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.

2025 FIFA Intercontinental Cup

This article is just a copy of the 2024 edition, held less then a month ago. Too early. And sources used are the same. Not possible. Island92 (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inventing and jumping the gun. Island92 (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect removed. Island92 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree with the restoration of the redirect, this was not a copy of the 2024 article. Giant Snowman 15:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On average the style used was the same. Sources were the same. Tables and tournaments name related to 2025, just normal this. The rest was a copy. Island92 (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the style should be the same across similar articles, that is the whole point of our numerous Manuals of Style. Giant Snowman 15:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African Nations Championship

Do appearances in the African Nations Championship count as senior national team appearances? For what national team should we attribute those appearances on player articles? Some nations don't have an A' or B team article to which those appearances can be attributed to. It's just commonly displayed as the main national team itself. Example, the Ivory Coast national football team competed in the 2022 African Nations Championship, but for Patrick Ouotro, which I am currently making, I don't know whether I should list those appearances as senior Ivory Coast appearances or as Ivory Coast A' or Ivory Coast B appearances. Unclear.
Note: I just saw on the Algeria A' article in French here that "FIFA counts these appearances as first team international appearances and does not distinguish between the first team and the A' team." Thoughts or input? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the 2014 tournament, they count as full international matches.[1] Hack (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing at FIFA World Cup awards

Hi folks. Today I noticed that much of the sourcing at FIFA World Cup awards refers to threads on a forum called "BigSoccer". We don't usually consider forum threads WP:reliable sources so I'm almost ready to remove them and replace them by "citation needed" tags.

However, at least some of the forum threads contain images of football magazines which might verify the content the inline references are supposed the verify. Then again, it appears to be impossible to open larger and readable versions of the images if one is not signed up and logged in to the forum.

What to do? Pinging @DAlexxXD: who made many of the additions. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All citations from BigSoccer had the pictures of magazines. Some of the pictures have disappeared from the website now and I don't really know if there's anything to do about it. I'm aware of this issue, but there's really no way to fix it, but all of them had 2001:14BB:66B:7C8E:0:0:4889:5101 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should be citing those magazines in any case, not a forum where the info might be from them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation in Titles of Footballers

NOTICE: This discussion was originally created as a discussion on January 2nd. However, after upon further discussion, it was realized that this is more than two page problem and affects multiple pages.

As it currently stands, the naming conventions for footballers who have the same name but were born in different years are supposed to be disambiguated as (footballer, born (year)) in the title.

However, this contradicts with Wikipedia’s policy of maintaining an encyclopedia tone. This naming convention is weird and could be handled in an alternative way while being as concise and precise. This caveat for naming disambiguation is weird and could be handled differently in a way that is similar to the pages of royalty when there are multiple people of the same name.

The way the royalty project handles it is that they do the (born year-death year). Although different from the royalty wikiproject as it is relating to soccer players, it would be much more encyclopedic to do (footballer, birth date-death date), while also simultaneously having it as (born year) if the footballer isn’t dead. What are your thoughts on this?

Another alternative is to do positions such as if they are a different nationality and position, or id they are the same nationality but different positions. If there were two of the same positions and nationalty, I can see the years being applied but if that doesn’t occur.

For example: John Neal (English forward) and John Neal (English defender).

If that wasn’t possible then I could see this being used:

John Neal (English forward, 1955-1999) John Neal (English forward, born 1999)

I suppose I am trying to establish, does the year trump the position naming convention or should the position and nationality naming convention trump the year convention? Reader of Information (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis does a long and well established naming convention, used in literally tens of thousands of articles, "contradict with Wikipedia's policy of maintaining an encyclopedia [sic] tone"? Footballers aren't royalty, even if they do get paid like them... Giant Snowman 19:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that positions aren't fixed. I can think of any number of footballers who (a) there would be a huge argument about their main position, and/or (b) played at multiple positions during their career. Date of birth is fixed and unambiguous. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The concern about ambiguous or changing positions is valid and not unreasonable, but it does not preclude position-based disambiguation from being useful in many cases. When a player's primary position is widely recognized—such as a goalkeeper or forward—this method aligns with Wikipedia’s emphasis on clarity and naturalness. For cases where positions are unclear or disputed, other qualifiers like nationality or year can be used as fallback options. This flexible hierarchy ensures both accuracy and consistency while minimizing overprecision. Reader of Information (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to address your comments in addition to my arguments so I’m adding it here under the comments as I had drafted it separately from the argument:

