Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

France task force

As a long-time creator and editor of France-related football articles, I can't believe that there still isn't a task force for French football. If anybody else would be interested in joining it, I will create Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/France task force, add a new parameter to the {{Football}} template, and set about tagging the existing articles. I would be grateful if any contributors who would consider joining the force leave a message here, so I can gauge how popular this idea is. Cheers, BigDom 07:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I can help you.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Hopefully we can get a couple more people on board. I'll make a start on creating the task force tomorrow. Maybe more people will join once it's actually up and running. BigDom 18:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now created a project page, so any editors who want to, feel free to join! BigDom 07:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As a test I added "France=yes" to the {{Football}} template on the Thierry Henry talk page, but nothing has happened. Presumably something will need to be added to the template. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have left a message at Template talk:WikiProject Football. An administrator will need to add the appropriate code to the template, as it is currently fully protected. Hopefully, that will be done soon and the task force can get properly underway. BigDom 07:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The template has been changed so that adding France=yes puts the article in the applicable categories. Does anyone know of a quick way to tag existing articles or is it going to be a long, long slog? Cheers, BigDom 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think you might go to Wikipedia:Bot requests and ask to have a bot tagging all the articles in related categories, such as Category:Football in France. — Luxic (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll have a look there soon. BigDom 19:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I can recommend User:Xenobot Mk V. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've filed a request with Xenobot. Just looking for some more people to join the task force now! BigDom 16:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

I've noticed over the last few days that there has not been a single soccer (football) related article to appear on the main page during the World Cup yet. I took a look through the list of featured articles for this project and found England national football team manager, which seems like a legitimately related artcile to the World Cup that someone should nominate it. Are there any other ideas? It would be a shame to let the World Cup pass without having a single article from this project appear on the main page. Honestly, I think at least two could appear without much fuss about it being the same subject matter too often on the main page. --SkotyWA^T_C 21:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That article appeared on the main page on April 23, 2010 so that wouldn't work. If Scotland had made the World Cup I'd suggest that one, but I'm not sure what other articles would work...--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the list of featured articles again, Duncan Edwards could work...--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

1930 FIFA World Cup hasn't been mainpaged yet. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because it was still listed as a GA in the project list, oops... Oldelpaso (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

1930 World Cup on 11 July then? WFCforLife (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Does anyone have experience requesting an article for the main page that can do this one? --SkotyWA^T_C 08:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have many points but date relevance should be 1. It really would be a good choice IMO. Quality wise, Dab links is good, A single dead link needs to be fixed, and a quick clean up of the prose would be useful ("All" is used too much maybe). There are no other requests for tat date so might be worth a shot.Cptnono (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Zombie433

Can i open a request to admin to action with him? He is often creating hoax or read wrongly and then create a very wrong information. Other problem is provide a transfer fess but not citing any reliable source or he wrote a sum with cite, but the references material itself did not say the sum (Ondřej Mazuch case). For the serious case, there is no single reliable source he provided for Fabio Borriello current club (i can't find any either), but he wrote his current club is A.C. Rodengo Saiano. And for Mayola Biboko, the source his cite, just wrote Visé against Union Namur, but he wrote Mayola Biboko current club is Union Namur! Matthew_hk tc 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Zombie433 adds loads of imaginary stats to relative obscure footballplayers (in my opinion). You were right to remove them for Mayola Biboko Correct was : Vise 2004-05 13-1 (or 13-2), 2005-06 Vise 1-0 and Spa 13-1, 2006-07 Bas Oha 19-0, 2007-08 Vise 10-0. Nothing in Belgium in the top 4 divisions the last two seasons. Source : [www.bsdb.be] It's free but you need to register to enter the site. Cattivi (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This user is an absolute pain in the proverbial backside. As an editor interested in French football, I have been unfortunate enough to have come across him more than most. Not only does he perform countless questionable edits, he also refuses to converse with any user whose native language isn't German. His current efforts seem to be adding "notable players" sections to obsure French clubs, despite such sections having been widely criticised in numerous previous discussions here. BigDom 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

He has been there for years...but doesn't observe English wikipedia rules. His edits are often incomplete, when they are not wrong. He also NEVER talks to others...--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Zombie433 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)for ref.

I have noticed they don't reply to posts. Uncivil. And won't talk unless it's German? Even worse as this is English Wikipedia. Yet they claim "near native level of English". Not the only 'silent' editor unfortunately. Can only try to get their attention. (block?) Adding false information is vandalism. But over 83,000 edits and only 1,700 deleted, which seems below average. Only blocked once in Dec 2009, for 4 minutes! here Despite lots of varied warnings esp AfD right from their first edits. here Seems very odd! --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, he makes lots of edits on articles of obscure football players. Not easy to verify for most Wikipedians. You can Assume Good Faith once , maybe 10 times, but what about one hundred or a thousand times? This user should be asked he provides sources for all his edits. He adds sources and links, but these only partly support his edits. When he adds playerhistory.com as a reference [1] He adds contradicting information . I call this source manipulation. For me this is the worst kind of vandalism as it suggest knowledge that just isn't there. He has 6 blocks on German wiki. 62.194.188.112 (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC) <--Sorry Cattivi (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had issues with the user as well. He adds contradicting information to confused users. The user has created many players' biographies who fail WP:ATHLETE and he inserts bogus information into the infobox, which leads many to think they (the players' biographies) are legit. Shocked to see some users finally and officially complain about him. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Who HASN'T had issues with this guy...? Can an admin advise on any realistic action we can take, thanks. GiantSnowman 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone had any success on his talk page? My experience has been that he is making good faith edits, just careless ones. I usually undo the edits that are contradicted by existing sources, but I only run across this user occasionally. It seems like the problem is that he is prolific and unresponsive; not that he is vandalizing or purposely being misleading. Jogurney (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have left him numerous messages, none of which received a response. The problem I have with him is that his command of English is tenuous at best; he says he can write at a near-native level, but he can't. His grammar is appalling, his sentence structure is clearly based on German and not English, and more often than not he uses the wrong word for the context. The problem is that he is clearly trying to add stuff and make positive changes; he just does it SO poorly that you constantly have to clean up after him, and he never responds to constructive criticism from other editors. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Borriello is here or google listen by Rodengo. for other infos worked with google and match infos from serious newspaper. The stats can find over google and the player / clubname or e-mail at the club. Few players are list with stats in Club chronics in book form other the book Football Almanach.

Several users here worked with Unserious sources like ZeroZeroFootball, Transfermarkt, Weltfussball this platforms are incomplete and user edit! the stats there are incomplete and few plays are listen in wrong clubs! Magazines and newspaper are seriously as these Unserious sources! talk: Zombie 433

Thanks for coming here to talk Zombie433. Keep communicating and I'm sure we can sort out any issues. --ClubOranje^T 12:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, certainly where Transfermarkt is concerned. But without knowing what sources you use, the reader cannot tell whether your sources are serious or not.

Can I suggest something we should all be doing, not just you :-) Every time you add stats to a player, you also, at the same time, add a reference to the source you used. If you found the stats on a webpage, then reference the webpage you used, not just the google search. If you found them in a magazine or book, then reference the magazine or book. Whatever it is. Then the reader, and other editors, will know where the stats came from and can judge whether they are reliable or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have messaged Zombie433 on two or three occasions, receiving ZERO replies, with messages being removed in a matter of minutes. I have politely asked him to watch his tense and overlinking, he continues to engage in both (the problem with the latter being that he writes like he talks to friends about a transfer - i.e. "X team have signed Y player" from - overlinking, unneedded - to an contract of Z years" (the "an contract" being VERBATIM!). As seen in Onésimo Sánchez (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=On%C3%A9simo_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=354291436&oldid=354210835), he, being true to his M.O. of only inserting FOREIGN sources, removed the ESPNsoccernet source, and added a Spanish-speaking one...The bit that several users also addressed here, of him only replying to German editors is quite distressing, to say the least.

