Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 166

Footballers moving clubs during tournaments
For players who move clubs during a tournament year eg Mbappe this summer. How do we approach this? As it doesn't seem right to say "he won the Euros while playing for Madrid" when he's never played a game for them. This is just a hypothetical re Mbappe but their are many players who this senario would apply to and was wondering if there are any rule as to how to approach this when editing. Mn1548 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Who will he be contracted to if/when he wins the tournament...? GiantSnowman 18:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a seemingly logical answer but causes inconsistencies with players who transfer mid tournament. Eg Ona Batlle being listed as a United player in the list of 2023 World Cup Squads but not being listed as a player who won the World Cup while at the club on their statistics page. Personally, I think the club where the player played their last competitive game should be used in all contexts as its more consistent and provides more useful information. Mn1548 (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The club contracted at the date of the final will not change. GiantSnowman 20:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The majority of contract end on 30 June and start of 1 July, the majority of competitions rune mid June to mid July. Mn1548 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are clearly not understanding what I am saying. What club will they be contracted with when the tournament finishes? GiantSnowman 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to mention his club? Seasider53 (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't, in prose, but there are a number of instances where that is needed. Mn1548 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you look at the squads page lede, you'll see it says quite clearly The club listed is the club for which the player last played a competitive match prior to the tournament. :) --SuperJew (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see it sats that there but is that true for all squad tables for all tournaments ie is there a standard on Wikipedia for it? And if so, is that standard true for outside of squad table eg "List of [Team] records and statistics". Mn1548 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * hes a psg player for the first half and then madrid for the second half (as per his contrat starting on july 1). in regards to "last team tehy played for", what if he breaks his leg and then get called up a year later - do you still list as psg cuz he didnt play for madrid yet?Muur (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I remember this issue coming up before when someone kept changing Dommarumma's club to Milan on the Italy roster after he moved to PSG because he hadn't played since then. But it was like October and I feel like the consensus was to change it to his new club on the roster page. RedPatch (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say the tournament squads page, use the team at the beginning of the tournament, so PSG. The actual France squad can change to Madrid on 1 July as that is a continuously evolving page which is kept up to date. RedPatch (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Plus we can always add a note indicating if a player has joined a new club during the course of the tournament, don't really see an issue with that. Jay eyem (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also agreed Mn1548 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed Mn1548 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Think there is a difference between not playing because of injury, and no playing because every game possible to play is in the future. Mn1548 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Khoa41860 (talk)
I would like to draw attention to the user Khoa41860 and his contributions, who is making false claims in the edit summaries (with "update formatting" ) to make significant changes to sport and football articles. This behavior is repetitive and even ignores, after some time hast passed, closed discussions, if no consensus has been reached in his favor.(example)

I have revised his last edits, which wanted to add the Czechoslovakian records at the FIFA World Cup to Slovakia, here also with false claims in the edit summaries,.Diff example. I also warned him on his talk page about this behaviour, but he deleted it so that no one else would notice that he does repetitive disruptive edits under false pretenses in the edit summary. (Diff: deletion of the warning) Miria~01 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of past warnings on their talk page. I would hope that it is merely incompetence rather than insolence, but regardless of the explanation it may be time to report this user to the Administrator's noticeboard. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Bare uses of Template:Infobox
A number of articles in the series that includes 1880–81 in Scottish football use Infobox football country season, followed by a separate instance of Infobox. this is sub-optimal, and it would be better to either modify the former to include the necessary fields, or to crate a "module" sub-template to hold them. I'm not clear if this issue is limited to Scottish articles or whether others are similarly affected.

Separately, articles in the sequences that include 1971 All-Ireland Under-21 Football Championship, 1971 All-Ireland Minor Football Championship use Infobox rather than a more specific template. Is there one that would be better? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The last 2 are Gaelic football, which is may have a separate WikiProjevct / set of standards. Spike &#39;em (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Gaelic games would be the correct WikiProject for those. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Tosin Adarabioyo
Could Tosin Adarabioyo please be watched as it's heavily edited; might need semi-protecting? JMHamo (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ - of immediate concern is the discrepancy with birth place, article currently says both Manchester and London... GiantSnowman 13:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Should be noted that the sites in that article that are regularly used elsewhere have his birthplace as Manchester, which would be incorrect. I presume someone either at Manchester City or one of the loan clubs made an incorrect guess that 'from Manchester = born in Manchester', which Fulham may have collected that information. The introduction of the incorrect birth place started on 24 August 2016 by an IP address and probably persisted until this month. Hopefully Soccerbase and Soccerway among others will be alerted to this factual error and have it corrected on their websites. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

New module for two-legged ties
For anyone interested, I have recently created Module:Sports series for use in football articles as a replacement for the two-legged tie templates (Template:TwoLegStart and Template:TwoLegResult). The module allows for quite customizable tables, as well as automatic bolding for the winners on aggregate. In addition, it uses fbaicon instead of the generic flagicon. It is also more efficient than using the two-legged tie templates, with a lower node count, post-expand include size and template argument size. I'm planning on implementing it for the next club season, having tested it quite thoroughly to ensure there are no major issues. I've added detailed documentation, which should hopefully make the features and intended usage clear enough. Let me know if you have any questions/comments/feedback. Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is awesome btw, thanks for all your work on it. Just thinking about European qualifiers for next season, how would it work for teams that receive a bye? Specifically, I'm thinking about this. I imagine it'll be simple based on the documentation and that something like |Lincoln Red Imps|GIB|Bye|||—|— would work to produce the same results but thought I'd ask anyway. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yea should work just the same as before, I've given an example below using your code. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Mario Božiković
I was curious if we have an article on Mario Božiković at all,, maybe his career isn't notable enough for wiki standards these days. :/ Govvy (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't. There isn't even an article in the Croatian Wikipedia: . Robby.is.on (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * K, I was looking for an article to see if it was up to date, etc, Cheers, anyway. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He'd be eligible for an article based on the fact his obituary was in every major Croatian paper and we generally include obituaries as secondary sources. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Football Articles contributer
Hello, I am looking for someone who could help contribute and help write quality articles on football clubs, leagues, players, etc. Would anyone be willing to help as I have had trouble establishing notability on my articles in the past.

Appreciatively, MintyFresh201 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Filip Engelman
This guy seems to be a fraud. Most of his stats are not available anywhere except on his LinkedIn profile and Transfermarkt. However, even those seem to be fake (e.g., Serbian First League official website report & Soccerway vs Transfermarkt). Also, according to Transfermarkt, he played 21 games for Dukla Banská Bystrica in the Slovak First League (at the age of 18!?), but there are no other records on the internet that back that up. He never played for Unirea Urziceni either. 47.201.233.193 (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I've added an 'accuracy' tag which will hopefully draw more attention to it. Crowsus (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Kit update for Musan Salama
The kits that are shown in the infobox of Musan Salama are out of date. I don't know how to update them myself, so if someone has time to do it, I'd appreciate it. The updated kits can be found on the Finnish FA's page in this link. –   Poriman55    - Meddela mig! 12:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Football stadia and possible sock
Hi all, I came across the edit history of Anfield and I'm wondering what is preferred in the infobox and lede, to write "Liverpool" or "Liverpool F.C." when referring to the football club? The user who altered it into "Liverpool" claims it to be part of a consensus on here, but I can not find that.

Also, the user who made that change, "AutisticAndrew", has a young account, but has already used Twinkle a lot, usually immediately reverts any criticism and already knows how to pimp up his account with many infoboxes and links. This is similar edit behaviour to StarryNightSky11, a blocked sockmaster. Even clearer, both "AutisticAndrew" and "StarryNightSky11" prefer the option to omit "F.C." in the infoboxes/ledes of football stadiums: and. It is a bit suspicious... Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that in the case of a stadium like Anfield we definitely need to show the F.C., as simply writing "owner: Liverpool" could give the impression that it is owned by the city itself (in real terms Liverpool City Council). Also, I do not believe that there is a consensus to omit the F.C. in this situation - see for example, Priestfield Stadium, which shows the owner as "Gillingham F.C.", Holker Street, which shows the owner as "Barrow A.F.C.", etc.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:AutisticAndrew is making the same change to the Turf Moor page with respect to Burnley F.C.. I have reverted the change twice but now risk breaching 3RR (I have left a note on AA's Talk page). Others may wish to review the Turf Moor changes in light of the consensus ChrisTheDude mentions. Paul W (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just noticed AA partially reverted their change, putting Burnley Football Club in the infobox. Paul W (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Showing abbreviations seems to be inconsistent at this moment, e.g. Cardiff City Stadium and Swansea.com Stadium don't show them but Racecourse Ground and the examples said by ChrisTheDude do.
 * As for sockpuppetry, I have added to the sockpuppet investigations casepage about a couple of clues I've picked up. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * TBF there's somewhat less ambiguity with Cardiff and Swansea, as they both have a suffix in their name, unlike Wrexham -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is also my understanding that it's better to include F.C. in cases such as Liverpool and Gillingham for that specific reason (owned by the council). And thanks Paul and Iggy for adding some rather interesting clues to the investigation. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: AutisticAndrew has now been banned for suspected sockpuppetry. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

