Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Should we deprecate the use of "Foreign players" tables in football season articles? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

For clarification, this is the use of tables such as the one at 2023–24 Liga 2 (Indonesia)#Foreign players, following the discussion about this further up the page at #Sticky table for foreign players table. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

As the discussion mentioned had been archived the new link to it is /Archive 172#Sticky table for foreign players table Spike 'em (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Support as proposer. We have a style guide for season articles that is pretty expansive to what sort of content we should be including. We should absolutely be mentioning if there are rules in place to restrict or contain the use of more than a certain number of players that are not native to a country. The issue is having a large table of the specific players that each team have of players that happen to have not been born of a country. This is non-defining information, it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE to mention a certain subset of players, when we would consider mentioning the whole squad as too much. In my eyes this information is cruft and fills up our articles which already have too much in depth stats and not enough prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Support. Lee said it well. It is overkill and indiscriminate to the other players. Other arguments were also put in the discussion linked above. Kante4 (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose and think this should be discussed per league and not in general. While such a table might be cruft in a league like the Premier League (with a majority of the squad being foreigners), there are leagues like A-League in which the visa players restrictions are defining structual elements. Australian media (and also in other Asian leagues) treat "visa players" as a distinct and notable group, discussing these players as a group and individually in season previews and reviews (as per WP:LISTN). These tables also help document regulatory limits of the leagues and how the clubs use these rules in each season helps paint the picture of this season (for example compare a season with Heskey, Del Piero, and Ono to one of the COVID seasons). --SuperJew (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Support I think the intricacies of squad registration rules are well beyond what should be included on league season articles, and seems much too WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is evidenced by the fact that these tables generally go unsourced and are never accompanied by prose beyond explanation of the registration rules (and sometimes not even that), (at least in the uses I could find for Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Japan, Argentina, China and Malaysia, etc.). I'm sympathetic to the point that the relevance of foreign player rules varies significantly by league, but I strongly doubt in any case they are important enough to warrant inclusion in these articles. I would also note that in no case do foreign players garner more coverage than MLS designated players, and we don't seem to list those on MLS season articles, nor should we start doing so. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Support. It is overkill at a league level, including the Australian A-League, and having looked at some of the other Asian male leagues listed in the other thread, I have the same opinion about those. There is an argument that if it is deemed important enough at a Club level, a table - relevant to each club - could be shown at the Club's season article. However, it is effectively already there from squad lists where there is a 'fbaicon" template for the players from other countries. Perhaps a sentence of prose that the Club's season article is sufficient, with the following players on the roster fill a Visa-position: Footballer A, Footballer B, Footballer C, Footballer D. These tables hardly qualify as season-defining structual elements, and it is not a part of the style guide of what a League Season article should contain. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot)Oppose - I think I agree that this information shouldn't be in most articles, but that's the issue. This is the wrong venue. Those discussions should be held at those articles. A project's preference doesn't override Wikipedia policy. Nemov (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

What policy are you talking about? Kante4 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Something similar came up recently at Clayton Kershaw where the baseball project had rules in place for the infobox on baseball player articles. A consensus at a project isn't Wikipedia policy and can be viewed as WP:LOCALCON. Nemov (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