Remembered this now: he also creates - wrongly! - sections called COACHING CAREER for club presidents or directors of football and akin, those are not managers last time i checked...I suggested he tried a different approach regarding that, he did not care to respond and continues, as much as he does with the stuff i addressed above (overlinking, etc).

Have no idea of actions that might be taken, which leads me to warn you folks of an even worst case, User:Pararubbas (please see below Zombie's entry). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

If people genuinely think this is a case of a WP:COMPETENCE problem, then take it to ANI. We needn't tolerate editors who can't work with the community indefinitely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This case is already at ANI here. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's more of an incoherent rant than an action plan. Prepare a list of evidence (the blanking of the notice that was just given to said editor, for instance), and propose an indefinite block until such point as the user is prepared to acknowledge the problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And so we go back to WP:AGF. If you want to go down this route, be sure a notice was blanked; because it may have just been archived. Ensure the user is uncivil before accusing user of being uncivil; (a lot of "user won't respond" comments, and yet after one polite notice I see said user here responding). Be sure that changes are deliberately wrong. What I see, (and I stress it is only my view) is a "English not my first language" user making largely positive contributions. Perhaps some of the stats come from alternate sources and may be questionable, possibly including cup matches? possibly just not very reliable, or gossip columny sites? that is not vandalism. Perhaps user is simply making errors due to language difficulties, interpretations or other reasons. Maybe some edits need checking and or cleaning up, but this user has contributed a whole lot more to en.wikipedia.com than I have to de.wikipedia.com. Beware Systemic Bias - doesn't just apply to articles. This particular Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia may be (1) a woman, (2) technically challenged, (3) formally educated, (4) non English speaker, (5) coloured, (6) aged over 50, (7) from a majority-Atheist country, (8) from a 3rd World nation, (9) from the Southern Hemisphere, and (10) employed as a blue-collar worker not studying anything - but maybe their contributions are overall still beneficial. --ClubOranje^T 12:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

...and sorry if that gets lost in translation, it is not a dig at (criticism of) anyone, juts demonstrating a point. --ClubOranje^T 12:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; however, looking at that archive, I left this user a message myself about unsourced edits to BLPs practically a year ago. Adding unreferenced, controversial or just plain bogus content to BLPs is not merely annoying but can be actively harmful (there's an open OTRS ticket for a US player requesting deletion of his article for just that reason right now), and if there's no sign of an improvement then we have to take action to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

German Wiki almost 2000 edits 6 blocks, English Wiki 83000+ edits, one short accidental block. Does this mean anything?. Cattivi (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys are just insane and I guess you didnt care for too long. Its terrible how his edits start to affect german Wikipedia because there are enough people who just copy the stats into other Wikipedias. Nearly every edit is unsourced, the few that can be checked are wrong in most cases. I would be really glad, if u find a solution fot that problem, it isnt just one of en.Wikipedia, he affects all projects with his imaginative edits. Greetings from de.WP --Ureinwohner (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that his edits are uncited? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I make a great many uncited edits particularly to the USSF D2 articles. The match results are completely public and the match attendance is referenced in the match results sections of each game, but I don't cite each edit. So unless you have some specifics, it doesn't particularly help to throw around vague accusations like how often he's been blocked on the German Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I do and everyone else, if theres no problem to find the specific information. Just one of the latest - african league appearances: Vincent Aboubakar (you'll find several hundreds if not thousands edits like that). Cameroonian league isnt really something u find all over the net, in this case he also writes, that Aboubakar was promoted to the first team in summer 2009, so there was only one season to get his 31 (6), but they played only 24 matches in the league [2]. mysterious. Or Brice Owona. He uses this Ref to source he was starting his career in 2002 at Fortuna Yaoundé and again unsourced league appearances, neither his club profile at Cotonsport nor any other reference mention them. --Ureinwohner (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying they don't play any non-league games, etc. It's all insinuation on your part. I have no further desire to investigate these purported claims. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What he is saying, Walter, is that this user has a long history of inserting all sorts of dubious and unsourced information into BLPs. Whether or not that user's edits happen to eventually be discovered to work out (several of them have evidently not), it is not "insinuation" to doubt them: it is simply good practice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what he's saying. I also understand what he's implying. What I'm saying is that he hasn't provided any evidence to back what he's saying. In order to apply a permanent block to this user, which is what I think he is requesting, we would have to have some specific instances where dubious material was added to a biography of a living footballer. We would also need to balance that against the myriad of viable edits he makes. We would then need to approach the editor with the irrefutable evidence and request explanation. We would have to provide some ground-rules for his continued editing: providing general references, in English, to support edits, supplied in at least in the comments. While I understand that may be difficult due to the volume of edits this user makes, we can't really sanction another editor until there is some specific proof. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I dont ask for instant permaban, but u should really start to demand for his sources and explain which of them meets criteria for reliable sources - and which not. --Ureinwohner (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle Finger?

I think the message of Zombie 433 is clear Abdul Aziz Moshood Or can someone find a reference of this player actually playing in the Éast German Oberliga or Regionalliga Süd His knowledge of the Finnish language is remarkable, mine is non-existent. Anyone with some basic understanding of the Finnish language out here? Was Moshood on trial? Did he play for the first team or maybe the second team? Moshood happens to be the footballplayer that made me aware of this user. User Ureinwohner recently removed information Cattivi (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you do not need to know much Finnish to see from this picture cited as a source that there are no years given for his suspected time at Dresden and Stuttgart. However, I highly doubt that Moshood played for the first teams of either club. His article states that he was with Dresden in 1989 - which is not possible since East German sports politics did not allow foreign players to be used at that time. He is also not credited with any first-team time since 1991 by Dresden's archive. There is also no evidence to be found (at least in German online sources, it might be different with Stuttgart newspaper archives) that Moshood was with Stuttgart at the time in question. So unless someone wants to ask the player directly about his club career, there is no sufficient evidence for the facts mentioned regarding his German clubs in the article. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Stuttgarter Kickers Archive [3] doesnt know his name as well, his answer is just typical: Google urself (result see soccer-holic) or use "Almanach" Problem is, the 1995/1996/1997 almanachs only contain the final league tables of the Regionalliga, no squads (i asked for the specific almanach - no answer). There is also a Regionalliga Süd archive which doesnt know about Moshood. --Ureinwohner (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And his second answer..., I should do my own research in finnish newspapers, ask his club or look at the finnish Wikipedia. Moshoods article there was created one month after the one in en.WP, so u can guess where the data comes from. --Ureinwohner (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Atlantis FC site that he linked here does say that Moshood played in Germany for Dresden and Stuttgarter Kickers. However, it also says (according to my translator) he has played for Nigeria once. Madcynic (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Level 4 of "English"

As illustrated here (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jordi_Figueras_Montel&diff=344686800&oldid=344010564)... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I will admit it's not particularly good English, but maybe because I speak German, I understand it. Compared to the current structure, it's not much worse.

Current structure (emphasis mine) : "After an unsuccessful short spell at Real Madrid (to where he arrived at age 18 from hometown's UE Lleida) - only appeared for the C side - Jordi moved to Celta de Vigo in the 2008 summer, initially being assigned to the reserves.

"In 2009–10, he was firmly established in Celta's starting XI, with the Galicians in Segunda División. However, on 17 February 2010, he was sold to Russia's FC Rubin Kazan for €1 million, joining compatriot César Navas.".

