Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

2010-11 Supercopa de Espana

First leg on the right side should be "Real Madrid vs. Barcelona" and the reverse in the second leg since Madrid won the copa del rey, whose winner always have the first leg at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.170.145 (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2011

Activity check for the WPF member list

This is just to bump a short notice, that a complete activity check now has been performed for the WPF member list, as of July 10. The check showed, that no less than 52 of the current WPF members were found to be inactive, with 0 football related edits within the past 12 months; and thus automatically were removed to the "Former member list". If we calculate the rate of how fast the member list transform "Active members" into "Former members", the average has remained very constant at around 8 users per month, during the past 4 years. With 7 months passing since the latest activity check in December 2010, it was therefore no surprise to find, that the "Former member list" today now includes 52 more user names (to form an impressive total of 390). During the same 7 months, the "Active member list" however also welcomed 47 new WPF members, meaning that we today have a total of:

• 308 Active WPF members (declining slightly from the 313 Active members registered at 20th December 2010).

For those of you who are curious about the statistical numbers, I can also reveal, that among the 308 Active members, we had a total of 52 failing to post any football related edits during the past 6 months. Many of them appear to posses a "seasonal edit pattern", making it likely they will resume their football related edits during the next 6 months. If they fail to do so -and stay inactive for a roling period of 12 months-, they will of course be automatically removed to the "Former member list", when some of us perform the next activity check. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work, but I think the system needs an overhaul - one edit to a football-related article does not make you an "active" member of this WikiProject. No way do we have 308 editors who contribute here, not even nearly. GiantSnowman 12:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there some way in which we could show on the list how many edits a member has made? Surely this would make it easier to perform checks as the list is sortable.

Is there a way in which we could find people who are not on the list, but do contribute to this project and encourage them to join it?

Maybe we could have a list of articles which need work done put on the project page?

GiantSnowman, I agree there is definitely not 308 editors who contribute to this page but you have to remember that it is the "off-season" currently so a lot of people are probably not editing as much and that you don't have to edit this particular page to be a member. But I think you are right in saying there needs to be some sort of overhaul as 1 edit in 12 months can hardly be described as active. Adam4267 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe any agreement of the "most appropriate" WPF member criteria, really will depend on, how we define the "purpose of the member list". At the main project page, a short line notes that:

• When joining the project (by submitting your name to the member list), you should watch this page. This allows you to keep up-to-date with discussions about the project on the talk page.

So according to the line above, the WPF members are not necessarliy required to debate at the talk page, but instead only required to keep an eye with the ongoing debates. If we want the member criteria to be changed, so that only active debaters at the talk page qualify as members, then this could indeed be something we start to check for instead of "football related edits within the past 12 months". By doing so, the check can be performed fast and easy with a "browser-search" for all member names in the past 10,000 edits listed at the "View history" tab for the talk page. Or simply just by visiting the statistical info-page for the "WPF talk page". Out of curiousity, I just did this check for the current WPF members, and it revealed that only 25% contributed with minimum one comment at the WPF talk page during the past 12 months. But is it fair and appropriate, then just to chop off the 75% who did not post at the WPF talk page? Or is the current approach "only to check for football related edits" better?

My own oppionion is, that the current approach is the best one to continue with in the future. I dont mind that the member list is large, and also include those who read the debates -but never take part with their personal comment. Perhaps we could indeed tighten up the criteria, that in order for any user to maintain their WPF membership status, they need to submit minimum "1 football related edit during the past 6 months", or perhaps "10 football related edits during the past year". Due to the fact, that all checks are done manually by consulting each users "contribution page" -and not by a java-program-, we however have a "technical problem", to actually check for multiple football related edits. It would simply be too time consuming to check for that. Whether or not we should narrow down the time frame, of how long time we accept for WPF members not to post any football related edits, is however something we could change without "technical difficulties". As I mentioned earlier, I however discovered that many of the 52 current WPF members with inactivity during the past 6 months, have a previous edit pattern, where they at one point of time suddenly resume their football related edits. If we want the member list only to feature those who were active with minimum 1 football related edit within the past 6 months, then we can cut it down from 308 to 256. The question however remain, if the member list in that case would be considered to be better/worse? Danish Expert (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to show football related edits on the list? As the list is sortable it would surely make the checks a lot easier. Adam4267 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not possible, if you ask for an automatic calculated "football related edit count". At the discussion page of the member list, I last year posted a link and description for "how to use a javaprogram" to calculate each users "edit count" within a certain time frame. This operation was however rather time consuming to set up, and did not reveal whether or not the edits happened to "ordinary pages" or "football related pages". I can imagine, that someone who is more hardcore than me to write java codes, perhaps can build a program to run and check a special Wikipedia database file, that only include the pages marked with the {{{Football}}} template. At the moment we can however only download a large database file of the entire English Wikipedia, and perform edit counts on that. For the moment, the fastest way to check for a members activity is thus, instead to consult the users "contribution page", and perform a manual inspection, which indeed for some user accounts can be a bit time consuming. If you ask for a coloumn, where we manually can type in the date of the latest observed "football related edit", then this could indeed be included by the member list table. This would help to minimize the amount of repetitive work, as we then only would need to check those who are approaching their own personal deadline to submit a new football edit, but on the other hand it will also mean a lot extra work to type in 300 new dates, each time we perform an activity check of the list.

