observe a split in usage between "PSV" and "PSV Eindhoven" to refer to PSV Eindhoven in player, club, season, league, etc articles. Some places use "PSV Eindhoven" while others stick to just "PSV". The official name of the club doesn't include Eindhoven, FYI. I'm not exactly sure what we should continue using across the WikiProject, but I think it's best if we establish a consensus to use one or the other. Mix-and-match with some articles using Eindhoven and others just PSV isn't working, in my opinion. What are your thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Because our article states "internationally known as PSV Eindhoven", I have been using that for first mentions in articles. To me, "PSV" has a football fan ring to it. I reckon it's an abbreviation which people who follow football closely are familiar with while "PSV Eindhoven" would be what the average person on the street would use. Like "Bayern" versus "Bayern Munich" or "Barça" versus "Barcelona". Robby.is.on (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "PSV Eindhoven" is the English-language WP:COMMONNAME, reflected in the page title, and should be used in articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PSV is the club's name, not PSV Eindhoven. Calling them PSV isn't unusual or a nickname. The same applies to Bayern but not to Barça. – PeeJay 14:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments about "not using 'PSV'" would have more force if we didn't have an article at Inter Milan... GiantSnowman 18:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that old chestnut! – PeeJay 20:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarification, GS, where do you stand on the issue? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no issues with displaying just 'PSV'. GiantSnowman 21:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm good with "PSV Eindhoven". To me it's more common name similar to using "Bayern Munich" over "Bayern Munchen", "Inter Milan" over "Internazionale", "North Korea" over "DPR Korea", etc. RedPatch (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also fine with "PSV Eindhoven", but "PSV" is also acceptable. If someone picks one over the other, there's no good reason to force a change except to maintain consistency within an article. – PeeJay 10:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, not to shit on people here, but the club name is Philips Sport Vereniging; PSV is the abbreviation of that! Given Eindhoven is the city it's in. People often add the city to the abbreviation to make it more accurate in naming. You could say that PSV Eindhoven is more accurate in use than PSV. Regards Govvy (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also happy with either, as per examples by RedPatch. At least with PSV we don't have the irritating situation of the acronym including the city name which is then repeated, as in AZ Alkmaar and NEC Nijmegen. Crowsus (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that most people do not feel extremely strongly about the subject, and that both PSV Eindhoven and PSV are somewhat acceptable. There does seem to be a slight lean towards PSV Eindhoven in the comments above. I think it's best if we have consistency. Can we agree on "PSV Eindhoven"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I remember a well-known newspaper reporter once mentioning on a radio talk show that they used "PSV Eindhoven" to avoid confusion with PSG. I don't think it really matters as long as an article has internal consistency. Both are COMMONNAMES and I believe it would be a waste of time going around changing all of them to one or the other. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Image-caption discussion

    Since several footballer articles were listed as examples, for those interested in discussing: WT:Manual of Style/Captions#Infobox caption of team sport athlete Seasider53 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Dunaújváros FC#Requested move 16 February 2025

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dunaújváros FC#Requested move 16 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong redirect

    Can someone please delete the incorrect redirect Emerson (footballer, born 1988)? The player was born in 98, not 88, and @Ortizesp might have moved incorrectly here a while ago. Thank you, BRDude70 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done GiantSnowman 21:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A-League / USL First Division merge proposal

    I've started a discussion on merging the A-League (1995–2004) and USL First Division articles. I'm inviting anybody reading this to give their opinion on the proposed merger. Thanks! — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    UEFA Euro 1996

    I noticed references to The Times on UEFA Euro 1996 page lack URL, which is required for website-type ones. Could those be possibly replaced? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The refs use {{cite news}} rather than {{cite web}} so don't strictly need a url (no idea how much 1996 Times content is available online). Spike 'em (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Drew Carey

    Drew Carey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What does this have to do with the football WikiProject? RedPatch (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is tagged with the football project because he is a co-owner of Seattle Sounders FC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Football
    No tags for this post.