Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:10, 24 March 2009

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168: 10 days

Football Project‑class

	Association football portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WPF navigation

Most on the navboxes I see on wiki are at full width. The football box at 47em is just about okay great when only 1 template uses it but when several are added it looks top heavy . I would suggest fb-start is changed to 100% . Objections? Gnevin (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as all templates at the moment are formatted to only fit 47em they would look worse at the moment at full width. I would guess there'd have to be a big discussion about converting all football templates into navboxes for example. cha ndl er · 16:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need to convert to navboxes ? Just change fb , as per example below

full-width football box

User:Gnevin/sandbox6

Template:Champions League 2008-09

Template:Fb end User:Gnevin/sandbox6

Template:Champions League 2008-09

Template:Fb end

Gnevin (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great start. It's not likely to look great everywhere, but I'd be happy to roll this out gradually. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's an all or nothing, I suppose we could make the width as parameter, see example above. Gnevin (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You dont think the Man Utd, and PL seasons (or the one below) look bad and is very space wasting (the wider resolution the worse it looks) cha ndl er · 16:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

full-width football box

Template:English football league system cells

I think it looks better than it is now, What you think of

full-width football box align left

User:Gnevin/sandbox6 Strike indicates not part of the MoS or part of the MoS but should be removed

Unsorted

* Article titles * Writing better articles * Sister projects * Glossary * How to edit a page * Picture tutorial * Sections

Additional Unsorteds found in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines (note that not all of the other entries are in this category)

*Template:Taxobox

*Wikipedia:The perfect article ~~Wikipedia:Transclude text~~

Category:Wikipedia content guidelines more...

Template:Champions League 2008-09

Template:Fb end

Gnevin (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man Utd looks better imo, (Though I still like the current way better) like that. But I do think if we go to 100% we could try to convert the templates into navboxes (I know the MLS teams have ({{Chicago Fire}}) them example) to join the standard. cha ndl er · 17:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support a convert to navbox and maybe change fb-start too {{Navboxes}} Gnevin (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How it might look with Navbox as the frame and still be able to add other navbox templates within it (as shown with the Chicago Fire) with only a small edit of the existing ones making the "child" parameter optional cha ndl er · 18:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just convert them all to normal navbox and use {{Navboxes}} to group them? Gnevin (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on if we feel we need to use a title bar above them (which I dont think we should need), and being collapsed, now Navboxes is just a Navbox with small changes so we can basically just use a Navbox to customize it cha ndl er · 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all nonsense, the templates look far better as they are right now. Change to anything like the above and many will have no idea what the templates are for or what they do, it is of benefit that the templates are all always shown and are not full width, the fact they are not full width means that people are more likely to notice them and you can more easily see everything at a glance. Look at an article like this, the templates at the bottom look over-complicated apart from the one that is shown and not full width, how many users are going to know what the ones below actually do, even if they weren’t collapsed. Darryl.matheson (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand your problems with the Earth template, they use the standard Wiki templates, Football articles are the standout here, are you saying you dislike the vast ,vast majority of navigation templates on wiki? Gnevin (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is exactly what I am saying, look at Minneapolis as another example, the average user would never understand that they were templates that listed related articles. Compare that to this article and you can see everything is much clearer and more user-friendly, expand those templates to full width and they look horrendous, a little more width would probobly be helpful but not much more. Darryl.matheson (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That page looks terrible and the templates take up nearly 1 third of the page . What average user wouldn't be able to tell that the templates on Minneapolis link to related articles . I don't see why this projects templates are the only ones which haven't been converted to navbox. The Football Association navbox are massive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think that's a minority position. Most everybody else seems quite okay with the navbox layout, which is why everyone else adopted it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penalty shootouts

I propose that information on which side went first in the penalty shootout section of match reports. Currently the pages do not include this information and so there is no way of knowing which penalty was decisive. ZoeL (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't always shown in match reports, for example FIFA's match reports for the World Cup. So it will be hard to get this information from other old match reports, and though it might hold some importance on the night, in the long run I don't think much information is lost. And just for example that FIFA doesn't use it, there's probably no good and easy way to display which teams go first. cha ndl er · 19:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's to say which penalty is "decisive"? The first penalty is just as important as the fifth. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means which penalty that wins/loses the game cha ndl er · 20:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it at all relevant though? - fchd (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the long run really imo, but ofc at the time of the shoot out being the team that takes the penalties first can hold importance pressure wise I'd think cha ndl er · 21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's a pretty trivial factoid and, as pointed out above, very hard to source as it isn't normally mentioned in match reports. Heck, this BBC report doesn't even list the names of six of the eight players who took the pens...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's important, mention it in the prose. --Jameboy (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between FC & F.C.?

On the MLS Transfer list, I'm having a little argument about having the term "FC" next to a club name. I'm not focusing on Seattle, Dallas or Toronto, but I'm focusing on Wellington Phoenix and the Carolina RailHawks, the problem is that is there any point in putting FC next to the name because I don't think there is because there's pretty much no difference between "FC" and "F.C."? – Michael (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you can recognize the difference between the two in MLS team names, you should be able to recognize the difference in A-League or USL team names. We're trying to create a standard that is truly international. -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. See #The basic problem at the top (might be archived by the time this is read) for more discussion on international unification. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely because of this issue with some (mostly newer) clubs, that I think the dots are important to help distinguish between when a series of capital letters are short for something longer or whether they are just letters in the club name. ACF Fiorentina is a perfect example of an older club that is also happens to follow the fule. Therefore Bayern Munich should have F.C. before it in the article title, and not FC as is currently the case. I also think that since we link to Seattle Sounders FC as Seattle Sounders FC we should probably link to ACF Fiorentina as ACF Fiorentina as well, but I'm willing to worry about the piping issue after we sort out the article titles. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still link ACF Fiorentina as Fiorentina because pretty much everybody reffers to them as Fiorentima so if I were you, I'd leave that link as it is. – Michael (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by this argument. That Fiorentina have pulled a KFC and decided that the letters don't officially stand for anything (although even KFC changed their mind on that recently) should not prevent us from dropping the dots where they do, because in modern English it is increasingly rare that initialisms use dots. As Michael has just said, it doesn't prevent people from treating the ACF as standing for something and dropping it. I don't think we should allow a very small number of cases like this from preventing unification. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, then since at one time (until very recently in fact) the club's name was A.C. Fiorentina, like A.C. Milan, that's a fair argument. Toronto FC or AFC Wimbledon have gone out of their way to say that the letters don't stand for anything. -- Grant .Alpaugh 13:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though the last discussion did sort of die out, I think It might be a good way to create a universal standard for all countries when it comes to abbreviations in the name of articles. And I think it should be dot-less, UEFA for example seem to have started using dot-less names for some time in news, in tables both Spanish, English and I think all other. As Chris said, and as I recall from the discussion that for things like MP and CD dots have stopped being used in at least BrE (perhaps AmE too?) cha ndl er · 13:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarily, I think the dots should be left in; most of the time I see it on club crests, on stadiums etc, the dots seem to be there. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations says:

"Acronyms and initialisms are generally not separated by full stops (periods) or blank spaces (GNP, NORAD, OBE, GmbH); many periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage"

Although "FC" isn't strictly an acronymn, does this apply here? Beve (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says "acronyms and initialisms" - F.C. is definitely an initialism. And yes, the dots are seen on (some - definitely not all) club crests, but that can easily be handwaved with an application of MOS:TRADE. We needn't stick with fairly antiquated typography just because it's used on a club crest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the critical sentence in that is "many periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage"; it is far from being the case that in relation to F.C., that these have dropped out of usage. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might not have been dropped by all, but evidently by some at least. cha ndl er · 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last time this came up, I checked through a couple of hundred club programmes from Premier League level down to local Step 6/7 level, and I seem to recall it was about a 2/3 to 1/3 split in favour of the clubs referring to themselves WITH the full stops. I'm definitely in favour of keeping them. They can of course be repressed when referring to a club within the body of an article. - fchd (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That figure is probably reversed for Continental teams, which is the whole point of this discussion. Currently we keep the dots for British teams and do whatever we like for everyone else - the question is whether it is possible to pick one global format or not. I don't really care whether we use dots globally or no dots globally, but the current inconsistency for everywhere outside the British Isles is no good. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the ultimate goal should be to develop a global standard, if indeed that proves possible. If all else is equal, then I vote for keeping the dots if only to help disambiguate between instances like Toronto FC and FC Dallas (which, not coincidentally are always referred to as "Toronto FC" and "FC Dallas," which is different from, say, "Liverpool" as a commonly accepted abbreviation for "Liverpool Football Club/Liverpool F.C." The fact that this is the case suggests that when there is no abbreviation, there are no dots, and the "FC" remains in the piped link. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdenting

(Sorry, but the hierarchy of indents is reaching a bit of a silly level). I think this argument is being sidetracked by a perception (in the case of some clubs) that the 'FC' is part of their name when it is not. Liverpool's name is not 'Liverpool F.C.' but 'Liverpool Football Club'. Ditto Chelsea, Everton, Portsmouth etc etc. Barcelona's name is not 'FC Barcelona' but 'Fútbol Club Barcelona'. The trail with Bayern gets muddied by "FC Bayern München e.V." owning 90% of "FC Bayern München AG" owning... but I'm reasonably convinced the club is actually called "Fußball-Club Bayern München".

My point? Well, I can understand the argument that it is not for Wikipedia to change clubs' names, but the way Wikipedia handles abbreviations that are not in the clubs' official names is surely a matter for Wikipedia, not for Tom Hicks or Karl-Heinz Rumennigge, let alone the tastes of whoever happens to be the current editor of the club's match programme. WP is entitled to standardise on 'F.C.' or 'FC' as it wishes, just like any newspaper or magazine.

I think a choice should be made between: 'FC' as standard, with exceptions for clubs that have 'F.C.' as a full (not abbreviated) part of their name; and 'F.C.' as standard, with exceptions for clubs that have 'FC' as a full (not abbreviated) part of their name. (AFC and so on to follow the same rules).

