Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

AFC Bournemouth

We need to stop with this thing with AFC Bournemouth, where we put "AFC" everywhere (infoboxes, leads, whatever). Every single reader knows that when an article says "Bournemouth", it's referring to AFC Bournemouth. Absolutely no one is getting confused. There is a sort of primary topic on the name Bournemouth in football-related articles. Bournemouth F.C. is almost irrelevant. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 15:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming there are no objections. Shall we create something similar to WP:HOFFENHEIM or WP:ACMILAN? Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

2 comments is not enough to form such a binding consensus; if there are still people using AFC Bournemouth in articles then they would seem to have an alternative view that can't be disregarded. I'd not complain about anyone amending AFC Bournemouth to Bournemouth, but I would object to a policy being created by just 2 people. Spike 'em (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. What's the appropriate course of action? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinging recent editors of AFC Bournemouth to generate discussion. @Mattythewhite, Michaeldble, ChicoSnow12, Paul W, Frank Thistle, Jameslynch99, Sebas291001, JonasBR, Eduzs, Billjones94, Web-wiki-warrior, CurtNeiMeing, JpTheNotSoSuperior, Red Jay, Yedaman54, Jimbo online, CherryDolphin, A Guy with no name, ChrisTheOstrich, REDMAN 2019, Albert101032, and Iggy the Swan:. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree --Jimbo^[online] 09:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Out of interest, if this change were made, how would we treat the infobox of someone like Justin Keeler, who played for both Bournemouth and Bournemouth? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

For someone who has played for both, then distinguishing in their infobox/article would be sensible. For the other 99.999% of people, this wouldn't be an issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I would imagine that we would have to differentiate in the infobox for anyone who has played for Bournemouth F.C., regardless of whether or not they have also played for AFC Bournemouth, because if it just says "Bournemouth" and that becomes the default way to refer to the pro club, then readers seeing just "Bournemouth" in the infobox will assume it refers to the pro club...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a fair concern. However, from my perspective, Bournemouth F.C. should not be referred to as "Bournemouth": it should be referred to as "Bournemouth FC" (or F.C.). The good news is that there are only 13 notable players that have played for Bournemouth F.C. I think we can all agree that having "Bournemouth" in their infoboxes is misleading and might make a reader think of AFC Bournemouth instead.
As a side note, has anyone ever played for both AFC and FC? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding to my own comment, the only players to have played for both clubs and be notable are Brian Mundee, Simon Rayner, Bob Redfern, and George Webb (footballer, born 1991). For these players, I think that using "AFC Bournemouth" and "Bournemouth FC" to differentiate would be appropriate. The other option would be to use lower-alpha notes in the infobox. But yeah when it's just Bournemouth F.C., we should use "Bournemouth F.C." or "Bournemouth FC" (either one is fine by me), since that is what the club is actually referred to in order to disambiguate with AFC Bournemouth, which is more widely called Bournemouth. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. We should just be using Bournemouth. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree we should be using Bournemouth, in my view it's clearly the common name. @ChrisTheDude:, I would say that in the rare cases when a player has played for both, like Keeler, then AFC and probably F.C. should be used. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Paul W (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes sense for AFC Bournemouth to be used as section titles while using Bournemouth for the text in that particular section. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The club is often known as AFC Bournemouth in a way that most clubs aren't known with their 'Football Club' suffixes. There's a number of clubs in English football with this naming style, e.g. AFC Wimbledon, FC Halifax Town and AFC Fylde, for all of which the prefixes aren't actually abbreviations. I'm inclined towards sticking with 'AFC Bournemouth'. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

They are just 'Bournemouth' on BBC. GiantSnowman 17:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

However, BBC Sport do include the prefix on their team overview page, likewise with with Wimbledon, Fylde and Halifax. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

We must look at what sources commonly call the club, not at what one website might say. As a side note, AFC Wimbledon shouldn't be used as a comparison example since the original Wimbledon F.C. is arguably more well-known, hence it is a true case of disambiguation and there is no primary topic on "Wimbledon" in football articles. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

As far as I could tell it's not just third parties using the "AFC" nomenclature, the club also refers to itself as "AFC Bournemouth". That and the fact that another Bournemouth football club exists seem like enough reasons for "AFC Bournemouth" to stay in my opinion ChicoSnow12 (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

What the club uses is almost irrelevant. Also, nobody knows Bournemouth F.C.. 99.9999% of people will see "Bournemouth" and think of the Cherries. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Not WP:VOTESTACK, but there seems to be general agreement among most users that "Bournemouth" alone is appropriate. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. -- Phikia (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)

Let's see if the person actually receives significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course he will, any player playing at La Liga level is past due for coverage. Ortizesp (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Manchester City F.C. 0–4 Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

Although notable for season articles, is it really that notable for a separate article?? Govvy (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say no. Most of the references seem to be routine reporting. Being an upset is not enough, as the article says Man City were in the middle of a poor run, of which this is just part. Spike 'em (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say no. We don't need an article on every game that was an upset -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have AfDed it. Spike 'em (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Just got home from work, thanks Spike. Govvy (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty unconvinced that Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009) is notable, either. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I always find it hilarious when people say not a notable match, Black Kite, you can make every premier league match notable. It's down to perspective. I personally see this as seasonal information and it's somewhat over the top for me that Manchester derby article. To me it's a breach of WP:OR guidelines of analysis and synthesis rather than the notability issues which people point out. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I said in the AfD - you could make fully compliant articles for all 2,036 fully professional games in England every season. Perhaps I should have said "notably notable" or something else... Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You're unconvinced that a game that still gets coverage 15 years later is notable, @Black Kite? OK then. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Non-FIFA international matches

Hi, a continuation of the following discussion as I'm looking for more clarity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_118#Non_FIFA_Matches

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GiantSnowman#Non_FIFA_matches

In the case of Dallas Jaye [1] for example. He has made 21 appearances for Guam and an additional 3 appearances categorised as non-FIFA matches, 2 in 2012 against Northern Mariana Islands [2] and 1 in 2016 against Taiwan [3]. Should these non-FIFA matches be included in the caps count as it pertains to the infobox? What are your thoughts on this? I can think of no good reason why they should not be as they are appearances after all. Simione001 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The fact you have not notified me about this discussion, despite our ongoing discussion at my talk page, is incredibly rude.

No, we should not include unofficial international matches, WP:COMMONSENSE applies. GiantSnowman 22:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Totally unintentional and please don't take it so personally, i thought our conversation had run its course. I assumed you would take notice of this discussion and respond as i see you have done which i welcome. I just figured I'd start a fresh discussion open to the entire community to take part. A conversation between just two users is limited in its ability to come to a consensus. Simione001 (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The answer is, it depends! We have players like Cristiano Ronaldo that have 217 appearances [4] though two are listed as non-FIFA by NFT [5]. Or players like Joe Wang Miller who would have no appearances at all[6] [7]. Or even players like Didier Drogba [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGoalGuy (talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

In the case of Joe Wang Miller this is because Northern Mariana Islands are not a member of FIFA and yet the caps count is displayed in his infobox. Going back to Dallas Jaye, perhaps the two matches against Northern Mariana Islands should not be counted although they occurred during the 2013 East Asian Championship however the friendly against Taiwan in 2016 should be. But that would then also mean that Scotland's Euro2016 qualifiers against Gibraltar should also not count as they were not a member of FIFA at the time. Seems to me that there are some double standards. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

What really matters is whether the national association officially counts the fixture as a full senior 'A' international, and therefore awards caps. The 1963 England v Rest of the World football match is not recognised by FIFA, but the FA awards full caps for the England players, thus we count these appearances in infoboxes. Of course whether the national FA recognises the fixture as official is not as easy to discern for smaller countries. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of both WP:COMMONSENSE and the need to avoid making the infobox no longer representative of clear and valid information. For example, as the example of Joe Wang Miller above holds, if a player plays for a widely recognized national team—especially one that actively takes part in international football, like Northern Mariana Islands, Guadeloupe, both Virgin Islandses, and other semi-autonomous territories of other larger states—that isn't part of FIFA but participates in continental/regional confederation tournaments, then common sense tells us to include their caps. But when a player plays for a national team that is part of FIFA, there is no reason to include caps from matches that are not deemed "official" by the world governing body of the sport. This is not to say that those matches don't somehow "count" and shouldn't be mentioned at all. It's only to say that including them simply serves to complicate something that need not be complicated. The same logic goes for including only league matches in the infobox for players' clubs. Including cup matches and friendlies and continental tournaments, etc., would only serve to complicate the infobox and misrepresent the differences between those types of matches. Anwegmann (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to note that I don't really think NFT is super reliable for determining what is and what isn't an official "FIFA match." There have been times that I have seen them list perfectly acceptable FIFA friendlies as "non-FIFA" for some smaller nations. They are not always reliable. When it's unclear, I usually include the "non-FIFA" caps. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that NFT is not always 100% accurate - but what source is? However, you should not pick and choose when you decide to use/ignore the unofficial matches. GiantSnowman 21:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

To me, an unofficial match is when a senior national team plays against a club side or U-23 national team for example. Simione001 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it's when it's not officially sanctioned/ GiantSnowman 20:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Then is it your contention that Cristiano Ronaldos cap count should be changed from 215 to 217? And if not, how is that any different from the situation with Dallas Jaye? Simione001 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't care about Cristiano Ronaldo. I only know that there is a source which says Dallas Jaye has 21 official caps, and we reflect what the sources say. GiantSnowman 21:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And the same website your referring to says that Cristiano Ronaldo only has 215 official caps but you seem to be ok with 217. So your picking and choosing depending on the player. The same standard should be applied to all players should it not? Simione001 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I've said I have no opinion on Ronaldo. If sources say 217, and there is consensus that is the correct figure, then that's the correct figure. But Dallas Jaye is not Ronaldo. GiantSnowman 10:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Dallas Jaye is indeed not Ronaldo, they are obviously different people however they are both footballers. And indeed Joe Wang Miller has 17 caps (all unofficial) yet have been added to his cap count. So I cannot reconcile why Dallas Jaye caps should read 21 and not 24 especially one of those supposed unofficial matches was against a Northern Mariana Islands side featuring non other than Joe Wang Miller. So going back to my original edit, im looking for clarity as there are clear double standards. Simione001 (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd include the matches listed on National Football Teams as non-FIFA matches, unless that information is contradicted by RSSSF. You could always publish a note as well to explain the inclusion. Statattack (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Teddy Sandford

Teddy Sandford, a football biography article I created, has been proposed for deletion. The rationale seems sound and I don't think I can expand the article much further. Could someone take a look and see if there might be a way to salvage it? It would be a shame to lose this information from Wikipedia. --Jameboy (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the PROD, it's inappropriate. GiantSnowman 20:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Japan at the 1960 Merdeka Tournament

Is there any clear consensus about the exact status of the Japan team at the 1960 Merdeka Tournament. All 1960 Merdeka matches except Japan are shown in Eloratings and the Japan RSSSF match page also doesn't count them, the Japan matches are shown however at the Pakistan, Thailand and Malaya rsssf list which competed against them in 1960. Interestingly Japan FA includes the 1959 and 1961 Merdeka editions where Japan also participated in their list so not sure what happened in between. Not only eloratings but fifarankings.net (based on the official FIFA results site which was taken down), worldfootball.net also doesn't include the Japan matches. So far apart from the RSSSF page of that tournament and the rsssf matches list of Japan opponents I was only able to find in this website.

All news archives regarding the tournament (which are a lot on eresources) state it as the Japan national team. I was able to retrieve the Japan squad from this source and interestingly several international players which were also capped before were there (see the wiki squads page). Initially I thought that could be the youth squad which played at the 1960 AFC Youth Championship but only around one or two were present at the same tournament. Still doesn't mean anything as Indonesia or South Korea also had few players competing in both competitions but their matches are definitely counted as official.

A good source for Japanese football is SamuraiBlue but also they don't have the 1960 Merdeka matches. The first 1960 match here is against german club side Alemannia Aachen. Another posibility is that the Japanese represantive team at the Merdeka tournament was a club side, but also that theory can be disproved by the players in the squad. JayFT047 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The only thing that I could think, is maybe go to the Japanese newspapers if possible and see if they record it as the actual FA team. Or ask the FA directly if that was actually the international team or it was it's like a B team or something like that. HawkAussie (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

AFC Crewe

Is a club in Staffordshire County Senior League, people have tried to make a WP-article about it[10][11][12]. Is it reasonable to make AFC Crewe a redirect to Staffordshire County Senior League at this point? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds sensible to me. GiantSnowman 13:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

So edited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Clash between sources

There is a bit of a misunderstanding about Tiana Fuller (and pages she's listed in the squad of - Young Matildas and Junior Matildas): per Soccerway her birth date is 28 July 2007. However 97lufsaj brought the source Playmaker which shows her birth date as 28 July 2008. How do we decide which is correct in the absence of any more reliable sources? Does anyone here know about which source is more correct? --SuperJew (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging @Matilda Maniac: as I saw they edited on the subject. --SuperJew (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"Tiana Fuller, don’t believe the data websites! [...] She is 2008-born, not 2007. She’s 16." Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Great source thanks Nehme1499! --SuperJew (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done Looks like this is all resolved. Thanks, Nehme1499. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Nehme1499 for your assistance in resolving this one. 97lufsaj (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pinging Wburrow, Chris1834, and Matilda Maniac as participants in the initial discussion. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)