Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Fourth Place / Colours used to indicate results
I'm slightly curious how the current consensus surrounding the colouring for fourth place results isn't applied and is even put in place to begin with. Colour grading the background for team results makes it easier to read. It doesn't even matter about traditional gold, silver and bronze. Looking at tennis players individual performance timelines for example separate colour grading is applied for results from QF's onwards. Why isn't this the case with football?.

If there is a consensus regarding fourth place results not being colour graded then why isn't it being applied. I've being trying to edit the South Korea at the world cup article but @Snowflake91 keeps reverting. Why doesn't this change apply to any other article? The majority of articles I've come across use colour grading for fourth place teams, why are you only reverting this on one specific article? Xc4TNS (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the consensus at WP:FOOTYCOLOURS is clear. So instead of saying "all other articles are like this", go and delete it then from every other team instad of re-adding it at that specific article. And why exactly should 4th place have blue background, did they receive a blue medal or something? If semifinal should be in blue, then why not also quarterfinals in yellow, round of 16 in green, group stage in pink etc., or why exactly is 4th place / semifinal more special than 8th place / quarterfinal that it would need to be highlighted in colours? Snowflake91  (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It does look like most of the other countries - at least the ones I have spot checked - have blue backgrounds for fourth place for the World Cup. But WP:FOOTYCOLOURS says No colour should be used to represent fourth place unless being used in such a competition where a team/players receive a fourth place award. In this case, specific blue colour should be used. I don't think they hand out fourth place awards at the World Cup? Should these all be removed? SportingFlyer  T · C  11:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes it should, but the IPs would be adding it back with a reasoning "there is a XYZ article that has blue colours", so it would need to be enforced by deleting it from ALL articles and competitions with no exception – unless there are some competitions that actually hand out 4th place medals. No medal = no background colour as there is no reason for it. If semifinals can have blue background, then I see no reason why quarterfinals can't have colours as well, and so on. Snowflake91  (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As above, should not be used. Kante4 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The blue background color has been used for years now. The reason I see is because those teams have played the same amount of games as both finalists. Also, it's way clearer to distinguish results by use of the blue background color. I've added a shade of beige (light brown/yellow-ish) color before, which got reverted to blue again due to uniformity. I don't think it's OK to get rid of all background colors for semi-finalist; as I said before: they have played the same amount of games as both finalists. ProudTarjaholic (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant reason, since when are the background colours decided by the number of matches played? And how exactly will the Euro 2024 semifinalist play the same number of games as the finalist if there is no third-place match at all ? Snowflake91  (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say that's an irrelevant comparison, as both semi-finalist are considered getting the 3rd place by default since 1984...
 * Also, all 4 teams that have reached the semi-finals are mentioned in the tournaments'result tables/templates.
 * And we can all agree it's easier to read, as Cx4TNS mentioned before. ProudTarjaholic (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "as both semi-finalist are considered getting the 3rd place by default since 1984" – Considered by who? Wikipedia users? Cite a source, UEFA doesn't even publish official final rankings, so there are no 3rd/4th/5th/6th etc. teams, only teams eliminated in the semis, quarters, round of 16, or group stage. And no its not easier to read by any means, if anything it creates a distraction for no reason. Snowflake91  (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You might be right about UEFA itself, I too can't find a source for this anywhere (I thought I did in the past).
 * About the discraction; that's your opinion only - so far. Both Cx4TNS and myself think it adds to make it easier to read.
 * How about concensus here then?
 * I suggest to keep it in blue, but not put 'Fourth place' in bold, unlike 1st, 2nd and 3rd... ProudTarjaholic (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Snowflake91 What is the point of there being a rule when the rule isn't being applied? I've tried to revert certain articles but they keep getting changed back. Literally the only article where that rule seems to be applied is the South Korean one. It’s been like this for ages that fourth place backgrounds have been coloured in. We could have this discussion but shouldn't the consensus on wikipedia surround what is applied rather than an arbitrary consensus on a talk page that doesn't seem to be enforced?.

Adding a coloured background technically isn't wrong information. As long as it's labelled I don't see why it matters. As I've mentioned before and what you seemingly ignored is my point about adding a coloured background for quarter final performances too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_performance_timeline_comparison_(men)

This also applies to players' performance timelines on their personal biographies. I don’t know why the Olympic gold, bronze, silver colours should apply to football. But anyway it doesn’t really matter, it’s just a case of making stuff easier to read.--Xc4TNS (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Short-versions of names in intro
For players who use a short version of a name, does it need to be in brackets as the nickname. Ortizesp and I disagree on this on the page Tani Oluwaseyi. Ortizesp believes the "Tani" is needed as it's not a common English nickname, whereas I was of the view that even though Tani is not a regular nickname, it is a short-version of 'Tani'toluwa and easily inferred so writing Tanitoluwa "Tani" is not needed. Just curious about the process, if the short name is easily inferred, do we still need brackets if it's not a common name? Ayo Akinola does not have Ayomide "Ayo", so just trying to find the correct format. (PS. Ortizesp, I'm not trying to invoke any ill-will, just improve my editing for future so I do it correctly. I greatly respect all your work) RedPatch (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Ayo Akinola should have Ayomide "Ayo" in the intro. Any player with a non-English nickname non-common hypocorism should have it in quotation marks as per the footnote at MOS:NICKNAME in the first sentence, which says: "Consider as a "common" hypocorism one that shortens in a conventionalized way, sometimes also with a diminutive suffix added, and which is derived from a name frequently used in English-speaking countries, e.g. Liz, Beth, Lizzy, Bettie, etc., from Elizabeth. If it is not conventional, it is not "common" (e.g. Nifer from Jennifer). Short forms that differ significantly from the name may be non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case. A few such forms are well-known common hypocorisms, such as Bob for Robert and Bill for William, but most are not (e.g. Reba for Rebecca). Assume that most non-English hypocorisms (e.g. Lupita for Guadalupe, Mischa for Mikhail, Sascha for Alexander or Zuzka for Zuzana) are not familiar as hypocorisms to readers of the English Wikipedia, even if well-known in their native culture." Bolded the relevant part.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ortizesp has highlighted a very important point in the MOS. Even if the article title uses the shortened name, we should introduce the player by their full name with the shortened version in quotes or otherwise indicated, such as Ayomide "Ayo" Akinola or Ayomide Akinola, better known as Ayo, then they can be referred by the shortened name throughout the rest of the article. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessary to include "Tani" in the intro. It is plainly obvious that Tani is a shortened version of his first name, Tanitoluwa. {Tanitoluwa Oluwatimilehin Oluwaseyi (born May 15, 2000) is a professional soccer player who plays as a forward for Major League Soccer side Minnesota United.} is your first sentence. You won't find many articles where you need to separate the nickname outside of Brazilian/Portuguese football.--EchetusXe 19:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree here - we do not need this shortened name. GiantSnowman 19:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But that plainly goes against MOS:NICKNAME. Tanitoluwa is plainly not an English name, it is Yoruba. It is not plainly obvious that Tanitoluwa would be shortened as Tani, and not "Tanito", "Tanitolu", or whatever else you could come up with. Same with Ayo Akinola. Look at pages like "Tammy Abraham" or even Tobi Adebayo-Rowling which I think should be changed. Ortizesp (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "David" is not an English name, it is Hebrew. GiantSnowman 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think what everyone means is that knowing the page is called Tani and seeing Tanitoluwa, you can fairly easily figure out 'yeah it's from the first four letters' like Matt coming from Matthew. The "non-English hypocorisms" that the bolded parts refer to are ones where it bears limited/no resemblance to the original name (Lupita for Guadalupe, Mischa for Mikhail, Sascha for Alexander or Zuzka for Zuzana) which is very different than Tanitoluwa using just the first four letters) RedPatch (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But that's beside the point, I don't think it's reasonable to infer that Tani is short for Tanitoluwa, because as mentioned above it's not a familiar hypocorism to most non-Nigerian readers. Even if you could make a backwards inference from seeing a title, it's not common knowledge how many Yoruba names would end up as nicknames. While with the most common hypocorisms in English (Matt to Matthew, Ben to Benjamin, even Dick to Richard) are probably reasonable to know for most English speakers. Notwithstanding that a lot of Nigerian diaspora get nicknames that are not traditional in either Nigeria or their home countries, like Tammy Abraham and Timmy Abraham.Ortizesp (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography linking here to get more input on the subject. RedPatch (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * they can be referred by the shortened name throughout the rest of the article. Irrelevant anyway, since we use surname and not given name to refer to people throughout the rest of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The principle behind MOS:HYPOCORISM is not to include the short form of the name where the connection between the short name in the title and the full name in the lead sentence is obvious. A person named Tanitoluwa going by Tani or Ayomide by Ayo cannot reasonably be expected to cause any confusion to the reader. MOS:HYPOCORISM should be updated to address this case specifically.--Trystan (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the principle behind MOS:HYPOCORISM. Even if someone had an easy name like Monique Johnson had the nickanem "Mo", I'd expect the intro to be Monique "Mo" Johnston because it's not a common nickname in English - even if you can infer Mo is short from Monique. Especially a name like Tanitoluwa, that I don't expect any English speaker that's not Yoruba to be able to shorten reliably without purely guessing. Ortizesp (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the principle behind MOS:HYPOCORISM. The page is already named after the nickname and HYPOCORISM basically says when the nickname can be fairly easily inferred from the name it is not needed. When you go to the page for Tani Oluwaseyi, you already know he goes by Tani since that's what the page is called, and seeing Tanitolowa, you can very easily see that it comes from the beginning of that name. Your argument would make sense if it was reversed and the page was called Tanitolwa Oluwaeyi, then it would make sense to show "Tani" to show that it is a name he uses, that differs from the article title. But since the title uses the short form, it's unnecessary as it's very easily inferred. It's different than a case such as JJ Redick or Bam Adebayo, where it makes no sense where their name comes from, compared to Tani, where it is very easy to see where it comes from. RedPatch (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. If it's clear that the common name is a shortening of the full name then it shouldn't need to be specified. We shouldn't be treating our readers like idiots. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that if the article title uses a short name and the short name is quite clearly a shortened form of the long name, there's no need to show the short name in the opening sentence, regardless of whether it's a common English name or not. Ortiz says a name like Tanitoluwa, that I don't expect any English speaker that's not Yoruba to be able to shorten reliably without purely guessing, but we're not asking readers to guess what the common short form of Tanitoluwa is.  The article title literally has Tani in massive letters and Tani is literally the first four letters of Tanituwola so I would think that most people with a reasonable level of intelligence can deduce from those two facts that he's known as Tani because it's short for Tanituwola...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Where is it clear to you "that if the article title uses a short name and the short name is quite clearly a shortened form of the long name, there's no need to show the short name in the opening sentence"? I see that the short name can be used for common English names, and not for uncommon or non-English names. I think we can all agree that Tanitoluwa is not a common English name. It seems to me like you're stating things out of opinion and not what is actually written down as policy. Ortizesp (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines should be applied using common sense and allowing for exceptions, which entails understanding what the policy or guideline is meant to achieve. They weren't drafted in strict legalistic writing to cover every eventuality, so shouldn't be interpreted as if they were. The point of MOS:HYPOCORISM isn't to arbitrarily privilege certain English names, it is to avoid stating redundant information that is obvious to the reader.--Trystan (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly this. We come to the article knowing he's called Tani. Then we see Tanitolouwa. It's not difficult to put two and two together and figure out that Tani comes from Tanitolouwa. It's the same logic as MOS:INITIALS that says if an article is at J.P. Smith, it should be left as just John Paul Smith, there is no need to put John Paul "J.P." Smith, because it is obvious to the reader that JP comes from John Paul, just like how it is obvious that Tani comes from Tanitoluwa. RedPatch (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * JP Smith is obvious, because initials are commonly used in English. Ask a random English speaker what the nickname for Tanitoluwa is and they won't know the answer, they'll just guess. Like look above, it's obvious that if the header is "Reba" and the persons name is "Rebecca" that Reba is short for Rebecca, but since it's not a common English abbreviation it should be in quotation marks. Ortizesp (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)"
 * How is JP obvious. How from looking at it can you tell from seeing "John Paul Smith" that the person goes by "JP Smith or John Smith", but because we know the person uses JP from the title we can easily infer they are JP because of John Paul. Same as Tani, it's easily inferred that it comes from Tanitolouwa when you know the page is Tani. RedPatch (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (ec with the above) I think when you say Ask a random English speaker what the nickname for Tanitoluwa is and they won't know the answer, they'll just guess you are working backwards somewhat. We are not at any point asking readers to guess what the nickname for Tanitoluwa is.  The article title, which is going to be the first thing they see when they land on the article, already shows them that the player is commonly known as Tani (plus if they are on his article then they have almost certainly either followed a link showing him as Tani or actively searched for him under that name).  Having already seen the article title showing his name as Tani, they are subsequently presented with his full name of Tanitoluwa, at which point anyone with more than two brain cells is going to be able to tell that Tani is short for that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Similary, if an article gives the full name Elizabeth Arpeggio, the reader couldn't guess which (if any) of the many available short forms she goes by, but isn't asked to. We just trust that they won't need explanation how that full name connects to the article title Beth Arpeggio--Trystan (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I don't really see how this page specifically is an exception when there's thousands of pages that follow convention for nicknames on the site. If there's a need for exceptions, they should be built into the policy not just chosen on a whim on a random footballers page. Ortizesp (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is what Trystan said above, it should be build into Hypocorism because it's seems common sense for cases like this. RedPatch (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There is a recommendation to move this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography as a more appropriate place for this discussion, which I agree with, as it deals with wiki policy. Is there a way to transplant the discussion, apart from a copy/paste move? RedPatch (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, since no one has replied for a few days and everyone apart from Ortiz believes adding the Tani is redundant, can I go ahead and remove it? RedPatch (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Coupe de France qualifying
I discovered numerous Coupe de France season articles. According to the articles, over 5000 teams are involved in the qualifying competition, with 153 of those progressing to round 7 in the 2023-24 season. I would like to ask whether the community here believes the articles merit individual pages. Perhaps the 'preliminary rounds' pages as they currently are, such as this one go into sufficient detail. Although these pages look like they may have previously been WP:SPLIT, notability must be established for such pages to be kept. Listing some such pages here - this is not an exhaustive list.


 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Brittany
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Centre-Val de Loire
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Hauts-de-France
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Méditerranée
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Normandy
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Occitanie
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, overseas departments and territories
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Paris-Île-de-France
 * 2021–22 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Pays de la Loire
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Brittany
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Centre-Val de Loire
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Corsica
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Grand Est
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Méditerranée
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Normandy
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Occitanie
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, overseas departments and territories
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Paris-Île-de-France
 * 2022–23 Coupe de France preliminary rounds, Pays de la Loire

Thanks, C679 05:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * tagging you for input since you seem to have created at least some of the above. C679 09:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Because of how minor this stage of the competition is, and how minor the teams are, and the lack of national media attention around this tage, I see this as a pure data/stats repository, violating WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not RSSSF. Geschichte (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. These are the equivalent of the qualifying rounds of the FA Cup and so should be treated as equally notable. National media attention isn't the only media attention or the only attributor to notability and I would be surprised if there wasn't a degree of coverage similar to that of the FA Cup preliminary rounds (the main difference being that the BBC broadcast some preliminary round matches, I'm not aware of this happening in France but would be happily proven wrong). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I created (and subsequently split after previous discussion here) all the pages back as far as 2016-17 (although I could be wrong) and also performed at least 95% of the edits on each page. My thinking is similar to @Stevie fae Scotland above. Each page has also been through NPP to get this far. However, things change and I am happy to go with the consensus (although if it can be decided before I start on this season, that would be my preference - there's approximately 800 hours of work goes into a full set of preliminary round articles each season). Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The amount of work is obvious and commendable, but while it's not hurting anything, I struggle to see what interest matches at this level (12th tier!) would be to almost any readers, and while it may technically pass GNG due to the listing from the local FAs, it's extremely niche. I would say an article for each region with a section for each season, but limited to the last round and any interesting outcomes in the main draw, would be more suitable as this would still provide details of the qualifiers to the main tournament, which is surely the main point of interest, would be a bit easier to find for interested parties than what has ended up being 98 articles going back to 2017, and collating them would give you the option to add extras for each region such as a table for number of qualifications etc. It would essentially be re-presenting the same information as in the 'Preliminary round' overview articles for each season, but as I see you have done 7 seasons already (and part of an 8th) that is a good base for a solid article in each region. Just my own opinion of course. Crowsus (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Catalonia
Hello, I want to make people aware about discussions about the inclusion of Catalonia in certain football articles in the lead sections. The pages User talk:Panenkazo and Talk:Salvador Dalí are the places of discussions going on earlier today. What's more concerning is the scale of damage done by edit warring and how many football players from the region are affected over the past two days. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * At this moment there is a debate on my Talk page about the use of phrases in the definitions in the lead of footballers or people born in Catalonia such as: Lamine Yamal is a Spanish professional footballer from Catalonia. I also defend the inclusion of phrases such as: Lamine Yamal is a Catalan professional footballer from Spain. At no point am I debating the primary nationality or creating a doubt about what nationality he is. I am describing a fact that cannot be refuted or debated: Lamine is Catalan. Catalonia is officially recognized as a nation. In the footballers case, many of them have represented Catalonia. In other cases, such as Pep Guardiola, Josep Carreras or Salvador Dalí, they have publicly defined themselves as Catalans. There is no doubt they are from Catalonia. However, identification or self-identification as a Catalan is a separate issue. Panenkazo (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Some administrators have accepted my reasonings (3 admins). See:, , and . Rollbackers:  Panenkazo (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WHY SCOTTISH PEOPLE YES AND CATALANS NO? See Gerard Butler or Sean Connery lead. Scotland have the same administrative status than Catalonia. Panenkazo (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Scotland is a country (and member of the United Kingdom), whereas Catalonia is a autonomous community of Spain, not a country - hence the difference. Felixsv7 (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Example: Sergi Roberto is a SPANISH footballer. He was born (as well put/written in his early career) in Reus, Tarragona, Catalonia. He is not from Catalonia, he is from Spain. People may identify themselves as Catalan/Basque/Flemish if they wish to do so, all the right in the world, but unless/until those regions are countries in their own right, we must not overelaborate.

Attentively --RevampedEditor (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Surrealist coment. Yes, is from Catalonia. No debate. Panenkazo (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, he's from Catalonia, but Catalonia is part of Spain. It's an autonomous community, sure, but it's not a country. There's no need to overcomplicate it, just because of regional pride. We don't say things like he's an Australian person from Tasmania (for people from Tasmania in Australia), or an American person from New York (for New York in the US) or a Canadian person from Quebec (from Quebec in Canada), etc, for every country. It's an easy standard for wiki, use the country. People in Catalonia have a Spanish passport, because Catalonia is in Spain, hence they are Spanish. Unless Catalonia secedes from Spain and becomes it's own country, they are Spanish, first and foremost. RedPatch (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a debate about which passport everyone has. Catalans do not only live in Catalonia. Catalan is spoken in Andorra, southern France, parts of Italy, etc.. At no time am I advocating to eliminate the term 'Spanish' or 'from Spain'. I am defending the inclusion of the Catalan term. Catalonia is an officially recognized nation and in the past it was an independent country. Not Galicia or Andalusia or the community of Madrid. You have confusing arguments.. Panenkazo (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in the page for Catalonia includes a note that says that the Constitutional Court of Spain rejected their self-identification as a nation. It is an autonomous community, which is a sub-national level of political administration. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are so lost on this topic that you had to read the definition of Catalonia on wikipedia. Regardless of what the Spanish government says, Catalonia was independent in the past. it has its own language, there are 70 references to Catalonia as a nation... I think the debate should not go that way. Panenkazo (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right. How dare I use Wikipedia as a tool for knowledge. I should have just asked Panenkazo. JTtheOG (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But we're not talking about the past, what connection is there between modern footballers and medieval kingdoms? If we were, Francesco Totti would be a Roman footballer (Rome contributed much more as a nation than Catalonia or Spain) and Bobby Charlton would be a Kingdom of Northumbrian footballer. If you're on about languages and ethnicities, would you divide every Indian sportsperson into the thousands of ethnicities and languages in that country? If not, why not? I have a feeling we have a WP:SPA here, and I see evidence of WP:BLUDGEON too. When I saw this user had 300 edits, I never predicted they would all be on this one topic, and all this week. It's kinda of odd how commonly users pop up, turn every footballer into a Basque or Catalan (though never war criminals) and then disappear. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Roman people are extingued.. Catalans no… brilliant coment
 * 2. If you intend to strengthen your "arguments" or make mine weaker based on the number of edits I've made or making predictions about my possible disappearance from wikipedia.. there is no need to comment further on your comments.
 * 3. Personal comments about which nation contributed the most to humanity have no place on wikipedia. You who have 2 million edits and 30 years of experience here should know. Panenkazo (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ,, , WHY SCOTTISH PEOPLE YES AND CATALANS NO? See Gerard Butler or Sean Connery lead. Scotland have the same administrative status than Catalonia. Panenkazo (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Scotland is a country within a country. Catalonia is an autonomous community within a country. JTtheOG (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it true that they are both Scottish and UK citizens? why is there no reference to the uk when they have a uk passport? Panenkazo (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Scotland is its own country. Catalonia is not. As my colleague RedPatch said, there's no need to overcomplicate this in the name of regional pride. It is simply untrue that these two entities enjoy the same status. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * , could not have phrased it better in fewer words! That said, i stop posting here, good luck to all involved. --RevampedEditor (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see Panenkazo sidestepped the point about India. If you were looking up a footballer from India, would you get context by seeing their nationality or their ethnicity first? The same with Nigeria and any other super diverse nation. Nobody ever called Okocha a "Yoruba footballer". Or should we divide the Dutch and French footballers by their ethnicities, because Africans are as real as Catalans, aren't they? I don't see why Catalans as an ethnicity or autonomous area are unique, unless the user thinks they are unique. Unknown Temptation (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's clearly just due to regional pride for this editor wanting to emphasize Catalonia. RedPatch (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: now (at least in Sergi Roberto, the only footballer in this regard i currently edit) we have another editor supporting Panenkazo (who have just said in their page that anyone reinstating the version without "Catalan" is vandalising)'s point of view. Like i said, even though i strongly oppose this, i will not edit(war) and that's a promise! --RevampedEditor (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This last comment is very suspicious. Want to justify.. Too many coincidences.. Do you have to do with the two anonymous users who acted a moment ago in a synchronized way just to reverse the word Catalan on multiple pages? Could you be vandalizing anonymously? Panenkazo (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the anonymous user(s) reverting, the minute you reverted me at S. Roberto i stopped editing there and waited for the result of this discussion. This is the FIRST and LAST time you accuse of vandalising OK, been here for 18 years and never did it once. Of course, if you still doubt my reply, you can report me and see where it goes. --RevampedEditor (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous user(s) has/have already been blocked (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2804:14C:7F80:8296:7559:1C3E:3725:B6EA), and he/they are from Brazil. I am from Portugal, hopefully that's the end of the unfounded accusations. Thanks. --RevampedEditor (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, my apologies. I was just asking. Panenkazo (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Look how much damage has been done with edit warring over many articles, examples: plus more pages than that. The amount of edits with added/deleted text on the equivalent of 19 bytes is clearly happening far too often especially during this and parallel discussions. Certain sanctions which includes page protection (as in the case of Sergio Busquets) and blocking will take place if users/IP addresses continues to do the damage. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, another wikipedia administrador believes in the consensus I advocate. There are already 3. Panenkazo (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there some kind of consensus for these types of edits outside of WP:FOOTY? Because my understanding of this situation was that we did not include sub-national origins or ethnicity in the lead. I know that the UK and its constituent countries are an exception for football for obvious reasons, but why would Catalonia be an exception? Jay eyem (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given this was never an issue until these couple of users started adding Catalonia a couple weeks ago, I think it's evident that the true consensus is to not use it. The whole argument in favour of adding it is just an WP:ILIKEIT argument. RedPatch (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why I was wondering if there was some kind of consensus elsewhere. They have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catalonia with diffs that show multiple admins backing their changes, but I have no idea where this consensus comes from. Further along the discussion mentions a RfC from 2018, but there is no link there. I personally don't understand how this would be any different than describing a footballer as being German from Bavaria or French from Brittany, which we wouldn't do. Jay eyem (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither Bavaria nor Brittany have their own language, nor national aspirations, nor were they fully independent in the past, nor do they have enclaves outside the country. They are not officially a nation either. Catalonia yes. Panenkazo (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * However, "X is a German professional footballer from Bavaria" seems to me perfect. Panenkazo (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a... surprising amount of ignorance to pack into a few of sentences. Catalonia is also not officially a nation, but an autonomous community. Outside of pointing to admins restoring your edits (which I think it is worth asking for their input on this), where have you determined that there is a consensus to make these changes? Because you are the only one in this thread that seems to think so otherwise. Jay eyem (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is currently a parallel discussion on WikiProject Catalonia where you will see quite a few more people who think like me. Administrators who say it is and other users who believe it too. Don't think you're the center of the universe. Trust me, you're not. Panenkazo (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok for starters, you need to be more civil, because you have been pretty rude throughout this thread. Second, I see that the previous discussion has been linked on your talk page, so it would have been much faster to just link to that (I will need to parse that later). I would ask that you assume good faith of your fellow editors, because you have not done so thus far. Jay eyem (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You answered my last comment like this: " That is a... surprising amount of ignorance…". Are yo talking about civil? Panenkazo (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you described Bavaria and Brittany as not having their own languages (Bavarian language and Breton language), national aspirations (Bavarian nationalism and Breton nationalism), and that they were not fully independent in the past (Kingdom of Bavaria and Duchy of Brittany), I would say that was a fairly tame response to what you said, because I would describe those comments as ignorant, yes. Meanwhile you are accusing editors of vandalizing anonymously in this very thread, which is a very clear violation of WP:AGF. I would like to drop the stick at this point, but if you want to take this to WP:ANI, feel free. Jay eyem (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow. That comment about Bavaria and Brittany not having their own languages, culture and history was really something. Breton isn't even from the same family as French, which makes it even more unique than Catalan. I'm judging from this user's history that it's a WP:SPA to boost Catalonia, but usually people like that have solidarity with other cultures in Europe. Basically, no regional identities  exist except Catalans. No other countries existed in the past except Catalonia and no independence movement exists except the Catalan. We wouldn't allow a user who thinks white people are unique, so I don't know why we tolerate someone who thinks the same about Catalans. See below as well when he says Lamine Yamal doesn't have a Spanish name because his father's surname is from Morocco (where 20% of the Spanish language comes from). Although he's doing this to minimise Spain (Mr Magoo would see that from the edit history) it's ironically also the view of Vox sympathisers. If you look on the WP: Catalonia thread, an IP writes (in Spanish) that Lamine is not Spanish because a passport doesn't change your genetics. That's excellent company to be keeping. Unknown Temptation (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MOSETHNICITY applies here. Players should be described as Spanish/French/German etc. not Catalan/Brittany/Bavarian. Scotland/Wales are different as they have a FIFA recognised national team. GiantSnowman 08:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

People will always want to identify with something, but regarding footballer articles, apart from mentioning the town or city they were born in along with the Catalonia region of Spain, they are all Spanish footballers. And that's what we need to stick too. Govvy (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As others said, there is no need to complicate things. "Spanish footballer" is enough. That he is from Catalonia can be added in the prose. Kante4 (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Another vote for just "Spanish footballer" in the intro. I have no issue with mentioning that he is Catalan in the prose though. Ortizesp (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree - Spanish footballer and if sources confirm that they have asserted their Catalan identity, add that to personal info with citations. ColchesterSid (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Seems like an acceptable compromise. I would say if there is an "Early life" section then maybe mention it there, or the Personal life. RedPatch (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

But this ONLY for Catalan sportspeople? No such approach for Galicians, Basques, Andalusians? Okeydokey... Seeing that 99% of this thread's opinions are AGAINST this approach, why must we accommodate? --RevampedEditor (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the same for the others aswell. Kante4 (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same applies for any/all regional or ethnic identities. GiantSnowman 15:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished that Panenkazo called it "consensus" to include, one million times, because an admin restored his edits from IP vandalism and gave his two cents on the issue on the talk page. But a discussion as one-sided as Australia 31–0 American Samoa isn't seen as consensus in the other direction. He continues to revert, revert, revert, saying that there's a discussion, as if the discussion is even. The actual consensus looks like we're back at where it had already been since the year dot - call people by their nationality and add anything else in personal life if there are good sources. How exactly do agreements become precedent? Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Panenkazo has been blocked as a sock of banned User:The Penfield Homunculus - something I suspected but I also believed there are unfortunately more than one person in the world who will edit war over Catalonia. We're allowed to WP:BANREVERT now, aren't we? Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The sock also left me and two others rather provocative messages. The IP Address that was used is from Ciutat Vella in Barcelona. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Before ban reverts, I'd check to see which edits were there beforehand, but go ahead. Easy to archive this thread, especially since the topic is being done to death at more appropriate boards. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that Panenkazo has been socking.
 * I think the following structure, by seeing legitimate established user comments, which was before all disruption since 8 July began, should be something like "Bojan is a Spanish former footballer who..." which this IP has mopped up already. Then, thankfully, this talk page will appear to have far less words to read compared to today. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * by the way: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catalonia still has a discussion ongoing and it appears some users are disagreeing with what Govvy and some other users here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about footballers' contracts at Village Pump
There's a discussion at Village pump (miscellaneous) that could affect many articles within this project (OP had been removing club affiliations on the grounds that contracts had expired) and could benefit from the participation of informed editors. NebY (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Lamine Yamal template case
It is right now a discussion on the Lamine Yamal talk page with the topic: Spanish name template.

defends that the template of this player at the top page referring to his first and last name corresponds to reality. I think it can get confusing. I am attaching the two arguments below.

Unknown Temptation argument: The template is there to say that his name is formatted the Spanish way with two surnames, not that his surname is from Spain. Equally, it would not be the Catalan name template unless there is evidence he formats it the Catalan way with "i" in the middle. This template is helpful because a lot of people think his surname is Yamal. I see no reason to remove it unless people believe he can't be Spanish because his parents are African, which is just a little problematic. This template doesn't mean his name is from Spain. I see nobody rushing to remove it from Marco Asensio because his second surname is Willemsen, nor from Latin American people with Italian or other surnames. Similarly, we cannot gatekeep what is a Spanish surname (even García is Basque, and so many are Hebrew or Arabic)

My argument: I understand your reasoning. But we will agree that for a reader it can be confusing. The phrase literally says: "In this Spanish name" (and it's not a Spanish name at all). There should be a template that says something similar to: This name have a Spanish naming customs.

'''Is there any consensus on this? Other footballers may be in the same situation.''' Panenkazo (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Unknown Temptation is correct. Crowsus (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's correct. His name uses the Spanish name template. It's to let users know the main surname. Like Sergio Ramos, the spanish name template lets readers understand why he's Sergio Ramos not Sergio Garcia. For Lamine Yamal, he likely goes by Lamine Yamal Nasraoui according to the Spanish name convention. Another example is Emilio Estevez (footballer) why he goes by Emilio Estevez not Emilio Tsai, and uses the template despite Tsai clearly not being a Spanish name RedPatch (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I still find it confusing for the reader. I think the template should explain it better or create a new one for these cases because it literally says it's a Spanish name. However, thanks for the explanation. Panenkazo (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2006–07 Bristol Rovers F.C. season
2006–07 Bristol Rovers 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) 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 Olympics
For anyone in an article-creating mood, the 2024 Summer Olympics starts in two weeks and there's a decent number of qualified football players missing articles, many of whom I suspect are likely notable. In the men's tournament, there are 50 missing player articles, including two team captains, as well as one head coach without an article (also two clubs which have representation without articles). In the women's tournament, there are 7 missing player articles and 2 head coaches. Any with interesting facts can be featured at DYK during the Olympics; see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know for more information. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Flashbacks to trying to rush footballer articles through DYK for the Women's World Cup. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll try to work on Omer Nir'on to complete the Israel squad :) --SuperJew (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All done! I even think it came out quite well. Thanks for the push and let me know what you think. --SuperJew (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There can be some interesting hooks there for DYK - I'm thinking maybe something to do with his Danish heritage and his father previously playing for Denmark, but I'm not really familiar with the process and haven't done it. --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks excellent! I'll drop a note at the DYK talk page to see what hooks we can come up with. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Lowland League stats
I don't suppose anywhere has player appearance data for players in the Lowland League in Scotland? EchetusXe 10:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there is no consistent source for this. Clubs keep their own totals, of course, which then sometimes get quoted in transfer reports etc but it tends to be a grand total including cups which is not much use for us trying to fill in the infobox etc. Crowsus (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Aral FC
Draft:Aral FC, a football club in Uzbekistan, would benefit from some non-broken references from reliable sources. LeapTorchGear (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There is an already existing article Aral Samalı PFK. I added a book as a source for the name in 76-90, and renaming in 90.Ceriy (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 Copa América - map image
Hi, if anyone can't get enough of politics after our recent Catalan discussion, I tagged this image as of disputed neutrality and commented on a talk page discussion. Seeing that the article was on the front page, I went back on it and the image is still tagged for neutrality - and nobody at all has commented on the talk page.

In short, this image presents the Falkland Islands and South Georgia as part of Argentina, albeit in hash-stripes if you make the image really big. While the hashing indicates a disputed zone, it's still only showing one nation's point of view of the world, as the map doesn't show any other disputed zones such as Venezuela's claim to Guayana Essequiba. The uninhabited rainforests of Essequiba, just like the research stations of South Georgia, have nothing to do with football.

My personal view is that the Falklands and South Georgia can just be struck from the map. No Argentine footballers are from there, or have probably even been there. The map could also be simplified by striking off the Galapagos Islands, in case the average reader doesn't know that they're part of Ecuador. Someone on talk asked where Hawaii was on the map, which made me realise there's a balance between an accurate and a practical map diagram. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, just remove the islands to take away the dispute - no point in getting bogged down in politics. Felixsv7 (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Euros third place honours
There's been a lot of editing back and forth regarding whether France received third place honours for being losing semi-finalists at this year's Euros. My assumption was that we wouldn't include them due to there being no third-place play-offs at the Euros. However, I noticed that 3rd place seems to be included for the majority of losing semi-finalists post-1980. Has there been some discussion on this page before/is there a rule I'm not aware of? A talk page discussion has been started there Michaeldble (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello! When there is no 3rd place match taken place, the norm has been both losing semi-finalists to be considered as having shared the 3rd place. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With the exception of 2008 and 2012 there were no bronze medals awarded. -Koppapa (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we don't have an explicit source that says France got 3rd place, then the "honour" shouldn't be included.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello! Does this qualify? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No - this clearly states that bronze medals were awarded up to 1980, and then in 2012 and 2016 only. GiantSnowman 20:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But the question was if there is a source that says France got 3rd place, not if they got bronze medals or not, which, even though related, I believe is irrelevant here, unless we are saying getting bronze medal(s) is a prerequisite for being ranked 3rd. Quote from that article from WorldSoccerTalk says  '"UEFA does not differentiate between the two eliminated semifinalists. Hence, they are both ranked the same in the competition. Officially, they both finished third.", which clearly states both losing semi-finalists are considered as having shared the 3rd place, at least by UEFA, regardless if bronze medals were not given. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Issey Nakajima-Farran
Anyone want to help here, an SPA wants to ignore WP:LANGVAR despite my explanation of Wiki Conventions. RedPatch (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They are quite stubborn. WP:IDHT has led to disruptive editing. Could a kind editor help with explaining things on their Talk page, please? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

National football squad table width
I'm a bit worried about this undiscussed edit:. As a results, lots of football squads tables at the major tournaments (and elsewhere) no longer take the whole width of the page, as it was customary until now. Thoughts? Should it be kept? Reverted? --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Not utterly irrelevant to your point but not entire related; I've only just realised, due to 's point, that this Template:National football squad start (goals) is why the date of birth column was messed up for the last year - I thought it was just Wikipedia's new appearance change. If we're looking to change the one above then could we get a ruling on this as well? Felixsv7 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Uruguay four time world champions?
There is a new editor who seems convinced that Uruguay are four time world champions because they won gold at the Olympics in the 1920s as well as the World Cup in 1930 and 1950. For example on the Germany national football team article, they added: "Germany is one of the most successful national teams in international competitions, having won four FIFA World Cups (1954, 1974, 1990, 2014), tied with Uruguay, Italy, and only one less than the most successful team, Brazil." All of their edits are related to combining the two tournaments.

Although I do not have a great deal of knowledge on this period of football, this seems very misleading. I have also asked the editor to start a talk page discussion rather than to continually reinstate their changes. Does anyone have any perspective of this?

I've placed it here as this has been done across several pages: Uruguay:, Germany:, Argentina: , 1930 FIFA World Cup:

Pinging @User:Kante4 as they were involved too. Kind regards Michaeldble (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Michaeldble (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging the editor. Those are two different tournaments and this is the first time i heard that the Olympics in 1924 and 1928 were counted as the first world cups. Can someone with more knowledge help? Kante4 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The 1928 and 1924 Olympics were special tournaments that counted as full world championships equivalent to a World Cup before the World Cup was. The World Cup started in 1930, which is a different tournament. Those particular Olympics don’t count as world cups but count as FIFA world championships equal in value and prestige. This is confirmed by fifa and is the reason why Uruguay wears 4 stars above their crest. FIFA makes countries remove stars from their crest unless they were official champions of the world. For example in the 2018 World Cup, FIFA made Egypt remove the 7 stars they wear above their crest for their Africa cup wins. Truefacts24 (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have non-Uruguayan sources available for this? The Banner  talk 22:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FIFA itself is the source. Have you ever watched a FIFA World Cup? If so you will view 4 stars in Uruguays crest. This is because FIFA recognizes them as 4 time world champions, otherwise they would be informed that they have to remove stars before they enter FIFAs tournament. It’s also in the FIFA museum. Truefacts24 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources from FIFA that say this explicitly please? Michaeldble (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On hand I have several photos that you can read of plaques in the FIFA museum in Zurich, Switzerland that display this. How should I send them? Truefacts24 (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here’s the Olympics themselves confirming that the 1924 tournament was the first world championship organized by FIFA Truefacts24 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying "four world championships" is very different than saying "four World Cups", which is explicitly incorrect. The vast majority of discussion about "world championships" is in reference to the FIFA World Cup, so except for discussions in Uruguay's specific context, it would be inappropriate to make these changes to articles like Germany. Jay eyem (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a completely ludicrous statement rife with bias rather than truth, especially how it was worded. Uruguay need to be included when comparing how many times a country was champion of the world. Germany would have 5 stars had they won one of those Olympics editions, but they didn’t, they lost to Uruguay 4-1 in the quarterfinal of the 1928 world championship. The World Cup is a brand name and the history of it is important as all world champions are equal, regardless of which brand they won. I specifically added the wording tied in “world titles” with… as to include the total number of times each country was champion of the world, not only the World Cup, which is the correct and fair comparison. Truefacts24 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fifa.com confirmation Truefacts24 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. I´am from Argentina, not from Uruguay, but in this issue, uruguayans are correct: they are 4 times "World champions", because the 1924 and 1928 Olympic Games (Football) were played by Senior Teams, and the winner of those golds medals were considered the "world champions" by FIFA. There are 2 sources of FIFA I can bring, but they are in spanish
 * FIFA created the first World Cup in 1930 because of the success of those Olympics Games, where they had the control of the Football Tournament itself. In 1930 and in 1950 Uruguay won the FIFA World Cup, but the previous 2 gold medals are considerated "world champions" too. So Uruguay has 2 FIFA World Cups, but is considered to be 4 times "World Champion". It is similar to the example of the Intercontinental Cup of clubs and the FIFA Club World Cup. The Intercontinental was organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL only, but the winner of the cup was (and still IS) considered the "World Champion of clubs". When FIFA took control and enlarged the tournament for other continents, the other cup dissapeared and now the World Champions of Clubs is the one which wins the FIFA Club World Cup. But, the teams who won the Intercontinental Cup are still considered World Champions of clubs... For example Sao Paulo FC is 3 times "champion of the world" because won the 1992 and 1993 Intercontinental Cup and the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great sources, I had that document in Spanish and was looking for it in English, because I’ve seen it in English as well. Thanks for adding it Truefacts24 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While this may be correct, the vast majority of discussion when it comes to national football teams is about the winners of the FIFA World Cup, not about championships that were won prior to its establishment. I don't see a reason that these changes need to be implemented across national team articles outside of the particular historical context for Uruguay. The Intercontinental Cup is its own beast, but clubs are not talked about as frequently as "world champions" in the same way that national teams are. If we want to discuss that, I would recommend a separate discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You opinion on what you think people want to talk about is irrelevant. The purpose of these articles is to inform people with facts like an encyclopedia, not adhere to narratives like a magazine. Germany had the opportunity to have one of Uruguays stars on their shirt and on their Wikipedia page but they lost to Uruguay 4-1 in the quarterfinal of the 1928 world championship. Trying to erase facts in history is disrespectful to FIFA, Uruguay, and curious readers seeking information.Truefacts24 (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not about what I think people want to talk about, but what people actually talk about. The vast majority of discussion about national football teams is on the FIFA World Cup, not "all football world championships, including those prior to the World Cup". Uruguay absolutely has claim to four world championships. That does not mean that it merits discussion in the leads of the pages for any other nation other than Uruguay. It is a worthy historical fact that is notably relevant to one country; every other nation broadly discusses one particular tournament i.e. the FIFA World Cup. The fact that Uruguay has claims to four world championships only really ever comes up, except within an Uruguayan-centric context, is about the history of the World Cup or the Olympics. Jay eyem (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What people want to talk about or what people mostly talk about has nothing to do with the purpose of this website as an online encyclopedia which purpose is to inform people. Furthermore discussion is not the purpose of a Wikipedia page, informing is.
 * The page of a national team is not about the World Cup which has its own page if people want to learn about that particular tournament. National team pages encompass all tournaments those teams were involved in.
