[go: nahoru, domu]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Latest comment: 31 minutes ago by Jkudlick in topic Results-by-round

    Maps for future World Cups

    edit

    The venue maps for future World Cups have changed massively, but in my opinion, for the worst. The new map with numbers is tiny and confusing. The first time this map was used was for the 2022 World Cup under the basis that not every stadium was displayed on the map due to Qatar being a small country, which made sense.

    But future men's and women's World Cup hosts like Brazil don't need this map and a normal table would do a great job of showcasing the stadiums and cities together because every city and stadium can be displayed and seen perfectly well.

    So while the numbered map works for Qatar, it doesn't translate at all well for other countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia. I also don't believe that it a one or the other situation, because the map makes sense for Qatar, but not for Saudi Arabia.

    I believe that it makes sense to revert back to the table format for the World Cup venues for countries who are hosting solo World Cups or just the amount of stadiums are fewer.

    For example, for the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup in Brazil, you don't a numbered map and this table below works perfectly.

    Rio de Janeiro Brasília Belo Horizonte Fortaleza
    Estádio do Maracanã Arena BRB Mané Garrincha
    (Estádio Nacional Mané Garrincha)
    Estádio Mineirão Arena Castelão
    Capacity: 73,139 Capacity: 69,910 Capacity: 66,658 Capacity: 57,876
           
    Porto Alegre
    Location of the host cities of the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup.
    Salvador
    Estádio Beira-Rio Casa de Apostas Arena Fonte Nova
    (Arena Fonte Nova)
    Capacity: 49,055 Capacity: 47,915
       
    São Paulo Recife Manaus Cuiabá
    Neo Química Arena
    (Arena Corinthians)
    Arena Pernambuco Arena da Amazônia Arena Pantanal
    Capacity: 47,252 Capacity: 45,440 Capacity: 42,924 Capacity: 42,788
           

    ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yeah that makes sense. By the reason why a different map was used, was not because of the size of the country but because of copyright laws of the country preventing us from having free images of the stadiums. Tvx1 17:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Can you name a country that has copyright problems surrounding maps? Personally, I have never heard of that law before. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It is not very common. Qatar is pretty strict: https://en.as.com/soccer/the-places-where-it-is-forbidden-to-take-photos-at-the-qatar-2022-world-cup-n/
    This created a lot of big blank spaces in the map and @AFC Vixen worked on a new way to display the map. Personally, I find the new style to be better for mobile versatility. The huge map above is very hard to look at on a smartphone. It is so big and it doesn't adapt to smaller screens. Chris1834 Talk 19:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have seen the new map/stadiums style on the phone and it doesn't adapt well either. While the map is better, you can't see the stadiums at all on the phone, so I don't think there is a clear or significant difference between both styles as they are both pretty squashed.
    I use my laptop a lot more than my phone and I don't think that the slight improvement the new map makes for phone users is enough that laptop/computer users need to be hindered by the changes. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Not with the map! With images of the stadiums. There is no freedom of panorama in Qatar! Tvx1 10:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    @ILoveSport2006, Tvx1, and Chris1834: Personally, I loathe these table–map hybrids. They take extraordinary amounts of space and don't allow for sorting of data by name or capacity among other possible sortable data points. It's my understanding that most editors want images of every single venue used by a tournament, and I'm convinced that's the only reason these table–map hybrids are still widely used – there'd be no need for them otherwise. With that said, I did propose a compromise at Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup to retain a gallery of images using a carousel, though that didn't attract any response, and I've since discovered that it displays terribly on mobile. Otherwise, here's another idea of what I'd replace the above with:

    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

     
    Many venues built for the 2014 FIFA World Cup, such as the Estádio Nacional (pictured), will be reused.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc aliquet orci vel felis iaculis vestibulum. Proin semper nisi et lectus mollis blandit. Donec et magna scelerisque, facilisis mauris vel, bibendum ipsum. Pellentesque efficitur elit ante, a facilisis nisl dignissim a. Morbi dapibus sem eu enim tristique, in hendrerit augue tincidunt.[1][2] Phasellus faucibus risus vitae suscipit pellentesque. Cras faucibus mattis porttitor. Vivamus lacus felis, tempus quis sapien id, feugiat tempus ligula.[3] Duis sit amet scelerisque lectus. Suspendisse facilisis augue sapien, maximus tincidunt nibh posuere id. Etiam aliquet augue nisl, non vehicula metus semper ut. Morbi quis ultricies erat.[1][3][4]

