Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Archives
July 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 Current archive (archived by bot)

"Greatest" claims

Several articles, including Pele, Maradona and Johan Cruijff claim that they are "regarded by many as one of the greatest footballers of all time". The same claim has been in the George Best article. Recently a few editors (who I suspect are the same person) have been removing this from the Best article. The claim is well referenced in the Best article, with referenced quotes from Pele, Maradona and others.

What are people's opinions on this? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Stubacca I am afraid you are a bit biased. The 'references' you have are feeble at best and so is your allegation that one individual is haunting you. This label "regarded by many as one of the greatest footballers of all time" should be used very carefully. Pele, Maradona and Cruyff are worthy of that label + perhaps a few more (should be researched). Many other splinter groups may feel their favorite footballer deserves that accolade as well, but one should remain very careful. I believe Zinedine Zidane and Michel Platini belong there, but I want more evidence before I would edit. The Best fans are such a splinter group.

1. A British interviewer has recorded that Maradona has said that George Best was his idol. This may be true - only one source though and it was a quote embedded in a story. I have heard Maradona talk about Best, but more in a sense that he could identify himself with the maverick, self destruction, and absolute football talent (that Best certainly had) married into one. Also 2. Pele mentions George Best in his list of 125 greatest living footballers, a list that his received a lot criticism for politically correct picking etc (am not saying that Best shouldn't be on that list - I think he should be) 3. From time to time, exclusively in British media it seems, one sees this hearsay quote from Pele where he endorses Best as the greatest footballer ever. Not only is this a poorly sourced quote it is very probably not even true and he has never said words to that effect or meant it in that way - blown out of context. Pele mentions Best merely twice in his autobiography, both mentions are drink-related but he does describe him as a 'Latin footballer'. 4. In numerous all time polls FIFA, IFFHS, France Football etc etc Best consistently does not even make the top 10.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Professeur70 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict with above)Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean about "haunting"? I agree the claim "regarded by many as one of the greatest footballers of all time" should be used carefully. But I believe the references given justify the insertion of the claim in Best article. If the claim was removed from all articles I wouldn't have a problem. It is the fact that it is included in some, and not in others where evidence to back up the claim is given, which I disagree with. Regarding your four points above:

1. The interview states "Who was his own footballing hero? - 'George Best. He's my idol'". That is all it says, nothing about self destruction or anything else is mentioned, so you're assuming that.
2. I'm not sure what point you're making?
3. It sourced from the BBC. I'm not sure how this can be dismissed as poorly sourced?
4. Yes, he is missing from some top ten polls as well, but that polls are only one issue.

My point is that enough evidence exists to make the claim. But making the claim in any article is expressing a point of view. Maybe the claim should be deleted from all articles.

By the way, some of your comments above could be seen as breaching WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My two cents on this:

1. The phrase "regarded by many as..." should never be in any article about any footballer as they are weasel words. I think zero-tolerance is the best way forward, to avoid any of the subjective arguing here, so it should be taken out of all the articles - Pele, Maradona and Cruyff included - in favour of truly verifiable assertions.
2. The Maradona quote is directly sourced from him in an interview, albeit one with a British journalist, which is dated and verifiable. As he is directly quoted and in context, I think the reference given is reliable enough.
3. The Pele quote is a lot more dubious - although it is a BBC article it is only mentioned in passing, not directly quoted. Unless a direct and verifiable reference to the quote, and preferably the full interview in which Pele says so, can be provided, it should be excised. Qwghlm 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you support the claim being removed in all of the articles it is in? I disagree that the Pele quote should be removed. A link to the actual interview would be preferable, but the BBC has to be one of the most reliable sources available. Their editorial policy is published and explicitly mentions fact checking. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect, and that applies to the BBC. The claim is uncited and does not give any detail as to when and to whom Pele said it, which makes it unverifiable. The George Best article as it stands implies, with its use of the quotation marks, that it was Pele's esact wording, when he isn't even directly quoted in the BBC article.

A little bit of Googling doesn't really bring anything more concrete up, apart from a couple of articles which quote Best as saying "Pele called me the greatest footballer in the world. That is the ultimate salute to my life" - but that's using Best as a primary source, not Pele. If it's true you'd think it would be easy to prove by finding the original quote. And surely Pele's own autobiography would mention Best more, if he really believed he was the best player in the world. Qwghlm 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By that reasoning you could call any source unreliable! The BBC reference is reliable secondary source I feel. I can't see anything in the policy to say otherwise.

On the subject of stating anyone is the greatest, my feeling is all of these claims should be removed. Anyone else agree? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the BBC as a whole is unreliable, just that what it says cannot be taken as gospel or set in stone. The article is not a news article but a feature puff piece, and does not directly quote Pele or give in any way any information that we could verify the claim with. Incidentally, in this article from 2005 Pele compares himself to Di Stefano, Sivori and Maradona when considering the best player in the world, but not at all to Best.

In the absence of a direct quote I think the line should be "and it is reported that Pele considered him the greatest footballer in the world", rather than the misleading way it is printed now. Qwghlm 09:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, I've edited the article accordingly. Thanks for your advice. I'll wait to see if there is any further input on the other "greatest" claims. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that this conversation has taught me is that the George Best article is in a very bad way. The section about his career has only 3 paragraphs about his time at Manchester Utd, with most of that prose being about Best being dubbed "the fifth Beatle". Why would anyone believe that he was one of the greatest footballers ever from reading that?! There is far more written about his alcoholism, illness, death and memorials!!! Are they really more important? Each of those should be reduced to a paragraph or so, and his footballing career needs expanding to at least 3 times the size.

The Wikiquote page is also woeful. aLii 11:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed these kind of claims from several different articles over the last few days. A rele vant section from WP:NPOV:

A simple formulation

Alternatively: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

On the subjuct of Best's article, I don't think it is in that bad a shape. Certainly the section of his footballing career needs expanding though. His "celebrity", alcoholism, illness and death are - unfortunately - notable, and a big part of why he was so well known. One the footballing sections are expanded the focus/emphasis on the these sections won't be as strong. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My view is that anything Pele says about any player/team should be taken with a pinch of salt. Despite being an incrdible footballer, Pele seems to have praised almost every half-decent player in recent memory - remember this is the man who thought Paul Scholes would be the star player of the 2002 World Cup! Blogdroed 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Any quote should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's someone's opinion, not truth. But Pele's quotes are as relevant as any other player's.

Another relevant relevant policy to this in general is Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pele, Maradona, Johan Cruijff, Best, etc are regarded by many as some of the greatest players of all time. If it can be vertified then keep the information in the article. It isn't POV for two reasons 1) the word "regarded" 2) the phrase "one of the".

None of the articles say for example; "X player is the greatest of all time" (as there is no way to really prove who is the #1 greatest of all time) but if they are widely regarded (and citations can be provided) to be one of the greatest, then keep it in there. - Deathrocker 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL? These policies prohibit these type of claims. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Stu, please stop your cruzade of removing what you consider POV until an agreement is met. Saying in your edits to look at this talk page doesn't give a good reason for them, since here there's not consensus on the subject. Please, leave things as they were until it is settled that those comments must be removed. --Mariano(t/c) 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Labelling my editing as a "crusade" is misrepresenting my actions. I'm following two important policies - WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are following your own interpretation of those articles, against all voices calling you to talk before acting. --Mariano(t/c) 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking. I've fully explained my actions several times. And I have stopped editing the articles until an outcome is reached. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stubacca's changes. Claims are okay if and only if attributed. "John Doe is the best flute player<ref>[2007 FooBar internet poll]</ref>" is not acceptable, but "John Doe is the best flute player according to a 2007 FooBar internet poll" is. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-15 17:16Z

I'm copying Quarl's replies from the Maradona talk page here, they summarise the issue well:

