Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Player Articles Career Statistics

Hi everyone,

@Matilda Maniac, J man708, SuperJew, Simione001, Umarghdunno, Macosal, Hack, and Rjbsmith:

I was just looking to update some player articles career stats sections. The main problem I found was that there didn't seem to be a consistency with league appearances for A-League. For some players e.g. Thomas Broich his league appearances are separated into "League" (i.e. A-League regular season) and "Other" (A-League Finals series placed here) whilst other players e.g. Archie Thompson and Besart Berisha group them together.
I am trying to gauge what most editors usually do for this situation as our league is very unique with the finals series and so does not fit the standard MOS (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics). Personally I believe they should be grouped together, perhaps using footnotes stating regular season/finals series appearances?
(I did notice in David Beckham's page that MLS playoff games were put in the "other" section, which may have caused the Broich situation? I have not checked any other MLS player. As an A-League issue, I don't particularly think it should be based on what is on Beckham's page anyway) —Eccy89 (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's better to group them together just for the sake of keeping things simpler and cleaner. Simione001 (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I've always thought that you group finals differently, but I'm unsure as to why. I'm cool with it being grouped together as suggested. - J man708 (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm for grouping them together. The stats websites that we use to reference usually group together (for example: Soccerway and Ultimatealeague (who seem to have for goals both separation and grouping but for caps only grouped) ). --SuperJew (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've generally grouped them because the finals matches contribute to the A-League championship. It's not a separate cup competition (other than for ACL qualification purposes). Hack (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses everybody. I have been grouping them together and adding a footnote indicating that's what I've done. Definitely the best way of going about it. Thanks again everyone. —Eccy89 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Adelaide City FC

Hi Guys,

@Matilda Maniac, J man708, SuperJew, Simione001, Umarghdunno, Macosal, Hack, and Rjbsmith:

Could someone please update the following pages (and any other relevant pages) to reflect the outcome of the independent Disciplinary Committee in relation to three breaches of the FFSA Competition Rules and Regulations and the FFSA Senior Men’s Competition Operating Regulations [1].

2017 National Premier Leagues
2018 National Premier Leagues
2019 National Premier Leagues
2017 FFSA season

This is outside my wheelhouse. Thanks. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll give it a crack tomorrow, unless someones else wants to do it earlier. Poor Zebras !!! Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave it a go. Let me know what you think --SuperJew (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this is in hand. I just wonder if it would be helpful to note City's original finishing position in the explanatory text. Hack (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to make changes to the note's wording :) (or write here and I'll do the technical part). --SuperJew (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I did add on the 2017 page that the points deduction "resulted in the loss of the League Premiers title". Not sure about the relevance on the 2018 page, as they dropped from 2nd to 5th. --SuperJew (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting guys. Simione001 (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

NPL SA

Hi Guys,

@Matilda Maniac, J man708, SuperJew, Simione001, Umarghdunno, Macosal, Hack, and Rjbsmith:

I recently noticed a problem with names of the articles for the following pages:

National Premier Leagues State League 1
National Premier Leagues State League 2

These seem incorrect because these pages only relate to SA. Therefore I'm thinking they should really be called something along the lines of National Premier Leagues State League 1 South Australia and National Premier Leagues State League 2 South Australia or maybe NPL State League 1 South Australia. Is there a standard? What is done for other states competitions?

In addition I also feel that the NPL related (in particular for SA) pages are in a bit of a mess. For example, we have a 2017 FFSA season but one does not exist for 2018. Instead only 2018 NPL season exists and no information for State League 1 and 2 appears on wikipedia.

I think we need to standardise article names across the NPL as well as tier 3, 4 etc. Simione001 (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey boss, I reckon I moved them a few years back to those names, with the reason being at the time they were the only leagues that actually used those names. More than happy for you to move them how you see fit.

As for the 2018 page, I used to update the NPL pages literally on a weekly basis, but as you can appreciate life beckons and dictates free time, as well as simply having has enough of making the same pages season after season.

If it's down to me, I'll get around to it eventually. Definitely haven't forgotten about it, just kinda cbf atm about it. - J man708 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved articles names to align with VIC. Simione001 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

NPL Season Articles -State Finals Inclusion

There is discussion of whether or not each NPL Season article (ie. 2016 National Premier Leagues)) should include the state finals series, as the state finals series don't impact or are not involved in the overall national NPL finals series. Discussion of this topic is here. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

New article for 2019 W-League Grand Final

Draft Article has been submitted for review today. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Excessive Statistics collated in Albury Wodonga Football Association article

The Honours section for Albury Wodonga Football Association should perhaps be limited to Senior Men's (League and Cup) and Senior Women's (League and Cup). To unbalance the overall article with statistics that go all the way down to the Under 10's and often back to the 1970's (currently this section is ~70% of the text in the whole article) is clearly a case of WP:NOTSTATS, very different to the level collated in other similar competitions or football structures, and my thoughts are they should be removed. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Unnecessary and should be restricted to top tier as per your suggestion. Clifton9 (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Any other opinions before I boldly edit out all the junior statistics ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on discussion

Please come share your thoughts in discussion at Talk:A-League_transfers_for_2019–20_season#Issues_with_page. Posting here to get a broader discussion, especially as that page is quite new. --SuperJew (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Excessive Statistics collated in - Sunshine Coast Football

The Sunshine Coast Football article is WAY too detailed when compared to other equivalent soccer/football association pages, and is an unbalanced article as it is a year by year blow of all significant events. It also has considerable coverage of the Reserve teams, which I believe there is general consensus not to include these in articles under WP:GNG (i.e. only show the Men's and Women's first teams).

I have move the bulk of the history section into a new article - History of Sunshine Coast Football - which is about 80% of the total article - and this new article will need a significant amount of copy-edit, including to be clear around WP:NOTSTATS. (as a side note, any takers?) There was additional copy-edit to tidy-up references and to remove the Reserve grade tables.

However, these changes have been reverted twice, on the basis of losing "... the results of the Reserve Grade/2nd Division/1st Division Reserves competition in his (sic) well-intentioned attempt to change", and "... failure to read previous comments is carelessly letting a large amount of research by someone else to be simply lost." The issue is not the amount of research and effort that the other IP editor has gone through, it is about notability and a very unbalanced article. It has been suggested keeping "... the Reserve Grade table in the history page?" but that wont solve WP:GNG. Posting this here for discussion, as well as on the article's Talk Page, rather than ending up with the WP:3RR. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Matilda Maniac: Everything you have done is correct in my opinion.

Keep both articles Sunshine Coast Football and History of Sunshine Coast Football as is. (And unfortunately for you I will pass on the shout-out for the copy-edit gig :-p ) —Eccy89 (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

New season articles

Hi guys and gals,

First a bit of a preface: I guess a few of you noticed that I was less active this year with editing on the A-League pages, especially the clubs' season pages. It's been a busy year at uni and in life in general. I'm probably gonna stay a bit less active in the upcoming years too (4 more years of uni, bleaughh). This is a good time to give a big shout-out and appreciation to FastCube who has done a lot of good work keeping the clubs' season pages up to date :)

Secondly, I wanted to ask about the new format implemented in the new clubs' season pages (see new vs old). Of course nothing wrong with new stuff, the question is it a change for the better. 1. The old format automatically sums up the total, which makes it less probable to have errors, while the new one the total is changed manually too. 2. The nationality - firstly I think it's not necessary in this table (as it already appears on the page in the squad section), but in the old one it was part of the template. Anyways I think having the text of the short code (for example NZL) is not helpful - IMO should either be flag only or the full name of the country. 3. Lastly, the new format doesn't include cards - not sure if this was intentional or not.. what do people think of that?

Take care and don't break anything ;) --SuperJew (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No cards, except in the A-League final or FFA Cup final. Matilda Maniac (talk) 3:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I know we don't mention cards in football boxes (apart from the finals on the extended detailed page), with the reasoning I understand that they don't affect the scoreline as much as goals (or something like that), so not as notable per game. With this reasoning, most match reports text will mention goals and who scored them but rarely mention cards (though red cards are usually mentioned or "special" yellow cards (like missing next match kind)). My question is why not have the cards in the stats section? It is in the reference for the section, and cards are mentioned in stats sections, like our discipline section on the main season page and like cards are mentioned in tournament pages (for example). So my question is why not mention them in the stats part? --SuperJew (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello SuperJew, I think the new 'Appearances and goals' section in 19/20 season pages, would look better, so it can match the style of the other tables in the page.

Also, now I can understand why cards should not be in football match boxes.

My problem at the moment, is that I'm trying to make Australian football get more attention in Wikipedia, so I am doing the best I can and trying to find as many citations as possible.

FastCube (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Under 25's / Reserves

Hey guys, Did I miss something that said the youth league was going to be under-25's or something?
Why have the "reserves" articles been changed to a random arbitrary age group? I'm scratching my head on this one.
Thanks in advance. —Eccy89 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I also didn't understand what's wrong with "reserves". We already moved it from youth to reserves as they play in the NPL too. --SuperJew (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking maybe it would best to call it "NPL and Youth." (There has already been some confusion which lead to extra creation of pages, which I am transferring back into redirects). It seems the sides are never really referenced as "reserves" which is why maybe there is a such a hesitation of authors here using it? I just have no idea where the under-25's comes from (is that an NPL guided thing for A-League clubs, I can't find a reference). —Eccy89 (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think they de-facto function as reserves clubs, much like the VFL sides for AFL clubs. --SuperJew (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen any reference to them being under 25's so not sure where this came from. I think it's even a stretch to refer to them as Reserves as there is no "Reserve Grade" as per other sports. They are always referred to as "Youth". I think the suggestion of "NPL and Youth" is satisfactory. Clifton9 (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree - no idea re U25s. Still not 100% on what the correct name should be. I think English clubs use “reserves and academy”? Macosal (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have gotten out of hand. Maybe we need to do a poll or something? I think the current format is too clunky and doesn't even seem accurate. I would suggest selecting out of:

• [A-League name] Academy
• [A-League name] (Reserves)
• [A-League name] (NPL and Academy)

As all teams now have academies I would think it prudent to include that in the title. I think the term "Youth" is now outdated and is only used for the y-league. At NPL level the clubs are only referenced by their A-League name. I put Reserves in parentheses as I have found zero sources referring any club as "... Reserve" so I don't think it should be so overt in the title. By the same token, I think any mention of NPL should also include parentheses. This is similar to the structure of the women's teams "[A-League name] (W-League)." I would be happy with any of the above (with my preference to be the third option). —Eccy89 (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

club movements for international team players

Would appreciate more thoughts on discussion here. Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

New page for Designated Player Rule for the A-League

So I was just browsing around and saw that the MLS has a Designated Player Rule page. I was wondering if you guys think it's worth creating something similar for Marquees in the A-League? --SuperJew (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If anyone's up to creating it to a good level, I'd say go for it ItChEE40 (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I've started creating it here. Please feel free to help out :) (especially the history section, as I'm not so good with prose (timewise and otherwise) and also there are editors here who know more than me) --SuperJew (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, if people have info about marquees from 2012–13 A-League and earlier, that would be appreciated. Pinging @J man708, Matilda Maniac, and Macosal: for leads :) --SuperJew (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I only have sources like OzFootball and SoccerAust. Nothing special or old, sadly. - J man708 (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Not interested; its just more stats compilation. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm working here on trying to fill out the marquees for seasons from 2012–13 A-League and earlier (so I can add them to the marquee player page and to the relevant seasons. Any additions and extra sources (especially if anyone has access to printed stuff which isn't available online anymore) would be appreciated :) --SuperJew (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I created the marquee page. Happy for a few extra eyes to see if there are omissions or extra references (especially non-internet ones) to add. --SuperJew (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Name has changed. Probably going to have to move to Designated player (A-League) or similar. Hack (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be entirely in use yet. We'll see how it develops :) --SuperJew (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

salary cap exemptions, new CBA, etc.

Would be happy for more discussion here :) --SuperJew (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Zebras

Hi all, are there any reliable third-party sources that can explain which current team won the 1985 National Soccer League. The Moreland Zebras FC and Brunswick Zebras FC both claim to have been Brunswick Juventus. Hack (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey mate. I am not sure we will find a good third party source on this one. It seems like they are using a shared history when multiple mergers happened in the late '90s. It sounds like it was one clubs - Brunswick Juventus - that merged with Bulleen and Box Hill. Then these mergers dissolved leaving Bulleen to change its name to Whittlesea Zebras (and later Moreland Zebras) and Brunswick Zebras that went back to amateur/junior leagues. It *seems like* Moreland had taken the rights to continue in the higher leagues. If you want to get into it I would suggest going through the backlog of VPL seasons from the late 90s/early 2000s. A good place to start would be: [2]. I might have a look later myself. —Eccy89 (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Just having another quick look at this for you. From what I can tell it seems that Moreland Zebras (2013-present) seems to be a continuation of the Brunswick Zebras-Bulleen Lions-Box Hill Inter merger - I can't find a good reference for this, other than they both state it on their websites. This reference[3] suggests a definite Bulleen-Box Hills merger (see bottom of page). Initially the team was called Bulleen Inter Kings (from 1997–99), Bulleen Zebras (2000–2006), Whittlesea Zebras (2007–2012), with phoenix clubs popping up for all three teams - Bulleen Royals/Lions (State League Div. 1 in 2008)[4], Box Hill United (State League Div. 1 in 2013)[5] and Brunswick Zebras (State League 4 North in 2016).[6] —Eccy89 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't use it as a citation but this flowchart has been floating around for a while. I was wondering if there was something on the record. Hack (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hack: Yeah, that flowchart seems to lineup with what I saw from the socceraust cite that I referenced a couple of weeks ago. In reference to to your original question, I was originally going to say neither team won the 1985 NSL. Moreland is the continuation of multiple mergers that involved the original Juventus team and the Brunswick side is a phoenix club of the original Juventus team. However, I think the answer is in the lead of the the Brunswick article —"The Brunswick Zebras Junior Soccer Club, formed in 1996 when the senior team merged with Bulleen and Box Hill, still operates from the original Brunswick Juventus clubrooms at Sumner Park, East Brunswick. " That is to say, the Juventus senior team dissolved in 1996 (forming a merger that has finally become Moreland Zebras) and the juniors have continued on in the meantime until the club had enough resources to field another senior team (which seems to have been in 2016). As two articles exist, and if you asked the question more-so for linking purposes, I would have to go with Brunswick. I am not certain there needs to be two articles to be honest (but that is another question entirely). I would say categorically that Moreland is not the team that won the 1985 NSL. —Eccy89 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Although... looking at the flowchart, if Moreland is the only one left from the mergers, then that makes them the default standalone club they once were. —Eccy89 (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Al__Hassan Toure : is there space for him in Wikipedia?

I note that there have been several reverts over the past few days as to whether this gentleman's name is Al Hassan or Alhassan. I also note that I put a WP:redlink on him, that has also been reverted. I was unaware at the time that there had been an article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhassan Toure - and it had gone through AFD process. Articles this is affecting include:

• 2019–20 Adelaide United FC season
• Adelaide United FC Youth and Under-23s
• Adelaide United FC
• 2019 FFA Cup

Please can @Simione001:@SuperJew:@FastCube: debate the name and referencing here rather than as long-winded descriptions in reverts? Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should be Al Hassan. This is backed up by reports of FFA Cup matches and Adelaide United. Furthermore, verifiable, reliable and independent sources list him as Al Hassan, for example: Fox Sports.