I would favour the 'FC' style, not only because I believe that it would throw up far fewer exceptions, but also because it would be consistent with us using FA, FA Cup, SFA, UEFA, FIFA, CONCACAF and so on (not F.A., F.A. Cup, S.F.A., U.E.F.A., F.I.F.A., C.O.N.C.A.C.A.F.) but I am happy to hear arguments as to why 'F.C.' would be more consistent. Grubstreet (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that, as I've said a number of times, is that if we switch to "Liverpool FC" et al. then there is nothing to distinguish "Seattle Sounders FC" et al. as there is currently with "Liverpool F.C." and "Seattle Sounders FC." That would be my only objection, but I reiterate that it is time to work on a unified standard. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant, when you talk about the need to "disambiguate" (17:55, 13 March), I can't spot an ambiguity to 'dis-'. If there are two clubs called something like 'Leicester Forest FC' and 'Leicester Forest F.C.' with only the dots to tell them apart, that would indeed require a solution. But in a case like the oft-quoted Seattle Sounders, the only ambiguity is between three clubs that have borne the name. This requires (and indeed has) a disambiguation page, and will still require one, dots or no dots.

You also talk of a need to "distinguish". Well, I am all for clarifying that the 'FC' in Seattle's name doesn't stand for anything, but I cannot see any pressing need to address this in Seattle's article title, let alone in the title of the Liverpool article. There is a mechanism already in place to establish the status of Seattle's 'FC', and that is the convention of giving the club's full name in the opening sentence of the article. Liverpool's article begins Liverpool Football Club while Seattle's begins Seattle Sounders FC.

If you feel that there is a need for a greater emphasis on the non-meaning of Seattle's 'FC', then this would be the place to achieve it. "Seattle Sounders FC (the 'FC' is not an abbreviation for anything)" or "Seattle Sounders FC (not 'Seattle Sounders Football Club')" will do the trick, whereas imposing dots on Liverpool F.C. does not make the Seattle situation the slightest bit clearer. For it to do so, readers would need to (a) compare the Seattle article to Liverpool's, (b) realise that there is an FC/F.C. convention at work, not just an inconsistency, (c) work out what that convention is. Which they won't do. And why should they?

I understand and respect the fact that some people prefer F.C. to FC, but the argument that literally tens of thousands of dots are required throughout the football pages to make the point that Seattle doesn't have any dots is failing to grab me. Grubstreet (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the policy is much easier to correct with the justification of "we remove abbreviations from shortnames/piped links" which is easier to demonstrate with the F.C./FC issue than it would be if we remove the dots. I dunno, maybe you're right. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent description of where we are now - thanks. I also support a general move to "FC" over "F.C." So what's the next step - a formal RfC? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why there is a need to do anything so drastic. There seems to be a differing use of dots in different countries; some places use them (e.g. the UK), some places don't (e.g. Australia with clubs like "Sydney FC"). As long as there is consistency within the sphere of a nation, I don't see the need to standardise across the entire footballing world. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the only British article that doesn't use the dots is AFC Wimbledon - good luck changing that one to make it consistent with other articles and trying to make it stick! - fchd (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously there are always exceptions to the rule. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One country that isn't consistent right now is Spain, we have some big clubs like Real Madrid on C.F. while most spanish clubs are on Category:Spanish football clubs CD, CF, FC, UD, CA, SE, you name it, they have it. And I must say the most common way I've seen it for spanish clubs IS without dots, but we have the lfp in their table having a dot after every abbreviation, so does clubatleticodemadrid.com. But I still think names without dots is the right way to go. Just because of things pointed out, like we don't use dots for (pretty much?) anything else when it comes to abbreviations. Though personally my real preference wound be having the clubs at articles with unabbreviated names, thus removing all ambiguity over clubs like AFC Wimbledon and others chan dler · 13:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's far harder to keep track of the naming if it's per-country for one. Secondly, I've yet to see any real evidence that with-dots has such buy-in in modern reliable sources that it's genuinely preferable - the sports media seems to happily drop all the initials. And lastly, it's not a big change so long as it's agreed upon - we're talking about ~2000 articles for the club articles themselves, which is really a drop in the ocean, and most instances in other articles already pipe the initials out anyway. A bot wouldn't have trouble with that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarumio again

Our old friend Sarumio is back at it again, removing F.C. from the "clubname" paramater of football club infoboxes, when he/she has been told on several occasions that there is no consensus to do this. I've reverted another three (Llay Welfare F.C., Penycae F.C. and Overton Recreation F.C. today, and another couple Colne F.C. and Squires Gate F.C. the other day. - fchd (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's received fair warning, so warn him and then, if possible, report him while he's still active. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say that I think we should be removing abbreviations from the clubname/shortname of clubs. We have the article title which is the full name of the club with abbreviations for common things like "Football Club," we have the full name, which is the full, unabbreviated name, and we have the clubname/shortname which is used when we pipe the links and is used in conversation and removes the things that are abbreviated. That's the way I think we should have it laid out, so I agree with Sarumio. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me Grant that you are committing the same "sin" as Sarumio by reverting Richard's edits and removing F.C. from the clubname parameter, despite there being no consensus to do this. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of British articles don't include abbreviations in the shortname on the infobox. I don't see anything wrong with bringing these articles in line with that majority. -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back far enough, you'll find that most of them did before Sarumio started the crusade for the first time. Consensus was reached here that Sarumio shouldn't remove them, and I wouldn't add them to where they weren't at that time. - fchd (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Richard, once again you resort to lying! Most of them didn't! We've been through this - the opposite of what you just said is actually the truth, the majority originally (i.e. before my editing) ommitted the FC from the Infobox's header - I changed the MINORITY to fall in line with this general consensus and bring some form of continuity and consistancy to the headings of the Infobox. Why you continue to spout your nonsense is beyond me! Sarumio (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again. His edits yesterday were reverted by four different users. Is an admin going to step in, or are we going to be reduced to lamenting his campaign on a weekly basis? - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fb round2 templates

I would like to merge the templates for UEFA Champions League in Fb round2 AFTER the draw has been conducted. As there is no any rounds be called "Third qualifying round for champions or for non-champions, they should be merged and the irrelevant words should be removed. However, to give clear indication to the readers, I'd suggest to keep those word until the draw conducted. The concerned templates are:

Any idea for the suggestion? Raymond Giggs 08:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable players sections

User:Fasach Nua has undertaken large scale deletions of notable players sections, especially those where there had been a Famous players template in place. I think that is entirely justified course of action: those sections are OR, as they have no inclusion or exclusion criteria, and therefore have no verifiability. However, he lacks clarity and subtlety in his edit notes style, and so most of these have been reverted, and there are multiple edit wars, accusations on his talk page, and an ANI accusation. Regardless of his tact or lack thereof, should we agree that Notable players lists with no verifiability are ripe for deletion? Kevin McE (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last line, for most of the reasons you've given before. Peanut4 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this being discussed numerous times [1] and can only recall consensus' about things like "at least 100 caps" with the exception of early players from a long time ago which created pages like this one. cha ndl er · 22:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't see why such sections don't simply have such links to List of Liverpool F.C. players and allow the reader to make his own mind up about notable/non-notable players. Especially now we can link to such lists as List of Birmingham City F.C. players with fewer than 50 appearances. Peanut4 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about non-Anglo teams that have no List of X FC players article? I believe that the sections should be kept in this situation as long as there are clear inclusion criteria (x no of appearances, hall of fame member, league topscorer, player of the year, etc). King of the North East 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Peanut's got something approaching the right idea. Just mark 'em all up as having played with a particular club with a category tag and be done. Trying to find a suitable set of notability standards just isn't amounting to anything except a lot of useless bickering. And its the sort of thing that just encourages self-righteous nitwits to bluster and bully other editors in the name of whatever they perceive the mission to be. It's just too damned tiresome. And for the record FN deserves to be sanctioned for showing up and acting like a jerk all over again. His conduct is just spoiling for a fight, its uncalled for, and he should know better. Wiggy! (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Anglo and major European teams the Notable player section could be structured to point to the List of X FC players and List of X FC top goal scorers etc, but for teams without such articles (such as virtually every team in South America) the notable player section serves a useful purpose helping the casual reader to identify important players in a way that is impossible by viewing Category:X FC players. Using Boca Juniors as an example within Category:Boca Juniors footballers equal status is afforded to Martín Andrizzi and Roberto Cherro. To me the removal of this section would reduce the utility of the article and subject and I would strongly oppose it. King of the North East 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that I am gradually introducing inclusion criteria and a standard format for Argentine clubs, the problem is that with only a dozen or so committed football editors for the whole of South America (outside Brazil), making sure that player articles, club articles and the squads are up to date takes up a huge amount of editing time. King of the North East 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember from a discussion way back was not to delete former players of note lists at all, but instead when they get too big, they should be moved to a new page and refinded. There was a key that was discussed also, like did this player have a profound effect on a team, team captain? play over 100 games for the club? ect. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with these lists, but only in cases where the criteria for being in them is clearly defined (for example, for a non-League club, it may be players who went on to play professionally, or, for a lower division club, players with over 100 apps and/or an international cap. If there is just a list with no criteria, I would rather it was deleted. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter City F.C. list

I have reverted it plenty of times, the people in it have managed a high notability with the Exeter club, each article seems to show links of Manager/Player, the top players of note. Yet it is deleted by others and Kevin McE doesn't make any sense in his arguments to me, I don't understand his English or what he is trying to say, all I get is, POV this POV that. It's like being rude and saying RTFM!!!! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I think that for most clubs the "Notable Players" section did constitute OR, I feel that Kevin McE has been extremely precipitate in going ahead and deleting them without waiting for any form of discussion. To post a query here at 22:04 asking "should we agree that Notable players lists with no verifiability are ripe for deletion?", receiving a handful of comments in agreement and then going ahead and deleting these sections at 10:11 the following morning with the edit summary "Del section as Original Research, see WP:FOOTY talk" seems like jumping the gun to me. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have asked him to maybe please participate in developing a genuinely workable solution rather than just wiping stuff. Wiggy! (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, On this page this issue has only been raised eight time in the past eleven months, hardly enough time or opportunity for consultation! Fasach Nua (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well given that there was no concensus, what's the rush? Wiggy! (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What lack of consensus? Had there been any voices to the contrary, I would have left the articles until the debate was settled, but as it was, the early responses were unanimous. I only acted on pages that already carried the Template:Famous players that should have served as a warning. If no-one (bar Govvy) is arguing that the sections should be there, why am I being criticised for removing them? The few sections that did follow a meaningful criteria (VfL Bochum and Argentina) I left intact. Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now tell me, if someone is interested in popular past players of Exeter City F.C. and doesn't know a name, how do they go about getting that name? What about those players that have played over 100 games for Exeter? Key players in Exeter's history? players who went on to premier teams and made a big name for themselves? Where should they be listed? Govvy (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Players playing over 100 games I could just about see as a valid criterion, players who went on to Premier teams, no. They don't deserve a mention, the article is about the club as a whole, over 100 years, and not those individuals who happened to play a few games before moving on. And "popular past players" is POV by its very definition. - fchd (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then in some form the list should be improved upon and refined to those few select players that have played 100+ games, ect. Govvy (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if I am being criticised for deleting sections that the vast majority of people here say should not exist, what should I do when I come across a section like this; ignore it, delete it, or slap a {{Famous players}} tag on it? Kevin McE (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC Seoul 2004