There is constant reversion backwards and forwards between these or similar phrases in the opening paragraph. The article cited demonstrates that in an on-line poll to register preferences for the greatest player of the 20th century, Maradona received not only the greatest number of votes, but an absolute majority. Such a poll is unrepresentative, and open to block voting, and I would not be infavour of a comment saying that "most football fans consider him to be the greatest", but it does prove that many count him as the best. Although "many" is obviously non-specific, I would contend that it is less mealy-mouthed than "widely held". Likewise, it is verifiable that many have registered a preference for him as the best, wheras to say that he is "among the best" invites the question "the best what? The best 3? the best 20? the best 500?". Thus to say merely that he is "among the best" is to damn with faint praise, and to underestimate the esteem in which this player's ability is held. (I make no comment as to his character, except to suggest that it may have lead a significant number of people to be unwilling to give the recognition they might otherwise have done to his talent). Thus I propose that the first phrase in the heading of this section remain, but look forward to lively debate of the matter. Kevin McE 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion I started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Greatest" claims in several football articles. and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Greatest" claims. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your position seems to be founded largely on WP:WEASEL: the top of that article reads This page in a nutshell: Avoid "some people say" statements without sources. My whole point is that here there is a source, and the source, an authoritative and relevant worldwide body, reports that a majority of those participating in a widely promoted poll say not only that he is "among the best" (which I would contend is a weasel phrase, for reasons stated above), but that he is "the best. Kevin McE 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stubacca's changes. Claims are okay if and only if attributed. "John Doe is the best flute player<ref>[2007 FooBar internet poll]</ref>" is not acceptable, but "John Doe is the best flute player according to a 2007 FooBar internet poll" is. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-15 17:16Z

I cannot see that a claim is any less attributed by virtue of being in the footnote than in the text, and the brevity desirable in a lead paragraph weighs against such detail in the opening sentence of an article. Kevin McE 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about whether it's in the footnote or not. The problem is an internet poll is not a reliable source. It's not even a secondary source. You can't say "Donatello is the world's favorite Ninja Turtle [1]". I'm not saying that Donatello isn't widely regarded as the best Ninja Turtle; I'm saying that an internet poll doesn't prove this, and if this claim is challenged, then it should be removed until it is supported by references. What is supported by the reference is "Readers of Slashdot voted that their favorite Ninja Turtle is Donatello [2]". Unfortunately for Donatello fans, that statement sounds wimpier; too bad, find a better reference to back up the original claim. That's WP:ATT for you - the onus is on the person trying to add/keep a statement, not the person challenging it. WP:ATT trumps concerns about the brevity of the lede paragraph. If "Foo says Bar is the best" is a crappy sentence, then remove it altogether; it doesn't mean you're free to write "Bar is the best." Can I give you more examples? "Americans prefer Rudy Giuliani to Hilary Clinton as 2008 president [3]" versus "According to a 2006 American Research Group poll, ..."; "Jeff Bezos was the most influential person of 1999" versus "TIME magazine considered Jeff Bezoes the most influential person of 1999." —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-16 07:01Z

Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The following site lists a cumulation of noteworthy "player of the century" lists created by media/expert polls. There are 11 total, and of those 11, 6 of them actually rank the players in order rather than listing them alphabetically or as a top 11 for a football side. In all 6 of the polls that actually rank the players, Pele is ranked #1. To me, this removes the POV element from the claim that Pele is "widely regarded" as the greatest football player of all-time. When you add in "athlete of the century" award from the IOC, player of the century from the BBC and L'Equipe, it is just about a consensus with the FIFA Internet fan poll the only contrary viewpoint. In any case, this claim is supported by a variety of media/expert rankings from around the world so I would argue that it is substantiated. I don't know if you feel that it should be attributed , e.g., "experts widely regard Pele as the greatest footballer of all-time" or "Pele is widely regarded as the greatest player of all-time", with a footnote to the rsssf page, but I think the evidence is there to move it out of the POV category. Oh yeah, here's the link: http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/bestbest.html Ronnymexico 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, just the actual achievement/rank/quote should be stated. See above. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly following but I will try to conform an edit to what I think you're saying. Ronnymexico 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To give an example of what I mean, see this diff. The artice originally stated that Maradona is "widely regarded as one of the greatest footballers of all time". There were two references given for this claim, one was the FIFA Player of the Century poll and the other a quote from Eric Cantona. As you'll see from the diff I changed this to reflect what the references actually say. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I removed it from the heading and placed the statement and attribution under the "honors" section, which I think is probably more appropriate. I tend to question the worthiness of Cantona's opinion of Maradona v. Pele, particularly iat the top of the Maradona article, but that's neither here nor there. Ronnymexico 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the changes on the Pele article. I left some comments on the Pele talk page. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy

Help! Hassle at Berliner FC Dynamo

I need some help in dealing with User:Nadia Kittel who persists in making poor edits to this page and various others. This has been an on-going problem that has included posting of spam external links, deletion of external English-language links, posting of unsourced images, posting of incorrect material, and one petty edit after another, all wrapped up in a refusal in anyway to respond to entries on his talk page or the talk pages of the articles he edits. He's also demonstrated a gift for bizarre formating turning simple lists into unmanageable columns and at one point he had the BFC page looking like this:[4] and its been an on-going struggle to keep the article from being turned into a fan page, hoolgan/Ultras central, or shrine to the former DDR. He won't respond to posts in English or his native German from any other editor and has often deleted or immediately archived talk items that don't suit him. Doesn't think twice about carrying on under various IPs. He's overwritten image files with his own inaccurate versions. He's dumped material copy edited for correct English for his own poorly translated stuff (if anyone can make out the caption to the Mielke picture currently posted, you deserve a prize).

I've posted looking for help elsewhere, but am not getting anywhere (i.e. no responses in general forums) so I'm hoping I can find other editors or an admin with an interest in football who may be better motivated to help bring this guy around or lay a block on him (he's been blocked before for his unfriendly approach). I'd rather be back at creating new articles or editing existing stuff to help improve things, but instead I'm sucked into a stupid edit war and will end up taking a bullet for it sooner or later. We're down now to stuff that's more trivial in nature than where it was weeks ago, but I'm tired of the guy's months-long pattern of obnoxious behavior. And frustrated. Help! Wiggy! 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes open. Note that both you and Nadia (isn't that a female name by the way?) have broken 3RR on that article, although I won't do anything about that right now. Just stop reverting for now (I'll do it if needed) and we'll handle this. I've had some problems myself with Nadia but haven't bothered to take any action. Now may be the time. – Elisson • T • C • 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of my 3RR violation and that's why I said I figured I might take a bullet on this. Its just been extremely frustrating dealing with this guy (yeah, guy from the early history of his user page - I was corrected on this as well) and other attempts to get the thing straightened away in an appropriate manner have been an utter bust. I can see you've made some reverts and were immediately subject to a dose of the same nonsense. Part of my concern is that User:Nadia Kittel's ill conduct is consistent and fairly widespread, not just limited to this one article. The irony is that he's capable of some good contibutions when he can get past his POV and attitude.

In any case, any whining on my part aside, thanks profusely for your attention - its a relief already. I'll try to stick to more productive edits. Wiggy! 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to rename this section The Chronicles of Nadia, but I shall resist. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! You wouldn't be that far off! I dare ya ...  ;) Wiggy! 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Nadia has returned as User:141.76.177.36 and is gratuitously tagging articles as requiring sources. In many cases multiple tags are being added to the same article. While many of these articles do indeed require sources the only thing that ALL of these articles have in common is that they were edited by me at some point in time – there is not a single article on the user's contrib list that wasn't edited by me. This is a pretty clear case of bad faith editing and wikistalking. This IP needs to be warned or blocked. Wiggy! 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets standardize national team templates

There have been various TFD discussions regarding the national squad templates, and there has been no real consistency to the results either. I've listed them below (shamelessly swiped from a comment in the most recent discussion) for everyone's reference.

• October 17
  • Delete one non-champion squad
• November 13
  • Delete one non-champion squad
• November 17
  • Delete two non-champion squads
• November 21
  • Delete 13 non-champions, 6 champions; keep one champion
  • Deletion review (brought by me) withdrawn because I did not have the energy to fight at the time
• November 30
  • Delete 2 non-champions (plus 4 league all-star templates)
• December 4
  • No consensus; default to keep one champion, and one non-champion
  • Deletion review December 21
    • review was brought on no concensus; closed with suggestion to bring to TFD again
• December 12
  • Delete one non-champion
• February 6
  • No concensus; default to keep one non-champion
• March 8
  • No concensus; default to keep 6 non-champions and 4 champions
• March 14
  • Keep one non-champion

So, the results have been all over the place, tending towards keep recently, against precedents previously set. Personally, I think that a link to a team's roster page for a particular tournament on a player's page is sufficient for our purposes here. See Yoshikatsu Kawaguchi#National team for one example.