What is the policy that is being overwritten/ignored with this RfC though? A local consensus about something not discussed elsewhere is a consensus. If there's something site wide, and we say that we want to ignore it, that would be unsuitable. In this case, I can't think of a policy where the rest of Wikipedia would keep a section used in this way. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this should be at WP:SPORT or something? Having this discussion on individual seasons articles is not going to be helpful as it's on a lot of them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per above, makes sense to me, the foreign player lists always seemed trivial to me. Govvy (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per above due to persistent addition by new or temporary accounts. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - In the majority of Asian leagues, foreign players are a central part of team performance, league quality, and fan interest instead being a minor detail. These players are subject to specific squad limits set by league rules, which makes them a clearly defined and policy-rerelevant group rather than an arbitrary subset, per WP:LISTN. Their importance is also well supported by reliable sources, as foreign signings and performances often receive more media coverage and are frequently highlighted than most domestic players. For these reasons, invoking WP:INDISCRIMINATE is unreasonable. Lâm (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It is fine (encouraged, actually) to mention the restriction, and if there is a specific player that gets media coverage in prose. It's the indescriminate list of players that meet this criteria that is the problem. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per Thplam2004's reasoning. Asian clubs also often have foreign player limits, such as here in Australia. It's not the same as Europe where some clubs are majority foreigners. Schestos (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. As per above. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per above Thành Hưng (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Support - OK to mention the foreign player limits in the prose but including a full list of all the players is excessive ColchesterSid (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Support The lists of foreign players is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of a subset of the players in the league. I appreciate that many of the better players will be foreign, but it is a complete distortion of the season to list a minority of the players taking part. These lists are usually completely free of context, with no details of which of these players actually made a difference. Addressing one of the points raised above : before the Bosman ruling in 1995, European teams were limited to 3 foreign players. There is no similar list of players in 1993–94 Serie A, 1993–94 La Liga, 1993–94 FA Premier League or 1993–94 Bundesliga, and nor would I expect there to be. Another point made in the previous discussion : there is usually no external source for the list of players as a whole, meaning WP:OR is required to maintain it. Spike 'em (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned before, most previews and reviews of seasons (at least in the Australia A-League) mention and expand upon the visa players as a whole and individually too. --SuperJew (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no other website that displays a complete table of foreign players like Wikipedia does. Especially for the leagues with restrictions on foreign players in Asia. It is important for the media or sponsors who wants to see it. It adds prestige to a league. More efficient to see it on one page rather than clicking on each club one by one. Then, IF it really needs to be removed, do it for all leagues (that have foreign player limits). I see everyone focusing on one league, the Indonesian League (still don't know why). There are many other leagues out there. The key here is consistency and fair. Then, involve people who really understand football in this discussion. Thank you. Itedije94 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This proposal covers any league, it just happened to have been started by someone asking about the Indonesian league. As to your other points :There is no other website that displays a complete table of foreign players like Wikipedia does : WP:NOR; It is important for the media or sponsors who wants to see it : WP:NOTPUBLICITY. Spike 'em (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This discussion IS for all leagues. The fact that this isn't listed on other websites is a good reason to not have it here Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as a general rule, but it makes sense to limit the use of such tables to leagues where there really is something noteworthy about foreign players, as noted above. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose universal depreciation of such tables. Some leagues have foreign player quotas; in cases such as that, such tables can exist and should only be removed for a very good reason (such as teams do not use this provision). Such tables should only be simple, and no sub-tables for country/confederation/continental/subnational origins Support absolute depreciation on leagues where these quotas do not exist. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: What SuperJew said. On top of that foreign players are highlighted when club squad lists are shown on tv etc, showing the importance of listing foreign players table on Asian leagues. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: It is helping in leagues with less famous, single name players (such as Brazilian players in Japanese league, e.g. Erik (footballer, born 1994) and Marco Túlio (footballer, born March 1998)), especially if same-named players are in the same league. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for leagues which have a limit of foreign players, but I do agree that in leagues without this limit, it's overkill. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation as a general rule, but I think there is a valid point being mentioned regarding WP:INDISCRIMINATE, i.e. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." And particularly in section 3 Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. That is not to say that these tables cannot exist in these articles, but I think there is a perfectly valid argument stating that prose should be accompanying these tables in season articles when they are used, and potentially in reference to a page specifically about said rules e.g. MLS International Roster Slots (although to my knowledge, MLS season articles don't contain these types of tables). Tables of this sort are in reference to foreign player limitations for these leagues that are designed to nurture domestic talent, and are more prevalent in some leagues than others, so on a case by case basis they absolutely may be notable. I am sure it is harder to source for some leagues than others (see WP:BIAS), but I think deprecation of these tables as a general rule is unnecessary. Jay eyem (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

  the MLS article is the perfect example of how we don't need these in the season articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

No, every leagues has its own rules regarding foreign players so we must respect it by putting into articles. GiofanniRahman (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

And that should be mentioned in prose within an own section, but not with listing every single player. Kante4 (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I posted the following message in the talk page of the relevant article, and someone replied and suggested if I want to hear more people's opinions, to discuss it here. So here I am:

How can there be 2 teams that are World Champions simultaneously? If the FIFA Intercontinental Cup is a World Championship and that's been played more recently than the Club World Cup, then obviously the winners of that are the World Champions.

If PSG have effectively beaten everybody, then the winners of the Club World Cup are clearly no longer Champions. And of course, if PSG haven't beaten everybody, then PSG aren't Champions. You can't have 2 World Champions at the same time. It makes no sense. The information in this article is clearly inaccurate. ACCH (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It would help if you could link the article(s) so we can see what you are talking about. Spike 'em (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Spike 'em List of world champion football clubs would appear to be the offending article. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The second paragraph makes it clear that "As of 2025, the FIFA Club World Cup and the FIFA Intercontinental Cup coexist as current FIFA club world championships, awarding the titles of quadrennial world club champion and annual world club champion, respectively, to the winning clubs." What is obvious to some that it is wrong, may be just as obvious to others that it is right. Matilda 22:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

That information isn't backed up by either of the citations, or by anything else I've read anywhere. And simple logic makes it clear that unless you've beaten ALL the other teams (including the other "champions"), you're not champions. ACCH (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone block @~2026-99662-1 please? Their edits consist of making up false numbers to the squad lists, often adding invented numbers to loanees. I've reverted at least half a dozen of those edits in Brazilian clubs... Plus, several other users warned them, and the edits continue to be incorrect. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

have mass reverted their edits and blocked them. GiantSnowman 21:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Back at it immediately after their block ended. @KibolLP was kind enough to revert all incorrect edits on Polish teams. Could you take a look at it, GS? Thanks, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The article Brasil Ladies Cup that I recently created is in need of a tidy up and I don’t really know how that would be done, so I decided to come here and ask if anyone is interested on helping with that Haddad Maia fan (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Partick Thistle F.C. 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) 14:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Diego Costa 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) 14:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Is there a way to make "series" templates collapsible? For example, on this page, there are large "series" templates about both Messi and Ronaldo, which take up a lot of space. It would be nice to have those templates collapsed by default so there is more room for other images/graphics. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

They should be normal navboxes at the bottom of the article IMHO. GiantSnowman 17:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Are you saying that we should try moving those two boxes to the bottom of the page I mentioned? There are already different (but quite similar) boxes down there. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

We have {{Lionel Messi}}, we therefore do not need {{Lionel Messi series}} (ditto with Ronaldo). GiantSnowman 19:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

What's with the mass move? FastCube is doing multiple moves of Category:Football clubs in England to Category:Men's football clubs in England, which is rather poor, just because an article talks about the main men's team doesn't negate the fact that a lot of football clubs have woman's teams. I strongly suggest all these moves on the category be moved back. As the original category name is far more universal. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

No. The move is completely logical for reasons I will provide here. Yes the page titles don't indicate any sense of the segment of men's football, but the articles themselves are primarily referring to the men's teams of said club (e.g. Chelsea F.C.). If there's a women's team, a separate article is created which is what the normal procedure is on Wikipedia where the women's team articles literally follow the same procedure with the exception being the word "women" attached to the title (e.g. Chelsea F.C. Women). Through many discussions I've seen, the norm is mostly men's football being the "default"; however I will not follow that procedure with categories. Because these types of moves mean it's another step forward to better connections in category trees (as is my life's work on Wikipedia). If this move isn't made, there will be no connections of men's sport categories which harms those trees in expanding its user navigation. FastCube (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Entirely agree with the OP and came here to make the same point. Oxford United F.C., for example, has a women's first team and academy team. Although the former has its own article, that does not imply that Oxford United and similar other clubs are "men's football clubs". Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Well unfortunately that's the only problem here and why I understand your points; the naming conventions are not straightforward and hasn't been from the get-go. Because the right terminology would be to define them as club teams, not simply clubs. As the norm is mostly one club handling multiple teams (men's and women's). The problem is that it would need a huge move and discussion which could take ages. I wouldn't mind discussing about a potential move of that, but for right now and either way regardless of the naming conventions, refer to my points above accordingly. FastCube (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find your logic flawed. Oxford United W.F.C. is very much a women's team (or set of teams, or club, if you prefer), and definitely belongs in Category:Women's football clubs in England. But Oxford United F.C. is the (ungendered) parent, not the male sibling. Oxford United F.C. is (or should be) about the whole club: the men's teams and the women's teams, and not just the men's (whether or not the parent article covers the women's set-up in depth). Your categorisation tramples all over that. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the women's team at all, let alone in depth. The only occurance of the words woman / women / lady / ladies in it is in reference to an unrelated international match taking place at the club's stadium. The change in categorisation matches the de facto content of the article. Spike 'em (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Then that's an omission in the article, not a reason to recategorise it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I know it's bizarre, it's like saying they are men's only football clubs and no women work at the football clubs, let alone all the female colleagues! And no women are allowed in to support the club. It's truly bizarre categorisation. Govvy (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@FastCube: Honestly, what you're doing is what a bot might do after a conversation, but I don't know where or if such a conversation has taken place for the change in category. It feels rushed without consensus on a mass category change. And I would vote against what you're doing right now based on universals and staying neutral to category topic. Govvy (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

All because I use the cat-a-lot? If I didn't do that and "do what a bot might do", I would be saving no time on my behalf. In any case, this procedure is just a continuation on what I have been doing for about a year now (moving stuff to men's categories for better connection) which hasn't ever needed consensus or has ever been stopped because no one up until now has decided to question it. FastCube (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I support Govvy here. e.g. the West Didsbury & Chorlton A.F.C. article is about both men and women, the club records and notable players sections are about men and women, and is thus certainly a "football club", rather than a "men's football club", and the change should be reverted. U003F^? 05:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

You've just used one article example that isn't the norm of having the articles being dedicated to a specific team of the club. Once again the problem is how the categories are named, but I'm not going to ignore this move or consider reverting at the expense of not connecting men's sport categories which is the entire point of this move in the first place. FastCube (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't the changes be made on a case-by-case basis, rather than wholesale? Sometimes the change is plain wrong, as per the West article. If you want the changes to be (almost always) uncontroversial, why not instead add the "men's football club" link whilst keeping the "football club" category in place? U003F^? 06:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Because it's overcategorization. And let's not forget that the approach is moving those articles with the primary focus on the men's team (as is the majority of club team articles) with the no team distinction in place of title. Because Category:Women's association football clubs exist (which are women's teams as the primary focus of said clubs, e.g. Chelsea F.C. Women) as a subcat of Category:Association football clubs, it would make sense to make the same approach with the men's team articles at Category:Men's association football clubs (men's teams as the primary focus of said clubs, e.g. Chelsea F.C.). Because let's face it, while the base articles can mention the entire history of the club; the primary focus is one team of one segment (men's/women's) which in most cases are a men's team whilst the women's team have a seperate article of theirs and to avoid overcategorization it must be one or the other; not one over the other. There's even disambiguation notes at the top of the article (e.g. Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C., Manchester City F.C.; "This article is about the men's football club. For the women's football club, see X FC (women)") telling the user the article is mainly about the men's team of said club. FastCube (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

This process is wrongly conflating team and club. Oxford United F.C. is a football club that has men's and women's teams. Yes, the main article focuses on the men's first team (with the women's teams are in a separate article), and that may well be the case for a lot of the larger clubs, but that is a problem with the articles and very much does not make Oxford and teams like them "Men's Football Clubs". A football club is the sum of all its parts: board and managers, staff, men's first XI, academy teams, women's first XI and women's academy teams, juniors – not to mention the supporters, who are discussed at length in almost all football club articles and are very much not exclusively men. This whole process is a cure that is worse than the disease and introduces more problems than it solves. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Trust me I don't like the naming conventions either, because yes they don't make sense. I just need to make it clear that the articles primarily represent one team or the other (even if the base/men's team article can cover the entire history of a club). Because there are women's team articles that exist under the category name of "Category:Women's association football clubs", I'm just taking the same approach with the articles that's primary focus is the men's team under Category:Men's association football clubs regardless of titles. If anything, I'd be more than happy to discuss switching up the naming conventions of them from clubs to club teams to make it make sense but for right now I'm just focused on connecting the dots in the category trees. FastCube (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I see your point. But the integrity of the category tree is less important than wrongly labelling genderless football clubs as "Men's football clubs". Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Well in your case, doesn't mean it was right to have a subcat named Category:Women's association football clubs in the first place. Because as we've established; the strucutre is a sole club that they themselves operate teams of both segments (men's/women's). So because of that subcat already existing, I made this move to have both sides of the spectrum. FastCube (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The technocratic issue with the category tree is less important that context and accuracy. As I said earlier, Oxford United F.C. is the genderless parent of Oxford United W.F.C., not the male sibling. It's entirely possible (in fact, desirable) that the Oxford United article should be extended to include the women's teams. I think you're trying to impose order and consistency where it doesn't fit. And it's even less appropriate for articles like West Didsbury & Chorlton A.F.C., where there is only one article about the whole club and the women's teams are mentioned. And it's rather sexist as well as being based on flawed logic. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I think the issue is how we perceive the hierarchy. For a hypothetical club with two existing articles, one of them dealing with the women's set-up, you perceive that the genderless parent (dealing with aspects of the club in general, common to both genders) is missing, and that the existing articles are two children, one male and one female. I contend that in most cases, the genderless parent is the main article, the women's article is the female child, and the male child is the phantom. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I had a discussion with Michael G. Lind whether to include a "Publications about Cruyff's influence on football" (see here) section at Johan Cruyff or not. I think these kind of sections are superfluous and can easily be summarised and put into the legacy section (the article is already at 20k words btw, which is already far too long). The discussion wasn't finished, but Lind has decided that it was a "non-viable argument" from my side, breaking the 3RR rule in the process. I hinted at the neutrality of the article (a sentence such as "In contrast, the previously practiced 4-4-2 is a purely defensive tactic that does not allow for quick passing combinations and is at best destructive" is not neutral IMO) and the summarise pillar of Wiki, but I don't think my point did come across very well, having received some not-so-nice remarks (e.g., "I get that you are a football nerd and not an academic" (I'm an academic) and "Your expertise is dubious, at best. You lack basis inside and knowledge").

