This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAssociation football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Actually, having had a proper look at the article there arefar too many tables of overy detailed statisitics / occurances. For example, I don't think we need to list every penalty missed / own goal scored.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySpike 'em (talk •contribs)
If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to put that information in the overview section? But all Asian leagues list their foreign players, since the regulations are different from Europe's? I think we should keep the foreign players table.Wira rhea (talk)12:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Wow, that's a new insane high for the amount of tables in a season article. Cards given per ref? A list of all missed penalties? There's just so much excessive detail there that seems to be being included simply because it can be (although much of it is unsourced) --ChrisTheDude (talk)11:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's true. I'm no longer contributing much for season article for Indonesian league like before because there are many user put whatever they want. It's too many stuff like Foreign referees, League matches, Season statistics for cards etc. (I once debate for assists, but I'm not put it anymore after discussion here). Awards, maybe monthly is okay but is it really need for weekly awards? And for foreign players as all league season article in Asia are mentioned, so I think it's okay.Wira rhea (talk)12:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Im working my way through the wording (which is mostly saying one thing over twice the length it needs to), so if someone else doesn't mind culling some tables, I'd be on board.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)12:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also a note here, mobile view is broken on this article. I can't quite work out why, but something in the formatting is breaking it so you can no longer hide sections.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)12:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now this article is mostly under control, we should also talk about similar articles.2024–25 Liga 1 (Indonesia) has the exact same issues as this article. It has so many templates on it doesn't display properly on mobile, has the foreign players section... Referee stats (and foreign referee list), full results from the league. Etc. Are we happy to do a cull on these sections on articles like this in general?Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)07:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removed tables at the bottom. What about the results, i can't remember if they are allowed on the article when there are no ind. articles.Kante4 (talk)12:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gotreverted for the attendance table. The ref link goes to the website, no chance for me to see the changes in percent (the edit summary is quite lovely too).Kante4 (talk)11:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that for the current season, the Indonesian league has undergone a major regulatory shift by removing specific regional quotas (Asian/ASEAN slots) and increasing the limit to 11 free foreign players.
This is a historic and significant change in the league's policy that has been widely discussed in national media. The table is not just "cruft"; it serves to document how clubs are utilizing this new, unprecedented 11-player quota. Given that this is a drastic departure from previous years, providing a clear overview of these foreign signings is essential for a comprehensive encyclopedic record of this specific season.Madhon335 (talk)09:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean i can understand unnecessary statistics like awards per month. But foreign players is essential bro. Every season has it, so does other leaguesConam-san (talk)15:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, why did you only delete the table of foreign players in the Indonesian league? Can you also delete the table of foreign players from the Philippine league this season? There are countless of them, you know.Madhon335 (talk)09:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for there to be a wider discussion about this sort of table on all articles. But it's very clear above that we have a consensus not to have this table on this article.
Look, I know the foreign players table might be overkill for others. But it is essential to have it be put in the article, Asian countries very much relies on foreign players to make the team more competitive because let's face it the majority of local players (In Indonesia case) are bang average or below it. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, etc need to have foreign players in their team to make them more competitive in the league and in the asian tournament. Southeast Asian Countries also put a limit on how many foreign players that could be registered so that locals can also played.Ousmane0306 (talk)03:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
U keep saying consensus, but I know most people would prefer the foreign players stays as it has been for years since previous seasons. You’re also didn’t explained if 2025-26 super league season cannot add foreign players list, why the previous season and before it still fine? Same goes to other ASEAN leagues, explain it.Conam-san (talk)08:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And i think until this problem resolve, the page need protection, because I notice new accounts like Arporsio8888, ~2026-56277-3, ~2026-55420-7 just put back unnecessary table, and even personal attacks.Wira rhea (talk)07:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the same would/should be done for the other leagues that use it. We just started here to gain consensus (we have) to remove it.Kante4 (talk)09:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and trying to create a page with just the foreign players is not the way to go. Will be up for deletion most likely given the consensus here.Kante4 (talk)12:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll still make it regardless. If it can’t be keep on the league page, then at least let it be post under a new article.
At least the hard-work efforts of some people that has made this table and sources from the scratch to have does not go in vain. It’s disrespectful towards us that has made it with a legit sources and not a vandalism.
The Indonesian league fans tend to look for information of foreign players of their clubs, who’s still there and who’s not. It’s always been part of it.
So if it can’t be publish in the main league article. Let it have a separate articles for it. It’s the least things you guys can have a consensus for those who’re against foreign players list.Conam-san (talk)13:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, other ASEAN league like Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. still has Foreign Players table. But Indonesian league? Deleted. Reason?Itedije94 (talk)17:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, does that mean we will never be able to see the table of foreign players in the Indonesian League? Even in future seasons? (On the English Wikipedia page for the Indonesian League) It may sound silly, but we think this table is important for some people, especially die-hard fans of the Indonesian League. Hopefully there will be a solution that works for everyone, not just one side. Not even just the Indonesian League. Normally, we as ordinary people would consider this to be very unfair.Itedije94 (talk)18:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
New account, hmmm... but whatever. Yeah those tables should not be there in the past/present/future and the other leagues will have it removed aswell.Kante4 (talk)18:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, guys, let's focus on the discussion. You haven't answered why only the Indonesian League? What's the solution? Finding another website is irrelevant and not a solution, in our opinion. We're talking about the Wikipedia page, right? We're on the Wikipedia page, right? Because on the Wikipedia page of other leagues in ASEAN, such as Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and others, still have tables of foreign players. Let's be fair. That's the issue we've been discussing all along. And NOT important to only ONE person or new account or whatever you guys say about us. Focus on the discussion.Itedije94 (talk)01:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you how important that foreign player table is. We can see how far the Local League has progressed, how proud we are to see a list of quality foreign players, and how far the local league has developed. Look, this isn't just about the important of one person, two person, or new accounts—it's about many people. Especially in Indonesia. It's become a tradition. If it's mandatory to remove the foreign player table, please do it now in other leagues. Why hasn't it been removed yet? Why only the Indonesian League? Come on, be fair. This is what makes us disappointed with all of You.Itedije94 (talk)04:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if new accounts show up we assume it's not always a new person. And we said often enough that it should be removed from other pages.Kante4 (talk)06:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer only concerning about new accounts. Do this on other league pages (which have foreign player tables) and be fair. And you also cannot answer why this only happens in the Indonesian League. It makes no sense. We are disappointed with this unfairness.Itedije94 (talk)06:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are we all in agreement that: Foreign players/referee tables, seasons with results for every match, tables about foreign referees and weekly awards (I may be forgetting something) should be deprecated and close this section?Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)08:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Following removal of the "foreign players" table on the2025–26 A-League Men page, I had a skim through this long "discussion", so apologies if I missed anything. Firstly, it feels there's a lot of things discussed here and grouped together - a table of foreign players is not on the same level as detailed match results or weekly awards. Also the discussion needs to be league-based. I'm not sure what happens in the Indonesian league or other leagues mentioned here, but in the A-Leagues, the foreign player criteria is very important, with clubs being limited to only 5 foreign players, and the foreign players being a regular discussion point, making it quite notable and a relevant table to include in the article. Examples for sources:[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] So, looking at the A-Leagues specifically, there is importance to keep the "foreign players" table, due to its notability. --SuperJew (talk)23:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperJew:,@Ausfootballfan:,@Lee Vilenski:,@Kante4:, Using SuperJew's logic for keeping foreign players in A-League, so many leagues especially in Asia place importance in foreign player quotas and have lots of coverage about that topic (whether its normal slots or special slots like U21, heritage player, homegrown foreigner etc) so idk why they would be removed for Asian leagues, like@Itedije94: said it seems veery helpful at least to me when looking at an Asian league season pages and I am sure it does to many others. Thanks,Das osmnezz (talk)01:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is notability and a range of sourcing a rationale? Also the counter "argument" ofWe don't need a table listing the players, seems a bitcrufty, doesn't carry much weight. As it says onWP:CRUFTAvoid including information that is trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans. - the point I'm showing here is that the foreign player criteria and details is not trivial, but rather an important point of the league with multiple sources about it and many season previews/reviews mentioning the visa players and if they'll help "make or break" a team's season. --SuperJew (talk)02:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you.@Seaside53:, The concept of foreign player quotas for each season is vert important for Asian leagues based on online and news sources too. As I said above also, "many leagues especially in Asia place importance in foreign player quotas and have lots of coverage about that topic (whether its normal slots or special slots like U21, heritage player, homegrown foreigner etc)". Thanks,Das osmnezz (talk)04:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, at first I didn't agree with the removal of the foreign player table. Especially since they started with the Indonesian League. Before I arrived to start the debate, they only removed the foreign player table in the Indonesian League, so I said, “Why is this unfair? There are many leagues out there that use foreign players, so why not remove them too?” And I don't know who or whose idea it was to remove the foreign player table and start this mess. And I don't know what the purpose was. Especially for leagues with foreign player limits, that table information is very useful and has become a tradition every season. This is my perspective as an ordinary person. I hope there's a quick solution, as we can see many people disagree with the removal of the foreign player table. Hopefully, everything will return to normal.Itedije94 (talk)06:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This discussion has been going for a good 2 weeks, and consensus was reached to remove the foreign players tables. There's no difference in relative notability (or relative lack of notability) between an article from an Indonesian league and an Australian league.Matilda Maniac (talk)01:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming this is a "closed" consensus is a bit of a reach. Consensus isn't a clock that runs out, but rather an ongoing process. Tbh, I didn't join in this discussion at it's beginning as it quickly became awall of text and from a quick glance seemed to focus on the Indonesian League specifically. I've also been quite busy IRL (started a new job last month), so I'm not focusing on every discussion to go throughWT:FOOTY.