    Quisque non volutpat velit, ut feugiat erat. Curabitur a vulputate tortor, at consequat quam. Integer a enim molestie, lobortis ante nec, efficitur enim. Nunc commodo tristique metus, eget bibendum mauris faucibus at.[1] Donec scelerisque, nisi vel vehicula ultrices, augue quam consectetur lectus, in scelerisque nisi neque a ipsum. Duis ac pretium lectus. Suspendisse eget cursus diam. Quisque odio tortor, accumsan eget leo eget, blandit pretium ipsum. Maecenas condimentum tincidunt efficitur. Vestibulum non commodo metus. Suspendisse scelerisque congue erat sed pellentesque.[2][5] Maecenas sed pretium eros. Maecenas arcu eros, tempus quis felis vitae, cursus facilisis nunc. Pellentesque efficitur elit ante, a facilisis nisl digniss.[6]

    Map 
     
    1500km
    900miles
    10
    9
    8
    7
    6
    5
    4
    3
    2
    1
    (Interactive map; click the ▢ to view)
    Host cities nominated in the CBF's bid for the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup.
    2027 FIFA Women's World Cup venues
    Host City Venue Capacity
    1
    Rio de Janeiro
    Maracanã Stadium 73,139
    2
    Brasília
    Estádio Nacional Mané Garrincha 69,910
    3
    Belo Horizonte
    Mineirão 66,658
    4
    Fortaleza
    Castelão 57,876
    5
    Porto Alegre
    Estádio Beira-Rio 49,055
    6
    Salvador
    Arena Fonte Nova 47,915
    7
    São Paulo
    Neo Quimica Arena 47,252
    8
    Recife
    Arena Pernambuco 45,440
    9
    Manaus
    Arena da Amazônia 42,924
    10
    Cuiabá
    Arena Pantanal 42,788

    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

    I'd like to direct particular attention to the use of images in the map, which is another idea I had for a compromise – I suspect most editors don't know images can be added to an {{OSM Location map}}. In articles where appropriate, a column in the wikitable noting whether the venue was pre-existing, built for the tournament, upgraded, ect. would also be helpful. — AFC Vixen 🦊 03:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I honestly don't think having images of each venue on the tournament page adds much. --SuperJew (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think it does. I honestly don’t prefer the proposed alternative at all. I’m als honestly puzzled by the claims that the classic format has visibility issues on mobile devices. I’m watching it and typing this on my smartphone and I have no issue seeing it. Tvx1 10:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hopefully this screenshot from my device can illustrate it for you. Compare this with screenshots of the article and map format I proposed above. Nevermind even the glaring issue of {{Location map+}} forcing a width size for the centre two columns, consider just the fact that only a portion of the table–map even fits on the screen at a legible page size. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As I have mentioned before, while on my phone, the map is fine but the stadium pictures are squashed so the new map/stadium system virtually does nothing. I also don't think it is fair that the maps got changed because one or two people do not like it. That's not enough input to change it for everyone. This talk page already has differing opinions. Personally, I think the table–map hybrids is great and should be kept. As far as I know, there was never any consensus that the new map style was the way to go for every tournament onwards. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Firstly, these days with the preview of articles on hovering, you can see the image that way easily enough. Secondly, why are stadiums different than anything else? Why not have images of all the coaches? Or all the players? Tbh personally apart from a handful, I wouldn't recognise many venues from their aerial screenshot anyway. --SuperJew (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have never needed the image for a stadium. If I want to know more about a particular stadium, I go to that article. This article is about the event and the stadium box is just massive when the stadium is a small part of the overall tournament. The relevant information about the stadium for this article is where it is and what the capacity is. The picture of the stadium is superfluous and doesn't really add necessary information for this tournament. Chris1834 Talk 13:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think stadium pictures add a lot and and is a good way to differentiate each edition by showing a different set of venues. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @SuperJew You are probably different to me, but I can recognise stadiums via their aerial screenshots. So for me, the pictures are useful. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's probably anyways an irrelevant point who can or can't recognise the stadiums from the pictures. But my point is expanded by what Chris1834 wrote. It gives an undue weight to the stadiums in comparison to other components of the tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It is not because it shows that for me and maybe other people, the pictures ARE relevant. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agree that the pics are not really needed. Kante4 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Have to disagree, each venue is different and having a quick visual overview is helpful to potential readers. A sortable list with images is not an impossible proposition, plenty of FLs integrate images just fine. I also am opposed to burying images in the interactive maps, as they are not as obvious and intuitive to use; there's a reason we don't use dropdowns unless absolutely necessary. SounderBruce 05:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    @Chris1834, ILoveSport2006, Kante4, SuperJew, and Tvx1: Would you folks be opposed to me opening an RfC on whether or not we need images of all venues in a tournament article? I feel that it'd be important to resolve this particular issue first before further discussion, and that it'd be wise to gather opinions from readers and editors who aren't necessarily sports fans, nor regularly edit sports articles. — AFC Vixen 🦊 09:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    no opposition here :) --SuperJew (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No problem. Kante4 (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Sounds like a great idea to provide more traction for this discussion. Chris1834 Talk 12:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Shouldn't we include @SounderBruce in the conversation also? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I mistakenly missed them when copy+pasting usernames. Apologies. — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Matthijs de Ligt and Dominic Solanke