Can somebody look into this? Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I have left some comments on the talk page, anyone else feel free to do so! Spike 'em (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: Lind has been blocked for 24 hours for breaching the 3RR rule, although he has also continued to disregard several other Wikipedia policies, acted uncollaboratively, made personal attacks, and shown clear signs of ownership issues, among other concerns. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Ortizesp recently moved Jordan Thompson (soccer) to Jordan Thompson (soccer, born 1998) per proper DAB per NCSP. The article has the hatnote This article is about the American soccer player. For the Northern Irish men's footballer, see Jordan Thompson (footballer). I feel this is inconsistent. Either the Northern Irish player should have a date of birth added to his DAB too or the American player should be as was previously without date of birth. What do we usually do in such cases (two players - one "footballer" and one "soccer")? --SuperJew (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Use year of birth for the Northern Irish footballer as well - like with Patrick Agyemang (soccer, born 2000) and Patrick Agyemang (footballer, born 1980). Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Do NOT attempt to differentiate between people simply by the qualifiers "(footballer)" and "(soccer)". Choose the attribute that most convincingly differentiates the two players, which for me is nationality. Spike 'em (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I have moved the page (using birth year against my own preference) and am clearing up the links before amending the redirect. Spike 'em (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I only didn't move the Northern Irish footballer because I thought there was a possibility he was the PRIMARYDAB, which we come across once in a while.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all for clearing it up. --SuperJew (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Wrong move in my humble opinion (and i see no discussion was held at the article's talk whatsoever),

if you except 99,999999999% (if not 100%) of the English grounds, pretty much all the stadia have the pertinent word attached to their full names, at least as far as WP's concerned ("stadium", "estádio", "estadio", "stade", etc), wouldn't it be logical to keep the former name Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, or a similar one ("Santiago Bernabéu (stadium)" to differentiate from the human being)?

Attentively, happy work everyone RevampedEditor (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Got to say I'm hardly a fan of this either. It seems to have been done as soon as the corporate renaming was done , which brings the issue of WP:OFFICIALNAME. Yes, the place was referred to as "Bernabéu", but only as much as "Goodison" or "the Riverside"; officialdom is not the magic stamp. If there were 13 page move discussions floated to move Twitter to X (social network), all bar one arguing "but most coverage called it Twitter", then there should have been one here. Now there's yet another date to remember, like when to name the club "Espanyol" or "Español", Ligue 1 or Division 1, etc. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Page has been moved by @Shah Emtiaj and @Assadzadeh without any kind of consensus. Given it's a major stadium, I've started a proper RM to push it back to Bernabéu Stadium and presented reasons to do so. "Bernabéu" only looks very odd... BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I've opened the RM at Talk:Bernabéu (stadium). Further opinions are more than welcome. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

A few months ago I created this list of international goals. What does it take to make it a featured list, like the Harry Kane one? Aside from the much more prose in the FL, I don't see many differences between the two articles TNM101 (chat) 15:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)