This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Football This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball

WikiProject Football

Project pages
Project talk page Task forces Portal New articles Cleanup articles Unreferenced BLPs Article alerts Popular pages
Assessment Assessment department (talk) Assessment log
Format templates Club articles Club templates National team articles National team templates National association articles National assn. templates Competition articles League season articles (Lua tables) Club seasons articles Country seasons articles Match articles Player articles Stadium articles
Other Consensus Category structure Notability criteria Fully professional leagues (talk) Template list Sources and links Booklist Members Recognised content Vital articles Project milestones Did You Know? archive

User Special:Contributions/Timmy96 was banned in 2023 for a lack of competence. They clearly had severe educational shortcomings and would add vast amounts of fundamentally inadequate text to articles on mostly quite obscure footballers. They are still editing in defiance of their ban. One of their most characteristic habits is using the phrase "it wasn't until on". You can currently find this phrase in 236 articles ([1]). Where possible, it would be ideal if people could revert these articles to before the addition of the substandard material (quite easy to find in article histories, will be a single edit with a very large diff, generally at least 50,000 bytes in size). Where the user managed to get their material into the article some time ago, a lot more work will unfortunately be required to return the articles to a state of any quality. Going forward, if a few users regularly search for the phrase "it wasn't until on" and revert on sight, perhaps the banned user might eventually get the message. 94.119.32.15 (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A problem I have is that the user who added the disputed content to Eiji Kawashima in July 2924 was user:94.119.128.1, and the user who edited Antti Niemi (footballer) in July 2024 was user:94.119.41.22. Both rather close to the user name of the IP who raised this query. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the problem you have with two IP addresses being similar is what, exactly? 94.119.32.69 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@94.119.32.15: The proper place to raise this concern would be WP:SPI since that is where the editors with the permissions to verify sockpuppetry will see your concerns.

@Daemonickangaroo2018: Just because this IP address is similar to other IP addresses that were involved in content disputes does not mean they are the same person; even if it were the same IP address, that still does not mean it's the same person because some ISPs use dynamic IP addressing. If you have a legitimate concern regarding this user, then go to WP:AN. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a sockpuppet investigation. The sockpuppetry is blindingly obvious, and further confirmation of it would not do anything to undo the damage that the sockpuppet has caused. Do you want that damage to be undone, or are you not particularly bothered by hundreds of articles containing grossly substandard material? 94.119.32.69 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen "loan returns" included in tables of transfers on club season articles, such as 2024–25 VfB Stuttgart season. Is there any consensus on their inclusion in these tables? It seems silly to include them in a table of transfers but I wanted to check there was consensus on the matter before I start removing them because it is fairly widespread. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you not include them? It's a player movement. --SuperJew (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I would keep them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a transfer though, a player having been out on loan in the previous season doesn't relate to the current season at all. Also, most third party sources I've cone across don't consider loan returns as transfers, e.g. Sky Sports, BBC Sport, kicker. The only exception to this is I am aware of is Transfermarkt. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So change the name of the table to "squad changes" like in the Stuttgart source. You're just arguing semantics. The question is should we list the changes in the squad between and during seasons. My opinion (and others here too and I would argue the average reader) is yes to list all changes. At the end of the day, a fan wants to know which players the club has it's disposal, not only which players came in on a "transfer". What's next? only listing paid for transfers since free transfers are free? --SuperJew (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the squad list will let the reader know which players are available? The fact that a player was on loan the previous season is pretty inconsequential, particularly as that info is available on the previous season's page. Incoming / outgoing transfers are events that happen during the season concerned, loan returns are not. Spike 'em (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the squad list will let the reader know which players are available? So let's get rid of transfers too? Maybe the fact that a player player for a different club the previous season is pretty inconsequential, particularly as that info is available on that club's previous season's page? --SuperJew (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming / outgoing transfers are events that happen during the season concerned, loan returns are not. Spike 'em (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A loan return after the last game of the 2024-25 season was played doesn't affect the 2024-25 season in any way. --SuperJew (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Been through this. Doesn’t matter; people will do what they want. Seasider53 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd only list single-season loans in the season that they happen, for both the lending and borrowing team. Spike 'em (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article 2024–25 VfB Stuttgart season; I don't like that loans and transfers are mixed into one table. They should be separated. And players returning from a loan return to the club at the end of the season. Not the following season. So they shouldn't even be on that list.

I've spoken about this issue to death, I personally don't think there should be any table about a player returning from a loan. In fact I believe we should just write it out in prose. It would be far better to simple write a paragraph on players who were out on loan last season and have return to the squad for this season. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Say the final match of the season is in April 2025, the player returns from loan June 2025 - why list it in that season's page? it's irrelevant to that season already. Again look at how the source handles it. --SuperJew (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I believe we should just write it out in prose - and that in one sentence sums up the problems with most season articles (at least those covering the last 20 years or so) which invariably consist of loads of chaotic-looking tables and almost no prose...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the last game is in April, then why would the loanee hang around for another 2 months? Spike 'em (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's when the contract is until in most cases. What is the loanee actually doing? probably on vacation as it's off-season, not training with either club and will return to parent club for pre-season training around June. --SuperJew (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this only covers England, but the FA's official regulations ([2]) state that "Long Term Loan Transfers shall be for a full Playing Season; or from any date prior to 31st August to any date between 1st and 31st January; or from any date between 1st and 31st January (the January transfer window) to the end of the Playing Season" and separately defines the Playing Season as "the period between the date on which the first league fixture in the Competition is played each year until the date on which the last league fixture in the Competition is played. For Clubs participating in play off matches this does include the period when play off matches are played." This indicates that loans end as soon as the last game of the league season has been played and not in June -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: the problem with referring to what sources do here is that returns from loans are rarely covered, Stuttgart even covering players coming back from loans at all feels like an exception rather than a rule (I've come not come across many clubs that do this), with the exception of loans being terminated early, and third party sources certainly don't tend to cover loan returns as transfers. Its so much easier to read with loans in a separate table to permanent transfers where the start and end date of a loan is given, and is consistent with how loans tend to be reported on, and this information certainly shouldn't be contained only in the article for a different season to the one the loan took place in. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not understanding why you think loans/loan returns should be treated any differently than transfers. Or why it's easier to read in separate tables. Both are movement of player from different club to this club. --SuperJew (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loans are fundamentally very different to permanent transfers, it's ridiculous to treat them as if they aren't. Putting them separately from other transfers rather than this mess of a format allows all the information on the loan to be consolidated in one place such as the start and end date of the loan being given together. Take 2008–09_Huddersfield_Town_A.F.C._season#Players in and out as an example (ignoring the issues with sourcing here) - the loans mean this takes up so much more space than it needs to, for every loan its unclear what the duration is without a significant amount of scrolling up and down or Ctrl+F and this is without the issue of the return date from the loan being listed on a different article, because at least the loan returns are put in the same season here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the table is not formatted well. Look at 2024–25 Melbourne Victory FC season for example: Badolato was loaned in for a period of 5 months. On the Huddersfield article I also don't know what the duration of contract signed is for permanent transfers, unlike the Melbourne Victory article. Can you actually explain what the fundamental difference is? Both transfers and loans have a start date and an end of contract date. Loanees can be recalled while permanent players can be sold/terminated. What is actually the difference? --SuperJew (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: sorry for the delayed reply, I've been offline for a few days. Firstly, that is actually a very nicely formatted table, not seen contract length used in these tables before and it does address the main issue I have with the Stuttgart article, that is not giving the length of the loan directly. However, looking at other articles with this format to see how it handles loans out, 2024–25 Sydney FC season doesn't give the duration of outgoing loans. I don't see how to address this in a manner that makes sense other than simply putting loans separately to regular transfers - contract length for outgoing transfers is clearly superfluous but duration of loans out isn't. The types of information readers want to know and is relevant to transfers is different for loans and permanent deals, so it makes sense to put them separately. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point about the outgoing loans. Can be easily solved by adding to the column "1 year loan" for example or adding to the ref./note column. Either seems to me to be easier and make more sense than to have separate tables. --SuperJew (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is saying not to mention loans, just to do so once, in the season that the loan happens. When the loan takes place the start and end points are known, usually within the same season, so makes sense to record so they information there. Spike 'em (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen that usually a list of player registrations from FIFA is enough to confirm what someone's name actually is. This player, whose page has just been moved, was at the 2024 Olympics so I would appreciate if anyone has a source to confirm the matter. There's this page from the Olympics, which says "De Jesus" but I don't know if it was ever meant to be authoritative. [3] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know some people like to claim it's not considered a reliable source because it is social media, but I always say, there's no better source than how the player writes their own name. On his own Instagram, he doesn't have a space, so I'd say no space. RedPatch (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with RedPatch - I used Instagram at Ziyad Larkeche to decide whether or not to include an accent... GiantSnowman 18:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the CONCACAF Nations League title be included as an honour in player articles of players who played earlier on in the competition but that weren't called up to the 2025 CONCACAF Nations League Finals? Example: Guillermo Ochoa. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My intuition is yes so I've gone with that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some content which I feel was too much, but it got reverted, [4], does someone else want to deal with this guy? Govvy (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question. Is the Baller League notable?Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, I don't know much about the league. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's covered in detail by Reliable Sources, then yes. Looks similar to the Kings League and Queens League in Spain and The Soccer Tournament in the United States. RedPatch (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This, this, this, this, this, etc. While it all looks like a bit of a circus to a jaded old man like me, it certainly seems notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Chris - it's nonsense, but it's notable. GiantSnowman 17:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, notable as a TV show/social media enterprise - but not in itself notable from a football point of view. I think there is a potential danger that on individual player/manager pages that this is given (undeserved) equal footing with "proper" football. So for example, if John Terry's team won the Baller League - would that get added to his list of honours as a manager? ColchesterSid (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody know if Thomas Barnett (footballer, born 1908) was the father of Thomas Barnett (footballer, born 1936)? Identical full names, from the same area (15 miles), dates match up... GiantSnowman 21:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Robby.is.on removing links to footballdatabase.eu , then a conversation saying the website is user generated. So a website, in order to edit anything on it, a user first needs to go through a strict interview. It's not exactly a traditional user generated site like you think. You actually need to prove you're reliable. So again, I strongly feel it needs another review. Govvy (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• footballdatabase.eu ToU

1.4. Selection of users to contribute to the site
Users will be selected on written request (forms accessible once registered and connected to the site) following an exchange with a site administrator. Once their application to contribute to the site has been validated, users will be given privileged and limited access to their area, allowing them to make all the necessary changes and additions (content, data, photos, club logos, etc.). This access is limited and may be suspended or canceled at any time in the event of a serious breach of these general conditions, in particular with regard to respect for intellectual property. Govvy (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, FootballDatabase.eu has been on our football-specific list of unreliable sources at WP:WPFLINKSNO since a discussion from December 2023 at Reliable sources/Noticeboard found it to be user-generated. This was based on BlackKite's findings that "[…] users who buy credits can provide information. This is therefore UGC and is not reliable." Robby.is.on (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've just logged on and the system is still the same. Whilst it's better than your stereotypical UGC, I'm unconvinced that it's reliable enough to not be regarded as one, if you see what I mean. Black Kite (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 404 for a few days... GiantSnowman 15:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've got his email address so I've sent him a message to ask... ColchesterSid (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This IP Special:Contributions/152.169.179.184 keeps changing "represents X national team" to "plays for X national team" particularly on the pages of players who are born in one country that play for another. Thoughts? To me the former sounds better/more formal. RedPatch (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, grammatically his edit makes more sense. You represent a country, and play for a team. So it's either "represents X internationally" or "plays for X national team". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nehme1499. I would never say, for example, that Harry Kane "represents the England national team". He either "represents England" or "plays for the England national team" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that those are the two options, but as I think it's better to clarify it's a national team, I suggest "plays for the X national team". GiantSnowman 09:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages have date errors which I couldn't fix. If anyone is familiar here with these pages, please take a look.

• 1952–53 Northampton Town F.C. season
• 2006–07 Feyenoord season
• 2012–13 Sun Hei SC season
• 2014 in Peruvian football
• 2014 Sanfrecce Hiroshima season
• 2016 Pakistan Football Federation Cup
• 2022–23 Kerala Blasters FC season
• 1984–85 Balkans Cup
• 2014 Torneo del Inca
• 1962–63 MC Alger season
• MNL League Cup 2024
• UAAP Season 81 football tournaments
• 1962–63 USM Alger season
• 1962–63 USM Marengo season
• 2016 São Tomé and Príncipe Championship

Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: - how do you identify these errors? I had a look at the Northampton one but can't see anything obviously wrong..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done a few... you probably looked after I'd fixed the Northampton one, there was a great big red error msg which has now gone away. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That one seems to be fixed already.

It is date formating issues being reported by {{Start Date}} and similar.

For the final one as an example, the years are at the end, instead of start of the dates. Do a regexp search and replace of {{Start date\|([0-9]+)\|([0-9]+)\|(196[0-9])\|df=y}} with {{Start date|$3|$2|$1|df=y}}. Spike 'em (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, I know why the error is showing, I've added the code to identify bad dates. In these specific articles, I couldn't decide what the correct date was, for one reason or another. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude search for "error" in the article and you'll find it. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]