2025 FIFA Club World Cup
See history page and talk page (First edition section). User keeps insisting on claiming that the next edition will be totally new. It will be a new edition under a new expanded format, always under the FIFA Club World Cup name, not a new tournament from scratch. Island92 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * User @Island92 keeps trying to interpret (wrongly) something already decided by FIFA and its president! Please everybody read everything in the talk page (First edition section) because all the information needed to understand the discussion is there.
 * But I will resume (quote) for everybody the most important part:
 * "This discussion ended yesterday (on the date that marks exactly 1 year to the start of the tournament) with a post from FIFA and its president, through their official social media, stating:
 * "One year to go until the FIFA Club World Cup 2025™️! 🤩 32 teams from all six confederations will gather in the United States for the inaugural edition next year" (https://www.instagram.com/p/C8O3bNsKvmV/)
 * Now, a new discussion opens about the title of this article (which in my opinion should be kept) and the article from the old FIFA Club World Cup (which in my opinion should be changed). But that is another discussion and is more in the sense of a formality. The most important thing is that we now officially have a position from FIFA and its president, confirming that this is the 1st edition of the new FIFA Club World Cup!"
 * We also have:
 * "It is officially the first edition, the INAUGURAL edition as its saying and you are fighting against the reality!
 * First of all, something confirmed on FIFA and FIFA's president official Instagrams is thousand times more valuable than if you wrote a final term on it!
 * Second, that's not only on Instagram, it is also on FIFA's website: https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/mens/club-world-cup/usa-2025/articles/mundial-de-clubes-25-teams-dates-venue-groups-draw-matches-tickets
 * I will quote just a few examples in this article on FIFA's website to help you:
 * "Find out all the information on the new club tournament with details of qualified teams, dates, competition format, hosts, tickets and more."
 * "New tournament will be played for the first time in 2025"
 * "The first edition of FIFA's new prime club competition will be played in the USA."" Fa30sp (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A new tournament under a new expanded format, keeping the same FIFA Club World Cup name, not a new total tournament from scratch. The first edition with 32 teams, that's it. That's what you are missing and what I've explained to you multiple times. It's like talking to a wall. Pinging, , , , . Island92 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "A new tournament under a new expanded format" you just said.. so if it is a new tournament, 2025 is the 1st edition! hahahahahahahaha
 * Bro in this reply you just changed your opinion following what I explained to you hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 * That's not what you were defending, since you were undoing the edits I was doing to make Wikipedia's article follow what FIFA says! But no problem, good that you opened up your mind and its accepting FIFA and Gianni Infantino position right now. Fa30sp (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That said, reading The 2025 FIFA Club World Cup is the planned 1st edition of the FIFA Club World Cup or The 2029 FIFA Club World Cup is the planned 2nd edition of the FIFA Club World Cup (the other edit you made in 2029 FIFA Club World Cup) is wrong-assuming. The tournament FIFA Club World Cup itself has reached 20 editions in 2023. Island92 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, a new tournament (the format that will be put in play), always called FIFA Club World Cup, not a new tournament from zero. A new tournament from zero is FIFA Intercontinental Cup. Island92 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes bro! That old tournament reached 20 edition and 2023 was its last edition! The new tournament FIFA Intercontinental Cup will take its place in 2024 and will be held annually in December!
 * The new Mundial de Clubes FIFA (sometimes written like this even on English-language websites, exactly to differentiate from the old FIFA Club World Championship/FIFA Club World Cup held from 2000 to 2023; but sometimes translated to FIFA Club World Cup too) is also a new tournament!
 * And that phrase you wrote is crazy: "a new tournament (the format that will be put in play)" hahahahahahahahahaha bro, stop trying to create an interpretation for something that FIFA already decided, they say new tournament because it is a new tournament! If just a new format, new tournament would not be written, but only "new format" hahahahahahahahahahahaha Fa30sp (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to act like a children. YOU missing the fact that the name FIFA Club World Cup is still there. I see no Mundial de Clubes FIFA name on FIFA website. The new-look 32-team tournament sentence reported in this ref means a new format that will be used, with 32 teams. Island92 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's very clearly been marketed as being a continuation of the event with a different format.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, same tournament just with more teams. Same as how the World Cup or Euros have had multiple changes in numbers of teams and formats, but it's all one continuation of the event. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. Same tournament, just a new format. GiantSnowman 18:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have partial blocked Fa30sp from the article and its talkpage, indefinitely. Haha bro, as they say. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hahahahahahahaha I'm crying because Black Kite blocked me from the article and its talkpage.
 * Bro, if you didn't see Mundial de Clubes FIFA on FIFA's website it's because you didn't read it. Also, Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Intercontinental Cup are different tournaments or same tournaments with this logic?
 * So if u guys wanna keep it wrong just keep it wrong I don't care hahahahahahaha FIFA rules football, it is treating it as a different tournament and FIFA's website is what really matters.
 * That's why people still laugh at Wikipedia as a reliable source. Fa30sp (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTHERE with a comment like that perhaps? But I have to echo the above, this is not a new tournament. It is an extension of a tournament that already existed. Like the current UEFA Europa League is the UEFA Cup, just with a different format.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 20:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong comparison bro!
 * UEFA Cup only changed its name to UEFA Europa League. Here we have a new tournament created, FIFA Intercontinental Cup, as a similar tournament of the old FIFA Club World Championship/Cup (2000-23), that can be considered a continuation.
 * And, finally, we have the new FIFA Club World Cup with its INAUGURAL tournament in 2025 and you can see that it will be the INAUGURAL tournament in the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup talk page, where there are many examples of FIFA's website as a source of it. Fa30sp (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FIFA have been inconsistent too. I suggest that it stays as it is until closer to the tournament, under WP:TOOSOON, as in too soon to be definitely sure. If it is changed, then there will be some tweet from FIFA about Bayern Munich's 8th participation in the tournament, and the whole thing erupts again.
 * A corollary example has been the modifications on Wikipedia to the AFC Champions League Elite and AFC Champions League Two, which were both described as new tournaments initially, prompting this same debate, and article name changes (which persist), only for AFC to release a statement saying the history of the previous named competitions carries through to the current named competitions, clarifying that they are extensions to the tournament, albeit in a different format, and not a brand new "no one's ever played this before" tournament. You can argue that this corollary is meaningless under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS OR WP:CRYSTAL, but I feel there is sufficient uncertainty this far out from the competition to keep the current status. My recommendation would be to await all of their published tournament regulations, which usually come out a few months before an event. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand 's point of view as FIFA themselves state that a "[n]ew tournament will be played for the first time in 2025", but I also understand the argument that this is the 21st edition of the tournament because FIFA is keeping the same name as the pre-existing tournament. However, the fact that this is a quadrennial tournament rather than an annual tournament means to me that this is more than just a simple format change. Given that the official source claims this is the inaugural tournament and the massive departure in how the previous tournaments were organized and scheduled, I would agree that this is, indeed, a new tournament. The 2024 FIFA Intercontinental Cup appears at first glance to be a rebranding of what was known as the FIFA Club World Cup with a minor format change. However, if FIFA are declaring that to also be a new competition, then another discussion regarding renaming is due.
 * That all having been said, I concur with that we should let thing remain as they are until more official details are published. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Turkey squad templates
I've seen that a lot of their players are down by their surnames despite being better known by their given names, which wasn't the case a while ago.

For example in this template, no.1 is better known as Rüştü, 8 Tugay, 15 Nihat and 21 Emre as what they had on their shirts during their times playing in Western Europe. It is a cultural thing as according to the Surname Law (Turkey) article, having a surname only came into law for its people 68 years before the 2002 World Cup. VEO15 (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, without doubt they should be listed by their WP:COMMONNAME, just like Raúl, Joaquín, Adriano instead of González, Sánchez and Ribeiro. We are not helping the reader by making it harder to find what they're looking for
 * Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Assistance
Kind of funny this one: i added some refs in Claude Gonçalves. In the #17, i was/am (just tried it now) not allowed to copy the Bulgarian title (the only option i had was to copy it from the Google search, which resulted in the sentence being only about 75% of its entirety), just the URL and the translation.

Can someone help out please? Many thanks in advance, continue the good work! 2001:8A0:766E:7A00:412B:4D42:1324:691E (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Fixed it. Seems they have some mechanism against copying, but I managed to get around it ;) --SuperJew (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Is an Elo ratings, 11v11, and rsssf source more important than a FIFA´s source???
Hello everybody! I am quite new in the english wikipedia. The topic I´m adding is related to the count of matches in the Argentina-Brazil football rivalry article and all the related articles derived: Argentina national football team results (1920–1939), Argentina national football team results (1940–1959), Argentina national football team results (1960–1979), also in Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches), in Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches) and in Brazil national football team records and statistics.

I want you to tell me, please, the "consideration" of the sources here. If in the Wikiprojet Football is more valuable or "important" a source of Elo Ratings  or 11v11   or Rsssf.com  that show a list of matches, or a source of FIFA that also shows the list of matches [https://web.archive.org/web/20130206113602/http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/statisticsandrecords/headtohead/team1=ARG/team2=BRA/index.html FIFA official´s page (archive). Argentina vs. Brazil head to head. February 2013. FIFA´s source is from Feb. 2013. After that date, they played 10 times, with 4 wins for Argentina, 4 wins for Brazil, and 2 ties. To see the complete list of matches according to this FIFA´s source, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches"].

I only put FIFA´s source to be neutral, but there are many others sources with the complete list of matches of serious organisations or sites that differ with Elo Ratings, 11v11 and Rsssf. For example, AFA (Argentine Football Association), El Gráfico and many others that agree with FIFA´s source...

My opinion is that the most important and official source in football that we can have is FIFA... No other site or association can be above FIFA. I think that any source by any web or page or organisation CAN´T be above a FIFA´s official source, because FIFA means official in the world of football, and FIFA is the major world football official organization. For me, I repeat, a single FIFA source "kills" any other source in football.

So, for you and the members of the WP Football: is an Elo ratings, 11v11, and rsssf source more important than a FIFA´s source???