    edit

    Could an Admin please semi-protect Matthijs de Ligt & Dominic Solanke JMHamo (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    A request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase might result in action sooner. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Are you joking? Did you see the backlog is over 48 hours. JMHamo (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have protected De List - won't bother with Solanke given the transfer is confirmed. GiantSnowman 09:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I am quite excited to see the possibility of De List to play football soon. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Bloody autocorrect! GiantSnowman 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Feedback on 2024–25 Serie B#Personnel and kits

    edit

    Hi all, I am reaching out to request some feedback on the list of personnel, kits and sponsors on articles like (but not limited to) 2024–25 Serie B. I have just opened it and I found out the table is both huge in terms of horizontal space (which already causes problems in my laptop, so I would not even trying imagining how it would look from a much smaller screen such as a mobile phone) and filled with what I would consider being unnecessary WP:TRIVIA (such as the list of sponsors, and possibly the kit manufacturer as well), all of that without any sources provided. Any thoughts? Angelo (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Chairman not necessary, only main shirt sponsor needed. Removing those fields (and a new line for the Sassuolo co-captains) makes it fit much better. Crowsus (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I see this sponsor nonsense goes back 10 years, including some editions where there was a league-wide sponsor for the weirder places, but that got included 20 times. I haven't checked every year, but had a glance at the other 'big 5' second tiers for 2016-17, and only 2016–17 Segunda División (Spain) had presidents listed. I know they wield much more power in some places than others, but in my opinion the president doesn't need to be listed. Is there any big objection to these fields being removed from other season articles? I'd think it would be extremely fiddly and boring for creators to find all this out (not an expert on the arse cheek sponsors but I imagine they change quite often)and add it in every August, and possibly fails V and CRUFT as Angelo has suggested?? Crowsus (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Disappointed nobody else has taken the time to contribute. Pinging user:Sebas291001 by way of explanation of my reversion of their (unexplained) removal of my changes. Please explain your reasoning for including all these sponsors and presidents here so we can get the full picture and avoid an edit war, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For the record, the same user seems to have been doing the same kind of edits on several other articles, such as 2024–25 Serie A, 2024–25 Ligue 1 and 2024–25 EFL League Two, to mention the most recent ones. I personally think we really need asap a consensus on this - and I am fine with User:Crowsus's take on that, for the record. Angelo (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Apologies for reversing the changes. I have just seen the explanation and imo it seems reasonable. I had included those sponsors because all Wikipedia pages for previous seasons (2023/24, 2022/23, 2021/22, and so forth) in the top European leagues already include all sponsors used. I do believe it has some importance to include sponsors, possibly there are viewers interested in looking what sponsors are present in the team's shirt or what changes there have been. Personally, I had no problems while looking at the sponsors table in my computer, laptop and phone; but I understand some might have them. I'm open to suggestions in looking on how to "summarize" or reduce the space between the sponsors, I saw the Liga MX page has an expandable list that include all the thousands of sponsors in their kits, so I think it would be a better option. Regarding to presidents, they do have some power in Italy, but in case it's not considered relevant then I would be open to have them removed. Sebas291001 (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    WAFF Championship articles

    edit

    At what level are we going to have these too? I was having a quick little run through the new page feed and came across this page 2024 WAFF U-16 Championship, I really don't feel that the under 16s are that notable. On the template below there is Senior, that's okay for me, Under 23, I don't mind so much, Under-19, I don't really feel there is notability there, then there is Under-16, which I feel the whole lot is not notable and probably should be deleted. What are other peoples thoughts on this? Govvy (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    A case similar to what happened with the CAFA articles, even though the WAFF senior competition is longer-lasting. I personally have no problem with maintaining the U-16 competition, as long as there are sources. Svartner (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Emmanuel Saban Laryea, Ghanaian professional footballer

    edit

    Greetings, while updating orphan footballer articles, I see the Laryea biography infobox Date-of-Birth shows 12 December 1995 vs. the Worldfootball.net (reliable source) shows 12.06.1990. After searching, I'm still confused if there are two players from Ghana with exact same name, and similar clubs? Any help here would be great. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    My findings:
    Of those four sources, worldfootball.net is the only outlier. Could be a mistake in their database. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Done - Thanks @Robby.is.on, will go with the 1995 dob. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Strange

    edit

    2009–10 Libyan Cup has separate articles for 2009–10 Libyan Cup – Round of 32 and 2009–10 Libyan Cup – Round of 16. This seems unnecessary, so I'm inclined to merge and redirect all on sight. Geschichte (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yup, should be merged. Kante4 (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Found more at Libyan Cup 2008–09 – first round, and it looks very ugly. Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Ryan Carmichael

    edit

    Might need an admin to sort this one out, he was moved to draft in March after an AfD, and a few days ago recreated again. However the two seem very different, I wasn't sure what to do. Did they need a hist merge to draft? Or something sorting out, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    A HISTMERGE is probably a good idea. RedPatch (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    We cannot HISTMERGE because there is now - thanks to @Hildreth gazzard: editing the draft after the mainspace article had been created - a parallel history. See WP:PARALLEL. Take what sources etc. you can from the draft and we will delete it. GiantSnowman 14:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    A doubt

    edit

    Okay. So, I haven't been here in a long long time, and I've seen WP:FPL is inactive now. NFOOTY is redirected to NSPORTS. So my question is according to these changes I've noticed, and based on WP:SPORTCRIT, is it possible for a player who hasn't played in a FPL to have an independent article given that he/she has sufficient coverage via secondary sources? Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 21:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, that's correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Was always possible. --SuperJew (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks ChrisTheDude and SuperJew. Just needed to get that straight. Best wishes! Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 12:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    FIFA Series

    edit

    Hey, Elditya 029 (talk · contribs) is adding the FIFA Series to the honours section of footballers. It's a friendly competition which should not be added or? Kante4 (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Multiple champions? What a strange setup, I am not sure I quite get the tournament style. Govvy (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's definitely not an honour, the 'competition' is just a series of friendly matches. Should be removed from all honours sections. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Also (apart from Egypt Series), these are 4-team round robin, but each team plays only 2 others. -- SuperJew (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Removed it from all articles i could find. Kante4 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Dukla Prague