While the current naming convention has been in place for a long time and is used widely, its alignment with Wikipedia’s core policies—such as WP:CRITERIA (naturalness, consistency, conciseness)—must always take precedence. A long-standing convention does not mean it is above reevaluation. If a naming convention can be improved to better align with policies and enhance user experience, it should be adapted. For example, relying on "footballer, born YYYY" often creates overprecision, whereas position or nationality-based disambiguation is more intuitive and adheres to the principle of naturalness. Reader of Information (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to further clarify that the consensus reached in this discussion will apply solely to soccer/football articles that fall under the scope of this Wikiproject. Articles within the scope of other Wikiprojects, such as the Military History Wikiproject, would not be affected by this consensus unless a similar discussion and agreement take place on their respective discussion pages. I respect the autonomy of each Wikiproject and recognize that their unique subject matter may use different approaches. Reader of Information (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is necessary to clarify what this discussion is aiming to establish, as it seems to be misunderstood as it is layered. This discussion post is aiming to establish four things.

The first is to determine which of the following take precedence when they contradict each other: the soccer/football naming conventions or Wikipedia's Manual of Style and policies and guidelines.

The second is to determine whether the disambiguation format "footballer, born YYYY" violates Wikipedia's article title polices, specifically the policies of naturalness, title disambiguation consistency, and overprecision.

The third is to establish consensus on whether nationality and year should be used together, especially given that a prior RfC concluded there was no clear consensus on this matter.

The fourth and final goal is to establish whether there is a specific order of disambiguation that must be followed. In other words, when multiple forms of disambiguation are needed, what is the order of priority? For example:

1. Position?

2. Year?

3. Nationality?

———

With the purpose established, I hereby present my argument.

This argument states that the current format violates Wikipedia's naturalness, title disambiguation consistency, and overprecision policies. The disambiguation section under the naming conventions for people guideline explicitly advises against this, except for certain situations, stating:

"Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, as readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it. Disambiguating by vital year may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and same specific disambiguation qualifier. In these cases, use Name (qualifier, born YYYY) with a comma and born unabbreviated (not b.) … However, if all people with ambiguous names have the same qualifier (e.g., occupation), then the qualifier may be omitted (to avoid overprecision): Charles Hawtrey (born 1858) and Charles Hawtrey (born 1914)."

Per the naming conventions of sportspeople and the naming conventions of people, this would mean that the titles would have to be "born YYYY", NOT "footballer, born YYYY".

A caveat exists which can pave the way to not have to use "footballer, born YYYY", except when necessary. The guidelines suggest using other intuitive identifiers such as occupation, which in this case would mean position. The sportspeople naming conventions page supports this by stating:

"If one of the footballers is, for example, a goalkeeper, use "(goalkeeper)", or other position as appropriate."

In other words, both conventions combined are indicate that the titles should be based on position first, as it is a more logical and natural disambiguation method than birth years.

For example, instead of:

- "John Smith (footballer, born 1990)"

It should be:

- "John Smith (goalkeeper)"

If further clarification is needed, nationality can be added:

- "John Smith (English goalkeeper)"

Birth years should only be used as a last resort:

- "John Smith (English goalkeeper, born 1990)"

On top of that, in the title disambiguation consistency guideline, it states,

"Although individual projects may develop their own standards for naming subjects within a given field, it must be noted that some topics are of importance to multiple fields, and may have a disambiguator only reflecting one of those fields."

To summarize, I propose the following hierarchy for disambiguation:

1. Position.

2. Nationality.

3. Year (only if ambiguity remains).

This method avoids overprecision, adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines, and ensures titles remain clear, concise, and consistent.

Courtesy Pings

@GiantSnowman: Courtesy Ping

@Black Kite: Courtesy Ping

That is my response to y'all's comments, sorry that it took so long as I was drafting this to make sure it said everything I wanted to say lol. I hope this helps!

Cheers,

Reader of Information (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. Giant Snowman 16:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your hierarchy is totally wrong. It should go year of birth, and then position/nationality depending on context. The latter two are changeable, YOB is not. Giant Snowman 16:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR:

This discussion seeks to clarify the following:

1. Whether soccer/football naming conventions or Wikipedia’s Manual of Style and policies take precedence when they conflict.

2. If the current disambiguation format (“footballer, born YYYY”) violates Wikipedia’s article title policies on naturalness, consistency, and avoiding overprecision.

3. Whether nationality and birth year should be used together for disambiguation, given past lack of consensus.

4. The correct order of disambiguation (position, nationality, year).

The argument proposes prioritizing position as the primary disambiguator, followed by nationality, with birth year used only as a last resort. This aligns with Wikipedia guidelines and avoids unnecessary complexity, ensuring clear and consistent article titles.

For example:

Instead of "John Smith (footballer, born 1990)", use "John Smith (goalkeeper)" or "John Smith (English goalkeeper)". Only resort to "John Smith (English goalkeeper, born 1990)" if ambiguity persists.

This discussion’s consensus will only apply to soccer/football articles, leaving other Wikiprojects unaffected unless similar discussions occur in their respective scopes.

(Generated by AI since I’m not drafting another long thing. I took over a day to draft that.) Reader of Information (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use AI. Respectfully, if you took an entire day to draft your earlier post, I suggest you find something better to do with your time.

To save you further hassle - our naming conventions are well established and appropriate. Your suggestions are bad. Giant Snowman 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman Look man, I don’t know what your problem with me is, but respectfully knock it off. At this point, you’re not being constructive to the conversation. Reader of Information (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that you are trying to fix something that isn't broken, and wasting everyone's time in doing so - first at the aborted RM, and now here. Giant Snowman 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look man, I disagree. I am not by any means trying to waste anybody’s time. I feel that the disambiguation order is quite unclear on the guidelines and are a reason to suffice for it needing to be clarified and I am trying to build consensus on what people feel like the disambiguation order should be. This is a COMMUNITY consensus and discussion so please contribute or just get out of here. This is getting ridiculous. If anyone is wasting anyone’s time, it’s you. Please stop. Reader of Information (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCSP says, for footballers, "use the most conclusive of the following steps", which in practice is most often year of birth. The only change I would therefore make would be this. Giant Snowman 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most conclusive? But what criteria makes it most conclusive? That itself is ambigous. It could mean anything. Heck there are some who are (born YYYY) and others (born MM YYYY). The very existence of those two disparities makes it clear that it is not as clear as it is supposed to be. Reader of Information (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We add month only when the year is insufficient (an aside - please find me an example where a footballer is disambiguated MM YYYY where no other footballer born the same year exists). That is pure WP:COMMONSENSE. If you don't understand it, then WP:CIR applies. Giant Snowman 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don’t think your supposed to be making a change of something when the very thing in question is in debate? Reader of Information (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD - and it's not in debate, you started a pointless discussion that is going nowhere. Giant Snowman 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold only works when it isn’t contested. It currently would be considered contested. Reader of Information (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to revert. But to quote Black Kite, the only other editor to comment here, "Date of birth is fixed and unambiguous". Giant Snowman 21:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also like to point out that “my suggestions are bad” is not a valid reason to oppose something. Reader of Information (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be polite. ~~I can be rude if you need me to.~~ Giant Snowman 21:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening others editors with hostility is not behaviour I'd expect from an admin. What happened to WP:AGF? Spike 'em (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, apologies - my frustration got the better of me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I apologize. I am only trying to make a change that I feel would be more intuitive and easier (especially for linking). Reader of Information (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous and is becoming an argument when this post was intended to gain consensus. I’m sick of this. I got better things to do than argue with you as this is getting frustrating. Reader of Information (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained to you how we disambiguate footballers. If you want more info or guidance, we will give it to you. If you do not understand, then you should not edit in that area. Giant Snowman 21:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Footballers. Giant Snowman 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added support, the reasoning behind it is one of my main critiques of the policy in the post. At the end of the day, the order doesn’t matter as long as long as that’s added. Thanks for the notification! Reader of Information (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Barnard (sportsman)

Hello all. Just wondering if anyone has access to Pompey: The History of Portsmouth Football Club (ISBN 0903852500). Just after a page number for the single reference in which it is used. Also, looking at GA/FA down the line, so any expansion of his football section also appreciated. Cheers. AA (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live Scores

Is it still worth reverting live scores and yellow cards etc on all clubs’ season page? I have noticed an increase in live updates, reverting some myself. However, other editors do not revert while others continue to add live updates. Can someone please clarify the live score policy for me. Thanks. Spare Koppers (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do not update stats until a match has ended (or, at the very least for a player's own article, until their involvement has finished). Revert any live updates, warn the editor, and if they persist, they will get blocked. Giant Snowman 20:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't continue to revert it, people will continue to add the entries. There's a load of reasons not to add things in real time, matches might be abandoned, goals might be later canceled or otherwise attributed and it causes a lot more edit conflicts (not to mention if something is updated in real time, and something else isn't, how can you trust the information?). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the replies. I did think it was becoming pointless but I will revert all the live scores I see, now I know I’m not wasting my time. Spare Koppers (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.[2] 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]

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]