The sources Simione001 presented for stylising it as Alhassan are a Facebook page, which is neither reliable or verifiable (it's not even a verified blue-ticked account). This Facebook page lists Toure's work as a midfielder at Chelsea Football Club (while the Toure we are talking about it a forward at Adelaide United), so the reliability of this page is very much in doubt IMO. Another source Simione001 listed is a user-generated statistics page, which is also not very verifiable or reliable.

The evidence points to having his name stylised as Al Hassan, with verifiable, reliable, and independent sources stylising it that way. --SuperJew (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Football Victoria season vs. 2019 Football Federation Victoria season

Article created 10 days ago by @LeoC12: as 2019 Football Victoria season, and was Moved (@FastCube:) a few days ago to 2019 Football Federation Victoria season, and then moved again (@LeoC12:) back to 2019 Football Victoria season.

All other previous years articles are under Football Federation Victoria season, and the argument is that the governing body has "rebranded" itself. This seems a weak argument to me. Time for a final decision on what this article should be called? Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Should be Football Victoria. The names for previous seasons should reflect the names used at the time. It should not be moved again without a requested move. Hack (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Hack. This one should reflect the rebranding, all previous ones should not. Macosal (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

splitting season navbox to men and women

Can we talk about the splitting of Template:2019–20 in Australian soccer to Template:2019–20 in Australian men's soccer and Template:2019–20 in Australian women's soccer by FastCube? Firstly, this is a major change and should've been discussed first. Secondly, why was it done? The women's navbox doesn't really seem to have enough to stand by itself (5 pages rn, with another 9 potentials). Also, this changes the consensus done in previous seasons. And lastly it just seems pointless - the clubs are run by the same overall so no reason the navbox shouldn't have both men and women. Thoughts? Tagging editors who edited the infoboxes @Davemck and Matilda Maniac: --SuperJew (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I consider it a silly idea to split them. I agree with you on points 1, 2, 3, and 4. My edits were on the basis of improving what already exists, rather than engaging in a struggle for reverting to the old format. Tagging the editor who created the template @FastCube:. This issue should perhaps first be discussed at Template talk:2019–20 in Australian men's soccer. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I brought it straight here as I'd think there are hardly any editors watching that template --SuperJew (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SuperJew on all points also. Navboxes' main purpose are for navigation of a topic - in this case all Australian soccer. By splitting them up we have to navigate away from pages to find what we are looking for. I vote merging them ASAP. —Eccy89 (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

So, I haven't replied until now because, I'm trying to extend both these templates to make sure these two stand with enough information to be shown. I don't know about you guys, but both templates almost look the exact same as of the old template with men and women's links both together. Also, if the split templates stay, then I'll split the other season templates between men and women. I may should have asked in a discussion, that this can be done, but I'll forget about this for now, in case I mess something up. FastCube (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

They look the same because they are the same format, but the women's one has a lot less info. Also, the most important point IMO is what is the purpose of splitting them. The teams are run by the same club overall - Brisbane Roar is the same club in the A-League and in the W-League. --SuperJew (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well then what's gonna happen? Is it gonna stay split or shall I merge them again? To me, I just think it looks more organized. I do think it looks ugly with too many red links, but I'm trying my best to keep this up. --FastCube (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)FastCube

Only last week I reverted one of your edits that created over 90 new redlinks (here) so I'm rather confused by your rationale of "too many red links" on this issue. I commend your enthusiasm for additions and improvements, but suggest you seek guidance on changing formats which have mostly - through many years of trial and error as this product has grown - stabilised. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems we have consensus to undo this split. Matilda Maniac or FastCube would you be able to do the technical side of undoing this? --SuperJew (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

referencing on foreign players tables

I saw this edit and was thinking, should we be referencing each foreign player in foreign player tables in season articles? Or is it enough that they're referenced on the transfer pages? --SuperJew (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Transfer pages should be enough, in my opinion. As long as they’re referenced on a page that is a click away, I’d say it’s certainly reasonable. - J man708 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

In season pages, can I add an "assists" section?

I saw some 2019-20 Premier League season pages, and tried to think of what else can be new in Australian season pages. I then found "Season statistics", there was a lot of things that weren't included in older season articles.

I went and added statistics of how many assists players have done. I got my edit reverted by SuperJew. He said, that you won't really know if the player got an assist or not. I understand this but I disagree with that, because at least Soccerway can show this. If an assists section can't be new in future season pages, that's okay with me. --FastCube (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)FastCube

Assists shouldn't be added on Wikipedia in general. There is a consensus about this on WT:FOOTY (for example discussion here, which also links to other discussions dating further back.) --SuperJew (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a common practice for USA Soccer articles, but there they officially capture assists in the statistics. Attempting to do so for A-League where such statistics are not always available, may constitute Original research. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Consistently controversial at WP:FOOTY. For mine, no issue as long as official stats are used ([7]). Perhaps inconsistent with above opinions. Macosal (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Is A-League Pre-Season Challenge Cup Grand Final articles allowed?

I previously created Grand Final pages for the Y-League in 2008 to 2010 and 2016 to 2019. I know this is a pre-season short mini-tournament, but I'm wondering if grand final pages for the Pre-Season Cup is allowed. --FastCube (talk) FastCube

Personally, sounds to me not notable enough, being a pre-season mini-tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:NSPORTSEVENT. It's borderline but you could argue it is "The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league" (being a national-tier comp). But as noted above, it was not the most significant nor notable of tournaments. Macosal (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A-League players articles split into different lists

For example, is adding articles named "List of Adelaide United FC players (25–99 appearances)", "List of Adelaide United FC players (1–24 appearances), while the players who have 100+ appearances, can be in "List of Adelaide United FC players"? I think this could be changed for two reasons. If all the players are in one list, the entire article will be just one whole giant line of all players, which made me think we should have variety. Secondly, this can extend the A-League clubs templates further between different player articles. --FastCube (talk) FastCube

It should be based on size, as is written in WP:SPLIT --SuperJew (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with SuperJew. I haven't checked recently but don't think any of them are WP:TOOBIG just yet. Macosal (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

notability of Template:National Premier Leagues Grand Finals

I note around 60 redlinks created for this new Template, and 7 new grand final articles created. Are these generally going to meet notability guidelines ? Or just the NPL finals subset, perhaps? Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Lists of players at Club and Country

Editing, I came upon the page List of Perth Glory FC W-League players. It looks like there is no point to that page, as all the info is in Category:Perth Glory FC (W-League) players. Same goes for List of Western Sydney Wanderers Women players and List of Melbourne Victory Women players with the slight different they add nationality. Then there's say List of Central Coast Mariners FC (W-League) players which has more stats. Is there any point to these pages or are they just Listcruft? This question is open also for the men lists, such as List of Brisbane Roar FC players and List of Adelaide United FC players (which is split into 3 by number of caps - 1-24, 25-99). --SuperJew (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the List of Brisbane Roar FC players and the List of Perth Glory FC W-League players. If the former is the 'standard' to be the template for such articles, then perhaps these women's articles need to go into Draftspace (if such statistics are readily available), or WP:AFD if they are not. These comments are from the perspective that the quality of these Men's articles is deemed acceptable (so that this conversation doesn't get into a debate about how these Men's articles notability stacks up against policy of WP:NOTSTATS).

The same can be said about the format of the section on all Matilda players in this article - currently being added to by @Haydos0019:; it would be more sensible for this to be in a separate article rather than a long section in the parent article, but there should be some consistency with format throughout. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

::List of England international footballers would be a better style to follow than the A-League club lists, though there's probably no need to limit it to 10+ appearances. It might be worth counting the non-A matches given most of the early Matildas played a lot of matches that later were counted as B internationals. Hack (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hack: I think you're commenting on a different question ;) There is also a question about the section "Every Matildas" on the talk page Talk:Australia women's national soccer team#"Every Matilda" --SuperJew (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Youth NPL team name confusion

After some discussion at a User Talk page (see here, with a clear recommendation to seek some views or raise the issues at this forum, I note that @FastCube: is now BOLDLY and RAPIDLY and INDEPENDENTLY renaming many of the youth pages, splitting pages and creating new articles, such as Adelaide United FC II, Brisbane Roar FC II. These articles were quite happily called "Youth" until recently, and then for some reason were renamed to "Reserves", and then they further evolved to "Under-25s and Youth", and then they further evolved to "Youth and Under-23s", and now it looks like they are being changed again, to the format of "A-League Club FC II". I see the addition of Regnal numbers as clearly going against WP:COMMONNAME. Should we not get some consensus before we launch into changing all of these article names again ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

+1. Completely agree. Seemed kneejerk AF to a usertalk convo. - J man708 (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This is true, but however. I think I have finally found the three differences between the NPL sides and Under-23s. I don't think I'm going to be renaming these articles to something else any longer. --FastCube (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)FastCube

The question to @FastCube: is mainly NOT about whether your Fourth iteration of changes are better than the Third iteration you made or the Second iteration, it is that you are changing them at all into something quite different to what was already existing, and seemingly continuing to make changes after getting inferred 'permission' from a @SuperJew: talk page comment; The other issues I have are:

• that despite encouraging you to raise these issues (and if necessary seek some consensus for change) at this location, you are continuing to make the changes regardless of the feedback to date;
• your comment above seems to be from the perspective that you do not believe that a Fifth iteration of different changes is now necessary;
• You have just sought permission again from SuperJew at his talk page to keep the articles in that format (I think it's time to centralise any discussions here and not at multiple talk pages);
• this is the fourth consecutive section on this Task Force page that has occurred after issues related your editing methods. Which to me constitutes a somewhat worrying trend. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Matilda Maniac and not sure how I became source for permission. Consensus needs to come from the task force. --SuperJew (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have never seen an article that refers to these teams as Reserves, Under-23, Under-25 or ....FC II. It's always Youth or NPL. The only other variation is in the FNSW competition regulations that refer to the clubs as Hyundai A-League (HAL) Academy Clubs. It seems to me that the sensible option is to continue to call them Youth as NPL is effectively the name of the competition they play in (in addition to the Youth League). They are not 'reserves' teams as there is no reserve grade competition. i.e. they are not a B team, they are a youth team defined by meeting set age criteria. Clifton9 (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Clifton9: IIRC it was renamed to "Reserves" due to overage players being allowed to play, and quite a few clubs have used that as a way to get senior players back to fitness, functioning effectively as reserves too. --SuperJew (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation @SuperJew:. I haven't read through all the respective NPL regulations but my understanding is that there are restrictions on the number over 'over-age' players allowed in these teams. So basically they are youth teams with concessions for some non-youth players. I just think it differs significantly from what has been the traditional 'reserves' definition (at least in Australian sport) which is essentially an un-restricted squad of the 'next best' players.Clifton9 (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

When I started looking at Y-League, National Premier Leagues club articles recreated from the A-League. I found that the club name was Reserves. I first changed it to Under-25s and Youth. I did that because I thought all NPL clubs recreated from the A-League were under-25s. However, they can't be considered a under-?? team, since they are senior teams that play in the NPL with other senior teams. I then changed the to NPL and Youth. I had a think about it, but since more than one club play in NPL, this couldn't stand as a name. I thought I had then found the best possible title for these articles. I then renamed it to Youth and Under-23s, in SportsTG and YouTube videos, they name these clubs (e.g. Newcastle Jets Youth) and the Y-League team are under-23s. I left it as that title for weeks until something was STILL wrong. Let's say, that "Adelaide United" (NPL senior team) has the word "Youth" in it. That's fine, but since they are a senior team, this can't be right since it's not technically a "youth" side.

So, then I came up with an idea of making (e.g. Adelaide United FC II, Brisbane Roar FC II). I made this title and new articles, because Soccerway has the teams split, so people know what team this is. Since German teams have a similar format with senior teams, I think this should be the name for the NPL senior side. And I made these articles: Adelaide United FC II, Brisbane Roar FC II since they are senior teams, they can have their own article. And this definitely makes sense for the NPL senior team can have their own article since they're not a senior team and the Y-League, U20 and U18 can stand in one article.

If this cannot be allowed, I don't know if I have any other options to not make this change. --FastCube (talk) FastCube

I think it should be one page for the non-A-League team, as it is not notable enough for multiple articles.

Seems the move to "Reserves" was done by Simione001 in May 2017 per discussion here. I personally think "Youth" works well as both the Y-League and NPL have an age cap as far as I understand, and also in the NPL squad the clubs play their youth players. Personally I think "Reserves" is okay too, but understand it is confusing people here, and also understand the reluctancy due to it not being used in media. --SuperJew (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

SuperJew I have a problem with the use of the term youth to describe the NPL side. It creates confusion because people think it's youth league football when in reality its actually senior NPL (tier 2) level football. This is why I changed it to reserves. However I agree that the term reserves is not widely used and therefore as per WP:COMMONNAME, its probably incorrect. Since then I have simply been using Adelaide United NPL or Sydney FC NPL in the infobox. Furthermore, I believe that the NPL supersedes the Y-League so any renaming of the articles should keep this in mind. Simione001 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Which people are being confused because they think it's youth league football? I would guess a far smaller subset of people than would be getting confused by the premise that its is a reserves competition. The articles clearly describe their format in the Introduction section. Y-League is a Youth competition that additionally allows a small number of overage players, and the NPL Youth teams we are referring to are Youth teams that additionally allows a small number of overage players. The federations running the competition use the word Youth (both Y-League and teams in the NPL), and it is WP:COMMONNAME in the media. I would also guess a larger subset of people will be getting confused by omitting the name Youth and substituting it with the name II in articles such as: this article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I like 'youth'. These teams are defined by the age of the players they selecs. U21s (which I think is the age of these players?) is also okay with me, but not in the "reserves and under-21s" form as have been popping up recently. Reserves not the end of the world but (1) is never actually used anywhere and (2) is equally likely to imply the existence of a reserve league, which there is not? Macosal (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: I have had to revert countless edits over the course of several years by various users who thought the youth team stats in the infobox pertained to appearances made in a youth competition. The confusion occurs on a regular basis.Simione001 (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind if NPL senior team is Reserves. I want to rename the NPL senior team to Youth, but the Y-League team is also a youth side, and we can't just have two teams with the same name since it will cause confusion when people are reading these articles. To me, I think II is a good name that we can use, but I reckon there is a better one to use for our NPL senior side. For now, I think we should keep using II for the moment. I also created a new article for them, to not cause confusion as well since more than one team play in the NPL, so I figured that this is more than fair. --FastCube (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)FastCube.