Was going to prod this, but though I'd check with you guys first to see whether or not this sort of thing is OK. The article is merly a squad list for FC Seoul during the 2004 season. The presence of similar red links in {{FC Seoul}} suggest that more of these articles are planned. PC78 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd PROD it, as it's only a squad listing. If someone expanded it to include useful info (and rename it), then I'd hold back. But right now, I'd PROD it. – LATICS talk 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - season articles for top-level teams are standard, and the article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename it and let the author know that the article needs some prose, otherwise it may be deleted. Obviously, a fair bit of work went into the article and we shouldn't be so deletion-happy. Is there a template Article requires prose? EA210269 (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{prose}}. :) – LATICS talk 08:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response! Thanks! Added the template to the article. EA210269 (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers guys! PC78 (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to FC Seoul season 2004 to comply with naming conventions. EA210269 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:09, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts, and a sample under. It monitors all articles with the wikiproject template on the talk page, so remember adding {{Football}} when nominating a relevant article for something. Rettetast (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts for WikiProject Football

Today's featured article requests

12 Mar 2025 – 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season (talk · edit · hist) has been proposed for Today's Featured Article by SounderBruce (t · c); see discussion
02 Mar 2025 – Hughie Ferguson (talk · edit · hist) has been proposed for Today's Featured Article by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion

Did you know

22 Dec 2024 – 2025 Seattle Sounders FC season (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by SounderBruce (t · c); see discussion
13 Dec 2024 – 2024 MLS expansion draft (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Demt1298 (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

02 Jan 2025 – Oleksandr Roshchynskyi (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Anwegmann (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
02 Jan 2025 – Vladyslav Shkolnyi (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Anwegmann (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
02 Jan 2025 – Artur Bybik (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Anwegmann (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
02 Jan 2025 – Vitaliy Mentey (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Anwegmann (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
01 Jan 2025 – Jack Stevens (footballer, born 2000) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by JTtheOG (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
01 Jan 2025 – Danis Zubairov (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Spiderone (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
01 Jan 2025 – Marko Spasojević (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Spiderone (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
01 Jan 2025 – Nenad Milunović (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Spiderone (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
01 Jan 2025 – Nathan Tinsdale (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by CommunityNotesContributor (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
01 Jan 2025 – Elifenur Karabulut (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by John B123 (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)

(38 more...)

Proposed deletions

31 Dec 2024 – Khammouan United F.C. (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by JoeNMLC (t · c): concern and endorsed by Spiderone (t · c) on 01 Jan 2025: concern
31 Dec 2024 – Alexandros Robi (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Geschichte (t · c): concern
31 Dec 2024 – Manolis Arvanitis (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Geschichte (t · c): concern and endorsed by Spiderone (t · c) on 01 Jan 2025: concern
30 Dec 2024 – Sharul Nizam Nadzir (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Geschichte (t · c): concern
27 Dec 2024 – Hasper SV (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by TNM101 (t · c): concern
27 Dec 2024 – Shugo Nishikawa (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Geschichte (t · c): concern and endorsed by Spiderone (t · c) on 27 Dec 2024: concern
27 Dec 2024 – Northern Kentucky TC Stars (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Let'srun (t · c): concern and endorsed by Spiderone (t · c) on 27 Dec 2024: concern
26 Dec 2024 – Tennessee Lady Blues (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Let'srun (t · c): concern
29 Dec 2024 – James Armson (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Telfordbuck (t · c) was deproded by Spiderone (t · c) on 30 Dec 2024
26 Dec 2024 – All-time Toronto Lynx roster (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Let'srun (t · c) was deleted

(23 more...)

Categories for discussion

26 Dec 2024 – Category:McStay family (footballers) (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Mike Selinker (t · c) was closed; see discussion
26 Dec 2024 – Category:Gallacher family (footballers) (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Mike Selinker (t · c) was closed; see discussion
25 Dec 2024 – Category:Mongolian footballers by populated place (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Lost in Quebec (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Templates for discussion

22 Dec 2024 – Template:Canadian U-20 Players of the Year (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion
22 Dec 2024 – Template:Canadian U-17 Players of the Year (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion
21 Dec 2024 – Template:C.F. União squad (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Unknown Temptation (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Redirects for discussion

29 Dec 2024 – 2014–15 Vitória de Guimarães B season (talk · edit · hist) →Vitória S.C. B was RfDed by 44 Gabriel (t · c); see discussion
29 Dec 2024 – 2014-15 Vitória de Guimarães B season (talk · edit · hist) →Vitória S.C. B was RfDed by 44 Gabriel (t · c); see discussion
29 Dec 2024 – 2014–15 Vitoria de Guimaraes B season (talk · edit · hist) →Vitória S.C. B was RfDed by 44 Gabriel (t · c); see discussion
29 Dec 2024 – 2017–18 Vitória de Guimarães B season (talk · edit · hist) →Vitória S.C. B was RfDed by 44 Gabriel (t · c); see discussion
29 Dec 2024 – 2017-18 Vitória de Guimarães B season (talk · edit · hist) →Vitória S.C. B was RfDed by 44 Gabriel (t · c); see discussion
29 Dec 2024 – 2014–15 Vitória S.C. B season (talk · edit · hist) →Vitória S.C. B was RfDed by 44 Gabriel (t · c); see discussion
29 Dec 2024 – 2014-15 Vitoria de Guimaraes B season (talk · edit · hist) →Vitória S.C. B was RfDed by 44 Gabriel (t · c); see discussion
24 Dec 2024 – Târnavele Blaj (talk · edit · hist) →CS CIL Blaj was RfDed by Rusalkii (t · c); see discussion
13 Dec 2024 – Johnson (soccer) (talk · edit · hist) →List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football was RfDed by Joseph2302 (t · c); see discussion
08 Nov 2024 – Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam (talk · edit · hist) →November 2024 Amsterdam riots was RfDed by मल्ल (t · c); see discussion

(3 more...)

FK Metalurg Skopje

A user created lots of entry that below stub level, delete all under no content and/or they did not made professional debut? Matthew_hk t c 12:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azar Karadas

There is a dispute over the name of this player. All the references and external links spell his last name Karadas but User:Saguamundi keeps changing it to Karadaş and insists he has dual nationality with Turkey. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the player has dual nationality has no bearing on the spelling of his name. Millions of migrants or descendants of migrants have opted to localise their names over the past two or three millennia, sometimes simply by dropping 'funny' accents. IMO, it is for Saguamundi to cite a statement by the player (or perhaps his parents) that he styles himself with the diacritical mark. However, granted that it takes only a miniscule amount of Googling to see that the name is spelt Karadaş in Turkish, do be prepared to discover that the other fellow is in the right! Grubstreet (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant how it's spelled in Turkish if that isn't the form used by most of the references. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But in that case someone must have used an interesting set of references to decide on Pontus Kåmark ;-) Grubstreet (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? "å" is a perfectly legitimate letter in the Swedish alphabet. – Pee Jay 00:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this en.wikipedia.org, not sv.wikipedia.org? Beve (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is referred to as "Pontus Kåmark" by the IMDB and the RSSSF. Is that enough? – Pee Jay 00:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's again the difference of Karadas perhaps being his registered name (if Norway doesn't allow ş), while Kåmark is Kåmark, as å is part of our alphabet. chan dler · 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beve, that's why redirects in "plain" letters have to be provided so that those readers without a keyboard featuring letters with diacritics can access the name as well. "Pontus Kamark", for example, redirects to the desired article without much of a fuss. In another example, enter "Slask Wroclaw" into the search bar and see where it leads you to. ;-)

Back to the actual topic. Since the player seems to be born and raised in Norway, I would tend to use the version without diacritics as well. However, the Turkish wikipedia spells him Karadaş. The question over his name is not new, by the way, as it has already been raised in 2007. To add to the confusion, how would you rule on German international player Serdar Tasci (VfB Stuttgart)? Although being born and raised in Germany, he is spelled "Taşçı" in both the German and Turkish wikis... --Soccer-holic (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More confusing, both norwegian wp's spell him with a ş, though NFF and Brann for example do not. chan dler · 01:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is owed to the fact that Norwegian keyboards do not possess a 'ş'. Hm... I might have an idea to solve the problem. 's' and 'ş' are pronounced differently, with the latter corresponding to the combination 'sh' in English. Since "Taşçı" is written "Tasci" due to the lack of the corresponding diacritic letters, but usually pronounced "Tashtchi" (which is close, but not exact to the native Turkish pronounciation) in German, how about listening to a Norwegian audio file where his name is pronounced? Perhaps User:Theilert, our main contributor on the Norwegian season articles, is able to help as well. --Soccer-holic (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when were the German and Turkish Wikipedias considered reliable sources for the English one? Neither the Turkish nor the German Wikipedias have WP:ENGLISH in their MoS. We do not use random weird characters outside the Latin-1 character set unless they're predominantly used by reliable sources, deferring in general to English ones. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random weird characters, aha...*scratches head* Anyway, we can consider the issue ressolved as someome has modified the lead to include both variants. --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon vandal

Good week everybody, VASCO here,

Following the advice of User:Changeigeorge, i report this situation, which has been on-going the past few months: An anonymous IP (and endless array of addresses, all starting with 92) has been operating in several AEK players, namely:

Arnaldo Edi Lopes da Silva, aka Edinho (here, he removed wikilink of PORTUGAL NATIONAL U21 TEAM and inserted just PORTUGAL, and has inserted lies about him being called up to the main national team), Juanfran (with all the links i provided, he still changes his national stats, and now has merged the U21 and A teams' stats, just because), Geraldo Alves (also removed national team link, and changed to nation) and Gustavo Manduca (he inserted national team lies, which i removed; How could he have scored against Belgium in the Olympics when this nation did not even appear? Also, checking - it is available on Wikipedia - the match reports of that competition, we can clearly see that Manduca did not score, against Belgium or any other team).

What can be done? I reckon not much, due to the constant IP changing, Regards, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it happens again, the first thing to do is to try opening a discussion on the article talk page - write "see talk page" in your edit summary to draw their attention. Because they're using a dynamic IP, it would be pointless trying their user talk page, and blocking their IP wouldn't make much difference neither. If all else fails and their reverts are getting out of hand, request semi-protection for that page. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of Berwick Rangers F.C.

I've just noticed that Berwick Rangers are categorised in both Category:English football clubs and Category:Scottish football clubs - even though they are based in England but play in Scotland, surely they shouldn't be in both cats? And if they should, does that mean Cardiff City and Swansea City should also be in Category:English football clubs? i can really see their fans liking that..... :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say remove Category:Scottish football clubs - they are already listed under Category:Expatriated football clubs, which I think is sufficient. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what Category pages are there for. If it is not to create work for obsessives who have finished alphabetising their CD collections and are getting a bit twitchy, then I would imagine it is to help readers find articles that relate in a familial kind of way. For example: you've just read an article on kangaroos, you find you are now fascinated by marsupials, you want to find more marsupials... hoorah – this link will take me to a list of marsupials.

If that's the case, then there's the tricky question of where a reader might wish to be led from the Berwick page. To other football clubs that are geographically in England, or to other football clubs that play within the Scottish structure? My guess is that you would be more likely to want a list that contains Montrose, Arbroath and Livingston than Plymouth Argyle. If I'm right, then it's the English list they should be dropped from, not the Scottish one.

However, it's not that simple. The problem is partly caused by the English list having its cake and eating it. It can't decide whether it's job is to list clubs located in England or clubs playing in the English system, so it lists all of them, with footnotes for the anomalies. To excise Berwick from that Category page would, given the criteria it currently operates under, be to remove a club that the list explicitly says should be in there.

As for Cardiff and Swansea, Chris, if you take a look at the list of 'English' Football Clubs, you'll see that's exactly where they are right now! (Or perhaps you knew that, and were teasing their fans). So the problem isn't unique to Berwick. Cardiff, Colwyn Bay, Merthyr Tydfil, Newport, Swansea and Wrexham are all also double-listed – as are The New Saints, who in some strange way contrive to straddle the England-Wales border. IMO, what actually needs sorting out is what the Categories are supposed to mean, rather than taking individual action over Berwick. Grubstreet (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean there, none of the Welsh clubs are in Category:English football clubs as it stands..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chris, I got distracted by a couple of software crashes and called up Lists not Categories, so the confusion is my fault. The Welsh Clubs are all on the 'List of football clubs in England' as well as the 'List of football clubs in Wales'. Ditto Berwick (but for England and Scotland, natch). If that's not a problem, I shall pretend I didn't see it. Re Categories, I am in error, and have to agree that Berwick is English on the geographical basis on which Categories are organised.

It still leaves me wondering what earthly use the categories are, though. If you are moving on from the article on Bristol City, you can use the Category link to quickly locate Berwick, which competes in Scottish competitions, but not to find Cardiff, which is just two places above Bristol City in the Coca Cola Championship. It seems to me a triumph of mapmaking over practical value, and that Categories like 'Clubs competing in English/Scottish/Welsh football' would be more user-friendly. But that's an entirely different argument (and no doubt a long-standing can of worms). Grubstreet (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're mostly useless nationalism. I wouldn't have a problem with their eventual removal. Only in rare cases (the Welsh rebels, Berwick) do they add clarity over and above that of the other cats. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually see the harm of being in both cats. My thing is German football and there are large numbers of German clubs that are double tagged as German/Austrian, German/French, German/Polish, etc. That simply reflects the history of the game in that part of Europe and is quite legitimate. I would consider it more nationalistic to simply try to deny that duality by having one coutry or the other claim ownership over a club that includes that unique attribute as part of its experience, history or tradition. I would also view it as an opportunity to branch out by following that type of link to learn more about a club and the context it competes in. Wiggy! (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a problem having Berwick in both categories, or having Welsh clubs in both? Readers of the Berwick Rangers article might want to know about clubs in either England or Scotland, and the club is relevant to both - trying to guess readers' motives, or even assuming they will be interested in only one or the other seems daft. The article itself explains any confusion. Having them in both cats helps the reader - insisting on mutually exclusive categories, IMO, only helps editors with an inclination toward obsessiveness. --hippo43 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone actually use categories to navigate between articles in that manner? - fchd (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, fchd. But if what you imply is right, and people don't use them as navigational prompts, then they are lists for the sake of having lists. Which I'm prepared to believe. Maybe this whole discussion is just OCPD therapy – in which case, I obviously need to make an effort to get out more. Grubstreet (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Ferdinand#Owling

I am assuming that's just be made up!?!? Govvy (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, definitely a hoax section - I've removed it now. Regards, Giant Snowman 20:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Palguta and User:NovaGrad70

Can someone please help me? I have been trying to make constructive edits to the page about Scott Palguta, who has just signed for Colorado Rapids, tidying up the infobox, removing flags, a couple of grammatical snafus, nothing major, and I am continually being reverted by this editor, who is now accusing me of making malicious edits when I'm clearly not. Despite my attempts to communicate with him he refuses to talk to me, and now he's added a "page protection" template to counteract my "malicious edits". Anyone have any ideas about what I can do? I'm trying to be as civil as I can. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a brief glance of the page history it looks like he could be warned for breaching WP:3RR, but seems like you would have to get the same warning. Beve (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's obviously being a dick at the moment, not caring what is written to him, adding "banners" of text at the top of the page. chan dler · 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior might probably being explained if you have a look at his contributions, where the majority over the past two years are just on Palguta's article. Therefore I do not assume that he is aware of any of the recent discussions, for example on the upgrade of the player infoboxes, and additionally acts in some kind of protective manner. --Soccer-holic (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he started going into 'ownership' mode on this article as far back as 2007. Grubstreet (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tried to clean this article up in line with various MOS issues, and plain English, yet he undid every edit. He clearly thinks he owns the article, so I've given him a warning as such. I doubt it will achieve anything but we'll see. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he's being harassed now. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in suggesting that nobody has bothered using the article talk page to try to resolve this? That should be the first port of call for any content dispute. Not liking the use of edit summaries in lieu of real discussion either. Take it to the article talk, get consensus, and then we can see if any action is required on this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection requested (NovaGrad's request for semi was turned down yesterday). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to talk to him on his personal talk page after the fact - when I first made the changes I thought they were so minor as to not be an issue. Clearly, though, he's protective about EVERY WORD, and won't accept ANY changes. --JonBroxton (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, everything anyone else does is "caused by malicious editing" and reverted... He clearly can't be reasoned with. chan dler · 16:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, regardless, it should have gone to article talk before it came here. I'm not sure why it was semiprotected when NovaGrad is presumably already autoconfirmed, but let's roll with it for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and indeed it hasn't made a difference. I've asked the admin who semiprotected to have another look. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't understand why it was semi-protected when this blocks ALL ip editors from working on the article rather than the ONE that was reported. Beve (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotherham United F.C.

An IP user (or users) keeps re-inserting the following about the Chuckle Brothers, right at the top of the above article:

As two of Rotherham's most famous and much revered residents, the Chuckle Brother's were made honorary presidents of Rotherham United F.C. in 2007. The association of these worldwide superstars with the club instantly raised the standing of Rotherham F.C. amongst Europe's elite. Barry and Paul Chuckle continue to be figureheads for the club. Other famous fans of the club include Premier League referee Howard Webb.

There is already mention in the article, with a source, about them being honarary presidents. However, for whatever reason, someone keeps adding the above right at the top of the article, above the lead section. This seems to have been going on for a few days now and each time it is removed it gets put back in. Each time, a different IP address sees to be used, anyone know how to proceed? Thank you.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's multiple IP addresses, you could request semi-protection at WP:RFP, but I've not always had the best of luck there. Beve (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the history you'd be easily able to request semi-protection, i've had protection granted for much less annoying edits than that. Uksam88 (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone quiet but feel free to drop me a line if there is more disruptive activity on that page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of history...

Hi everybody! I have a tough question... Does anyone know if Scottish Jack Galbraith managed RC Lens in France? French sources talks about a certain "John Galbraith" who managed the club from 1936 to 1938. Any ideas?--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible, as Jack is a common nickname for people named John. However, I don't seem to be able to find any sources that confirm that the Jack Galbraith who played for Cardiff is the same man as Lens manager John Galbraith. – Pee Jay 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would say yes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good search, Struway. I did not see that link (in French, that's my fault!) "Scot John Galbraith, former Cardiff City player". Looks like this is him...Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CFU Club Championship 2009

Hey everyone. For the most part I'm the only one working on this article, and I'd like some assistance finding some info. The top three clubs from this tournament qualify to represent the Caribbean region at the next CONCACAF Champs League. Anyone who can help find times, stadiums, or good articles about the event would be a great help. The CFU hardly ever updates their website, and CONCACAF isn't really covering it a lot. I've had trouble because – as far as I have found – a lot of Caribbean newspapers don't have websites, and if they do they are generally not very well updated online. Caribbean footy events are often in need of good editors so any help is appreciated. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF has a lot of the match results from past years here if thats of any help (you may find even RSSSF's data on this a bit minimal). Nanonic (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

If a player have dual-citizenship and hes called up to one of the nation, but have yet to play a game for the nation on any level, should he then be seen as a player of that nation or ? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 14:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the usual is to go with birth country (MOS:ICON#Use_of_flags_for_sportspeople If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then the eligibility rule that is most apt should be applied; most often it is the place of birth.), unless he's come out and said something like "I see my self as a xish and would rather play for x than y". Most recent case I can remember is Steve Zakuani. But I think you have to go and "investigate" case by case chan dler · 14:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed Robin Wikman, BK Häcken, from Swedish to Finnish and Samuel Wowoah. Örebro SK, from Swedish to Liberian, both have been called up to each national team, Wikam to U21, but neither have played a singel game yet. Think that when the player answer a call up, even if not playing a game, he/she then have choosen to represent that nation and not the other, remeber to have read some time ago that when a player after turning 18 decides to represent on nation, it then becomes "his/hers" nation, regardless of other nationalitys. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 17:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the player has to compete in a non-friendly match for his chosen national side. Earlier this year, Germany played a friendly against Norway, where coach Joachim Löw eventually subbed in Mesut Özil. Özil has eligibility to play for either the German or the Turkish national team, so the substitution was thought to draw the final line on a month-long mild tug-o-war. However, it came out that only caps in compulsary games determine the nation of a player, so he continues to be technically eligible for both teams. --Soccer-holic (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing FIFA's criteria with Wiki's criteria. Ozil has represented Germany, and so Germany is the appropriate flag to have by his name on his club's article. It is not impossible that it will be necessary to change that in the future: that is a different matter. Kevin McE (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah i see, thnx Soccer-holic. Think i will go a bit with chan dler "Case to case", but will probably mark some players with a nations flag they have been called up to even if they havent played a game yet, depending on how likely it is for him to play for Y instead of X or some other factor. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian First League

I was going through a couple of AfDs for Macedonian First League players, and I came across this news story which states "Seven out of the 12 clubs did not have a single player registered as a professional player although all players in the Macedonian First League are playing professionally". The way I see it, this could be taken two ways - either this league isn't really fully professional, or it is fully professional and the clubs just don't have their paperwork in order (this story was written in 2007 and so their affairs may be in order now). Obviously this would have an effect of these AfDs, so what say you guys? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to contact Isavevski on the topic as he is a major contributor on Macedonian football. Perhaps he can help. --Soccer-holic (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I've left a message on his talkpage pointing him in this direction. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like it is a fully professional league, and that paperwork business was a little hiccup which was quickly sorted out. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About RSSSF... is reliable?

Hi, i nominated an article Club de Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata. And the reviewer thinks that RSSSF it's not reliable. What do you think guys? Please there is a discussion here. I think is a reliable source, and in the spanish wikipedia we use it in almost every article of football (good and featured articles). Bye --Tincho GELP (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, this is important, they are talking about removing rsssf references from all 10,351 articles that currently link there. King of the North East 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're damned right. To me RSSSF is extremely reliable, but I've taken a look at the argument and not sure how to argue, via policy, that it adheres to the reliable criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make random spot checks against some other source. If a club has its results posted somewhere or there are some FIFA records available or something, we should be able to say we made several comparisons against independent sources, the site is good thank you very much ... Wiggy! (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to this specific case - I have just checked a couple of the given RSSF links, and so far every single one of those lists external sources, mostly newspapers, as source of the research at the bottom of the page. Please correct me if I'm wrong - the presented data is well-documented elsewhere, so this means that the RSSF links for this concrete example can be considered reliable, can't they? --Soccer-holic (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. I can't see the wood for the trees, if that is the case. I was looking for one single page to list its sources, rather than indiviual pages. Peanut4 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF does indeed usually list sources on their individual pages. I think the issue should be solved therewith. Maybe it'd be good to add that rationale somewhere on the project site as this is not the first time a non-project reviewer has questioned the site's reliability. Madcynic (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinama-Pongolle

Fellow teammates,

I think this article's name must be slightly corrected. I provided 4 new references from UEFA.com which attest to his name being hyphenated. Just don't know how to alter it, nor if i have the permission to do so.

Regards, keep passing the ball to an open man,

Vasco Amaral, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it does need to be hyphenated, don't know how that got missed Skitzo's Answer Machine 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at news sources, it seems split between Sinama-Pongolle and Sinama Pongolle. Peanut4 (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a big deal. Still, atletico's website (see under delanteros) has him as Sinama-Pongolle and that good enough for me. I hope no one's offended but I'm moving it now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, or maybe not (damn you Dawi!) File this under requested admin moves please (along with TV Guide / TV Guide (magazine) if any of you admin folk are listening). Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French habit tends to hyphenate names to split first name and surmane. (I'm not quite clear, I know...)--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Honours"

User:81.79.205.128 has been adding "Honours" sections to lots of managers' articles, but insists on including promotions and cup runners-up finishes - for example, s/he added five promotions (none of them as champions) and two League Cup runners-up finishes to Bruce Rioch's article. To my mind, finishing third is not an "honour", even if it does get you promoted, and a cup final defeat isn't one either - what do others think.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Promotions and good performances can show up in the prose of the article. If you're not the winner, you haven't won any sort of honour. Adding stuff like that could make some articles unwieldy in really short order. While I feel for the clubs that have never won anything or that underachieve, dressing them up with false laurels doesn't serve any purpose. Wiggy! (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking Alex Ferguson, I wouldn't argue. And I really don't like the layout the anon in question has been using. But if we're talking Rioch, I'd say taking a Third Division club to a League Cup final, even if they lose, and even if they are called Aston Villa, is an achievement. For club articles, the style-guide Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Achievements says we're supposed to include second places, except for big clubs. It'd be pretty inconsistent for the club's article to include runners-ups but for their manager's article to omit them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also saying you shouldn't add those that got runner up medals for cup finals also? Govvy (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that's clubs, I'm under the impression players are for wins only. chan dler · 22:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ - for most players, reaching a Cup Final is the highlight of their career and should quite rightly be listed under "Honours". They get a medal for coming runners-up so why should it not be considered an honour. Likewise, coming runner-up in a League tournament is often the greatest achievement in many players' careers. I think the Honours section of the Bruce Rioch article (i.e. Struway's version) is perfect. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been irked about this for a while. While I don't agree with runners-up (or, as I noticed today, fourth place) being an honour, I've not been too strict on it, not wanting to upset the apple cart (although sometimes I can't resist [the first quote is mine]), but if the consensus is against their inclusion... - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Benitez' Rant

I'm somewhat rusty on what constitutes worthy article material, but Rafael Benitez' Rant should, at best, be a merge into Rafa's article, yes? - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's PROD material in my opinion, not even worth a merge. --Soccer-holic (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps worthy of a short mention in Rafa's article, but not a own article... "On a press conference Benitez took up a note with what he said was facts about Alex Ferguson getting preferable treatment, christened 'Rafa's rant' the press." or something.. Does Keegan's rant have a article, dont think so? chan dler · 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prod it and give whoever created it a heads up about Wikinews which is where this kind of thing really belongs. Nanonic (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rafa's main article under a section titled something like 'Controversy' or 'Relationship with other managers'. Giant Snowman 12:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worst. It's inherently POV. "Rant" is perjorative and it's not our task to do that. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've prodded it. Gossippy nonsense which will quickly be forgotten. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been de-PRODded..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes: Relegation and promotion

I've just spotted something on an article on a Serbian football club (FK Obilić) that I thought was rather neat. Alongside with the writing Relegated and Promoted in the infobox when the club has been relegated or promoted, it used this: & . Have a look on TSV Rain am Lech, I've applied it there for a trial, without actually writing promoted. I always found writing promoted or relegated in the infobox rather cumbersome. What do people think, is just a simple green arrow good enough to tell that a club has been promoted? EA210269 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think at least

(link to promoted) or something like that, because, especially for non-football involved readers it will probably not be 100% clear chan dler · 04:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, could we make a template with the arrow, linking directly to an article titled Promotion and relegation in football (soccer) where we explain how it works in football compare to other, predominently North American sports, where no promotion/relegation exists and a franchise system is in place? Would people use it or stick to just writing promoted/relegated?EA210269 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion and relegation already exists. There is no need to append "...(soccer)" to the title as many (most) sports use promotion and relegation systems outside North America -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually a lot simpler, just use it, for example, like this and it tells all it needs:

&

. EA210269 (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not keen: to me, including big blocky images in primary colours looks like dumbing down, and actually gives less information than the word promoted or relegated: it assumes that people will either look at the link, or guess what the arrows mean. Kevin McE (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on cluttering up the infoboxes with more images either. Just use the word promoted or relegated, linked if you feel it's worth it (personally I don't), but in the case of English clubs you might want to link it to the English football league system article rather than a generic promotion/relegation article. - fchd (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. The arrows add nothing that the words relegated or promoted don't supply. If the reader doesn't understand promotion and relegation, they won't understand it any better with an apparently random picture of an arrow next to the word, and for all sorts of MoS/accessibility/common-sense reasons, the arrow couldn't be used without the word. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's very unclear. A person who's not very "sports-savvy" could easily see an "up arrow" and simply think it means the team's performance has improved comapred to the previous season..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struway has it spot-on; the accessibility issues with replacing text by images are considerable. The potential gain is next to zero, but we may lose readability for some users. Knepflerle (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, don't crucify me, it was only a suggestion! Oh well, now I know what Galilei felt like when he proposed the Earth spun around the sun! EA210269 (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, you're under house arrest and becoming seriously worried that you may be burned at the stake? Wow! To be serious, though, I think you may have alighted on a good idea, but thought of a dubious place to use it. I suggest, before throwing it out with the bathwater, people consider whether the arrows might be used in places such as the end-of-campaign tables in the national season round-ups (eg 2006–07 in English football). I suggest they would be clearer than the current use of the letters 'C', 'P' and 'R', which expect the reader to be familiar with the operation and vocabulary of the leagues they are looking up – that is usually true, but it is perhaps unreasonable to assume it as a default. Wikipedia isn't only there for people who already know everything!