Can you participate in the talk page of the article Argentina-Brazil football rivalry? Thanks! Regards, Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * wouldnt fifa be considered a primary source meaning secondary sources are preferred?Muur (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For questions of most notability, statistics compiled by an authoritative agency, should be more preferred than secondary sources, if no analysis or interpretation of the statistics is involved in a Wikipedia article. However, it is only my opinion and not a Wikipedia guideline. Miria~01 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Realistically, we care a lot more (in general) about what secondary sources say about a subject. When this is about statistics, there's a bit of confusion.
 * I see this a lot, because there's two ways to look at it. If the "official" primary source says something, arguably it is always correct, even if it's wrong, because they get to choose what the "official" statistics are. However, on the flip side, if multiple other sources agree that it isn't the same, then arguably we should state that as the correct information, as it comes from reliable secondary sources.
 * The fix? Simply state both. If it all possible, leave a result in prose, but then have a note stating which sources back up that result. There's obviously some issues there, but in general we can't just take one organisations opinion on the matter.
 * A good example of this being done in practice is pro wrestling, where organisations can state dates of when championships are won/lost, but because they happen on tape delay, their numbers and the real-world examples are wildly different. In articles, we publish both pieces of information, and use notes to explain why.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify the above: a subject is a primary source when it is closely or immediately involved, and all sources are primary sources for something. So for instance a primary source for a single football game is likely going to be generated by Players, Managers, Referees, Clubs, Pundits, Commentators, Fans and their immediate output (interviews, opinions) a lot of which will fall into SelfPub, or otherwise be considered unreliable for wikipedia (i.e. youtube, or lacking due weight etc), or in the case of things like Team Sheets, Match Reports, Referee Reports, ticket stubs etc are official documents and de facto always primary sources. Secondary sources will be Match Reports, News Reports, and so on which may include or re-contextualise Players, Managers, Referees, Clubs, Pundits, Commentators, Fans and their immediate output. They may differ in things like the time a goal was scored, how many shots were made, successful passes, etc or have other criteria that they use others don't which is what is what segregates them from being a pure primary source.
 * Who contextualises, and in what context, can also change the source from secondary to primary however. So FIFA talking about the results of a football game are not a Primary source, they are secondary. They are reporting, like any other news site, the outcomes, or in this case a list of games. However, if FIFA in discussing the football game were to talk about themselves, their policies and so on, then they would cross that line back into being a Primary Source. There are also wrinkles such as FIFA not recognising games that they did not sanction etc which is reliance on them alone can sometimes be fraught with issues. Similarly if a football club, say Liverpool, publishes post match review and such - there's nothing inherently unreliable for basic observable facts - but any discussion of the club, opinions on referees, controversy etc are obviously way more contextually primary than secondary. However in most cases there is usually a secondary sources available to corroborate or explain any issues (as LV says above) or be more suitable sources for any other number of reasons.
 * This is why, typically, for statistics - FIFA and club sites are generally reliable sources, but the context needs to be understood of what they may be describing or presenting to decide if it is Primary or Secondary. Koncorde (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding context: the discussion arose because according to some sources in Spanish and a FIFA report, some matches between Brazil and Argentina were not accounted as a Full A (without further details as to why). In the talk page. The user Raúl Quintana Tarufetti claimed that these matches were disputed the state teams of Minas Gerais and Guanabara (it seems strange, but in fact these teams sometimes played at international level in the 1960s/1970s, just like the Basque Country and Catalonia today). I showed that it didn't make sense, since there are even photographic records that the Brazil national team was officially represented (see ), and he somehow believes that this is a partial view that favors the Brazil team. However, all other secondary sources (World Elo, RSSSF and 11v11) have match information as normally Full A, being counted even on the Argentine side (see Argentina national football team results (1960–1979) as example). Otherwise, he simply forces WP:POV ignoring the entire match list (which has more than 190 sources). Svartner (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In 1968, a group of athletes from Minas Gerais clubs represented the Brazilian team in a friendly match in Belo Horizonte. 50 years ago, players from América, Atlético and Cruzeiro were together, on the same side, wearing the Brazilian team's shirt, at Mineirão. On August 11, 1968, the Minas Gerais team represented Brazil, which beat Argentina 3-2, in a friendly. regarding the photographics, that they played in the Brazilian shirt. Nevertheless, I would go by the FIFA source and then not count it as an official game between two national teams. However, it would probably be best to have two versions of the tables next to each other, as it is now. <b style="color:black">Mir</b><b style="color:#EE3939">ia~01</b> (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This happened countless times. For example, in the 1975 Copa América, the Brazil national team was also represented by players from Minas Gerais (see). And the Minas Gerais state team always played with its own shirt, by FMF. (see). Svartner (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * False. In this list, there are players from Sao Paulo (Sao Paulo), Guaraní Campinas (Sao Paulo), Palmeiras (Sao Paulo), Flamengo (Rio de Janeiro), Vasco (Río de Janeiro), América (Río de Janeiro). Not a Minas Gerais team. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, as has been pointed out by Svartner, FIFA themselves don't always agree with their own tables and there are multiple sources standing by that total. Trying to represent every possible sources view of what is and isn't counted and including several different counts of games is unworkable and unencyclopedic, and has made the article a mess of disclaimers and notes. Koncorde (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Svartner: Answering first to you, I have to say that the same sources you use to conunt the 4 matches that Brazil won, they count the 2 Argentina´s victories (1920 and 1956) too: See Elo Ratings: Argentina See Elo Ratings Brazil See Rsssf.com... And there is more: this source of Rsssf says in the "notes" that there are sources that claim that the 1956, and the two 1968 games were played by State Selections, NOT only the 1956 match. Rsssf.com ARGENTINA NATIONAL TEAM ARCHIVE Notes 21, 23 and 24.. But moreover, there is another source of Rsssf.com (It sounds to you...) I put of the List of UNOFFICIAL Argentina´s matches, that says clarely the two 1968 games were unofficial because they were played vs a Guanabara State and a Minas Gerais State selections Argentina National Team - Unofficial Matches - Match Details 1968: Río de Janeiro Combined and Minas Gerais Combined.
 * So, as everybody can see, for Svartner these sources are ok by the controversial matches won by Brazil. But when the same sources that say Argentina´s 1920 and 1956 matches (won by Argentina) may count, they are not ok... Very strange... And moreover, as I demonstrated above, Rsssf.com says in another source that the 1956 and 1968 matches are listed in the Argentina National Team - Unofficial Matches . Veeeeery confused... What Rsssf.com´s source do we belive???
 * And the most strange thing is that the november´s 2023 FIFA´s source in spanish says they are tied 42 vs 42 and the november´s 2023 FIFA´s source in english says that is 43 vs 41 in favour of Brazil . None of them has the complete list of matches as it had the 2013 FIFA´s source, that says Argentina leads by one match ... What FIFA´s source do we belive??? I think that the correct "solution" is what I did in the article, to put the 3 versions of things. Before I participated, it only was the "Brazilian version", and it was wrong, it was not neutral and encyclopedic. Now, there are the 3 versions with sources because FIFA doesn't even agree itself... Said that, I want to agree with you, Miria~01 and Lee Vilenski. This is the correct way (I think) to face this article for me.
 * And Koncorde: doy you want more than 20 sources that stands Argentina is 1 match above, or they are tied in 42? I can bring you 50 if you want... No way: meanwhile FIFA do not make and official report with the list of matches recognised by the association (the major and official in the world of football, not a few historians of Elo Ratings or Rsssf, that as you see they don´t agree each other themselves either) we should let the article as it is right now, with the 3 versions of the count. It has a lot of notes? Yes, ok, not a problem. They show the clear discrepances... Regards, --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We should accurately represent what the reliable sources state. If you have 50 reliable sources for a single outcome - please present it. That's it. However what you have done is unfortunately a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and invites the reader to infer an outcome from conflicting sources. Notes to explain discrepancies are one thing, notes repeated 4 or 5 times explaining marginal differences, especially mutually exclusive differences between some sources that are themselves incomplete, is hugely problematic as both a readability challenge and a question of neutrality - expressions such as "official", "dispute", "controversial" are not included in the sources that you ascribe them to. Instead there are, largely, either omissions and / or notes aside from the Goleamos source.
 * There are also significant issue in how certain things are expressed at the moment as it's pieced together, by you, from numerous sources. Statements like "many sources say it was not a “Class A match” because it was played with 8 players each", the fact it was played with reduced players is acceptable as mentioned in the DW source - but there's no evidence of "many sources", nor any description that matches any expression of "Class A match". Similarly the sentence "many sources say it was not a “Class A match” because Argentina didn´t play with its “A” team" is not included in 3/4 articles sourced. Goleamos appears to be the only source for the claims, and Goleamos has unclear criteria as a reliable source.
 * For simplicity and clarity, as the issue is only between friendly matches there is really no reason to duplicate the counts for all matches repeatedly as an easier way of presenting alternative counts, along with cutting out 99% of the duplication and re-duplication of sources. Koncorde (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But I do not disregard the 1920 match (even if it does not appear in some official listings). Only the 1956 match, because there are sources that in this case confirm that it was the Guanabara/Rio de Janeiro state team (see ). Svartner (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * So, Koncorde, look the "confusion" of Rsssf.com. Look the confusion of FIFA itself... There are 3 FIFA´s sources: one says 42vs42 another says BRA 43vs41 and one from 2013 says ARG leads 40vs39. That source has the complete list of matches (the others 2 no), and I presented several times: it doesn´t count the 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 and 1968 matches; you can see it by yourself! Moreover, there is the AFA´s sources, the El Gráfico´s source (the 1919 magazine, one of the most important in Latin America), the TyC Sports source, the Goleamos source, the Promiedos source (that counts 42 vs 42 matches, coinciding with FIFA´s source in spanish from November 2023)... But there are more sources:


 * ARG. would lead by one match:


 * TNT Sports:


 * Diario Olé newspaper (after 1-0 ARG win in november 2023):


 * Another from Olé after the last match won by ARG::


 * Another from Olé before the last match won by ARG:


 * Onefootball.com (from november 2019. After that, Argentina won 2 matches, and they tied 1):


 * Diario Clarín newspaper (before the 1-0 ARG win in 2023 in Maracaná):


 * Another from Clarín, after the 1-0 match in Maracaná in nov. 2023:


 * Would be tied in 42


 * La Nación newspaper (after 1-0 ARG win in november 2023, it says they are tied in 42):


 * Diario AS from Spain (before the 1-0 ARG last win in Maracaná):


 * Sporting News (after 1-0 ARG win in november 2023):


 * Diario Perfil newspaper (before the 1-0 ARG last win in Maracaná):


 * And I can follow... No way the article shouldn´t show only one vision (brazilian one) beacuse is high demostrated there are LOT of sources that say another thing... What´s your solution, Koncorde? I repeat what I said: if there are misatakes of style (about wikipedia) or grammatical, please correct them! But the content and the 3 versions of the count is totally right, because it wasn´t neutral before my intervention here. The article only showed one version... --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All of these sources come up against the problem that was shown above in the 1968 matches, where, as I demonstrated, there are photographic records that it was the Brazil team that played. The reports replicate each other, based on the same source. Svartner (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Photographic records??? How you can prove this pics were from these 2 matches??? Please, do not complicate things with a so waek argument... There are plenty of sources, as I gave that do not count as official these matches against these state´s selections.
 * Another point that makes the complete confusion of these counts in Spanish quite evident. Following the logic, Brazil should then appear with 41 victories, not 42. Svartner (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, these serious sources that claim Brazil has 39 victories and Argentina 40 do not count (with good sense, as FIFA did in 2013 withe the complete list of matches, and El Gráfico with the complete list of matches, and AFA with the complete list of matches, that many of you do not want to see) the 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956, and 1968 games... The sources that gives 42 vs 42 (including one of FIFA of november 2023 ) do not count only the 1922 or 1923 match: one of these 2 matches are not counted as official. Promiedos.com for expample doesn´t count the 1922 game See the complete list of matches here. But, as we do not have the complete list of matches in the 2023 FIFA´s source we can´t be 100% sure what FIFA counted . I think we are drowning in a glass of water... --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop claiming things like "that many of you do not want to see" - it is highly insulting to accuse people of ignoring a source. We are not. We can see clearly there are multiple sources with different totals. This is nothing new or novel on wikipedia or WP:Football. Koncorde (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the new sources; all these sources indicate is that Argentina FA has a preferred list which a group of these sources are using - this isn't creating clarity as to the reason why the AFA chooses to ignore them, nor does it confirm that they are in fact not recognised by FIFA (an incomplete archive view from 2013 is questionable at best). We should therefore correctly describe "many sources" as "Note: The Argentinian Football Association does not recognise 5 friendlies" and to continue to use the reliable sources that have been used on wikipedia for the main count until an authoritative source (i.e. FIFA) clarifies the final count of which matches are and are not included as none of the sources beyond 442 state anything to do with FIFA official recognition, and their comment is subjective in how it might be read ("In the general history, including friendlies and cups endorsed by FIFA"). Any attempt to define official / unofficial status of specific games where we ask users to look at conflicting sources that we have selected to demonstrate a specific outcome is itself WP:OR / SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * First of all, Koncorde, the 2013 FIFA´s source says what it says and is the only source we have from FIFA (the major football association in this planet) that puts clarely the complete list of matches until Feb. 2013... And I do not see there the 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 and the two 1968 games... Tell me if you find them there... You are confusing the talk, saying that. In the Notes, there must figure the 2013 FIFA´s source (as it figures with my editions, that are ultra correct) that FIFA at least until FEB. 2013 didn´t count those matches. We have the FIFA´s source whit the complete list of matches and you question it. It´s the upside down kingdom, my god...
 * Second. You are just interpreting things, you are the subjetive one, because you don´t have any proof to say what you said. AFA doesn´t "choose" anything to "ignore" those 6 matches as you are saying! AFA probably abides what FIFA said in 2013! So difficult to understand? The common sense says they were not First Class A matches, and it is explained in each note of the article that those 6 matches wouldn´t be Class A matches, and each source expliains why they are considered like this... 1920 because it was played 8 vs 8, 1922 because it was a Brazil B team (the same day the A team played the 1922 Copa América final), 1923 because it was an Argentina B team (the same day the A team played the 1923 Copa America final), 1956 because it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara State´s selection, 1968 (2 games) the same: it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara´s selection, and a Minas Gerais Selection... There are a LOT of sources presented here, there and everywere ... But "casually", for the games won by Brazil many users use the Elo Ratings and the Rsssf.com sources that mention them as "official", but when the same sources of Elo Ratings and Rsssf.com mention the matches won by Argentina are counted, they say they are unofficial  and I can follow with diffs like that... Very very very strange behaviour...
 * Third: you do not have any proof to say the other media or sites uses the numbers of AFA to make their articles! Which proof do you have to claim that? As you saw, there are media that count 40 vs 39, and others count 42 vs 42...
 * And not only AFA doens´t count those matches: as you saw, Rsssf doesn´t count a few of this matches in one source and in another, counts a few and doesn´t count other games... Promiedos doesn´t count the 1922 match and counts the others, La Nacion, Diario AS, Sporting News and FIFA itself (in nov. 2023) counts 42 vs 42... With which criteria? We don´t know. Only Promiedos puts the full list of matches, excluding the 1922 game... So, in resume, not only AFA doesn´t count these 6 matches or a portion of these 6 matches! Only Elo Ratings counts all those 6 matches, and it´s clear that you and Svartner only want to use this source as principal, but not counting the 1920 and 1956 games... Very funny... No way! It´s a total confusion. So we must ask too: With which criteria Elo ratings counts them? As User:Stevie fae Scotland told me: "Elo often include unofficial matches" We don´t know, because -as you see- there are many ways of couting... And the article, before my fair intervention counted only as Brazil and CBF counts (using Elo Ratings), and this was not neither neutral nor encyclopedic. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In resume, I think the article Argentina-Brazil football rivalry like it is now is ok. It shows the 3 versions of counting and the notes enlightening for each controversial match. The problem now is how we can solve the related articles, as Brazil national football team records and statistics (wrong the head to head vs Argentina, at least we must include notes clarifying many things of these 6 matches and the count), Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches), Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches), Argentina national football team results (1920–1939) (1920, 1922, 1923 matches), and Argentina national football team results (1940–1959) (1956 match), Argentina national football team results (1960–1979) (two matches of 1968), Brazil national football team results (1914–1949), and Brazil national football team results (1950–1969). What would be a solution? We include all 6 matches but putting notes on each of them? Or we do not put any of them? --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the 1920 match was accounted for (just look at the copy of the match list I left in my sandbox), even if the RSSSF count does not include it (and that is the why the match is listed in Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches)), since it was clearly a match between Argentina and Brazil. The one from 1956 is not counted because this one has sources that it is not disputed by the Brazil team, by about Guanabara/Rio de Janeiro . I had even written an article on the Copa Raúl Colombo to avoid further doubts, maybe it would be better to restore it. Svartner (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Svartner: again: you are the one who is adding the 1920 match in the Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches)  and you are the one who removed it from the Brazil national football team results (1914–1949) . But here now you say it counts? Agree yourself, please... Intelectual honesty 1...
 * The 1956 match figures in rsssf.com and in Elo Ratings.com as "official". The same sources you use... The same... Rsssf.com and Elo Ratings  and . Intelectual honesty 2... You will tell me there is a note in the rsssf.com it says it was a Guanabara team. Right! I will tell you the same source says with a note that the two 1968 games were against a Ganabara Selection and a Minas Selection  (Notes 23 and 24). As you and Koncorde should know, even worse there is an Rsssf.com source that clarely puts these 2 friendlies in the List of Argentina National team UNOFFICIAL matches... Again... what do you see???  Arg. Vs Rio de Janeiro Combined and Arg. vs Minas Gerais Select don´t you see???
 * Perhaps I´m crazy, but no, I´m sane and sober... As I told you a loooottt of times: you arrange things as it suits you, and this is

