Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

Willie Frame

Can anybody with access to ENFA or other sources confirm Willie Frame's league statistics for Gateshead in 1931/32? Would really appreciate the help. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll add later but Michael Joyce's book says 6 apps in 31/32 ColchesterSid (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Anything approaching a confirmed DOB would also be very helpful! Crowsus (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Joyce is vague - DOB is for William G Frame is "Larkhall 1898" and no date of death. It also has two extra clubs - sequence of clubs is shown as Larkhall Thistle, Clyde, St Bernards (loan), Motherwell, St Mirren (trial), Dunfermline Athletic, 1931 Gateshead 6/0, Bray Unknowns, Linfield, Motherwell. Oddly Joyce lists him as a goalkeeper - maybe a mistake? ColchesterSid (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we've got two different men here. The Gateshead Frame did indeed play as a goalkeeper for Gateshead, both for the first team and the reserves, in 1931/32. ENFA gives birth details as William Gray Frame born 11 Nov 1911 in Blantyre, which would have made him about 8 when he made his debut for Clyde. They list clubs as 1926 Kirkintilloch Rob Roy, 1926 Shieldmuir Celtic, 1931 Motherwell, 1931/32 Gateshead, 1932 Bray Unknowns, 1935 Linfield, 1938 Motherwell, 1940 Parkhead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there's multiple editions of the Joyce book but mine (dated 2004) lists only one Willie Frame, a goalkeeper, and it shows him as playing only for Gateshead, no other clubs at all. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple editions; I have the same one as you.

As to the Gateshead Frame, he definitely isn't the same man as the full-back that our article is about. If anyone has full British Newspaper Archive access, there's a decent little biography of him in Ireland's Saturday Night of 7 March 1936, url https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004162/19360307/129/0010 . I've only got snippet view, but it's enough to show he joined Motherwell as a young goalkeeper, stayed for 15 months playing reserve team football, and then moved on to Gateshead, Bray, and Linfield. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Great intel, Struway2! That of course poses the question.....what was the other Frame doing for seven years between 1931 and 1938.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It was the Gateshead/Linfield goalkeeper who signed for Motherwell in 1938, per the Wishaw Press: the first para says they're going to play him (in goal), scroll down to the bottom and it talks about him signing after a trial having regained fitness from a shoulder operation. Now that we know it wasn't the Willie Frame in our article, the Motherwell LB, who played for Gateshead in 1931/32 or rejoined Motherwell in 1938, Litster might have his later career attributed to some other W. Frame; or perhaps he retired: he'd have been early-mid 30s by 1931. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to dig into this tonight. Crowsus (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have now amended Willie Frame's article as best as I could find. The source of the confusion seems to be that GK Willie was a reserve with Motherwell but didn't play for them in the same season as DF Willie left, so the Litster database recorded DF Willie's move to Dunfermline (which seems to have been permanent) as a loan with a player of that name still on the books but not playing. Litster then links GK Willie's return to Motherwell as being by DF Willie in error, but doesn't mention any of the other clubs in between.

Certainly there are refs for GK Willie at Gateshead which mention Motherwell, and at the other end at Motherwell which mention Linfield, while DF Willie seems to have retired after the season at Dunfermline, so it's fairly certain that the Bray spell was also GK and it's only the Motherwell 1930/1931 period where their careers actually overlapped. With 6 FL and 10 SFL appearances for GK Willie, under the old rules he would have been eligible for an article, dunno if anyone wants to attempt it... The Ireland article above confirms Earnock Rovers Juveniles > Motherwell Reserves > Gateshead > Bray > Linfield and indicates he was from Blantyre, and a bit of snooping shows the only male of that name born there in the right period is William Gray Frame in 1911 which would match the 'G' in the name. Would be shocked to discover that isn't our GK.