I would argue that the 'C' for 'champions' is next to fatuous anyway – the team at the top of a table doesn't really need a label to point out that it is top of the table. Also, there are times when table-topping teams are not promoted (eg from non-league), and the 'C' doesn't differentiate between promoted and non-promoted champions. After this, the advantage of arrows is that they don't require the reader to know that 'P' stands for 'promotion' and 'R' for 'relegation', which isn't quite as obvious as you might think. For example, sometimes over the decades the teams at the bottom of a table have been 'R' for 're-elected', and people unfamiliar with particular football leagues might think that going down is called 'demotion' or some other such word.

No doubt there are drawbacks that I have overlooked, but I think it's worth considering. Grubstreet (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whelanmk

This user has been adding categories and name/ethnic information without a source to a number of footballers' articles. In addition to being incivil when asked to stop, this user's contributions have continued in this manner. Many of his edits need reverting. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's a kid messing about. I've given him one gentle templated warning for changing Olivier Dacourt's name to Olivia, and if he keeps up I suggest people keep up with the warnings. He'll either get bored with it, or he'll get blocked for it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him a few days ago about providing sources for his addition of full names and gave me the reply "Dunno lol". I've handed him warnings for edits made to Pascal Cygan and Lilian Thuram. Seems quite fond of boys with girls' names. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a good possibility that 90.195.162.36 is the same user. The edits are very similar. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears he went a bit over the top this morning with the Russian Muslims category and 2009 deaths and got himself indefblocked. As has the IP. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke too soon... The blocking admin has reduced it to two weeks. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roon Ba

I have seen this site used as the sole reference for results for obscure teams, e.g. this for an article on the Edo Nation national football team. Is there any reason to consider these links as reliable? Stu.W UK (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the site and see nothing which would lead me to believe it's a reliable source. And that Edo Nation national football team article must be the most ridiculous of these "national" team articles yet uncovered. I mean, come on, a team which purports to represent an ethnic group within a country and which appears to have played only one match against another such team on an unknown date? I mean, seriously..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The team MIGHT be a predecessor of the Golden Eagles since Nigeria gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1960 while the match of said team above was played in 1956. However, Google revealed no hits for the team aside from the Wikipedia mirrors, even the Roon Ba link didn't came up. Therefore (unless someone comes up with a better source), the subject fails WP:N.

As for Roon Ba, I don't know what to think of this site. Seems like a collection of all kinds of results to me, but nowhere a word on any kind of Non-FIFA teams or historic sections. --Soccer-holic (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for the competition mentioned, the Alex Oni Cup, there is a link here [2] but that's all I can find. I've been looking through a lot of these 'national team' articles today and there seem to be a number of distinctly weak ones, e.g. the ones in the section below, but also there are a number that have only played a single international game e.g. Gozo national football team and Somaliland national football team. I don't personally have a problem with them, but it would be good to have a notability guideline for national and representative teams.Stu.W UK (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-playing NF Board members

Maasai_national_football_team | Chagos Islands national football team | Rijeka national football team | Wallonia national football team | These 4 teams have never played and I think their articles should just be redirects to the NF-Board as their membership is the only thing that gives them any notability. Is there a process for that like there is for deletion, or should I just edit them into redirects? Stu.W UK (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even redirect them, they're cases for PROD or AfD in my opinion. - fchd (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, PRODed as suggested Stu.W UK (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Club notability query

My knowledge of club notability is non-existent, and so I ask - has Penistone Church F.C. played at a level high enough? Giant Snowman 18:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Madcynic (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about what level they play/played at - if they have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, they're notable, otherwise they're not. - fchd (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really any coverage, as google reveals. Madcynic (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've PRODded it. On an unrelated note, I wonder how often the sign outside the town saying "Welcome to Penistone" gets vandalised by some young wag painting out the "....tone"? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Tracy

Can an admin please re-create the article for Marcus Tracy? He played in the UEFA Cup for Aalborg against Manchester City today. Link for confirmation: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/football/uefa-cup/2008-2009/aalborg-bk-man-city-274414.html Thanks --JonBroxton (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I've been watching that match! Marcus Tracy came on for Kasper Risgard in the second half. I'll restore it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin van den Broek

Can an admin also please restore Benjamin van den Broek - Voetbal International confirms he has made 28 league appearances this season for HFC Haarlem. Regards, Giant Snowman 00:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Camw (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Giant Snowman 10:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN oops

Despite myriad conversations here, consistently (as I recall) settling on the notability threshold for players as participation in a fully professional league, the text at our published record of the policy says, and always (since started in Feb 08) has said, played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure (FPNL club): no wonder editors unfamiliar with this talk page's past keep making articles that we deem inappropriate. So, is that essay going to be changed, or are we going to resuscitate all those Conference players and players in top level leagues of smaller nations? Kevin McE (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and change it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now changed to read "Have played in a fully professional league at national level (FPNL club). A list is available of leagues that are verified as being fully professional. Professionalism is considered to mean that the sport is the main income of all players in the league, not merely that payment is made to players." Kevin McE (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and User:King of the North East promptly changed it back again, claiming that the previous version had been "created through discussion and consensus". And reviewing the lengthy discussion in February '08 he has a point. Are we going to have to open this one all over again? Kevin McE (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE specifies the notability threshold for players as participation in a fully professional league. WP:FOOTY/N was never accepted by the world outside this project as taking precedence over WP:ATHLETE, possibly because it wasn't formally presented as a suggested change before people started using it to take Conference players to deletion review. If there's a problem with WP:FOOTY/N, which I suppose there might be, because people do mention it at AfD discussions, perhaps we need to make it clearer that it's still only a nice idea that we liked but no-one else did, and not actually a notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the simple solution is for people to stop quoting it at AfD, as it was roundly rejected by the wider community..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am more of the opinion that it should be revisited (as above) and re-presented to the wider community for acceptance as it specifically looks at footballing notability which - as has been noted at many an AfD - spawns a myriad of garbage about every kid that ever had a one week trial at Anfield regardless of the actual notability in the scheme of things, and these spawned articles from straight-from-school wannabe journalists are aggressively argued as proof of notability by the players' local fan clubs. On the whole, participants in this wikiproject are more knowledgeable about what is and is not notable in the football world which is the rationale for developing WP:FOOTYN in the first place.--ClubOranje^T 00:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hertha BSC, Hertha BSC Berlin or Hertha Berlin once again...grmbl

A discussion over the name of the article is currently going on at its discussion page, triggered by several back-and-forth pagemoves between Kingjeff and Grant.Alpaugh. The delinquents preferred to use edit summaries as an argument instead of settling their differences via any talk pages. Since the discussion over the name of the club is not the first being led here, please eagerly participate ON THE ARTICLE DISCUSSION PAGE in order to reach a consensus. --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After three days of discussion, a consensus has been found (see the article discussion page for details). A big "Thank you" to everybody who participated. In order to apply the result, can an admin please move the article from "Hertha Berlin" to "Hertha BSC"? --Soccer-holic (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continute on the Football box start discussion

To restart, if I am not incorrect our little football project is the only(?) part of Wikipedia that still isn't using {{Navbox}} based navigational templates, we use the {{fb start}} on "width:47em" instead of full width. Even though It (probably) would be a really big pain in the ass to reformat the whole system to go into Navboxes I think in the long run it's worth it. Personally I find it much easier to edit and customize the Navbox template, and it gives more freedom (in if nothing else width).

I remember a message a while back from User:Thumperward about the season templates we have for competitions on certain OS' can get wrongly aligned because of default fonts which are too large etc. Now problems like these would be fixed by using Navboxes.

I have here played around with a few current templates and re-formated them into working with Navboxes. And have already implemented a try in two templates ({{UEFA Champions League}} and {{UEFA Cup}}) which works with using the {{fb start}} template system, and look pretty much the same. And I'm guessing it would be possible to easily convert the current templates to at least work inside Navboxes so nothing breaks during a transition period.

tl;dr, How about converting our navigational templates into the Navbox standard? chan dler · 07:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should be moving the standardisation wherever possible. A good start would be adopting the styling and page width from {{navbox}}. It's already used piecemeal on footy articles for things like squad lists - we should use it from {{football box start}} as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we should make them the standard size. DeMoN2009 11:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been experimenting with a halfway-house for this - have a look at Rangers F.C.#External links for an implementation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, after further experimentation it seems the best way forward is to take all the current sub-templates and convert them to use the format used in template:2008–09 in European Football (UEFA). Once that's done, {{fb start}} can be trivially changed just to read:
{| class="navbox"
See Scottish Premier League#External links for the proposed end result. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I see at Rangers is the v d e not being white right now. Using the {| class="navbox" cellspacing="0" (cellspacing 0 to just tighten it up) would work. But that goes into the question, should we continue with everything into one border like it is now and in my sandbox or each navbox separate, I think its easier to transition into one box and change the fb start into {| class="navbox" cellspacing="0"</nowiki>.

So then comes the next question, the state of, collapsed, uncollapsed, auto close if its more than one or not possible to collapse etc. Should a mix be usable? Let's say on a club, the club navbox is always uncollapsed but all other are automatic collapsed, so the primary navbox is uncollapsed. This would be easily done by adding |state = {{{state|collapsed}} to all templates and just put in state = plain or uncollapsed when the template is primary. Thoughts? chan dler · 00:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to override the default collapse settings IMO. As for having everything within one border, I'd rather we moved to separate navbox templates everywhere, but that's a decision which can made easily once the sub-templates are all transitioned to use the {{navbox|child}} formatting - at that point the templates could trivially be converted to full navbox instances by a bot. I performed this on several of the high-profile UEFA / Scotland / Rangers templates yesterday, but it's been reverted. Waiting to hear what the specific objections were. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess, though I'd prefer the club templates expanded. But, what about colour scheme. Keep the "football blue" or go over to the "navbox blue" (I rather like the football club my self, just so one can disambiguate them also) chan dler · 08:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer we went for the navbox blue, although it should be noted that the shade used for navbox|child is slightly lighters and thus distinguishes well enough itself. I see little reason to continue using an arbitrarily different shade if we're moving to standardisation in general. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to object to all the edits being made to change the templates, not just because I think they were better as they were but also because there seems to be no consensus for changing them, it just seems to be two or three people agreeing to change them. I would suggest that Template:2008-09 in Scottish football looked far better and was far more user-friendly before it was changed, As I have said already the average user would most likely have no idea what to do with an array of collapsed templates at the bottom of a page. I can't see much problem with the templates at the moment, why not go and do something worthwhile rather than just trying to confuse users. Darryl.matheson (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that {{2008-09 in Scottish football}} was better before, but I thought we were discussing the width of these templates being changed to 100%? That's what I thought we were supporting, not to ruin that template by changing it from columns to rows. DeMoN2009 16:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that the new version of the template is nicer, but this (i.e. full width templates) looks absolutely awful. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the revision system doesn't paint the whole story there, as it transcludes the current version of the templates and not the ones at the time. At the time when the change was made to full-width, all of the sub-templates auto-collapsed, which looked far better. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by "user-friendly" in this context. This version of the template is considerably less user-friendly to readers who rely on screen readers due to being column-based rather than row-based. There are a good number of reasons to move to a navbox-based system - it's far easier to maintain the templates when they don't (ab)use WikiTable syntax instead of simple key-value pairings, we pick up on any improvements made to the {{navbox}} master template automatically, and it means our navigation templates are much more familiar to readers used to the navigation templates used everywhere else on the project. As for the width, I'm prepared to accept that we're probably not ready for a general migration to full-width navboxes at this time, but moving to a navbox-based solution with the current width will make that transition much easier if it ever does happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the new version of Scottish football is more user friendly, but secondly this discussion isn't about designs, more about using Navboxes overall. All current designs are possible to make though the Navbox template so don't disapprove just because of certain design changes you don't agree with. chan dler · 05:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I'd rather we used the simplest code possible, but most of the ones I've converted thus far have been low-hanging fruit - templates which have basically the same output with a straight conversion. {{2008-09 in Scottish football}} was an exception because columns without table headers are bad accessibility-wise, and the data translated readily to a row format. I'd prefer if {{Football in the United Kingdom}} used this layout rather than this one, but that's a harder call. I think Chandler's done an absolutely stellar job with {{International football}} and the like, which I thought were going to be the hardest to do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt notice that you'd already transformed football in the uk, and I would agree that the style you choose it better (for me it makes it smaller, and at 100% width it would probably be much smaller, especially at wide resolutions). Thanks on the International templates, one thing I thought about them is if/when we go to a wider width, to perhaps include the "second tier" competitions like the Europa League/Copa Sudamericana etc for clubs and all these regional tournaments there are in Asia and Africa for national teams. chan dler · 09:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associate Membership

There are a number of teams listed as having OFC or CAF associate membership, e.g. Micronesia and Zanzibar. Does anyone know where I might find some proof of this? The OFC and CAF websites don't mention it. Thanks Stu.W UK (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from googling, I haven't got any clue - but here's those two

HTH Nanonic (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that OFC link, had missed that. My problem with Zanzibar remains though. There is a bbc page here from later than the one above that says Zanzibar were thrown out of the CAF. I can't find anything to say this decision was ever reversed, but as far as I can tell their club teams are allowed to enter CAF competitions, eg the CAF Champions League (in this year's version it was Miembeni SC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu.W UK (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic F.C.

I've come across this article. I can't see anything in the notability guidelines about clubs, only players. Is this club really notable enough to have an article? I'll leave it for this WP to decide on the outcome/nominating for deletion etc as Football is outside my areas of expertise. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our general "rule of thumb" (which isn't actually set down anywhere other than in lots of AfDs, as far as I know) is that a team must have played in the top 10 levels of the English football league system or in the nationwide FA Cup, FA Trophy, or FA Vase competitions. The club played in the Eastern Counties Football League, which is in the top 10 levels (and at the time would probably have been considered to be a few levels higher, but that's most likely OR) and in the FA Cup so probably squeaks through, even if these days it's only recalled as an example of a club with a funny name..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about separate notability guidelines etc. There's a perfectly good guideline for any Wikiepdia article - if there is non-trivial coverage in more than one Reliable Source, it passes the General Notability Guideline, if not, it doesn't. For a club that hasn't been in even regional football for over 30 years, trying to find such coverage on-line may be difficult, but written coverage (e.g. in contempary newspapers) is equally acceptable. - fchd (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wicks

We seem to be arguing about everything do we? I don't see any reasons why an American flag should be next to Wicks name on the D.C. United roster and also on the MLS transfer list because he was born in Germany and hasn't played for any national teams yet, so I think a German flag should be next to his name on both the D.C. United roster and the transfer list. – Michael (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reliable source lists his nationality as "U.S.A" - so unless you find one actually stating that his nationality is German, we should go with that. We souldn't assume anything, especially when evidence states otherwise - nationality is more than where someone is born. :) – Toon ^(talk) 01:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any potential controversy regarding the nationality there shouldn't be a flag. End of story. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Chris, in general, but there shouldn't be any controversy in this particular case. His MLS profile says he was born on a military base in Germany, which would imply to me that he's American, even if the link above hadn't said so explicitly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was at college with two sisters born under similar circumstances, and they were entitled to (and had taken out) both US and West German citizenship, so I'd be surprised if Wicks does not have the same entitlement. When Toon says "nationality is more than where someone is born", he is more correct than perhaps he intends, in a football sense. In terms of eligibility to represent footballing nations, we would also need to know Wicks' mother's and grandparents' nationalities. This guy could theoretically be eligible to play for seven or more countries. Players can even change their choice of nationality after playing in junior internationals (I think Ryan Giggs did this).

So just what purpose does 'flagging' uncapped players serve? It's really only a nationalistic claiming of players – the football equivalent of infant baptism. At the risk of getting all the gung-ho flag-wavers in a tizz, isn't the sensible answer to not flag players until they have been called up for a senior international? At that point, the flag means something definitive, not suppositional. Grubstreet (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would look like poop to have only capped internationals with flags on rosters, though maybe this would be a compromise for the "bold internationally capped players in club rosters" people. For most players, there is simply no argument, and I'm sure for Wicks it is the same thing. Somebody probably went on his MLS profile, where they list birthplace and not nationality. This says "Landstuhl, Germany," so somebody probably didn't think about the fact that there are tens of thousands of American soldiers in Germany on U.S. military bases, which are for all intents and purposes U.S. soil (see: McCain, John). -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I met Wicks several times when he played for Los Angeles Galaxy. He is definitely American. He was born on the medical base in Landstuhl, but grew up and went to high school in San Bernardino, California. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History, again...

I and cha ndl er have different points of view about Sid Kimpton, an article I've just created. I think he is one and the same with a man called George Kimpton in most sources. Chandler disagree. As It is a complex question I would like to bring some opinions and sources as well. Cheers. --Latouffedisco (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not disagree about them being the same person or not, the aricle was not created when you changed the link without explanation, so I checked FIFA.com and they listed him as George Kimpton. Plus the links on that (post revert) article reference someone called George Kimpton so even if Sid was his nickname, the common name is George and the article should be there. chan dler · 08:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daemonic Kangaroo is a Southampton fan and will have access to books which should confirm what he was known as in the UK, certainly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another main controversy is that the link say he won silver medal at 1934 FIFA World Cup... but Kimpton coached France in that competition... I would say they are the same person, if not for that big WC inconsistency. --necronudist (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Christies link says he had a 1934 World Cup silver medal, but doesn't specifically say he won it, maybe one of the Czechs lost it to him in a poker game :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure... the most likely thing in the World! --necronudist (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys - I'm at work now, but I'll take a look tonight and see if I can "arbitrate" and also fill in the details of his playing career. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The names seem weird to me. Other Southampton articles refer to him as Sid, so presumably that's what he was called as a Southampton player, and if his given name was Gabriel then Sid's as good a nickname as any, but if it is the same bloke, how did he become George, which he seems to have been throughout his foreign coaching career? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Berry also appears to have metamorphosed into George when he went to France (although in this case it was at least his middle name)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at some sources. It said he coached in Coventry. An other clue... The Christies link also said he coached RC Paris and Le Havre. That's why I thought "they" are the same person. And, yes there is still this inconstency with the name. With the vast amount of English players and managers in France at that time, and their names transformations, It is hard to find who's who. I've also performed a research at allfootballers.com and no "Kimpton" appeared. Is this a rare name?--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton only joined The Football League in 1920, so his appearances for them would not be listed at allfootballers.com, as he had already left the club by then...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This explains why. I've made an other web research at "GS Kimpton". And I 've found some interesting links. The first [3] is from a famous French encyclopedia, and states that Kimpton has been coaching France since May 1934. The second from a fan site [4], said he coached France in the 1930's, the third, from FC Metz official site shows that he also coached this team [5] at the beginning of 1938.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These links to some English books are also interesting.[6] [7].--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know if he had some links with the US? Like a team trained, a parent there, a competition he took part... A great researcher friend of mine found something interesting, but it's hard to say who's the right Kimpton, the 1934 French coach. Thanks to the French mania of changing names to foreign people...! --necronudist (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had time to look at my Saints reference books - his second name was "Sibley", but he was known as "Sid" - no mention of "George". After details of his playing career, which I'll add to the article later, the article goes on to say "In the thirties he was part of the Czechoslovakian coaching set-up and was given a medal when the national side reached the World Cup final against Italy in 1934. He was captured by the Germans in 1940 and spent the next five years as a P.O.W." The career summary section shows him coaching with the French national team in the 1920s (no specific dates) before coaching at Coventry City (1928), then with the Czech national team (1930s) and then "coaching in France" from 1936–1940. This seems to confirm athat "George" and "Sid" were the same person. I hope this helps. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the article on George Kimpton on French Wikipedia gives his date of birth as 12 August 1887, whereas my references give his DoB as "1888". Unfortunately, French Wiki cites no references so I don't know where this came from. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Daemonic Kangaroo! So it was Gabriel Sibley Kimpton, son of Alfred Kimpton, born in Leavesden on 1886. He married Florence Louisa Goodin on 28 December 1910. --necronudist (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked the author of French wikipedia article. Keep my YOB as by now. --necronudist (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Daemonic Kangaroo. What you've found match with the Christies link. Some French sources also says he was taken as a POW. And yes necronudist, we LOVE changing names of foreigners!Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restarted the french WP article from zero. The work is somewhere "half-way". "George" is, for sure, the name use in France. I have 1930's newpapers interviews of the guy.

For Metz, I'm 99,99% (not to say 100...) sure that he never managed them. I don't know where the "official website" found that one... He was in charge of the RC Paris from 1935 to 1939. And they won the cup in 1939, and he was there with the RC Paris until the 1939 cup final (that's 100% sure).

For the player history, I have nothing for the moment. I never heard about Kimpton playing for Le Havre... but, why not... I will have to check.

I dont understand where the "Christies" world cup runners up medal come from... Same story in a Southampton book... Very strange... "George Kimpton" was, for sure, in the the French team staff (not head coach, only assistant) during the 1934 world cup and he came back to Paris after the game versus Austria (I have the L'Auto newspaper article of the arrival at the Gare de Lyon, with Kimpton, back from the world cup).

I checked France Football around the "Christies" death date, but I found nothing.

Excuse my very poor English... Clio64B (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS : I did contact fr:User:Xavoun on that one. He work on an History PhD about foreign footballers in France ; He will maybe have an answer. Clio64B (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is surely better than mine...! Let us know if you find out something! --necronudist (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now expanded the section covering his playing career. The coaching/managerial career section still needs expanding - I'll leave Clio64B to re-write the article on French Wikipedia and then get it translated into English. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Clio. I've removed the FC Metz manager stint, and put RC Paris from 1935 to 39. For the world cup medal, if I understand well, he used to be in the Czechoslovakia football team staff at one time, and they offer him a medal to thank him, I think.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know nothing about Kimpton with the Czechoslovakia football team staff. It is posible, of course, even during his club tenures (same story with RC Paris and French national team ; He did it at the same time). But, not during the 1934 WC... That's why I dont understand the 1934 medal story. I will contact football historians in central Europe on that one, but the answer will be maybe slow to come back...

For the playing career, I have nothing. I have nothing before 1934... I dont find no "Kimpton" player or manager at Le Havre during the 20's, but sources on that period are very bad... I know that RSSSF put Kimpton manager of Le Havre from 1921 to 1926, but I cannot find a "solid" source for that. For exemple, the (bad) book on Normandy football (Jacques Simon, Un siècle de football normand, 1998, p. 198) begin its "Mister Kimpton" short biography in 1934. Le Havre is in Normandy...

For the date of death, I will put a dime on 1968, because Le Havre call its youth promotion "Kimpton promotion" that year, but I can't find no obtuaries. I keep searching.

I hope that Xavoun will have "fresh" stuff on Kimpton. Clio64B (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a football but rather a general WP question...

...is crosslinking to Wikipedias of other languages permitted? I ask because somebody has put in crosslinks to the German wiki on the shirt sponsors and some kit manufacturers as well in the "Team overview" sections of both Bundesliga season articles (BL1, BL2). --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally it should link to the English-language article, but if there isn't one then I suppose a German one is better than nothing. It's the same as when things are linked to the Wikitionary, or Wikinews. Giant Snowman 12:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. Thanks! --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. Linking the German Wikipedia article doesn't help build the web; better to have a redlink, or to request translation. The German Wikipedia is going to be unintelligible to a majority of our readership, so it isn't an appropriate thing to link from an article body. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm officially back to confusion mode. Is there some kind of policy which would clarify the matter? --Soccer-holic (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so far as I know. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should create that policy - a link in another language is not going to help many readers. DeMoN2009 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've seen elsewhere that links to foreign wikis are soft redirects, thereby entitling the reader to see it's either German or French, but also easily entitling the reader to start a new entry. Or perhaps that's not the done thing either. Peanut4 (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy as far as I am aware. However, I would rather have a link that helps a few people than a lack of link that helps noone. The light-blue link is just as much of an indication of a lack of en.wp article as a red one. Of course, they should be replaced with articles here when there are people willing and able to do so, but as a stop-gap it is better than nothing.

Journeyman (football) article

Does this article have anything to commend it? A very imprecise definition, and a list with a total lack of inclusion criteria. PRODable? Kevin McE (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing seems to make that article commendable. I wasted my time looking at that. Very PRODable. DeMoN2009 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Treble

I've made numerous modifications to the article and I am proposing that the rest of the "other treble/near treble" prose in the article is converted to a table format. Please see the talk page for my proposals. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the European Treble is given its own section when it is exactly the same as a Continental Treble. DeMoN2009 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if a team wins the UEFA Cup instead of the UEFA Champions League, it is still known as a treble or quadruple. DeMoN2009 21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes a few years ago when Liverpool won the F.A. Cup, League Cup and UEFA Cup it was still called a treble Skitzo's Answer Machine 23:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Zinn

This chap is an interesting one - he played internationally for both Israel and the United States, but turned down a professional career in both soccer and American football in order to pursue his academic studies. If anyone has any details of his early footballing career - i.e. dates & numbers of caps for both national teams, his college career, any semi-pro or amateur teams he turned out for - I would be extremely grateful. Cheers, Giant Snowman 23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some info on http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-237362-p-7.html unfortunatly the links to sources there are now dead. I guess one of the problems is that his playing career was before 1960, which may be why the IFA and rsssf says "Who he?". Nanonic (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't play any official A international for Israel or USA. --necronudist (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that proves he hasn't? - sources on his article, plus the Big Soccer forum thread (which isn't WP:RS an therefore cannot be cited), say he has...Giant Snowman 10:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citation states he was a "star on the Israeli national champion soccer team" - ie, Israeli league champions, not national side.--ClubOranje^T 10:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to say he played club football in Israel, not international football; but what about the US? Giant Snowman 10:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also was a standout for the U.S. youth national teams, in the early 1980s, but fizzled out. USA lineups are pretty easy to find (they're even on National Soccer Hall of Fame website) and there's no Zinn... I think he stopped at youth level. Is he still at Georgia Tech? Somebody can try to contact him. --necronudist (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 80s sounds WAY too late, he would have been in his late 30s by then. And yeah, I've e-mailed the chap for some more info. Will let you know what he says. Regards, Giant Snowman 10:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fizzled out bit is about somebody else. Thing is, the source for Zinn playing for the US national team, an introductory speech at the opening of his lab where the info presumably came from the interview for GTAlumni magazine mentioned in the bigsoccer forum thread, webarchived here. Which means, without corroboration, it's effectively only Zinn's word for it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this before I saw the email below... Struway2 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail 1

I just checked my inbox, and received this e-mail from the man himself

From: Zinn, Ben T <e-mail removed>
Sent: Tue 24/03/2009 10:11
To: Philip Copley; <e-mail removed>
Subject: RE: A quick question about your soccer career

Hi Mr. Copley,
I will be happy to work with and would appreciate getting the following information:

What prompted you to create an article about me in Wikipedia?
Where did you get the information about me, which clearly needs updating?

I look forward to your response.
Ben

I have sent him an e-mail back, and will let you know what he says. Giant Snowman 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GiantSnowman! It would be great if he can tell us what matches (at least decade and against who, if he don't remember every detail) did he play for US A-level team. --necronudist (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template color

Which color should be used for the qualification and relegation in J. League 2009? I think the color currently use in J1 are not good. Green is too bright while the red is too dark. Raymond Giggs 08:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't these been standardised yet? It currently uses the same colours as Premier League 2007–08 does (which is probably one of our busiest season articles), so I don't see anything wrong with the colours in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 592: / Line 592: @@
 I have now expanded the section covering his playing career. The coaching/managerial career section still needs expanding - I'll leave [[User:Clio64B|Clio64B]] to re-write the article on French Wikipedia and then get it translated into English.   --[[User:Daemonic Kangaroo|Daemonic Kangaroo]] ([[User talk:Daemonic Kangaroo|talk]]) 06:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 :OK, Clio. I've removed the [[FC Metz]] manager stint, and put RC Paris from 1935 to 39. For the world cup medal, if I understand well, he used to be in the Czechoslovakia football team staff at one time, and they offer him a medal to thank him, I think.--[[User:Latouffedisco|Latouffedisco]] ([[User talk:Latouffedisco|talk]]) 08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
-::I dont know nothing about Kimpton with the Czechoslovakia football team staff. It is posible, of course, even during his club tenures (same story with RC Paris and French national team ; I did it at the same time). But, not during the 1934 WC... That's why I dont understand the 1934 medal story. I will contact football historians in central Europe on that one, but the answer will be maybe slow to come back...
+::I dont know nothing about Kimpton with the Czechoslovakia football team staff. It is posible, of course, even during his club tenures (same story with RC Paris and French national team ; He did it at the same time). But, not during the 1934 WC... That's why I dont understand the 1934 medal story. I will contact football historians in central Europe on that one, but the answer will be maybe slow to come back...
 ::For the playing career, I have nothing. I have nothing before 1934... I dont find no "Kimpton" player or manager at Le Havre during the 20's, but sources on that period are very bad... I know that RSSSF put Kimpton manager of Le Havre from 1921 to 1926, but I cannot find a "solid" source for that. For exemple, the (bad) book on Normandy football (Jacques Simon, ''Un siècle de football normand'', 1998, p. 198) begin its "Mister Kimpton" short biography in 1934. Le Havre is in Normandy...
 ::For the date of death, I will put a dime on 1968, because Le Havre call its youth promotion "Kimpton promotion" that year, but I can't find no obtuaries. I keep searching.

Revision as of 13:10, 24 March 2009

{{Football box start}}

Penalty shootouts

Difference between FC & F.C.?

Outdenting

User:Sarumio again

Fb round2 templates

Notable players sections

Exeter City F.C. list

FK Metalurg Skopje

Anon vandal

Categorisation of Berwick Rangers F.C.

Scott Palguta and User:NovaGrad70

A bit of history...

Nationality

Macedonian First League

About RSSSF... is reliable?

Sinama-Pongolle

"Honours"

Rafael Benitez' Rant

Infoboxes: Relegation and promotion

Roon Ba

Non-playing NF Board members

Club notability query

Marcus Tracy

Benjamin van den Broek

WP:FOOTYN oops

Hertha BSC, Hertha BSC Berlin or Hertha Berlin once again...*grmbl*

Continute on the Football box start discussion

Associate Membership

History, again...

Not so much a football but rather a general WP question...

Journeyman (football) article

Ben Zinn

Template color

Hertha BSC, Hertha BSC Berlin or Hertha Berlin once again...grmbl