Why can’t we go back to what they originally were called prior to a month or two ago? - J man708 (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no problem with their being one article named X Youth which groups all the info about the youth sides (as each side by itself doesn't have enough information to warrant an article by itself), and when used in competition to display different names with WP:PIPELINK. --SuperJew (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no problem with their being one article named X Youth or X Youth Teams. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As per my prior comments, the teams playing in NPL are not "reserve" teams and they are not playing in a "reserves" competition so that terminology is completely inaccurate. Read the Football NSW 2019 competition regulations. It is very clear that (at least in that competition) the players are youth. In fact, even the "over-age" players have age restrictions to be able to play in NPL or NPL2 Youth/Academy teams. FastCube refers to them as "NPL Senior Teams". They are not "seniors". I also disagree with the roman numeral proposal, there is no basis for this. I take the point of Simione001 in that the infoboxes could create confusion by referencing "youth". Could the infoboxes still specify X Youth (NPL) and link back to the one page called X Youth? Clifton9 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Food for thought - The Olympics’ U23 competition allows for three overage players. We can show this as the player playing for the U23 team despite being well over in age. Jade North is a good example. Just because some over 23s are allowed, the general competition is still called U23. - J man708 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

So what I've done is renamed these youth teams to "Youth, Under-23s and Academy". So then people will now know the difference between these three departments. They aren't Reserves, but they are Youth which is why I renamed them to this. --FastCube (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)FastCube

@FastCube: I simply cannot believe that you have ignored this discussion and decided yourself on a FIFTH name change, when it appears to me the majority wanted a return to a simpler name. You have created an even more complicated name for these articles, and this is likely to cause more confusion. for example, your new article Perth Glory FC Youth, Under-23s and Academy is misleading as a title, as Perth Glory do not even have an Academy.

@FastCube: Can you please desist from making further changes until consensus is reached, and then we will change all articles to the format that is decided? Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article simply renamed to Perth Glory FC NPL and have the Y-League squad come under that. The Y-League is hardly notable considering its only 8 rounds. It's hardly worth a mention. Simione001 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Since this thread now has a week of inactivity, I think it is time we should try to reach some consensus now on article names.

I propose that they go all the way back to X Youth (e.g. Brisbane Roar Youth) which groups all the info about the youth sides - sections inside the article can differentiate between the various teams, and mention their various age restrictions and exemptions. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I support returning to X Youth. It is the most general name which encompasses what the page is about in its essence. In places (like infoboxes with the team competing in the NPL) we can use WP:PIPING to clear-up any confusion (for example: Perth Glory (NPL)). --SuperJew (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Support a return to “Sydney FC Youth”. While I’m at it, does anyone feel like creating a proper page for Canberra United’s men’s team? - J man708 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I also support the proposal to return the articles to X Youth as well as the additional infobox suggestion by SuperJew. Clifton9 (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Simione001 (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Formal RM discussion - as I didnt appear to be able to do this multiple move manually - underway at Talk:Adelaide United FC Youth, Under-23s and Academy. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Youth NPL team name confusion - part Two (including Brisbane Roar youth team)

After a reasonable period of time over October/November, there was consensus reached about the renaming of youth teams. for example, the youth team from Brisbane Roar had been split by @FastCube: into two articles, with multiple article renamings : Brisbane Roar FC Youth, Under-23s and Academy and Brisbane Roar FC II.

The consensus was described in this Talk page (as above), to return the article names to the format Team FC Youth (e.g. Brisbane Roar FC Youth), and after a further move discussion (here) moving of the various teams youth articles to the agreed nomenclature was completed by @Cwmhiraeth: on 1 December.

Only 3 days later, @FastCube: has again re-changed the article name with a further move, to a brand new name of Brisbane Roar FC Academy, despite the consensus, with a note for the move edit of "The teams are actually referred to as "Academy"".

If a new discussion is required about individual article names, to modify the consensus reached, it should be brought up here. The actions of User:FastCube to ignore this consensus, and continue to re-change article names, is very poor in my opinion.

• Can the article be renamed back to Brisbane Roar FC Youth?
• Is this behaviour that should be reported? Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: The entire youth system of Brisbane Roar Youth is actually is named "Brisbane Roar Academy". They even have a website of their own named "Brisbane Roar Academy" at [8] They are youth teams, but they are originally named "Academy". It's not like every youth article is supposed to be "Youth". Each team has their own titles for their youth system. Additionally, If Central Coast Mariners Academy has this, because they are originally named this, then I can do the same with Brisbane Roar.Now, I never renamed this to (e.g. "Under-23s and Academy" or "NPL and Youth"). It's a simple and accurate name as everything should be. I think this should definitely stay as "Academy". Also, I can agree the "II" team pages can be deleted now or merged into the correct page. One thing I realised is that the senior NPL team and the Y-League team is not split into two. It turns out, the Y-League team had entered the NPL competition. What I mean this that the (e.g. "Adelaide United NYL" side entered the NPL.) So it's one team that plays two competitions all year. Anyone can join me on merging these two teams together in the near future.

I am assuming the above unsigned comment is from @FastCube:. I think you are missing the main point, which is your behaviour in ignoring a consensus that had just been reached, the consensus being to revert changes that you had made, and re-making changes only 3 days afterwards. After this task force debate, and the earlier one that you commenced on @SuperJew:'s talk page, I am struggling as to why you didnt bring this idea up here rather than your actions to go straight away and make another change. Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Fine, I guess I'll do that, first. --FastCube (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)FastCube

W-League clubs' names

So about a month ago, I changed some of the women's club names who are competing in the W-League. from (e.g. Adelaide United FC (W-League) to Adelaide United WFC) as in Adelaide United (WFC - Women's Football Club). Since, this is on many women's articles and it's supposed to include "FC". It feels like a more simpler and better name for a football club on Wikipedia. However, it was reverted to what it is now.

So here I am asking if this can be done?

--FastCube (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)FastCube

Please provide sources in Aussie media that use that format to refer to the clubs. Seems to me they usually just refer to them as the name of the club (say Adelaide United) with categorising it as W-League at beginning/header of article. --SuperJew (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think they are fine as they are. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Unless the clubs call themselves “WFC”, we shouldn’t. Macosal (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Good point. --FastCube (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)FastCube

And yet 8 hours after you describe this as a good point, you edit Adelaide United FC (W-League) and decide to change the headline name of the team in the Intro to Adelaide United Women Football Club. You seem to be on a personal crusade to change formats to what works best for your brain, regardless of the opinions of (the majority of) other regular posters to Australian soccer articles. I felt that I needed to revert that edit in any case, more so as among the various copyedit changes, it deleted two other sections of the article (on Broadcasting and Records) without any explanation. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Marking bye weeks in position by round table

Matilda Maniac recently removed the marking of bye weeks in the position by round table. I also think it is problematic that it breaks the colouring, but I also think it is important to mark the bye weeks, as it can explain why a club went down the ladder, when they seem to be playing well otherwise. Also other sports with byes, like AFL mark them (such as here) --SuperJew (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

if someone can find a way to keep the colouring, then I'm all for keeping the underlined format. It's just going to look even sillier when sydney has its first bye, which from the colouring scheme would indicate that they are no longer at the top. Just please not like the AFL with all of those complicated subscripts. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Subscripts aside, it seems the colouring is done by hardcoding (for example: style="background:#ccffcc;") --SuperJew (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Mark Viduka Medal page

I'm not sure on how to nominate a page for deletion so I thought I'd start here. I don't see the point of the page Mark Viduka Medal. It's nothing more than a duplication on the main FFA Cup page - FFA Cup#Mark Viduka Medal. Thoughts? Clifton9 (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete, as the article has very little extra information. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Macarthur FC players page

I've created List of Macarthur FC players however I can't seem to find how to edit it onto the Australian football (soccer) clubs players template. Can someone please add it on? WDM10 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Done and fixed up the template to add v/e/t options. --SuperJew (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is WP:TOOSOON. Should wait until they play a game at least. Macosal (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Women's football club navboxes + MCY NPL

So, I thought I'd remove the templates for W-League clubs, for a couple reasons. I don't think there is a need for women's football club navboxes, because it's missing half the information from the men's club's. Additionally, some of these articles are just the same thing as the men's football club navboxes. I think that they should be removed from Wikipedia, because of how short they are.

I also want to talk about the article, Melbourne City FC NPL. I think this should be deleted as well because there's no use for it. It has all the same information for Melbourne City FC Youth. Plus, the under-23 team and senior NPL team are both the same team. They aren't split into two. The reason is because, when I created (e.g. "Adelaide United FC NPL"), it was removed and not Melbourne City's NPL article.

--FastCube (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)FastCube

I don't agree about removing the templates for W-League clubs - I reckon there's enough info about the women's team for it to justify separate templates. I agree the Youth teams should be merged in one article --SuperJew (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but what about the Melbourne City FC NPL? For me, I think it's not reliable and it's useless. The similar article: Melbourne City FC Youth is the literally exact same information. Plus, as I said before: the under-23 team and senior NPL team are both the same team. They aren't split into two. FastCube (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)FastCube

I said I agree the youth teams should be merged in one article named Melbourne City FC Youth --SuperJew (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A-League Club Icons

I was browsing through old season pages and stumbled across these icons. What happened to them as they seem to have died out? WDM10 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

There were talks here and in the end the consensus was to delete them (I think here is the most recent discussion). Some of the old season pages we haven't gotten around to deleting them yet (on my to-do list though haha). You're welcome to help out by deleting them where you see them. --SuperJew (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2020

Thanks. I'm happy to help out deleting them. WDM10 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we had someone not like the colour of the Melbourne City icon and chucked a hissy fit and made a WP:POINT to delete only the ones he didn’t like and then went elsewhere. - J man708 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

question regarding foreign visa players on season pages

Should we add a column for former visa players (as in visa players who leave mid-season)? The current format has us missing information about those players. --SuperJew (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for List of Brisbane Roar FC players

An article that you have been involved with ( List of Brisbane Roar FC players ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( List of Brisbane Roar FC players (1–24 appearances) ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:List of Brisbane Roar FC players . Thank you. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved with ( List of Brisbane Roar FC players ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( List of Brisbane Roar FC players (25–99 appearances) ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:List of Brisbane Roar FC players . Thank you. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Player Notability

What does a player have to do to be deemed worthy of a page? WDM10 (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The general rule is set out at WP:GNG - significant coverage in third party sources.

There is a more specific guideline for footballers set out at WP:NFOOTY, and includes:

• • Appearing in a fully pro league (includes A-League but not W-League);
  • Playing internationally (Socceroos / Matildas); or
  • Playing at the Olympics (Olyroos).

There is a chance that a player has received significant coverage without meeting the above criteria- in that case an article should still be made - this is worth bearing in mind for W-League players. Conversely, a single pro appearance might not be enough to warrant an article if there’s limited or no media about the player. Macosal (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your help. WDM10 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:List of National Soccer League Clubs

I've created this page and I was wondering if anyone could give feedback about the article. Anything welcome. WDM10 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: Looks like a good idea, especially as it's a competition which has folded so the list can be complete (and not everchanging). My main issue with it currently is that it's very undersourced - only one reference, and even that I'm not sure how it supports the sentence which it sources. All the best! --SuperJew (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Thanks for your feedback. Do you know of anywhere in particular where I can find good NSL sources? WDM10 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Apart from Google not really sure 😅 I've been editing primarily A-League here. @Matilda Maniac, J man708, and Simione001: Are probably better to give ideas ;) --SuperJew (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The latter pages of this seasons A-League guide have good NSL historical summaries: link via here. Ozfootball.net also has detailed historical information. Macosal (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've inserted them as sources now. WDM10 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You can get access to archives of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald through the National Library of Australia eResources, newspaperarchive.com and newspapers.com (the latter two are available through the The Wikipedia Library Card Platform). The Canberra Times is available through Trove. Scans of a number of local newspapers and magazines like Soccer News, Soccer Action, Soccer World, Australian & British Soccer Week and a heap more can be found here. Hack (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That melbournesoccer website is great. Thanks. WDM10 (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Australian clubs in Oceania

I was thinking of doing this as an article idea so I was wondering would this be better in a standalone article or just merged with the Australian clubs in the AFC Champions League article? WDM10 (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Should be separate articles like the national team articles for the Asian and Oceanian cups.Hack (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Position by round this season

Hey, anyone think it's silly to continue "position by round" this season since all the rounds remaining have been mixed up in order? --SuperJew (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC) And another relevant question, I'm debating if we should include the "0" crowd matches in the statistics? --SuperJew (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The position by round table is becoming increasingly hard to do (maybe it could just be done as at the end of each week as the teams never have played the same amount of games anyway). As for 0 crowds, the shouldn't be listed in averages as that doesn't note the fact that matches legally cannot be attended. WDM10 (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm debating if we should just scrap the positions by round section alltogether. --SuperJew (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, this season it was kind of pointless as no teams were ever at the same amount of games so i wouldn't be against scrapping it. WDM10 (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Given how messed up the schedule now is, I don't see an issue with losing the table. Agree that the 0s shouldn't be included in average crowd stats (but maybe worth noting that a number of games were behind closed doors in that section and explaining that this isn't counted in the averages). Macosal (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. WDM10 (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Cancelled matches on national teams' results pages?

What are your thoughts on cancelled matches on Matildas and Socceroos pages? A current discussion can be found here. WDM10 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If games don't happen, for any reason at all, we have no results and they do not belong. Bloody obvious really. Why is this even a question? HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A cancellation of a match is a result too, albeit one without a scoreline, and therefore should be recorded, as previous cancellations have been recorded. Would you suggest to just delete the section of the final of the 2020 Algarve Cup instead of marking it as cancelled? Both cancellations we are talking about have notability too - one (2015) was a major strike in support of women's soccer, while the other (2020) is a global pandemic. --SuperJew (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That specific case is not a single match. It's explicitly part of a series which needs an explanation of what happened. Not a good example. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking more about stand alone friendlies when I posed this question here. I take your point SuperJew about the Algarve Cup final but I would think that an explanatory note on an historical results page would suffice to explain the absence of a fixture that you would otherwise expect to see. I don't agree that the cancellation of these one-off friendlies, regardless of the reason, constitutes a result at all, in the context of a list of historical results. If I was to ask someone to supply me a list of Matilda's results, I wouldn't expect to see it include games that never happened. Clifton9 (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Clifton9: If we have a look at how other places do it (which I like to do to get an idea of what "people might expect"), Soccerway shows cancelled matches (though strangely not the 2 USA friendlies cancelled due to the strike in 2015), while OzFootball has a note about the cancelled USA friendlies in 2015, but doesn't mention that the Greece match in 2016 was cancelled even though it mentions the New Zealand friendly as the first part of the double header. This note for example in 2016, makes me wonder when reading the page "well where is the result of the Greece match?" Looking at those examples it seems people do expect note of cancelled matches too. And I personally also expect a results page to include also cancelled matches as a cancellation is also a result. --SuperJew (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think there is no harm in including them. Certainly can imagine them being informative - e.g. if a user wanted to check if an upcoming or recent game was cancelled due to the current circumstances, surely more useful to note the cancelled game explicitly rather than erasing them entirely? Macosal (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10, HiLo48, Clifton9, and Macosal: Just came across a different formatting option on Germany's results page. --SuperJew (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I don't mind that as it lists the matches with a cancellation reason but separately from the matches played as it's different. WDM10 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @SuperJew:. This looks like a good compromise. I particularly like the explanatory notes that accompany each cancelled match. Clifton9 (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer chronologically ordering all the games (gives better context) but this seems fine. Macosal (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Western Sydney Wanderers FC

Just to note, there's an IP changing a few details here and there on the WSW page so it'd be great if a few more people could keep their eyes on it. WDM10 (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Western Sydney Wanderers FC league record by opponent

Could somebody please go over the numbers? There's an extra draw in the home and away sections as well as an extra goal conceded however I cannot exactly track it down. WDM10 (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: you've added the draw against Brisbane Roar from Round 4 this year to the home section but not the total. Hack (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I've fixed the numbers. WDM10 (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: did you find the extra goal? Hack (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't find the extra goal so I just took out the for and against for the H&A categories to avoid confusion for readers (as that's how it is on other pages like Manchester United F.C. league record by opponent). WDM10 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Destubbing Challenge

There is a new project occurring now - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/The 1000 Destubbing Challenge - with one of the goals to bring about 1000 Stub article improvements for football-related articles. There's over 1,500 just on the Australia project page, mostly former A-League players. I have reviewed about half of them so far, just to see which ones have clearly moved beyond a Stub since whenever the assessment was done; from this I have moved ~90 of them into Start Class, and ~70 articles recategorised into List class. So that's removed 10% of the Stub-class articles so far (that is the easy bit). Anyone want to help with looking at A-League and W-League players bios ? Note there is already a separate sub-project for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Australia task force/A-League player project. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm currently concentrating on destubbing AFL and AFLW players, but when I'm done with that I might be able to destub some soccer players too, though that'll depend on school and work load. --SuperJew (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2018 Y-League Grand Final and 2019 Y-League Grand Final

Agree with @HawkAussie: that both articles fail WP:GNG. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree - not many other club youth match articles I could find - eg none for FA Youth Cup finals, which I suspect are a bigger deal. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn’t a trap but does look like people aren’t creating similar articles, for whatever reason. Macosal (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Merging with the season articles might be worth looking at. Hack (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Western Knights SC article - unbalanced with minor Statistics and perhaps with a plagiarism issue too

Some time ago i posted on the Western Knights talk page some concerns, and then forgot about it. Obviously, little or no traffic to that page, so i am raising it here. My concerns are:

• The article is very unbalanced with 20% of the article devoted to minor statistics in very large tables on the roll of honour of all historical Managers and Presidents, none of which is referenced, nor even available from the club's website. The author of these section @Azuvela: has obviously spent a lot of time in collating this, but it is not really that noteworthy. Such minor statistics are not commonly a part of the club article as this state league or even NPLWA level. My efforts to remove these were rapidly reverted, with the comment of Important historical information. Whilst is may be important, Wikipedia is not the primary repository under WP:NOTSTATS.
• The history section appears to be taken nearly verbatim from https://westernknights.com.au/about/.; in places pretty much exactly WP:Copy-paste from the club's website, and I would consider is plagiarism at the moment. At the time, I updated only the glaring factual errors (i.e. the team is no longer in the Premier Division, it was relegated to a lower division). This section needs proper copyedit. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Subsequently, @Azuvela: has replied to my talk page, rather than here as requested, that "Thank you for your review and changes to the Western Knights SC page. It is most welcomed and your minor changes are correct to make. We (WKSC) ask that the major changes to the tables be kept as it provides important historical information. The details are correct and we have had much positive comments about people seeing the detail behind this information on Wikipedia. " It is not relevant to me that it is just stated that the details are correct, as they are unreferenced, and in my opinion not notable, and positive comments from people seeing this detail on Wikipedia is also not relevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not just a collection of statistics. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree that most of it should be deleted for all the reasons stated; e.g. not notable. Fine for it sit on their home page, not on Wikipedia. Happy to review more thoroughly when time permits. Clifton9 (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Round numbers

How are we going to handle these now that all matches are part of the A-League's "27in28"? WDM10 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

For the season article, I'd say leave the attendance and position by round tables as they are, with an explanatory note. With the round scheduling being more dynamic than in previous years, there's a pretty good case to remove these going forward. Hack (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. What about the labelling of matches for the club season pages? Do these still just go in order of the games? WDM10 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I would now treat the 27in28 as part of a single round on the club season pages. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. WDM10 (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Adelaide City FC 10–3 Mooroolbark SC

So, anyone got an idea what Adelaide City were officially called in 1977? It clearly wasn't Adelaide City FC. Hack (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The club website says that Adelaide City was their name, as does OzFootball. WDM10 (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but they weren't Adelaide City FC. Hack (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh you're talking about the FC part of the name. Yeah that doesn't seem to be anywhere that I have seen when talking about 1977. WDM10 (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

National team results

Background - With no prior discussion or consensus, HawkAussie moved a year season page (2000 Australia national soccer team season) to a decade based page (Australia national soccer team results (2000–2019)), and then redirected all the rest of the years in that decade to that page, as if merging the pages. This has a couple of major issues in my opinion - A. This "merge" removes important information which was in the yearly pages - the year summary in prose form, the record, and player statistics, leaving only a list of results which is not what should be on any page. This degrades the quality. B. Such a merge should be done in the correct way - which merges the history and not just hard-coding redirects. C. Such a major change should be done after discussion and after consensus. Therefore bringing the issue up here, and not just on my talk page for discussion. If I see there isn't enough discussion, I would suggest getting input on WT:FOOTY too. --SuperJew (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page) Look we don't really need to have 20 seasonal pages for the Australia national soccer team when it can be done with one as the national team doesn't have 'seasons' to go by much like most of the other pages that have been here. Also if I am being honest here, the fact that the players who played during this year could fall under WP:OR. HawkAussie (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

On that logic you can say that we have just one page of results from the year Australia started playing until today. But at some point you decide it's too much and branch off. Having per year is fine - there's enough information, and how it was structured was actually more information than a decade page of only results. Remember that Wikipedia isn't a stats site. I don't understand how the player stats is WP:OR - it is (or at least can be) based on multiple reliable sources. --SuperJew (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree that this is a discussion worth having before making any changes. For mine, the annual season results pages are redundant and am happy to replace with a redirect to the multi-year results summaries. These match results appear in, by my count, 3 places currently which seems OTT. As for prose - I’m not seeing much of it, and if I’m missing it there’s no reason it shouldn’t be incorporated into the longer summary pages. I don’t think the record or player stats add particularly much. Are there any other countries which have equivalent one-year summaries for the national team? Not that I’ve seen. Macosal (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What are your 3 places Macosal I'm seeing at an annual national team page (such as 2019 Australia national soccer team season (btw see the prose there for example)) and the "season" page for soccer in all Australia (such as 2019–20 in Australian soccer). Is your third place the Socceroos page? That's temporarily there (only list a year back). I can understand the redundancy of duplication and would support having only on the 20xx-xx in Australian soccer page, moving the prose (and perhaps player stats too) to there. I think that merge should anyway be done in a professional way with help of an experienced admin. Regarding the player stats, I think they do add, giving an overview of the main players performances and usage, (provided of course they are properly referenced and upkeeped) --SuperJew (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The third being the overarching results pages (noting that we don't have these for every 20 year span yet). The prose at the 2019 season is good, and for mine should be moved into the relevant section of the 20xx-xy in Australian soccer page. I think that consensus appears to be that the 20-year results summaries are also worthy of inclusion (see e.g. England national football team results (2000–19) among others). As for the stats, my own view is that they are unnecessary, and I can't see anywhere else on WP where equivalent stats appear for other nations (happy to stand corrected). If you're suggesting that we include them in the 20xx-xy in Australian soccer articles, I'd also suspect that there would not be independent sources reflecting the statistics over the relevant period? Macosal (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understood the third place. Could you link please? :) I don't see any point having also a 20-year result summary and also a 10-year result summary. Regarding stats, I think having references to each game is enough for sourcing. Simple addition isn't WP:OR. Haven't really looked at other nations results page, and anyways it isn't that relevant --SuperJew (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I am saying that the third notional place is the multi-year results pages, which I believe should exist. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I recommend you have a read of it: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." Macosal (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have just reviewed Category:National association football team results by team. I'm not seeing any other country with single-season results pages there, but I am seeing a number that use decadal/multi-year options. This includes the nations I'd suggest have higher editor traffic (England, Scotland, Germany, Spain, France). I'm not seeing any compelling reason why Australia should be an outlier in this regard. Macosal (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that saying something else is that way can't be your only argument. I'm saying having one year pages is an advantage as I it allows to expand with prose and stats, and not have only a list of results which is what happens with multi-year results pages. You could say to have prose and statistics on multi-year pages, but imo that makes the page too long. --SuperJew (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

As above, I think the prose can be moved to the general year in Aus soccer annual pages. And the stats are certainly borderline WP:OR and I’m not convinced that they’re very useful - so all in all I don’t think we’re really losing anything by making these changes which do align with what appears to be the WP:CONSENSUS, looking at the other countries ‘ articles. Macosal (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I agreed with you that we can move the prose. My question is at what stage is all that prose too big and we should split the page? The amount of prose on 2019 for example is a good amount of prose and should be the average per year. So that amount times how much? 10? 20? All-years? Taking into account that there are also at least all the matches of those years (which is what is size consuming more) and also perhaps the stats (would be happy to get more opinions about those especially). --SuperJew (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me ask you this why not just move it when most of the other national articles have it in 10-20 years span as it would declutter the amount of national seasonal pages and you could easily move the summary into the History of the Australia national soccer team as that has most of the data already in (does need to be expanded in the earlier years but let's avoid that). If we had it your way, @Macosal:, their would be 100s of pages of just national team results pages with a summary of the year which I might add they don't have "seasons" as clubs do. HawkAussie (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have largely misunderstood my position - I agree with most of what you are saying. I am suggesting that the summaries should be moved into e.g. 2019–20 in Australian soccer. History of the Australia national soccer team would itself become extremely overly detailed if you move these summaries there, however. Macosal (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

So what is going to be our final decision? I think Macosal has made really good points on convincing that the multi-year season results pages should stay. And as for many other national teams, they have been using the multi-year season pages. Sometimes, national teams don't play a lot of games every year (especially 2020), which makes the season pages very short (which I think is another reason why other teams don't use season pages). Because of duplication, we can just keep the single year matches in the "20xx–xx in Australian soccer" pages. I feel like the season pages are just completely useless, when a lot of information is just transferred from other articles. I recommend the multi-year result pages to stay and redirect the season pages to them. --FastCube (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)FastCube

Project to improve W-League season pages

Recently user Spiderone nominated Melbourne V's 2011-12 W-League season's page for deletion citing that it doesn't meet GNG. Since then they've withdrawn, saying it does cite. Following that they templated a bunch of W-League club season pages as "may not meet GNG". I think it would be great if someone here has the time to take on for themselves as a mini-project to improve these pages and add references to them. I currently don't really have the time, but will try when I find the time.

These are the pages in question: 2014 Adelaide United W-League season, 2014 Brisbane Roar W-League season, 2014 Canberra United W-League season, 2014 Melbourne Victory W-League season, 2014 Sydney FC W-League season, 2014 Western Sydney Wanderers W-League season, 2015–16 Perth Glory W-League season, 2017–18 Adelaide United W-League season, 2017–18 Brisbane Roar W-League season, 2017–18 Canberra United W-League season, 2017–18 Perth Glory W-League season, 2017–18 Sydney FC W-League season, 2017–18 Western Sydney Wanderers W-League season, 2017–18 Newcastle Jets W-League season, 2017–18 Melbourne Victory W-League season.

Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources are a mess. The specialist sites that covered the W-League - The Women's Game, The World Game, FourFourTwo and W-League.com.au/footballaustralia.com.au have all been migrated at least once in the last couple of years so have incorrect dates or are missing detail like authors and agency information. The archive platform used by The West Australian, The Age, and The Sydney Morning Herald doesn't do full text search so you have to guess what the title or metadata was. It's frustrating knowing the coverage exists but not being able to find it easily. Hack (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spiderone: Think it's worth it for you to read Hack's comment. As seen on the above mentioned article 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season and also you can see on my expansion of Grace Macintyre this year, W-League seasons and players who play on at least a semi-regular basis pass WP:GNG. One of the main problems is the hardship to find sources as mentioned above, even though the coverage exists (with the other problem being less editors invested in this field). I would suggest that for these things notability can be assumed based on cases we already have. --SuperJew (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Australian soccer champions

I don't think the FFA Cup stats should count in this. Australian champions means league premiers/champions. Clubs who win the Cup are "winners" not "champions". --FastCube (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)FastCube

I think that sounds unnecessarily pedantic. I think this is the perfect article to capture this, in separate sections to the Premiers and Champions. As opposed to creating a separate article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You could easily sustain an article just on national and state cups over the years and keep the champions article for league winners. Hack (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Macarthur or Macarthur FC

Which should be used in infoboxes? Aleksandar Jovanovic has Macarthur FC while Matt Derbyshire just has Macarthur. WDM10 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I was using "Macarthur FC" thinking it's the same as Sydney FC. Just "Macarthur" is confusing with the region Macarthur. --SuperJew (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean Chelsea, for example always has their name, without the "F.C." part and they are named after a location, so shouldn't this count for these other two clubs as well? --FastCube (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)FastCube

Interesting point. I would say Sydney is more well known as a city than as a club, especially internationally. Chelsea OTOH is more well known as the name of a club than as a location, especially internationally. I'm not sure what Macarthur would be more well known as. --SuperJew (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I would use Macarthur FC as that seems to be usual with Australian soccer articles with clubs that just contain the city name FC style. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the reasoning above - surely Liverpool is well known as a city, no? But we don't call it "Liverpool F.C." on every occasion it appears. Sydney FC is the only club I'm aware of where the "FC" is actually spoken aloud in most cases when referring to the club (it is a deliberate branding decision), and the only club I've seen on WP which has the "FC" displayed in default (e.g. infobox) usage. The relevant question is whether Macarthur are most often referred to as "Macarthur FC" or just "Macarthur" in common usage. It looks as though Macarthur usually add the "FC" on their own website, usage elsewhere seems to be mixed as to whether the FC is added. In the absence of more consistent usage, maybe we should reassess once there is more usage out there to gauge common practice. I think the status quo is therefore not to display "FC" in the meantime, but maybe this is counteracted by Macarthur's own usage. Macosal (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It is actually pretty common in American articles to keep the FC. Like with Seattle Sounders FC (example), Los Angeles FC (example), New York City FC (example), Nashville SC (example), FC Cincinnati, St. Louis FC, and Toronto FC (example). In Japan you have FC Tokyo (example), Yokohama FC (example), Ehime FC (example), FC Ryukyu (example), FC Gifu (example), FC Imabari (example). We also do it for FC Goa in India since there is the state team Goa. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be commonplace in nations without football as their number one sport (Japan, USA, Canada) and Australia is no different on that regards. Most of the media articles I've seen (official website and local newspapers) seem to add the FC so it seems that keeping the FC would be appropriate based on common usage. I however agree that before we make a set decision we should give it a bit of time to see which name becomes the name they are known by. WDM10 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The above examples appear to be from nations where the FC suffix is not standard rather than Australia or the UK where almost every team has it. For example there’s no suggestion we should start referring to the other A-League clubs with “FC” whenever we mention them. Macosal (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

True. I should have clarified that I was referring to city only names however. The MLS still has Atlanta United, Chicago Fire, Columbus Crew, Inter Miami, Orlando City, and Vancouver Whitecaps however who have the FC/SC/CF suffix but don't mention them all the time. WDM10 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Columbus Crew SC and Vancouver Whitecaps FC do use the SC/FC all the time. Not sure why for Columbus but for Vancouver it is because it is a new entity from previous Vancouver Whitecaps teams. Same with Seattle Sounders FC. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. I think with Macarthur we should probably just wait until we get general common usage across the board for a final decision. WDM10 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

