Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supercoppa italiana

I make you aware of the talk page of 2024 Supercoppa Italiana. Island92 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 1909 season, Bundesliga/German Football Championship change after the 1963 German football championship, Copa del Rey, Svenska Cupen change after 2011, the Russian Premier League change after 2010, Magyar Kupa, Indian Super League change after 2016, 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 Island92 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and ensure that we provide our readers with correct and verifiable information.

Rupert1904 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most obviously Serie A themselves (per link provided by Island on other Talk page) say Milan won 24-25.[1] 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 WP:CRYSTAL.

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 WP:CRYSTAL if they decided to revert format - but we can fix it WHEN it is an issue (if ever). Koncorde (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator please move the article for 2023 edition to 2023-24 and the subsequent final to 2024 rather than 2023? Rupert1904 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the consensus for all this? Island92 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The move you made are such bolds. There should have been at least a consensus reached for that Island92 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Spike 'em (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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? Spike 'em (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:OFFICIALNAME is not necessarily the correct name for an article, and it seems there is also only one editor who wants to move the article. Spike 'em (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Island92 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved article back to the origial name per WP:BRD, suggest a proper WP:RM is done to formalise this. Spike 'em (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, why not start it myself! Fire away... Spike 'em (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[have also added to the RM]

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)[reply]

Tahith Chong to China?

According to China national football team#Players, Tahith Chong has been called up for the national team of China, but I can't find a single source confirming this. I can't even find a source confirming that he has Chinese citizenship to make him eligible for the national team. Also not a single mention of this on his social media accounts. Does anyone have any information? 2001:1C00:1818:E800:4D1C:6718:8A8A:A00C (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's vandalism, by an IP editor with umpteen warnings yesterday. They haven't edited for 24 hours, so maybe they've stopped. I've reverted their edits on the China national team. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Turkish Women's Football Super League#Requested move 6 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Turkish Women's Football Super League#Requested move 6 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xavi Simons

Can somebody answer me at Talk:Xavi Simons#New match? (I think its from the 5th or the 6th of January the match.) Thanks! --Like the windows (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Giant Snowman 10:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fba template for the Palestinian Football Association

I was looking at the AFC Challenge League page and a link to the Palestinian Football Association page using the fba template is broken like this 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)[reply]

@Erikwesley: Thanks for mentioning, it's been corrected. The issue had to do with the recent move of the country article, Palestine, and how {{fba}} works. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I didn't hit save on this earlier!) Done. (Added Palestine to {{fba/list}}) Spike 'em (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there was a similar discussion to this a couple years ago on this talk page, where the outcome was to separate based on the match age (ie. U22 and U23 not just U23) RedPatch (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats basically advocating WP:OR, 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. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]