    edit

    Would some of you footy Wiki afficionados mind heading over to Talk:FK_Dukla_Prague#Merge_proposal. I'll be plainly honest, I was looking for the Dukla Prague in Europe article to see their results, there isn't one in English but I found it in Czech and some other languages; but I also noticed that Dukla Prague and FK Dukla Prague are treated as one in the Czech Wikipedia and some others but not in English, which seems a bit odd. I wondered if it was us at English wiki being a bit fussy & pedantic with legal technicalities, if it was a dated oversight, or if fans of the Czech club over there were being a bit overenthusiastic. Please don't bite my head off for querying this, if you feel like doing so I can guarantee you any reason you have for rejecting (or accepting) the merge 'suggestion' isn't as obvious or straightforward to outside non WP Football folk as you think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    • This is a common situation in some countries, especially Belgium: an old club goes defunct, someone takes an unrelated club and gives it the old clubs' colours, badge and stadium. It's a bit different from the situation where a completely new phoenix club is created after the old one goes defunct; this seems common in Italy. I think it's probably wise to keep the two Dukla Pragues apart, actually. Geschichte (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Christian Wood (soccer)

    edit

    I was trying to do some searches on the guy, but too many other people with the same name were getting in the way of searches, I was considering sending the article to AfD, unless someone else decides to do that, or someone can find decent sources or not. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I'm struggling - most sources about the basketball player? I suggest send to AFD. GiantSnowman 19:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Note that there are two redirect targets as well, All-time Rochester Rhinos roster and 2022 Rochester New York FC season. Since he only played one season for one team. Geschichte (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Alas, I am not impressed with either of those for a redirect, does the season article even pass NSEASONS? The all time roster, is that nessessary? It's just a list, doing what a category already does. And certainly lacks sourcing. Anyway, I've decided to send the article to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Wood (soccer). Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The 'Roster' is probably the best target. GiantSnowman 18:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Proposal for a Leeds United task force

    edit

    Hi, all. If you are interested in helping to improve coverage of articles related to Leeds United, please consider joining a proposed task force. I've created a pilot page which illustrates some objectives. Any questions, please ask. Thank you. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Jim Fraser

    edit

    Hi football fans, doing some research into the 1968–69 European Cup Winners' Cup. Seems like a Jim Fraser scored for Dunfermline in the semi finals. Wonder if it is the same Jim Fraser as Jim Fraser (Scottish footballer), currently an unsourced stub with no Dunfermline details in the infobox, or category, but who was at least playing in the Scottish league during the period. Found a few sources [1][2][3] but unclear if this refers to the same individual. Any help appreciated. Thanks, C679 08:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    @Cloudz679: - see [4]. It's not the same guy -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Results-by-round

    edit

    Back with a vengeance, thanks to ChampsRT (talk · contribs). I believe our stance was that these are useless due to fixtures being postponed and being played out of sync, hence giving a false snapshot of league positions? Seasider53 (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    If someone wants to know a team's results by round, they can just look at the list of results. It's a pointless duplication of information. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It doesn't bother me so much, but it is kinda replication of data. There are also grounds you could class it as a breach of WP:OR. But I honestly can't remember if we had a consensus against them or not. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I understand that you can look at the list of results, but wouldn't it be more clear to summarise it all in a table? Lets say if you want to check out how a team did in the previous season, you can also see what position they were in a a certain point of the season and how many points they had at that stage.
    As for fixtures postponed, we can always adjust the rounds played, and we can record the positions either after the weekend fixtures or the weekday ones. I believe the results by round is a clear and concise way to show how a team performed in a season. ChampsRT (ProfileTalk) 00:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I recall being a part of the previous discussion, and the consensus at the time was that "results by round" tables are discouraged precisely for the reasons cited by Seasider53. For example, if the Manchester Derby were to be postponed, the "Round X" results of Man U and Man City would not be accurate. The match is still officially part of "Round X" even if it is played during the week of "Round Q" two months later. While not WP:OR, it introduces misleading information since it appears that a result was recorded during the season before it actually occurred. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Would anyone object to this article going to AfD? Govvy (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Nm, I decided to send it to AfD anyway if anyone is interested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Good article reassessment for D.C. United

    edit

    D.C. United 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) 14:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    RfC at WikiProject Sports

    edit

    An RfC at WikiProject Sports is currently seeking a consensus on whether images of all venues in a tournament should be presented in a tournament article's § Venues section. Feel free to join in and share your thoughts! — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply