Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Football
Per this discussion, and the consensus recorded at WP:ACMILAN, there was agreement that the term "Milan" is potentially ambiguous, unless it's in prose and already clarified. The consensus is that we should use AC Milan in all of the following settings:
- The first mention in the lede and main body
- The infobox
- The career statistics table
- Section headings
- Image captions
However, this seemingly does not cover usage in tables, and as we see at 2023–24 UEFA Champions League#Teams, amongst many other examples, there is a tendency for some editors just to put "Milan" only, even where the same table may or may not include Inter Milan.
I would like to propose adding table usage to the above consensus, and then fixing up all the cases where it's used. For Italians and purists, "Milan" may make sense, but for an average English reader I think this is confusing, and having the tables say "AC Milan" throughout is clearer and better.
Or if there's a good reason why such tables are not covered by the spirit of the above consensus, I'd also be interested to know why. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- (waves hand) Do it! Govvy (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Govvy: thanks. OK, I'm adding that in now. Shame there isn't more input into this discussion, but it's a unanimous consensus so far, and this would be in keeping with the previous consensus of avoiding doubt on the AC Milan / Milan debate. — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I will bring here the discussion, since I posted at the article talk page a few days ago, but nobody else gave an opinion. I will just copy and paste what I wrote there:
"Analyzing FIFA's posts from the last days and also FIFA's website I definitely changed my opinion, since before that I was really undecided about how FIFA was really treating this tournament.
But, at least in my opinion (that's why I'm bringing it up for discussion), now FIFA already decided that 2025 will be the 1st edition of a new FIFA Club World Cup since they are now treating it as "the inaugural champion" and "the inaugural edition".
On FIFA's website: "The inaugural edition of the FIFA Club World Cup will signal the start of a new era in club football history with a brand-new trophy becoming synonymous with the diversity and quality of the global game as club football brings the world together in the United States." [4] Also: "Find out the information on the new club tournament" [5]
On FIFA's Instagram: "...by the inaugural champion" [6]
But, how we will treat the old tournaments?
In my opinion, as FIFA already unified Intercontinental Cup (1960-2004) and FIFA Club World Cup (2000-2023) titles as world champions, also we already correctly treat as a continuation ("It ran from 1960 to 2004, when it was succeeded by the FIFA Club World Championship" - at Intercontinental Cup article) and now we have the new FIFA Intercontinental Cup, with almost the same format, I think the best thing to do is treat the last as a continuation, since all are Super cup like format and different tournaments from this FIFA Club World Cup (2025 onwards)." SinisterUnion (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- We just had this conversation on 2029 FIFA Club World Cup a month ago. Reliable, non-primary sources are broadly considering this a continuation of the existing tournament under a new format i.e. 2025 is the 21st edition, 2029 is the 22nd edition, rather than a completely new competition. FIFA just shot themselves in the foot with regards to branding. Jay eyem (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I disagree.
- First of all, as I said, I've been analyzing the latest posts and FIFA's website over the last few days, so there's a change from a month ago. There's now an emphasis on treating it as the inaugural tournament and the inaugural champion, so I think we have to adapt ourselves to the new reality.
- Whether FIFA shot themselves in the foot or not is another story, but FIFA is treating this tournament as the inaugural one on its official website, what has more value than non-primary sources. Nevertheless, we already have the aforementioned non-primary sources adapting themselves to FIFA's decision to call it the new FIFA Club World Cup and 2025 as its inaugural edition, as we can see here: [1] or [2], for example. SinisterUnion (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Now it doesn't mean anything. We need still to wait. The name FIFA Club World Cup is still there. Island92 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- The name still there and will always be, unless they change it in the future and it doesn't matter at all. This would be the same thing saying Intercontinental Cup (1960-2004) is the same tournament as the new Intercontinental Cup (2024-), what is wrong too.
- The fact is the article right now is clearly in disagreement with the highest football authority that treats it as "the inaugural champion" and "the inaugural edition".
- Furthermore, it is also against important and renowned non-primary sources that already adapted themselves to FIFA's decision to call it the new FIFA Club World Cup and 2025 as its inaugural edition, as everyone can see at the links I provided in my last reply. SinisterUnion (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You posted the exact same article twice and it refers to it as both inaugural and in reference to changes for an existing format. I would not describe that as clear cut at all. And can we PLEASE decide where this conversation is going to take place? It is extremely unhelpful to have conversations going here, at Talk:FIFA Club World Cup, and at Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup all at once. Jay eyem (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- the fact that this happened before in March 2024, and May 2024 (and documented at the article talk page) and now the "analysis" of the latest posts and FIFA's website over the last few days have changed from a month ago, suggested that it is WP:TOOEARLY to make any definitive changes. If it is changed, there will be some other contradictory media release, and this issue will flip-flop for months. It is better to leave things as they are for now and wait for the official tournament documentation next year (probably available by about the time of the draw) when it might be more clear or more consistent. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It was actually the same article, sorry I pasted it wrong there. But the fact is that I only did a quick search and quickly found about 10 articles referring to a new tournament and 2025 being its inaugural edition.
- If you want I can send all the examples later, but as you can see, in addition to all the other arguments already presented here and that FIFA is considering it as the inaugural edition (which I noticed was more emphasized in the most recent posts, for example: [3]; [4] - saying inaugural champion in the video; [5] - saying new club tournament), we have important non-primary sources treating the tournament this way too.
- To avoid making it too boring, I gave only 2 examples in my last reply, but here are a few more: [6] (AP News); [7] (Sportbuzz); [8] (Inside World Football); [9] (Inside World Football); [10] (Diario AS).
- Also, we have Confederations treating 2025 edition as the inaugural one, for example: [11].
- So, in my opinion, all the requirements are met to make this change (I know it will take some work, involving the creation of new articles, adaptation of others, but we cannot leave an article as important as this one against the facts that are imposed on us, going against the highest authority in world football and the most important non-primary sources). SinisterUnion (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- After reading your reply I clicked on the first source my eyes went back to. It happened to be the AP News link. It states "inaugural 32-team Club World Cup". This doesn't state it is new, it states it is the first 32-team version. Later it states "A relaunched and lucrative Club World Cup". Neither of these points to a definitive first year of a brand new tournament. The facts are that FIFA has gone back and forth about how they refer to it which has been the problem all year. People wanted to change it and then FIFA deleted all reference to it being the first of a totally new tournament and started to refer to it as a new format. Now it seems they are starting to revert back to it being a new tournament. Based on all this, I would agree with Matilda that no changes should be made until official docs are published. Chris1834 Talk 15:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, for AP News source you read you can go and argue that, but you cannot reach a conclusion based solely on that source, since I have included several sources (I suggest read all them to reach a better conclusion) that prove that non-primary sources adapted themselves with the way FIFA is treating this tournament: "the inaugural champion" and "the inaugural edition".
- I also suggest to watch an official video from about 10 days ago, which is very enlightening on how they are treating the tournament, on FIFA's Instagram saying "...by the inaugural champion" [6] that proves the way the football governing body decided to treat the tournament.
- And this is not a move FIFA's doing from 10 days ago only, they are treating the tournament like that since at least begin of June, as I was able to verify here through quick research.
- Finally and most important, I found the official text/document on FIFA's website to prove it (even more) and there we can see, for example, this: "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"; "FIFA's new prime club competition - the FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ - will grace the world stage in June and July 2025, when 32 of the globe's leading teams gather in the USA for the inaugural edition." [12]
- So, now, I don't see any other way, other than adapting ourselves to the new reality. As I said before, I know it's going to take some work, but that's why we editors are here. We can't leave an article as important as this one outdated, wrong and and in disagreement with both FIFA and a lot of important non-primary sources. SinisterUnion (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can see another path, and that is to wait for a while. I'll bet that FIFA says something different when the 2024 Copa Libertadores is completed, like "this is the fourth appearance by São Paulo" (or some such), and that will trigger a new round of people wanting to change the article back. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you're doing a futurology exercise here.
- I think it is completely wrong and lazy don't adapt ourselves (Wikipedia) to reality, waiting that FIFA could change how they treat this tournament in the future.
- What we can do is a behavioral analysis, based on actions already taken and since June at least, FIFA has been emphasizing on treating this tournament as the inaugural edition where there will be the inaugural champion of this new tournament. This has become stronger and more emphasized in recent days, as we can see here: [13]
- Now, if you really want to do a futurology exercise (where we use the trend) what we can conclude based on the information we have is that the trend is (since this movement has been going on since June and we are getting closer and closer to the tournament) to continue considering it as an inaugural tournament and its champion as the inaugural one too. SinisterUnion (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- FIFA's website was pretty clear it was a new competition last year...then they deleted all mention of it and it looked to be a continuation. Now it seems they are leaning in to it being a new tournament again...but they have flipped flopped more than once. So, just because it is currently being billed that way, doesn't negate all of the past. You have way more editors currently against the change and all you are doing is trying to force your opinion on everyone else. This is why we get consensus. You don't have it...if anything there is consensus against making the change. Chris1834 Talk 14:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- You don't have consensus at all against making the change, you are giving an example from last year, you are against FIFA and a lot of important non-primary sources. It just looks lazy not wanting to adapt to the new reality. SinisterUnion (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can see another path, and that is to wait for a while. I'll bet that FIFA says something different when the 2024 Copa Libertadores is completed, like "this is the fourth appearance by São Paulo" (or some such), and that will trigger a new round of people wanting to change the article back. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- After reading your reply I clicked on the first source my eyes went back to. It happened to be the AP News link. It states "inaugural 32-team Club World Cup". This doesn't state it is new, it states it is the first 32-team version. Later it states "A relaunched and lucrative Club World Cup". Neither of these points to a definitive first year of a brand new tournament. The facts are that FIFA has gone back and forth about how they refer to it which has been the problem all year. People wanted to change it and then FIFA deleted all reference to it being the first of a totally new tournament and started to refer to it as a new format. Now it seems they are starting to revert back to it being a new tournament. Based on all this, I would agree with Matilda that no changes should be made until official docs are published. Chris1834 Talk 15:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You posted the exact same article twice and it refers to it as both inaugural and in reference to changes for an existing format. I would not describe that as clear cut at all. And can we PLEASE decide where this conversation is going to take place? It is extremely unhelpful to have conversations going here, at Talk:FIFA Club World Cup, and at Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup all at once. Jay eyem (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Now it doesn't mean anything. We need still to wait. The name FIFA Club World Cup is still there. Island92 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
There was a change of format, but the competition is the same, returning to the failed idea of 2000/2001, as a tournament with a group stage. The new competition is the FIFA Intercontinental Cup, which inherits the previous format. I understand the confusion of those who are not so familiar with the topic, but upon careful analysis it becomes clear. Svartner (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sources that show that the new competition in fact is the FIFA Intercontinental Cup (Coupe Intercontinentale de la FIFA): [14] [15]. Svartner (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but reading your comment looks like you didn't read all replies, since you just posted one source from 9 months ago. I suggest you to read everything to understand what is happening and become more familiar with the changes on FIFA's treatment on this tournament (also important non-primary sources too).
- If you too busy to do that, I suggest you read this reply where I give a resume of what is just happening with this situation more recently.
- Also, the 2nd source you posted (the one from FIFA) just endorses my argument, where it says "The inaugural edition will be played later this year" about the FIFA Intercontinental Cup. So, how can you argue that FIFA Intercontinental Cup will be a new competition but 2025 FIFA Club World Cup (that FIFA treats same way: inaugural edition/inaugural champion) won't? Inconsistent. SinisterUnion (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I read everything, the issue is that some people and media outlets are confusing the change in format of the competition as being a new tournament. It already happened from 2000/2001 to 2005, and now it returns to its original groups format. Svartner (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you really read everything it's more worrying than I imagined. Either you don't want to accept the new reality or you don't want to work.. or both.