But regardless of my opinion on the outcome, I think we need to standardize the rules for inclusion of a national team template on a player's page first. AFAIK, World Cup teams are widely accepted, so I've left them off the list below. I'd like to see what kind of concensus is building towards the rest of these, though. So, please add keep or delete to each section. If concensus is to delete some of these, then, the next step is to work on a standard way to link to rosters from athlete pages. The Kawaguchi example is just one suggestion; but, there is no sense in clouding up the discussion on whether the templates belong or not with details on how to replace the information they contain. Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Types of national team squad templates

All squads from most recent federation championship (EURO, Asia Cup, etc)

• Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as clutter. Spend time on expanding the articles with text instead. Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Champions from most recent federation championship

• Weak keep Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All squads from most recent Confederations Cup

• Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Champions from most recent Confederations Cup

• Weak DeleteNeier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All squads from all federations championships

• Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Champions from all federations championships

• Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All squads from all Confederations Cups

• Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Champions from all Confederations Cups

• Delete Neier 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Punkmorten 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete aLii 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – Elisson • T • C • 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I would rather be rid of them all. At the very least, they should be reformatted so that we can combine multiple squads into a single box like I proposed some time ago. Qwghlm 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The TP do have good effect, but they clutter. My opinion is to slove the clutter, by hide option And limit the creation of TP by event. That's not reasonable to create TP for every match, so do some Cup just like friendly matches, eg. Lunar New Year Cup, Cyprus International Tournament, Kirin Cup.

I suggest only limit to top regional senior event by AFC, OFC , UEFA, CAN, all senior event by FIFA, and Olympic football before 1992 (before 1992 is a senior event).

That's is

• Asian Cup
• African Cup of Nations
• CONCACAF Gold Cup
• Copa América
• OFC Nations Cup

Europe: UEFA – European Championship

FIFA World Cup

• Confederations Cup
• Olympic football (before 1992)

But no more TP for

• UNCAF Nations Cup (Central America)
• Caribbean Cup
• ASEAN Football Championship
• East Asian Cup
• South Asian Football Federation Cup
• West Asian Football Federation Championship

So i put Template:Hong Kong Squad 2003 East Asian Cup into TFD, but fail by voting of my fellow citizen. Matthew_hk tc 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat my comments earlier at Euro_Championship_templates - the present situation is a mess, and the templates clutter up the articles they get attached to. Ultimately, however, I think this debate will never be resolved and these b####y templates are here to stay. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your last sentence, but, I haven't given up hope yet. As Matthew_hk alluded above, individual TFD discussions are usually blanketed by WP:ILIKEIT voting from people in whichever country is listed. If we can build a strong concensus which is free of individual nation bias here, then, our guideline can be moved to the project page, at which point we can cite it in future TFD discussions, and eventually clean up the articles. That's my goal here. Neier 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Punkmorten 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this initiative. These templates are spreading like a rash; in many cases they overwhelm the (often very short and poor) articles to which they are added. Centralised discussion and centralised consensus are the way to go I think. --Guinnog 07:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What are confederation competitions? If federations are Euros etc., then...the World Cup? I agree with this too, but if we were to have a mass Tfd drive we'd all need to turn up in order to counter those casual voters. HornetMike 11:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you wondering about the Confederations Cup? FIFA brings together the winners of the Euro and other regions every four years, between World Cups, for an 8-team tournament. Lately, it's been held in the upcoming World Cup host nation as a practice of sorts. If concensus here holds its current course over the next week or so, then I think the best thing to do after its inscribed into the project style-guideline is to follow the example used last year when many mast/antenna articles were deleted. They started with a policy, then nominated the shortest and least-notable masts for deletion. Working their way up to taller and taller masts, it snowballed to where concensus fully supported the deletion of most of them. Neier 12:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not have a "current squad" template (like we have for club teams) and delete the rest? Or has this been ruled out before? Kanaye 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a huge pain to keep them up-to-date, that's why. Just think of all the players that will be missing this weekend due to injury, then all the ones that have been drafted in to replace them... and this happens every few months/weeks. You'd have to remove and add the templates to articles constantly. aLii 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also definitely oppose that approach. National teams often go several months between fixtures - who's to say what would comprise the "current" squad during those periods? Also, for friendlies it isn't unknown for them to pick a squad of 30 or more players - would they all get added to the template and have it added to their articles for a few days? Sounds like an impossible task.... ChrisTheDude 07:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nighmare again, another youth football template. Template:Ghana squad 1991 FIFA U-17 Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Matthew_hk tc 09:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Macedonia squad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) a current squad TP. Matthew_hk tc 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I noticed Macedonia myself, and then when I came here to pick up the link for the deletion discussion, I also spotted your addition of the Ghana squad. Feel free to express your opinions on those discussions. Neier 08:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pelé's infobox (goals)

As one of the users that helped to piece together the readily available information about Pelé's total number of goals, it has come to my attention that there is a minor edit war brewing on the article over the number of goals that should be displayed in the infobox. On one hand there is a case for stating the games (goals) for his Santos career as 193 (119), which is the sum total for national league-based competitions. The other argument is that the regional league, the Campeonato Paulista, should be counted, bringing the total to 605 (589). Further details on his career stats breakdown can be seen at Pelé#Goalscoring and appearance record.

The infobox footnote states: Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only.

I doubt that Pelé's circumstances were in mind when the infobox footnote was formulated, so what does everyone think? aLii 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not especially "up" on Brazilian domestic football, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the state championships are considered to be of equal prestige with the national league....although maybe I imagined that..... ChrisTheDude 07:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Any opinions? Please? aLii 12:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The structure of Brazilian domestic competition is mindblowingly confusing. My understanding (which consists solely of having read the book Futebol: The Brazilian Way of Life) is that as ChrisTheDude says, state championships have more or less equal value. Bear in mind that the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A has only been going since 1971. Oldelpaso 17:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Before Campeonato Brasileiro (1971-on) there was Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa (1967-1970) and Torneio Rio-São Paulo -- which from 1950 until 1966 had a national-level status. But Campeonato Paulista have never had a "national" status. It's merely a state-level competition. What if people begin adding every apps and gols from every domestic league in Brazil? The structure of Brazilian football is pretty much based on the English one (not THAT much divisions lol) as were English descendants Charles Miller and Oscar Box who brought football to Brazil. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to explain is that the Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa was not a straight league competition, and that the Torneio Rio-São Paulo was a regional competition, as suggested by the name. There are plenty of Brazilian clubs that are not from either Rio or São Paulo, and as such were excluded from taking part. So are you suggesting that we should state that Pelé only played 84 domestic league games in 19 seasons while at Santos? (With zero appearances in his first 15 seasons!?) Even if we include these two that still only gives 193 appearances in 19 seasons, and then you have the dilemma of explaining why some regional competitions are included, but others are not.

Surely the only logical decision is to list all domestic league appearances including those from the league in which Pelé played most of his games? aLii 22:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention "logical" in here. We're trying to reach a common sense. If you really want to mention "logical", the "logical" thing to be done, would be removing Roberto Gomes Pedrosa's and Rio-SP's apps and goals as you have just said these are not "straight league competitions". So, please, don't mention "logical". The keyword here is reasonability. We should put in the infobox only one league by season. This is the reasonable thing to do. And to do so, we should pick the main league he's played, year by year: 1956 Campeonato Paulista, 1957-1961 Rio-SP, 1962 Campeonato Paulista, 1963-1966 Rio-SP, 1967-1970 Roberto Gomes Pedrosa and 1971-1974 Campeonato Brasileiro. This is reasonable and fair. Adding two leagues by season? Really not fair. Nor reasonable. Nor "logical". —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that the "main" league played in by Santos for Pelé's first 15 seasons was the Campeonato Paulista. I don't understand how you can argue that a regional league with only 8 games should be ranked higher than a regional league with 38 games. However picking and choosing which league to count in whichever specific season is obviously nonsense and original research. On that note you should read Wikipedia's policy about original research and why it should not be used. If we decide that only one league should be counted, then that league should obviously be the Campeonato Paulista because it is the only competition that had any kind of stability throughout Pelé's career. aLii 09:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing that's obvious from this is that there's no quick, definitive answer for how many domestic league goals he scored. Perhaps the infobox should state "see below" for his Santos goals, linking to the section describing his complete goalscoring record. That way noone has to make a value judgement about the status of various Brazilian domestic competitions. Oldelpaso 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that Oldelpaso have the smartest and most reasonable solution. I can agree with it, let's wait for aLii. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, the infobox was never designed to cope with such situations, so it sounds like a reasonable compromise. aLii 21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing players

Should a player who was signed for some club, but have never played for it, categorized as a player of this club? MaxSem 08:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean should we add, for example, Category:Arsenal F.C. players to a player who's in the squad but has never played a match for the club? I'd say no, personally.... ChrisTheDude 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes. If a player has been part of the squad then others may have information on that player and if he's in a category would be able to spot him there and add the info. I see categories as an aid to expanding content rather than just a list of players. WikiGull 11:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes - if they have been under contract (loan or permanent) with a club and registered with them, then they are player with that club. Current first-team squad members who have not yet played a game would naturally be given the category so it makes sense to extend this to past ones as well. Qwghlm 12:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes per WikiGull and Qwghlm. – Elisson • T • C • 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Category:Leeds United AFC players stats that "This page lists footballers who have played a 1st team match for Leeds United, of Leeds, England." This should be changed because this is the only category where you have to have played a 1st team game to get in so the likes of Folan and Seaman miss out.Kingjamie 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But were Folan or Seaman ever full professional players for Leeds, or even included in match squads for official matches? If not, this is a different issue. Given that an appearance with a fully professional club is a notability criteria, it makes sense to leave out players who were neither a member of the first team squad or signed to a professional contract with a club. Ytny (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Folan and Seaman were professionals, Folan was still at Leeds into his 20s. ArtVandelay13 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No definition of x player requires the player to have actually played a first-team game, merely to have been part of the playing squad. To omit players who haven't played renders the category incomplete. The exceptions I'd make are for triallists (except those in countries where they can play for thr first-team), and players that have left clubs before the age of 16. ArtVandelay13 16:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The other exception that should be made, apart from trialists, is players who "guested" for other teams during wartime football - in England at least, this was a highly erratic and idiosyncratic arrangement on a match-by-match basis, not like the formal loans system of today. Qwghlm 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes - Andy Webster, for example, could rightly be described as a Rangers player - therefore players such as him should be included in these categories. Archibald99  16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the precedent is yes. See Dietmar Hamann and category:Bolton Wanderers F.C. players. The players of nowadays should not be a problem, as they have to sign a contract and the club has to hold the registration (approved by FA or FIFA etc.), so trialists don't count. Not sure about those of yesteryears though. Chanheigeorge 09:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no. In my opinion, until he plays for club, he's not a "player". Seaman for example, might be a member of Category:Leeds United reserves players (if such a category ever existed), but not Category:Leeds United players. - fchd 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that if a player has had a professional contract with the club, they should be included in the category. I know it's a bit dodgy with people who didn't actually play, but seeing as they were a player for said club I think they should be included. HornetMike 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Champions" or "champions"?

I know this is a really minor point but I figured I'd bring it up anyway. I've noticed that on a lot of football pages, editors have put things like "So-And-So F.C. were Champions of the Such-And-Such League in 1983" - is there a reason for the use of a capital C on "Champions"? it's not like it's a proper noun..... ChrisTheDude 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably care if I wasn't too busy claiming ownership of the Jeanfield Swifts article. ;) Champions is one of the less irritating capitalisations I've seen - though, other than Footballer thrown into the middle of a sentence, they escape me at present. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always used a capital "C" for Champions, as I treat it as a sort-of honorific title. I do the same for "Cup Winners" but not for "runner-up" etc. I think I changed one article from a small c to a capital C earlier today. I wouldn't worry too much if consenus was for a small c though. - fchd 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the context, for example:

• IFK Göteborg once again became champions in 1996

and

• IFK Göteborg once again became Swedish Champions in 1996

are both correct, IMHO, since the later can be seen as a title and a proper noun, although "Swedish champions" is correct as well if one choose to not treat the two words as a proper noun. I wouldn't say the same for "Cup Winners" though. – Elisson • T • C • 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I use "champions". Out of curiosity I looked in a few of my books, usage varies. Oldelpaso 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Same. Daniel Bryant 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I follow the same rule as Ellison. In general I think the small c is better, because champions isn't officially a proper noun. HornetMike 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New Featured Article

Hey, thanks to all who contributed and suggested, Ipswich Town F.C. is now a featured article, making it only the sixth English club article to reach this status, and only the second outside the top flight. Hurrah. The Rambling Man 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Football rivalries - duplication of info.

There appears to be significant crossover between the articles Local derbies in the United Kingdom and List of football (soccer) rivalries. Can these be merged or somehow restructured to prevent duplication? --Jameboy 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens, the article Local derbies in the United Kingdom cannot just simply be merged with List of football (soccer) rivalries as the UK derbies list is about differing sports, such as football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket and hockey. And not just football. Tangerines 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultras and List of ultras groups

Both these pages appear to be a bit of a mess with dead links, multiple links, numerous unverified sources and lists of unverified groups. Both pages are full of alleged ultras groups, many of which are not verified. And it just seems that groups keep getting added without being checked. For instance, in one of the list of groups, a German club - FC Berliner Dynamo has numerous entries. Yet when checked, they all just seem to be links to fan websites, and nothing to do with ultras.

Also, some of the content is more relevant to the pages about football hooliganism, which whilst a similar area is a different subject. I would like to try and work on both the pages to see if they can be made more appropriate for wikipedia and to also then maybe get the idea tp merge the List of ultras groups into the Ultras page finally sorted (At present it would probably make the pages even worse to merge them). It wouldn't be an overnight task as it would take a while to get everything sorted. Would it be in order to make a start on this? Thanks Tangerines 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The specific problem you cite related to Berliner FC Dynamo is the result of the misconduct of a particular user and (now) his sockpuppets. If you're curious about the mess you can review that article's history or the related material on this page. I wouldn't feel particularly constrained in patching that stuff up. As for the rest, fixing up articles is good! I say go for it and have fun. Wiggy! 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the example I gave of Berliner FC Dynamo would have been that very same user, having read about the user above! No surprises there really! I will have a go at sorting out both pages this weekend (I did a few days ago partly clean up the England section on the List of ultras groups page). And then, once done, see what everyone thinks. It might look completely different though as there are a lot of dead links on the pages! Thanks, Tangerines 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tidied up the Ultras article, including deleting all the groups listed that were not verified. The article Hooligan firm has clear guidelines for adding a firm - that there must be a reliable, verified source naming the firm, with a note included on the list stating as such. I have used this same guideline for the groups list on the Ultras page. There were also numerous links to discussion forums, dead links and completely irrelevant links. And especially on the list of German groups, much of the so called "Groups" were just links to Fan pages, news articles, hooligan articles - basically anything but Ultra groups. What will be needed now with that page though is to verify much of the content of the article. Which is what I propose to do next.

However, the article, List of ultras groups is also a total mess in a similar way. Groups just seem to be added without any thought. And it is further confused as the talk page for the article - Talk:List of ultras groups contains no discussion and only contains yet another a list of groups which just seems to have been transposed from the list (as it was previously) on the Ultras article. If this is left as it is, then no doubt some will continue to add to both the talk page and the main page. Which makes no sense then of having a talk page on that article. I am going through the same process again of deleting any unverified groups - this time on both the main page and the talk page. However, I also would suggest that the talk page has the list removed as it is redundant and is also not discussion. Then the talk page can be used for what it is intended, and discussion can take place about merging it into the Ultras article. I hope all this makes sense, but to be honest the pages are confusing and a mess anyway. Would this be in order? Tangerines 13:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support the deletion of list of ultras groups, as an indiscriminate list turned total mess. I could provide a precedence, but as per WP:BEANS I won't. Punkmorten 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the List of ultras groups article now it is no longer a total mess, andc certainly no longer indiscriminate. I have deleted every single group that was not verified on both the talk page and the main page. And over the course of the next few days I intend to amalgamate the two lists from that page into one. And then to see about merging that page into the Ultras page where it can also be regularly checked. Tangerines 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• The trouble is that what you might call an ultras group, I might just call a fan club, and vice versa. There's no clearly defined criteria for membership of this list, and should it come to AfD, I woudl probably vote to delete as well. - fchd 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Indeed, which is why I deleted the vast majority of groups listed. Please bear in mind that, the only reason this is even being discussed is because the two articles Ultras and List of ultras groups had been virtually left unchecked for a long time and so I decided it was time to sort them out. I have gone through every single group listed and only retained those who from their websites call themselves an Ultra group (I May have made mistakes but I will also be checking them all again). It has nothing to do with what I call an ultra group, as personal opinion does not come into it. I am basing it solely on whether the site linked to mentions that the groups are ultras. Obviously I will have made mistakes as I have worked on it most of this weekend and checked probably over 100 websites. But I would also ask that you be patient and bear with me while I try to sort the mess out. The point being that once complete, the page List of ultras groups can be merged with into the Ultras article, and only contain groups who clearly identify themselves as Ultras or in the case of most South American groups - Torcidas etc. Tangerines 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• A further point being that some groups can be moved to either of these pages - Torcida and here - Barra Brava with a note explaining that any South American groups go on those pages. Tangerines 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Over the last couple of weeks I have worked on these two articles. Both Ultras and List of ultras groups now contain exactly the same list of groups. Originally there were three lists (including one on the talk page of List of ultras groups) with all sorts of different groups. I have now gone through all three lists, removing the talk page list, leaving just the two lists which are now identical. I have removed all unsourced groups, and groups that either are clearly not Ultras, or who it seems are not ultras, that there is reasonable doubt as to them being ultras, such as general fan sites and some that were clearly only hooligan firms. I have moved all South American groups to Torcida (Brazilian groups) and Barra brava (all other South American groups). And a note added to state that all South American groups should be added to either of these two articles only. Also, where a country has a large number of groups (such as Germany), I have tidied the list up, so as not to be one very long list of groups for that country. Since doing this, I have maintained both articles and checked every single addition, and ensured that if a group is added to the ultras article, it is also added to the List of ultras groups article.