Sold? I don't think he's a slave or under contract to the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Overcategorization

This is another issue where this user has been engaging profusely, against all recommendations: creating cats for ALL clubs, whether they are obscure or not. Today, i found CD San Fernando players - all the respect for this club, but isn't this getting too much? Besides, in the case of one of the players, David Barral, he only played there as a youth. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't see much of a problem with that, to be fair. I understand from the CD San Fernando article that they spent many years in the Spanish league structure, including several seasons in the second division. The club may be defunct, but it's hardly obscure. As to youth players, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 28#Category:FC Example players, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 31#Football player categories, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 32#Youth player categories, undoubtedly more, see where it gets you :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this vandalism in a soccer article?

User:83.212.78.223 seems to be removing "F.C." from the infoboxes of a wide variety of soccer club articles. I'm not familiar enough with soccer team naming conventions to tell if this is vandalism or not. If someone could check through the contributions and revert them if needed, that would be great. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of the changes are vandalism. The anon continues to change articles. A few changes are likely valid. Have reported IP to be blocked though. However someone who knows more about greek football should review the changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is more like personal preference than vandalism. It's not like he's blanking the page or submitting immature remarks. --MicroX (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The anon is from Patras, Akhaia in Greece. IP was blocked for 24 hours. Some of the edits like removing F.C. are likely a linguistic preference. Others aren't and that's why the anon was blocked. However, we need a Greek football fan to review the edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup statistics#Goal success by elevation

If we must have "statistics" articles (and thereby ignore WP:NOTSTATS, but anyway) let's keep it to the official stuff published by FIFA.

Two classic cases of WP:SYNTH: 2010 FIFA World Cup statistics#Goal success by elevation (and the associated columns in the Stadia section above) and 2010 FIFA World Cup statistics#By Club. Can we put an end to this before we end up with sections on "Goals by boot sponsor" or "Yellow cards by elevation"? Knepflerle (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On a related matter, could someone please keep an eye on Special:Contributions/UtubeGodwin, as they don't seem to get our WP:COPYVIO guidelines, and keep removing tags calling for references. Knepflerle (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the goalscorer by club sections. It's irrelevant and seems to be original research. Digirami (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Seeing as at least one other person is on the same wavelength I've removed the goals-by-elevation table as original research. If any one is truly, truly desperate to recover the statistics, they can work them out from the table in 2010 FIFA World Cup statistics#Stadia. Knepflerle (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

International club competition records move

Dantetheperuvian (talk · contribs) has moved International club competition records to List of confederation club competition winners. Should have this been discussed? And that title doesn't seem very accurate. --MicroX (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This should absolutely have been discussed. I agree entirely that the new title inaccurate, and unless there is any objection I'll move it back. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This list only includes all international competitions organised by UEFA/CSF/CONCACAF/CAF/AFC/OFC (the six Confederations) and FIFA Club World Cup winners. Is it necessary to discuss the change of title?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The title needs a grammar edit or something because the word confederation is redundant and misplaced in the title. --MicroX (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be redundant if not all international club competitions were organized by the Confederations? What would be the most appropriate title for the article?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You are contradicting your move. Confederation should be removed from the title because, effectively, not all international club competitions in that article are organized by the confederation as some are inter-confederation tournaments like the club world cup. My main point is that the title you have chosen—List of confederation club competition winners— is bad English. Confederation cannot go before the word "club" because it implies the idea of "confederation clubs". Football clubs are just clubs. In general, the title is a mess. --MicroX (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Confederation" can be a qualification of "club competition". Kevin McE (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

FIFA defines a set of international club tournaments such as "Confederation club competitions" (FIFA Club Licensing Regulations - Extraordinary aplication of the club competition licensing for entering club competition, p.20: "If a club qualifies for a confederation club competition based on its sporting results [...]"). I agree to add the term "inter-confederation" in the title...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that we are starting to complicate things. We need a simple and precise title. I recommend this: List of international club competition winners --MicroX (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That title is, IMHO, very generic, considering the content of the article, which includes only international competitions organized by the 6 Confederations, Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup. This should not be specified in the title to avoid conflicts with the other tournaments (Fairs Cup, Latin Cup, Central European Cup, etc.)?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

World Cup Finals

Worian (talk · contribs) has changed many significant details of all of the articles relating to ALL the various World Cup Finals eg 1930 FIFA World Cup Final. This includes changing the kits and the times of all the goals. I have changed some of the goal times back to reflect the times shown in the FIFA reports of the games but someone with more knowledge than me of kits might like to take a look....most of what has been done looks suspect and a bit of a mess.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

After checking the sources (and FIFA, as used in the articles, is definitely the way to go here), I reverted all of his edits as clear vandalism. Unfortunately, I'm not a sysop, so any disciplinary actions, if desired, need to be executed by someone else... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup

There are a few editors who are looking for match details to be added to 2010 FIFA World Cup. My argument is that this article is supposed to be a general article and there are several articles that have details. Since the general article is already loaded with templates, tables, and other nonsense, it's taking a long time to load. I would like to come to some sort of conclusion on the inclusion of this material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What kind of match details? --MicroX (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It was an accident. --MicroX (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Standard procedure after controversial non-calls required, I guess

In wake of the events during the Germany–England match (the ball was clearly not in, was it?), I would suggest to keep an eye or two on Jorge Larrionda, 1966 FIFA World Cup Final and the likes. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Since pre-emptive protection is not allowed, I would suggest that we follow the same basic procedure as any other contreversial subject: Watch pages related to the controversy, and if vandalism gets out of hand, request protection. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sputnik, that's two voices expressing the same opinion... Where did I request pre-emptive protection or similar measures? *confusedly scratches head* --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This also brings to attention the Goal-line technology article - which isn't very good. An advocates 'For' and 'Against' seems asinine as well because as far as I can see it there are roughly eight billion for and one against.--EchetusXe 17:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess England's pathetic second-half performance will spare his blushes and let Sepp Blatter off the hook. He "should have gone to Specsavers". - Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

@Soccer-holic. The pre-empitive protection remark was meant with regards to the section title and as an explanation of my own comment, not a reply to yours. Hope that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry too much. Most of the hype and blame is turning towards Capello (who thankfully is protected). Besides, it will have largely blown over by the time Argentina reach the semis. WFCforLife (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Raimondas Žutautas

On the above's page, it says that he played for Kings AFC and played one game and scored 6 goals. is this true or is it vandalism?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say vandalism, I've removed the info from the article anyways as it is unreferenced. GiantSnowman 01:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas

After leaving my opinion in the discussion above of User:Zombie433, i present you an even worst case, a true bonafide vandal, User:Pararubbas: edits exclusively on soccer, has not written in more than two years one single edit summary, nor has he engaged in any conversation, here at WPFOOTY or regarding the block threats he has been fairly receiving. In the first 20 or so socks (User:Pep10, User:Pasd08, User:Kakd08, etc), he removed links and refs just because, engaging in overlinking like no other, and having an appalling grasp of English, as Zombie433, even though he edited from England!

Also (and this is quite serious regarding WP standards), beware! He has done on more than occasion this: opening two accounts simultaneously, and opening a new account minutes after having one blocked. User/admin Satori Son and i have been cooperating extensively to keep him out of the project, but it seems all but impossible. He has gone as far as re-creating a page after this administrator has deleted it!

The important data you need to "defend yourselves" can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Pararubbas). Regarding the latter - his sockpuppets' names - they are almost always a random combination of the same letters and numbers, so it's pretty ease to trace when he has a new account.

