Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Forward or Striker

This topic has been discussed on the Liverpool FC article [1] I personally feel that the term forward is far too generic, as a scoring midfield can be classed as a forward but his job isn't to score goals for the team like a 'striker' is. The wikipedia article for striker sub-catagorises 'forward' within that category. Surely the default term should be Striker rather than Forward (see LFC discussion link above) Jamie 12:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I take the opposite stance - I think we should make categories as loose as possible, given that a player's roles and positions in football are never fixed. For example, some players used to be out-and-out strikers but as time has gone on they've become supporting forwards or attacking midfielders; some players can play either role depending on their team's current tactic. I think if we get too fine-grained with categorising we can end up with lots and lots of separate categories and different articles, none of which hang together very well. In my opinion, the Striker article should be renamed Forward (football) (and the same done with Category:Football (soccer) strikers). Qwghlm 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Qwghlm: there are a lot of players able to play both as offensive midfielder and forward (eg Francesco Totti). We should thus use "forward" instead of "striker". --Angelo 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have felt similarly and reckon 'forward' helps, as it is a broader term... David Bellion and Jeremie Aliadiere are prime examples of forwards that aren't strikers...not all forwards are strikers... but all strikers are forwards. Spyrides 16:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Inherantly there are 4 position a player can become. Goalkeeper, Defender, Midfielder and Striker. From that playeres evolve to fill a position that suits but inevitably they are one of the 4. Right Striker (RS), Left Striker (LS), Centre-Forward (CF) but they are all strikers. All the main footballing club in england classify their players this way. By having broad terminology you are potentially confusing the reader. As an encyclopedia it should always be as precise as possible. A Players whose position is striker but happens to play more as an attacking forward can always be elborated on within an article. I think we should always keep to a specific and accurate defintion.Jamie 17:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking for precision is what we all want...but how far should we go? I'd love to include all sorts of positions, especially for players before the mid-sixties. Where are the inside left or right half back categories, for instance?? ;-) ...also, not all the main footballing clubs do use the term striker to denote their forwards...if you check some club home pages, you will see even they can't find consensus with the terms strikers, forwards and attackers used. ...And what is a left striker??? If you can find me a professional footballer or manager that uses this as an official term I'll be surprised... Of course some strikers are more suited to play on the left of a two man partnership, normally because they are left footed, eg. Bobby Zamora.. but both of the players of that partnership are strikers or centre forwards. On the other hand, when dealing with a 4-3-3 system, players like Arjen Robben, Damien Duff, or at a stretch Joe Cole could be described as left or right forwards, but never left or right strikers. Striker and centre forward are the same thing, but left or right-sided forward are not strikers, and "A player whose position is striker but happens to play more as an attacking forward" is not a striker, but, you guessed it, a forward. Spyrides 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed not all players are strikers. But i'm talking about categorising those players as midfielders, becuase the term midfielder emcompasses attcking midfielders and defensive midfielders. A Formation determines whether that adopt a certain role such as 'forward' but essentially they are midfielders. That leaves the remainer of attacking players 'strikers'. An Attcking position is defined as a striker and within the role of striker comes various forward postions, therefore 'forward' is a sub category of striker. See Link

I feel quite uncomfortable about descibing Arjen Robben as a midfielder, just as I would about Dennis Bergkamp or Teddy Sheringham (in the latter stages of his career). But nor are they out-and-out strikers - they do not bag 20+ goals a season, nor are they expected to fulfil that role. The word 'forward' means anyone who plays in a forward position; the word 'striker' means someone who strikes goals. All dedicated goalscorers play in a forward position, but not all forward players are dedicated goalscorers. Thus, I still maintain that 'striker' is a subset of 'forward' and not the other way round. Qwghlm 09:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when did the quantity of goals you score define you as a striker. A striker can be someone who only scores 10 or so goals for the club. A strikers job is to score goals for the team in any quantity. Sorry but Arjen Robben is a midfielder as defined on the club website: See Link

Everywhere I look apart from wikipedia defines players into those 4 categories - Goalkeeper, defender, midfielder & Striker. Does that not tell you something about player classification within the game. The term 'Forward' is a valid definition of a player, it almost bridges the gap between a striker and midfielder but inevitably you are a striker or midfielder. Jamie 12:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

An infobox exists to let you know in more detail which are the favourite positions for a player. It should be implemented on the player's article, and specifically only on it. First we should give a broad view of players, by means of team squads, categories, and so on, thus the four "generic" football positions fits better. Then, to deepen about the detailed position(s) of a player, the article is the best place. --Angelo 16:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I totally believe that some player are a bridge between positions but should be categorised into those distinct positions. Jamie 08:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the term should be forward, as this encompasses all eras of football. Historical formations such as the W-M and 2-3-5 had positions such as inside forward etc. which were not strikers, and certainly not midfielders. Oldelpaso 17:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Rather than clutter this talk page every time a football-related article is nominated for deletion, I've added an Articles for Deletion section, where a list of current football-related articles that have been AfD'd can be kept. Let me know what you think... Qwghlm 21:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s

User Ed g2s (talk · contribs) keeps changing templates with no previous discussion despite being warned before. Check his contributions. Lesfer 16:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he reverted (rightfully), a template back to a previous original version. It was the user (haven't bothered to check who) that implemented the changes a while ago that did so without previous discussion. -- Elisson • Talk 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Including changes in Template:Football squad start and Template:Football squad mid? Lesfer 17:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, those I did not know about. I only saw the change to the club infobox, which was a rightfull revert, the others I don't support. -- Elisson • Talk 18:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Canadian category confusion

Can somebody familiar with football (soccer) standards take a look at Category:Canadian soccer players. It doesn't make sense to me that its a subcategory of Category:Canadian Soccer Association and Category:Canadian National Team. Obviously a person can be a Canadian soccer player, without being on the National Team. Also, I presume that if you're with the National Team, you're automatically with the Canadian Soccer Association. I made Taryn Swiatek, and thought she would go in Category:Canadian National Team, but I see nobody else is put there. So, I put her in Category:Canadian soccer players. But, I'm not clear on how this is expected to work, or what's done elsewhere. --Rob 09:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the two categories from Category:Canadian soccer players. These two categories are not used and not needed so I've also speedied them. -- Elisson • Talk 11:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I'm wandering, given the very broad term "soccer players", do we have a clear standard that says it only means *elite* players. For instance, would a person famous for other reasons, who played soccer at a lower-level ever be included in this category? --Rob 06:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Only professionals. -- Elisson • Talk 09:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

FIFA 100 or Pelé list

Why in almost all of the articles about a player named into that list is a mention about it?. I don't know if that list have a good reception on you guys, but I don't know any good football fan that have some respect for it. The point is that if nobody with a little knowledge aout it really accept that Mia Hamm, Nakata and Hong Myung-bo (what is that, he really play football?) are better than Jairzinho, Law, Salas and Riquelme, why is there a mention about being in a "list that nobody respect". I would be happy editing those phrases that mention "he is included in the FIFA 100 list elaborated by Pelé". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bauta (talk • contribs)

I see no problem with it. If you propose that only awards and titles that are "respected" by the general public should be mentioned, you are out on deep POV waters. -- Elisson • Talk 18:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But in terms of universal knowledge it's a big mistake to make that list a kind of "price". No problem with a lot of awards that I don't like generally, but to have a bussiness minded list as a kind of medal to put in the jacket?. There are a lot of lists that are much more well accepted. --Bauta 01:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yashin nickname

Now, into Yashin. In the english article he is nicknamed "officially" "black panther" and says "also called him "Black Spider" and "Black Octopus" , but in the french and spanish articles he is named "black spider". It's the first time that i know about that "black panther" nickname (no word about octopus), my question is: does anybody of you know him as black panther? maybe is a matter of location and english talking places know him as black panther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bauta (talk • contribs)