History of Melbourne Knights FC - A gruesome article

Can some more editors please have a look at this article. It's very poorly sourced, contains several political, point scoring comments (e.g. "The date the Axis powers establish the Nazi puppet Independent State of Croatia" - which seems factually wrong as well), and is simply full of unverifiable, anecdotal content. This is a club with a long and complex history, involving considerable success, so the article probably deserves to exist, but right now it's a bit of an embarrassment. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

2022 ACL

Is there any official confirmation on where the FFA Cup spot is taken from (champions or 2nd place)? Otherwise, what should be provisional? WDM10 (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to have been decided.[9] Currently Australia's cup spot is taken by the grand final winner, so something will have to give - whether it's the FFA/A-League or the AFC changing the qualification. Hack (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent Womens' Football Talent Identification Camp

Obviously @Haydos0019: has made a significant effort to update the Australia women's national soccer team article to add the team members of the recent Talent Identification Camp, and reverting attempts from multiple people to defend a position that it is legitimate. I think debate here rather than descend into edit warring with myself or @Macosal:. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

My view is that the Training Camp that was held was simply a Talent Identification Camp. It is not the Matilda's squad, and it has not been described as such in the media. To remove essentially all of the players who last played for the Matildas is both pedantic and misleading. The bulk of the squad that would make up a Matildas team is currently playing league football in Europe and would be unavailable for such a squad, so removing them from the article is the component that I think is misleading. As an example, a Wikipedia article that describers the Matildas team as not including the current captain Sam Kerr is going to cause confusion. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Its seems weird having the most recent squad as a "B team" training camp. Perhaps though it's worth having both listed (like was done on the Joeys page this year when there were two age-group squads competing in different tournaments)? --SuperJew (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Simply put, this was in no way a “Matildas” national team squad, and therefore shouldn’t be in that article. The point of the camp was to ID players who could feature for the Matildas in the future. Certainly misleading to call these players the “current squad” of the Matildas. Macosal (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

“Westgate Derby”

Due to Macarthur’s addition to the league and the new “derbies” this and Western United create, I thought about the new pages this potentially creates. Sydney FC vs Macarthur is yet to happen and probably isn’t going to be very heated if WU vs City is anything to go by, so that rules that one out. Wanderers vs Macarthur could be something special, but I’d give that time to form strongly and also a good name. Western United vs Melbourne City isn’t really much of a rivalry unless City/United fans can say otherwise. Then that leaves Western United vs Melbourne Victory, which does actually seem like a genuine rivalry with a name (Westgate Derby). The name has some fair coverage by secondary sources like FTBL so what are your thoughts on this potential article? WDM10 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, please ping me if you respond as I’m not checking my watchlist as often. WDM10 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Rather than speculation, surely this needs sourcing, to real sources, not just to populist, fancruft sites. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ladder positions on season pages

The rounds are going to be stuffed this year. For the results by round table on the season pages, the ladder placings can't really be adequately filled. Should these just be done after each game? WDM10 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that seems right to me. Macosal (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wanderers 3rd kit

Could someone please make the Western Sydney Wanderers 3rd kit to add to the season and club pages? WDM10 (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A-League Rounds

The A-League website has a new round structure, moving games around from (for example) round 23 to round 6. Should this be used across all season pages? WDM10 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should go by the amended round numbers. Macosal (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool thanks. That's what I have decided to do on the WSW season page too. WDM10 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability of the 2020 Western Premier League season page

I was wondering if this page would past the WP:GNG test as most of the sources seem to be local sources and I don't know if it would past it or I can nominate this to Afd. HawkAussie (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

International footballer pages

Why do we have pages which include short lists of international players for one club? (e.g. List of Adelaide United FC international footballers). It would make sense to add this as another section to the List of Adelaide United FC players article, instead of making such a short and useless article like this. Do we agree we make this change? --FastCube (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)FastCube

Yes I disagree. Look further and you’ll find many analogous lists for clubs overseas, some even reaching Featured Article status (e.g. List of Burnley F.C. internationals). Macosal (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for pointing that out. It makes sense to split a related article into this.--FastCube (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)FastCube

Discussion at project page

Please join discussion at Talk:List_of_foreign_A-League_players#Scope_of_article and offer opinions :) --SuperJew (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Kyle Cimenti image file

Hi guys, The image that has been uploaded and displayed on the following article "Kyle Cimenti" needs to be deleted as its a non free image taken from the Macarthur FC website. Could somebody do this as I have no idea how to delete images. Simione001 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Victorian lower league maps

If someone fancies a challenge, the maps at Victorian State League 3, Victorian State League 4 and Victorian State League 5 are a bit of a disaster zone and could use some work to make them legible. Hack (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

NPL years on which season?

So I've noticed most people take an NPL season to be played on the first year of a double-year season. For example the 2013 National Premier Leagues are played in the 2013–14 season. I don't think NPL seasons are meant to happen during the first year of a season for many reasons I can extend to in this discussion.

1) NPL/state league seasons can start and occur every time during the second year of an Australian soccer season, because the NPL is one year and pretty much runs through the whole year which is the same as the second year of an Australian national season.

2) Before the 1989–90 season, every Australian season was run through with it only being played in one year. Now this would be easy to just include yearly state league information in whatever year but in double-year seasons that's when it becomes confusing for people. Let's say the 1989 national season also had the 1989 state league info, then on the 1989–90 season there would be the 1990 state league info. But for the newer national season articles (e.g. 2017–18 in Australian soccer), the NPL finals seem to be shown and played on the first year of a season, which would then show that we won't know where the 1989 state info will go (either in the 1989 or 1989/90 season).

3) To prove it even further; If a 2020 NPL/state league season were to the start during the "let's say 2019–20 in Australian soccer", then in other people's case they would include the information a season further in 2020–21 which basically means state seasons are skipping a national season when that next season has not started yet. If you refer to RSSSF, it clearly shows in double-year seasons that it's played on the second year (See http://www.rsssf.com/tablesa/auschamp.html)

4) I understand NPL Finals are played after when at least the FFA Cup starts around August or whatever, but the problem is the regular seasons would be played in the previous season, therefore there would be one-season info in two different national season articles. And as I said state league seasons starts on the second year of a national season.

5) The evidence should hopefully prove to some editors that state seasons (which are one year only) are played on the second year of a national season. Hope everything makes sense, and let's get to the end of this.

--FastCube (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)FastCube

For me, the NPL should align with earlier of the two calendar years spanned by the pages (e.g., the 2021 finals series will fall into 2020–21). Most relevantly, the finals series, Champions/Premiers etc. will be determined in that period, which I think is most significant. Further, the entire NPL finals series (which is all that is presently included on the 20XX-XY season in Australian soccer pages) fits within the single season span. Macosal (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, in order to keep consistent with whole state seasons to align with national league (double-year) seasons, we will try to keep one state season in one article, because of the season transformation from 1989 to 1989–90 (1990). There is no doubt the NPL finals series are played late in the year, causing it to play in the first year of a national season, but state seasons act differently than national competitions (FFA Cup/A-League). It just doesn't make sense that NPL finals are in the first year, where the successor times (regular season) would obviously be played during the second year of a national season. (e.g. the 2018 NPL is played in the 2017–18 season). --FastCube (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)FastCube

I disagree with these views. The season overview articles - such as 2017–18 in Australian soccer and 2020–21 in Australian soccer - cover the date ranges of July through to June, and it would appear to have been set up that way specifically as the A-League and W-League became "summer" competitions.. The Finals Series for the National Premier Leagues generally occur in September/October, and it is just that Finals Series that is being displayed in these articles. This Finals Series is a separate competition, that didn't exist until recently. Whereas the NPL Seasons for each Member Federation are "winter" competitions, and thus straddle two of these July-to-June financial years, the Finals Series occurs in the latter of the two. Therefore, the bulk of the NPL Season, and the new information going in there now for 'State' premiers/champions, belongs in the earlier year article, while the separate information on the NPL Finals Series belongs in the earlier year article.

I don't think that it is confusing at all to stick to the current format, and have State Winners tables referring to a different year than that which relates to the teams that have made the NPL Finals series played within that Financial year.

To respond to the specific arguments made,

1) NPL seasons are currently a winter competition, and still straddle the July-to-June financial year format of the season summary articles regardless.

2) Before the 1989–90 season the national competition was a "winter" competition, so things aligned. That changed, and therefore so did the format of the Season Summary articles to the present format. However that is now changing - gradually or swiftly it is not yet known. This years A-League and W-League seasons started after Xmas, and some of that was COVID-19 pandemic-related, but the A-League is certainly looking at transitioning back to being a "winter" competition. when that occurs, the Season Summary articles will probably revert back to the calendar year format.

3) RSSSF format is irrelevant to this discussion and "proves" nothing.

5) I think it is poor form to open a thread whilst simultaneously calling for its conclusion by stating "let's get to the end of this"

Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Transfers via free agency

If a player leaves at the end of his contract then joins another club, do I put the new club on "Transfers out" section of the season page of the club he left (referring to Mohamed Al-Taay and the WSW 2021–22 season page primarily)? WDM10 (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@WDM10: If the player left the club with no destination announced, leave unattached and don't add new club retroactively later. We name the new club if it's a direct transfer (to overseas, such as the times McGree left Adelaide) or if it's a departure/mutual contract termination which is clear is done for the player to join a new club (since there are no transfers between clubs in the A-League) (if it says in the release "was released to pursue another opportunity" or if the release and signing with new club are announced in a short time space). In the case of Al-Taay, leave as unattached, since he was a free agent for a long time period (over a week here). There are cases where it is unclear, and then I prefer to keep the unattached as that is technically correct. --SuperJew (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for your response. WDM10 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Jets coach

According to the Jets' latest update about coaching staff, Diles joins as Head Coach with will join Manager Arthur Papas’s coaching staff. So I'm confused who is the coach of the team, as in the coach we have on our squad navbox etc. - Papas or Diles? --SuperJew (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say go with whoever is going to take control on match-day, whoever that might be. I assume that as manager Papas will be heading up the football department? Hack (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Hack - but Papas is the answer to that, I'm fairly confident. It's just using the alternative naming model where the "Manager" coaches the team. See e.g., Manchester United F.C.. Macosal (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of people taking charge of Australian teams are head coaches, the only A-League equivalent I can think of was when, towards the end of his spell at Gosford, Lawrie McKinna was manager of CCM, taking control of the team and managing the football department. Hack (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I seem to recall a change in the terminology we used here in Wikipedia from "manager" to "head coach" (might've been you Macosal). Which is why I was confused about the press release --SuperJew (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Tigers FC vs. Cooma Tigers

Calling attention to this discussion about the name of the team from Cooma. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Suburbs or Sydney City

There is major confusion on which name won the 1977 National Soccer League 1st place? A lot say Eastern Suburbs in Wikipedia, but some online are known as Sydney City. Which one was actually used for this season? FastCube (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Having a look at The Sydney Morning Herald, they became "Eastern Suburbs Hakoah" ahead of the 1977 season and changed to "Sydney City" during the middle of 1978. Hack (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about salary cap

Hey, just a heads-up of discussion at Talk:2021–22_A-League#Removing_Salary_cap_exemptions_and_captains_section. Please give your thoughts :) --SuperJew (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about removing two australian football templates

Circulating the link to the discussion (or lack thereof) here, as more likely to capture a more relevant audience. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_19 for the template Template:Australian soccer updater-W
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 21 for the template Template:Football NSW Super League

The latter has subsequently been deleted. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Perth Glory logo

Hello guys, The current Perth Glory FC logo is incorrect. Needs to be updated to current version as per [10]. Can anyone help? Simione001 (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Contract extensions

Currently, the format we're using for the "Contract extensions" tables on clubs' season pages has the columns No., Name, Position, Duration, Date, Notes. Today, Melbourne City re-signed Tilio on a two-year contract extension until the end of 2023/24. When Tilio originally joined City in September 2020, he signed a three-year deal (until the end of 2022/23). So therefore something seems off with these announcements (a theory I saw was that he signed a new contract with different clauses/rewards/wages which is for the 2022/23 and 2023/24 seasons). I'm wondering if we should add to the table a column of end date of contract, as it is unclear just from the duration until when the player is contracted. Would like to hear your thoughts, both about this specific case and also in general. --SuperJew (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking in season articles?

Hi, could people have a look at this discussion on Rupert1904 talk page and give their input to make a decision for the season articles of the A-League? Thanks --SuperJew (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Naming for A-League Women clubs

Right now I see that all the clubs' pages have been moved from the format "X FC (W-League)" to the format of "X FC (A-League Women)". I am wondering if this is correct move. From looking at socials seems for example that Melbourne Victory have the men's team at Melbourne Victory while the women's team is at Melbourne Victory Women (was previously "Victory W-League"). So perhaps the format should be "X FC Women" or "X Women" (or maybe even "X Women FC", though that seems a bit odd to me). What do we think? I've tried sending on socials to the A-LW accounts a question how the rebranding affects the club teams but haven't recieved an answer yet. --SuperJew (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It will resolve in a couple of months when the season starts, and we will settle in to knowing what is WP:COMMONNAME. If the format needs changing then, that's probably the appropriate time. Changing it again now, and re-changing it on the weekend, and again the week after doesn't really add value. I'd want to avoid the situation a few years ago when someone decided that all the Y-League youth teams should have II suffix (to match the German Soccerway), then changed back, then immediately changed to U25, then U21, then changed back, back to II, then Youth and U25 etc. Too many bold people ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree there's no rush - but for me, I think X FC Women is the way to go. This better encapsulates that this is the women's team of X FC (and may play in other comps than just the ALW). Let's see how if other clubs do the same as the Victory have. Macosal (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you guys no need to rush. Was hoping to open this discussion before all the clubs were moved, but it was done before I got around to writing. --SuperJew (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac and Macosal: Think it's important to point out that there is a discussion on this topic (on a broader level) currently at WT:FOOTY. Could be worth pitching in and getting consensus there. --SuperJew (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I note that the Wellington Phoenix FC (A-League Women) article has just been moved. Looking at the edit history for @GustavoDortmund: this editor was likely not aware of this discussion, or the similar article renaming thread that was at WT:FOOTY (now archived at Women's_club_name_articles). Given that the season is commencing this week should we leave this article renamed to Wellington Phoenix FC Women, consider reverting the move back to a format that is at least consistent with the other teams that have both A-League Mens and A-League Womens teams, or consider whether there is enough verifiable information to support a particular WP:COMMONNAME ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a real weird move - no explanation, no history of editing in Australian or women's soccer. Seems a bit controversial to me and would favour a quick revert and further discussion about common name. GustavoDortmund Could you please explain your rationale for the move and where you got to it from? --SuperJew (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Retired players returning

Recently, there have been two cases of players coming back from retirement - Ash Sykes returned to Canberra Utd and LDV returned to Perth Glory. My question is how should we handle it on the yearly summary pages, such as 2021–22 in Australian soccer? For example, should we leave the announcement of LDV's retirement there or remove it? Same question regarding Sykes on the page 2017–18 in Australian soccer. The answers also might be different, since Sykes has been away from the game for a few years, while LDV only for the off-season when there are no competitive games anyway. @Matilda Maniac and Macosal: Pinging the major contributors to such pages --SuperJew (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I would remove all references to their earlier retirement, and have Wikipedia just have the one final retirement.

And I'll be seeing LDV play live in 9 days time in the real world, bonus ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I’d leave them. The fact of the matter is that they did announce their retirements on those dates, only to make comebacks. Agree LDV is slightly different given she was retired for about 3 months or less. Could do something like 2019 ATP Tour and note comebacks separately? Macosal (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That's awesome Matilda Maniac! :) Try to get some pics, and you can upload them to Commons and add them to articles ;) (LDV's infobox pic is from 2012, the most recent pic on the page is from 2015, the most recent on Commons is from 2017) I actually think it's great that she'll have her swansong in a third stint at her local club, instead of pretty much disappearing. --SuperJew (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That sounds to me like a good idea Macosal - I do think we should have the full picture as much as possible on Wikipedia. I suggest we leave the discussion here for a week and see if any more task force participants have thoughts on the matter. Adding the comebacks we'll also have to add some more players who returned from retirement (Chantel Jones comes to mind, and I feel like there were at least a few more). --SuperJew (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac and Macosal: I've added comebacks section on 2021–22 in Australian soccer. What do you think? What info should we include? --SuperJew (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Good start- maybe something like this:?

John Smith, 33, [former XXX international] midfielder who retired in 20xx and signed with [new club]

maybe some juggling needed but that’s the key info imo.

Macosal (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! I've added it. I'm wondering if we should link the season page for the retirement year (where the retirement prose is) and/or add a reference for the retirement. --SuperJew (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Assistant manager takes over for one temporary game

For these types of games, such as Haliti taking charge vs City last night, on "List of X managers" pages, are these listed as under the overall manager, the caretaker or neither for the game? WDM10 (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn’t list the assistant IMO - Carl Robinson is still the “head coach”, he just didn’t attend the game. Stats sites will still list Robinson as the manager last night for example. Macosal (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks for the clarification. WDM10 (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The old Australia Cup

Regarding the first Australia Cup, OzFootball has released new pages with the results and details of all the tournaments (1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968). If someone has the time and wants to, they can go over our articles and see all the information is correct and add/correct if needed. --SuperJew (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of 2021 National Premier Leagues Victoria and related articles

I have started AfD for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 National Premier Leagues Victoria, on the basis that key data on league table is already included in a parent article of 2021 Football Victoria season, and other related reasons. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have also bundled this AfD with two other similar articles for lower-leagues, which have the same issues: Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• 2021 National Premier Leagues Victoria 2
• 2021 National Premier Leagues Victoria 3

Hello Matilda Maniac. I see and understand your points for deletion for the National Premier Leagues Victoria, 2, 3 articles. The inscription come from an article such as 2004–05 NSW Premier League season where I initially thought, that state league competitions are allowed to have their own individual articles and them being up for a couple years. If we come to the agreement that we terminate the Victorian NPL ones which we probably will, then the NSW Premier League seasons should also be discussed and terminated along with them and just redirect them towards each federation seasons. FastCube (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Many of the articles for NSW Premier League seasons more than 10-15 years ago were created as stand-alone for the season because there was no federation season article such as 2004–05 in NSW soccer season or equivalent. Only in more recent years has this type of article been created which lists the tables for a few of the lower divisions, the top women's divisions, and reference to major cup competitions (e.g. Waratah Cup). So what would be better for NSW is to expand on these remaining 20xx-20xx NSW Premier League season articles but adding the information on lower leagues, women's league, Waratah/Ampol cup, and rename the article so it becomes the federation season article. This would seem preferable to me instead of simply redirecting articles, due to there being WP:CONTENTFORK considerations. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable and understanding; It's definitely right for state league football season articles which are managed by state member federations part of Football Australia should be merged into one considerable and reliable article to avoid WP:CONTENTFORK. FastCube (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The new Australia Cup

The article FFA Cup has been renamed to Australia Cup (current) by @Darththorn:. I think it should be renamed to Australia Cup as a far simpler scenario. Yes it is the current competition, but we have DAB links currently for the older one (and the women's soccer one, and the greyhound one, and the horse racing one). Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the current one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and doesn't need disambiguation in title. --SuperJew (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 FFA Cup Play Offs

Difference of opinion between me and J man708:

How should we refer to the games played between ALM teams to qualify for the 2021 FFA Cup proper? This is in the context of the 2021 FFA Cup Final and 2021 FFA Cup preliminary rounds pages.

Their official name is the "FFA Cup Play Offs", which is also how they are referred to by reliable sources: link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7, link 8 etc.. The alternative is to label them "preliminary round 7", by analogy to the final round of the state federations' respective qualifying tournaments.

My view is that calling this "preliminary round 7" is misleading and WP:OR. It implies they are part of some larger series of rounds, which they aren't (it is in fact a standalone playoff) - and we can't simply say "this is part of the seventh preliminary round" when no official or independent sources refer to them that way. Keen to get any other opinions. Macosal (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have made some edits previously to incorporate these play-offs into the Preliminary rounds, as if they were part of round 7. They effectively are. I have also inserted text into the prose component of this section as a hybrid of the nomenclature currently being disputed, which is "entered into an A-League playoff round, equivalent to the seventh round of the preliminary rounds." I think this text is a sufficiently accurate reflection of its status. I also note that in many years, the different federations (especially Queensland) had "official" names for their rounds that did not align with the progression to the seventh round as the immediate predecessor to the Round of 32.

I suggest that the text in the table states Playoff round as per Macosal's suggestion, and that prose be added to the beginning of the Preliminary rounds' Seventh round section to the effect that play-off matches for 4 A-League clubs were played, as the format changed etc. etc., as only 10 A-League clubs now participate in the Round of 32. This should avoid the need to have a separate table. However, I am also open to the suggestion of having these two matches as a separate section and table below the Seventh Round section. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm supportive of the proposed edits from Macosal. It's a different qualification path and hence should be tabled separately. Clifton9 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I like Tildawg's suggestions, personally. Definitely worthwhile of a mention at the top of the section, with additional "Play-off round" links to redirect to the seventh round. - J man708 (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of any further discussion for a week, I now propose to follow the direction of Clifton9 - which also means a need to have a separate section/table in the preliminary rounds. Maybe in 1-2 days time in case there is further debate. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Having the final round matches split seems ridiculous to me. In the first six editions of the competition, we had three fixtures in the Round of 32 that were specifically designed to be seperate A-League only teams, with the clubs being placed into different pots. We were guaranteed by the same draw mechanics to have an all member federation Quarter Final match, leading to a non-A-League Semi Final. Then surely, we should place these matches into their own sections, as they ran concurrently to the A-League fixtures and required different draw rules? Additionally, the FFSA's 2021 FFA Cup qualifiers were referred to by the federation as Round 1, Round 2, Round 3, Quarter Final and Semi Final, as opposed to the positions of Round 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 where we seem to have used WP:OR to align them with the other states. Why are we taking the approach that the A-League matches are Original Research, but the SA matches are to be manipulated to be brought in line with the other states? - J man708 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t disagree - why don’t we have separate sections for each federation’s qualifiers? It would be so much simpler. Macosal (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Check out the 2014 season article. Total clusterfuck. - J man708 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

How so? More prose, less OR, way easier to follow what actually happened in each Federation in my opinion. Macosal (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The 2014 format is exactly how every subsequent page should have looked. Each federation is running separate qualification tournaments and I think they should be displayed as such. One of the main reasons you'd use these pages is to follow the progress of a particular team. It's much easier to do in the 2014 format. Pretty sure I recall this being debated at the time but wasn't the popular opinion.Clifton9 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that it was not the 'consensus' reached. The 2015 article started its life as split by Federations first, and was changed to current format after discussions at 2015 Talk Page; and follow-up discussions on which format was better at 2016 Talk Page. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind, it will be about 17 miles long if we do it that way. - J man708 (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is WP:POINTY @J man708:, that if you cant have your opinion upheld on one single line on one particular table in the 2021 FFA Cup Final, that there is the implication that the entire structure for the FFA Cup preliminary rounds articles for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 must be overhauled. I note that the South Australian example that you cited - just like for most of the Federations - the rounds are also part of a parallel competition, in this case the Football SA Federation Cup. That the Semi Final round for one competition can also be Round 6 for the 2021 FFA Cup preliminary rounds, why would this be a problem? In terms of nomenclature, there is also an edit from the 2015 FFA Cup preliminary rounds' Talk Page by J man708, which specifically referenced the Football Queensland website, where the edit states that "The Preliminary Rounds will operate within a consistent national structure whereby Club entry into the competition will be staggered in each state/ territory with the winning Clubs from Round 7 in each Member Federation gaining direct entry into the Westfield FFA Cup 2015 Final Rounds (Round of 32 and beyond)." Consistent national structure was part of the decision to maintain the 2015 format, and thus should not constitute WP:OR. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's completely WP:POINTY to edit it and make such changes on the article itself, which is why we're discussing it on here, Tilds.

I also know it's ridiculous to make such suggestion to completely change everything on the basis of the SA round I cited, I'm likening the concept of having the A-League matches in their own seperate play-off.

What irks me the most about this is that the Schedule table suggests that Perth Glory and Newcastle Jets finished 33rd and 34th in the cup, by virtue of not making the Round of 32, but being positioned ahead of all the NPL seventh round losers. What the article is saying is that Perth Glory finished ahead of Manly United by virtue of being an A-League club, despite both matches taking place at the same level of the competition and Melbourne Victory and Cooma Tigers progressed to the Round of 32. It's incorrect. Plain and simple. - J man708 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Melbourne Victory		Round	Wollongong Wolves
Opponent	Result		Opponent	Result
		Preliminary Round 5	Minmi Wanderers	5–2 (H)
		Preliminary Round 6	Hakoah Sydney City East	3–0 (A)
Perth Glory	1–1 (a.e.t.) (4–3 p) (A)	Preliminary Round 7 or A-League play-off round	Manly United	3–0 (A)
Adelaide City	1–0 (A)	Round of 32	Mt Druitt Town Rangers	3–0 (A)
Gold Coast Knights	2–1 (a.e.t.) (A)	Round of 16	Central Coast Mariners	1–0 (H)
Adelaide United	2–1 (A)	Quarter-finals	APIA Leichhardt	1–0 (A)
Wellington Phoenix	4–1 (H)	Semi-finals	Sydney FC	1–0 (H)
† = The four lowest-ranked teams in the 2020–21 A-League played-off for two spots in the Round of 32. Note: In all results above, the score of the finalist is given first (H: home; A: away).

It seems like the entire conundrum would be avoided if we took the step of depicting the preliminary rounds on a federation-by-federation basis. The current setup is the definition of WP:SYNTH and that's why it is producing "incorrect" outcomes. The most "correct" thing to do would obviously be to depict the qualifying rounds as they are depicted by primary sources. Macosal (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Macosal, would you support a compromise, where we do it state-by-state in the preliminary article, but make it known that the A-League play-off round sits at Round 7, and on the table used in the Final's article we refer to it as the seventh round, with a note stating it's called the A-League playoff for the clubs that qualify through that path, inturn guaranteeing that should an NPL finalist and an A-League playoff winner and listed with their seventh round matches on the same table row?

I've edited the pre-existing table to show how this could look. Thoughts? - J man708 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Replace the † with a line break and add "A-League played-off round". Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

RE-EDIT - Yeah, I think that works. I'd use a slash rather than "or", but apart from that, seems like a good compromise.
- J man708 (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as nothing has been said, I assume there's no more complaints? I've put the A-League playoff in its rightful place on the table, on the Final's page. - J man708 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. Honestly this looks fairly clunky to me - why do we need it on 2021 FFA Cup Final when neither of these teams played in (or was even eligible to play in) "Preliminary Round 7"? Can we not just leave it at "A-League Playoff Round" (being the applicable round for both teams) for this one and worry about how to represent preliminary round 7 in the unlikely event that a team playing in that round makes it to a final at some point in the future? Also agree a slash would be better than the "&" - teams do not play in "both" rounds. Macosal (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You answered your own question by saying "teams do not play in "both" rounds.". The clunkiness would only look worse with an additional row, surely. If we sort it out now, this issue can be completely avoided in the future... Basically, I ask what reasonable alternative is there, when we have an NPL vs A-League final? - J man708 (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough - I don't think it should be an extra row. I don't think 2021 FFA Cup Final should mention "preliminary round 7" at all. Why should it? Neither team played in or was eligible for anything called "preliminary round 7". We don't need to refer to it, any more than we need to mention preliminary rounds 1-6... I'm happy to defer worrying about "what happens if an NPL team makes the final until if and when that happens. The two options would be similar to your proposed one or 2021 EFL Cup Final. But as it stands, the table on 2021 FFA Cup Final is imprecise and awkward. Macosal (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

And the table atop the preliminary rounds is awkward! Why can't we find a cure to this now, to stop future issues? A stitch in time, really. I suggested doing it state by state, but you ignored my suggestion and didn't respond. See the response at 21/02 at 23:38. I still think this is a reasonable compromise. - J man708 (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Couple of useful sources

Came across these two and thought they could be useful to editors here: 2022 NPLW Victoria Official Season Guide and 2022 NPLM Victoria Official Season Guide. --SuperJew (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac, J man708, FastCube, and Makejets: Pinging you as I've seen you work a lot on grassroots :) --SuperJew (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

ALW navboxes

Is there any sort of criteria for how Australian club navboxes are shown? Like does just one contain both men and women info like Template:Arsenal F.C. or is it okay that can they be split (e.g. Template:Adelaide United FC and Template:Adelaide United FC (W-League))? I only found out about this after Template:Melbourne City FC by using both men and women concept like Template:Arsenal F.C., but still unsure to split it or keep it. FastCube (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Placement of 2022 Australia Cup play-offs

Macosal and myself had a difference of opinion with edits on 2021–22 Newcastle Jets FC season page, regarding where the 2022 Australia Cup play-offs should be placed (this is relevant also for Perth Glory, WS Wanderers, and Brisbane Roar). I think they should be in the 2022–23 season pages, as they are part of the competition which takes place in 2022, while Macosal said they should be in the 2021–22 pages since this match is clearly a part of the Jets’ 21-22 season. The same players are contracted and the squad haven’t gone on a break between this season and 22-23 yet. I would opinion that it is quite confusing to have on the same season page information about two seasons of the same cup competition (2021 FFA Cup & 2022 Australia Cup), as well as for the teams that advance from the play-off, it would mean that the 2022 Australia Cup would be split between the 2021–22 season and the 2022–23 season, further confusing the issue. We have a similar previous case of the 2014 AFC Champions League which was all placed on the 2013–14 Western Sydney Wanderers FC season page, despite the final games being played after the beginning of the 2014–15 A-League season and after the squad changes and off-season break between the 2013–14 and 2014–15 seasons. We even have a couple of players on the Wanderers' season pages with the note Joined the club from 2014–15 season. Would be happy to get more opinions to decide what we are doing :) --SuperJew (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

To explain why I think the 2022 Australia Cup Playoffs should be placed within the clubs' respective 2021-22 seasons:

• • First and foremost, the matches are in the 2021-22 season. 2021-22 A-League Men is ongoing, these clubs have not gone on their "end of season" breaks yet, and players who will leave the club "at the end of the season" are still there. For those reasons, it'd be artificial to suggest that the Aus Cup Playoffs are in the 22-23 season.
  • The Playoffs are not part of the Australia Cup proper. This makes it cleaner in many respects to include them on their own in the clubs' 21-22 seasons (where, as above, they fall on the calendar). In a way, this is more akin to e.g., the European playoffs held at the end of an Eredivisie season (which are not Eredivisie matches nor European matches, and are uncontroversially included in the season in which they fall).
  • Even where one comp extends across two club seasons, broader practice seems to be to include the relevant matches in the season they fall under. For example 2021–22 Norwegian Football Cup matches are split between 2021 Viking FK season and 2022 Viking FK season.
  • The approach agreed on in relation to a similar issue in Swedish football at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 90#Question regarding season formats in club season articles was to include only the matches taking place in the relevant season itself, and use prose to flag the teams' results in the lead and note in the article where teams moved on to or from rounds taking place in a different season. A good example of how this is done can be seen at 2019 Malmö FF season and 2020 Malmö FF season, in relation to European comps. The consensus reached there appears to be directly applicable here.

