Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rangers F.C. Articles

FYI. GiantSnowman

English club websites

Just a heads-up for you all - several English clubs have relaunched their websites over the course of this summer, meaning that the old URLs now redirect to the home page. I don't know whether the articles have been deleted or simply moved - however it will definitely take time to correct this - through use of archived links if necessary. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 12:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that Bradford City have done it, didn't know anybody else had and didn't know old links were dead. Good thinking clubs! GiantSnowman 12:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

They need to learn that websites aren't managers, who change every season. – Kosm1fent 14:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I always tried to avoid using club links as this was always likely to happen.--EchetusXe 15:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Could be worse, the url for the official list of Australian internationals now points to a club membership brochure... Hack (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The risk of having WP:OVERREF thrown at me notwithstanding, I often used multiple cites from official sources and news outlets for precisely this eventuality. Good to see it was the right call. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 14:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any alternative sources or archives for some of the statements at Tranmere Rovers F.C. Many clubs seem to use the same structure website - has anyone determined if the old articles have been moved or deleted? Cheers. U+003F^? 15:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also it appears that access has been blocked from outside the UK - at least, I cannot get past the home page on the the Southampton site. I'm in France for several weeks; it's bad enough missing the start of the season - how am I supposed to keep up to date with what's going on? I have the same problem with the Bristol Rovers, Bradford City or Tranmere Rovers sites. They all just go to a blank page. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer U+003F's question: unfortunately for us it appears that articles older than the start of last year have not been retained, not even in an archive section. In the case of Forest for example, that's eleven years worth of transfers, contracts, managerial hirings 'n' firings, and match reports (as well as a fair bit of PR guff) lost. At a time when The Independent still has articles from the '90s, when the Google News Archive can bring us articles printed in the early-'90s in Kuala Lumpur in seconds, this is a massive backwards step by whoever runs the club websites. Very disappointing to see. Also, some clubs that had the old standard layout haven't changed to this yet (such as Cardiff, for example). Would it be worth finding alternative sources now as a precaution? Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 16:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn. I dropped a line to Tranmere to see if they've just moved the pages elsewhere, but I won't hold my breath. The old site seems to have very poor coverage on the archive.org too – I wonder why. U+003F^? 21:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Lucas Moura to PSG

PSG have reached a deal with Sao Paulo for Lucas Moura who will join up with the French club in January 2013. Should his infobox list PSG now with 2013 as the year or should we wait until he officially joins in January? Also, for Sao Paulo in his infobox, it says 2010-2012, sort of implying he's time with the club is up, which is not the case. How do we fix this? The reason I ask here is because I've had this same issue for other players before and wasn't sure how to approach it. Personally, I think PSG should be removed from the infobox until he officially makes the move in January. TonyStarks (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. The infobox is an overview of his career to date. Adam4267 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree as well. Shall remove PSG for now. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully people don't keep changing it back. Also, the article is currently at Lucas Rodrigues Moura da Silva, however he is more commonly known as Lucas or Lucas Moura. I know it will be impossible to move the article to just Lucas given how common that name is but can we justify a move to Lucas Moura? There's a discussion about it on his talk page but it only has a few messages. TonyStarks (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested, a move request has been made to move the article to Lucas Moura. To voice your opinion and vote, see his talk page. TonyStarks (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Club badges for non-league

After a lot of work, there are now only three teams currently in levels 1–10 in English football that lack badges in their infoboxes: Eversley & California F.C., London Bari F.C. and Thurnby Nirvana F.C.. That's 608/611 teams done, but I can't find these three badges anywhere. Any help would be great to break this milestone. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure this is not the Eversley crest [1]. It must be the same club because the league table section has them listed in the same league. The other two are going to be hard, specially Bari because of the Italian team. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think more of an issue is whether the clubs are notable enough for an article.Eldumpo (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

They definitely don't seem to be. But seeing as they are English then I highly doubt they'll be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Eversley have very recently changed their name to the somewhat exotic Eversley & California F.C., so presumably their new crest would reflect that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Best option for Thurnby Nirvana F.C. appears to be the two badges from this programme! - http://footballgroundsinfocus.com/myPictures/P-ThurnbyN1112.jpg. Both badges appear on the players shirts. League Octopus (League Octopus 16:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)).

Well noticed Octopus! Very odd that they've just adopted the two badges of the former clubs rather than creating a new one. I've added them to the article. Agree with Breton that it's unlikely we'll see Eversley & California's badge as they're a new team so it may take a while for one to emerge. London Bari are a newly formed one too from what I can make out, and have only recently joined the Essex League. Cheers for the help everyone! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Belarus flags

There is a new flag of Belarus (which is in fact the old version slightly modified). There are very many articles and templates that display the new flag where there should be the old one, so after an administrator completes my request we could start gradually changing the ones concerning the period between 1995 and 2012. By the way, per our article, it seems that the old Malawi flag is not yet re-adopted, and the version featuring the white sun is still in effect. --Theurgist (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is already done... (1995), (Now). Cant tell though. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As I'm typing this, it's not done. The only "alias" the template has is "1991". {{flagicon|BLR|1991}} produces (File:Flag of Belarus (1991-1995).svg); any other value, whether "1995" or something else, is ignored, and the default flag is displayed. --Theurgist (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's done now. --Theurgist (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Premier League Copyright at Tottenham Hotspur FC.

I was looking at there 2012-13 page and not only did my computer get a virus but also I saw that they had the Premier League fixtures here. Now I thought that the fixtures were copyrighted so I just wanted to bring this to attention. So delete the fixtures or not. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you thought the fixtures were copyrighted, maybe you should have had the courage of your convictions and just deleted them. I notice you bring a lot of stuff to WT:FOOTY when it doesn't really need to be discussed, so perhaps this could be the start of a new chapter for you. – PeeJay 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Simple. I am on mobile. I cant highlight and delete and the internet is slow enough as it is as I have this page on desktop. That explains it. I dont disagree however, I shall do that in the future. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't mean to sound harsh by the way, I'm just a little blunt. Also, yes, those fixtures are licensed (rather than copyrighted), and since Wikipedia can't afford an annual licence, we don't add them. – PeeJay 19:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay. And no I did not take it like that. I do understand and I have been thinking that myself. Now that I am back on computer I shall remove it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm the original editor of the page, having added much of its content and format when it was first created. I know this has been a long-running controversy between a few contributors/editors and I wanted to come on here and discuss the situation and seek an amicable solution. First and foremost, I want to point out that there is both precedent AND valid reason to keep the fixture list intact on the listed page. For the previous seasons' page, the fixture list was kept intact for the entire season, with (to our knowledge) no copyright or license claim filed by Football DataCo against Wikipedia. Second, I want to point out that the ECJ ruled against Football DataCo in March, throwing out their case against Yahoo!, eZines, and betting sites for unlicensed use of fixtures by stating that it was not a matter of copyright infringement. Finally, I wanted to point out that Wikipedia is based in the US and, as such, falls under US jurisdiction in the matter of copyright claim. So long as the ECJ has ruled against Football DataCo, they have no legitimate claim against an American company following American law - and in the US, fixture lists/schedules are not copyright material and need no license. So the above listed are three very solid reasons as to why the fixture list should be kept intact. That said, if further confirmation or proof is required, please refer to the following links for information about the ECJ ruling: (http://www.mablaw.com/2012/03/football-fixture-list-dataco-yahoo/), (http://calvinayre.com/2012/03/01/legal/football-dataco-case-thrown-out/), (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/uk-yahoo-soccer-idUKTRE8201I720120301), --jeffjones217 08:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Squad numbers for specific seasons

Anyone know how to find them? I'm having a go fixing up the 1991 FA Charity Shield article, and it's very difficult to locate Spurs squad numbers (or Arsenal ones) for that season. I'm not even sure if either club have published a 1991/92 annual, so if they can't be found, should I just remove the numbers? Lemonade51 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Players were only assigned numbers on a game-by-game basis until 1993, so you won't be able to find any season-long squad numbers for that season. It seems likely, however, that the numbers already in place in the article are correct (with the exception of David Hillier wearing #25... surely the starting line-up wore numbers 1 to 11?). You might want to get hold of a copy of the match programme for the match-specific numbers. – PeeJay 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, will certainly have a look into this. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The programme from the match itself probably won't help, as it was printed before the game, amendments made with a biro notwithstanding. I could've sworn there's a comprehensive Arsenal stats site somewhere on the web but I can't find it right now. [2] gives the line-up, almost certainly in 1–11 order, but doesn't help determine which sub was 12 and which was 14. The realisation that there are now adult football fans too young to remember top-level teams using 1–11 makes me feel old ;-) Oldelpaso (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the match programme was printed before the game, but it is possible that the teams announced their line-ups in advance of the game, allowing them to be printed in the programme. This has certainly been the case for a number of pre-Premier League programmes I've purchased. – PeeJay 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Pre-1992 programmes always had the teams printed in them (I have hundreds of them), but the teams printed were invariably only on a "best guess" basis, and changes were pretty much always announced on the day (I have a Gills programme from 1980-something where I have crossed out and replaced ten out of eleven players on the opposition team). Even for a high-profile match like the Charity Shield, there'd be no guarantee that the programme printers would get all 22 players right...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct, there were no squad numbers in English football at that time. Bring back teams wearing 1-11 I say. Along with goalies wearing green and refs wearing black </oldmanrant> -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did they change it to teams having squad numbers?. I didn't know that "back in the day" all goalies had to wear green and refs could only wear black. What happened if a team wore green or black? Adam4267 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I can only speak for England, but referees only wore black until the creation of the Premier League, when they switched to green. Before then black kits were not allowed (Manchester United promptly brought out a black away kit upon the change). There was never a rule about keepers wearing green, they just almost always did unless there was a clash. Try doing Google Images searches for random pre-90s keepers. I'm feeling a lot older than my 31 years right now. Jumpers for goalposts. Saturday afternoons. Marvellous. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not to make you feel even older but I have absolutely no idea who that guy was. I understand what he was saying but I'm not sure whether it was a joke or not. Adam4267 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that makes me feel old! Do a search for Paul Whitehouse. – PeeJay 21:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Archie the pub bore. Talks to people in the pub, and when they mention their profession, no matter what it is and however unlikely, he always claims to have had the same profession ("I used to be a single mother myself"), That made me laugh. I did think that video of Ron Manager looked like a spoof but I just wasn't sure. Sorry to make you guys feel old. Adam4267 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine they introduced squad numbers because it made the Premier League seem a bit more cool/jazzy/hip, and because it allowed the clubs to charge mugs fans extra to print names on their replica shirts...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

They did indeed. Check out David Conn's book "The Football Business" for more info. – PeeJay 21:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bit that leads to bizarre newsflash

I need help in Template:Racing de Santander managers if you please. One dash needs to be removed in Juan Carlos Unzué because he has been fired BEFORE the Segunda División starts. Oddly enough, his replacement, Fabri González, met the same fate at SD Huesca, talk about your football oddities!

Attentively, thank you very much in advance --AL (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You've still got Unzué's row formatted as if it were the last entry in the list, as opposed to the ordinary format. You just need to format it the same way as the preceding one (Cervera). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed it, but what I really want to know is why we are using such a horrendously complicated template (using the {{Football manager list entry}} subtemplate)? I've now changed the template to just use the standard hlist format, which has pretty much halved the size of the template (6,855 bytes to 3,766) with no visible change to it. Having all these sub-templates (there were 78 involved here) puts more strain on a browser as it gives it more to process. Why is this needed, and can we get a bot to strip it out (I did it using a simple search/replace function in notepad)? Number 57 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A word on your "football oddities", Leroy Rosenior got fired after ten minutes as Torquay United manager. So yeah... beat that.--EchetusXe 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mohun Bagan sign Prasanta Banerjee as new coach after firing Steve Darby but then they relegate him to assistant in literally around 5 minutes after they signed Subrata Bhattacharya. But he was not fired so ya, you win. Speaking of which though, the article on Leroy says "Fastest sacking in English football." What about All-time football? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is just a case of the editor covering themselves in case someone in Zambia got fired in 8 minutes or whatever.--EchetusXe 22:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox founded parameter

ok i am looking for outside input, what should be the founded parameter be used for? i know in general it be the year the club was founded, but there the case of rangers fc where they have been relaunched should this type of information be listed in the infobox founded parameter as it a very important part of the club history it was relaunched the club so should be mentioned.

so the question is

should the infobox parameter only contain the year a club was founded or should it include or important information if revelent to the club

some arguments against it have been incorpation date isnt included in the infobox maybe this is something we should look at adding? ie new parameter |incorpation=--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is one article on a club, and they were dissolved and then re-founded, both dates are acceptable. GiantSnowman 17:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I usually do something like 1884 (original club)<br>1924 (refounded). Number 57 18:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

i have tired that but it is reverted by the same club camp, and the new club camp only take it as two articles but thaa bigger debate that in medation hopefully soon.

ok when it described as reformed relauncehd in reliable sources what woudl your recommendations be or your views on it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Port Vale F.C.? Where the club badge has 1876 on it despite a large amount of historical evidence that points to 1879 as the founding date?--EchetusXe 22:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe put '1876 / 1879 (see below)' with the 'below' being a link to a section in the article about the founding date debate. GiantSnowman 09:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Then the club went and 'refounded' in 1907 as well :P Oh well, thanks for the suggestion, with the new third "emergency alternate away kit" we have there was enough room to say "1876 / 1879 (see more information here)".--EchetusXe 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

can you give some of the examples of aritcles that already do it, and would football mos stay that more than one date should be meanioned???--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well Port Vale F.C. has more than one date now, three in fact. Bear in mind the club, the entity, was completely liquidated and a completely separate club, entity, took on the club's name but dropped the prefix of 'Burslem' (as Burslem Port Vale F.C. was then in the process of being liquidated). As far as I see it Rangers F.C. were expelled from the SPL and then immediately admitted into the Scottish Football League, so they never really ceased to exist. Strictly speaking Port Vale F.C. and Burslem Port Vale F.C. are as separate as F.C. Halifax Town and Halifax Town A.F.C., but hey, sands of time and all that, what?--EchetusXe 22:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

there two problems with the rangers ones, reliable sources state the founding date as 1872 but also as 1873 any inclusion of 1873 is said is warranted as it was 1872 that is pov, i rather we leave it to the reader to decide, 2012 date i think it important it is describes depending where the source is as relaunched, reformed or a new club, but any attempt to add this is reverted and said it only a news paper news source view on it, but i keep saying we cant ignore it if reliable source say it we have to mention it and leave it to the reader to decide, also by having relaunched 2012 it means there less chance of edit warring because rival fans want the Halifax town way of things ie two article so by stating on the infobox relaunched i think it covers saying it might be a new club it might not be its left to interruption of the person, can you give any advice??Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Newport County A.F.C. for one. Number 57 10:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

ok i have now tried again, and the one user who has been determined form teh beginig not to have mroe than one date nor comes up with there only one founding date you cant have more than one, but if we are to go with teh founding date the club own website says all fans knows that we where offically founded in 1873 Talk:Rangers F.C. any outside input from non invovled editors would be appericated not saying you will support me or him but i feel time has come for third opinion, there is pplenty of sources that put founding as either 1872 or 1873 i am happy to go the 1872/1873 route instead o my oriignal proposal of 1873 (formed 1872) as per the offical rangers site, since the sources say both as founding i think both should be meantioned and left to the reader

thanlks for any input--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Jules Boykoff

The University professor Jules Boykoff has played for the United States Under-23 team. Does anybody know what game(s) he was involved in? TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently he was involved between 1989 and 1991 but didn't make it to the Olympics. He later played professional indoor soccer. Hack (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

He seems to have played in the 1989 and 1990 Toulon Tournaments. Hack (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jermaine Grandison nationality?

So there's some confusion about whether or not Jermaine Grandison made an international appearance for Guyana. A couple of folks are saying that it was a different Jermaine Grandision, but the sources I found are saying that it was the defender from Shrewsbury Town F.C.. – Michael (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All the sources (specially transfermarket) link him to being a Guyana player (the Shresbury guy). I would add the info and then ask the guy who reverted why he thinks it is someone different when sources clearly show it is the Shrewsbury player. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It can't have been the Shrewsbury Jermaine Grandison who played for Guyana. He played a night game for Shrewsbury against Swindon the night before the international match in question, so he'd have done well getting flights to Grenada in time to play, and played for Shrewsbury again a few days later. This mentions him being stuck in traffic on his way to the ground, but not him having recently played for Guyana. Neither of these articles about him in the Shrewsbury local paper mention Guyana. In fact, according to Google, there are no articles on the Shropshire Star website containing both Grandison and Guyana, and there certainly would have been had he played for them. The Guyana Chronicle names the squad member as Junior Grandison, not Jermaine, and specifically mentions which of the squad were not locally based players.

The trouble with relying on purely statistical sites is that they all source from each other, particularly on more obscure matches/players/countries, so that once one site publishes inaccurate information, the misinformation spreads and becomes "fact". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Transfermarkt mantions his one cap for Guyana at his front page but fails to have a match report to back it up. This is why I keep on saying that only the matchs report backed statistic is reliable on transfermarkt. FkpCascais (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Any admins about

please could they have a look at the deleted Will Packwood, who made his debut in the League Cup last night, and restore it if there's any worthwhile content. Thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Done and done. GiantSnowman 09:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ta. It's better than I remembered it, saves a lot of messing about. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. supporters

Hi could someone please take a look at this page. A user has taken it upon himself to 'clean up' Wikipedia by removing all the negative stuff about Rangers and adding negative stuff about Celtic. Far be it from a POV editor like me to stand in his way with my "policies". So if someone who isn't blinded by their devotion to Celtic could take a look at the page I'd be most grateful. Cheers. Adam4267 (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

he heading for a ban he is pov pushing is all i can say i not goting to undo rather let someone not invovled do it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that it's Gefatane you're talking about, then I can't see what he's done wrong to be honest. Those latest additions are sourced and verifiable and seem to be taking the article towards a more NPOV to me. BigDom (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

what he put is fine an sourced, but he doign it because he cant remove the same type of section out of the rangers article without a consesnus, before you say i aint asusmign good faith look at rangers fc article history earlier in the day abotu secterism and you see he was reverting and deleting stuff and then move to the celtic one because he couldnt remove it, i am sure he maentioned sometihng on talk about the celtic page has very little, the problem is a lot of these editors thingk waht happens on one article should happen on another, sorry abotu spelling really to tired to fix--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice what he'd been doing on the Rangers page as well and I'm not saying anyone's acting in bad faith. To be honest, I don't care for Celtic or Rangers so not going to follow this up at all, will leave it to someone who knows more about it. BigDom (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a violation of WP:NPA at my expense. Although given no opportunity to defend my position until stumbling over this page today, I can state categorically that my Celtic Supporters page contributions were multiply-attested, NPOV additions, added in good faith, reverted by the user Adam4267 with no explanation given.

I'm happy for my additions to be judged on their merits so here they are one and two. As for editing of Rangers FC, I was compelled to contribute when the page was at the stage of stating that Rangers no longer existed, and since that time I've spent many hours of personal time striving to improve the article NOT from "removing all the negative stuff" as that childish comment above states, but concise rewording where required and occasional removal of irrelevant material (such as a substantial paragraph on OTHER TEAMS using sectarian language e.g. huns towards Rangers within the RANGERS sectarianism section). Once again, I'm happy to judged by my contributions.

It's a shame that editors such as above can launch ill-founded personal attacks on editors in which they disagree, but its a greater shame when the user in question has no right to reply. Until now that is.Gefetane (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam, I believe you either received or were very close to receiving a topic ban on Celtic related articles for a period of time in the past for similar disruptive editing. The discussion is here [3]. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup I did recieve a topic ban Monkeyman - from Green Brigade and Celtic F.C. supporters. I still feel it was completely unjust and has left me with a sour view of ANI and the way some admins handle themselves on wikipedia. However, I feel I became a better editor because of it so I'm not going to complain. Adam4267 (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So why are you edit warring on an article that you were topic banned from? Monkeymanman (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Season articles for States

I noticed that there are pages for Football in London or Football in Catalonia etc. and I am planning on doing so for a few Indian states as well but I am wondering because unlike England or Spain, the leagues in India below the top state leagues are not notable but I still have basic information available (League Tables, Teams, other information etc.) and I rather not make the league pages and seasons if they are not notable so I am wondering if I could make a page where it's a season in this state football (Example: 2012-13 in London Football or 2012-13 in Goan Football). This way I could add the league tables and other information of other leagues which are not notable by wikipedia standards and maybe add other things about the clubs that are notable. Maybe I could add what games the India national football team played in that state for that season. Or what major tournaments were hosted that year. etc. i think it could be very interesting but I dont want to go ahead with it before hearing your opinions because I hope we could also do this with maybe England or the United States because I always read about these controversies on here about "this article about this league season is not notable because this league is to low in the English football system". I mean if you have the sources and the information than why not. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If leagues are not notable, or clubs, they don't become notable in a season article. I guess there are 500 leagues in england/germany ervery year, sure you could source every single one of them. But wikipedia would become clusterd with articles nobody cares about. -Koppapa (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have Football in Goa, etc. feel free to list referenced tables of league winners/runners-up - but individual seasons that are nothing more than a collection of results should be avoided. GiantSnowman 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well like I said I dont want to make the individual seasons because I dont have enough sources to make them notable. I dont want to be in another situation like I was in June with the 2011 I-League U19 and 2012 I-League U20 but what if I took the tables and other information that is available from the 2nd Division, 3rd Division and 4th Division in the state of Goa and add it all to one page and name it 2012-13 in Goan football. Also like we do with 2012-13 in English football I could add a Promotion/Relegation section, New Clubs section, matches the India national football team played in Goa that season, then the tables, etc. I have the sources for that much so why not. As for the US, England, Germany etc. I will look into that but in the end I think there football systems are to deep for that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:UE Lleida seasons

Guys, I'm not about much over the next 2 weeks, anybody fancy taking a look at {{UE Lleida seasons}} - first glance most are unreferenced & non-notable. Sputnik, I'm looking in your direction ;) GiantSnowman 21:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Llorente

After seeing what i saw in the article's talk, this next week could be interesting. Someone there "ordered" us to write what can be seen there, when the media speculation (and nothing more at the point) is on his teammate Javi Martínez, only the newspaper Bild wrote about a possible transfer, no official issues still.

What's "interesting" is that, according to the user who wrote before me in Llorente's talkpage, the player is going to play for FC Bayern Munich II. Well i never!

In a unrelated item, can someone have a look at a possible re-protection on Cristian Tello? Vandalism afoot (last year i don't believe the player had an article still, but now that he may go and play for Liverpool, vandals ahoy!), especially one MICHAELS1882, have a look at this edit (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cristian_Tello&diff=507601049&oldid=507582539) and the following two. Sigh... --AL (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okeydokey, "work" on J.Martínez has also begun. Even if the Bayern move was confirmed (which it's not), what purpose does this edit serve (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Javi_Mart%C3%ADnez&diff=506572032&oldid=506563968)? --AL (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's that time of year. Don't worry about it. Revert, use templated warnings if you feel like it for fresh vandalism (you've got Twinkle, I think?), ignore. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Twinkle? I don't think i do mate, what is it? An helping tool? Unless it's automatically installed i'd have to say "no" to that question. Cheers --AL (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason I thought you had. It's a tool whereby if you revert a vandalism edit, it automatically links to the user page of the editor who made the edit and offers a menu of templated warnings thst you can use. It also helps with reporting vandals to AIV, requesting page protection or deletion, and with nice things as well, like welcoming new users. See Twinkle. Other similar scripts are available, e.g. Huggle. But it's like the rollback facility, in that if we use it for reverting vandalism, it must be really vandalism, not just an edit we happen to disagree with or by an editor we disagree with. See Wikipedia:Twinkle#Abuse. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Northampton Town Football League level

Bit of a discrepancy here. The article itself says that it sits at level 16 of the pyramid, the English_football_league_system page places it at level 12, while the United_Counties_Football_League page lists it as a feeder league, implying that its at level 11. Which is it? Valenciano (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Northampton Town Football League (NTFL) was always seen as the lesser division (relative to the Northamptonshire Football Combination (NFC) with NFC reserve sides often playing in the NTFL, but both had notional Step 7 (i.e. level 11) status. With this season's new National League System regulations and requirements, the FA decided to demote the NTFL to its true position (just below the NFC's five divisions) at the 16th level mgSH 12:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

my reading of it depends of the regional issues and the fa placement cant say for sure what it is, not found a defintive source that says one way or another--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Pinxton F.C.

Could an admin please restore Pinxton F.C. which was deleted in 2008 because the club had not played in the FA Vase. As of 2012–13, it will have competed in the FA Vase three times. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The article should only be restored/rewritten if it passes GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Which it almost definitely doesn't. BigDom (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitchell Dijks

What do people think of this article? I don't feel like he specifically meets WP:NFOOTY because he hasn't actually played yet, but the season just started. Do we delete the article until he actually plays in a game? Ryan Vesey 04:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Same goes for Mickey van der Hart. Ryan Vesey 04:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitchell would pass NFOOTY if you can prove that he played in the Dutch Super Cup (Johan Cruijff-schaal XVII) but he would still fail GNG which for a 19 year old I would go lightly on. I will actually revamp the page so that it may pass. Mickey is 100% not notable and should be deleted. We dont know when these guys will play in the league, maybe not at all this year. Specially Michael who (according to the page) is 3rd goalkeeper. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Okay, I revamped Mitchell Dijks page (hope you like it) but van der Hart will need to be deleted. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)  Done Mickey van der Hart has been PRODded. GiantSnowman 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lukas Podolski

Can someone help me here. Already undid 2 and sorta undid a third (I actually replaced an edit with a note) and I rather not do another edit and risk a block. Basically it is his shirt number, arsenal.com have not confirmed anything yet editors/IPs add with no real source. I have left a note but you know how things go. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:North African Cup of Cup Champions Seasons

Template:North African Cup of Cup Champions Seasons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Tiago André Coelho Lopes

Tried to move this page to RABIOLA (his sporting name, is not addressed by ANY of his real names at least when he's on the pitch), was not allowed. Can anyone assist please? Furthermore, when i type the words RABIOLA in the search engine, it leads straight to his article, proof enough page can be moved with "no problemo".

Also, i think some WP guidelines/technicalities could be revamped. How does this anon edit i made (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Francisco_Garc%C3%ADa_Hern%C3%A1ndez&diff=507835960&oldid=506204771) constitutes vandalism as summary puts it? So much for helping :(

Happy weekend all --AL (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't wory about the vandalism notice. Doesn't actually mean anything. -Koppapa (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Q1. Because the redirect page has content already, you'd need an admin to move it over the redirect.

Q2. The message was triggered either by an anonymous editor changing the player's name without a source, or by an anonymous editor adding a bunch of unsourced material to a BLP. A lot of vandalism is anonymous editors making unsourced changes, as I'm sure you're aware. You'd avoid the problem if you didn't edit anon, but the better cure would be to add sources for your changes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes STRU, i knew adding unsourced changes was not a very legal move to make, but i thought it had another name, never vandalism. Thanks for the clearing up, both of you my friends. --AL (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding unsourced stuff isn't necessarily vandalism, obviously. It becomes vandalism if it's done without the intention of improving the encyclopedia. But I don't really see why someone who knew about the WP:BLP and WP:V policies wouldn't add sources, assuming they have them. Saves people coming along and thinking they've made the stuff up :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• For players of the 80s and before, it's virtually impossible to find newspaper articles, etc. Only thing left to do is to repeat LINKS (with mere stats, etc) as REFS, and i hate that man! --AL (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be unaware that El Mundo Deportivo has a full free-to-access archive. So do some mainstream newspapers, e.g. La Vanguardia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of English reserve team articles

I've been doing a cleanup of Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy following the revamp of the youth system in England, and it seems that the club no longer has a "reserve team"; instead it has an "under-21s team". I wonder, should this be reflected in the article title? If so, can anyone suggest a suitable title? Manchester United F.C. Under-21s and Academy doesn't sound right to me. – PeeJay 22:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well technically it is still the Reserve team and this is technically still the Reserve League. If I am not mistaken for the "U21" (Reserve) side you are allowed 3 overaged players. So technically it is not u21. It is u21 + 3. At least that is how I look at it. So no, I would not change the name due to the overage players also allowed in the side and also Man U played a u21 + a few overaged played last year as well and before that so there is no difference for them. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But that's the thing, it is "technically" an under-21 league now, rather than a reserve league. There are rules in place regarding age limits (albeit with exceptions), just like the Olympics is an under-23 tournament with exceptions. All of the teams are now nominally under-21s. – PeeJay 00:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

True but in the Olympics we have the Great Britain national football team and Australia olympic football team. Of course people can say that we have u23 for the other 204 teams but that is because the qualifiers they play in dont have such rules of overage players etc. Specially since most of the Olympic teams qualify through ONLY u23 tournaments like in Asia and the AFC U-22 Asian Cup which is all u22-u23. In this case we begin from the beginning with the overage rule. That is why I think we should keep it at Reserves because that is what they are. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The league system, league, and teams no longer call it thier reserve squad but thier U21. You mentioned the national teams, but U23 teams are only unique to the Summer Games, Asian Games, or other multi-even games like those two. They don't play directly under FIFA/AFC/UEFA, but under the Games flag, and are obligated to follow the age rules. Those compeititions like the new English league rules uses U23/U21 players with exception of 3-4 players above those age limit. that doesn't mean we souldn't call it by the proper name. Using the reserve in the title will be wrong to do as there is no such thing as "reserves" anymore, even if old name used the same rules.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Believe the idea of 'reserve teams' has been replaced by the idea of 'development squads'. The old reserve leagues have gone and sides play in a Professional Development League. There is something to be said for renaming these articles from 'xxxx F.C. reserve..' to 'xxx F.C. development.... --Egghead06 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends whether the subject of the article is this year, or the history and development of the club's junior teams. If the latter, the "fact" that there's no such thing as reserves any more, or at least for this season, doesn't justify changing the name. For 120 years, there was a reserve team. For ten minutes, there hasn't been. Looks recentist to me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

So has an opinion on this ever been made. I am now saying U21 as that is what Man U and the media call it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ideas

1. We need a template of "list of super cups by year" for across all leagues (As in the way we have for all seasons) 2. Can someone help populate International sports calendar 2012?Lihaas (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the sports calendar article is needed. You could list a millin things there, where would you put the main focus? -07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Its for easy navigation, the asame way as the electoral calendar pages. A reference to the event of the year and then click-throughLihaas (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yearly cup templates

What about these? Template:2007-08_Turkish_Cup_finalists. Those other than the current one can't be uses in a useful way on any other article than the cup article of that season, and even there it's redundant. They are uses on some clubs still but could be exchanged for the current one there. Do i miss any purpose or should those be deleted? The uefa champions league only keeps the current one (which i think could go easily too). -Koppapa (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo, HighBeam and Questia

I supose most of you noteced the 1-year free accounts offer to WP editors at Credo Reference, HighBeam Research and Questia. If I had enough time I would definitelly use them for many purpouses, but is any of them usefull for football sourcing? HighBeam mentions newspapers and magazines... FkpCascais (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam would be, at least for the past 25 years-ish. I often come across sources that are mostly hidden behind a HighBeam paywall. Don't know how much they have in non-English languages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found it particularly useful for football. The only reliable source I've come across for Watford is The Independent, and their website is generally very good at putting and keeping articles online anyway. It looks as though it might be useful if you cover MLS though, as they have lots of publications from one of the bigger American cities. —WFC— 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Noticed most of the HighBeam sources are accessible on The Free Library. Tend to use Nexis when finding match reports or articles relating to football now, given the Guardian archive has been shutdown. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

When I looked I found that HighBeam et al would give me access to few useful football-related sources over and above those I can already access online using my library card from my local library. A lot of UK-based editors don't realise quite how much useful stuff can be accessed from home using their library card. In my county it includes the archives for the Times/Sunday Times and Guardian/Observer, plus Newsbank access for many national and regional papers for time periods varying between the last 10 and 25 years. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Would also like to add that the Google News Archive has been rather useful for me. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 14:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I just want to thank you all for the inputs and, subsequently, ask the following: is any of them good for non-English sources? I´m kind of interested in less known countries, stats which we have difficulties finding sources trough our usual sources (things like local African football, obscure leagues, etc.). FkpCascais (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nine goals in a game

After a German amateur player scored nine goals for Spandauer SV in a seventh division match this week I was wondering how common such a feat was. I did a bit of research and came up with List of goalscorers with six or more goals in an association football game. It is still very much incomplete, I presume. I set the criteria at six as it is a double hat-trick, if such a thing existed in football and seems a rather rare number, as only one players has scored six goals in the Bundesliga and none in the Premier League as yet. I restricted it to professional/first class matches. Would anybody like to contribute? Calistemon (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Classic example of original research, isn't it? -Koppapa (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia:No original research: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Every one of the players in supported by a reference, like the BBC and The Guardian. Where would original reasearch come in here? Calistemon (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The information may not be original research, but the grouping of it together certainly is. The choice of six goals is completely arbitrary. Why not five? Five is the current Premier League record, so you're automatically ruling out the entirety of England's top flight since 1992. – PeeJay 11:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

With five the list will become very long, even six may be to few. And a number had to be picked, just like List of Manchester United F.C. players is limited to players with 100 or more apperances, a number as arbitrary as six. How did you, or anybody, arrive at 100? Englands top flight is comfortably represented with Ted Drake with seven goals as it did actually exist before 1992, just under a different name, as is the Football League as a whole with Joe Payne (footballer) with ten. This (The forgotten story of … the Football League's record scoring trio) is actually a very interesting article on how the top-scoring record in England was broken 3 times in 121 days. Calistemon (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the double hat-trick comment above, is a double hat-trick in football four (as in cricket) or six goals? Hack (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@Hack, 6.

Regarding the issue here, I beleave that changing the title from 6 to "maximum" (List of goalscorers with maximum goals in an association football game) or something similar would fix the OR problem. Then, we would have WP:SIZE to limit the inclusion of lower numbers of goals which would become too comun (5, 4, etc.). FkpCascais (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As to User:Hack's question, this article on Ted Drake on the Arsenal website refers to a double hat-trick as six goals. As to User:FkpCascais suggestion its certainly not a bad idea, we could rename it and split it into countries & competitions. One fundamental flaw the current format has is that it does not allow, for example, for Oleg Salenko's five in the 1994 World Cup, a World Cup record, and PeeJay's Premier League record scorers. I will try to rework the article when I get some time in User:Calistemon/Sandbox and see what it looks like. Calistemon (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Article changed to new country/competition format and moved. Calistemon (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't say I like the use of "maximum" in the article title, that makes it sound like there's a limit imposed on the number of goals a player can score in a game............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Use Record or Most instead? List of goalscorers with record goals in an association football game or List of goalscorers with the most goals in an association football game? Calistemon (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Uruguay v Ghana (2010 FIFA World Cup)

Why do we have an article on this game? It seems to me that it is only notable for two things: Suarez's handball and being the third time (not even the first time) that an African team has reached the quarter-finals of the World Cup. Most of the information belongs in the 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage article, not in a splinter page. I will probably take this to AfD later today, but I would like to gauge the Project's opinion of the article before I do. – PeeJay 07:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

i dont know the page but youve already established some notability.Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Suarez's handball is not the first nor the last time someone has cheated in a football game: not notable. Ghana being the third team to reach the quarter-finals: not notable; if they'd reached the final or won it, maybe, but not the quarters. – PeeJay 08:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, players cheat every game. And the ref calls those fouls. Suarez's handball by itself was notable: the nature of it being last-minute and it obviously changed the outcome. It was a highly controversial incident discussed worldwide. And I still see this incident linked with news on Suarez. For example, in this Olympic preview Uruguay gets only one paragraph and Suarez is mentioned and then linked with the notable handball incident. I don't think it's too common for players to be linked with common fouls.

The article is expanded significantly past what was in the knockout stage article. If we put that all in the knockout stage article, then it's much longer than any of the other matches. And I think a stand-alone "splinter" article is a better place for a more in-depth discussion about the handball and aftermath. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable at all, just because there was a handball in the last minute does not make the match notable. What about the other 119 minutes? The article is about the match as a whole not one incident. Article should be deleted and info taken to knockout stage article. NapHit (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it passes WP:GNG. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How many of those sources refer to the game in any sort of historical context? They're all contemporary to the game, and we need more than that to establish that a non-final match is notable. NapHit is exactly right; nothing happened in this game except for a handball. It's not notable. – PeeJay 16:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Strafpeloton, what real need is there for an "in-depth discussion" of the handball? Suarez handballed, he wasn't sorry, people said he was a twat for doing it; that's about it. – PeeJay 16:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, four paragraphs about one incident is very excessive. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether the match merits an article or not, in our opinions, is really irrelevant. GNG is what we need to establish, in a historical context obviously. I had a quick look through the articles refs and at first glance there didn't appear to be one. That's not to say there isn't but it looks non-notable from what I've seen. Adam4267 (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I’m not too familiar with what’s out there for football pages, but it seems the smallest page would be for one match. It seems that just about the only current criteria for having a notable match is that a trophy is given. I think that this match fits mostly because of one remarkable incident. There are example from other sports where one incident makes the game significant: Tuck Rule Game, Miracle at the Meadowlands, Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball).

But it’s an oversimplification to say that nothing else happened in the other 119 minutes. It was a WC quarterfinal. It ended in a shootout. If he didn’t do it, an African team would’ve advanced to the semifinals for the first time ever. What would your threshold be for notable events for a match to be notable? Two? Eighteen? Couldn’t we say the same thing about the Hand of God goal? Well, nothing else besides the Goal of the Century (result of an internet poll) happened in the rest of the game, let’s throw that article out too. Maradona handballed, he wasn’t sorry, surely everyone said in 1986 he was a villain for it; that’s about it. That incident makes that game have significant meaning to the Argentines and the English, right? This was farther than Ghana has ever advanced and as far as Uruguay had ever advanced since 1970. Maybe it doesn’t have much meaning in some countries but for Ghana it has significant meaning. For example, I wouldn’t say this article is representative, but it is from the Barbados Advocate (a reliable source, half way around the world from Ghana), and Ghana is said to be “a country defined by bloodshed, sacrifice and a Luis Suárez handball”. It’s obviously not the universal viewpoint, but the handball incident is tied to Ghana.

Historically, the game and it's handball incident are tied to the controversial Suarez and to Ghana and is one of the memorable in WC 2010. The match article puts the play in context and it has added meaning since it was in the WC quarterfinals (as opposed to a league game or an early round game of some domestic tournament), and even more meaning that occurred as the last play of extra time (he probably wouldn’t have done it 20 minutes earlier, right?).

If I’m a lay person reading about Suarez and this handball incident keeps getting mentioned, I’d want to know the circumstances around it. My first question would be, there are handballs all the time, why is this one so important to be mentioned with him/Uruguay/Ghana all the time? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the articles you mentioned above have proven their historical significance by being mentioned time and again in not just national but global media. When people talk about those games, their reaction is almost always along the lines of "OMG that game was a classic!" but it has yet to be proven that this will be the case for the Uruguay v Ghana game. At the minute, it's more of a case of "Yeah, wasn't that the game when Suarez handballed?" It's not an all-time classic, at least not yet, and you have yet to prove otherwise. – PeeJay 01:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would look at it this way. Is Suarez's handball notable Yes. Is the match itself notable. Probably not. The match seems to only be notable for the handball incident which is part of Suarez's article so I'd say based on the fact the match itself doesn't apear to have long-lasting notability it should be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Check out WP:EVENT for a more thorough explanation of the notability criteria for events, many of which can be translated to a football context. – PeeJay 09:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tirana derby I and Template:Tirana derby II

Template:Tirana derby I Template:Tirana derby II have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footy-competition-prediction

Template:Footy-competition-prediction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Connor Smith

Please could someone unsalt Connor Smith, and move Connor Smith (footballer) to that title. Before someone asks, it's only because of his prominence on Football's Next Star that I think one appearance is enough to meet the GNG. —WFC— 12:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, unrelated but does anyone know what happened to Ben (the winner of Football's Next Star). I know he went to Inter and then supposedly Brighton but thats it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Currently at Ebbsfleet United [4]. —WFC— 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh god... is this why there is no season 2 because obviously season 1 did not find the next star of football. Actually scratch that, maybe Smith can make it as he is only 19. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Connor Smith ended up at a better club than Inter – our B-team finished three places higher than them last season. ;) —WFC— 21:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Their your B-team?? Adam4267 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We play in the bigger league... —WFC— 22:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well then considering that we drew with home and away with your B-team last season then I'd hate to get yous in the Champions League :P Adam4267 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait can anyone tell me what is this "B" team? I actually got lost after that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The people that own Udinese and Granada decided to buy the equally cosmopolitan Watford F.C. Don't ask why. Adam4267 (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately for you we're in the middle of a short break from Europe. You might be on the verge of one yourselves, unless you can overhaul the likes of St Mirren or Motherwell. —WFC— 13:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I never knew Watford had played in Europe before. I'm sure we'll manage to beat them however if we lose to Helsinborg tonight then we'll be in a bit of trouble. Adam4267 (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic, can anyone find a source for his birthplace. I reverted an edit which I was sure was vandalism (at least one of the articles called Connor Smith which was previously deleted referred to a Canadian), but having looked into it I can't find his place of birth anywhere. —WFC— 13:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the ever-reliable "Westmeath Examiner" his birthplace is Delvin. Adam4267 (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming of Inter Milan

The Inter Milan naming saga is still rumbling on. Some good arguments have been put forward by both sides, but we are no closer to a resolution. We have far too many guidelines being quoted, from Wikipedia:Article titles#Use English to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports), so I think we need someone who hasn't been too involved to come in and sort out which guidelines take precedence over the others. And once this is done, I think we need to apply some consistency across the board, because Inter Milan isn't the only club with a controversial name. – PeeJay 17:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously guys, this isn't going to solve itself if people keep looking away. Some more opinions are definitely required. – PeeJay 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry PJ I meant to respond but forgot. I agree the issue needs sorting and you've put some good ideas forward there. Personally I do think its a hard one because both arguments have good points. So maybe an outside influence could be helpful. Adam4267 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I do have a strong opinion that the name should be anything other than Inter Milan. But as these disputes invariably turn nasty, I won't want to weigh in on the article's talk page unless there's an RM or RfC open.

For what it's worth, my reading of the situation is that there is overwhelming consensus to use a common name over the official one. So the best hope of changing from Inter Milan (to Internazionale due to Inter being a DAB) is to convince the community on most of the following points:

• That there is not a primary common name.
• That Internazionale is one of the names commonly used by English speakers.
• That the relationship between "Inter Milan" and "Internazionale" is similar to that between "Man United" and "Manchester United", and that only the second and fourth of those terms is sufficiently encyclopaedic.
• That for some English speakers, in particular those proficient or fluent in English as a second language, Inter Milan is likely to be understood as Inter—Milan.

—WFC— 00:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No offence but I'd say those all look like quite weak arguments. Tbh I'd say the average english speaker would never say "Internazionale" or "Internazionale Milano". IMO the only real argument is consistency with other football articles. In all honesty I would prefer it to be at "F.C. Internazionale Milano" but I do feel there are more policies pointing to "Inter Milan". Adam4267 (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) For the record, I just want to say I personally don't think that Internazionale on its own would be a good title for the article for the exact same reason that I don't think Inter Milan is a good title: they're both shortened forms of the club's full name that seem to me to have similar levels of usage, which is why I'm arguing for the old title (F.C. Internazionale Milano) to be reinstated. But you're right about the line of argument that should be used. BTW Adam, I'm an English speaker and I exclusively use "Internazionale" to refer to the Nerazzurri. – PeeJay 00:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I'd say the average person who probably isn't aware of what the club's full name even is would refer to them soley as "Inter Milan" or "Inter" (obviously not an appropriate title). Considering you used the word "Nerazzurri" I would suggest in footballing terms you are an advanced speaker as David Daily Mail isn't going to know his "Rossoneri" and "Nerazzurri" from his "Rigatoni" and "Puttanesca". Although I would like to see it at the full club name and consistency is a good argument. I would say more policies point to common name and possibly Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT is coming into it a little. Adam4267 (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are redircts, so i don't see any problem with any title. -Koppapa (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I find that people rarely, if ever, seem to properly read WP:TITLE properly. It's quite clear that a name should be nexus of five principles: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. If these are all filled by one name, great, but chances are that compromise will be necessary. There is no 'winning' policy that beats these five principles: WP:COMMONAME, WP:USEENGLISH, WP:MOSAT (which is apparently the link for describing the use of conventions across multiple articles) do not trump one another, and are not unbreakable rules (there are many examples where all are brokebn). While we can on occasion privilege one of the principles above others, we have to have good reasons for doing so.

I probably wouldn't have moved the [F.C. Internazionale Milano page, first for consistency's sake, but mainly because - "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." But, now that it has been moved, this advice also applies: changing it back would not seem to bring any advantage. Under the five principles above, Inter Milan clearly wins out on two (Recognizability and Naturalness), and is probably more concise as well. It's certainly not an actively bad name for the article and as such I don't see any reason to move it back, even though F.C. Internazionale Milano is clearly better for consistency and precision. To move a page, I'd want evidence that a name is actively a bad description: Inter Milan clearly is not a bad description for the club (unlike, say, Sporting Lisbon).Pretty Green (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually PG, I'd say 'Sporting Lisbon' is in more widespread use than 'Inter Milan' - this kind of name is a slippery, slippery slope. Next stop 'Man Utd' and 'Liverpool (football club)'? GiantSnowman 15:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For me, the main issue was consistency - all Italian clubs on Wikipedia are (or were) titled by their full name. Why was an exception made for Inter? And I quite agree with the slippery slope comment. A secondary issue was the manner in which the second RM was carried out - i.e. just a few minutes after the old one (in which a move was rejected) disappeared off the talk page into archives - this seems to have been a deliberate attempt to prevent referral to the previous debate. Number 57 15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Giant Snowman "Next stop 'Man Utd' and 'Liverpool (football club)'?" The former is not a bad name for that article under the five principles clearly stated at WP:TITLE. I wouldn't support moving it, because the article has been stable at Manchester United F.C. for many years, and because Manchester United FC is also a good name for that article. But moving it to Man Utd would be no more confusing or troubling than William Clinton being at Bill Clinton. Sporting Lisbon might be more natural/recognizable (ie, common) than the current article name, but is so much less precise than Man Utd or Inter Milan that it would be a poor choice. Liverpool (football club) is also a poor name because it includes disambiguation where there is a perfectly adequate alternative name. Pretty Green (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Number 57 Consistency is important but I've seen no good argument for raising it above the 4 other principles of naming in the case of football clubs

I agree with the third point - I wouldn't have moved the Inter Milan page and it's not good practice to have repeated votes, particularly with a quick non-admin closure. But I also wouldn't get too worried about a move to a non-offensive name which still fulfils most of our naming principles. Pretty Green (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Any admins about II

That can undelete the Paulo Jorge Gomes Pereira now he has played a senior match.

Sources [5] & "Substitution Danny Murphy goes off and Paulo Jorge comes on." [6]

Thanks.--95.148.62.21 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I will create it. Give me 15 minutes. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No AK they want it undeleted. It must have been created before and it can be brought back as it was before. Adam4267 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn it. Misread undelete for create. I just saw the red link, Blackburn and debut and I was off. Woops. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it. Number 57 22:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

PC&NT updates in infobox

I have been discussing with User:Always Learning about the correct usage of the pc&ntupdates in footy infoboxes.

AL says we have to put the date of the last match, while I think that any date is OK. For instance, AL says we should not change the pcupdate during summer, and keeps on putting back the date of the last match (see: here), while I think that he is missinterpreting what is written at Template:Infobox football biography. He is interpreting the part saying "A timestamp of the last time the player's infobox career statistics were updated" as meaning the date of his last match, while I am interpreting it as meaning the date of editing update. He seems also to be unaware about the 5 ~ functionality, which obviously puts there the date of the editing, not of the last match. Please leave your comments. FkpCascais (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding five tildes is indeed the correct method of updating these parameters. IIRC I've actually discussed this with AL in the past. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• NEVER heard of that 5 tilde approach, "honestest" of truths. My reasoning was as simple as it gets and as i have originally been told years ago: when a player plays for his club or national team, the day of that given match is added to the end of the box, nothing more, nothing else.

I have seen users alter the PC update when a player signs for a new club (thus not having yet played for his new team) like in the case of the bit of a run-in i had with FKP in Francisco Manuel Durán, can't see the logic in that. Believe me, i am trying to grasp the concept(s) opposite to this basic one (a guy plays the update is added, a guy (or a gal!) does not play it stays put), but i just can't.

Maybe after some more inputs i'll be in the clear. Happy week all in the meantime is my wish. --AL (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that he changed club is irrelevant in this case (well, that was the reason why I came to that article, but it could have been any other reason). What matters is that the stats are correct and updated at that date, whatever the date is (it can be today, despite him not having played since last May). FkpCascais (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I add my opinion here. I agree that it should be from when last played. The reason I say this is because, as an editor of football pages of players from smaller leagues and smaller clubs, I do see the PC/NT changed at random times and usually it is because someone adds an pre-season result or cup result when that is not what the infobox is for. With players from the Premier League, La Liga etc it is easy to find but the lower pages cant be seen that quickly and may never be seen. That is why I think, to be safe, we should keep the PC/NT to the last game the player played. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, but how would you find the date of their last match for players that played in, lets imagine, Finish league from 4 years ago? You can easily find the stats, but searching the match dates is just too much. It would be possible if we would only be dealing with current players playing in major leagues, but it is completely painfull for more obscure leagues. Also, you can easily find the national team stats for any player (and you update it with no problems), but having to search for the last match date? Nah. You update the stats and use the 5 tildes to express the date the stats were updates. Even this is already an archivement, as many IP´s don´t even bother to do this, much less making them search the dates of the last match. FkpCascais (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: This section now looks messy. Please don´t take me wrong, but why you guys (AL and Arsenalkid700) don´t use the : and add comments orderly? FkpCascais (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The date should be any date (or date/time) at which the stats are known to be correct. That's why the wording at the bottom of the box says "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of". The five tildes method is the easiest way to do it for currently active players, though it's better if editors wait until after any ongoing match to update...

If just the date of the last match is used, the reader can't know whether the stats are correct as of before that day's match, during or after. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

League tables are updated "to games played on x", so I don't see the problem of players' stats being updated to a "game played on x" – although the template would have to be changed accordingly. I think this is only a matter of taste. I don't like the UTC times being added with the five tildes. For the majority of stats that I have updated, I have added the date of the last game. Then, if I'm the next person to update the stats again, be it after the next game or six weeks later, all I have to do is find the date of the last game to which the stats were updated (i.e. last game played) and go from there. But I guess it also depends a lot on the sources you use to update the stats. Jared Preston (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We're doing this for the reader, and so long as we make it clear to the reader what they're getting, it's fine. Whoever updates Everton players includes the words "match played" before the date, for clarity, so the wording ends up reading "correct as of match played 18 August" or whenever: see e.g. Tony Hibbert. That's quite neat, and totally explicit. But we can't restrict it to as of date of last game played. If we know the stats to be correct as of the end of the 2011/12 season but don't know the date a player last played, or if we know their current stats but haven't got time to look up the exact date of their last game, we do need to be able to put something that means that. Which is what the current wording allows. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the main problem are the less known leagues, for instance, while updating mostly Serbian football, I do often come to find myself updating stats for leagues I am completely unfamiliarised with (exemple, Serbian player playing now in Hong Kong, so I update his stats in Hong Kong). So when I search for his Hong Kong stats, I find them in, exemple, Soccerway, I add them, but I would just dismiss having to further search for the date of the last match. The stats are updated at this date (current date), and they are updated, that is all that matters (to me). Same applies with national team stats, I find his stats at this date and I simply dismiss having to digg when did he last played for the nt. Another thing is that if he played ocasionally for the nt once years ago, having the date of the last match (meaning years ago) would leave me with a feeling that he could have perhaps played in between, and it would be dubious, but having the current date would leave no doubts, he played X times, scored X goals till today. These are two completely opposite concepts and ideologies, and while understanding the utility of having the date of the last match, I think that in this parameter ends up being much more important to actually indicate that the stats are correct as of today, and not having to wander if there were more matches afterwords (but no one updated them), or not.

PS: Despite clearly favouring the current date in opposition to last match one, I personally also rather use the date only option as Jared Preston does (exemple: 21 October 2012), as the hour/minute part is useless as I usually add the day after the match if I come to update the parameter at the day matches are played, but as usually I don´t rush and I usually do it during the week, I don´t have the problem of needing the hour indication which is necessary for match days to know if the stats are from before or after the match. FkpCascais (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest having the date as the day of the match is a bad idea if the article isn't often updated. As then you won't know if it is updated to before or after the match. Adam4267 (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be when the stats are updated - they are correct as of that date/time. GiantSnowman 08:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@Adam - I thought the point of the timestamp was so that it can be seen whether the statistics were updated before or after the match. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 15:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing for number of fan clubs

I recently edited three articles to make clear that the claim for the number of fan clubs the club has is sourced only to the club's own website. Per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY, we can never state anything but the most incontrovertible stuff in Wikipedia's voice that is sourced only from a primary source. I think it is acceptable to change these claims to "the club's website states that..." for a claim like this though, but I wanted to see what other experienced editors thought. Any comments? --John (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a weak argument, but why would the clubs lie about how many official fan clubs they have? They're not claiming any particular numbers of fans, just the number of regional fan clubs, which I'd say is pretty incontrovertible. – PeeJay 18:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is why on reflection I would not argue for outright removal but could live with its retention, with the proviso I mention. --John (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

at the end of the day...... the reader will decided, i could go rad 200 sources saying x team has x number of supporter club but if believe it is false then it make no difference, same with if i beleiv it then it will make no difference, i think you forget its human that read wikipedia and human by there very nature choose what they want to believe or too believe themselves not what a source says. primary sources should always be backed up with 3rd party reliable sources where possible but it isn't always possible because some details contained within a primary sources will only ever be there. john since you love your policies i care about tea policies but i dnt go reading them all as i cant, one of the policies states something in this line, we do not judge the accuracy of the source we only report what the source says, by you saying a primary source is misleading you are judging the source, yes a primary source will possible have a commercial interest in themselves but it doesn't mean we can judge. a lot of editors and admins seem to forget the core of wikipedia to provide high quality articles the readers can trust, in that form the readers decides, editors who want to counter someone else arguments with a policies are only using there experiences to subdo another editor who might not know all the policies.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

John's edits seem uncontroversial to me, so I'm not sure what's prompted such a reaction. You don't need to delve into policy pages to realise that in-text attribution of a source is often a sensible thing to do.

Supporters' clubs are a pretty mundane subject (and I say that as an active member of one!). By and large they have little to distinguish them from those of any other team. I don't think they merit more than a line or so, stating the number of branches or members. But in each case here, that's pretty much exactly what we have, so no issue there. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

i never said it was, nor was my response to do with the support group it more to do with wikipedia in a whole which i think is getting drawn away from the core policy and getting driven by policies to form articlesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

I'm sure this is not the right place to bring this, but (despite having been a user here for many years) I don't know how to request a page move. Southampton's player No. 21 was listed as Guilherme do Prado, but this was recently moved to Guly (Brazilian footballer) with the rationale "WP:COMMONNAME". On both the Premier League website and the BBC he is listed as Guly do Prado which is where I think the article should be, but this move is blocked. "Guly" is at best a nickname and is not appropriate for the article name. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved him back to Guilherme do Prado for now. The editor who moved it is a serial mover of articles to where they think they should be, but sometimes they get it wrong. The instructions for requesting a move are at WP:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. You just add a section called ==Requested move== to the article talk page and put {{subst:requested move|Guly do Prado}} followed by your rationale for the move, and sign it. And you can put the {{movenotice}} template at the top of the article page to advertise the move request discussion. And wait. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped the editor in question a note. GiantSnowman 08:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyviol

This article 1963 CONCACAF Champions' Cup is copyviol from RSSSF. This text is copied: "The final was originally scheduled for September 8 and 10, 1963, with both games in Guadalajara, Jalisco; however, the Haitian players were unable to obtain their passports on time, so the final was postponed on three occasions. On February 7, 1964, Guadalajara lodged a protest to CONCACAF, which declared the Mexican club champions, but after a counter-protest by Racing Club Haïtien, CONCACAF ordered on April 2 that the matches to be rescheduled of the matches within 2 months. Since Guadalajara were touring Europe at that time and were unable to travel home for the final, the final was scratched and Racing Club Haïtien were declared champions." RSSSF states: "originally the final was scheduled for Sep 8 and 10, 1963, both games in Guadalajara; however, the Haitian players did not obtain their passports on time, and the final was postponed on three occasions; on February 7, 1964, Guadalajara made a complaint before CONCACAF, which declared the Mexican club champions; following a protest by Racing Club, CONCACAF ordered, on April 2, 1964, the rescheduling of the matches within 2 months; Guadalajara could not oblige as they were touring Europe at the time and withdrew, so Racing Club were declared champions." The rewording is IMHO insufficient. The copyviol should be removed, and the text rewritten.--Casmiki (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and remove such instances yourself! I have done so on this occasion. GiantSnowman 11:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the offending passage, and hope it isn't still too close a paraphrase. Thank you for pointing it out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)