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As the discussion mentioned had been archived the new link to it is /Archive 172#Sticky table for foreign players table Spike 'em (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)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

Hello there, there's a current deletion discussion on Atzimba Casas, who doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. I tried to check the notability criteria for football players, and according to the old rules, she was notable, as she has played once for Mexico. But the new rules don't say anything about football players, what is the current criteria? Boynamedsue (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Current criteria are the WP:GNG. As you found, there are no WP:SNG for footballers, anymore. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Sound, thanks for that. Just out of interest, what happened?--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NSPORT2022 deprecated simple appearance-based criteria and nothing has had consensus to replace them. Spike 'em (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I don't think I agree with that decision, especially reading the argument that appearance-based criteria somehow favour dead white men. Especially in the context that I'm now scrabbling round for sources to keep the article of a living Latin woman.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, The infoboxes for both Bradley Wright-Phillips and Diego Valeri are showing in their senior career for clubs that they both signed one-day contracts to retire as members of those respective teams, the New York Red Bulls and the Portland Timbers, respectively. I am under the impression that these are just for show and are not appropriate to list that they played for those two teams at the end of their career in the infobox. Please let me know what the correct directive is, so I can edit Federico Higuaín appropriately, since he signed the same type of contract with the Columbus Crew. Thank you! Ewyourfaceew (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

If a player is contracted to a club - 1 day, 1 week, 1 year - then it should be displayed in the infobox. GiantSnowman 17:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I would disagree with that, personally. These instances were clearly publicity stunts and the players did not sign "real" playing contracts. It's not like Wright-Phillips signed for the club with the intention of playing and then due to some freak occurrence he left the very next day. He clearly signed this "contract" as a publicity stunt with no intention of his ever playing, not least because the team did not have a game scheduled on the one day for which he was "contracted" so it was literally impossible for him to have played for them during his "contract"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd mention it in the text of the article, but not in the infobox. Spike 'em (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, there appears to be a problem with the 2014–15 Premier League season articles. The section that should show the league table shows part of the main season article. See for example 2014–15 Everton F.C. season section League table. Keith D (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I reverted some unconstructive edits on the main page, and seems to have fixed it. Spike 'em (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks that seems to have fixed the problem. Keith D (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Is anyone able to take a look at the pending draft for Layla Drury at Manchester United W.F.C.? Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Layla_Drury# Mileslucio (talk) 17:27, 17 March 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)

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)

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)