Coming from the same part of the world, I don't recall ever actually meeting anyone called Frame, but there are plenty who have played league football! Many of the results in my searches for the 2 Willies were actually for Leicester's Billy Frame. And there are a couple of others, but no big names (Tommy Frame played for Man Utd but in the 2nd Division). I have a feeling a few of these guys were related but haven't come across anything in the reports which even hints at that. Crowsus (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your sterling work on this, Crowsus! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! S.A. Julio (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Johnny Orr - Blackburn Rovers

Does anyone know what happened to Johnny Orr who played for Blackburn Rovers during the 1910s? Hack (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

My copy of Michael Joyce's book lists no clubs for him after Blackburn so unless someone can dredge up another source then we have to assume that either he retired or the information simply isn't known -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked because a Scottish guy with the same name ends up in Melbourne during the early 1920s and plays for Australia in 1924. It's probably a different person but the dates match up. Hack (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

John Litster's database has him as 'Retired' from 1920 but then resurfacing at Leith Athletic in July 1924 (2 seasons in Scottish 3rd tier, 35 league app / 14 goals), depending on the Australia dates it might still be him, but came back home...? I'll try to get a source. Crowsus (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

...British Newspaper Archive actually has him playing for Leith as early as 1922 (they had closed down for WWI and were non league at that point until 1924, explaining the discrepancy) so looking less likely. Also a snippet from a benefit game in 1926 which doesn't mention any time in Australia. I can see that the other Johnny Orr was pretty prominent in the mid 1920s; you've probably seen a passing mention here. Crowsus (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

lfchistorc profile, worldfootball.net profile. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

ENFA says he played for Newtongrange Star, Blackburn Rovers, Leith Athletic - there was also a John Orr active at the same time who played for Kilwinning Rangers, Luton Town, Dunfermline Athletic. GiantSnowman 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't think the Luton / Dunfermline guy is the Australian as he played in Britain at pretty much the same time, and seems to have been a goalkeeper. I have now knocked up an article for Johnny Orr (footballer) (Blackburn) and still found nothing for Australia plans etc. Crowsus (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There's also a goalkeeper in Canada during the 1910s. Hack (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Managerial vacancies

If a club has no current manager, should we show "vacant" against that field or just show nothing at all? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

If there's a caretaker, show that, using |managertitle= to show what the club are calling the caretaker role. If there's nobody, which might well be the case when the playing season's just finished, show nothing. IMO. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no issues saying 'vacant'. GiantSnowman 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Len Bathurst

I've been going through some of the players in the Football League category and noticed Len Bathurst, who apparently played for Stockport County, Northampton Town, Rochdale and Crewe Alexandra in the 70s and 80s. However, I have not been able to locate any information about this player on Hugman's site or the ENFA. Is this possibly a WP:HOAX? I noticed the article creation in 2011 was the only ever edit by Adamhelal, which is suspicious. Would appreciate any input. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

He does not appear in Hugman (2015) and I've checked all players with surnames starting Bat---. I also suspect it is a hoax unless anyone else can turn up something more? Perhaps check a Rothmans Yearbook from around that time to be sure ColchesterSid (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A player with nearly 400 league appearances, even in the lower divisions, would have plenty of info about them easily available. I am going to AfD it as a hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

12.5 years Mr One-and-Done got away with that. Impressive, if somewhat embarrassing for us. Seasider53 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

TBF it won't crack the top 20 of the longest-surviving Wiki-hoaxes..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:American soccer players of Nigerian descent

Haven't super narrow categories like Category:American soccer players of Nigerian descent been deleted in the past? GiantSnowman 19:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe they have. One of these days, I will get around to writing Wikipedia:Not everything needs a category. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and recently at CfD (Jan 24) I have seen Fooian sportspeople of Bar descent being upmerged. Seemed to mainly have been the British ones, but I don't see why the American ones would be any different when someone gets around to nominating them. Personally I can see a valid intersection between origin and occupation but even things like e.g English sportspeople of Jamaican descent didn't cut it apparently; don't see why American sportspeople of Nigerian descent should be any different. Anyway, that would strongly imply that intersecting by any specific sport is (still) not necessary or desired, even if the upmerged list would be pretty large. Crowsus (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Middlesbrough F.C. listed for Good article reassessment

Middlesbrough 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) 16:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

League South Cup in 1943

I've been going through old issues of the London Evening Standard for a non-football-related project and happened to notice an article in the 24 April 1943 issue about Arsenal and QPR playing at Stamford Bridge in the semifinal of the League South Cup, with the winners to play Charlton in the final at Wembley. We don't have an article on the League South Cup and I haven't been able to find out much about it. Should we have an article? Does anyone know more about it? I know the Football League was suspended during the war; I didn't think there was any professional football at all played during those years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Football League War Cup covers all aspects of this competition. The Football League and the FA Cup were both suspended but football itself continued throughout the war Wartime League ColchesterSid (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; I figured it was probably covered somewhere but I couldn't find it. Should League South Cup be a redirect to that article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Disambiguating with (football) for football players, which is related to the scope of this WikiProject. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

FIFA Club World Cup teams in contention

Last year, there was a discussion here about whether or not to include a list of teams in contention for the FIFA Club World Cup. See here. It was decided that they were not needed.

However, someone has added such a list to the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup, but via the new 4-year ranking. There is a lengthy discussion as well.

So, are these rankings tables needed? Also, if they are kept, does pruning the tables to just teams in contention without a source fall under WP:CALC or is it WP:OR? It seems to me that calculating who is or isn't in contention is more nuanced than just basic math, and requires knowledge about how various tournaments work. See my example of Penarol here. So I think this should still have a source.

Just to be clear, I'm not really heavily for or against listing teams in contention. But if it's done, it should be done in a limited fashion (because obviously adding these tables at the beginning of 4-year cycle, for example, would be bad, because there could literally be thousands of teams in contention). And I think it needs to be properly sourced, which I don't think it is right now. I also think, giving incomplete information is bad because it leads to a half-baked article. So if we're going to list teams in contention via the 4-year ranking, we should also list the teams who may qualify by winning a competition, since the rankings tables themselves are dependent on that information. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The situations are not the same. The previous discussion (which went for only 14 hours by the way) was someone posting bullet points of all 108 countries who might qualify (of a total of 7 who did). That is indeed overkill, and I was happy it was removed. It was easy at the time to simply click on the links to the different confederations if you wanted to see who was still in contention. This is a different case, as it is not a single competition feeding into the calculations, it is (for the remaining confederation, CONMEBOL) over four competitions. The rankings for CONMEBOL are shown at the FIFA website for all four years in a single table, so there is a primary source. That FIFA website shows the current leaders under the four-year ranking, and those 2 teams I have put into a note in the main table, as that is also clearly not WP:OR. That approach is consistent with how the notes have been displayed for all other confederations before they were finalised. At one point in this article, the table showed all of the results, so dozens and dozens of teams, and that also is not WP:OR. However, showing dozens of teams that in fact were not in contention was also misleading so that subset was removed. The criteria on the FIFA website clearly list the points available (3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 3 points for progress to each stage of the competition), so that is not WP:OR. The maximum number of points available to a team without their winning the 2024 Copa Libertadores is easily calculated: After round 3 of the group stage, it is 3 wins in the group stage, 2 wins in the round of 16, 2 wins in the quarter-finals, 2 wins in the semi-finals, draw in the final (PSO loss). Nine wins and one draw = 28 points, and progressing 4 more rounds to the final = 12 points, so total = 40 points. That to me is WP:CALC. If one of the three teams - that have already won one the three previous editions of the Copa Libertadores - wins this year, then a third team will qualify through the four-year ranking method. That process is sourced from the FIFA Website. Olimpia currently sit on 57 points, third in these rankings, so any team with less than 17 points cannot qualify by this method (57-17=40). That to me is again WP:CALC. So, overall, removing the teams that cannot qualify I would clearly consider to be WP:CALC rather than WP:OR. What would be better, obviously, is if there is also a secondary source showing the teams still in contention. As a side issue, it is not going to be a permanent feature of the FIFA Club World Cup article, as it will decrease through time as did the tables for the other confederations (and disappear entirely in November 2024). Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, my point about WP:CALC not being applicable is not that this doesn't involve routine calculations. Of course it does. It's that it involves more than just routine calculations (i.e. knowledge of how the various tournaments are structured, how teams have been drawn, etc.) That is what makes it OR. Specifically, it's WP:SYNTH. I don't think it is controversial to require a source that explicitly states the conclusion that is being made. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

https://espndeportes.espn.com/futbol/mundial-clubes/nota/_/id/13319277/las-posibilidades-que-tiene-nacional-de-clasificar-al-mundial-de-clubes-2025

Translated excerpt

The maximum that can be added in a single edition of the Cup is 52 points in this hypothetical case: being runner-up by winning all the games and tying the final, this would be 37 points (twelve wins and one draw), to which would be added three to participate in the group stage and twelve to advance in the following rounds (to the round of 16, to the quarterfinals, to the semis and to the final).

This is what I consider to be a credible source to confirm the calculation. Miria~01 (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Using this as the only source for the information that is presented at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup would be WP:SYNTH. It doesn't explicitly say which teams are "in contention" beyond National and a few others. To make a conclusion based on this would be OR. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com,, published 19 mar 2024

The FIFA article indicates exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, before the Group stage started. Miria~01 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a great source, but where does it explicitly say what the current teams in contention are? If instead of a current ranking table, that section of the article merely contained a summary of what this source says (i.e. a list of teams that are still in contention as of the start of the group stage, perhaps including the rankings at that time from a source showing that) then this would be a perfectly good source for that. It would be outdated, but it would be backed by sources. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

But that's what WP:CALC is intended for.

What you explicitly ask for is a dynamic source like this FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ Confederations ranking that is updated after each game day with the information addition of eliminated clubs by the 4-year ranking . Or rather, there should always be news sources that confirm that a team no longer has a chance through the ranking after each match day. There are numerous of these news, but that would be a WP:OVERCITE, as there is no point in confirming an easy calculation again and again. These sources are more than sufficient for WP:CALC:

• FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ Confederations ranking - FIFA.com
• CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com
• Las posibilidades que tiene Nacional de clasificar al Mundial de Clubes 2025 - ESPN DEPORTES

Miria~01 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, determining which additional teams are eliminated and which ones are still in contention requires more than just a simple calculation, so WP:CALC is insufficient. To make that determination, you need to both do a calculation *and* have additional context. Any conclusions drawn from that context need to come from a source. If you draw a conclusion about which teams are currently in contention from the sources you've just provided, none of which explicitly say which teams are currently in contention, then that is WP:SYNTH. Requiring a single source that says explicitly what is being claimed is no where near WP:OVERCITE (which is not policy, unlike WP:OR). So I'm not sure what your point is with that. Bmf 051 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, if we had a source that also listed such a thing, then we should include it. If no other sources are talking about the teams "in contention" then we shouldn't either. Creating graphs and tables and the like for things isn't what we are here for. We summarise what sources say, rather than be the standard. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, agree with Lee Vilenski. Kante4 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

CONMEBOL Libertadores draw shapes the race for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 - FIFA.com

This FIFA article indicates exactly which clubs are in contention through the 4-year ranking, before the Group stage started. Now the question is whether WP:CALC could applied here after three match days have been played and show which clubs currently in contention through the 4-year ranking. Or is it really WP:SYNTH as @Bmf051 above stated. Miria~01 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here about what WP:CALC is. Can you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers and the above article?

For example, suppose Libertad are in the semifinals and need 10 points to qualify by finishing third in the rankings out of eligible teams (assume that they cannot finish first or second). Suppose Flamengo are the only previous winner still alive. Can Libertad qualify via the rankings? It is impossible to answer that question without knowing whether Libertad and Flamengo are playing in the semifinals. If they play Flamengo, the answer is no. If they don't, the answer is yes. So this requires more information than just a basic calculation using just the numbers. WP:CALC does not apply. You're using WP:CALC to do a lot of heavy lifting here, for things that it is not intended for. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, WP:CALC mentions Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. So this is about whether these calculations are decided by consensus as routine. My long post near the start of this section outlines my opinion on the routine nature of the calculations (points for a win, points for a draw, points for reaching the next stage) over and above what is already published on the FIFA website (the reliable source, albeit a Primary one). I would consider the comment by @Bmf 051: that Can you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers and the above article? is not the correct question to pose; it should rather be Can you make a conclusion about who is in contention using just the numbers, the format of the calculation of points, and the Primary reliable source? to which the answer is Yes. Otherwise, by analogy it means most times that the status_TEAM=E is applied to a group table in a competition - before the group stage is completed - is also WP:OR. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"RE: It should rather be..." This is not correct. What you are talking about is WP:SYNTH: taking a routine calculation, additional information, and other miscellany, then making your own conclusion about something that is not explicitly stated. If you could make that conclusion via only a routine calculation (and there was a consensus that the calculation was correct), that would be WP:CALC and would be fine. But that isn't the case here. Instead of trying to justify why this information doesn't need to come from a source, we would be better off spending our time looking for a source or simply representing what the sources already say.

Unfortunately, the qualification status on some pages is posted prematurely, before there is a source stating it. I think the reason people get a way with that is that often it either goes unnoticed or because the source is updated soon after the page is updated. That doesn't make this practice correct or okay. In this case with the "teams in contention" list, the lack of sources has not gone unnoticed, and the sources have not been updated after the fact, if they exist at all.

The argument you are making is a type of WP:WHATABOUTISM. Yes the rules are broken elsewhere. So what? Bmf 051 (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

To add to the discussion, an alternative format is presented at the article talk page that just captures the leading teams, which is available directly from the FIFA website (a primary source), and therefore meets WP:OR and needs no additional calculations. Perhaps this format is more acceptable if having the remaining 16 teams is not. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no issues with having just the rankings listed somewhere. As long as it continues to not make unsourced conclusions, it would indeed not be WP:OR IMHO. Though a separate page may be better, with perhaps a transclusion of part of the table on the respective annual Club World Cup page, when prudent. I think FootyRankings could be a good additional source for this, in the same way that https://kassiesa.net/uefa/ is used to supplement the UEFA coefficient page. Assuming FootyRankings is reliable.

The good thing about this solution is that it can be carried over to future tournaments. As soon as the next 4-year cycle kicks off for each confederation (and the sources publish the tables), the new rankings can be updated on WP. The current solution of listing teams in contention would not allow us to do that, since nearly every club in the world would be "in contention" at the start of a 4-year cycle. Bmf 051 (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I consider Footy Rankings to be a better solution for referencing in any case, as this website is a) a Secondary source, which is preferred over a Primary one, b) has traction as it is used currently for articles for AFC and UEFA coefficients, and c) generally kept up-to-date. A fork to a separate small article with this information (similar to the UEFA coefficient) is still going to have the same issue with respect to WP:OR vs WP:CALC; it doesn't achieve anything, AND that article will shrink to zero as teams become mathematically unable to achieve qualification via this ranking route. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If we are literally just summarizing the content from FootyRanking, there should not be any issue with WP:OR aside from people updating it before the source is updated. We're ideally just displaying the information from the source and nothing more. Also, just as the UEFA Coefficient page doesn't "shrink to zero" when teams are eliminated, a separate small article for the Club World Cup rankings doesn't need to either, because there's nothing wrong with leaving some teams that are qualified or eliminated. We could just establish through consensus how the table should be displayed, which teams would be included, the minimum/maximum number of teams displayed for each confederation, etc. For example, for CONMEBOL currently, it might show the teams listed in green on FootyRankings and the top 12 teams in yellow (for a total of 15). But there might also be an OFC table with just the top 5. Perhaps UEFA would have 20 teams: the 12 in green, plus 8 in white. The others could have 10. This is just an example, and I just pulled numbers out of the air; I'm not saying we need to do exactly this. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I like FootyRankings too, but it's a blog with user-generated content WP:UGC from a twitter account (https://twitter.com/FootyRankings). In my opinion it's only okay as an additional source, but never as a main source. But I'm totally on board with the idea of only showing a maximum of teams. In this regard, I would only use the number of slots that are still available for the best-ranked clubs (not yet qualified as champions) in the respective confederation. For CONMEBOL it would now be the three best placed teams (as in https://inside.fifa.com/en/fifa-rankings/mundial-de-clubes: marked in orange Currently qualified clubs). Miria~01 (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

LaLiga Competition logos- Request for publication of appropriate logos

I have uploaded again to Wikimedia Commons the logos with the highest resolution. These logos correspond to the competition itself (they are not the logos of La Liga as an institution) but of the Primera División or "LaLiga" (LaLiga EA Sports) and Segunda División (LaLiga Hypermotion)

I tried to place the new logos in the articles and they were removed. As can be seen in the attached brand evolution chart, the logo provided is appropriate for the competition. Please restitute it. Thank you very much.

Evolución de marca LaLiga

Primera División LaLiga EA Sports - Logo competition High resolution

Segunda División LaLiga Hypermotion LOGO High resolution

AraceliLaLiga (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The provided logo is inferior in quality to the existing vector logo, so I see no reason to change it. SounderBruce 16:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Evolución de marca LaLiga.jpg is not your own work, like you've claimed when uploading it. And it contains copies of logos that are likely copyrighted, and so I will be nominating this image for deletion on Commons. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Aston Villa F.C. Featured Article Review

I have nominated Aston Villa F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the proper location should be at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aston Villa F.C. without the "archive1" at the end, unless it has been located with the archive1 at the end for some reason. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It is already at the correct location, that is how the featured article system is ordered. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)