Anyways, regarding the case itself, I'm not arguing here about a range of leagues or in general, but specifically about the A-League - I brought enough sources to establish that the subject is notable enough to include and it's notWP:CRUFT. --SuperJew (talk)02:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I am not sure what the consensus is since many users disagreed above too, also besides the A-League, The concept of foreign player quotas for each season is very important for Asian leagues based on online and news sources too. As I said above also, "many leagues especially in Asia place importance in foreign player quotas and have lots of coverage about that topic (whether its normal slots or special slots like U21, heritage player, homegrown foreigner etc)". Thanks,Das osmnezz (talk)04:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have been passively following along this discussion as well and thought the amount of pushback against the foreign player table was a bit odd. I know for MLS we have a page forMLS International Roster Slots that is usually pretty up to date that covers the same kind of topic i.e. covering the limitations on the number of foreign players a team can have according to the league's roster building mechanics. And while I know that MLS doesn't break it out on each season article, I know that theCanadian Premier League has something similar to what is being discussed here. I definitely agree, this seems significantly more notable than a lot of the other stats that were removed from the page.Jay eyem (talk)05:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it should be about notability and unlike the other "random" stats that were removed, the list of foreign players and their categories and changes is a very important topic that is covered in lots of sources for Asian leagues and arguably gets more than topics like hat-tricks which are listed in season articles for European leagues. Thanks,Das osmnezz (talk)05:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The foreign "rule" should be mentioned, 100%. We just don't need a table with all players listed, that was the point of this discussion.Kante4 (talk)09:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The rule being mentioned is not in dispute. Weshould mention that there is a limit on foreign players. That is good prose. What the problem is, is naming them. It immediately makes the rest of the team irrelevant by proxy and isn't really about the season as a whole. If you have an article about a team in a season, that's where that information might be suitable.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)09:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, can someone create a poll for the Foreign Players Table in each league to be displayed again or permanently removed? It seems that until now it is still undecided, as there are still many who agree and disagree. How about we create a poll? Or any other solution, this has gone on too long. The discussion here seems to be endless. Let's reach a conclusion and find a solution. So there's a concrete outcome and no more debates among us all. What I see here is that the consensus just is "one-sided".Itedije94 (talk)09:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the discussion is pretty clear. There is no argument mentioned until now why it should be displayed (other than "good to know", "nice to see", "it was done before", "its helpful").Kante4 (talk)09:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've already made the argument for it, but I'll repeat it. The specific visa players are notable as it's a limited number, and many sources talk about the visa players. Not only as a concept, but also individually breaking down the players and who is a good or bad visa signing.
And again I'll repeatWP:CRUFT doesn't apply here - the visa players and their breakdown isn't a trivial point, but an important part of how the squads are structured.
Why are we listing those players though? Saying what the rules are is fine and suitable, we don't need to know what those players names are on an overview of a season.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)15:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My point and other users points still stand, there are many sources that back up listing foreign players, also using your logic we might as well remove from league season pages hat-trick lists, yellow cards lists, attendance lists as well as assists and clean sheets lists. Thanks,Das osmnezz (talk)12:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what is/was done. Removing yellow cards, assists and attendance lists. Just undertand that there is consensus for removing those foreign player lists. Please mention the rule in the article with the sources above but again NO NEED for listing every player (sorry for caps but hoping people get it now). It's not that hard.Kante4 (talk)12:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1 or just ignore them. Those comments will come flying in. I removed lists from the other articles mentioned above and boom directly a new one. So whatever is done, they will come back with a new article that has it, not worth the trouble.Kante4 (talk)14:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Itedije94, I understand how this discussion may have seemed frustrating or even unfair but please avoid trolling. That won't help your cause.Robby.is.on (talk)14:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Linking a Wikipedia policy doesn't make you automatically correct or mean you're interpreting or applying the policy correctly. Beyond linking the policy (yup got itWP:CRUFT,WP:INDISCRIMINATE), can you explain how it applies to removing the foreign players table? I've explained how the policy doesn't apply above a couple of times already and backed up with sources to show notability of the matter. --SuperJew (talk)13:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not how argumentation works. If you reference a specific policy, you need to quote which part of the policy it fails and explain why. I see a lot of linking to policies, but not a lot of quoting which portion of the policies apply.Jay eyem (talk)16:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
INDESCRIMINATE should be pretty obvious.As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. So, basically, just because this information exists, how is it suitable for inclusion? These are articles about the SEASON of a league. What has that got to do with the individual players who are playing in each team? And, if you think it is suitable, why not the entire squad for each team? It seems irrelevant who the players are who are in those foreign spots. SeeWP:NOTSTATS also
CRUFT is an essay, but it's pretty relevant here.While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by them being a fan. Outside of fans of these leagues, who is clicking on an article about the Indonesian first league and really wanting information about the players who aren't Indonesian... But not so much that they don't care about the Indonesian players.
Once again, the fact that there is a foreign player limit is grand to put into prose, and even if there is a specifically notable individual that news articles talk about, that can go into prose. But, a list of players randomly being in the middle of an article not about individual clubs is overkill.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)19:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for actually citing the parts of the policies that you reference. Whether or not it should be obvious does not mean that you don't have the burden of proof for actually arguing your position. I agree with the first point in regards to its place on a season article, I don't think it is necessarily the right place for that information. However, I don't completely agree with the list of foreign players being cruft, and I absolutely disagree with your assessment of theMLS International Roster Slots article below. I fail to see how a limitation on foreign players is only of trivial importance, particularly for leagues like MLS or the Canadian Premier League that put these limitations in place for the specific purpose of nurturing homegrown talent (see also,Homegrown Player Rule (MLS)). Also, that being an essay, what's written there isn't really relevant for its inclusion as an article.Jay eyem (talk)15:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree. The topic of foreign A-League Men/Women players is regularly discussed and we have a limit on them, therefore they should be included. This isn't like the Premier League where teams are full of foreign players. Foreign players are still a novelty here (the born and bred Australians with foreign surnames are because of multiculturalism).Schestos (talk)10:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a fully formed consensus here, I'm counting three or four editors in favour of foreign players tables (Wira rhea, Itedije94, SuperJew, Ausfootballfan); alsoWP:Consensus can change, I think we would do well to properly consider all policy-based arguments. SuperJew has argued that the limit to foreign players in the A-League has induced coverage that givesWP:WEIGHT to prominently mentioning foreign players. That may well apply to other leagues as well.Robby.is.on (talk)14:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you understand. I don't want to make trouble too honestly. But you can see whatthey "did" is so frustating and unfair. Just want to see how far this discussion will go in the end.Itedije94 (talk)15:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer mention of there being a limit is not in any doubt. It is the listing of those players by name that is. Those individual players not being born in the country of origin of the league has little bearing to an overview of those leagues. I don't see how it's any way related, and everything I've seen suggests those in favour of keeping them areWP:ILIKEIT.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)15:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on a page similar toMLS International Roster Slots for these given leagues? Without having done any research on them myself I cannot say whether or not they are notable enough to constitute their own articles, but it could be a good alternative to having them listed in the season articles (that approach to which I am personally neutral, although I don't fully agree with the pushback).Jay eyem (talk)16:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First, Iapologize for my previous actions and words, but the Foreign Players Table should remain, right? Because it's easier to see in one page for each Leagues than toclicking on each club one-by-one. It's less efficient.Itedije94 (talk)18:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this is once again a major pet peeve of mine. Can people PLEASE cite the policy that argues why it cannot be in there, with references to the text in the policy, and EXPLAIN their rationale for why something should not exist, rather than just say "it shouldn't be here"? This is a very basic ask in terms of asking for supporting your arguments. There are absolutely coverage regarding MLS international slots. The citedWP:LISTN specifies "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists." Why exactly does that mean the article forMLS International Roster Slots should not exist? It is clearly relevant encyclopedic information, where else are you going to put that information? It's effectively the same thing forDesignated Player Rule, albeit with obviously less coverage.Jay eyem (talk)15:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article discussing foreign player restrictions on MLS teams when building their roster, including a reference to "the average limit of eight foreign players per team" which is a direct reference to the roster slots.
Here is a discussion about how said rule hurts the development of homegrown players and, ostensibly, puts them at a disadvantage.
Here is an article discussing the implementation of the rule back in 2007 and its potential impact on the league back then.
Here details some of the changes that the rule saw ahead of the 2021 season.
Here discusses tweaks to league rules and discussion of the differences between US based teams and Canada based teams.
Here discusses how a particular team had to navigate different roster rules in terms of building their teams, including discussion of the rule.
I am sure I can find others that discuss the rule, including plenty of primary sources. It is a significant and notable part of MLS roster building and merits its own page. Do I think it belongs on the article for a given season? Eh, not really. Do I think a lot of these articles should incorporate more prose? Yes. But I absolutely believe that articles like this can exist and be notable for inclusion based on that same criteria i.e. "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". And that may well be the case for other leagues as well.Jay eyem (talk)16:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of relevance to the league. It's a question of relevance to the season. And yes the breakdown of the foreign visa players affects the season. --SuperJew (talk)04:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at2024–25 A-League Men as an example. There are about 5 lines of prose: 3 in the lead, and a couple of sentences as a prelude to some tables. There is no summary of any key events or matches in the season, just lots of tables / stats. The list of foreign players adds no explanation as to how relevant any of these players are, or what effect any of them had on the outcome of the league. If lots of media is devoted to these players and the make-ups of the rosters, then this should be used as references to a section discussing the influential players; the current table means readers have to do this research themselves to see how any of them got on.Spike 'em (talk)11:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We'd all agree that a full list of players per squad would be too much, why the nationality would make it acceptable is beyond me. BUT, if media do this, which I don't see being the case, I'm yet to see a section stating this in words.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)12:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Like SuperJew said, in these Asian leagues, not only is each foreign player and the quotas an important aspect that is backed up by many sources, foreign players tend to be signed with the intention of them being among the more important players of a team (especially due to limited roster sports) and many times this is reflected in various stats so for all the above reasons it makes sense to keep the foreign player tables for Asian leagues. Thanks,Das osmnezz (talk)12:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But you cannot tell any of this from a table listing 20-100 players. Add some prose explaining the squad limits and mention some of the most influential players if necessary. Knowing a team's 7th best foreign player adds nothing to the article.Spike 'em (talk)12:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The players themselves are inconsequential in this example though. We can totally mention there being a cap on players and even how that impacts the league without having another list of non-notable information.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)13:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who regularly edits Wikipedia and reads seasonal pages of Asian football leagues, I strongly disagree with removing the foreign player table. In Asian football, foreign players play a major role in team performance, league quality, and overall interest in the competition instead of being only an irrelevant side detail like some of you above had mentioned. Many clubs depend heavily on these players, and they are often the most discussed topic in media coverage, which gives this topic a lot of references to be valid to be included in the league's seasonal articles. For many readers, this table is one of the clearest and most useful ways to understand how teams are built in a given season.
The idea that only local fans care about this information is also very flawed. I was upset when I see the argument “outside of fans of these leagues, who is clicking on an article about the Indonesian first league and really wanting information about the players who aren’t Indonesian?”. I find this way of thinking ignores how and why people use Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not written only for casual readers. Journalists, researchers, scouts, and football fans from other countries regularly look up these leagues, and foreign players are often the main reason they do so. For many international readers, foreign players are the entry point into Asian football. I also think this argument shows a lack of awareness of how important foreign players are in Asian leagues. In many cases, they are the top scorers, the star players, or the main attraction of the competition. -Lâm (talk)15:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are an encylopedia for the casual reader though, lots of people use Wikipedia for lots of reasons, but our generalWP:PILLARS are for the general reader. Wikipedia should in no way say who is the "main attraction" of anything.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)18:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any possible language errors, unpleasant tone or bad word choice, considering that English is not my native language. I hope to discuss and find a more reasonable solution than the current one. I understand to some extent the policy considerations behind the deletion but I don't entirely believe it actually meets those policies.
Overall, my position on the removal of foreign player lists is neutral—perhaps slightly negative. My intention is not to make any personal attacks. However, given that most of those who appear to strongly support deletion do not seem to be Asian users, I believe it is necessary to explain why this decision has provoked such strong backlash once it began to spread to many Asian leagues in recent days.
From a personal perspective, the deletion decision itself is not entirely unacceptable. However, if the underlying issues created by this deletion cannot be reasonably addressed within Wikipedia at the same time, then I do believe a considerable number of Asian football-related users will hold a clearly negative reaction to it. On this particular matter, I do not personally support holding a vote, but I also want to point out that based on the existing responses, if a vote were held it would very likely result in a victory for the opposition to deletion. Therefore, forcing the change through without achieving understanding would certainly not be the best solution—especially when this difference in perception is very likely rooted in differing national and regional football contexts. The potential impact on the community would be quite dangerous.
This response may be rather - even extremely - long, but I hope to clarify certain realities from the perspectives of both sides (though perhaps more from that of Asian users).
Why do tables of this type appear so frequently in Asian leagues? Since the early 2000s, when Wikipedia was founded, AFC continental competitions have long imposed limits on the number of foreign players (until the 2022/23 season, the rule was “3 global foreign players + 1 AFC foreign player”). As a result, most domestic leagues naturally adopted the same “3+1” rule, with only a small number of leagues allowing slightly more foreign players for the sake of entertainment and competitiveness (for example, Vietnamese top-tier adopted a 5-foreign-player rule for a long period).
Meanwhile, the overall relatively low level of Asian football has meant that this small number of foreign players has played a decisive role in league competitions, and this reality has not fundamentally changed even today. Consequently, the specific composition of foreign players a club uses in a given season can have a decisive influence on that club’s performance. As a result, Asian clubs, fans and media usually pay far more attention to the adjustments made to foreign players than to domestic ones. It's no exaggeration to say that almost all foreign players hold a decisive position in Asian leagues. So for many Asian leagues, when examining a historical or current season, the importance of “what foreign players each team had that season” may even exceed that of purely statistical lists such as top scorers, top assisters, top clean-sheeters or hat-trick lists. A table of, say, 4×12 or 5×16 genuinely allows readers to quickly grasp the league’s overall competitive landscape and strength. This makes such a table of roughly one hundred cells extremely meaningful.
For users wishing to trace the history of their domestic league, or for those who want to quickly understand the strength of other leagues before continental competitions, the table alone can convey a great deal of information. I believe this is close to a consensus among a fairly large proportion of fans in East Asia and Southeast Asia. Frankly, considering its value to Asian leagues, I hold that even a table as large as 5×20 deserves to be retained. For domestic or Asia-wide users, the information it provides far outweighs the space it occupies.
Some users stated “Knowing a team’s 7th best foreign player adds nothing to the article,” and “The players themselves are inconsequential in this example though.” Frankly I would argue that these comments precisely illustrate ... well ... some kinds of lack of understanding of Asian leagues among non-Asian users—because in reality, a handful of foreign players truly does almost define a club’s strength. It is difficult to say that such a table is less important than something like top scorers lists for a season itself. Imagine if Wikipedia had existed in 1985, before the formation of the EU, when even European clubs only had three to five foreign players. I have no doubt that the special nature of foreign players would have made them significant enough to appear in standard templates.
I do not believe that these tables can never be deleted. However, when discussing whether to delete them, users who are not sufficiently familiar with Asian football must first acknowledge the points above, then consider whether there are truly sufficient reasons for deletion, and finally find reasonable solutions for the negative effects such deletion would cause. If these decisions are based on a misunderstanding of the importance of foreign players, then I can only regard this as a form of administrative overreach driven by bias toward “advanced” and “internationalized” European football. The current discussion already shows some tendency in this direction—and this is precisely why it has escalated. In my view, the supporters of deletion have not yet provided reasoning that is sufficiently convincing to Asian users. Based on the above, I must insist that Asian users clearly do not believe this content fails the notability criteria.
So where does the problem actually arise? I believe it stems from developments in recent years. Football associations and the AFC have gradually relaxed foreign player quotas: Southeast Asia has widely introduced AFC or ASEAN player slots; Japan has removed limits on the total number of foreign players (while still limiting the number per match) and introduced the J.League partner country exemption; and West Asia has begun to import large numbers of European stars. As a result, these lists are no longer as concise as they once were.
There is no doubt that in leagues already saturated with foreign players, eg Saudi Arabia or the UAE, such tables are no longer necessary. As for Southeast Asia, whether a common 10×16 table in Southeast Asia is still reasonable is indeed worth discussing. However, retaining a 4×12 or 5×20 table in S. Korea etc seems entirely reasonable to me. I would place the boundary at around 7-8 foreign players per team. The increase in foreign player numbers does indeed reduce the necessity of listing every individual, and this must be acknowledged.
Why do I still believe that deletion is not necessarily wrong, but that the current approach is clearly inadequate? Because when such content obviously has sufficient importance and notability—as argued above, and failing to acknowledge this reflects a lack of understanding of Asian football—simply deleting it without offering any solution within Wikipedia is a clear form of overreach.
I cannot agree with the following two arguments from the pro-deletion side, because they imply that content of such importance would be removed from Wikipedia entirely:
1.“We can totally mention there being a cap on players and even how that impacts the league without having another list of non-notable information.”Such impacts are already common knowledge in Asian leagues. Mentioning it is indeed necessary (it is not mentioned now) especially for non-Asian or fresh-new fans, but it is not enough for Asian leagues. If one still needs to explain this in a sentence, then they likely do not follow Asian football at all. The specific player lists, on the contrary, help genuine Asian football users quickly assess a league’s competitiveness and the relative strength of clubs in a given season.
2.“But you cannot tell any of this from a table listing 20–100 players. Add some prose explaining the squad limits and mention some of the most influential players if necessary.” Well I partially agree with this statement—in the sense that the existing content is insufficient. For users who are already familiar with a league, simply seeing the names is enough to outline the competitive landscape. But for users who may be using Wikipedia to gain an initial understanding of a league, the table alone does not provide enough context.In Asian leagues, “foreign player” and “notable player” are often almost synonymous. Ideally, adding descriptions of foreign players’ performances would indeed be very important. Precisely for this reason, I am even more opposed to deleting the table. The claim that “the current table means readers have to do this research themselves” is, in my view, correct—the table does have shortcomings. But those shortcomings indicate the need to build upon the table with additional prose, not to erase it from Wikipedia altogether. Deletion would only worsen the user experience.
In summary, I... well, maybe firmly oppose the view that content showing lists of foreign players for each club in each season should not appear on Wikipedia. It has sufficient notability and importance to justify its presence, in my opinion as an Asian user. In fact, Wikipedia already contains many tables and lists with far smaller audiences than “foreign player lists for a specific Asian league season”. From a non-Asian perspective, asserting that no one except domestic users cares about this content is clearly unreasonable—and the current backlash in this discussion already demonstrates that: a lot of Asians showing their opposites.
At the same time, my overall stance on whether this content should appear within the league season article itself is neutral. Taking everything into account, I do not think its removal from season articles is entirely unacceptable, even though I personally oppose it. From an Asian fan’s perspective, I would unhesitatingly say that this content is clearly related to a given season.
Only reason for supporting its removal from season articles from my perspective is stylistic consistency with league season articles from other continents. However, I still do not accept the claim that “this content is unrelated to the season.” For example, while a foreign player list for the 2025 Chinese Super League may be unrelated to the general “Chinese Super League” article, it is of great significance within “2025 Chinese Super League.”Otherwise, sections like “Personnel and kits” section in almost all season articles (for example, the 2025–26 Premier League article) would also be unrelated information, since they concern only the clubs participating in that season and are similarly absent from “Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season” project. I believe that deleting “Personnel and kits” section would provoke an even broader backlash.
Finally, I must point out that in relatively underdeveloped football regions such as Asia, Wikipedia coverage is already quite limited. I agree that in leagues like the Premier League—where every club has its own “2025–26 XXXX season” article—listing selected players in the main league season article is meaningless, because full squad information can be obtained elsewhere.But this is not the case for Asian football. Such club-season articles largely do not exist—neither on the English Wikipedia nor on many smaller-language Wikipedias. Once this list is removed from the relevant articles, the information will effectively disappear from Wikipedia entirely. Given its clear importance to Asian leagues, deleting it through a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, rather than tagging individual articles for deletion and allowing users who actually read those pages to discuss its importance, also seems questionable. If one day articles such as "2025-26 Cong An Hanoi Season" "2025-26 DPMM Season" or "2026 Chongqing Tongliang Loong Season" have been fully created, then although I do not support deleting the foreigner form, I also think that deleting it will not have a very big negative impact.
My personal suggestion is that if this information must be removed, there must be serious consideration of what type of article would be more appropriate to host it. If no better alternative exists, and if it does not belong in season articles, I maintain that its importance may even justify the creation of standalone articles, or at least waiting until individual club season articles are completed before trimming it.
In conclusion, my overall position is as stated above. I believe the current discussion largely reflects differences in how Asian and non-Asian users understand Asian football. I understand that non-Asian users may find this content somewhat unusual for a “global audience”, but it precisely reflects the unique characteristics of Asian football. I do not believe it is a good decision for Wikipedia to erase such uniqueness.
That said, I also acknowledge that reserving listing such tables only in Asian leagues may not be the optimal solution. My hope is that the above explanation will help these contents be represented on Wikipedia in a more reasonable way. Retaining them only in local-language Wikipedias may be seen as a compromise, but I believe this would significantly raise the barrier for Asian users to understand other Asian leagues—given that English remains the global lingua franca—and therefore I do not favor this compromise.(Especially English) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for users worldwide, so I do think it might be necessary to find a reasonably appropriate solution when there are such significant regional differences of opinion.At least in my view, the current approach seems to completely ignore the voices of many users in East and Southeast Asia. Hopefully, this matter can be resolved more properly, or at least this important content should be preserved in Wikipedia in a more reasonable way than it is now. It's not that deletion itself is unacceptable; after all, determining whether an entry complies with Wikipedia policies largely involves a vague consensus, so differing opinions on whether a specific article meets a certain criterion are common. At this point, it is quite reasonable for a group in a specific region or environment to have the same objection to a particular approach. However, the current approach seems too forceful and coercive. In my view, there are clearly many more reasonable and communicative methods to handle this.--Spinel1126 (talk)21:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, some users have previously claimed there's no evidence that the media is focusing on the foreign player roster for the season, but such reports are actually quite common in online media when used in the local language. I'm not familiar with Southeast Asian languages, so I'll use random Chinese or Japanese articles from medias or individual journalists as an example:
I still think it's better to at least acknowledge that foreign players are far more important to the football leagues in the East Asian region than to other leagues. In fact, compared to Southeast Asia, Japan and China are already less reliant on foreign players.Spinel1126 (talk)22:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I trust those advocating deletion harbour no ill intent, I do believe many lack sufficient understanding of Asian football. Personally, I do not consider it an obvious violation of Wikipedia article policy. It is dangerous to make analogies without a reasonable grasp of Asian football's particularities and thereby deem it a breach. Users from other continents would naturally struggle to grasp that "foreign players" constitute a distinct, specialised concept or proper noun within East and Southeast Asian football circles, strictly separate from "domestic players". Therefore, extrapolating from leagues like Europe or South America – where cross-border player movement far exceeds that in Asia – to conclude it lacks notability is wholly unreasonable. My opposition to replacing the table with prose stems from this very point: if prose were to supplant the table, virtually every player listed would warrant at least one or two sentences of description. Under such circumstances, would it truly be appropriate to remove the table altogether?
To be perfectly honest, I still believe that those advocating deletion are equally committed to upholding Wikipedia's standards. However, this disregard for the particularities of Asian football is truly deeply unsettling.
If I were to briefly articulate my view, it is that foreign players hold far greater significance in Asian football than in other leagues. This importance manifests across all aspects: supporters, management, transfer operations, institutional design, and media attention. On this basis, I strongly oppose the removal of this table—or rather, the information and convenience it provides—from Wikipedia. However, I could accept its exclusion from the league season article should a more suitable article exist to accommodate it.
The aforementioned response has already clarified that numerous media outlets across Asia directly publish lists of foreign players for league seasons as news items. I shall now endeavour to utilise media reports to elucidate the particularity of "foreign players" within the Asian football context. Therefore, I contend that treating this as an ILIKEIT phenomenon actually constitutes a "reversal ILIKEIT" that disregards the realities of Asian football.
Appendix: Some random media articles as refs:
in Chinese:
[19] Title lit. "With five foreign players 'puzzle completed' (meaning all in place) , Chengdu Rongcheng aims for the 2026 Chinese Super League title."
[20] Title lit. " 'Searching for horses when riding a donkey?' (meaning looking for a better option while still having a backup plan) With minor adjustments to the Chinese Super League's foreign player policy, defending champions Shanghai Port are seizing the opportunity to find a sixth foreign player."
[21] Title lit. "Official announcement of the departure of 3 foreign players: Will Peng City change its way to live (meaning adopt a different approach) in 2026?"
[22] Title lit. "Hong Kong Premier League | Lee Man FC: 12 players - including 7 foreign players - leave the team; Kitchee's Poon Pui-hin and Chung Lok-on make separate shots."
in Japanese:
[23] Title lit. "Foreign players who may come to the J.League this winter (2025-26)"
[24] Title lit. "Where are the foreign players in the J.League going? Will they be transferred domestically to change the balance of power?"
I think even just looking at the headlines of these reports shows how important the concept of "foreign players" is in Asian football. In the most conciliatory case, I could accept that this content was deleted because it's irrelevant to the XXX league XX-XX season (though I believe it is), but it definitely has the importance to warrant creating a new article.Spinel1126 (talk)23:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the above section explains the origins and reasons for its special significance to Asian leagues. If you find the above too long, then: In short, as a special policy-based element in Asian football, the importance of foreign players to a given season is, in my view, self-evident to Asian fans, managers & leagues. Therefore, assuming that foreign players are no more important than in other leagues clearly overlooks the particular characteristics of Asian leagues. Proving Examples from relevant media sources have already been linked in my previous comments.
I do not support removing this content from Wikipedia at all. As for removing it from season articles, I personally do not support that either, but I would consider it acceptable if another appropriate type of article could be identified to host this information. If proponents of removal believe that this content is genuinely unrelated to the season, I would like to understand their views on the following two points:1.Why is the “Personnel and kits” section considered acceptable for league season articles globally, while “foreign players”—which arguably carries even greater significance for Asian leagues—may not be? 2.Is the compromise proposal that I have outlined separately below considered acceptable by those supporting removal?
I did indeed partly use translation software, because I was concerned that my English proficiency might not be sufficient to accurately express my thoughts.Spinel1126 (talk)10:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to further simplify my position. I believe that for the vast majority of leagues worldwide, this type of table is indeed unnecessary. Therefore, I do not think it has value as a mandatory component ofWikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season (or, put differently, I see it as something that could at most be an optional element rather than a required one).
However, given Asia’s unique context, for a small number of leagues where foreign players are still subject to strict quotas and are widely regarded—from top to bottom within the domestic football environment—as having crucial importance (today mainly in East Asia and Southeast Asia), this table has a clear justification for existing due to its significance to those leagues.
My view is that it should be retained within season articles. If this point is disputed or hugely opposed, I would also find it acceptable to relocate the content to a more suitable type of article within Wikipedia, should such an article be identified.Spinel1126 (talk)10:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaaagh I am considering a more moderate approach: acknowledging the widespread existence on Wikipedia of pages such as thelist of foreign K League 1 players (and not limited to Asian leagues, such aslist of foreign Premier League players andlist of foreign La Liga players). Therefore, would it be feasible to create an article such as 'List of foreign K League 1 players by season', or to split the existing article into two distinct sections – one organised by nationality and another by season – to house this information? This would involve removing the table from articles like2025 K League 1 and redirecting the whole section to its new article.
To reiterate: I firmly oppose the notion that season-specific foreign player lists should not feature on Wikipedia. In my view, anyone familiar with Asian leagues—particularly the East Asian/Southeast Asian sub-region—recognises their significance. In the context of Asian football, completely removing such tables is tantamount to saying that the history of a club's head coaches need not exist, I mean. And frankly, I'm not entirely in favour of removing the list of foreign players from the league season overview either, as I genuinely believe it may hold greater significance for many Asian leagues than the captain's armband, kit suppliers, sponsors, and so forth. However, I do understand that as the AFC and its member associations begin to relax foreign player restrictions, this information may start to feel rather verbose in leagues like Saudi, UAE, Thai and Malaysian ones etc.
In short, I hope to receive feedback from both sides of this proposal, no matter those who support and those who oppose removing this form.--Spinel1126 (talk)00:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Isupport andAgree returning it to the original. (Reverting the Foreign list Table) With your reasonable explanation. As written here, theConsensus can change.
So now we are suggesting to create more articles of cruft? How is it relevant what the players nationality? If we had an articles of "every player who played in this league" we'd all say that was a crazy over-reach. These sorts of lists don't meetWP:LISTN, as news sources don't talk about these people as a group of people. They might talk about them individually, they might even say that specific people are important, but I simply don't understand how it's so hard to write information in prose.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)11:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that “news sources don't talk about these people as a group of people” is not accurate in the Asian football context. Asian media frequently treats foreign players as a distinct group of people. In many European leagues, the concept of foreign players largely lost institutional and analytical relevance after the Bosman ruling, which removed most nationality-based player restrictions within EU. However, no equivalent legal or regulatory transformation has taken place across most Asian football systems. As a result, Asian leagues generally still maintain strict foreign-player quota systems, and this sustains the practical and analytical significance of the category itself.
This is reflected not only in media coverage but also in reference materials across multiple languages. For example, Japanese Wikipedia contains a dedicated article titled 外国人枠（lit. foreign slots）[25], and "外国人選手"(lit. foreign players) will redirected to it. There's even an article named 外国人枠(サッカー) (lit. foreign slots (football))[26]. Similarly, Baidu Baike and Namuwiki — which function as major football reference platforms in China and S. Korea respectively — both maintain dedicated entries for 外援[27] and 외국인 선수[28]. Considering there's no such articles in English wikipedia, these examples illustrate that foreign players are commonly discussed as a clearly defined group within Asian football discourse.
Regarding the statement “but I simply don't understand how it's so hard to write information in prose”, this may reflect a cultural or conceptual difference between Asian football contexts and other regions, particularly Europe. As mentioned above, in many Asian leagues the concept of “foreign players” is a strictly defined and institutionally significant category, rather than a loose or subjective grouping such as “notable players”. Because foreign-player quotas are a core structural element of league and squad regulations, foreign players are often treated as a clearly identifiable component of club composition. In this sense, the presence and allocation of foreign-player slots can function as a formal characteristic that defining a club’s competitive strategy, comparable in practical significance to roles such as the head coach or team captain. For that reason, presenting such information in a structured or tabulated format is often considered meaningful and official within the Asian football context, rather than redundant with general prose descriptions.
I can also provide examples from recent Chinese and Japanese media coverage (as I'm not very fluent with Korean and SEA languages) demonstrating that “foreign players” are regularly treated as a distinct and explicitly enumerated category in Asian football reporting. Match previews, transfer summaries, squad analyses, and season reviews in these regions frequently list or analyze foreign players separately from domestic players. For example:
in Chinese:
[29] (Title lit.: Late stage of foreign aid {"Foreign aid" is a common metaphor in Chinese for foreign players.} dependency (in CSL))
[30] (Title lit.: What specific impact will the CSL's foreign player policy have on the allocation of foreign players for Beijing Guoan in the MFs and DFs?)
[31] (Title lit.: €10.5 million, crushing the giant clubs! The newly promoted team has the highest foreign player value in the Chinese Super League. Will Liaoning Iron Man replicate the Kaiserslautern miracle?)
[32] (Title lit. The introduction of foreign players in the CSL shows a new approach)
in Japanese:
[33] (Title lit. Foreign players who may come to the J.League this winter (2025-26))
[34] (Title lit. Machida Zelvia and Hokkaido Consadole Sapporo acquire new foreign players! Cerezo Osaka and others announce player departures [J League Transfer News for the 28th])
[35] (Title lit. Below exceptations...Five disappointing foreign players joining the 2025 J.League. Why haven't they performed as well as they should?)
Additionally, although I acknowledge that such comments may overly long, I previously provided examples of Chinese and Japanese media outlets that publish season-by-season lists of foreign players as standalone pieces of coverage.
The lists of players in the WP articles have absolutely no context and do not explain to the reader why it is significant (or even relevant). The articles need (far) more prose text and fewer unexplained tables.Spike 'em (talk)11:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this may not be immediately intuitive from other football contexts, but my reasoning is relatively straightforward. Because these quota systems have existed for a long period of time, the concept of “foreign players” has become institutionalised throughout Asian football, from regulatory frameworks and club management practices to fan discourse.
As demonstrated in the examples I provided earlier, media coverage in these regions explicitly treats foreign players as a distinct “group of people”. In addition, observable discourse across social media and football forums in Asia suggests that foreign players are widely recognised as a clearly defined and independently notable category.
For these reasons, I believe the category has sufficient contextual and structural significance within Asian football to justify being documented in list form. Frankly speaking, I believe it's necessary to acknowledge the unique characteristics of Asian football. In Asia, the special status of "foreign athletes" is no different from that of Mexican wrestlers in the UFC; both are basic concepts and classifications that have long been agreed upon.Spinel1126 (talk)13:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Too much text... I have yet to hear a reason why it should be kept other thanWP:ILIKEIT. Should we also start adding the U23 players every team has to have in the3. Liga per matchday? Say it in prose but no list is needed.Kante4 (talk)13:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this may involve conflating differences in regional relevance with the absence of notability. As mentioned earlier, if a category such as U23 players in a league like the 3. Liga were to generate sustained attention across media coverage, club operations, and fan discourse, then it would likewise be reasonable to document it in a structured way.
My concern is that the level of attention given to a concept in European football should not automatically be used as the baseline for evaluating its relevance in Asian football contexts. Notability in this case appears to be strongly shaped by league regulations, media practices, and audience expectations, which can vary significantly across regions.Spinel1126 (talk)13:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The word “Just” is just for people who don't understand football. If we look at it from the point of view of “people who don't understand football,” they would definitely say, “What's the point of this table? It's useless, just delete it!” This will never end.
This isn't the English Premier League or other European leagues that have no limits on foreign players. It is important for leagues that have foreign player limits. Until now, I haven't found awebsite orarticle that displays a complete table of foreign players in each league, like on Wikipedia. Which is very helpful rather than clicking on each club one by one, it's more efficient. This means that the hard work of the people who created the table in this Wikipedia should be appreciated. The problem started only because of the disorganized placement of the foreign table inIndonesian Super League 25-26. Small problem that make big trouble. This discussion was started byUser:Wira rhea and there is still no solution.Wikipedia:ConsensusWikipedia:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE
What worries me is that editors from regions with very different football cultures may be making determinations about what is considered notable for Asian football. Using non-Asian standards as the default benchmark can unintentionally misrepresent the local significance of concepts such as foreign-player slots, which are institutionally and culturally important within Asian leagues.
Currently, it seems that many editors opposing deletion are based in Asia, whereas most of those supporting removal are not. This creates a structural difference in perspective, highlighting that standards of notability and relevance can vary depending on regional familiarity with the subject. Recognizing this difference is important to ensure that the coverage reflects the context and interests of the community most directly affected.
Based on media coverage and fan discourse, it is clear that information about which players occupy foreign-player slots in Asian, particularly East Asian, leagues attracts significantly more attention than details such as a club’s sponsors or even the team captain, both of which are currently retained in the article.Spinel1126 (talk)13:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How on Earth can you ask "How is it relevant what the players nationality?" This isn't a sport like American football where the players never play international events, 90% of the players are American, and don't compete for national teams or in international competitions. A significant number of leagues around the world have these foreign players limitations because they seek to produce homegrown talent for their national teams and be competitive on the international stage. Do you think there aren't news articles that discuss "foreign players in the Premier League" or "foreign players in Major League Soccer"? Wanting more prose in articles is well and good, and certain regions are going to be harder to source than others, but it sounds like you are advocating for deleting any article that keeps a list of foreign players in a league. And can you please reference the actual language in the policy that you cite when making your argument?Jay eyem (talk)15:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In short, my point is this: I believe there are cultural differences in football culture that might prevent non-Asian users from reasonably recognizing its importance within the Asian region. Therefore, the accusation of notability is worth considering. I really have to point this out: now the opponents are mostly from Asia, while the supporters are mostly not. We need to bridge this gap.Spinel1126 (talk)13:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that English Wikipedia naturally serves a large number of English-speaking users (although Australia has similar quotas and status for foreign players because its in AFC too), I don't believe that everything should be judged based on the location of the English-speaking user. I'm concerned that accusations of a lack of prominence and necessity in the list of foreigners for Asian leagues stem from non-Asians who don't understand the Asian football landscape. For example, the example of the Liga.3 U23 mentioned by the aforementioned user clearly does not reflect the status of foreign players in the context of Asian football.Spinel1126 (talk)14:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A typical example is that Chinese football media now list the number of foreign players in each team's lineup in the news title when previewing matches[36][37][38] , aiming to reflect the current state of both teams. In Asian football articles, similar examples abound, demonstrating the important and notable role of foreign players in Asian football.
Similarly, if Chinese and Japanese media both list the foreign players for each team at the end of the transfer window (refs above), why is it not notable enough on Wikipedia? I want to claim that it is maybe weird to create standards for football articles solely from the perspective of football-advanced countries and to label the special circumstances of other regions as ILIKEIT: at least if Asian football exists as an "ASIANLIKEIT", it should obviously not be called ILIKEIT.Spinel1126 (talk)14:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, this is en.wiki, so people misunderstanding talk page discussions that pass back and forth through translation engines does not help advance things.WP:ILIKEIT is not concerned with regional variations.Spike 'em (talk)14:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say that, given this is en.wiki, I accept this mainly based on the judgment of English-speaking editors. However, I do not believe that these editors necessarily have sufficient knowledge of Asian football to make this judgment. In particular, as I mentioned before, with a large number of Asian editors now raising objections, I think it would be unreasonable to dismiss them—especially since those opposing may lack a solid understanding of Asian football. Well, that said, ultimately this is en.wiki, so I agree that a guideline established through discussion is at least as same important as recognising regional differences.
If those in favor truly believe that “foreign” is not enough for notability, I think this is far from being a problem unique to Wikipedia’s football coverage. If even “foreign” were insufficient to establish notability, then clearly a large number of Wikipedia articles would need to be deleted. I do not believe we have the mandate to make such a decision in this discussion.Spinel1126 (talk)15:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My final conclusion is that non-Asian users may have a systemic difference based on culture or experience in Asian users' understanding of what is important. I accept the existence of this difference and the decisions made based on it (while I still think this is a systematic disregard for Asian users, and has the potential risk of turning en.wiki into a playground for native English speakers), but as I said, I do not agree or support this decision until similar articles in my eyes are completely deleted. Determining what is significant for Asian football based on a European perspective seems to me to be a very serious danger for Wikipedia's diversity. I accept the decision only because it was made under Wikipedia protocols after discussion, even though I completely disagree with the decision-maker's understanding of Asian football.Spinel1126 (talk)15:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect. It seems that thisConsensus has not been fully implemented yet, as evidenced by the fact that some leagues still have foreign player tables. J-League2026 J1 100 Year Vision League , A-League 25-262025–26 A-League Men , etc.
I appreciate this discussion is long since over but I want to add that, as someone who edits in the football community, ISupport the inclusion of Foreign player lists. I think it helps out. Please don't drag me into any arguments about this, I just want to state my opinion politely.RossEvans19 (talk)18:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So this is getting ridiculous again. Now in addition to foreign players tables we have "Foreign players by confederation" and "Naturalized/heritage players" tables. Completely unsourced and another table clogging up our articles.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)14:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually get around to creating the RfC (see below), but we're now getting reverts like[39] to try and bring all of the other tables (like the full results listing) back into this article.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)13:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I may be late to this discussion as well but I also support the inclusion of Foreign player lists. I however think that tables like "Foreign players by confederation" and "Naturalized/heritage players" are very unnecessary.Cj18hockey12 (talk)15:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, like I said, I fifty-fifty on this, until this matter concluded. I just remove the unnecessary "Foreign players by confederation" and "Naturalized/heritage players" for now. Please continue the discussion until we have a conclusion and for two user I tagged, don't add useless information in that page.Wira rhea (talk)03:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Naturalized/Heritage players don't need to be displayed, table of foreign players is enough. Because the competition itself do not mention limitation rule for Naturalized players. Naturalized player = is local player. So do not need to be displayed. AgreeItedije94 (talk)03:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone explain to me why we have a parameter for the defending champions in the{{Infobox football tournament season}} template? Surely the winners of the previous season's FA Cup don't need mentioning in theinfobox of the following season. Even before the tournament starts, I fail to see the need to include this. There's an argument for mentioning it in prose, especially if the reigning champions qualify automatically, but can we please get rid of it from this template? –PeeJay19:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal: I understand naming the champion forthat season in the infobox, but theprevious champion can simply be mentioned in the prose. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)14:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is useful for current season articles where a winner has yet to be decided (I would guess that was the original intention but I could be wrong). It is obviously superseded when the tournament is over/won.Stevie fae Scotland (talk)22:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t even think it’s especially useful in that circumstance. As I say, I think if people want to know who won the previous season’s competition, they can click back to the previous season’s article. –PeeJay05:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is ~20 days sufficient time to have had a discussion on whether to rename this article fromGreek Super Cup 2025 toGreek Super Cup 2026? Posting this here in case there are others who might want to contribute now. It is basically a very small subset of editors shouting at each other claiming they are correct, and no consensus has been reached to change the article name.Matilda Maniac (talk)22:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It's been a week since you posted the reminder here, but no one seems interested in closing the topic. Does it have to be an administrator or can you, for example?Πούμα (talk)12:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that the vast majority of participants are against moving, as can be seen herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greek_Super_Cup_2025#Requested_move_9_January_2026. And they base this opinion on official sources and logical arguments, which are recorded on the talk page. I, in turn, believe that the topic should be closed and the article should remain as it is:Greek Super Cup 2025 or 2025 Greek Super Cup. These are not allegations, but rather a documented opinion that has the consensus of the participants in the discussion.--Πούμα (talk)10:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of move requests is that people make their points and let a neutral arbiter decide; the discussion is judged on weight of arguments, not just pure numbers. You proclaiming your perceived "truth" is just disrupting this process. The request has been relisted twice, which indicates that an unbiased editor thinks there is still no consensus.Spike 'em (talk)11:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You speak correctly, but the way you put the issue is as if you are implying that I am not an impartial editor. For this reason, however, I cited reliable sources. So that I am not considered to be unreliable and impartial. Anyway, I will wait for the outcome of this case and accordingly I will take a position or not again.Πούμα (talk)12:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have expressed a view on the name of the article, so you are involved in the discussion; I too am not impartial, having also taken part. A disinterested editor who has taken no part in the discussion needs to weigh up the evidence / policies stated. It is possible to list the move request atWikipedia:Closure requests#Requested moves, but I'm not sure if this will get things done any quicker: it is already part of theWP:RMB, so hopefully someone will get to it soon.Spike 'em (talk)12:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As this technically runs afoul of MOS:GEOLINK, I've noticed that the city names have been left unlinked, which is less than ideal for venues that are outside of their namesake city and need to have an additional link for context.This discussion suggested using parenthesis for the geographical location; the two examples above would instead be rendered as "CenturyLink Field (Seattle, Washington, U.S.)" and "Maracanã Stadium (Rio de Janeiro)" in their respective articles. It would be nice to not have to fight editors who insist on changingevery article to rigidly comply with MOS to make the experience for readers more difficult, so hopefully we can come to a consensus here.SounderBruce03:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "CenturyLink Field,Seattle, Washington, U.S." not in compliance withMOS:GEOLINK? That section of the MOS says,For a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit. but I would argue that the stadium isn't a geographical location, so we only need to consider the "Seattle, Washington, U.S." part as the geographical location (and that is in compliance).Wburrow (talk)15:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming here and trying to find a compromise. My assumption, followingthis discussion from a few years ago, was that GEOLINK wouldn't apply to stadiums (it ended in no consensus but the gist of the arguments was that buildings shouldn't be considered as geographic locations). As a result, it should be fine as it is and personally I would leave it as such. If consensus has changed in that time though, I don't see a problem with the alternative you've suggested.Stevie fae Scotland (talk)16:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected the article, but right now I don't have the time to go through the history and restore it to the most recent good version, so I will leave that in other people's hands --ChrisTheDude (talk)11:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Make a start on changing instances of Red Star Belgrade to the official 'FK Crvena zvezda'
In my opinion, better to refer Red Star as the non-English name, not only for convienience, but because even the Anglophone UEFA useCrvena zvezda instead of Red Star Belgrade, and i have a link to the official highlights of Celtic vs Crvena zvezda this season linked below, from the opening mathcday of the 2025/26 Europa League (Crvena zvezda vs Celtic - 2025/26 Europa League League Phase MD1) where they used Crvena zvezda as the official name even in Anglophone countries. Another reason being, while being extremely unlikely, it could be confused with Red Star FC from Paris, but mainly for the former reason, we should start work on renaming instances of Red Star Belgrade to Crvena zvezda.F1fan00 (talk)23:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do the majority of English language secondary sources call the team? I would not use UEFA as a source as it is too closely connected to the team.Spike 'em (talk)23:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
on official graphics, and the Abbreviations and whatnot, it is Crvena zvezda, plus most likely it says Red Star in the description for those who don't know the real name (the non-english name) of Crvena zvezdaF1fan00 (talk)23:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned Sevilla because the "official name" of the city is "Sevilla", but its common name in English is Seville, just like Roma or Koln. Maybe I should have chosen a closer analogue, like CSKA Moscow not Moskva. I notice you choose to dispute that part of my post, rather than the part where I showed that reliable sources in the English language call the club Red Star Belgrade.Unknown Temptation (talk)12:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the OP wants to start an RM on changing the name of the article, they are welcome. While the article remains at RSB, though, we shouldn't be changing anything to the local name.Black Kite (talk)12:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While this might not exactly pertain to en (since this is currently going on atsimple), I just want a second opinion before bringing anything over here. Recently, an editor over at simple managed to find two different sources forLuís Parruque, stating that he had died back in August 2000. I brought over the first source, since that was the only one he had added at the time, but later another source was added. However, the only thing in common between both sources is when exactly he died.
One source (CNN Portugal) states that he died at the age of 30, while the other (Jornal Desafio, listed inList of newspapers in Mozambique asDesafio) mentions both him being born a year earlier (1968 vs 1969), and dying at the age of 32. The problem in this case is that neither would actually line up with the current birth date in the article (28 July 1969), which would've meant he died at 31.
Maybe I'm too hesitant to move anything unilaterally, but should the page on the English footballer be moved toMichael Woods (English footballer). I'm surprised to check after 19 years and he never even really played in the EFL, but I would think that playing for Chelsea and being at the centre of a under-age tapping-up scandal would carry more weight than someone whose career never left Malta.
The naming convention says to use themost conclusive of the options (rather than strictly working down the list) . I would say that nationailty is generally more conclusive when there are 2 players with the same name.Spike 'em (talk)17:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who rarely edits player pages, but searches for player pages frequently, I find nationality to be much more helpful as a dab. I hope that if nationality and DOB are equally conclusive, we'd choose to use nationality.Wburrow (talk)17:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I have noticed that "Michael Woods (footballer)" was moved to "Michael Woods (footballer, born 1990)" recently as I can see that there is currently one red link for the (English footballer) and (footballer, born 1962) identifiers, thus introducing inconsistency between these page names. I have no idea if that page mover (Tassedethe) was aware of this discussion persisting for a while.Iggy (Swan) (Contribs)16:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, in cases where there is a clear nationality it is usually easier to DAB by that. Casual readers are far more likely to know where a footballer is from than their DoB. We are meant to be making articles easy to find: the guidance should aid that, not follow rigid rules for their own sake.Spike 'em (talk)18:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. We havea 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 arerules 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'sWP: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose and think this should be discussed per league and not in general. While such a table might becruft 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 perWP: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)[reply]
Support I think the intricacies of squad registration rules are well beyond what should be included on league season articles, and seems much tooWP: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 forAustralia,Bangladesh,Brunei,Cambodia,Japan,Argentina,China andMalaysia, 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 MLSdesignated 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)[reply]
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, withthe 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 aLeague Season article should contain.Matilda Maniac (talk)00:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, perWP: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, invokingWP:INDISCRIMINATE is unreasonable.Lâm (talk)08:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose perThplam2004'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)[reply]
Support The lists of foreign players is anWP: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 theBosman ruling in 1995, European teams were limited to 3 foreign players. There is no similar list of players in1993–94 Serie A,1993–94 La Liga,1993–94 FA Premier League or1993–94 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, meaningWP:OR is required to maintain it.Spike 'em (talk)12:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Any objections to linking milestone numbers in the infobox like this?
Any reason this would be considered overlinking or an unnecessary navigation addition?
One concern raised at the BRFA byBAG memberPrimefac was whether this could fall intoWP:EGG territory. My thinking is that linking a milestone number (e.g. 100 caps) to the corresponding milestone list is fairly intuitive and directly related, but I'm happy to hear other views.
I say it's overkill in the infobox. I can understand linking the goals to a "List of goals scored by..." page but linking it to this article is not needed in the infobox. In the see also section i can see it as useful.Kante4 (talk)19:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who likes soccer knows that goalkeepers have saves or clean sheets instead of goals, and I stumbled uponJosé Sá and it has the {{Infobox football biography}} and it has goals, not saves, and even though it is in over 300K articles, I want Wikipedia to be one of the reliable sites people can see, especially for data on players. Could anyone vote on this?Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk)16:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would hazard a guess that probably less than 5% of the 18,000 goalkeepers with articles have reliable data available on the number of saves they (have) made. In my opinion it would be ridiculous to change the infobox to display a different stat for goalkeepers when 95% of them don't have the info available --ChrisTheDude (talk)16:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