Whether i get a response to this report or not (most likely the second will happen), i have duly informed my "teammates" of the situation regarding this "user", work done! Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Silly me! Forgot this: his current account is QAZXCVBNM098 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Qazxcvbnm098). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for bothering everybody, again. Do i edit in Wikipedia? Yes, sir, massively. Do i feel like a part of the project? No way, but no problem, i don't mind working alone, and i'll deal with this vandal accordingly. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that Pararubbas has been permanently banned (along with his many sockpuppets). What else needs to be done? Jogurney (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• A ban is all what i hope for, with this "person". However - and especially given the fact i see that most discussions brought forward receive reply in sometimes less than 30 minutes - i also hope for some kind of reply to my WPFOOTY discussions and messages in general, as i think almost everyone does. Not the first time (in both cases) i feel like am not doing anything here with the "general population", because i do not receive a single word of feedback. Sorry i if created any misunderstading. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are seeking advice as to whether an editor's actions are in keeping with the practices that would be tolerated here, then by all means check out your inclination as to how to respond here, but if you only want to voice your apparent disgust, then there is not much we can do here. In such cases, you need to go to WP:AIV. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes KEV, i am fully aware of that. It's just a matter of exchange of words after a discussion has been brought up, nothing to do with blocks and bans (this "person" has been blocked every time a new account has begun), but just compare this discussion with the very similar of Zombie433 (not a vandal this one, but someone who does not write one single summary, and does not respond to people, politely or not, unless they address him in German): the discussion about him is brought up, thousands of remarks in one, two hours. I bring this one up, no words in one day?

Maybe i'm seeing it all wrong, probably a good night's sleep will fix it. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• • you're doing great Vasco and we all love your work. All praise to VascoAmaral. Sandman888 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thierry Henry

Henry was formally released by Barcelona today. Just a head's up for editors to be on the look out for unsourced additions which claim he has signed for other clubs, especially New York Red Bulls and West Ham United. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell would Thierry Henry sign for West Ham? More chance of him signing for Shamrock Rovers.--EchetusXe 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

They'd have to fight off bids from US Dunkerque HB and Montpellier HB --ClubOranje^T 00:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Handball jokes. Cute. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Darn, my sarcasm detector just exploded. BigDom 05:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NCAA Coaches

One Wikipedia user has recently created many profiles for NCAA Soccer coaches. Someone has suggested that the Mike Avery (soccer) article be deleted. I disagree, the NCAA is very well known and the article subjects are usually relatively high profile coaches despite not managing/coaching at a professional level. For example, one NCAA coach (Dan Gaspar) is the goalkeeping coach for the Portugal national football team.

Personally, I think that WP:Footy should be looking to keep the articles and I'm interested to see what others think. TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest this guy is possibly notable for his playing career. Hack (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very much on the fence with NCAA coaches, but the recent edits on his playing career establish his notability beyond any doubt. Nice work Hack! WFCforLife (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While the NC double A is prominent, you'd have to convince me that soccer in the NCAA carries the weight of football and basketball. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge it's not as popular as 'American football' but I think that WP:Footy should cover the NCAA soccer coaches in more detail. Can WP:footy not be expanded to deem them as acceptable by default?TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking is one thing. Can you give some stats on the popularity of the sport in the NCAA when compared to other collegiate sports? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the benefit of that? We both know it's not as popular as basketball and American football. The 2008 attendances can be found here TheBigJagielka (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it as popular ace their Ice Hockey teams? Field Hockey? Golf? Darts? If you can't give us an idea of their relative popularity, then I can't start to support the idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Behind American Football, Basketball & Ice Hockey. See here TheBigJagielka (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

@User:WFCforLife : Recent edits do not establish notability for playing career beyond any doubt. The reference provided is only a club bio, possibly sourced from his self provided CV, full of weasel words, no stats provided by reliable sources, only a vague mention that he played for a club somewhere around the time they played their one and only season in the NAPSL. Every reference I find is the same; "he enjoyed stints with Real Santa Barbara and Askims" Did he actually take the field for the first team in a competitive match?--ClubOranje^T 11:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I can't see how the recent additions show notability whatsoever seeing as there's no evidence that he actually played a professional match. For what it's worth, I don't think that NCAA coaches should be inherently notable (nor can I understand why college athletes should be either, but they are), they should have to have received significant coverage like everyone else. @TheBigJagielka, at the AfD you claim that there are over 2000 GHits for Mike Avery. If that's the case why would you want to change WP:FOOTYN when he would most likely pass the GNG anyway? Seems like a waste of time to me. BigDom 12:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dom, I'd like to see it changed because as I type this, the discussion is still ongoing on whether he should be deleted because of his playing credentials. A change in the rules would be advantageous for wikipedia's NCAA soccer coverage. The NCAA soccer as far as wikipedia goes is in a purgatory state, not quite amateur but not professional. It should come under WP:Footy. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But players from the English Football Conference are not amateur but not fully professional. Same with the top division of Finland, Wales and New Zealand. The consensus has been for years that players and managers in all these leagues are not inherently notable. Why should the NCAA be any different? We can't allow NCAA players without allowing all other semi-professionals. BigDom 14:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for players to be allowed. I'm asking for NCAA coaches to be made an exemption to the rule. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Being pedantic never solves anything. You still haven't made any case for why NCAA coaches should be inherently notable when coaches from other semi-professional leagues are not. Coaches in the NCAA do not have some divine right to an article. BigDom 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a go at cleaning up the Avery article. He's not included a list of 1990 Real San Bernadino players[4] and the club in Sweden he is supposed to have played for was third tier at best (depending on the year he was there). While I can find evidence of him having played in some capacity for the Indiana Invaders, it was at PDL level, below the fully professional level. I'm not sure much more can be done unless he is notable for his college playing career. Hack (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: would be advantageous for wikipedia's NCAA soccer coverage. You still haven't made the case that NCAA soccer coverage is recognized. Does it get coverage on networks? Does it get coverage in news sources? We would have to compare it to other coverage for other similar NCAA sports. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the comparison - if a subject (player, coach, etc) meets the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:ATH, it shouldn't matter if the sport is more or less popular than another. Hack (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The request is to make the football notability include "Soccer Coach of NCAA School" and that, by itself, would be sufficient notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NCAA soccer coaches would be covered under Wikipedia:NSPORT#College_athletes. Hack (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup neutrality

I have brought up an interesting section of the FIFA World Cup page up for discussion since I suspect neutrality is an issue here:

“ Brazil's victory in 1958 in Sweden is the only time a non-European team won a World Cup in Europe. A European team has never won the World Cup outside of Europe, as all World Cups hosted in either South America, North America, or Asia have been won by a South American team. Only twice have consecutive World Cups been won by teams from the same continent – when Italy and Brazil successfully defended their titles in 1938 and 1962 respectively. ”

This paragraph clearly entites that, somehow, winning a World Cup in Europe is more important than winning it elsewhere. This is trying to implemment a Europe vs Rest of the world figure...far from being neutral. Not to mention, it does not mention that Argentina also won a World Cup outside South America. I propose a change to a more neutral point of view which touches every important aspect of this section:

“ Brazil and Argentina are the only two teams to win a World Cup outside their continent; Brazil came out victorious in Europe (1958), North America (1970 and 1994) and Asia (2002) while Argentina won a North American World Cup in 1986. As a result, South America is the only continent to have teams win outside its zone. No European team has ever won a World Cup outside Europe. Only twice have consecutive World Cups been won by teams from the same continent – when Italy and Brazil successfully defended their titles in 1938 and 1962 respectively. ”

I don't read it as it's harder to win in Europe, I think it clearly points at European teams' inability to win outside Europe. And your comment "As a result, South America is the only continent to have teams win outside its zone. No European team has ever won a World Cup outside Europe. " sounds rather un-neutral as well, trying to push down European teams. No African team has won the World Cup outside of Africa either, but that's not in there. The reason Argentina isn't mentioned could be that they haven't won outside America. (which in some countries is treated as one continent) Rightly or wrongly (not really rightly) some people even consider Mexico part of South America by just forgetting it's actually in North America just because it's a Spanish speaking coutnry chandler 12:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How is that "un-neutral"? LOL Only South American teams have won a World Cup outside its borders. No European team has ever won anything outside its borders. Where is the un-neutrality in that? That is fact whether you like the information or not.

This paragraph is for past winners of the world cup. There is already another paragraph RIGHT ABOVE the forementioned one explaining the performances of the other four confederations. BTW, Euroasia is much more of a continent than America; America is simply two landmasses connected by a strait of land whereas Euroasia is a continuous landmass. Not to mention, "America" is mostly used to refer to the United States of America. As a matter of fact, Euroasia is more often considered a continent whereas America is almost seperated by Northern America, Central America and South America. Regardless, there are two different continents on the Western hemishere and two different confederations. That is also fact. Please stay on topic. Jamen Somasu (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see the spin the way user:chandler does. I'm sorry. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"As a result, South America is the only continent to have teams win outside its zone. No European team has ever won a World Cup outside Europe. " The second sentence is totally unnecessary (since it is already stated in the sentence just before that only South American teams have won outside their own continent) and only seems to be there to talk down Europe. Since Jamen Somasu seems to think the old paragraph isn't neutral because it talks up Europe too much (which I dont agree with), it looks strange to instead go 180 chandler 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit radical. But we already have a map of winners, a table of results which includes the host country, and the bare bones of a potentially fantastic article on the subject. I say add the continent underneath each host in the table, and consider doing away with the entire section. WFCforLife (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Its always nice to add prose to table content though. Whilst I don't share the concerns of the original poster - I don't see how it suggests winning a World Cup in Europe is more important/difficult - I can see how it could be viewed as Eurocentric. I prefer the new wording except: replace qualify 'continent' with 'confederation'; and remove the sentence that is being objected to above. Note the continent links below are pipelinked to the relevant confederation: So,

“ Brazil and Argentina are the only two teams to win a World Cup outside their continental confederation; Brazil came out victorious in Europe (1958), North America (1970 and 1994) and Asia (2002) while Argentina won a North American World Cup in 1986. As a result, South America is the only continent to have teams win outside its confederation. Only twice have consecutive World Cups been won by teams from the same continent – when Italy and Brazil successfully defended their titles in 1938 and 1962 respectively. ”

Pretty Green (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I saw the implied subtext in the original anyway, but that's certainly a marked improvement IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the sentence "As`a result, South America is the only continent to have teams win outside its confederation." a little bit redundant? Surely the first sentence tells us just that. Jack forbes (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That could also be dropped. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok...so can we agree on this?

“ Brazil and Argentina are the only two teams to win a World Cup outside their continental confederation; Brazil came out victorious in Europe (1958), North America (1970 and 1994) and Asia (2002) while Argentina won a North American World Cup in 1986. Only twice have consecutive World Cups been won by teams from the same continent – when Italy and Brazil successfully defended their titles in 1938 and 1962 respectively. Brazil, along with West Germany, are the only teams to have appeared in three consecutive World Cup finals. ”

Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jack forbes (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

International caps sourcing

Does anyone know of an up to date reliable source for USA national team players? In particular I'm interested in Jay DeMerit. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

try http://www.ussoccer.com/Teams/US-Men.aspx --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although they don't provide full international statistics (only year by year, and only back to 2008). As a medium term measure, I've found his bio on the FIFA World Cup microsite. Although given FIFA and UEFA's internet history, I can't see that lasting indefinitely. WFCforLife (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

US Soccer's World Cup list seems highly questionable: it credits Hahnemann with 16 caps, while FIFA and Scoorbase acknowledge 7. Kevin McE (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that a case of FIFA being wrong and Scoorbase mirroring those numbers or that the USSF is trying to inflate their numbers? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If I were to guess (and it would be no more than that), USSF are including some matches that are not full internationals. Soccerbase lists appearances individually, so they do more than simply copy data summaries from elsewhere. Kevin McE (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Going by his biography on USSF, I think it is 8. The mistake is alarming but not altogether surprising: I struggle to find reliable sources for most current internationals outside of Europe, Argentina and Brazil. WFCforLife (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Challenge League

Is that Challenge League is fully professional? The Whole Swiss Football League (the first two level) is a member of the EPFL but Challenge League clubs only had a stadium of 1,000 people, how they finance? In the past someone dig out the source that FC Vaduz allowed players to work part-time, so could the club pay enough to made their players full-professional? As i know Hong Kong is not fully-professional at present (but fully-pro in the past), oppose to the source citing the league is professional. It is because the wage is too low and some African players in the past they were just construction worker (and employed by bottom team with betting scandal). Matthew_hk tc 02:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be very difficult to judge or source. But a full time player is a player that is contractually obliged to turn up to training 4-5 times a week and be available to play. For a part time player, football generally fits around his main employment. In short, it is possible to have a full time player that works to suppliment his income. If a reliable source states that a club allows players to work around their training, my guess would be that they're full time, but it would be a bit of a stretch to definitively conclude that. WFCforLife (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Most importantly, despite its name, the EPFL is not only open to professional leagues, and includes semi-pro ones (e.g. Finland), hence the Challenge League's membership is totally irrelevant to deciding its professional status. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at the external links board about player databases in external links

Hello, I am notifying you all that I have started a discussion on the external links noticeboard about the various player databases (soccerbase.com & transfermarkt.co.uk) in the external links section of football player articles. Please give your opinion on the matter here. Yoenit (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Storylines on players

After some editing at Pedro Rodríguez Ledesma, i noticed some stuff i want to bring up now here (and it's quite interesting that this is a fairly "new" player to the "big picture", it will only streghten - hopefully - my theory):

I noticed that the storyline of this player contains EVERY match he has played for the first team of FC Barcelona, even if it was one minute, with reference to the player who was replaced (or who replaced) - i do not want to mention the overlinking...Even if said matches are referenced, isn't it a bit too exaggerated to mention the ENTIRE career of one (any) player? I know that back in the 80's/90's there was no internet available, and if there was (latter decade), the contents were scarce, but imagine if the careers of the likes of Peter Shilton, Paolo Maldini - oops thought of a more modern example - Ryan Giggs were to be in such "detailed" detail?

All in all, my question is: should the storylines of players speak about the important goals and games - first-team debuts, hat-tricks, milestones, consecutive games scoring, etc, or should they contain EVERYTHING (in comparison with for instance American sports, the schedule is smaller, but the biggest soccer teams can play to up to 60 games in one season)?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Every game is far, far too much detail - it's an indiscriminate collection of info, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In short, no, we don't want a line by line description of every match played. Someone here once memorably referred to that as the in 1976 no one died... style. The easiest way to get a picture of best practice is to look at some of the biographies listed at Wikipedia:WPF#Showcase. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Really you want to just mention the big games in a player's career. Whether that be a debut, a hat-trick, a FA Cup third round appearance, a sending off, a Champions League final appearance, or whatever. If a young player makes a few appearances in a season don't be afraid to cover them all and then trim down the detail when he is a first team regular. Just use common sense.--EchetusXe 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Useful article?

I found this today: List of United States soccer players playing abroad. Useful article? Pointless? Prime for deletion? I guess it could be useful for career-tracking, but it's completely lacking citations, and could be murder to maintain. Just canvassing opinion. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be better defined at least. Jamil Fearrington has never played for the United States at any level, yet he shows up. I think it could be useful if clearly limited to US internationals (as opposed to people who have some US parentage, etc.). Jogurney (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to do it myself, but if it went to AfD I would argue for deletion. If it's limited to USA internationals I don't see the point, as this information is by and large available in United States national football team. If it's not limited to USA internationals, we come back to that old chestnut of proving nationality, which would be a lot of hassle for very little reward in this article. Besides, imagine how big a similar list would be for Scottish or French players. WFCforLife (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the converse list to articles such as List of foreign Premier League players and categories such as Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany. Personally I agree that these collections are fairly useless (certainly completely useless without strict and enforced inclusion criteria) and collect all sorts of poorly-sourced and unsourced entries, but opinions do very widely. Knepflerle (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Argentina's flag over time

Hey all,
I got a quick question about when to use Argentina's alternate flag. I don't know when the cut-off point for using Argentina over this Argentina, or even why to use the alternate flag. Anyone offer some insight? Thanks. Digirami (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1818, the non-alternativee one is anachronistic, but that's not an issue for this project! After 1818 both are used - the default is the national flag, the alternative is the civil flag. I've seen both used in sporting contexts, so I wouldn't worry too much - neither would be "incorrect" as far as I can tell. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Copa América (peer review)

The Copa América page is up for review in order to be submitted as a GA nominee. I have done extensive overhauls on the past two days to make it look decent. Please make contributions and notes. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Serie A club transfer

I'm tired to revert unsourced transfer. IP user added hoax shirt number and add players there even not appeared in a main Italy media. Per verifiability, could someone semi-protect A.S. Roma, Genoa. Moreover, same ip user even added no.29 for Dabo at Sevilla FC, which cannot happened (1-25 for first team, 26 to ? for youth players). I request to ban some ip but denied. Lastly, it happened not only in Serie A, La Liga also happened, could WP:footy develop a policy that lock all club page during transfer windows? People refer to transfer market web but the site i found were 75% wrong (at least all wrong for lower divisions). Matthew_hk tc 04:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In England, I revert any transfer that isn't verified by one of the clubs involved, or by the BBC (although in the spirit of assuming good faith, I always check those places before I revert). Even Sky are known to jump the gun.

Surely in Serie A clubs would be at least as on the ball as Football League clubs, and therefore their own websites could be relied upon? WFCforLife (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

the problem is ip user never given their source and La gazzetta dello Sport may consider as reliable source, but sometimes they dig out a fans site. Matthew_hk tc 07:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Youth teams on football club articles

What are peoples' views on containing youth/academy teams on football club articles? For example, Stoke City F.C. contains the club's Academy squad. I believe consensus in the past deemed these to not be notable and I don't see many of them knocking around on any other articles. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think including the squads of anything outside the first team is too much detail for the main club article. The featured article Arsenal F.C. lists a reserve squad, but they all seem to have first-team squad numbers, so I'd see that as just splitting a ridiculously-large "first-team" squad into real first-team players and the Carling Cup bench-warmers. Don't actually remember any prior consensus on this... perhaps someone should rewrite the club article MoS to incorporate any consensuses (sp?) buried in the archives of this talk page no, I'm not volunteering cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the youth and reserve squads from the Burnley F.C. page more times than I care to remember. These squads are just nothing but trivia. A good benchmark would be to say that only those players with official squad numbers should be listed on the team page (apart from, of course, new signings who have not yet been allocated a number). BigDom 15:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's generally the standard, although occasional exceptions need to be made. For instance, I'm 95% sure that Nathan Ellington isn't getting a squad number this summer, but (as much as I'd love to) you couldn't possibly leave him out of the current squad section. Agree with Struway about the likes of Arsenal. And obviously if a club's B team competes in a first team league, that's a different matter. WFCforLife (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What about Port Vale F.C.#Reserve and youth teams?--EchetusXe 15:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@WFC: True, there will always be exceptions. Obviously your new signings without numbers e.g. Aldred and Gilmartin should be on the squad list, but like you say there are often cases like this. I'm pretty sure that Remco van der Schaaf won't be getting a number for us for the upcoming campaign, but he is undisputably one of the senior players at the club. When I said players without squad numbers, I was really meaning youth players who haven't yet progressed to the stage of being given a number. BigDom 15:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've attempted an edit at the club MoS, as Struway suggested. Thoughts/rephrasing welcome. WFCforLife (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

INTRO scrambles

Again me, with a new "offensive move"!

I think introductions to players should be as accurate as possible, with just one club (for active ones of course). For instance in the case of David Silva's recent transfer to England - man gotta love that vandalism!! - i see that there are two clubs, the past and the current, i think it's too much, explaining:

If he only will move to Man.City after the World Cup, then we should leave just Valencia in intro, relocating the Man.City bit (with the pertinent refs of course) to storyline. When he moves, we remove Valencia as current club, simple. I think it would be much more coherent and unscrambled that way.

Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, good idea. I'm a bit confused as to what the 'new' consists of. Sandman888 (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, WP:LEAD says the lead sction should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article, so in Silva's case, including the fact that he joins Man City on whatever date it is would be standard practice. In particular, when a transfer's been agreed but doesn't take effect until a future date, people tend to include more detail in the lead than strictly necessary, as a temporary measure to head off "over-enthusiastic" editors who want to update the article as if the transfer were a done deal as of now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I totally see your point, man. But so, if (example) Silva has not joined ManC as of now, he IS a Valencia player. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I understand your stance, but the alternative is having to constantly reverse edits that incorrectly list him as a City player. You would not be able to protect it, as it's a legitimate content dispute, and you would not be able to get IPs or users banned, as they're not vandalising. Given those constraints, the best solution is to say that he IS a Valencia player that WILL be joining Manchester City. WFCforLife (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Photoshopped image

There's a discussion here about the use of this image in the 2010 World Cup article. The arguments for removing it are that it looks heavily retouched (read "fake"), and it was taken in 2007 (so at the very least the caption is currently inaccurate). One user is very keen to retain it though. Does anyone here have an opinion? --John (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They are trying to take down a picture because someone thinks it's "fake"? They need to get a life. Regardless whether it is fake or not (looks real to me), there is no good reason to take it down. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more a question of why we would use it if it's a fake. There are plenty of better real ones available. --John (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a fake, but should not be described as 2010 World Cup fans, as the photograph was taken back in 2007. This would be a false information. The file should be renamed.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a fake. It has been through image editing software but there's no indication that the subjects were not at that location. Another image in the series shows them on a beach as well. The subjects are people. So that's not fake. The background is in South Africa. So that's not fake. You have no proof that they were not on the beach. The image manipulation could have been used to compensate for a lighting imbalance. Unless you're an expert in digital photography, I don't think you should pass judgment on how the image was modified using the software. I've made that point in the talk page and now you pass on your accusations that it's "fake" here. The image is a real image. There aren't "better" ones. Their composition is much poorer. The subjects are less clear and the backgrounds are more ambiguous. So that's just your opinion that there are plenty of better ones available. In short: push off until you can prove something. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am an expert in digital photography and it looks like a fake to me. Anyway, thanks to your gracious acceptance of my compromise at article talk it looks like this is resolved. --John (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Show me your credentials as a certified expert. It doesn't look fake, it looks enhanced. That's the most you can say. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's fake or not, what does that picture show about the World Cup? Nothing, in my humble opinion. 91.106.98.181 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Alvaro Bianchini

I suspect this new article to be a fake since I could not find sources, but I am not sure. Could somebody verify this? Thanks. --Leyo 16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear to me. See this Google search: if he'd really played 61 games for Chivas there would be more than one hit. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy deletion as blatant hoax. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and deleted it. --John (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. --Leyo 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Red link

On the page: List of english football transfers summer 2010 the word Carlisle united fc is in red. Can someone correct it so it becomes a link.; cheers,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. The problem was that the link itself had been mistyped as "Carisle United". Alzarian16 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Giving a heads up

I don't know anything about football and that's why I need someones help here. David McAllister (Irish footballer) has been nominated for deletion for "Fail(ing) to meet WP:ATHLETE as he's never played in a fully professional league. No other signs of notability." It says here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues) that the League of Ireland Premier Division professional so under that this persons should be deleted, but I also looked and saw that all of the St Patrick's Athletic F.C. players have articles. This is probably very clear to you if this person is notable, so I just need someone to get it a look. Thanks.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the League of Ireland is fully professional, and he has played in it. Even if he hadn't there are assertions of general notability due to being Shelbourne's top scorer in a season, an argument that would merit an AfD even if it ultimately failed. Terrible PROD, thanks for the heads up. WFCforLife (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, you will see that it is not fully professional, so really, it's a good prod. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This news article states that there were only 3 full-time teams in the league in the 2009 season -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

ATHLETE shmathlete. Passing ATHLETE is not essential to inclusion here for leagues which might not be fully pro but still receive significant secondary coverage. This includes a majority of players in the Football League until it became fully pro and the current Scottish First Division (which is listed as fully pro even if that's very rarely true. That said, the article still needs reliable secondary sources to make a clear argument to passing the GNG. Ideally people would go and help with that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if I'm wrong on ATHLETE, and indeed even if it ultimately goes, I think the deletion discussion will provide a bit of much needed clarity as to what constitutes a pass under the GNG. I've also made a passing mention of this project's inconsistency in its definition of fully national professional leagues. WFCforLife (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Manuel Neuer height

I was checking the edits of someone who changed the height of John Terry away from the referenced source and noticed that they had also changed the height of Neuer. Unfortunately the three links (personal, club and a German statistics database) all give different heights. Any views on which to go with. (Ps. I'm busy this weekend and amnot going to follow this up until next week.) -- Peter cohen (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you follow the interwiki link to the de: article and post on the talk page asking for help. --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The guy who changed the height is in my opinion a vandal. I've reverted several of his edits (he does not only change the height, in some cases he is also removes the reference for the height). But the problem with Neuer's three different heights persists. As far as I remember, the club's profile or the player's official website are considered the most reliable sources. --Jaellee (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Costa Rica national football team

On the above above page it says that Rónald González is the interim manager. Is this same person as Rónald González Brenes because if you click on his name it goes to a disambiguation page.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the same person. See this Argentina FA page about a friendly between Argentina & Costa Rica. The words are in Spanish, but if you look down the bottom of the squad lists, it gives "Director técnico: Ronald González Brenes". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the same person. In hispanic-american media, it is commun for the press to use first, middle, second, and even third names in articles which contrasts American articles (it is almost first and last name only). Don't let that confuse you.Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Zimbabwe national football team

Can someone do an edit on the above page to show that benjani is now a free agent and not that he plays for sunderland,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Be bold my friend, change it as you please. Sandman888 (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Club" In Europe

Hiya. After adding all missing sources to FC Barcelona in Europe, I wondered whether there is any consensus to the content of this articles? Is it only UEFA competitions + Inter-Cities fair Cup which shd be included (seems to be the current way to do it), or can you equally well include participation in non-UEFA competitions, like the Latin Cup? Cheers! Sandman888 (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No rules as to what you should include or exclude. Manchester City F.C. in Europe includes everything. Not sure I'd have gone that far, but you've set me wondering whether I should have included the Anglo-Italian Cup in the List of Birmingham City F.C. records and statistics#Birmingham City in Europe section, or whether it would have just looked like I was desperate for content... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Paulin Kolombaye

Can an administrator delete this page as it says it is now allowed to be deleted.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by ChrisTheDude. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

England squad

On the england under 21,20,19 and so on.When it says the players club is it the club at the time of that last match or their current club,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is probably the current club, but try asking at the talkpage or whoever edits the page regularly. Click "Traffic stats" on your left, under the wikipedia globe, when viewing the article. Sandman888 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Should be the club at the time of the match or tournament, under-age teams are no different from full squads. Reliable sources say that England called up Chelsea's Joe Cole for the World Cup, not the unattached Joe Cole, or, if he ever finds another job, Template F.C.'s Joe Cole. Particularly appropriate with under-age teams, so the reader can see where the young players are coming through. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. We don't win much, but we do expect credit where credit is (De)Merited. WFCforLife (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This should go to all squads as well because I have noticed rosters are changed in relation to the player's club. On a roster, the last club should always be mentioned, not a last-minute contract, so to speak.Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Competition names

Another thing, teammates, that in my opinion needs unification, is the various competition names, i think they should all be in English, this being En.Wiki and stuff...I'll elaborate:

I have seen that some users have inserted, sometimes in storyline, mainly in honours, stuff like "CUPA ROMANIEI", "DFB-POKAL", "ALLSVENSKAN", etc. I'll be damned if English websites and reporters refer to those in their original names instead of "ROMANIAN CUP", "GERMAN CUP" and "SWEDISH LEAGUE". Granted, it's how they are named here at the site, so it either needs to be moved or have link hidden with English word.

I have only seen two exceptions to the naming of competitions in English language, in my many "visits" to UEFA.com and other sites: The SPANISH LEAGUE and CUP are often referred to as PRIMERA DIVISIÓN and COPA DEL REY, and the GERMAN LEAGUE is simply called BUNDESLIGA.

However, if we are going to write a list of honours in one player or team, it is not very coherent to have one thing in English, another in a foreign language. Any opinions? I also tend to insert stuff in italics (not in honours, just story) when a foreign word "pops up".

Off to Uruguay-Ghana, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is true in the general case (although "La Liga" is more common than "Primera Division" for the Spanish top tier league in English sources so far as I can see), but it's important to check that the English name is in common use before using it as a proper noun. For instance, I've seen "DFB-Pokal" used pretty often in English sources, even if it has to be accompanied by the text "the German equivalent of the FA Cup". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"I'll be damned if English websites and reporters refer to those in their original names instead of "ROMANIAN CUP", "GERMAN CUP" and "SWEDISH LEAGUE"" - don't damn yourself so easily! See Talk:DFB-Pokal#Requested move to see evidence of quite how common DFB Pokal is in English usage, and you can see use of Allsvenskan by English-language reporters at the BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times, and on English-language websites like Soccerway, Statto and FIFA.