WP:POV. Fortunately this is not "Wikipedia Brazil", and the count of matches and head to head between Arg and Bra was corrected by me...--Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Raul, don't use bold text. Your arguments don't become any clearer when you make them, and you are not dealing with the issue by continually repeating information we have read already, and you have had this requested of you at the Admin noticeboard.
 * "the 2013 FIFA´s source says what it says and is the only source we have from FIFA this isn't true, we have another source from FIFA stating the total is 110 matches that is subsequent to the 2013 stats total. We therefore have a discrepancy we cannot resolve with FIFA alone.
 * "there must figure the 2013 FIFA´s source (as it figures with my editions, that are ultra correct) that FIFA at least until FEB. 2013 didn´t count those matches" being "correct" (in your opinion) is not the same as being verifiably supported by reliable sources. As you have conflicting totals from FIFA alone, never mind other sources, any conjecture about what FIFA did or didn't do to that date or any other is entirely your opinion.
 * "We have the FIFA´s source whit the complete list of matches and you question it" except it isn't a complete list as it stopped in 2013, RSSSF sources are also incomplete etc and you yourself have introduced other sources that specifically disagree about which fixtures are specifically omitted by including multiple counts of matches.
 * "AFA doesn´t "choose" anything to "ignore" those 6 matches as you are saying! AFA probably abides what FIFA said in 2013!" This is your opinion. We have no evidence from FIFA that this is the case, and the recent count of 110 refutes the claim. Therefore the AFA have their own count, and no explanation from them as to their reason. Taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
 * "So difficult to understand? The common sense says they were not First Class A matches, and it is explained in each note of the article that those 6 matches wouldn´t be Class A matches, and each source expliains why they are considered like this... 1920 because it was played 8 vs 8, 1922 because it was a Brazil B team (the same day the A team played the 1922 Copa América final), 1923 because it was an Argentina B team (the same day the A team played the 1923 Copa America final), 1956 because it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara State´s selection, 1968 (2 games) the same: it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara´s selection, and a Minas Gerais Selection..." You are attempting to combine the notes from one site (RSSSF or Goleamos) with a list of fixtures from another site (again WP:SYNTH) AND you are expressing an outcome that those sites themselves do not express (again WP:OR). You need to understand those basic tenets of wikipedia.
 * "you do not have any proof to say the other media or sites uses the numbers of AFA to make their articles" It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list.
 * "With which criteria? We don´t know." but you have already expressed a whole bunch of criteria about why you think FIFA didn't include certain matches and are trying to use other sources to explain possible logic. This is (again, again) WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
 * In resume, I think the article Argentina-Brazil football rivalry like it is now is ok. Absolutely not.
 * It's a mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, poorly written and terribly structured. I haven't reverted out of politeness so far as I have tried to find alternative authoritative reliable sourcing for the match listings - but this is not endorsement of the content as presented. Koncorde (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will answer to you, Koncorde:
 * this isn't true, we have another source from FIFA stating the total is 110 matches that is subsequent to the 2013 stats total. We therefore have a discrepancy we cannot resolve with FIFA alone. The only source of FIFA that shows the complete list of matches is this, the one from 2013. Give me another that shows the list of matches. Of course, as I said and I put in the article (I put the 3 versions, not as others did who only counted one version of the head to head) there are 3 (three) FIFA´s source that do not agree themselves: 2013 (ARG 1 match above, with the complete list of matches, 2023 in spanish (tied in 42 each) and 2023 in english (BRA 2 matches above) . Fortunately, I included the 3 sources ;-)
 * being "correct" (in your opinion) is not the same as being verifiably supported by reliable sources. As you have conflicting totals from FIFA alone, never mind other sources, any conjecture about what FIFA did or didn't do to that date or any other is entirely your opinion. As I proved in this discussion, there are a lot of sources an verifiable (serious sources) that also counts as this source. El Gráfico and AFA (with the full list of matches). Do you knok that the AFA is the football association of the current FIFA´s World Champion? ;-) I saw you edited that in the article that Brazil has 6 World Cups, and I had to correct it... I assume it was a typing error of you... But, this is not the discussion. I accept all the sources that express the 3 versions of the list of match. I´m not blind, and meanwhile FIFA doesn´t clarify the head to head, the article must be as it is, with all the notes and the 3 versions of the count of matches.
 * except it isn't a complete list as it stopped in 2013, RSSSF sources are also incomplete etc and you yourself have introduced other sources that specifically disagree about which fixtures are specifically omitted by including multiple counts of matches. I clarify in the "Notes". After that date, they played 10 times, wit 4 ARG wins, 4 BRA wins and 2 ties... It´s easy to prove! But as I said, I do not deny the other FIFA sources! What I object to is the way the article was before I came: with only Brazil´s point of view. As you can see, (I wish yo can) other user still ties to mix sources and take a part of the same sources he uses to "prove" something, but erasing parts of the same sources that say things he try to rule out. The 1920, 1956 and 1968 matches are the example. In this answer, I show the crux of the matter. This is WP:POV. Clarely. And you do not say anythng to him, Koncorde. It seems to be a war agaisnt me...
 * This is your opinion. We have no evidence from FIFA that this is the case, and the recent count of 110 refutes the claim. Therefore the AFA have their own count, and no explanation from them as to their reason. Taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I said that because you said the other media took the AFA´s numbers, and that AFA "choose" the 2013 FIFA´s source to rule out a few matches... You do not a proof to assert that the other media (Clarín, Olé, TyC Sports, El Gráfico, and so) took the AFA´s numbers... So, it goes to you: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-) We have what we have: a lot of different sources. Many of them say one thing, many of them another, and many of them another. The article is clear as it is. Don´t drown in a glass of water, please.
 * You are attempting to combine the notes from one site (RSSSF or Goleamos) with a list of fixtures from another site (again WP:SYNTH) AND you are expressing an outcome that those sites themselves do not express (again WP:OR). You need to understand those basic tenets of wikipedia. I don´t attempt anything. I only show with sources each case of each match and why they are not considered A mathces according to a few sources: it is explained in each note of the article that those 6 matches wouldn´t be Class A matches, and each source expliains why they are considered like this... 1920 because it was played 8 vs 8, 1922 because it was a Brazil B team (the same day the A team played the 1922 Copa América final), 1923 because it was an Argentina B team (the same day the A team played the 1923 Copa America final), 1956 because it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara State´s selection, 1968 (2 games) the same: it was not Brazil A, it was a Guanabara´s selection, and a Minas Gerais Selection. Evrything figures in the sources. The one who makes WP:SYNTH is another, not me...
 * It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list. As I said, you don´t have any proof to say that. Any... So, it goes to you again: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-)
 * but you have already expressed a whole bunch of criteria about why you think FIFA didn't include certain matches and are trying to use other sources to explain possible logic. This is (again, again) WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. No, no, no. Do not confuse other users: a lot of sources I gave expressed about why a few matches do not count. I don´t kow if FIFA consider them, because in the source of 2013 do not consider 6 matches (you can see), in the 2023 source it considers 5 of the 6 controversial matches (42 vs 42), and in the 2023 source in english considers 43 vs 41 for Brazil.
 * It is unlikely they are using FIFAs totals - because FIFA posted a total of 110 games, and their stats are not available online. There is nothing controversial in stating the AFA recognises a certain list of games, and that a group of articles also reflect the AFA list. Again. As I said, you don´t have any proof to say that. Any... So, it goes to you again: taking reasons from other sites / sources to infer reasons is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... ;-) So, playing your "game" I can tell you that AFA could have taken the numbers according to the 2013 FIFA´s source... ;-) And perhaps, brazilian media count from a CBF source, I don´t know from where thay took their numbers. The knot of the matter is those 6 matches; friendlies with no importance from the stone age, comparing with the official mathces, where Argentina dominates ;-). FIFA itself doesn´t agree in 2023...
 * it's a mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, poorly written and terribly structured. I haven't reverted out of politeness so far as I have tried to find alternative authoritative reliable sourcing for the match listings - but this is not endorsement of the content as presented As I said several times: if there are grammathical mistakes, or style mistakes, please correct them! But the content, the 3 versions, the notes with sources about each controversial match must stay.
 * Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * None of the above is dealing the issue. You are just repeating the same mistakes and attempting to defer back to sources that are disputed by the same publisher, and use other sources without attribution. If you acknowledge that FIFA's list is a discrepancy to itself, this discussion is null and void and your argument about which source (FIFA or otherwise) is irrelevant. That you attempt then to use RSSSF to explain why certain matches are omitted without attributing and simply saying "many sources" is pure WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
 * However, specifically regarding the attempt to claim I am using OR or SYNTH - as I haven't expressed support for ANY outcome that isn't possible, or any total. I stated a basic observation that multiple sources you provided all used the same list as provided by the AFA. That's it. You are the one arguing for solely your interpretation and committing SYNTH and OR. It may have existed before you started also - but that isn't the argument you have made, so I am not judging it. Koncorde (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No no no. BEFORE my participation the article was a "Rio de Janeiro´s" tribune because of the lack of neutrality it had. I "fought" hard to make the user Svartner see that there were a LOT of sources that counted the oppinsite or with discrepancies of what figured in the article... Beacuse of ME and MY participations with sources and notes that clarifies things, we could "solve" the neutral point of view, that was collapsed before my participation... You talk with pure technicalities that complicate things, but you do not solve anything. Be more specific with texts or notes you would want to include and we can talk. Go to the point with examples, please. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "and you are the one who removed it from the Brazil national football team results (1914–1949)" - In fact, it was the opposite, and it happened in 2021, when the match lists were still being developed. That's why I say that your edits are disruptive, it's essential to understand how the project works before simply changing the entire scope of the content indiscriminately. Svartner (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I saw bad there, I apoligise. It was other user, not you. But you didn´t add it again later. For expalmple, betweem march and today, as we had this discussion. If I add would you keep it there? And another thing: about the 1920 match in the Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches) what would you tell us of this? Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't completely understand what is going on here, but if the sources differ, we need to note that the sources differ and why. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, SportingFlyer! This is what I did in the article. It wasn´t neutral until my participation, and only showed one version of the facts. Thanks for participating. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nutshell: There are multiple sources, and someone is trying to use those multiple sources in a WP:OR / WP:SYNTH manner. I.e. FIFA provides a list in 2013, AFA provides a list until 2023, FIFA does new article which would refute both their original 2013 content and the AFA's, and those of multiple sources giving different Argentinian totals. Raul wants to use 2013 FIFA plus other articles plus incomplete list of games from RSSSF etc which includes some notes to provide multiple stat outputs and claim which are and aren't "official". Koncorde (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:SportingFlyer: What Koncorde says is totally FALSE. It was ME who edited the article to show the 3 versions of counting! Thus it was ME who gave a bit of neutrality to this article! The other user (Svartner), had the article as his "property", he reverted me all the time, he only wanted to show in the article the "brazilian way of counting" (of course, with Brazil ahead, winning "everything", not counting the controversial friendy matches won by Argentina but counting all the controversial friendly games won by Brazil), and when I tried to reach a solution in the talk page, he didn´t want to change anything. He had to "accept" it because of the "force" of sources I presented... And Koncorde, clarely supports him, because he doesn't like me. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello everybody. Koncorde, Svartner: please, follow the discussion here I found an official AFA´s document from 1968 that gives no room for discussion about these 2 games... I found digitized the 1968 AFA´s Memory and Balance. It is on the internet, in the "Library of AFA". http://biblioteca.afa.org.ar/libros.html (Biblioteca AFA in spanish). There are many of them digitizeds, and I will continue searching. In the 1968´s book, you go to the page 32 and 33, and you will see the sumary of those 2 games. Not need to know spanish, are very clear the summaries. And as I told you lot of times, it was not Brazil national team... Those matches were played between Argentina and a Rio de Janeiro selection (August 7) and Argentina vs Minas Gerais Selection (August 11). Please, see here . The summary says "COMBINADO RÍO DE JANEIRO VS. ARGENTINA" and "SELECCION MINAS GERAIS VS ARGENTINA". As you can see, AFA always (alredy in 1968) counted them as unofficial matches, against state selections, not against Brazil. Now, we can discover (and not only "interpretate") why AFA do not count those matches as "Class A full international games": that´s because always considered them not against Brazil national team. As you can see in the source of the "Memory and Balance" of AFA, already in 1968 they were considered unofficial, and considered as 2 matches against 2 provincial rivals. Can you see Koncorde, why AFA "ignored" those 2 games?... Simple... I hope we can following unraveling the puzzle. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, this explains why they are considered unofficial by the AFA, but the CBF considers them the main Brazil team, with the photographic records already presented above showing that they acted representing the CBD, the predecessor of the CBF, not the state federations. Svartner (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, for AFA they were always against 2 State Selections, not vs. Brazil´s national team. For CBF, they count as Brazil national team, although those matches were directed not by Joao Saldanha, the Brazil´s team trainer in 1968. Until FIFA do not clarify this situation with a new source I think we should keep the article as it is. The same for the 1956 match, and the 1920, 1922, and 1923 matches. Said that, what should we do in the artcles of Argentina´s historical official and unofficial results??? There, only there just for now, I think should be erased, because AFA do not consider them as official,and (as it was demonstrated) they never considered like this. In the rivalry´s article, I think they should stay as they are, with notes explaining each situation. And in the Brazil´s related articles (results official and unofficial matches) we should keep them (I think with notes explaining too, that AFA never considered as official games), until FIFA clarifys this issue. What do you think about this? How can we continue? --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the rivalry page;
 * First: remove any claims to "many sources" or similar POV words (WP:OR). Make clear which source is being referred to, why, and with proper attribution. The Libros AFA document, and the AFA site list of results is perfectly adequate to state "The AFA does not consider matches X and Y in their official totals as they are against State Selections". This should be made clear for all such games with clear sourcing, not through aggregated sources (WP:SYNTH) that provide no rationale or description
 * Second: remove directions to readers to have to follow specific instructions on archived sites of incomplete lists where you then use other sites to explain why they are omitted. It's unnecessary when there are list of such games already available, and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. This ends up a game of error by omission of one list or another rather than clarifying the definition. We should be specifying the inclusion / exclusion criteria once, in context.
 * Third: any reference to "official" and "FIFA" shouldn't be included due to conflict of FIFA's own sources in multiple articles until such time they clarify.
 * Fourth: as the competitive results are not in dispute, there should be static table of those results. Any discrepancy of "friendlies" should be treated distinctly in any count.
 * Fifth: what goes in the infobox is up for debate - but as the authoritative source, FIFAs most recent counts would arguably be the most relevant. But whatever the outcome the current notes are not appropriate from both a basic function of the infobox and legibility.
 * Regarding other pages; if any notes are kept - they should stick to what the articles say only. Not what is omitted. Koncorde (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ideally, more members would get involved in editing the page to make it something more acceptable/neutral. As I said previously, I am not opposed to excluding the contradiction since throughout the process more sources were presented (hence my previous reversals), but as long as the total list of matches is preserved. Svartner (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; I wish more users get involved in editing the page. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A "little" answer to a few ponts:
 * First: remove any claims to "many sources" or similar POV words (WP:OR). Make clear which source is being referred to, why, and with proper attribution. The Libros AFA document, and the AFA site list of results is perfectly adequate to state "The AFA does not consider matches X and Y in their official totals as they are against State Selections". This should be made clear for all such games with clear sourcing, not through aggregated sources (WP:SYNTH) that provide no rationale or description
 * There are many sources, not only AFA does not consider a few games. FIFA, in the 2013 source didn´t include them either... El Gráfico doesn´t include too (with the list of matches), so we don´t know why they made this list; if they took AFA´s numbers or if they have historians working in the magazine (as thay always had) ... TNT Sports does not include either, TyC Sports either. Promiedos includes a few games but do not include the 1922 Roca´s Cup friendly match... FIFA 2013 doesn´t include any of those 6 maches in their complete list until that date, but FIFA´s 2023 source in spanish gives 42 vs 42, and in english gives 43 vs 41 in favour of Brazil... FIFA doesn´t agree itself! As you see, there are many sources that do not count all this 6 matches, a few that count a few and a few that count all the 6 games, or 5 of these 6... We do not know exactly the parameters the other sources (except AFA) considerated to make the list... Supposeing the reasons and not having a proof to afirm it would be clarely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... And you do not suppose, don´t you? So, there are many sources, that´s the truth... So not only AFA do not consider a few games.
 * remove directions to readers to have to follow specific instructions on archived sites of incomplete lists where you then use other sites to explain why they are omitted. It's unnecessary when there are list of such games already available, and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. This ends up a game of error by omission of one list or another rather than clarifying the definition. We should be specifying the inclusion / exclusion criteria once, in context.
 * Don´t agree at all. FIFA´s 2013 source is the only of FIFA that has the complete list of games until 2013. At least, this is what FIFA considered as "official" that time. And I think is correct to add the intructions to enter the article and the reader see with his own eyes what we say in the article of why we say what we say: there is a huge dispute of this 6 games, and until FIFA clarifies the whole thing, this source is very important to understand.
 * Third point of you: I´m agree with you.
 * Fouth point of you: I´m totally agree with you too.
 * what goes in the infobox is up for debate - but as the authoritative source, FIFAs most recent counts would arguably be the most relevant. But whatever the outcome the current notes are not appropriate from both a basic function of the infobox and legibility.
 * Do not agree at all. This rivalry has a lot of controversies and (as we can all see) different ways of counting, even for FIFA, that doen´t agree itself... All the 3 FIFA´s sources are valuable and none of them should prevail or be more important than the others. If you "hurry" me, I would say the 2013´s source would be more important because is the only one that has the complete list of matches until 2013. And if you see, the controversial matches were in 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 and 1968; veru very very far from 2013... And there, in this source, they are not listed... I keep with the idea of let the article with all the notes in the infobox, and all the sources they appear there. Do not erase important and serious information, please. Add, do not subtract! You talk with pure technicalities that complicate things, but you do not solve anything. Be more specific with texts or notes you would want to include and we can talk. Go to the point with examples, please.--Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We do not know why FIFA in 2013 excluded, or why FIFA in 2023 included. It is pure speculation, and / or requires merging it with RSSSF's reasons and/ or other some other sources: this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. In contrast the AFA page and AFA history book are both completely, 100%, in agreement. We do not need any other sources to make the point, especially incomplete. At this point WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. You are fundamentally incapable of listening to why what you are saying doesn't fit with the requirements of wikipedia, and when someone presents you with the appropriate way of dealing with the issue you return back to insisting on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Understand what is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and understand why your current notes are problematic. I have given you over a week telling you why your framing is incorrect and at this point it seems you have made 0 attempt to understand why. Koncorde (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You continues with all those technicalities and you do not go to the point or the solution. Chapter 150.000... So for you an incomplete Rsssf´s source from 2008 (made by 2 or 3 historians that we don´t know their "perception") should be above a FIFA´s source from 2013? For example this Rsssf.com source includes the two 1968 games (with 2 notes saying they could be unofficial) that was demonstated by AFA´s official book that they were unofficial, played against 2 State Selections teams... And I ask you: you would "prefer" the 2008 Rsssf.com source instead of an AFA´s official source? You would prefer an ELO Ratings source instead of the 2013 FIFA´s source? As everybody saw, there´s another Rsssf.com source thar counts as official the 1920´s match and counts as unofficial the 1956 and the 1968 mathces... The SAME organisation (Rsssf.com) has 2 different sources (as FIFA, that has 3) where they do not agree themselves: one counts as official, the other counts as unofficial... I presented those sources a loooottt of times, so I'm not going to bore you again. Everybody can see the multiple contradictions!!! So why do we should "prefer" only ONE source from an organisation instead of other by THE SAME organisation that says the opposite? So, the point is that the notes are really necessary in this article and in the related articles... Until FIFA makes an official count of games, with the list of matches (AS THEY DID IN 2013 and you clarely don't give it importance) we must include all the notes.
 * About Elo Ratings sources, as Stevie fae Scotland told me once here, Elo ratings often include unofficial matches... So, for me, Elo ratings is not a reliable source...
 * Concluding: so Koncorde, please include the text you would upload in the article, the notes you would include (with the texts on each) and we can talk with more precision. Leave for a second the technical language, the WDFDSF, the WO:ODFDEDSDE, the XYSFEFJ:34/5, come down "to earth" and upload a precise text, concrete notes, and precises sources you would use (and explain why you would use one to the detriment of the other) in the artcile, and we can talk about the solution. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One: no, I don't accept incomplete lists from FIFA in archives where no reason is given for the inclusion or exclusion, but where we attempt to use RSSSF or some other site to justify the text included. This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You have identified sources for the 1968 games. Find sources for the others that are not dependent on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
 * Two: There is no point me suggesting specific solutions until you understand why what you have done is inappropriate, otherwise we will literally just spend time repeating the exact same issues and errors. Koncorde (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One: you are not the owner of the article, so you are not the only person who "accepts" or "not accepts" the sources. A FIFA source (incomplete because of the date or "old") with their FULL list of matches is much much much more reliable and respectable than any source of rsssf.com and Elo Ratings. So, we have 3 FIFA´s sources and those three FIFA´s sources must stay and show the 3 "versions". You are not going to manage everything as you wish, Koncorde... The article was not neutral before my participation, and you should know it... It showed only ONE version of counting, and I think that a "black swan" appeared in this article and deconstructed everything in this article... The THREE versions of FIFA MUST stay. The 3 are valuable and respectable! And as you saw, from the others sources, Rsssf includes matches in one source (the 2008´s one) as "Official" (with notes saying they could be unofficial) but in another source, they put them in the list of the "Argentina UNOFFICIAL matches"... Which Rsssf´s source we take??? Jajajaja... Elo Ratings often includes unofficial matches, as Stevie said before, and I agree. And you prefer those 2 sources above a FIFA´s source? Respectfully, make me laugh, please...
 * Two: so if you do not "accept" the 2013 FIFA´s source, I will not accept the 2008 Rsssf.com source (incomplete), and the Elo Ratings source that includes unofficial matches... They are not reliables for me. At least, you should "accept" the AFA´s source, with the complete list of matches according the MAJOR OFFICIAL organisation of Argentine Football...Don´t you? And "El Gráfico´s" source (with also the list of matches), and TyC´s source, and La Nación´s source, and Clarín´s source, and Diario As´s source, and Promiedos source (with also the complete list of matches), and Olé´s source, and I can continue... Many sources, not only one... I will not go back. The dispute MUST be shown! Sorry for ruining the "anti neutrality" and the unreality which it was made the article before I came to clarify and put light in the count of matches... Sorry.
 * And three: we must wait the opinion of at least 4 or 5 more users. Until we have a consensus, the 3 versions are perfectly shown and explained in the article. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still not entirely sure what the specific controversy is in terms of what text is at play, but I do not believe FIFA is necessarily the "official" of what has happened, especially because it seems FIFA cannot even agree with itself. Our job should be to summarise what the different sources say and note the discrepancies. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * SportingFlyer: I´am totally agree with you! This is what I did and I´ve done in the whole discussion and what I did in the article. Exactly what you are mentioning above. But for the user Koncorde accused me of committing WP:OR and WP:SYNTH... In addition, I asked him lot of times to introduce a text or notes and the sources he thinks are appropriate for the article but I´am still waiting... He only accuses me to do WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and he talks with pure burocratic technicalities. If you see, this is the state of situation right now. Regards, --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said previously, the article demands to be redesigned to desirable standards. I'm avoiding making adjustments until a consensus is reached. It is also necessary to know about the consistency of Argentina's match list, as he removed the 1968 games, now the count has become chaotic (see Argentina national football team results (1960–1979) ending at #513 and Argentina national football team results (1980–1999) starting at #516). It would be good to know what the @Stevie fae Scotland who organized the listing think about. Svartner (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Svartner: as it was demonstrated with the official AFA´s book of memmories and balance of 1968, those 2 matches are not considered official by AFA. Until FIFA says something about it, we should delete them. The same case with the 1920 match that you included as unofficial in the Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches)... Many sources count it as official... The same thing with the 1956 match, acording to many sources it was played vs. a Guanabara Selection... And I do not see this 1956 match in the Brazil national football team results (1950–1969)... My opinion? Those 3 matches were played vs State Selections, so they are all unofficial. It´s demonstrated. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was happy with how it was after I had finished compiling the lists as I had looked into the status of matches to confirm that they were official. I used sources that we consider reliable to decide on inclusion or exclusion of matches where there were doubts about status. I don't think any of these ones were doubtful either, I don't remember looking too much into any Brazil v Argentina matches because the various RSSSF sources included them. The only reason I haven't said much on this so far is that I can see you're all coming at it in good faith and I don't want to get drawn into an edit war. That's why I was glad it was brought up here so the community at large can weigh in and we can reach consensus. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello everybody. A little "introduction": recently, a few days ago, I demonstrated that AFA, in their official Memories and Balance from 1968, clarely recognised as Argentina national team played against a Rio de Janeiro´s selection (first) and vs a Minas Gerais Selection (then) instead of against the national team of Brazil, as Elo Ratings and one source of Rsssf.com assert. For those who didn´t see, please click here and see the pages 32 and 33 from the AFA´s official book of the Memories and Balance from 1968 . As at this stage almost everybody know, the two matches were won by the Rio de Janeiro´s team (4-1) and the Minas Gerais team (3-2) and this 2 sources (Elo Ratings and ONE source of Rsssf, that clarely Svartner and Koncorde value the most) incredibly say that were won by Brazil… See  . They both appears; the two games won by "Brazil"… Here we have a big discrepance, because for AFA, oficially they were 2 unofficial matches against 2 State´s selections, but for Elo Ratings and ONE source of rsssf.com (another source from THE SAME Rsssf.com includes them at the list of Argentina national team unofficial matches ) were “official” and against Brazil, and not vs State´s Selections... This clarely demonstrates that neither Elo Ratings nor Rsssf.com are 100% reliables... Above all, Elo Ratings...


 * Well, adding more discrepances and confusion, and as I am intelectually honest, I searched and searched and searched and found today in the 1956 official book of AFA´s Memories and Balance, that the december 1956 match (Raul Colombo cup, that also counts as official according to Elo Ratings and Rsssf.com   and as unofficial in this rsssf.com source ), AFA (in this book) counts it as played against Brazil, that was represented by a “Federación Metropolitana de Football” team... In the infobox of the match of this book says Argentina 2-Brazil 1… See here, the page 60 . Here, it is ambiguous: by one hand, AFA tells the brazilian team was a “Federación Metropolitana” team, but in the infobox of the match says “Argentina 2 – Brazil 1”… And in the description of the line ups they put Argentina (whit the players) and Brazil (with the players)! Well, I´am already very confused because moreover, AFA´s source from the 2023 do not count this match as official against Brazil  and either FIFA´s 2013 source . I introduced this item in the talk page of the article too if you want to continue there  --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You've already commented on this previously, and it's not just the RSSSF and Elo Ratings disagreeing that the 1968 matches weren't 100% Full A. If the AFA considers that it wasn't the Brazil national team, the CBF considers that it was (and has the records proving it was a representation of CBD). Both are reliable sources, what exists is casuistry between the federations in the case of this clash due to the alleged rivalry. The "Metropolitan Federation" mentioned would be a reference to the current Rio de Janeiro federation (FFERJ), because in fact, the players who represented Brazil were from clubs in Rio de Janeiro (Botafogo, Flamengo, Fluminense, Vasco da Gama). Svartner (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For me, thay are not 100% reliable sources, because (as I commented 100 times) Rsssf.com in one source puts those two 1968 games as "official" and in another source (from the same site) puts those 2 matches as unofficial, in the list of Argentina national team unofficial matches... Rare and unserious.
 * Elo Ratings includes everything: the 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 and the two of 1968 matches. Rare and unserious II. The same Stevie fae Scotland told me once: "Elo often includes unofficial matches".
 * So, it´s a mistery... I think the 3 versions of counting are totally ok, with the notes on each controversial match and the 3 "totals" according many sources, many others and many others. There are sources "to make sweets" here... Lots of them, and they are from the 2 different Federations (AFA and CBF), from FIFA, from media, from official memories and balance books. Until FIFA bring to light a new complete list of matches between these 2 rivals, I think the article should stay as it is, of course, correcting style mistakes or gramatical mistakes. If FIFA do not publish anything new we will never know wich of these 6 matches counts as "official" and wich not... Perhaps, in a few weeks they make a new article because of the final of 2024 Copa America... Who knows... ;-) --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I have proposed the merge of some content at Edelmira Calvetó into Supporters of FC Barcelona. Please contribute to the discussion. Kingsif (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

League football in Turkey
There was the Turkish National Division from 1937 to 1950; the Turkish Federation Cup from 1956 to 1958; and Süper Lig from 1959 onwards. What was the league system between 1950 and 1956? Trying to work out what leagues Coşkun Taş played in (for categorisation purposes), as he was active in Turkey between 1951 and 1959. GiantSnowman 17:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Would it have been the regional Istanbul Football League? GiantSnowman 17:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

New (or altered) table format request
Does anyone know of an example of a Module:Sports table for football, where there is an additional column for 'bonus points' or points carried forward from a previous phase ? I am looking to develop a better solution to the league tables for 2022–23 Lebanese Premier League and 2023–24 Lebanese Premier League, where the competition is split after a certain number of matches into an upper section and lower section. However, only half the points from the first round carry forward, which I think necessitates two tables (all teams before the split, and a second split table). I can't easily find where to get the additional column, except for in the templates associated with Module:Sports table/Rugby, from which I'm assuming the coding is not transferrable. It has been done already without additional columns by using the adjust_points_ and a comment for each team, but that seems quite inelegant. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you use Module:Sports table/Custom? — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882  &#124; talk 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will try. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Aggressive vandalism against Boca Juniors players ongoing
I'm sure some of you noticed on your watchlists aggressive vandal edits going on for the last few days. I first noticed it on Gary Medel's page. Upon further check, it seems that all these vandal sockpuppets target current players of Boca Juniors. What's the most efficient way to deal with this? I guess some kind of temporary IP ban is needed? Reporting individual users to ANI seems useless. I submitted a couple of pages for increasing protection, but no action was taken (on account that many more pages need protection and not just one). --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What users/pages? I'll take a look. GiantSnowman 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's under control now, all the articles got protected for a year. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

New logo for Club León of the Liga MX
https://x.com/clubleonfc/status/1805647574088794494 47.161.79.245 (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Couldn't find one without the background, so put that up temporarily RedPatch (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Aston Villa F.C. in the 1880s
It's existed for 17 years but do we need this article breaking out one specific decade from the main article History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874–1961)? I've never come across any other article as specific as "[Club] in [decade]"......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not in great shape because it's moreso a list of FA Cup matches than a 'History of' article. It seems to exist in place of the articles on Aston Villa seasons from 1881–82 to 1887–88, which are redirects to various sections of this one. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Englandstats.com
I see WikiProject Football/Links lists englandstats.com as reliable. I'm doing a GA review of Norman Hunter (footballer) and am checking source reliability. Per this page the site is the work of one fan. Can anyone point me at a discussion of why this site is considered reliable? I'm not suggesting the site has incorrect data, just looking for e.g. evidence that the site is treated as reliable by professional journalists, for example, or endorsements by professional football statisticians. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe it is treated as more reliable than the usual one-man-band websites as, per its About page, it checks results and stats against independent sources. Having said that, in Hunter's article it only appears to be sourcing the result of that Spain-England game, not the rest of the sentence, so it could be replaced with any RS report on the game (i.e. ). Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That will resolve it for GA, so thanks. I wonder if it belongs on the projects RS page, though, if it's really a one man operation without external validation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of three more sites
Hi, everyone. Besides the site raised by Mike above, there are three others cited for Norman Hunter and elsewhere, including some reviewed articles. These are:
 * https://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/
 * http://www.englandfootballonline.com
 * http://www.mightyleeds.co.uk

Obviously, the last two are not fully secure. I would prefer not to use them, but I'd be interested in knowing what others think. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * England Football Online yes:
 * see a couple of previous discussions at this project page: #1 #2 (some of the external links from those discussions no longer work)
 * fa-cupfinals.co.uk no:
 * can't find any sign of who runs it, its FAQ page includes the likes of "The FA Cup Final 2024 is on Saturday the 25th of May. The time of the final has yet to be confirmed. Last years time of kick off was 4:30pm GMT so this years is likely to be the same or similar" and continues in the same or similar vein, and it has an unhealthy interest in and enthusiasm for crypto betting. If all you need it for is proof that Hunter played and lost in the 1965 final, use 11v11 or suchlike.
 * mightyleeds is the interesting one:
 * I'd always thought of it as a decent enough one-man-band Leeds fansite and that's all, but having taken a closer look, the one man concerned, Dave Tomlinson, has written several books on Leeds United history. Some are self published, but three 1, 2, 3, were published by Amberley and one by Pitch Publishing. Both imprints are reputable commercial publishers of sports books. Maybe that makes him enough of a subject-matter expert for his website to be RS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would concur entirely with Struway's assessment of these. Crowsus (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. GiantSnowman 11:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and . I wasn't aware that Dave Tomlinson is "Mighty Leeds". He has written some good books so I think he probably should be considered an SME. The cup finals one crops up in over 160 articles so maybe we need to investigate those? PearlyGigs (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

