Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

AFC Bournemouth

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

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

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

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

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

Callum Stewart missing games

Callum Stewart - the career stats table I have put together has 71 games, 37 goals - but Leamington FC has 74 games, 37 goals. Any idea what the missing games are? NB the Aylesbury source suggests 7 Cup games in 2023-24, but unless I have missed something that appears to include 1 FA Cup game where he was an unused substitute (on 16 September 2023). GiantSnowman 15:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Per Aylesbury, 2023/24 should have 2 playoff apps not 1. The missing 2 from 24/25 would be cup apps that Soccerway doesn't cover – early rounds of FA Cup, or any round of Birmingham Senior Cup – which would need sourcing individually. It's good to have a club-based total to check against, at least you know how many apps/goals you're looking for. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks re:playoff - my browser must be unable to scroll that far on the apps breakdown pop-up! GiantSnowman 17:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Francesco Palmieri – help with page moving, disambiguation

Hi folks. Francesco Palmieri is currently about a former goalkeeper born in 1975. I'd like create an article about a former footballer of the same name who played as a forward and was born in 1967 (Worldfootball profile). I'd say the latter is slightly more notable but probably not a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

What would be the proper way of going about this? I'm thinking:

• Move the current article to Francesco Palmieri (footballer, born 1975).
• Create a new article at Francesco Palmieri (footballer, born 1967).
• Turn Francesco Palmieri into a disambiguation page.

Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If you create the 1967 new article, ping me and I'll do the rest. I can't move it without the second article. GiantSnowman 19:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, GS. I've created the article. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The first article is now at AFD, so I should not move it. I will if it is kept. GiantSnowman 21:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Input regarding Europa League and Conference League qualifying articles

Matches by round									Proposed split
Comp.	Season	PR	Q1	Q2	Q3	PO	Total		Up to Q2	Q3+PO
UEL	2009–10	—	46	80	70	76	272		126	146
	2010–11	—	52	80	70	74	276		132	144
	2011–12	—	50	80	70	76	276		130	146
	2012–13	—	74	80	58	62	274		154	120
	2013–14	—	76	80	58	62	276		156	120
	2014–15	—	78	80	58	62	278		158	120
	2015–16	—	102	66	58	44	270		168	102
	2016–17	—	96	66	58	44	264		162	102
	2017–18	—	100	66	58	44	268		166	102
	2018–19	14	94	92	72	42	314		200	114
	2019–20	14	94	92	72	42	314		200	114
	2020–21	8	47	46	35	21	157		157 (fewer b/c COVID)
UECL	2021–22	—	66	108	64	44	282		174	108
	2022–23	—	60	106	64	44	274		166	108
	2023–24	—	62	106	64	44	276		168	108
	2024–25	—	50	98	60	48	256		148	108

I've been reviewing past Europa League articles and noticed significant inconsistencies in how qualifying articles are structured. This issue emerged after the UEFA Cup was renamed to the Europa League in 2009–10 (following its absorption of the Intertoto Cup). The number of qualifying/play-off matches increased substantially to typically 260–280 per season, a pattern which carried over to Conference League with its introduction in 2021–22. The large number of matches creates technical issues with the post-expand include size due to the number of templates and references required. Articles containing more than ~200 matches become too cumbersome due to template size limitations.

Following a 2018–19 format change (discussed here and here), match reports were split into sub-articles like 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round (Main Path) and 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round (Champions Path). General qualifying information (entrants, draws, seeding, top scorers) remained in main articles like 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round. However, the Champions Path is significantly smaller than the Main Path, so this created imbalanced articles. For example, the 2021–22 Conference League had 38 matches in the Champions Path versus 244 in the Main Path. Therefore, the Main Path articles still face template size issues.

Further inconsistencies arose when some Europa League qualifying articles (between the 2010 and 2015 seasons) had the play-off rounds split into separate articles (e.g., 2013–14 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and 2013–14 UEFA Europa League play-off round). While this addresses technical constraints, it doesn't allow for comprehensive coverage on qualifying in a single article.

Currently, we have three inconsistent approaches:

• Articles split by path
• Articles split by qualifying/play-off rounds
• Combined articles (e.g., 2014–15 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round)

I propose standardizing the structure across all seasons by splitting out the match reports into two articles as follows:

• Preliminary (if applicable), first and second qualifying rounds
• Third qualifying round and play-offs

This approach would resolve template size issues and maintain a more balanced number of match reports between articles, while also avoiding excessive sub-articles for each round.

Regarding article titles: while the Champions/Europa/Conference League articles currently use "qualifying phase and play-off round" to describe qualification, UEFA itself uses "qualifying" to refer to all rounds before the competition proper (for example: [1] [2] [3] [4]). Therefore, for my proposed split, I suggest article titles in a format such as:

• 2024–25 UEFA Conference League qualifying
  • 2024–25 UEFA Conference League qualifying (first and second round matches)
  • 2024–25 UEFA Conference League qualifying (third and play-off round matches)

I've prepared a table on the right showing the number of matches by season and how they would be divided under this proposal. Thoughts? Also pinging Stevie fae Scotland and Island92, frequent contributors to these articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason to change. The current split by paths is widely accepted, only for the template size issues to happen. This should be fixed. Splits by paths are the more logical solution. Island92 (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

But I dot not insist whatever solution might be approved. Island92 (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that splitting by paths is the most logical but it doesn't solve the problem. S.A. Julio's proposal fits with WP:SPLIT to an extent as it is splitting off sections. What is the limit in terms of number of matches? 200 is the most per page in the proposal so does that mean it wouldn't exceed the post-expand include size? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Yes, if an article contains just match reports, around 200 matches seems to still work reasonably. Too many more starts to cause issues with the post-expand include size. The article 2024–25 UEFA Conference League qualifying phase and play-off round (Main Path) can't even use proper citation templates due to the template size limit, while the proposed change would alleviate the issue. Also, the problem with splitting by path is that it does not work for the 2009–10 to 2017–18 seasons, which also face template size issues. I'm open to other suggestions, but this seems like the most balanced/consistent approach. This is somewhat akin to List of The Simpsons episodes, which uses an arbitrary split into two sub-lists due to technical size limitations. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like that is probably the best scenario then. Might not be how we'd do it in an ideal world but it works with the technical limitations available. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

What happens template wise if we split out the play-off round? (Unfortunate the UEFA higher ups didn't think of our template restrictions when they expanded all this stuff.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: If we take the 2024/25 Conference League as an example, that would be 208 matches for the qualifying rounds and 48 for the play-offs. Which is not much of an improvement from the status quo of 226 on the Main Path article and 30 for the Champions Path. Alternatively we could split each round into a sub-article, but I think that would be too many pages... S.A. Julio (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Question About Espérance Sportive de Tunis Importance Rating in african football

hello I wanted to ask about something that’s been on my mind, i noticed that Espérance Sportive de Tunis has been given a low importance rating in African football, and I find that a bit surprising aactually because this is a club that along with Al Ahly, is almost always present in the Champions League CAF and holds several records at the continental level. Given its history and consistent performance, I would have expected a higher rating.

I d suggest considering an adjustment to mid or high importance, depending on what you think is most appropriate

Thank you

-- EL major (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Have you checked it against the importance scale? If you think it meets a higher level then amend it. Spike 'em (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

yes i do think it meets a higher level... how do i request a change in the importance scale ?

-- EL major (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You can just edit the talk page yourself but I've amended it to Mid for now. Spike 'em (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much

-- EL major (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

B-Class reassessment for Espérance Sportive de Tunis

Hii I would like to request a reassessment of Espérance Sportive de Tunis article to B Class. The article has improved since the last assessment and I believe it meets the B Class criteria

and Here are the areas that have been worked on:

• Added around 60 new references to improve the sourcing
  • Cleaned up the structure by adding headlines and reorganizing sectionss
    • Added new relevant information to make the article more comprehensive
      • Improved the overall flow and order of the content

Could an editor review and reassess its quality?

Thank you

-- EL major (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Contribution request

Please contribute to Talk:Paris Saint-Germain#Requested move 2 January 2025. It's been dragging on for a month and we need more perspectives. Be sure to read the full RM proposal. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the correct link? There's nothing about a RM there and indeed no edits since 2006..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The correct link to the talk page of the club's article is Talk:Paris Saint-Germain FC, but there's no RM recorded there either....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It's probably this discussion - Talk:Paris Saint-Germain Academy#Requested move 2 January 2025. Hack (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Combining stats from different clubs

Hi WikiProject members. Rather than edit warring at Antonín Kinský (footballer, born 2003), coming here for input on whether stats tables in the career statistics section should combine appearances from different clubs under a single total like Old revision of Antonín Kinský (footballer, born 2003). For me this is a faux pas and I'd prefer the total for Vyskov (as he played multiple seasons there) and no total for the club he played just one season for. I looked at featured content of players who spent time on loan at multiple clubs, e.g. Shaun Brisley, and there is no such combined total in the stats section. Thanks, C679 13:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Mabbs001's changes to the table are in violation of our manual of style at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players which is the result of many discussions and which reflects current Wikipedia:Consensus. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Summing appearances accross multiple clubs makes no sense, other than in the grand total at the end of table. Spike 'em (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

There's no good reason to sum the totals for that player's loan spells at Vyškov and Pardubice. – PeeJay 16:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Assessment of Club Africain

Club Africain had been at Medium on the importance scale until Mejri Fares, a WP:SPA for Espérance Sportive de Tunis articles (the team is also a rival of Club Africain), changed it to Low. I reverted it back to Medium and the importance was again changed back to Low, with an explanation citing the lack of Club Africain's international play. I briefly reverted it a second time with an explanation why I disagreed, but thought better of it, and opened up this topic instead.

This is not my area of expertise in sports, but WP:WPFA lists the team notability for Medium importance as "teams with nationwide notability." Club Africain has been in the highest Tunisian professional league, Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1 for 65 years, and has 13 championships, the second-most in the league, winning one as recently as 2014-2015. They are still a member of the league. While international notability is a stretch, I think national notability is more than established here by the article. But I wanted to raise the question with people with more subject-matter expertise, just in case I'm misinterpreting the football-related importance grading scheme. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, you will note above that the same editor has been enthusiastically requesting input on recent additions to the ES article and has personally changed that article's importance to 'High' after an experienced editor here improved it from 'Low' to 'Mid' two days ago. Crowsus (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I did worry this may turn into a bout of "my team is better than your team" editing. Spike 'em (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I already presented my arguments.

Thank you

-- EL major (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

theres been a misunderstanding , i put it on Mid importance in tunisia it was on low ,and i put it low in africa when it was mid...

i explained why i did that but you didnt, its simple and no i have no affiliation with the club im not even from that country

So stop accusing me please!

Club Africain was on LOW importance in tunisia I changed that to MID and it WAS mid in AFrica and i changed that to LOW and explained why..

-- EL major (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

YOU SAID

This is not my area of expertise in sports, but WP:WPFA lists the team notability for Medium importance as "teams with nationwide notability." Club Africain has been in the highest Tunisian professional league, Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1 for 65 years, and has 13 championships, the second-most in the league

thats true and thats why i changed it to MID it was LOW in tunisia i changed it to MID importance in tunisia because its famous in that country. but you want to keep it as MID in Africa football while this latter is not consistent at all in his participation in african competitions.

You yourself said that teams with "nationwide notability" should be Mid importance exactly why i raised it in tunisia but keeping it Mid in Africa? That doesn t hold up.

I laid out my reasoning, plain and simple

Thanks

-- EL major (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the assessment grades are for within WT:WPF as a whole, not a specific Africa-only football assessment. That's why I requested guidance from editors who are not WP:SPA and have a history of editing constructively in this topic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

yes and it falls under Africa Football because this club is in africa

-- EL major (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)