The "black panther" seems to be the most common nickname ([2] [3] [4]), while the two others also seem to have been used, but not to the same extent. -- Elisson • Talk 18:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how they call in England and USA, so no problem with that. It would be perfect to know how they call him in the Soviet Union. But at least in America, France, Italy and Spain he's better known as Spider.--Bauta 01:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yashin... Ah yeah, you mean the Ragno Nero (Black Spider)?!? Yes, in Italy he's mainly known as Black Spider. --Angelo 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Football squad templates

Ongoing discussion here: Template_talk:Football_squad_player#Header_colour. ed g2s • talk 15:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of FC / F.C.

One of the objections in the FLC for List of football clubs in Europe is inconsistency in the use of FC / F.C. We have F.C. as the standard for clubs with English names, but should this also apply to teams using FC as a prefix or with non-english names (e.g. FC Basel)? Oldelpaso 11:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

BIG NO. :) Most non-English clubs never use punctuation in these kinds of abbreviations (see for example how the official FC Basel site explicitly writes FC without punctuation several times). Do even English clubs use it most of the time? I've seen an old discussion on this somewhere which I can't find at the moment. I'd even like to see (even if I know that it would probably never happen) a move of all English clubs so they use FC instead of F.C. See for example how UEFA treats these abbreviations. -- Elisson • Talk 12:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done a quick survey of club websites. Most English club sites are run by premiumtv.com, who use FC. Of those Premier clubs with different hosting providers, FC was used by Chelsea, Fulham, and West Ham. The sign on Everton's ground uses FC. The Scottish sites I looked at also used FC. Several clubs did not have an obvious example of either on their site. I didn't see any sites using F.C. From this brief sample your position appears to be preferable, but given how long it would take I wouldn't support a switch unless someone created a bot to do it. Oldelpaso 15:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite my earlier findings, I've remembered some English clubs that do use F.C., how could I of all people forget this example. Oldelpaso 19:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Although that doesn't necessarily mean that they tend to use punctuation (their official site, for example, uses FC and not F.C. in the title bar). The punctuation is also seen in for example AIK's and Djurgårdens IF's badges, while the clubs never use punctuation on their official websites. -- Elisson • Talk 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In Italy it's quite commoner to use F.C. instead of FC. --Angelo 16:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

True, and then it should stay so. I've also noticed that Norwegian club articles seem to use punctuation, however when looking around on the Tippeligaen clubs' official websites, none use this form, they are either using no punctuation or nothing can be found on their sites. This is less than 50 Norwegian club articles so I guess a move of these should be considered. -- Elisson • Talk 16:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In Belgium F.C. is generally used. Julien Tuerlinckx 17:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hooliganism

Although it's not something we like to dwell on, football hooliganism is (or has been) a reality and is IMO worthy of noting in encyclopaedic articles on related football clubs. I was doing some vandalism fighting a few days ago and ended up caught up in what appears to be an edit war on the Galatasaray article. While I believe that hooliganism is noteworthy, I also think it's very important that we maintain consistency and NPOV, and ensure that sections on hooliganism are in keeping with the rest of the article they appear in.

The Galatasaray edit war seems to be limited to a group of three or four editors, so I thought it best to come here and ask for:

• opinions on the inclusion of hooliganism sections in football club articles (or placement of such content elsewhere in the encyclopaedia) in general
• a wider team of people to work on the Galatasaray article, so that the article isn't dominated by a handful of editors quibbling among themselves (and controversial issues can reach a meaningful concensus)

While I'm here, I'd also like to congratulate you all on the project. On the whole, the football articles I've seen in Wikipedia are excellent; well maintained, informative, and impresseively well-balanced. Well done, and thanks in advance for any help you can provide on the above. -- Waggers 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention for tournaments

Let's discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions#Naming convention for tournaments. --Pkchan 18:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for final standardization of navigational boxes

Read and comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Templates. -- Elisson • Talk 18:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism ????

--> All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (