Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Season article task force

The recent revert at the 2025–26 Burnley F.C. season article narrowly made me to bring all featured season articles to WP:FAR. Before I bring it to FAR, I want to challenge the current state if it is falling into WP:FANCRUFT, because only players from the team are included. I don't think a match omitting the opponent information is a sustainable record, as it is Wikipedia, not a fan club recording base. KyleRGiggs (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how this violates WP:FANCRUFT, or how that guideline even applies in this context. It seems logical to me that a season review for, say, Cardiff City would primarily focus on Cardiff (it's not an article about the main league or cup comp season). Taking all these articles to FAR feels therefore like an overreach imo. I also think that posting this message on the main WT:FOOTY will lead to more imput from other editors. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

afaik, a match should be composed of two teams. Can't comprehend why a club season article could omit those information. I know someone would think, a club season article primarily focus on the team should be better, but I think there should have some stacking factors that contribute to the match, for example own goals contribute to the opponent team and vice versa. What I could see is, focus only on the respective team shows like they are playing in their own, with opponent is a shit for composing the season of this club - I mean lack of respect. I don't think it matches the nature of neutral writing. KyleRGiggs (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Besides, see the current format for the recent results of the national teams. They use this kind of format and I think it is actually a neutral stance. Goals of opponent team also being recorded. KyleRGiggs (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm you can also argue that WP:NOTSTATS applies when the opponents' goalscorers are included in the tables. I see that the goalscorers of the other teams are sometimes mentioned in the prose, which works for me. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Football box collapsible are only used in the Results and fixtures sections of the main articles for national teams, which only list matches from the past 12 months. Their main purpose is to provide a summary of the key details of those matches for the reader. However, if you visit the more detailed historical results articles – for example, Brazil national football team results (2010–present) – you will see that the preferred format is to list only the scorers from the team covered in the article. If the reader wishes to find out the opposing team's scorers, they can consult the linked reference or the main tournament article, if available. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Main tournament article. You get the point. Only linked reference can be accessed for the league matches. We would not make the league detailed results to the league articles. As I provided the reason in Manchester United article, we cannot access the detailed results if there is no season article for the opponent, which usually happens to the friendly matches. But for parallel, we can't partly include those information. KyleRGiggs (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant to include detailed info about the opponents in the season article, especially for friendly matches. In my opinion, it's only important to include information about the team itself, and if the reader wants full details about a match, they can check the linked reference. As I mentioned before, the main purpose of the article is to record the team's results, not the opponents'. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't understand the logic of the practice which omitted the opponent information. Why don't directly omitted the opponent team name together? It is similarly irrelevant. If so, first we need to omit the opponent information from the national team results, which we didn't. Why? KyleRGiggs (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. The Brazilian result article also in doubt. Thanks. KyleRGiggs (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I am currently looking at my collection of editions of The Football Yearbook ranging from the 1970s to the 2000s, each of which features a two-page statistical record of each Premier League/EFL team's season. The only goalscorers listed are the team's own. If you want to know who scored for the other team you have to turn to their page. So I think this is a longstanding and accepted format -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

2ª Divisão de Macau and 1973 Campeonato da 1ª Divisão do Futebol thru 2016 Campeonato da 1ª Divisão do Futebol are titled in Portuguese, which seems to violate WP:ENGLISHTITLE. What are these commonly known as in English? -- Beland (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Greek Super Cup 2025#Requested move 9 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 04:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

This move should not be made because it is wrong. It is not based on any source or solid arguments. Even the user who proposed it no longer supports it, as can be seen in the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greek_Super_Cup_2025#Requested_move_9_January_2026

The only thing I would suggest is that the title be changed from Greek Super Cup 2025 to 2025 Greek Super Cup.

Πούμα (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that on eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%9374_Football_League_First_Division that that season's champions were also implied as taking part in the European Cup that season. Should the parameter be renamed / a new one added such that it is clear that winning the league qualified you for the next season's Cup? It seems clear on the inbox when you see the field name to edit it but does not obviously mention it on the actual displayed text.

Thoughts welcome. ~2026-11530-86 (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)