This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Football This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball

WikiProject Football

Project pages
Project talk page Task forces Portal New articles Cleanup articles Unreferenced BLPs Article alerts Popular pages
Assessment Assessment department (talk) Assessment log
Format templates Club articles Club templates National team articles National team templates National association articles National assn. templates Competition articles League season articles (Lua tables) Club seasons articles Country seasons articles Match articles Player articles Stadium articles
Other Consensus Category structure Notability criteria Fully professional leagues (talk) Template list Sources and links Booklist Members Recognised content Vital articles Project milestones Did You Know? archive

NO CONSENSUS

Despite my involvement in this discussion, I feel confident that I can ignore that and close this as no consensus to adopt because I !voted in support. If I am wrong, I can be trouted on my talk page. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 1	Agg. Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Anguilla	1–1 (4–3 p)	Turks and Caicos Islands	0–0	1–1 (a.e.t.)
U.S. Virgin Islands	1–1 (2–4 p)	British Virgin Islands	1–1	0–0 (a.e.t.)

Proposed:

Team 1	Agg. Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Anguilla	1–1 (4–3 p)	Turks and Caicos Islands	0–0	1–1 (a.e.t.)
U.S. Virgin Islands	1–1 (2–4 p)	British Virgin Islands	1–1	0–0 (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]
• Oppose – Bolding is enough. In longer match lists, and especially on dark skin, I find the proposed chaotic and harder to read. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Overkill and like above, bolding is enough. Kante4 (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear that there is no consensus for adopting the proposal. Thanks to everyone who took the time to weigh in. Wburrow (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

It could be easily done using AWB, if ever needed... GiantSnowman 16:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent this too AfD, I really didn't see how it passes WP:NRIVALRY. Govvy (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon a group of oddly named Mestaruussarja (Finnish top tier 1930–1989) articles in Category:Mestaruussarja seasons (the 14 first). For the 1930s, it looks easy to remove " – Finnish League Championship" to make the titles more WP:CONCISE, but the 1940s are more complicated. Before opening a move discussion, I put it here first to see as I don't have great knowledge of the Finnish language and because such a bundled nomination may be complicated to discuss.

Looking at the articles, the RSSSF, Finnish Wikipedia articles, and the list of champions at Football Association of Finland, I find the following:

• All articles on English Wikipedia are the title-giving competitions.
• There looks to be sources in the Finnish articles to improve the English articles.
• The 1941 and 1944 articles are spanning two years at RSSF (1940–41 and 1943–44).
• The 1945, 1946, and 1947 articles of Mestaruussarja do not match what RSSSF considers to be the Mestaruussarja those years – the title was given trough play-offs between teams of the Football Association of Finland Mestaruussarja and the Finnish Workers' Sports Federation Mestaruussarja.
• In 1930–1935, the articles are named A-sarja and not Mestaruussarja on Finnish Wikipedia, however RSSSF calls them Mestaruussarja. As this difference doesn't seem to be established in English sources, there is no reason to move these (although RSSSF only is a bit weak). (It looks the FAF did not use Mestaruussarja until 1935 (c.f. Jalkapallon A-sarjan kausi 1931 oli vuonna 1930 perustetun Mestaruussarjan (1930–1935 A-sarja tai Suomen sarja) toinen kausi from fi:Jalkapallon A-sarjan kausi 1931 intro (translated via Google); FAF yearbooks: until 1935 from 1936; when reading Finnish sources note that there are two similar words, jalkapallo (football) and jääpallo (bandy), both administered by FAF at the time).)
• (RSSSF presents four different all-time tables for the top tier, so no help there.)

These are the names used on different places and possible article names:

Any thoughts? Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the right place to put this question, but... What if RCS had qualified for the 1994 FIFA World Cup, while its successors played their first games earlier in February? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct assumption. This is a forum about football articles, not a blog about speculation. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So an article has recently been made titled List of goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo. It's exactly what you think it is. Should this be an article? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to AfD. I will also leave a note on their talk page regarding WP:COPYWITHIN. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I also believe the copying of text from the lead of List of footballers with 500 or more goals to this new article without attribution is a violation of WP:COPYWITHIN, can somebody advise a course of action here? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to put “some information copied from [article name]; see that page’s history for attribution” in the edit summary for attribution purposes. Haven’t been pulled up about it since. Seasider53 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best for a note on the talk. The attribution is important, but we can't edit the summaries Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the whole table lifted (again without attribution) from List of career achievements by Cristiano_Ronaldo#List of senior career goals?

I think that section should be removed along with the separate article. Spike 'em (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Re Tottenham Hotspur plc has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Conducted a search, not obviously notable. No sources. Very confusing prose.

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. Delectopierre (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion here to propose a change to how the wikiproject manual of style displays transfers on club season articles (the suggested table layout violates MOS:FLAG) and would appreciate input from any and all interested editors over there. Many thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Allan (footballer, born 2004)#Requested move 25 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How much concern do we want to give to the distinction between the club and the team in these articles. Strictly speaking, the club is a legal entity that employs players, owns property, can be founded or dissolved etc; the team is the collective of players and perhaps by extension those who support their efforts on the pitch. The club is a member of the HyperSuperMegaLeague; the team plays in the HyperSuperMegaLeague.

So should we allow statements like "The club play in pink with orange heptagons", or "the team appointed William Shakespeare as manager"? If a competition is won, is that the achievement of the team or the club? If two competitions have been won several decades apart, is that the achievement of the club or the team (or the teams?)

Or is it just too pedantic to raise the issue, and we just conclude that the two terms have, in the football vernacular, become interchangeable?

(thought triggered by this diff) Kevin McE (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think the distinction needs sometimes to be made, although often the two are blurred. John (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what is decided, one thing we should definitely avoid is "the club were founded" (or "the club were [anything else]" for that matter). The team may be plural but the club is definitely singular..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that one Chris. I'd prefer Melchester Rovers Football Club are over Melchester Rovers Football Club is, referring to an undefined group of people that make up the club (or company, or political party, or ...). I'd say this is standard in British English, but American English would strongly favour is. Having said that, I've just read this article, which was interesting, but has left me none the wiser. U003F^? 12:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading suggests " British English" is too broad a brush. Let's go with some parts of the UK and elsewhere use are exclusively, other places use is or are depending on details, and other places use is (almost) exclusively. Dialects, eh? U003F^? 12:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the context IMO. Obviously "Arsenal [i.e. the actual team of players on the pitch] are winning" is fine, but in my opinion "Arsenal Football Club [i.e. the club as an organisation] were founded" sounds wrong, and "the club were founded" sounds even more wrong. Look at it this way: in the off-pitch sense, "Arsenal Football Club" does indeed refer to an undefined group of people that make up the club. But so does "the Royal Bank of Scotland", and would you say "the Royal Bank of Scotland were founded"? I personally wouldn't say that and therefore by extension wouldn't refer to the club in that way either. But that's just my opinion...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're one of those detail types. But, yep, I would always say "RBS were" and, reading round, that is correct / acceptable / awful depending where you were brought up. U003F^? 14:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's a question of dialect, if we look at the famously Queen's English BBC: [1] "Everton are also in the process of building a new stadium on the banks of the River Mersey at Bramley-Moore Dock, which is due to open in 2024". Pretty sure it's a corporation building a stadium and not 25 international millionaires in their 20s and early 30s. Other fields using plural on the BBC: Cambridge graduate BBC political editor Chris Mason: "Why Labour are so keen to talk about defence". [2] James Heath, director of BBC policy, Oxford graduate: "What is the problem ITV are trying to fix?" [3]. Everton, Labour and ITV are all words that appear singular but are treated as plurals because the discussion is about the decisions of multiple people within them. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw now there are Draft:Trevor Brian Morgan and Draft:Trevor Morgan (coach) which are about the same person. How should these be merged? And would that be that someone who goes to one page see that there's a draft for it? --SuperJew (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Trevor Morgan (coach) is an appropriate name for the article, while Draft:Trevor Brian Morgan contains all the info of Draft:Trevor Morgan (coach) and more. I'd therefore suggest moving Draft:Trevor Brian Morgan → Draft:Trevor Morgan (coach) to retain its edit history. U003F^? 12:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have the permission to that since both are created already, needs to be an admin. --SuperJew (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. GiantSnowman 19:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GS! :) --SuperJew (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing List of men's national association football teams on and off for a while, and something has struck me: we claim that there are 23 teams which represent non-sovereign entities. Within those, we list two of the constituent lands of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Aruba and Curaçao) and two special administrative regions of China (Hong Kong and Macau).

However, it struck me that we perhaps should also be listing Netherlands and potentially also China. While they share their name with the sovereign state, do they not actually represent only a (very large) percentage of it? Insofar as Netherlands represents European Netherlands, and China represents all of China except Macau/Hong Kong?

Interestingly, the only source I can find is this 2006 document from FIFA (https://web.archive.org/web/20091229060404/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/51/56/07/transfer_commentary_06_en_1843.pdf) which on page 97 implies that the teams do in fact represent the smaller units, as part of the 'shared nationalities' policy. The case is stronger, I think, for the Netherlands than for China insofar as European Nethlerands is a distinct established unit whereas 'rest-of-China' is less-so. Interestingly, the Dutch football article links to Netherlands and not Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Any thoughts? I realise that the point is quite arcane and low importance but it interests me nonetheless! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, this could also extend to Denmark and France, as representative of the European territories only and not the sovereign state. The UK teams are already listed. I don't think it would apply to the USA, as its dependent territories are not integral parts of the USA and so the team and sovereign state are contiguous. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The non-sovereign teams are classified as "The FIFA-affiliated football teams that belong to non-UN members." I get your point, especially about Kingdom of the Netherlands and Kingdom of Denmark vs their constituent countries (there are some parallels to the UK and its constituent countries). However, I think including the Netherlands and Denmark in a list of non-UN members would be more confusing than elucidating, so the list is fine as it is. Wburrow (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is an award notable to be added to the player article if it is the "Club Player of the Month" award (so their own club)? See here. Kante4 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not, personally. Club Player of the Season maybe but not of the month..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the prose it could work. I'd say include it in the prose more so for articles that are short and don't have as much discussion, but guys like Messi and Ronaldo who would probably get that honour 30 times, probably not. RedPatch (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]