To answer your question, we should be using the most common unambiguous name for both the honours lists and the page name - so the simplest solution is to use the current page names for both. If you feel that a page is not at its most common name, then feel free to start a requested move discussion. This may result in honours lists which you personally feel look a little inconsistent - but then again, English language usage in general is a little inconsistent. Knepflerle (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about Jordan League Season pages

Please look at Wikiproject Jordan for a discussion on the season pages Mcmatter (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Importance" question

According to this project's assessment page, mid-importance should be assigned to "Players...that have participated at international level or in a top-level league". However, I see many articles are tagged as low-importance despite having played in the top division in their country (assuming that this is what a top-level league means). Should the importance of these players be re-assigned or am I missing something? Cheers, BigDom 21:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The example of a "low" importance player is someone who played four times for AC Milan and over 300 times for Palermo. My rule of thumb is that high importance is very rare for a player, it would have to be someone who has won a continental or world player of the year award, or 100 caps for a big country or some other major achievement. Mid importance would apply to most international players from large countries, ie the player would be pretty well known in his own country but perhaps not that well known elsewhere. Everyone else low importance. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I would assign importances on the whole. If there's some consensus I reckon we should try and change the wording on the assessment page to clarify that because it's very ambiguous at the moment. BigDom 21:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In this article to lack a important fact: In the Chile's World Cup (1962) the Colombia's player Marcos Coll made history when he scored a goal direct from a corner kick (called an "Olympic Goal" in Latin America), the only one ever made in a World Cup, in the match that Colombia and the USSR the equal score 4 - 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.25.202 (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:ATHLETE has lead members of this project whom I respect to conclude that someone like this is more notable than this bloke, based on the level of football he played at. Attempting to follow that process of thought, I can see the argument for giving youth and B internationals low importance, but not senior ones. WFC (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, going off ATHLETE, you can't deny that Laurie Adams passes the guideline while David McAllister does not. It does seem pretty clear that some clarification is in order though. BigDom 18:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that I personally disagree with ATHELTE. But if our criteria for inclusion are that black and white, our criteria for importance should be similarly black and white. Saying that a player would be mid importance for a career in the SPL and League Two, but low importance for the LOI Premier and League Two, would be a continuation of that principle. Saying that an exception could be made for Scottish international players, but not Irish ones, would not, as their importance would be based on having competed at the same level. WFC (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Many people here are forgetting that this is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. The articles are rated based on the importance of the subject at hand, not the substance. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, WPFA is perfectly clear and well thought out. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. To complicate it would involve us deciding which international teams are "important" enough to justify a mid rating. WFC (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

World Cup managerial casualties

With all the coaches and managers who lose their job because of their teams performance during the competition, do you think there should be a section similar to this?--EchetusXe 10:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No. At best, it should be mentioned on each of those people's individual articles. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup "controversies"

It seems to me that just a few of these entries in the refereeing errors section should not be there. Obviously Lampard's shot, Tevez's offisde, Edu's disallowed goal should be up there. I can also see the case for Cahill's red card getting a mention. But we have stuff like Italy's exit where apparently we "saw the Slovakian defender clear the ball after it had already crossed the goalline". Gee, could that be the same incident where TV replays seemed to indicate that if anything the referee made the correct decision?

I have made a start by separating errors and disputed decisions, because a goal not allowed because the official failed to spot the ball cross the line is a bit different to whether the a challenge warranted a yellow card or not. I class errors as where obviously the officials did not operate within the letter of the law, and disputed decisions as the rest of the crap that is up there atm.--EchetusXe 10:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed the Italy - Slovakia entry.--EchetusXe 11:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Get rid of the "Disputed decisions" section as soon as possible, as this is a modern form of pillorying someone. The game is played AND judged by human beings after all, and thus the occasional error happens from time to time. While there were quite a few disputed decisions, there is absolutely no need to list each and every one of them, especially if the decisions were within the laws of the game. Furthermore, will these questionable decisions be remembered in a few months time? How about a year, two years, five years from now? Think WP:RECENThere.

On a minor note, I would put the "French team discord" as a subsection of the "Gamesmanship" section because there is no difference when players behave like *censored* against opponents or members of their own delegation. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This article smells like someone just washed themselves with a shampoo bottle of POV and "soap opera" soap. An encyclopedia surely does not need such controversial articles. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If there's one thing we don't need, it's to further encourage people to fork "controversy" sections out into their own articles where they fester indefinitely. This should be re-merged as soon as possible lest it gets any worse. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, if the controversy has been appropriately covered in third-party sources and it can be written up in an NPOV style, then I don't see why it can't stay. – PeeJay 08:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep it (or restore it). The section is vital. The "no goal" call in the Germany-England may be a key factor in changing rules to permit some sort of video technology to creep into the game. Provided that the section remains neutral, I think all controversies with WP:V sources are fair game. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing that worries me is that it only seems to be a 'controversy' when a big team loses out. The Italians tried to get New Zealand players sent off by pretending to be hit in the face by elbows, yet this article makes it seem like they were robbed by the officials for not recognizing these phantom "goals".--EchetusXe 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the best way to do this is to write a high-quality kernel in the main WC article and then split for length, rather than splitting early and having the thing become flypaper for people to add "vital" information on their pet peeve. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Templates (rowed or not)

Hi, I was looking at some league seasons templates and I wanted to know what is the suggested or "official" style to to make them, the one with <br>'s between decades (like this one) or the one without separation between decades (like this other), so is there any prefered way to make them? or both are OK? A18919 (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Serie A template is like that because of the many different names the league has had over the years. However I must say that that the Italian template looks much more professional than the French one, so go with the Serie A template I say.--EchetusXe 14:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this template for something similar to the Serie A template without row headers. Aside from that, I share EchetusXe's opinion. The wider a screen is, the more unnecessary space is consumed by the French-style template. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand the reason for the narrow display: it keeps the dates lined-up in neat columns. However, it becomes artificially narrow. Most users have the ability to display at least 1024 x 768 and allowing the browser to choose the width is a better option in my opinion. Since the years are sequential, it's not that much more difficult to find a previous season. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Line breaks are an unnecessary hack which exist only because someone decided that having the bullets lined up was nicer back in the day. We shouldn't be using hacks like that for mere aesthetics, especially when it results in the templates looking ridiculous on widescreen displays. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD help

I'm trying to nominated Matt Friesen for deletion as a non-notable soccer player. However, during the process, I discovered that a completely different person, also called Matt Friesen, was subject to an AfD in 2007, and the deletion discussion I'm trying to create for the soccer player brings up the deletion discussion for the other guy. Does anyone know the proper protocol for creating a new deletion discussion for someone who coincidentally shares the same name as a previously deleted person? --JonBroxton (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It would need to go to a second nomination but explain in the rationale that the previous discussion was about a namesake. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Club in Europe" and "List of Club Honours"

Hiya. I'm nominating some articles for FL & FAC over time, to make a little topic of all key barcelona articles, progress can be tracked at my userpage or FCB talkpage.

The question is, is there any consensus that for a large club we have a "Club in Europe" article? I've always thought they were a bit weird. And while we are at it, Spanish and Italian clubs sometimes have a "Club honours" article, eg Juventus F.C. honours, how do people feel about those? Shd both of these articles be merged into a "Stats and Records" article (which wd be very long scrolling-wise), or leave them as 3 separate articles? Sandman888 (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Honours are not statistics...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Honours may not be statistics but surely they could be construed as records. Although I suppose the number of times a team has won something is a statistic by definition. BigDom 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Marvin Morgan

On this page,it says that he has scored 21 goals but on socerbase 20. Should i go with soccerbase or keep it as it is?

Soccerbase. Whether or not he has scored 21 or 20 goals, what people often forget is that Wikipedia strives for verifiabilty rather than truth. If a reliable source says 20, so should Wikipedia. BigDom 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccerbase can be unreliable and frankly incorrect. I'd try go looking for further verification, most notable the Football League individual season totals, Aldershot Town's website and the Football Yearbook. 91.106.100.26 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccerbase is by far and away the most reliable statistics website for Football League players since 1996. The websites of most league clubs are created by the same company and the statistics provided are questionable at best. If you don't want to use Soccerbase, although there really is no reason not to, the Football League website or the Sky Sports yearbook (when it comes out) would be good alternatives. BigDom 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've found countless number of mistakes on Soccerbase. It's very good. But reliable? No. 91.106.100.26 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, Soccerbase does contain some mistakes. So do the Football League Players' Records books and the Rothmans/Sky Sports yearbooks and the official club histories. Find us a source with no errors in it and we'd gladly use it. BigDom 22:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying don't use it, but the correct and thorough suggestion is to verify the statistics (especially ones that are questioned) by more than one source. 91.106.100.26 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)