Macosal (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes in attendance

Just noticed that Nugget2804 has added to season pages after the average attendance a figure with an up or down arrow. I am guessing this is change relevant to the season before it. I was wondering 1) should this be explained somewhere (as I don't think it is necessarily intuitive)? 2) should it even be on the season pages? seems to me more suited to a summary of seasons on the league page. --SuperJew (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Think it could be included in prose but don’t see the need (or precedent) for it to be in league seasons articles infobox. If it is to be included there, that’s something that should be agreed at WP:FOOTY, particularly on the “League season articles” template talk page. Macosal (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Marconi or Marconi-Fairfield

I've really tried to figure this out for months, but still can't get to it. Since the inaugural NSL competition, was it "Marconi" or "Marconi-Fairfield"? OzFootball does clearly say Marconi, but there's been many reports and old databases/histories that mention "Marconi-Fairfield". FastCube (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Apart from forced changes in the early 1980s, the footballing part of Club Marconi seems to have been known as Marconi-Fairfield from the late 1960s to the later years of the NSL. Hack (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Listing players as unattached

Given contracts start/end on July 1, shouldn’t no players who transfer before this date be listed as unattached given they weren’t actually free agents during this period, even if they were announced some time after they were released from their previous club?

Just seems strange that they are listed as unattached when they were never actually a free agent. Ausfootballfan (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A-League contracts usually end on 30 May if the contract isn't mutually terminated prior. Hack (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Marquees and captains

In previous seasons we've had a table listing "Salary cap exemptions and captains". However, it seems in recent times that salary cap exemptions are less and less reported to the public (see for example how in 2021-22 there are only 6 marquees listed, none of them at Sydney who are prob one of the richest clubs, while seasons before that have many more including additional columns in some cases). The question is should we keep these tables? If we do remove them, then I think we should still source the captains and vice-captains at the Personnel and kits table. --SuperJew (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

(side note: also wondering if we should source managers on the Personnel and kits table, or is the Managerial changes section plus previous seasons adequate? --SuperJew (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC))

Northern Fury name change

Can someone change the name of Northern Fury FC to "North Queensland United FC"?

It's currently named "Northern Queensland United FC", and I see the mistake in the 'North' part, but I can't rename it back to "North Queensland Fury FC" (correct name)

FastCube (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for input

There is currently a difference of opinion on the current ALM season page regarding if we should include the fixture on the league page too or only on club season pages. Please contribute your opinions at Talk:2022–23 A-League Men#Request: Home and away fixture list. Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Kiwis as foreigners in the A-Leagues

We currently have the pages List of foreign A-League Men players and List of foreign A-League Women players which have an incosistency between them now. The ALM page doesn't list Kiwis, while the ALW page does. Up until last season this made sense, as the ALW was composed only of Aussie teams, but since last season the Nix joined, who can have Kiwis not as visa players. Following the move of Paige Satchell from Sydney to the Nix, I am debating what should we do with the ALW page - should we:

(1) remove the Kiwi section (like in the ALM page)

(2) leave it and list only Aussie clubs (for example Paige Satchell – Canberra United – 2020–21, Sydney FC – 2021–22)

(3) leave it and list all clubs (for example Paige Satchell – Canberra United – 2020–21, Sydney FC – 2021–22, Wellington Phoenix – 2022–)

or (4) 2 or 3 with the addition of adding a Kiwi section to the ALM with the same concept?

Thanks for your input :) Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I would start off by saying that I don't think (1) is an option - for the first 10+ seasons of the W-League, Kiwis were foreigners in every sense and that should not simply be erased because there is now a NZ team in the comp. I can see the merits of (2) and (3). On one hand, both A-League Men and Women are now leagues involving Australian and NZ clubs - so in that sense, New Zealanders are not "foreigners". At the same time, NZ players do count towards foreign quotas of Australian A-Leagues clubs (i.e., all but one club in both comps). I think I lean towards what I think I said last time this was discussed: NZ players should be listed on the Foreign ALW players page up until Wellington were added to the comp. If we were going to add NZ players in beyond that, strongly think NZ players at NZ clubs should not be listed (i.e., (2)), as these players are not "foreign" under competition rules and NZ players for the Phoenix/Knights would instantly dominate the entire article. If (2) does end up being the consensus, yes, the same should be done for the ALM page. Macosal (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on this? We now also have Marisa van der Meer who was a foreigner for Melbourne City and now joins the Nix where she doesn't take a visa spot. --SuperJew (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Need for an article on a single, abandoned Melbourne derby game ?

Melbourne City v Melbourne Victory (17 December 2022) now has an article. smacks of aspects under WP:RECENT to me. Is this really necessary? I appreciate theres a back-story around the ALM moving the grand final game for the next few years to Sydney, but it would seem that there is sufficient coverage of this topic in the Melbourne Derby (A-League Men) article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s pretty line ball (more legitimate than many of the articles for specific ALM “rivalries” which seem to be multiplying). Agree that this information could equally be included in the general derby article. WP:SPORTSEVENT sums it up pretty well:

”Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.”

Macosal (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Are 'Cupset' sections relevant for Australia Cup or similar knockout cup articles?

Ive reverted a deletion of a section on Cupsets at the Australia Cup article, but throwing this open to a wider audience as there was little discussion at that article's Talk Page (just the reverter and one other). Notable or fancruft? Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's at least link to the other discussion to avoid repetition - Talk:Australia Cup#Cupsets. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

youth development contracts

Brisbane Roar signed eight players at the beginning of the season and recently Ayom Majok as "youth development contracts". The question is are these counted as senior contracts (scholarships?) and should be listed in the main squad, transfers, etc., or are these youth players for the NPL squad and only feature in the A-League when promoted to fill holes and then shouldn't be in main squad etc.? Pinging Ausfootballfan who noticed this discrepancy. --SuperJew (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like we finally have the answer! Brisbane today announced the promotion of Nikolovski and Majok to scholarship deals so “youth development agreements” must be youth team players Ausfootballfan (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes was going to post this when I saw it (but you were quicker haha). --SuperJew (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability of articles on squads for 'minor' invitational tournaments

I dont consider the level of notability is there to support a separate 2019 Cup of Nations squads article split off the 2019 Cup of Nations article. It is not a major tournament like a World Cup or Olympics. Posting here rather than going straight to AfD process. Thoughts? Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur Clifton9 (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's too much to have on the main article, and also topically most of the time users go into the article page, they won't be interested in the squads so should be on a separate page. --SuperJew (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the convention to include squads for friendly international tournaments (either as standalone articles or within the primary article)? I wouldn’t necessarily have thought so and can’t find many examples of either. Macosal (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

plenty of squad pages. look at my user page you can see all the ones I worked on in WOSO. --SuperJew (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I highly doubt any of the standalone squad articles for friendly international tournaments which last a week or less would survive an AFD. It’s an unnecessary level of detail and not sufficiently noteworthy information. Macosal (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Player of the Season for each club

Seeing as there are a limited amount of "end of season awards" pages for the clubs (Roar, Vuck, Glory, Nix), I decided to add the winners of each club's "Player of the Season" award. Do you guys think this is worth adding to previous ALM pages and to the ALW pages? On the other hand should the individual club pages above be kept and if yes, should we create new pages for the rest of the clubs? --SuperJew (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I have always thought that the individual "end of season awards" club awards articles (e.g., Perth, Brisbane, Wellington articles linked above) probably go beyond what is necessary and lean towards WP:FANCRUFT, while standalone "Player of the Year" awards lists seem to strike a better balance and there seems to be a consensus that these are appropriate for inclusion (see e.g., Category:Football player of the year awards in England by club). While I don't know how I feel about including all club's player of the season award winners in each league season article, I think the club awards could certainly be included in each club's individual season article (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons#Awards). Macosal (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

A-League Templates (Women & main)

Looking to expand the women's section here. Just looking at the clubs templates. For example:

As the template clearly has multiple links to women's articles is there much need for use of such templates like this on the main page:

Obviously in those sections, we would be looking to clean up the women's main by added a links to related articles ala the men's page. Once this is done should we deleting the women's templates?

Whilst we are discussing templates, can something be done about the colour scheme of these said Sydney FC templates. It appears there is a standard colour for Sydney FC templates (template:Sydney FC/colour - 87CEEB) though this has been changed on the main template and no other templates. The note of said template is for consensus to be formed before changing this. Should we change this template to #62a8da as it appears on the main template? Hope that makes sense — Eccy89 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Johnny Warren

So as I was working on sourcing the Johnny Warren Medal page, I noticed this page by Football Australia. Is it just me or does it look like they copypasted it from the wiki page? And would this be a legit source to use on Wikipedia if I can't find anything else for the NSL awards? --SuperJew (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I found this general source anyway which seems more original anyways. So the question of sourcing is less of an issue and the post is more to laugh together at Football Australia :) --SuperJew (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

haha, good catch @SuperJew. The awards sections seem a bit messy (especially the women's) so thanks for trying to clean this up. I'm wondering whether we need a Dolan-Warren Awards page that both the A-League Men and Women articles will link to. I haven't put to much thought into this but when I do, I'll be looking if there are any sources that make it worthwhile. — Eccy89 (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the pages should be merged. They are presented jointly, but it is still separate competitions. --SuperJew (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously also the history of the awards have been going on for far longer than them being held concurrently anyway. Thanks for the thoughts, that's one less think to think about! Just looking at main pages of A-League Men and A-League Women, there are no comments on end of season awards. Would probably just worth a small paragraph and a link on the main pages in that case anyway. — Eccy89 (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea :) --SuperJew (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

National Women's Soccer League clubs

Over the last few months I have been trying to create and expand articles relating to the old Womens National Soccer League which ran between 1994-2004. It's quite difficult as their isn't much information really around the league as a whole. I'm finding news articles hard to come by from the period. Anybody able to assist? Nath1991 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Might be worth searching Trove - good, searchable range of old Aussie newspapers etc. as well as archived webpages from that time. Macosal (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Internet Archive has a bunch of old Australian soccer resources.[11] Hack (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Cheers guys. Those I'm sure will be very helpful and useful. Nath1991 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Australian clubs in continental football

So we have the article Australian soccer clubs in the AFC Champions League (just updated it for current ACL). The question I think we need to ask now is should we expand it to include the AFC Cup too following the debut of Australian clubs in the competition? (and of course change the article name if so) --SuperJew (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Well this isn't getting much info (any). I'll put in my initial thought (which I realise now I didn't). My thought is that since the the debut in the AFC Cup, Australia still has 3 teams in continental football, I would include the AFC cup on the page (and change the name). Anybody have any other thoughts? Pending further comments I will make the change over this week/next week. --SuperJew (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that’s the right approach (see e.g., English football clubs in international competitions). At some point we may need to consider whether a game-by-game summary remains appropriate (WP:NOTSTATS) Macosal (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think firstly the example you brought should consider as the full record appears there and it ranges from the 1950s ;) --SuperJew (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t list all the matches though, just all the seasons (for obvious reasons - it’d be several hundred matches). Macosal (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Look at the section Full European record for English league clubs (besides the point anyways) --SuperJew (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless I’m missing something, it looks like that shows each club’s last game of the season in each season’s comp, not all of them? Macosal (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Now that you say that and I'm looking closer, you are correct. Odd choice to display imo and unclear for the casual reader. --SuperJew (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Done here. --SuperJew (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I see we also have Australian soccer clubs in international competitions. I don't think we need both - looks like a good merge candidate? Macosal (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Australia Cup A-League playoff round

Can someone tell me why again the A-League playoffs are ridiculously placed between the 7th Round and the Round of 32? This incorrectly implies that the 21 or 22 member federation qualifiers all have byes through this round.

Additionally, by the time most NPL clubs have joined the competition in the 4th Round, the fixtures currently show the following (as of the 2022 article)...

Round	Fixtures	Increase/Decrease From Previous Round		Round	Fixtures	Increase/Decrease From Previous Round
Currently				Proposed
4th Round	168 fixtures	Decreases		4th Round	168 fixtures	Decreases
5th Round	88 fixtures	Decreases		5th Round	88 fixtures	Decreases
6th Round	44 fixtures	Decreases		6th Round	44 fixtures	Decreases
7th Round	22 fixtures	Decreases		7th Round	24 fixtures	Decreases
Playoff Round	2 fixtures	Decreases
Round of 32	16 fixtures	Increases		Round of 32	16 fixtures	Decreases
Round of 16	8 fixtures	Decreases		Round of 16	8 fixtures	Decreases

By including these matches in the Seventh Round, they are back to being listed alongside the other fixtures that directly lead winners into the Round of 32. The current system is hard to follow for the uninitiated.

Please, please can we change this insanity?

Signed,
The WikiGnome who meticulously does most the work on these articles anyway. 01:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's part of the 7th round though. Winners of 4th advance to 5th, winners of 5th to 6th, winners of 6th to 7th. The A-League play-off round participants are decided via the league positions of previous seasons. It's a different pathway to the Round of 32. --SuperJew (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at it from a different perspective, here.

Akin to how each state has their own parallel competition, the A-League playoffs are indeed parallel with the 7th round fixtures and should be shown as such, these are my thoughts why...

• We've placed all states pathways together, despite how a team from NSW and a team from WA will never meet in the 7th Preliminary Round, ditto that an NSW A-League team will not meet an WA member club - The matches are at the same level, so we should show them as such - why are the A-League fixtures different?

• If their direct pathway causes an issues, then surely we should show the A-League only fixtures that we had in the early FFA Cups (when it was manufactured that there would be an NPL team in the semis) themselves a different pathway into the semi-final?

• The default position of the A-League teams is to enter the round BEFORE the Round of 32. The teams are guaranteed of this position. They ONLY qualify for the Round of 32 spot by finishing in the top 8 positions - J man708 (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have another point to bring up to your response, SJ. If "Winners of 4th advance to 5th, winners of 5th to 6th, winners of 6th to 7th", then why are NPL clubs entering in the 4th round not considered a different pathway to member clubs, who enter in Round 1? They enter later in the tournament, so is that a different pathway? Of course it's not. What about the multiple occasions where the Victorian State League 1 teams have been able to enter a different round because they finished 6th or above the previous season? We're ignoring this, but showing it for the A-League clubs.

It's incredibly stupid looking, showing two matches in their own private round, when those matches are parallel with all the other matches in the 7th round! ALL are matches that have the winner progress to the Round of 32, ergo they are 7th round matches. - J man708 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason this issue arises is because the entire way the above table (and the "preliminary rounds" articles) is structured is WP:OR. I don't believe there is a single WP:RS which uses the above "first" to "seventh" round naming conventions, except potentially those states which do have seven preliminary rounds. It's inherently misleading to ascribe a unified structure across all states when the reality is that these are independent competitions which do not share a unified structure. Consistently with how these rounds are dealt with in third party sources, I'd have thought it was relatively clear that these articles should be broken down by each member federation in turn rather than trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Macosal (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not OR. After the first FFA Cup in 2014, the 2015 had a shitload of FFA "let's make all the final round qualifiers Round 7" information. Naturally, a lot of that information since then has 404'd since then, but here is an example of it and here is another.

Something that is overlooked with your suggestion, Mac, is that changing it to be state on state... Whose actually going to put the effort in to do that and back date each seasons' article? Me? Helllll no - I'm not putting in hours and hours of edits, implementing changes I don't want for continuity I do want. This is 100% why the 2023 article is incomplete, because I haven't done what I've done every year previously. That's what shits me about this project. People who don't lift a fucking finger (not saying you, Mac) get to vote for these wide sweeping changes, but only care for now onwards and don't put in any work making old articles match, which makes our older articles look ridiculous in comparison.

• Prime example - A guy chucked a massive hissy fit, all over the lack of inclusion of red on the Melbourne City icon. His complaints continued for a solid week over it, after being told countless times that they are created from the club's general kit colours, then complained about the icons being on there in the first place. From that season onwards, the icons have disappeared from the map of A-League teams. He never gave a shit that it completely fucked any form of continuity all purely because he had a vendetta against the icons not showing exactly what he wanted. That's why the icons have disappeared from the articles after Melbourne City bought out the terribly named Melbourne Heart. - This is why we can't have nice things.

That's also beside the point nonetheless, the point still stands being whether the A-League matches which at the same level as the Round 7 qualifiers belong with the other Round 7 fixtures. As I've said, I feel like the only person who actually goes through and fixes these articles. For as long as they show this A-League play-off match info as its own (Clearly incorrect) individual round, then I really cannot be fucked updating a page that I now feel no interest in, purely thanks to the decisions made by people who barely actually lift a finger on it make. - J man708 (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

From your description, it sounds like the 7 round nomenclature was something that FFA used for a time but never caught on - and certainly is not used regularly if at all in reliable, third party sources that I have seen. I would say with near 100% confidence that no source (primary, independent or otherwise) has ever referred to the A-League Playoff Games as a "round 7" FFA Cup preliminary round game. This is WP:NOTAVOTE - it's about doing what is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines (WP:V/WP:OR). On that basis, I don't know how you can say that showing that round as standalone or self-contained is "clearly incorrect" in any way.

I'm also not necessarily suggesting that anyone (yourself included) has to go back and change every previous season to align with what I'm suggesting - I'm just putting forward what appears (quite clearly) to me to be the most natural way of structuring these pages, especially going forwards, based on readability and how this information is represented by third party sources. While consistency between seasons is nice, I don't think that should mean that we must continue doing something only because we have done in the past which is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines (and which was reflective of some sources at the time).

I'm not across the particular icon debate you refer to (and I was always strongly against those unexplained icons, being pure WP:ICONDECORATION), but that's a good example of making a change for consistency with WP guidelines, not continuing doing something which goes against those guidelines purely for consistency with what was done beforehand. Macosal (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Macosal:, sorry dude. Didn't see this reply until now. We absolutely should use the pre-existing information about Round 7 being the last qualifying round, as that was the confirmed information given to us for those years. From that point onwards, it's not WP:OR to suggest that those same matches happening in those same positions, but of later years are of anything other than the same round as their predecessors. Hell, from memory there was only one reference to dates in the Harry Potter series, but from that it was worked out specifically which year all the characters were born and what the dates were of certain events due to calculating backwards. Would this be considered OR as well?

I know that you're not suggesting that I do it, but it has become abundantly clear that nobody else will do the WikiGnome work behind fixing these pages and bringing them up to scratch. The way I see it is, it would be OR to go AGAINST the sources we had of years gone by. We can push for things to become more like the guidelines and topics, but by doing that, we do create more work that clearly won't be done bringing these older articles up to scratch. But, nonetheless, this isn't exactly what this topic is about.

For me, it's a no brainer that ALL matches of which the winner goes into the Round of 32 are to be within the 7th Round. This doesn't matter if it A-League teams in an A-League only match, or a NPL only match - all that matters is that the winner goes through to the Round of 32... If it looks like a 7th Round game, operates like a 7th Round game, provides a Round of 32 entrant like a 7th Round game and quacks like a 7th Round game, then it's a duck. - J man708 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Brisbane Roar or Queensland Lions link?

I've always been stumped on how to determine which link to use for the club known as Brisbane Lions during their time in national competition (1977-1988). I've seen them used as "Queensland Lions FC" to link Brisbane Lions, before I started relinking them to "Brisbane Roar FC" since it was the same club that had joined the A-League then. However since Queensland Lions returned to local football in 2008, and acted as a re-formation of the Hollandia club, I also have part reasons to believe it should also be linked to "Queensland Lions FC". It's difficult to understand the correct link to use since both clubs have the same history of the Brisbane Lions era (1957-2004).

This also raises a question on whether Brisbane Roar lists such as players, seasons, etc. should include their history before 2005 or not, as Brisbane Roar again has the same history as Queensland Lions despite first competing in the A-League instead of the competitions that Hollandia/Brisbane/Queensland Lions played back then.

"Brisbane Roar FC" or "Queensland Lions FC"? FastCube (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's got much coverage in reliable sources but the way it seems to have worked is that the Lions dropped out of the state league to become the Roar. After the ownership of the Roar changed, the Lions organisation entered a new team in the state league. This is how the Roar describe their history, "From humble beginnings, Brisbane Roar was first established in 1957 by a group of Dutch immigrants in Richlands. Founded as Hollandia Inala, the club became known as Queensland Lions before becoming Brisbane Roar from 2005." The Lions describe it a little differently, "At the end of the 2004 season, Queensland Lions withdrew from the local Senior Mens competition, as the club’s efforts and energies were concentrated on attaining a place in the new national football competition. History records that successful result, and the team now known as Brisbane Roar FC was accepted into the Hyundai A-League for the inaugural 2005/06 season. The Premier Youth team remained in the local football league, and after a break of 3 years, Queensland Lions returned to the local Senior Mens competition, fielding teams in Brisbane Premier League and Reserves (as well as Under 18’s) for the 2008 season onwards." It's not quite Brunswick Juventus levels of confusing but the two organisations seem to both be claiming the NSL club. Hack (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting question FastCube. I think part of the reason you are stumped is that when you look at both articles of Brisbane Roar FC and Queensland Lions FC, neither of them really go into detail of the NSL/BPL exploits. Certainly BRFC pre-ALeague history has the "see also" to Lions FC but then there are no details at that page. As there aren't any Queensland Lions FC player or seasons lists, I think the way it is setup at the moment just fine. The way I always understood the history of it was that the consortium running the Lions won the bid to join the A-League but changed its name to the Roar. Then due to financial constraints sold the club and re-started a new club with old the name. Whether or not that also means they bought the rights to the history of the club (like what a lot of phoenix clubs do), I have no idea. All this to say, as the articles aren't fleshed out for that era, I don't think it really matters. If someone were to flesh it out, in say the Lions page then we'd probably need to discuss moving seasons/players lists etc. but if fleshed out in Roar page and then noting for any information re:new Lions club would probably suffice. Eccy89 (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources about Isabel Hodgson

Does anyone have any good sources about Isabel Hodgson? Off-line would be great too. I found online this and this. --SuperJew (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the word "season" be attached to league season title names?

I've had this question in consideration for quite some time now: shouldn't our national league seasons have the word 'season' attached to the title? (e.g. 1988 National Soccer League season), as per WP:WikiProject Football/League season, where if the season is decided by a knock-out tournament after the conclusion of the regular season (e.g. Major League Soccer, Australian A-League), the word "season" should be attached to the title, it should have 'season' attached to it? Or I have I missed a previous discussion or sense in declining this? FastCube (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay so I have now found out that there was a discussion in the decline of this change at Talk:2018–19 A-League#Requested move 17 March 2019. I'm not sure that the true verdict was towards the end, but since it hasn't changed I assume it was declined. Although there was a mention that the guideline of "If there are two separate championships played over the course of one season (for example, in many Latin American countries with their Apertura/Clausura system) OR the season is decided by a knock-out tournament after the conclusion of the regular season (e.g. Major League Soccer, Australian A-League), the word "season" should be attached to the title." at WP:WikiProject Football/League season might have been changed/removed via a talk of it, it has still not been moved and the fact it still mentions "Australian A-League", I still strongly believe it should be changed because of this standing rule, seasons WITHOUT play-offs (e.g. 2022–23 Premier League NOT having the word "season"), seasons WITH play-offs (e.g. 2023 Major League Soccer season having the word "season), and even with footy seasons (e.g. 2023 AFL season and 2023 AFL finals series having been split because of play-offs), and yet A-Leagues that do have play-offs are still yet to have changed to have "season" attached to it. FastCube (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

As I questioned many times in the original discussion you linked, what is the actual reason/value of adding the word "season"? (note: the answer is not "because the guideline says so") What is the difference between a league season with play-offs and between a league season without play-offs that necessitates adding sesaon to the first but not to the second? --SuperJew (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's because seasons with play-offs would have two separate articles (one for regular season like 2022 Major League Soccer season, and one for play-offs like 2022 MLS Cup Playoffs) hence the distinguishing to have one article for "season" and one for "finals". The same outcome in question also relates to Australian sports as well, like the AFL and NRL (e.g. 2022 AFL season / 2022 AFL finals series and 2022 NRL season / 2022 NRL finals series. This is what the outcome is when there are two separate championships. Even if we don't have finals articles for any of our national league seasons yet, I believe both H&A and finals articles are both notable for this reason alone, especially when finals/play-offs are an Australian sports' tradition and when AFL/NRL use this style of distinguishing two separate championships. FastCube (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If there were separate articles for the A-League playoffs, that could be an appropriate reason. However in 18 seasons of A-Leagues, we don't have them, and I don't think they garner enough coverage by themselves to be eligible for separate articles. --SuperJew (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm yeah I wish they were that notable. I thought they can be notable enough based on the existence of the AFL and NRL finals articles. Although even if it might be tough gathering enough info for A-Leagues separate articles for finals, sections like qualification, format, venues, matches, top scorers, etc, are usually what is notable enough for a general football cup article), similiar to a league finals series article like the AFL and NRL have. So maybe they can pass that notability, but yeah at the same time likely not. FastCube (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Information displayed on Australian soccer clubs in continental competitions

Matilda Maniac recently updated the "Top scorers" section of the article, and made the decision to list the Asian Champions League and the AFC Cup goals separately since (his words) i decided to split the Champions League from the AFC Cup as they are separate competitions and more importantly different quality competitions, so Túlio's efforts are not the same as Berisha's in a better competition. Dare I say "not in the same league" As I said to MM, I see the merit in this, as the competitions are indeed different levels (as the Aussies' performances show). However, I think if we do that, we need to split all the information. Currently, the stats by club and stats by opponents league are all for both competitions. If we say the info should be separate, then it should be for that too. If the info is for all continental competitions, then also the goalscorers should be together. Also, if it is split like now, how to deal in future with players who score in both competitions? What do editors think? --SuperJew (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that the goals should be divided as MM edit reflects. Though I am not sold on the "performance by year" aesthetic. I can see by the references that it would be easier to do it this way currently though. For players scoring in both competitions they should just be listed that way (i.e. in the corresponding competition). The stats by opponents league are fine to keep as is, as they are from that particular league (you can judge the quality of opposition by it's national league if you so desire). I would probably like to see the stats by season divided into two lines (one for ACL, one for AFC Cup). As for the stats by club, I think it would be useful to add the columns "Qualified for ACL" and "Qualified for AC" as a quick indicator. (Yes, I'm aware it says it in the section above, but this is to make the table easier to read - and to help differentiate quality as this is what the debate is around).

Side tangent – I know currently we have the games by club section, but maybe it would be cleaner to list it by year (compare each clubs performance by the year) - can then direct to the clubs performance in international competition page (or section on their main page as that is where the table is taken, e.g. Central Coast Mariners FC#Continental record — Eccy89 (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Aus club navigational boxes dilemma

So with the templates of Australian soccer clubs (e.g. Template:Adelaide United FC), not sure they should contain both men and women navigational links, or have the women info in a seperate one like Template:Adelaide United FC (A-League Women). Some navboxes like Template:Arsenal F.C. or Template:FC Barcelona have both men and women, and don't have separate women navboxes. Since we already have navboxes for A-League Women teams, do we agree to close them and mix the info with the original navbox compiled with both men and women links, or keep them in separate navboxes? Personally I think if they are the same club, and some women links won't be too much in a separate navbox, I think the better option is to combine both in the one navbox. But I want to make sure this is an all-clear thing to do before making any specific change. FastCube (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Coming back to this (and still hoping someone talks about it); originally what comes to mind is combining the men's and women's info, as the navbox is simply representing the club in question, as does many others like Template:Arsenal F.C. or Template:FC Barcelona. I've also seen other Australian sports club navboxes with men and women info in the one navbox as well. I only revamped and split the info of some of the ALW club navboxes like I did with Template:Adelaide United FC (A-League Women) and Template:Melbourne City FC (A-League Women), since they already existed and looked like a bit of a mess. Although, what makes sense is one club navbox. FastCube (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@FastCube: @SuperJew: @J man708: @Matilda Maniac: @Macosal: @Hack:

Great question FastCube. I would definitely be in favour of merging the two. Template:Sydney FC is already merged but then the ladies one is still there. I think as they are the same club it makes one of templates redundant. I'm not 100% the way the Arsenal template example provided is styled perfectly but I think it's a good enough job. Again if you put this to a vote, I would be sticking my hand up for Merge. Eccy89 (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge for me seems the most logical outcome. Matilda Maniac (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Bulls FC Academy

I need someone with a bit more know how to fix up the Bulls FC Academy page. They have re-branded from Northbridge FC to Bulls FC Academy, and the page needs a lot of work. I gave it a go but I'm not at that level yet. It needs a LOT of work if someone could help. Matt jobe watson (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Wyndham City Stadium / Wyndham Regional Football Facility split

Can the two stadiums of Wyndham City Stadium and Wyndham Regional Football Facility be split into two different articles? Granted they are both in the same particular area, but they are two separate venues. FastCube (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

2024–25 in Australian soccer

Article has been created for the next season but isn't able to survive yet due to lack of references and content. It can be added to at Draft:2024–25 in Australian soccer. Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)