I have also started to work on the Ultras article to give it a more balanced look, to make it a NPOV article, to get sources and to expand discussion of how the ultra culture differs from country to country, with groups in some countries having a hooligan element and nature to the group, and ultras in other countries being officially recognised (by the club they support) fan groups who focus solely on tifo displays and match day support.

Looking at both articles now though, would it now be more appropriate for the the article List of ultras groups to be deleted as the list is identical to the list in the one article, Ultras? Especially bearing in mind that I have added a note stating that a group should only be added if it is referenced with a fully verifiable source, and so it should not fall back into a massive list of unverified groups as the three previous lists appeared to be. If it is thought that the List of ultras groups article should now be deleted now, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me could look into how that process would begin? Thank you ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If material has been merged from one into the other, then it should be turned into a redirect, which you can do without a special process. Oldelpaso 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

List of England international footballers

I think this article should be expanded to include every player who has represented England, and not just, as is currently, players who have 25+ caps. Any thoughts/objections? GiantSnowman 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, should be expanded. Archibald99  20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A complete "list" is better kept as a category. – Elisson • T • C • 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But a category cannot give more information - for example, we could have date of first cap, age when first cap was won, opponents of first cap; date of last cap, age when last cap was won, opponents of last cap; number of goals, all in a sortable wikitable. GiantSnowman 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I quite like the idea of a football equilavent of List of English Test cricketers, with the information above. That said, the England players category currently contains 824 articles and is no doubt no fully populated. That's a big list, if done properly. So I'm ambivalent. HornetMike 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I second what HornetMike says - a list of players is a good idea, with caps and appearances etc. included, more than a category can include. Qwghlm 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A list similar to that for the cricketers would be great. Much more information than can be given in a category, but a huge undertaking (would be happy to help with it though). WikiGull 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You could use this as a basis; might need to be wary of copyright issues but you cannot really copyright lists of statistics so as long as the format was different from that one it'd be fine, in my opinion. Qwghlm 13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'll try and start doing something with this. Do we want to agree on the column headings?WikiGull 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest:

Name	Caps	Goals	Date of first cap	Opponents of first cap	Age at first cap	Date of last cap	Opponents of last cap	Age at last cap

I also think the table should be organised by date of first cap.

Any thoughts? GiantSnowman 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this (with first few lines)

Number	Name	Date of birth	Caps	Goals	Date of first cap	Opponents of first cap	Venue of first cap	Date of last cap	Opponents of last cap
1	Robert Barker	June 19, 1847	1	0	November 30, 1872	Scotland	Hamilton Crescent
2	Ernest Greenhalgh	August 22, 1848	2	0	November 30, 1872	Scotland	Hamilton Crescent	March 8, 1873	Scotland

WikiGull 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the venue and opposition of first/last caps is a bit much (especially for narrower screens) - just the dates will do for now. Also I would get rid of the number column as well; I would just have name, DoB, caps, goals, first cap date, last cap date. Qwghlm 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree - scrap number and venue. GiantSnowman 16:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about using flags for the opposition then? Adds more information to the table without the wideness problem. Have done it for the first 20 players as below

Name	Date of birth	Caps	Goals	Date of first cap	Date of last cap
Robert Barker	June 19, 1847	1	0	November 30, 1872
Ernest Greenhalgh	August 22, 1848	2	0	November 30, 1872	March 8, 1873
Reg Welch	June 20, 1851	2	0	November 30, 1972	March 7, 1874
Fred Chappells	1850	1	0	November 30, 1872
William Maynard	June 19, 1847	2	0	November 30, 1872	March 4, 1876
John Brockbank	August 22, 1848	1	0	November 30, 1872
John Clegg	April 21, 1852	1	0	November 30, 1872
Arnold Smith	April 23, 1850	1	0	November 30, 1872
Cuthbert Ottaway	July 20, 1850	2	0	November 30, 1872	March 7, 1874
Charles Chenery	January 1, 1850	3	1	November 30, 1872	March 7, 1874
Charles Morice	May 27, 1850	1	0	November 30, 1872
Alex Morten	November 15, 1831	1	0	March 8, 1873
Leonard Howell	August 6, 1848	1	0	March 8, 1873
Alfred Goodwyn	March 13, 1850	1	0	March 8, 1873
Robert Vidal	September 3, 1853	1	0	March 8, 1873
Pelham Von Donop	April 28, 1851	2	0	March 8, 1873	March 6, 1875
William Clegg	April 21, 1852	2	0	March 8, 1873	January 18, 1879
Alex Bonsor	1852	2	0	March 8, 1873	March 6, 1875
Hubert Heron	January 30, 1852	5	0	March 8, 1873	March 2, 1878
William Kenyon-Slaney	August 24, 1847	1	0	March 8, 1873

Let me know what you think - have it stored on a subuser page at the minute. Am happy for that to be the working page until it's a bit more detailed if that helps. WikiGull 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! GiantSnowman 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. However, whilst I see the reasons for just including flags, I think if you took this to FLC I think they'd automatically ask for full names. It's because not all flags are instantly recognisable. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

List of "D" Football Squads

Perhaps someone could take a look at this new article List of "D" Football Squads, please? Means nothing to me I'm afraid. (Though I see its just been put up for a speedy so you may have to be quick!) TerriersFan 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious hoax, but hoaxes don't qualify for speedy deletion. I've changed the tag to prod. Oldelpaso 16:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1951 Copa Rio

Would you guys please add your opinions in here? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Creation of WikiProject Football task forces

Seeing how this project has grown quite large over time, spawning a few subprojects, some successful, some less successful, I was beginning to think about creating task forces instead (and reorganising the subprojects into task forces). The idea is "stolen" (as with a few other past ideas implemented here) from WP:MILHIST, where this type of organisation seems to work very well. This will not be a large change for this project or the subprojects, but will hopefully improve cooperation in the long run.

In short:

• Existing subprojects (Australia, USA and Canada, Italy and Non-League) are reorganised into task forces instead. Not much will be changed, subpages and such will be retained.
• New task forces are created when enough users are willing to keep such task forces up and running.
• Each task force gets a parameter for the {{Football}} template to keep track of articles and assessments of articles related to the task force.
• More centralised than before, better communication and cooperation between the various groups than before, less duplication of info.

The name "task force" may sound a little militaristic, so if anyone has a better idea for a name, suggestions are welcome. I don't intend to do any reorganisation unless there is broad consensus (especially amongst the members of the subprojects) to do so. Comments, suggestions, questions? – Elisson • T • C • 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good Elisson. Not sure I'd be able to join anything other than the English league task force (don't mind the name, either), but happy to help as always. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

magic spray

I'm surprised we don't have an article on this already. Does anyone object?--Ioshus^(talk) 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's a more proper name for it? "Magic spray" sounds like it should be a re-direct. aLii 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Magic sponge? Oldelpaso 19:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes magic sponge is a part of it. Maybe a bigger article like On field first aid in Football. Maybe you're right Magic spray and Magic sponge could both redirect. From what I have read, the magic sponge has gone out of fashion lately, and the spray has become more commonly used.--Ioshus^(talk) 05:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Defunct or not defunct?

I've been doing some expansion work on Corinthian F.C., and I noticed that, although their adult side folded, they appear to still field teams at youth levels - should they therefore be included in Category:Defunct English football clubs? The club itself isn't technically defunct, but its adult 11-a-side team is. Any thoughts....? ChrisTheDude 08:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the senior team, and as the senior team is defunct, the category is appropriate. Oldelpaso 09:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree - as the entity still operates at some level it is not a defunct club. Articles are about clubs not just their first teams - though obviously that dominates coverage within the articles, it doesn't have to be exclusively about the first team. Qwghlm 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Oldelpaso here. The article is about the senior team, and the category should reflect that the senior team is defunct. Since the youth teams themselves are not notable enough on their own, then the categorisation should not have anything to do with the those. We don't include youth players in the player category of a club, and the same reasoning should be used here. My 2 öre. – Elisson • T • C • 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard breaks in infobox

I'd appreciate it if someone using a browser other than Firefox wouldn't mind comparing the appearances/goals section here and here and letting me know if the former looks right in their browser. I'm puzzled and slightly frustrated by the anonymous editor's ~3,000 contributions. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it makes the clubs 'rows' misaligned from the years and apps (in IE aswell). I've noticed it and fixed it a few times, I didn't realise it was so widespread. ArtVandelay13 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird indeed. The first one is messed up in Firefox, but the second one is messed up in IE6. I guess the moral of this story is "don't put flags in the infobox." aLii 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The flags issue is a losing battle, I'm sad to say. They'll soon be appearing in a managerial succession box near you. - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The second one looks terrible in IE6, the flags all run together to form what looks like a big stick of seaside rock! ChrisTheDude 07:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. It seems the editor had the right idea but went the wrong way about it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism in football

I created this article a while back now, but I seem to be the only one contributing to it. Just thought I'd make you guys aware of its existence, and hopefully get you to make some contributions. I feel it could be a featured article. Cheers. GiantSnowman 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Back Fc

Someone put a page I made about my local side up for speedy deletaion, and it got deleted. I however feel this was unfairly justified.

Clubs in the Scottish Amateur League(Lowland clubs usually) are allowed pages.

If I followed the criteria from here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability it says your club is "Probably Notable" if you have supplied a player to a national side, wait we have - Andy Gray, albeit that he didn't get chosen until he was at Dundee United. And alot of clubs in Scotland have never supplied a player to the National side, I ask how many players for East Stiringshire have gone on to supply a player for the national side, same with Gretna, same with Elgin.

Another point that is made is the 10+caps rule. 10+ Caps, nail on the head there, how many caps did Andy Gray win? 100+ appearence for a club? he made over 100 appearences for two top level clubs. He played for in all 7 premier divison sides of their respected nations, winning the Cup Winners Cup with one of them, Everton.

Oh another one, clubs, who don't normally charge an entrance fee for spectators, i'll have you know that you do need to pay to get in to a Back Fc game, who do you think we are, a school side?

Also why do England get to have pages for clubs from the first 8 divisons of football? I'm sure the Amateur seen is probably in the top 6 of the Scottish divisons.

Well since you deleted the page, I demand that these club pages should be deleted too since they play at the EXACT same level, except in a different region, but no, I don't see anyone rushing to delete these pages.

St Patrick's Former Pupils F.C. Oban Saints F.C. Eaglesham Amateur F.C.

And all the clubs playing in this league, Central Scottish Amateur Football League and this league Kingdom Caledonian Football League. They all play at the exact same level, and all the clubs are registered with the Scottish Amateur Football Association

Its discrimination against my club I reckon.

So can someone please explain to me why the page got deleted.

Allanmac9 02:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user talk. Oldelpaso 09:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Its difficult to tell without seeing the deleted revision (can't find it in the deletion log), but it sounds like a speedy that would perhaps have been better going to AfD. Oldelpaso 14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title had quotation marks around it, possibly "Back F.C."? Archibald99  15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it - [5]. Archibald99  15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

now on AfD. Oldelpaso 19:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving of talk page

I thinking of getting MiszaBot to archive this talk page automatically when topics have had no discussion for a while (two weeks? a month?). While I don't anticipate any objections, I thought I'd check first. Oldelpaso 09:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think putting discussion on proper pages is more important. Notability should be used. Matthew_hk tc 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ratings garbage"

I thought members of the project might like to respond to this question on the Motherwell F.C. talk page. Archibald99  23:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gillingham F.C. - please take a look

Hi gents

Inspired by our friends from East Anglia, I've spent the last couple of days working hard on the article on my club, Gillingham, adding references, editing the text, removing pointless stuff, and so on. I was wondering if people could take a look at it and see how close they think it now is to promotion to the dizzy heights of Good Article and beyond. I appreciate that I still need to correctly format all the refs with {{cite}} templates but I'll get to that shortly, I can't face it at the moment :-) But any other comments would be much appreciated!

Cheers!!

ChrisTheDude 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"gents"? Is this only limited to male wikipedians then? (only kidding)♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you put it up for peer review. Looks like a very good job you've got done there so far. Mattythewhite 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a well done on that article, much better than a number of other English club articles in my opinion.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Andriy Shevchenko

An edit war has been taking place over the last few days, revolving around Shevvy's birthplace. Should it be the USSR, or the supposedly "generally accepted" Ukraine, even though it didn't exist as a country at the time of his birth? Any assistance would be appreciated. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I proposed a compromise wording on its talk page. MaxSem 10:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You could use Ukrainian SSR. The problem with using Ukraine it that the entity he was born in was not called Ukraine at the time, thus constituting a case of systemic bias towards modern times. Punkmorten 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Cat rename

I thought you might like to know that I've nominated a Category for renaming. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Wikipedians_who_support_F.C._Copenhagen. --Dweller 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Now correctly placed at WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians_who_support_F.C._Copenhagen --Dweller 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Premier League players?

I was thinking about the idea of creating an article for a list of Premier League players. It could list players who have made 200+ appearences or something along those lines? Tell me what you guys think. Thanks, Mattythewhite 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but what would the entry criteria be? I think less than 200 games... GiantSnowman 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Name	Date of birth	Nat	Apps	Goals	Teams	Years
Gary Speed	8 September, 1969		516	78	Leeds Everton Newcastle United Bolton Wanderers

I've just come up with this. Listing all of the teams takes up a lot of space, and should the years account for all their time at that club or just in the Premier League? Mattythewhite 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Comma separating the teams, and reducing them to one word (where appropriate), makes it fit a bit better:

Name	Date of birth	Nat	Apps	Goals	Premier League Clubs	Years
Gary Speed	(1969-09-07) September 7, 1969		516	78	Leeds, Everton, Newcastle, Bolton	1992-

I think you have to restrict it to their PL clubs only (clearly marked), anything else isn't really relevant and will swell the list too much. ArtVandelay13 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, you could lose the DOB/age field, most player lists don't include it, it's usually accepted as 'further reading' on the players' own articles. ArtVandelay13 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah drop the DoB. Otherwise it's fine-looking to me. Qwghlm 18:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is the years going by when they made their début? Mattythewhite 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Active years, I would've thought. So if there was an interruption, it would say 1992-94, 1996-2003 (for example). ArtVandelay13 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, maybe a position field would be useful, as per most player lists. Also, this would be a good use for {{Template:Sortname}} ArtVandelay13 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hows about this:

Name	Nationality	Position	Appearences	Goals	Premier League Clubs	Years
Gary Speed	Wales	MF	516	78	Leeds, Everton, Newcastle, Bolton	1992-

Mattythewhite 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine. There is a flagcountry template for the nation field. ArtVandelay13 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to put forth the idea of not including a single flag in the hopefully 3,000-rows-long article and see who takes it upon themselves to start adding them. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe change the word "Appearances" to "Games" in the title, otherwise it is a wide column for pretty narrow data? - fchd 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Name	Nationality	Position	Apps	Goals	Premier League Clubs	Years
Gary Speed	Wales	MF	516	78	Leeds, Everton, Newcastle, Bolton	1992-

Got it back to Apps, looks a lot better. Mattythewhite 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How about using TLAs for the teams, and then have a key at the top or bottom? The TLA could still be linked as well so people could see the full club name in the target link by hoovering the TLA. That way the club column won't get too wide. – Elisson • T • C • 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'd suggest listing the players' names as [[Gary Speed|Speed, Gary]] (example) so that there's another sorting option. - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I'm using {{Template:Sortname}} for that. Mattythewhite 09:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

When I saw that this was being discussed my immediate reaction was "What a horrible idea," but with the sorting options it seems more worthwhile. I still see two main problems,

1. It'll need a LOT of maintenance, and
2. It'll be a huge list unless very strict criteria are applied - 200 appearances was suggested, but I'd be tempted to up it, and certainly not lower it as suggested above. 200 is over 5 full seasons though I suppose, so it should be ok.

aLii 09:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got the article created at List of Premier League players. I've got the criteria at 300+ apps - I think all the way down to 200 is possibly too many, and I couldn't really be bothered to do much more. Mattythewhite 12:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, should current Premier League players be put in bold? And maybe current no longer Premier League players put in italics? Mattythewhite 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Football league template

Allo all, I may not be the only one in thinking that the current football league template lacks a bit of style and information and could do with a revamping, so, I was going to propose that something got under way to standardising it to a different one, I was going to suggest one like that here. Please get back to me with your thoughts.Cintrianex 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean the infobox, as per our contact over talk pages. I'll repeat what I said there - I don't like infoboxes at all per se, but appreciate I'm in a small minority there. Therefore I'd like to keep them as compact as possible, for instance keep the levels on the pyramid out because that's shown in the text of the article and in the templates at the bottom. One thing for sure, I'd heavily argue against the inclusion of "px" sized text - that goes against all known accessibility guidelines - I know what sized text is comfortable for me, but only me. Therefore keep text where possible at 100% - the USER'S default size. - fchd 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on AC Milan article

Could someone please back me up on the AC Milan article. An editor called Jadger has made a number of bias and unwaranted edits to the article. Basically he states that Milan are best known for Corruption. ANyways, the guy obviously has a bone to grind as he appears to be a Munich fan. Could someone please help me and keep an eye on this article ? Niall123 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd extend the above part about vandalism to most major European clubs. Being the English Wikipedia, there are of course less fans of these clubs to watch articles and vandalism regularly goes by unnoticed. I'd suggest more editors put some of these pages on their watchlists. Archibald99  15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

From reading the responses Jadger gave you on your talk page, it does seem as though they have an axe to grind and that despite what they say, they are adding those specific comments about the AC Milan to try and prove a point, rather than to simply state facts. That much is evident by the style of their edits. "Me thinks the Jadger doth protest too much"!!! Perhaps though, as the bitter taste of defeat finally goes they might stop the edits!! You never know! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Or not as the case may be, as Jadger continues to keep add the same thing over and over. I do think that there should be some mention of the 2006 Serie A scandal, but not in the manner in which Jadger was putting it over, which does not come across as NPOV one iota, more like someone trying to make a point. I have therefore re-edited it to read more neutral rather than using wording that shows clear bias. I have also added the 2006 Serie A scandal to the See also list on the AC Milan page,w hich only seems fair.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On this basis I will remove his senitments "again" without fear of the three revert rule. I'll point him to this. Just to also say that the Match Fixing allegations are already mentioned with a paragraph in the History sub article of the AC Milan article. Is there really a need for providing the extra link considering the paragraph already present ?Niall123 08:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to say another user is now repeating the previous user by adding even more references to Milan's "Corruption" in the open article. It quite clearly shouldn't be there and has been mentioned in the History section already. Niall123 09:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I only went to look at the AC Milan article because of you bringing it up here. I disagree with your stance of whitewashing the club's history by removing anything vaguely negative from the main article. I also think that the club history should be covered more than see History of A.C. Milan. Obviously the user you initially complained about was in the wrong with his wording, but I think the general position was correct. Most other club articles deal with the negative as well as the positive, and I don't see why AC Milan should be any different. Surely the neutral point of view encompasses both?

I attempted to write the paragraph with the most neutral wording that I could. I seriously don't see any good reason for not including it within both the lead and the History section. The fact that no-one has ever written an article about the Totonero scandal is shocking to me. aLii 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. AC Milans involvement in the 2006 Serie A scandal should be in the main header in my opinion. Not in the manner in which it was originally added, but keeping removing any mention of it in there stating it is vandalizm is also wrong. I tried to appease both views by adding it in a neutral manner which is how it should be presented. Things like "Juventus led" scandal are also being added to make a point.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I was surprised when I read the AC Milan article had no mention of the scandal, so I decided to add it. I agree my wording wasn't exactly the nicest to AC Milan fans, but I agree with the rewording Tangerine used. I think it is a worthy thing to add to the article, after all, can anyone name another G-14 club that has been involved in as many match-fixing scandals?

--Jadger 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1915 British football betting scandal? :-p I'll get my anorak. Oldelpaso 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1964 British betting scandal ahem, my coat is ready too, though not an anorak it isn't the weather for one...... :-♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add about the above, whilst the scandal is mentioned in more detail in the History section on AC Milan, that is a seperate page. And the main page as it was set out previously, had no mention at all of this. In my opinion there needs to be a short NPOV mention of this in the lead. There is surely a compromise between the two views on this, which is to have it more or less as it is now, with it mentioned briefly as I have tried to amend it to, in the lead.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think Totonero should be in the lead, but the one last season should be less prominent than Totonero (Relegation vs eight point penalty). Relegation for disciplinary reasons and several life bans is a far more noteworthy event than a points deduction. Oldelpaso 18:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, as of the two events, the 1980 relegation is surely far more noteworthy than having 8 points deducted.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

oldelpaso, that is one occurence between those two teams, whereas AC Milan has been caught twice, God knows how many other times they have done it. I asked if there were any G-14 teams that had been caught as many times as AC Milan.

--Jadger 18:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was being facetious. Oldelpaso 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Even more facetious in light of the fact that it was players that were punished, not clubs. It would seem that the two clubs did, er, nothing wrong. It's an interesting and largely forgotten piece of history though. It should be mentioned in the two team's histories though I think. aLii 19:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the only problem on the match-fixing allegations in the history articles is that it should have a less colloquial style. I mean, Milan drew with many underdogs in matches the should have won, and before they realized it, they were out of the Serie A favourites to win the league title. is not really encyclopedical. CapPixel 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Football seasons - Style

Can we reach a consensus on how football seasons are styled in WP articles?

In the article on the British Home Championship I edited the table and text to show seasons in the format 1983-84 but this has been reverted back to the style 1983-1984.

I had thought that this was clearly stated somewhere in a Manual of Style but I must confess that these are inconsistent. Of the various style manuals listed on WikiProject_Football the only help given is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs#Achievements which gives the seasons in the format 3332–33, whereas Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Competitions#Past_tournaments.2Fwinners uses the format 3332/33; so no consensus there!

I have therefore had a look at the pages for some of the national leagues which have produced the following results.

England

• Premier League: 2005–06
• Football League: 2005-06
• League One: 2005-06
• League Two: 2005-06
• Conference: 2005-06
• Southern League: 2005-06

Scotland

• SPL: 2005-06
• First Division: 2005/2006
• Second Division: 2005 - 2006 (also 2005/6 and 2006/07)

Italy

• Serie A: 2005-06
• Serie B: 2005-06

France

• Ligue 1: 2005-06
• Ligue 2: 2005/06

Germany

• Bundesliga: 2005/06
• Bundesliga 2: 2005/06

Spain

• La Liga
  • Main article: Both 2006 and 2005-06
  • Season by season: 2005/2006

• Segunda División
  • Main article: Both 05-06 and 2005/06
  • Season by season: 2005/2006

As you can see, the position in England and Italy is clear (fairly consistently using 2005-06) and Germany (2005/06), but in France, Scotland and Spain there is no consistency.

I know this subject has come up for discussion before here and briefly again here but neither debate was particularly conclusive nor were there exactly a large number of participants (6 in total over both discussions), so can we have a more lively debate so that a firm consensus can be arrived at and then incorporated into the manual of style?

My preference is clearly for the style 2005-06. Daemonic Kangaroo 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've always been (both in and out of Wikipedia) a fan of the fuller format (2006-2007) as it leaves no room for ambiguity and there is no question about how to write seasons like 1999-2000, but I really don't lose any sleep over it. My velleity is not repeated when it comes to the hyphen versus slash argument, though: it has to be the hyphen. The hyphen, representing the word 'to', indicates that the season runs over both years. A slash is often used as an alternatives ('and/or') or for lists of non-linked units (a shop may list its address as '1/3 Wiki Street' (number 2, of course, is on the other side of the road)). I really don't understand why it has taken off when writing football seasons. - Green Tentacle 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Irish Football

I've created a WikiProject on Irish football for anyone who is interested in participating or helping out. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

More "footy-bio" types proposed

The Brazilian biographies have become very large, and I've proposed some sub-types. Please comment there if you've a view on the most useful way of doing this. Alai 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Most wanted articles

There are currently 9 articles listed at WP:MWA#Football that might be of interest to this project. --Sapphic 20:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

... and even more in the "general" section. Such as Swedish football clubs. I'm looking at you, Elisson ;) Punkmorten 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They get linked a lot from the tables of my seasons in Swedish football articles... The most commonly linked ones should have articles eventually, and I'll create them as time goes. I actually happened to create two new (of which one is on the list) just before I read your post. :) – Elisson • T • C • 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth in text

Hi all. I'm having a problem with an anon editor User:62.77.178.117 who keeps changing the placing of the place of birth in Roddy Collins. I don't understand the edit comments about as it's in the infobox it shouldn't be in the text, and then putting in the text next to date of birth. According to the template it should be outside of the date of birth bracket (I have tried pointing the editor to the template page and inviting discussion via my talk page, but s/he communicates via edit comments only), so that's what I've done - I know there are many pages that don't comply with the template, but I try to correct them as I edit for other reasons. Any thoughts on this problem appreciated. It's not a major issue, but what's the point in templates if we don't need to stick to them? WikiGull 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The anon. editor is stating that "Dublin" shouldn't be in the prose, but that's where he/she is putting it? - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was (born XX/X/19XX in Dublin), so I followed the template and moved the place of birth to the prose, but the anon keeps moving it back. They are arguing that because it's in the infobox it is stupid that it is also in the text, but at the same time keep moving it back to the data of birth brackets. Two issues I guess, 1) the edit comments don't make any sense, and b) if we are to follow the template how to get this editor to stop making the changes. WikiGull 09:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the anon's style, and it's what I always use, taking my inspiration from the Denis Law FA. The current version you've written is far more clunky in comparison. (born 7 August 1961 in Dublin) is surely better than (born 7 August 1961) He was born in Dublin. I understand that you have style guides on your side, but I don't see why you should make an edit war over such a minor matter. aLii 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I think the template guidelines need a little tweaking. In its current guise, having the place of birth elsewhere in the article doesn't make much sense. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with a change in the template guidelines as well (I'm not suggesting that the way I've written it is better). WikiGull 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

help required on schoolboy article

Can someone take a look at this? I originally DB-BIO'd it but on reflection I actually don't know enough about the criteria we place on notable sportsmen - do we find schoolboys notable even if they play for the under-15s side of a large club? --Fredrick day 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, player must be professional, e.g. play in the first team. Article should be deleted. Mattythewhite 11:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Any Club Articles that needs editing??

I know that I cleaning out my watchlist and started all over again, I add myself to the participants list, so I want to know what the club articles (or stubs) are needed to be contributed/editing, so contact me anytime and I will help improving the article... Rakuten06 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Take your pick from Category:English football club stubs - it's nearly down to 600 but there's still a loooooooooong way to go! ChrisTheDude 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about A.F.C. Portchester?? Is it a good stub for me to work on or want me to pick another team?? Rakuten06 15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

External links vs. References

Something I learned yesterday that I thought is worth mentioning here. If an article has no references but was written from information at Soccerbase, Neil Brown's site, etc. (see Ian Gore, for example), we're supposed to put that URL in the references section, not the external links, per WP:Cite (All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are not included in "Further reading" or "External links").

Some of you likely knew this. I didn't, however. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Me neither! Nor, I think, do most editors. For a random example see the article on Wayne Rooney. There's going to be a lot of articles to change. Daemonic Kangaroo 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

LuBu24

I reverted his absolutely bogus addition to FC Spartak Moscow, but I'm unfaminliar with subjects of other articles he edits as they're related to Iranian football. Could someone inspect his contribs for more factual errors? MaxSem 18:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

David McNiven

There are two articles on seperate footballers called David McNiven - one original and one I created today. I think that David McNiven should be a disambig page, but I am stuck for rename titles: maybe David McNiven (footballer born 1978) and David McNiven (footballer born 1955). Any thoughts/help? Much appreciated, GiantSnowman 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I think they may be related - the elder one was playing for Leeds in 1978, and the younger one was born in Leeds in 1978...can anyone support this hunch? GiantSnowman 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved David McNiven (footballer)‎ to David McNiven (footballer born 1955)‎ and fixed what few pages linked to the old page GiantSnowman 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just moved the first page to David McNiven (footballer born 1978) and repaired the links and templates etc. GiantSnowman 01:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. Reserves

In the same vein as Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Arsenal F.C. Reserves, would it be worth starting a Rangers version to trim some information from the main Rangers article? I feel I should ask for opinions on here first as there don't seem to be any similar articles outside the English Premiership. Archibald99  21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, don't see any reason why not GiantSnowman 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Don't like reserve articles myself, but if Liverpool and Arsenal have them there's no reason why Rangers shouldn't. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

New peer review - Italian football champions

Hey project dudes, a new page for you to critique if you'd be so kind. I have an open peer review for it here. As noted in the intro to the PR, I'd like this to be considered in a similar vein to English football champions, Danish football champions and Swedish football champions, all of which are already featured lists. Once again, thanks for you time. The Rambling Man 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if someone would be kind enough to re-classify it as I don't believe it's a Start kind of article any more! Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames

I haven't seen anything in the archives (which doesn't mean it isn't there) regarding the Nickname field of the infobox. Only one (the most well-known) is supposed to be listed, but having just reverted Paul Scholes' article, it reminded me that this rarely happens. I'll be attempting to remedy this wherever I see it, but just wanted to mention it here. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday that Kieran Richardson had a few, but Edwin van der Sar has just as many. It's ridiculous.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see the nickname field taken out of the infobox altogether. There are very few players who have single, distinctive nicknames like "Zizou", and the most of the rest are simply not notable. Plus, the initial+uniform number combination like "TH14" and "CR7" aren't nicknames - they're internet shorthands. I just don't see the value of listing nicknames along with truly encyclopedic information like height and club history. Ytny (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nickname in infobox = bollocks. Infobox = fact. Leave the nicknames for citations within the text of particular articles. The Rambling Man 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, nicknames should be placed withing thetext itself. GiantSnowman 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fourth'd. I too would like to see them taken out of the infobox completely. If we get a consensus here, maybe we should do just that. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

People misuse the nickname parameter, I agree. But removing it, naah, I think it deserves its place there. But it should only be used for real nicknames, not the internet shorthands or word plays and similar (van der Star). – Elisson • T • C • 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also back removing it, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it doesn't really stand well the "fact-based" nature of the infobox. Secondly, it's a pain to maintain as IPs and vandals often add numerous ones. Thirdly, most of the nicknames listed are only used by a couple of people, or not at all. Or they're ones used occasionally by the media. Take El Pele Blanco on Rooney's page - I've heard it used about twice by tabloids, but the infobox suggests it's just as much his nickname as Wazza etc. Fourthly, people feel a desire to fill it, even if the player doesn't really have a nickname. I just think we'd be better off without it. If there's a firm consensus here shall we go for it? HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's a firm consensus here shall we go for it? I think we have one, but we should probably wait a few days to give more people a chance to comment on it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, if a nickname is truely that and well known then include in text, but not in infobox WikiGull 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Images of programme covers

This might be more of a village pump question, but I thought I'd try here first. What's the score with using programme covers to illustrate articles on clubs, etc? As far as I can tell from looking at the various image tags, if they were to be classed as magazines then they could only be used to illustrate an article on the magazine itself and, let's face it, nobody's going to create Manchester United's programme. Alternatively if you cheat a bit and class them as event "posters" then they could only be used for articles on the specific event i.e. the match itself, which only works for a notable match like a final. So as far as I can see they can't be used in articles on clubs - am I right.....? ChrisTheDude 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question. I'd also be interested in the answer to this. I would guess that they are classed as magazines from a legal standpoint, but I'm sure there must be someone out there who works in the trade, who could give a definitive answer. Football programmes contain a wealth of information which could be used to improve articles. I assume that one could "cite" a programme as per a magazine. Indeed some football programmes are now referred to as the "matchday magazine". --Jameboy 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the issue I'm concerned with is not using programmes as a source, that'd be fine as far as I know, but rather using an actual programme cover as an illustration within an article - in the example I was looking at, I was going to use the cover of the programme for Gillingham's first match in the Football League to illustrate the point that they got elected, but if classed as a magazine then the cover could only be used to illustrate an article on Gillingham's programme itself.... ChrisTheDude 10:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation of league tables

As the time approaches when we'll be making up end-of-season league tables, I thought I'd re-open this discussion from a few months back about creating a standard league table format. Any thoughts? HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Various non-league articles

I think it's fairly clear by now that we're deleting any players who have only played at Conference level or lower. I just wondered what everyone thought about various articles that I've discovered relating to specific conference seasons. These are: Conference National 2006-07 and Conference National Playoff Final 2003 2004, 2005 and 2006. They're all well written articles, but I was wondering whether, having established a clear cut-off point for players, we should also do so for various other articles about the game at this level? Thoughts? HornetMike 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

problem with nationality/ethnicity

we have a problem with some slovak players

• Koloman Gögh, he is dead and was citizen of czechoslovakia later slovak, he used only slovak form of his name Koloman and at his grave is this slovak name too, but another user say he is hungarian soccerplayer without sources ....

• we have another player Balázs Borbély, Szilárd Németh ..., they play for slovak national team and they have names sounds hungarian, my question, is it possible to say they are hungarian or hungarians in slovakia without sources/living people? --Mt7 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)