Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169: 7 days

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

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

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

Repeated edits (continuos)

Hello here, excuse-me, despite discusions here and at articles talk page, he has done it again almost the same edit, please somebody intervene and explain him... 217.21.153.82 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop your edit-warring. I have placed warnings on both your user talk pages. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only didn't noticed that, I only did a total revert, thanks for collaborations 217.21.153.82 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Following consensus reached with previous disputing user, now another dispute it's happening with an ip user: he pretends that Serbia national football team couldn't take to account stats. of former Yugoslavia national football team. See edit history. 217.21.153.82 (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McGarry/David Woodfield in Saudi Arabia

The Bill McGarry article says he was manager of Saudi Arabia between 1976 and 1977, and then became Newcastle manager from 1977 to 1980. This says that David Woodfield became assistant to McGarry at Newcastle, but makes no mention of Saudi Arabia. This suggests that Woodfield moved to Qatar in 1978 and was involved with Saudi Arabia, with/under McGarry, at the 1979 Gulf Cup of Nations. The chronology therefore does not tally up. Can anyone help me unthread it? Options include:

Was Woodfield involved with McGarry at Saudi Arabia before Qatar in 1978? and/or
Was Woodfield the manager of Saudi Arabia in 1979, with no involvement from McGarry? This suggests that Woodfield that could be the case. Woodfield is mentioned at Saudi Arabia national football team#Coaching history but not at {{Saudi Arabia national football team managers}}.

Giant Snowman 22:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only have a tangential comment for now: Due to less commitment in international football, it was more common back then to be able to handle both a club and a national team (in some capacity) at the same time. Geschichte (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woodfield was a coach under McGarry in Saudi Arabia and was later the Saudi manager for the 1979 Gulf Cup. Hack (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season

1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picture related edit war on Christian Volesky

I wanted to highlight some odd editing patterns on Christian Volesky over the last day, as I don't want to continue to be part of any edit warring myself, but action needs to be taken.

On April 29th, a photo of Volesky was added to the infobox and it remained for a few days. Then starting on May 3rd an IP user made multiple edits to remove the infobox photo without an explanation, to which another user and myself reverted the edits for what seemed like vandalism. After that, a second IP address edited the article to remove the image and caption again. I reverted the article back again, and then a newly created user account, Special:Contributions/EliSli deleted the infobox image with "picture, not playing" as their summary and in the next edit added their own image directly to the article in the intro, rather than the infobox. After this I made some edits to restore the previous infobox photo and move the newly added photo to the main article text. After this a third IP address made an edit to delete the infobox photo with "Not playing" as the summary. Finally EliSli made their third edit to the article, which was to add their photo to the lead of the article despite it being present already in the main body.

If the "action" photo should be in the infobox, please let me know, but this situation has gotten a bit over the top. Christiangamer7 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Christiangamer7: I moved the "action" image into the infobox, removed it from the article as redundant, and warned the registered account about edit warring. Hopefully that is the end of it. Should it continue, I would recommend taking it to WP:ANEW, but please {{ping}} me if you do so I can add a comment. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the IP's defense, the previous photo is one of the worst infobox pictures I have seen (maybe on par with this one). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Nehme. The 'action' shot is much better as it actually shows his whole face. I cropped it to remove a bunch of the empty space. RedPatch (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out WP:FOOTYN

Despite the tag marking this as a historical, this is still being cited in discussions as if it still existed. I therefore propose that we comment out (i.e. ) the entire content and just leave the tag. If people then want to see what the guideline used to look like, they can edit the page to show it. Geschichte (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will this make any difference to people citing it? Hiding it seems to be a bad idea: if you want to move it create a subpage and link to it, or just remove outright. Spike 'em (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-post from WT:SEASONS as I imagine it will get more visibility here.......

How come WP:SEASONS#Featured articles includes some of the articles on individual matches which have reached FA status but not all? For example, 1927 FA Cup final is listed but 1923 FA Cup final (also an FA) is not. I presume it's down to incorrect tagging of the articles, but which are tagged incorrectly - the ones listed there or the ones not listed there? I imagine it's the former, as the 1925 FA Cup final was not a season...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Scope section at WP:SEASONS seems to suggest that cup final articles should be tagged. Sounder Bruce 08:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]