UEFA Intertoto Cup stats
Is there a consensus on if these stats should be in a Continental/Europe column or in an Other column? I corrected the table formatting for Vincent Montella yesterday to make it in line with the MOS standard and was curious where his Intertoto Cup stats with Sampdoria during the 1998–99 season should go. I put them in Europe for the time being but feel like they probably better belong in Other. My thinking is that when the competition existed it was a summer tournament for qualification into the UEFA Cup and I don't think UEFA really keeps records for the tournament either as it does with the UCL, UEL, UECL, or the old Cup Winners Cup, and so it doesn't feel like a "proper" tournament. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd count them as European matches. UEFA organised the competition so I can't see why they wouldn't count as European matches. They were essentially a precursor to the 47 million qualifying matches that we have now. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Abukari Damba
I have a question : in english, we can notice Abukari Damba whereas in polish it's Abubakari Damba. I don't know the correct name but in NFT, it's Abubakari Damba. So is it Abukari or Abubakari Damba ? Cordially. --FCNantes72 (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * no answer ? 2A02:8429:3D72:8901:F533:5715:360D:78E9 (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What a tricky scenario: based on Twitter, it's the shortened version for the first name used but more than twice the pages from Google site results show the longer version. What I can say is that it is the same person but sources and other websites, including those run by his home country, are obviously inconsistent to say for definite which name Wikipedia should use for the article and talk page titles. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Iggy the Swan. I will create the article in french. Cordially. --FCNantes72 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

United States boys' national under-15 soccer team
Is the naming of this (boys rather than mens) right? GiantSnowman 10:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, 14/15 year olds clearly aren't men so that would be a weird name to use..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that they primarily compete in a competition which is called the CONCACAF Boys' Under-15 Championship -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, fair. GiantSnowman 11:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At what age do boys become men? 🤔 --SuperJew (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is considered to be different among humans, for me I consider between 16 and 18 when you finished growing. So I also think the naming seems right. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So for example the Joeys Australia men's national under-17 soccer team is correctly named or should it be moved to Australia boys' national under-17 soccer team? (They're also competing in the 2024 ASEAN U-16 Boys Championship (which had it's name changed this year)) --SuperJew (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "How do WP:RS refer to the team?" would be the question to ask, I reckon? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mostly as Joeys or Subway Joeys . In general Aussie media refer to the soccer teams by their nicknames. --SuperJew (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say U17 is when it becomes "Men" for football. See a bunch of U15 tournaments referred to as Boys and Girls rather than Men and Women and I believe U17 is when Fifa begins to consider caps as official "cap-tying" and requiring a one-time switch. I know they do not consider U15 matches as such when I went through the cap-tying rules. RedPatch (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Blackpool F.C. league record by opponent
What would be the best option for this article? It hasn't been updated in three years, nor is it likely to be updated at this point. Seasider53 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Davide Orlando, David Orlando
I propose merging Davide Orlando into David Orlando. Please see Talk:David Orlando. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

List of footballers with 500 or more goals
Hello! Should List of footballers with 500 or more goals be renamed to List of men's footballers with 500 or more goals (it's a redirect, as that was its former name) now that there is an article about women's prolific, over 300 goals, scorers (List of women's footballers with 300 or more goals)? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Just adding the reason I am asking is mainly because I don't know how to do it when the new name is a redirect, as, last time I tried to move/rename an article to a previous name, it didn't let me do it. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What do reliable sources say? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * In the response to your second edit, WP:RM/TR gives us instructions on how to deal with it and someone with page move rights or an admin may agree and move it. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement regarding List of English women's football transfers summer 2024

 * This is the appropriate place for further discussion rather than the article talk page, and the apology section is either irrelevant or a bit WP:POINTY. Since when is brevity of discussion a criterion? Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure the issue has been resolved because CNC isn't listening to anyone else's input and closes any attempts at discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I especially like that the explanation that the transfer between two clubs wasn't actually a transfer between the two clubs is hidden behind a link to a footnote that nobody is likely to read without (other than someone picking holes in the format). Completely misleading information. Seasider53 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This only refers to Roebuck, which as SuperJew pointed out "Roebuck actually signed a pre-contract with Barca, so this case is different." . None of the others are referenced as free agency transfers. CNC (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But you’re expecting this to be the format if it happens again? It just hurts my brain how far apart people can be on what constitutes useful information. That’s the never-ending struggle. Seasider53 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While this has been the format in the past with 60 examples, but I'm not suggesting that. Like others in that long-winded discussion, I think it's best to follow what reliable sources say; either it's from free agency, or a free transfer. Naturally with less news-worthy transfers it might not be so clear, as clubs don't necessarily specify (they usually don't and are often quite vague about the type of transfer) . Regarding Roebuck, the note should include that she signed a pre-contract, because although she was unattached, she was far from a "free" agent while under contract. CNC (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I personally tired of the ownership CNC took of the page so I stepped back from actively editing it. Now exactly what I feared is happening - only the big names and transfers which are atrractive to CNC are being updated, while other transfers are being ignored, even though I brought them up on the talk page. I hope I'm not the only one that sees the irony that in CNC's quest to "be providing a more complete picture" (his words) they've created a situation where the page is much less up to date and much less of a complete picture. --SuperJew (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Setting aside how uncivil that conversation got, I genuinely do not understand the issue with later changing the club from "unattached" to whatever club they are joining. That has been a pretty well established way of writing out transfer articles for a long time now, and it makes sense. Most people are not just interested in the fact that they left one team, but also where they are going. Just because it happened by way of a free transfer after the contract runs out doesn't mean that it makes more sense to list someone as "unattached" rather than the club to which they ended up going just because they may have been briefly out of contract. Jay eyem (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, “this is the way it’s always been done” should least apply to WP:FOOTBALL articles compared to any other facet of Wikipedia, such is the desire of our editors to create their own policies. Seasider53 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is not a wrong line of reasoning and which is why I added a justification for continuing to do so. Why are the technicalities of "the only thing that is relevant is that they were released" the important part and not "this is the club to which they are moving"? Which of those provides a more complete picture of what is happening? Or am I misunderstanding what the conversation is about? Jay eyem (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * More complete ≠ accurate, as has been discussed. When we need footnotes to explain “jk, the player wasn’t really signed by Barcelona from Real Madrid”, we’ve already left the bounds of credibility. Seasider53 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So essentially the solution is to have a giant list of all of the players that were released from their contracts? How is that evenly remotely helpful information? And why is that a more important option than just saying the club to which they transferred? The term "free transfer" is pretty well understood, I don't understand why the timing is so important. Are the only transfers that can be called "free transfers" those that occur as soon as the transfer window opens in that scenario? I genuinely don't understand the issue. Jay eyem (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "I genuinely don't understand the issue"


 * Undertake some genuine research. I can't help you there.
 * That aside, inclusivity of information is the aim, not selectivity. Seasider53 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to explain the merits of your argument, suit yourself. And I would think "inclusivity" would be including where players are transferring, not just leaving them as unattached. Jay eyem (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the returns from loan should not be there. Seasider53 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree re: loans, this was previously removed but was swiftly reverted. Do you think there is any use in having the "transfers" to unattached in this list, as these aren't even transfers (ie between clubs)? They are also are not unattachment dates (ie contract expiry) but merely announcement dates based on decisions made, around the theme of "leaving at the end of June", rather than when players are actually leaving. At least it's not included in the men's equivalent transfer list, so it's hard to understand it's inclusion in this list, apart from for curiosity sake of who's leaving where. I'm under the impression it'd be better as a "Players leaving clubs" section, prior to the transfer list. CNC (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The lines have been blurred because of the section headings and article title. If it's transfer-specific, then players released to free shouldn't be listed. They would appear if they move from free agency to a club, but (I can't even believe I'm typing this!!1) not listing the club they were released from. Seasider53 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My opinion is between yours and Jay eyem; not include end of loans; somewhat indifferent to announcements of releasing players to free agency, as is relevant for context sake, but would ideally be it's own section; reference previous clubs for players from free agency, as RS supports the idea that these are transfers between clubs, even if they technically aren't. The section wording/title is identical to the mens article, which ideally would be the working formula to follow for convenience sake. The real question appears to be at what point does our interpretation of a transfer become OR, instead of just following what RS say. CNC (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at previous articles from the same contributor, Summer 2023 and Summer 2021 for example, they are full of these free agency transfers (I assume to avoid duplicate entries which makes sense). The irony being the argument wasn't about free agency transfers, it was predominantly about listing free transfers. CNC (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is firstly that it paints an inaccurate picture. Transfers between clubs in most cases involve fees which means revenue and income.
 * So if for example club A sells 90% of their players while club B has their players depart at the end of their contract, in the scenario where we show the club the player moved on to regardless, it creates a false image that looks like both clubs have a lot of revenue from transfer fees.
 * The second issue, which is more minor but I think has been highlighted beautifully by the history of the page being discussed, is that when we get all fussy about where a player ends up at and feel so strongly about updating and including it, it takes energy and resources which could be invested in actually listing all the player movements in the leagues in scope of the page. As can be seen on the talk page of summer 2024, only half of the transfers are being added.
 * Regarding loans and loan returns I think they are player movements in every way and should be included. The average reader/fan is interested in what's the difference in the squad from last season, not the what kind of contract the player is on. --SuperJew (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So is the issue with the use of the term "transfer" itself? Because I completely agree with your last sentence, and I think that's largely how sources discuss transfers as well; not just the formal transfers where money is exchanged, but from where players on free transfers are signing and to where released players are going. I am not sure what other term you would use that doesn't sound clunky, though. Jay eyem (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think "player movements" can work. But as I said with the where released players are going, I think it creates a false impression (players joining from free agency after leaving at end of contract aren't creating revenue) and secondly requires energy and time to chase up. --SuperJew (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Category pages for players from a club without an English Wikipedia article
Should a club without an English Wkipedia article have its own category page for players who have played for that club? For instance, I've found that Alsancak Yeşilova from Northern Cyprus does not have an article, but has a category for its players at Category:Alsancak Yeşilova footballers. Curious on whether or not the article for the club should always be created before the category page for its players. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Soccerdonna
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Soccerdonna. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

ML072347's WP:CITESPAM
's contributions look like WP:CITESPAM. I've been reverting excessive citations but could use some help. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They've responded to my inquiry on their Talk page. What is the appropriate response? Robby.is.on (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a chronic edit war at an article about a football club, Botola. The thread is Continued unsourced statistics changes at Botola. Thank you.. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 06:05, 11 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)

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)

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)

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)