- Nobody is "confusing" the change in format of the competition, it is FIFA (international governing body of association football) saying this is a new tournament and also a lot of important secondary coverage examples, from important media, to prove the fact is truly "noteworthy". So, following Wikipedia guidelines, it is worth making a change to the article to correct it. SinisterUnion (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- TO @SinisterUnion: pretty poor form to go and make the changes to the article anyway, despite their being no consensus reached at this site, on the basis that the arguments presented here are not valid and that you must follow Wikipedia guidelines regardless. Consensus now needs to be established here first; also be mindful about WP:3RR, and its application in this case. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- SinisterUnion you need simply to wait. There were other two users in the past convinced about the same thing, insisting on editing the article because it needed to be like that. See history page. As a result, they were blocked from editing. You appear to back up the same evidence because of those sources. Please wait and see for the time being. You edited again the article, soon reverted because wait is needed now, despite those sources. Island92 (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright guys, as soon as new information and news emerges I will post it here to continue updating you.
- Just in time, the last one was published today by ESPN: "The inaugural tournament, in which 32 teams from across the globe will compete..." [16] SinisterUnion (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- From the same source "launch the expanded version of the tournament". These are some of the issues we are talking about. How can you have an expanded tournament that is brand new? You either have a brand new tournament that has 32 teams or you have a revamped, expanded tournament. Chris1834 Talk 18:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are completely misinterpreting, it says "expanded version of the tournament" not "expanded tournament" like you interpreted.
- Contextualizing, in the article the author is talking about the tournaments that have already defined the clubs that were world champions (Intercontinental Cup, FIFA Club World Cup/Championship (2000-23) and now the inaugural FIFA Club World Cup in 2025).
- An expanded version of the tournament does not mean an "expanded tournament" like you said, it means a different version, expanded one, comparing to the old tournament (otherwise he would say expanded tournament too). That's why in the same article the same author says: "The inaugural tournament, in which 32 teams from across the globe will compete...".
- So, on the contrary, your argument and the sentence you highlighted only endorses that it is a new tournament. SinisterUnion (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It cannot be a new tournament. The name FIFA Club World Cup is still there. The format has changed, only. FIFA Intercontinental Cup is a brand new tournament. 2025 FIFA Club World Cup will be a new expanded tournament which 32 teams from across the globe will compete at. For the time being we should not add nothing to it. Island92 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not only can it be a new tournament, but it will be. You just giving your opinion that doesn't change anything in the world. FIFA says so, as do several extremely relevant secondary sources, such as ESPN, for example, and these are the only relevant thing here.
- With each example you give, you contradict yourself and unintentionally argue in my favor.
- You say "It cannot be a new tournament. The name FIFA Club World Cup is still there." Well, you say that Intercontinental Cup is a new tournament, but it has the same name as the competition held from 1960 to 2004, so they would be the same tournament based on your arguments.
- So this just shows how weak and wrong are your arguments, desperately trying to find some final argument, a needle in a haystack, that still fits into a narrative to defend that it is the same tournament, which is, nowadays, defend the indefensible. SinisterUnion (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Stop inventing. The previous tournament ran from 1960 to 2004 was called just Intercontinental Cup, NOT FIFA Intercontinental Cup. It was endorsed by UEFA and CONBEMOL. On 16 December 2022, the FIFA Council approved the expansion of the FIFA Club World Cup from seven to thirty-two teams beginning in 2025. The 2023 tournament was therefore the last played under the previous format. However, confederations expressed to FIFA the need for the champions of their top club competitions to still play each other annually to "stimulate competitiveness". Therefore, on 14 March 2023, the FIFA Council approved a concept for an annual club competition beginning in 2024, later named as the FIFA Intercontinental Cup. It will feature the champions of the top club competitions of the six confederations of FIFA, namely the AFC Champions League, CAF Champions League, CONCACAF Champions Cup, Copa Libertadores, OFC Champions League and UEFA Champions League.
- The inaugural edition of the tournament is scheduled to take place in December 2024. Island92 (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- It cannot be a new tournament. The name FIFA Club World Cup is still there. The format has changed, only. FIFA Intercontinental Cup is a brand new tournament. 2025 FIFA Club World Cup will be a new expanded tournament which 32 teams from across the globe will compete at. For the time being we should not add nothing to it. Island92 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- From the same source "launch the expanded version of the tournament". These are some of the issues we are talking about. How can you have an expanded tournament that is brand new? You either have a brand new tournament that has 32 teams or you have a revamped, expanded tournament. Chris1834 Talk 18:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- SinisterUnion you need simply to wait. There were other two users in the past convinced about the same thing, insisting on editing the article because it needed to be like that. See history page. As a result, they were blocked from editing. You appear to back up the same evidence because of those sources. Please wait and see for the time being. You edited again the article, soon reverted because wait is needed now, despite those sources. Island92 (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- TO @SinisterUnion: pretty poor form to go and make the changes to the article anyway, despite their being no consensus reached at this site, on the basis that the arguments presented here are not valid and that you must follow Wikipedia guidelines regardless. Consensus now needs to be established here first; also be mindful about WP:3RR, and its application in this case. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I read everything, the issue is that some people and media outlets are confusing the change in format of the competition as being a new tournament. It already happened from 2000/2001 to 2005, and now it returns to its original groups format. Svartner (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Luís Semedo at Juventus
Lots of non-RS saying he has signed on loan - nothing official/reliable that I can see? GiantSnowman 20:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.juventus.com/it/news/articoli/next-gen-luis-semedo-in-prestito-dal-sunderland , dated 31 August. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Help with transclusion
Hi, I spotted the stats list at Scotland national football team manager is an exact duplicate for the one at Scotland national football team#Statistical record, the latter hadn't been updated recently so having a single source on both pages would surely be better all round. I have tried to create a transclusion using <onlyinclude>{{#invoke:transcludable section|main|section=Manager|text= [start] and }}</onlyinclude> [end] which has worked on other pages, but on this it's giving the error message Warning: Scotland national football team manager (edit) is calling Module:Transcludable section with more than one value for the "style" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help). Probably due to the way the table itself is formatted but I don't see any major flaws in that and my knowledge of the coding isn't good enough to work out how to get past it. Any experts have an idea? Many thanks. Crowsus (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Crowsus: The issue is that you cannot pass a standardly-formatted wikitable to Module:Transcludable section, as it will interpret the pipe characters as parameters. You would have to use a workaround to pass the table to pass the table to the module, such as {{!}}.
- However, Module:Transcludable section is really only meant for pages that you are transcluding multiple sections from. Given Scotland national football team manager has no pages transcluding it, you can just use onlyinclude tags or labeled section transclusion to copy the content to the Scotland national team article. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! That should be enough to play about with it based on your suggestion till I get it to work (or don't, and give up due to my own stupidity). Crowsus (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- That would explain why I haven't been able to transclude the yearly tables at List of Scottish Professional Football League monthly award winners into the annual pages e.g. 2024–25 Scottish Professional Football League - are you able to explain the workaround, would I need to add {{!}} before every single vertical pipe character in the table? Boothy m (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, turns out it was really easy! All I had to do for mine was (check in edit mode to see the coding):
- [on Scotland national football team manager]
- (table is here)
- [save]
- [on Scotland national football team]
- (Replace existing table with)
The following table provides a summary of the complete record of each Scotland manager, including their progress in both the World Cup and the European Championship. Statistically the most successful manager was Alex McLeish, who won seven of the ten games in his first spell. Discounting managers who took charge of less than ten games, the least successful manager was George Burley, with just three wins in 14 games.
Name | Scotland career | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | Win % | PPG |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Selection committee | 1872–1953 | 231 | 139 | 42 | 50 | 60.17 | 1.99 |
Andy Beattie | 1954 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 33.33 | 1.17 |
Selection committee | 1954–1957 | 23 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 43.48 | 1.61 |
Dawson Walker | 1958 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 16.67 | 0.83 |
Matt Busby | 1958 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 2 |
Andy Beattie | 1959–1960 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 25.00 | 1 |
Ian McColl | 1960–1965 | 28 | 17 | 3 | 8 | 60.71 | 1.93 |
Jock Stein | 1965–1966 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 42.86 | 1.43 |
John Prentice | 1966 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0.00 | 0.25 |
Malky McDonald | 1966–1967 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 2 |
Bobby Brown | 1967–1971 | 33 | 14 | 8 | 11 | 42.42 | 1.52 |
Tommy Docherty | 1971–1972 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 58.33 | 1.92 |
Willie Ormond | 1973–1977 | 38 | 18 | 8 | 12 | 47.37 | 1.63 |
Ally MacLeod | 1977–1978 | 17 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 41.18 | 1.53 |
Jock Stein | 1978–1985 | 61 | 26 | 12 | 23 | 42.62 | 1.48 |
Alex Ferguson | 1985–1986 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 30.00 | 1.3 |
Andy Roxburgh | 1986–1993 | 61 | 23 | 19 | 19 | 37.70 | 1.44 |
Craig Brown | 1993–2002 | 71 | 32 | 18 | 21 | 45.07 | 1.61 |
Berti Vogts | 2002–2004 | 32 | 9 | 7 | 16 | 28.13 | 1.06 |
Tommy Burns | 2004 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 0 |
Walter Smith | 2004–2007 | 16 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 43.75 | 1.63 |
Alex McLeish | 2007 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 70.00 | 2.1 |
George Burley | 2008–2009 | 14 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 21.43 | 0.86 |
Craig Levein | 2009–2012 | 24 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 41.67 | 1.46 |
Billy Stark | 2012 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 3 |
Gordon Strachan | 2013–2017 | 40 | 19 | 9 | 12 | 47.50 | 1.65 |
Malky Mackay | 2017 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 0 |
Alex McLeish | 2018–2019 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 41.67 | 1.25 |
Steve Clarke | 2019–present | 60 | 25 | 14 | 21 | 41.67 | 1.48 |
Totals | 835 | 393 | 181 | 261 | 47.07 | 1.63 |
Last updated: Portugal v Scotland, 8 September 2024. Statistics include official FIFA-recognised matches, five matches from the 1967 SFA tour that were reclassified as full internationals in 2021, and a match against a Hong Kong League XI played on 23 May 2002 that the Scottish Football Association includes in its statistical totals.
- [save]
- Hopefully yours is equally straightforward, if not feel free to give me a shout - since I am now an expert having completed the process once. Crowsus (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirection football club articles
I just like to point out, and I've often seen people voting at AfDs that when a football club doesn't show notability some people redirect a football club article to a league article. Well, considering football clubs get promoted, relegated, can change leagues, this is ill-advised. So please consider an alt location like the article of the town the club is in. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- And yet football clubs can change town as well! GiantSnowman 09:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's much less common, and in most of the cases when it does happen, the club's name changes too. --SuperJew (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Newcastle United F.C. listed for Good article reassessment
Newcastle United F.C. has been listed under Good article reassessment. If you have anything to add, please do by adding to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
User:EnglishDude98
Assistance needed with EnglishDude98 (talk · contribs) please, who has a habit of creating mainspace article about non-notable footballers and/or creating mainspace articles which already exist in user/draft space. Ignored the majority of my messages and they continue. The next step will be a block, which I am trying to avoid. GiantSnowman 17:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll help you tomorrow if I can, if still needed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- They appear to have calmed down and said they will stop. GiantSnowman 17:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Technical help on Lafarge Foot Avenir
Hello, I need technical help on Lafarge Foot Avenir#2024. England and France should have 4 points each despite having 3 draws since they each won a penalty shoot-out that gave them a bonus point. See source in line above. If you can make it 4 points that would be helpful. The France vs Portugal shoot-out was cancelled due to rain FYI. If you can add a lower-alpha note for that I'd appreciate it (I'm not feeling too hot rn). Cheers. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Done Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Matilda Maniac: Thanks :-) Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the help page).
- ^ "Former Scotland players to be recognised with international caps including Sir Alex Ferguson". www.scottishfa.co.uk. Scottish Football Association. 9 October 2021. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
- ^ "Hong Kong v Scotland". www.scottishfa.co.uk. Scottish Football Association. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
- ^ "Gordon Strachan". www.scottishfa.co.uk. Scottish Football Association. Retrieved 19 September 2013.