 * Truefacts24 (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The whole story sounds a little murky. I could see explanations going either way and it seems to depend on who we're sourcing as well. Anyways, when mentioned it should probably be slightly elaborated on and linked to an appropriate article. --SuperJew (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The real problem here is that none of this context is obvious in most cases. Anyone not familiar with this very specific bit of footballing history from almost 100 years ago, on seeing phrases "World Cup" and "world title" together, will reasonably presume that having won a world title means having won a world cup, thus misrepresenting Uruguay as having won more World Cups than they actually have. In light of that, I have to agree with Jay's assessment that the phrasing "world title" should generally be avoided except in cases where Uruguay's 1920's titles are directly relevant, and more detailed explanation of what that phrase actually means is included. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is basically the exact point I was trying to get across. I think I am done talking in circles here, because I don't think my reasoning was being understood or acknowledged. Jay eyem (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Arguing against adding 3 words to a page (“word titles” and “Uruguay”) is an attempt to bully a nation because they’re small with only 3.4 million people and can’t easily defend their right to history and also because you want to prop up your favorite country or continent by not showing another’s achievements. A reader seeing that and reading the references will learn something and it will click in their head why they see Uruguay wearing 4 stars in FIFA world cups. Truefacts24 (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why those official documents and references are linked to the word world title which can be clicked to teach people things which frankly matter. Truefacts24 (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can always write 4 time world champions (1924 and 1928 Olympics and 1930 and 1950 World Cups). The brackets can help clear it up RedPatch (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit on Germany stated "Germany is one of the most successful national teams in international competitions, having won four FIFA World Cups (1954, 1974, 1990, 2014), tied with Uruguay...". This is clearly false. The 1924 and 1928 Olympics were world championships won by Uruguay, but not World Cups. Your edit on Argentina similarly changed the specific wording of "appeared in a World Cup final six times" (correct) to "appeared in a Football World Championship final (The World Cup final and 1928 Olympics) 7 times" (also correct, but amended the stated fact unnecessarily). Essentially the Olympics were a gateway to Uruguay hosting the first World Cup and they won that and are deservedly lauded for that, and the Olympic wins stand on their own merit. What your edits are attempting to do is not point out that Uruguay also won 'World Championship' Olympics, which is something that possibly deserves more attention, but to add the totals of those tournaments awkwardly onto the established totals for World Cup wins, finals etc leading to confusion and argument. In contrast, nobody has changed your edit at Switzerland as you have done that one right - adding the Olympic medal without claiming that they played in the first World Cup final. Crowsus (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I never intended to put “tied with Uruguay”. If I did it was for half a second before I quickly fixed the typo. You will see all of my edits besides that typo say “tied in world titles with Uruguay & Italy” which is 100% correct, without adding Uruguay the Germany page is disrespecting Uruguay and all Uruguay fans. I am personally a fan of the Argentina national team and I want to have it said that we made it to 7 world championship finals which is better than saying 6. That is a good thing to show and teach people about. I never said 7 World Cup finals. I’m also tired of seeing people pick on Uruguay online (not on these discussions with you guys) and they tell Uruguayan fans they shouldn’t have 4 stars and they don’t understand how those Olympics count. It’s important to begin to teach people the truth so Uruguay fans can stop feeling robbed and ridiculed by history tellers and get their proper credit. This is why references are added to the end of correct phrases so people can choose to learn more.Truefacts24 (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is of note that the logo of the 1930 World Cup, organized by Uruguay, reads: "1er Campeonato Mundial de Football" (emphasis added). --Theurgist (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This right here settles everything. It’s from FIFA.com Truefacts24 (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have final-warned the user for introducing misleading information into articles and edit-warring. They have also attempted to circumvent their partial block from the Germany article by asking another editor to proxy for them. Any further similar activity will inevitably result in a siteblock. Black Kite (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Others who agree with me will inevitably add the same information as me regardless because it’s the most correct information. Most people don’t know this history and it’s a shame they don’t, and putting it on Wikipedia will inform everyone more about soccer. Nothing I’ve said is misleading, especially when I add references of proof. Truefacts24 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said at your talkpage, you need to gain consensus for your changes. This is how Wikipedia works. Otherwise they will simply be reverted, and if the issue continues, it will be dealt with via protection and/or sanctions, which is not what anyone wants. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If Truefacts24 edits again, somebody ping me and I'll block them for disruption and editing against consensus. GiantSnowman 18:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I’ve been falsely attacked. I did nothing wrong. Everything I posted was 100% factual, it’s not my fault people don’t know history, that’s why I’m trying to edit it. I never personally attacked anybody, I was falsely reported. I will continue to edit as I see fit within the bounds of the rules. I will make sure Uruguays history is known to the world. No consensus has been established against what I said, half agree with me, 2 are biased fans as shown on their page when you click on their name, and are trying to prop up their country by omitting relevant information, which insults Uruguay, and another one just hasn’t checked any of my sources from FIFA themselves. Truefacts24 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked now for personal attacks after ample warning.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, my primary nation of choice has never won the World Cup (although the women's team have won their tournament four times). Jay eyem (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Greek football clubs in European competitions
Worked on Greek football clubs in European competitions multiple times. There is an ongoing edit war with an IP user there. Need your help and someone else's neutral pov to dissolve this. Recent edit history and Talk page will guide you on this. Thank you Abudabanas (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Good Evening. I am the anonymous Mr. Abudabanas is in dispute with. First of all he is lying since there is no edit war in the entry. He came, made a bunch of cancellations as he saw fit and started the war. It doesn't even allow to write there. We opened a conversation on the talk page. Because he had nothing documented, he started writing on other users' pages and asking for the entry to be locked. He does the same here. Anyway check out our chat and judge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greek_football_clubs_in_European_competitions#Table_of_the_top_4_Greek_teams_in_the_European_cups — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:586:813D:2A91:BC4D:358E:D352:1447 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)