Another more operatable approach could perhaps be, if we set up a third list of semi-active WPF members, to include those 52 who didnt submit any football related edits during the past 6 months; and for that list included a "Dato coloumn" to note the "date of the latest observed football related edit" for this group of WPF members. This change would make it a lot faster to perform regular checks, if the checks are supposed to be performed more frequently than twice a year. But on the other hand, to have a third list at the member page, would also mean that many new members would be confused about which list to hit the edit buttom for, in order to join as a member. A third possibility could also be, that we simply mark the 52 currently "semi-active members" with three stars, so that they are easier to identify and more fast to keep an eye with for subsequent checks. This way we continue only to have 2 lists, but yet create a special mark for those who are only semi-active. I am for sure ready to consider all sort of solutions and ideas, and appreciate all sort of comments/suggestions about how to change/improve the member list. Danish Expert (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be on the list or automatically done, but surely there is a way in which we could see users contributions at pages tagged with WikiProject:Football?

I think that 1 edit in 12 months is a bit of a low threshold and users can always re-add themselves if they decide to start up again. Maybe 10 edits in 6 months could be a better number. Adam4267 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, unfortunately we have no tools at hand either, whith the function to manually calculate or look up each users "football related edits". As I mentioned before, it might be possible for an experienced programmer who can build and compile javaprograms, that such a tool might be programmed and developed in a far distant future. AFAIK no such specialized tools/programs have yet been developed for Wikipedia. Our only option is therefore to perform the manual inspection of each users "contributions", to identify the latest football related edit. I have to repeat, that this mean it would be very time consuming, if we should start to count when uptill 10 football related edits took place for each users. Basicly it would take 10 times longer, compared to if you only look for the "latest football related edit". So for sure, that is not a viable soloution. If we should consider changes, then I will once again refer to my counter proposal above, either to split the member list into the following 3 sections:

• Active members (with minimum 1 football related edit within the past 6 months)
• Semi-Active members (with minimum 1 football related edit submitted between 6-12 months ago)
• Former members (with no football related edits within the past year)

Or in the alternative (as I suggested in my reply above), simply just to mark all semi-active users with 3 stars in the member list, in order to keep the member list page as simple and operatable as possible. I really think, one of those two soloutions -or opting for status quo- are the only realistic ones to pick between. Once again, if we want to change the membership criteria, I also think it is important first to define for what main purposes we want to use the member list, so that the purpose itself can help to answer the question: If a strengthened membership criteria is really needed or called for? Danish Expert (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if users are officially members of the project? I would have thought football-related activity would be more important than a name in a list. Hack (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you so far, that the key question really is: What is the purpose of the list? Personally I have used it several times as a "contact list", in those cases where I needed to identify and contact other fellow Wikipedians, who shared the same Team interest or Taskforce activity, rellevant for a special burning question at hand. Currently we have 25 taskforces that also are supposed to work as local contact forums with local discussions. Most of them are however seldom being visited by their members, so posting the discussion at the taskforce page while also posting a "request for comment" at the members user talk page, will for some of the taskforces often result in much more respons, for an important question to solve. As a Dane, I might also at some point of time in the future, consider to build a Denmark taskforce, and for that purpose the WPF memberlist would help to identify the 10 users, who immedeately should recieve a special invitation for that. To say it short, the WPF member list mainly work as a "contact list" for me, and hence I am not too concerned if some of the names dont post at the talk page or even decide occationally to take a 7 month break, where they refrain to perform any football related edits at Wikipedia. As long as they minimum 1 time a year indicate an ongoing interest for the football articles at Wikipedia (by submitting minimum 1 football related edit per year), I think they are also likely to respond for any "football related question" we might ask them to comment on, if we post a link and request for that, at their "user talk page". Danish Expert (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Result

As a result of the debate above, I have just updated the WPF member list to feature a new layout, where we start to mark semi-active members with yellow. The semi-active members are defined as such, if they posted the latest football related edit 6-12 months ago (measured at the time of the activity check). Currently the member list include 52 semi-active members, where I noted a short parenthesis behind their name with the date of the latest football related edit. With this new system in place, we can limit the activity checks during the next 6 months, only to be performed for the semi-active members. Hereby these activity checks will now be a lot faster to do. I propose we continue with this system for the next 6 months, and then make a new evaluation if the WPF membership crititeria should be maintained/changed. Danish Expert (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Much better, good work! GiantSnowman 22:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, good job! (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 22:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC))

Definitely, an excellent idea Danish. Adam4267 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Turkish football corruption scandal and affected articles

Since Turkey has its own version of Koriopolis now, would it be worth to create an article on the topic as well, and if so, under which title?

In related matters, additional pairs of eyes would help at Fenerbahçe S.K., 2011–12 UEFA Champions League, 2010–11 Süper Lig, 2011–12 Süper Lig and other articles related to the case. Especially the Fenerbahce article might be a target for possible false edits, as the club might face demotion to a lower league. However, neither UEFA nor the Turkish FF have made a decision yet. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have put the fenerbace article on my watchlist and will help reverting unsourced edits. Adam4267 (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Until a more specific term comes into common usage, I think that 2011 Turkish football corruption scandal is a perfectly good starting title. I don't know the full details, so perhaps 2011 Turkish football corruption allegations may be better for now. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I will go with the "scandal" variant once I find a little time in my schedule to start the article (unless someone beats me to it, of course). Meanwhile, could you please add Trabzonspor to the list of surveillance-needing articles as well? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, I removed Fenerbahce from my watchlist because it is now semi-protected. Maybe you should think about getting Trabzonspor protected as well. Adam4267 (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess i'd contribute to that article. Maybe i'll start it later. -Koppapa (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There it is: 2011 Turkish football corruption scandal. -Koppapa (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks good, until all the information comes to light it doesn't need to be updated much more, per Wikipedia:BREAKING NEWS. Adam4267 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Article now lists a lot of people. Are those to be included, especially if allready released? -Koppapa (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Celtic F.C task force

I am hoping to start this up. Anyone interested in joining this task force please post here. Adam4267 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait! I'm "a little" interested in this. I will help you some in them.  tatasport  my talk  03:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm already started! :)  tatasport  my talk  06:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not edited Wikipedia extensively for a long time due to my studies but I'm willing to get involved here in whatever way I can. Nathan | ^talk 10:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. task force sign up here. Anything you can contribute will be helpful. Adam4267 (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll certainly try to help with this, I hope I can be helpful WilliamF1two (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

All the flags and then some / New technologies

Item #1: how needed is this in the clubs' infoboxes? I am well more or less proficient at the WP:FLAGICONS policy, and now we have to deal with regional flags as well? A bit irrelevant and separatist in my opinion, i have duly notified User:Garciman73 who re-reverted after i undid him at CD Atlético Baleares.

Item #2: how relevant are FACEBOOK and TWITTER entries in professional athletes' pages? I think ZERO! With an official website (if the player has it) we're more than covered, the rest is quite nonsensical methinks...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed them again hopefully he will listen. Adam4267 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Both item 1+2 are clearly irrelevant. In regards of the flags, then for 3 weeks ago, I created a special page with a summary of the current WPF flag policy. You are all welcome to start refer to that page (along with WP:MOSFLAG), if you think it can help to convince some of the stubborn editors, to stop their obvious abuse of flags. Danish Expert (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that item #2 is covered by WP:ELNO #10. --Jaellee (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thiago Motta

It appears that his full name is Thiago Motta Santon Olivares, but if "Thiago" is his first name, "Motta", "Santon" and "Olivares" should be his three family names. Are we sure about that? Brazilians maximum have two family names. Isn't it a hoax? --VAN ZANT (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Middle names? GiantSnowman 19:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember he is part Italian, Santon is probably his Italian name, if not his middle name. Adam4267 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Any evidence that 'Motta' is even his surname? GiantSnowman 19:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• His name, from what i have learned from dealing extensively in Spanish football, is just that, "THIAGO MOTTA", nothing else. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW ZeroZero profile, Football-Lineups.com and rssf all have used Thiago Motta Santon Olivares --ClubOranje^T 09:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it seems my "extensive dealing" did not help me much here, always learning! I really believed he was just "THIAGO MOTTA", would not be that strange to see a person with only two names, thanks for the help! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering he is Brazilian by birth, I would assume "Santon" and "Olivares" are his family names, not "Motta". "Thiago Motta" would be his given names. Only knowing his parent's name can we know for sure. Digirami (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion needed

At Green Brigade(football supporters group). If any editors are willing to help out with this I would be very appreciative. No more can be acheived through discussion by the editors involved and neutral, editors' opinions would be welcome. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

David Platt (footballer)

I am currently updating the article and would appreciate any opinions on it. I am gunning for GA, but need to know what else it required for it. Thank you. 86.152.234.225 (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never led the GA/FA of an article (though I have contributed to some) so I am by no means an expert, but the lack of references, and the massive amounts of POV in the article, means that it is far from perfect. Good start so far though. GiantSnowman 10:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify massive amounts of POV. It may have escaped your notice, but it is all sourced, and some of it comes from the Official England history - which is cited. 86.152.234.225 (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"having impressed many clubs", "he scored just three goals in 16 games", "He quickly established himself", "[he] took them to the brink of the league title" - need I go on? GiantSnowman 12:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

These are not POV. I didn't add them, but they are correct and easily 'citable'. So yes, I think you need to better to justify massive POV. 86.152.234.225 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If they are "correct and easily 'citable', then prove it. GiantSnowman 15:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have and I will! Cheers. 86.152.234.225 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Try listing the article at peer review to get feedback. From a very quick look I'd say that the Aston Villa section could do with expanding, given that he was PFA Player of the Year while there. Beware peacock terms, such as "famously went in goal". The international section appears to take a rose-tinted view of England's matches, and strays a little too off-topic, e.g. mentioning an injury to Gascoigne. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. That is a more balancced view. 86.152.234.225 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The formatting of the refs is all over the place and needs looking at - you should really be using templates such as {{cite web}} rather than just typing the url and a title between ref tags. Some refs are duplicated - these should be combined into one. None have access dates. YouTube videos are not normally considered a reliable source, and I'd also question the reliability of onthisfootballday.com, sporting-heroes.net and englandfootballonline.com -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay re: references. You may have a point with the first two websites, but I do not agree with Englandfootballonline. I find it to be very accurate. Have you had specific bad experiences with this website? 86.152.234.225 (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all, but if you did take the article to GAN or FAC, you would almost certainly be challenged to prove the reliability of what appears to be basically a "hobby" website run by some guy(s). I have no particular reason to doubt that everything on it is accurate, but at FAC in particular you would definitely be asked to provide something more concrete than "all the info seems accurate", if that makes sense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if it could make it to good article when it contains sentences like "Platt increased his continental reputation by scoring goals with both head and feet, whilst displaying passing abilities and high work rates" and "Platt's first telephone call from "Robbie" – as he knows Mancini – came out of the blue"). Number 57 11:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? Its sourced from the Independent Newspaper (online) - with its exact wording. So you can check. Unless you are about to tell me that is unreliable too. Makes me wonder how any article could get to GA under those circumstances. I get the impression some people are creating obstacles for the sake of it. 86.137.27.186 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't just copy from sources, unless you are explicitly quoting. The source in this case is expressing an opinion, rather than stating a fact. For many articles one could find sources with conflicting opinions, e.g. one says that a player is underrated, and another says that they aren't any good. Additionally, this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper article. What one person calls their boss is not very encyclopaedic information, and the tone in that sentence isn't suitably formal. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

David Platts

Am I alone in thinking that David Platt (footballer) is clearly the most notable person by that name? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought so too, but using the admittedly imperfect method of looking at pageviews, the soap opera character gets an almost identical level of pageviews per month. So maybe not. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have to remember that while there are many of us who watch MOTD on TV, there are probably more who watch good old Corrie. GiantSnowman 12:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Platt images

There are loads of images on the interet - particularly of him playing for England and Sampdoria. I have one image of him in a 1990 world cup game - a print bought for me about 10 years ago (he was one of my favourite players as a Villa fan). Can I use this? What are the CR laws about this? Thanks. 86.152.234.225 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's servers are based in the US, meaning that the US fair use doctrine applies when using copyrighted works. However, Wikipedia goes further than the legal minimum, as its m:mission is to make a freely-reproducible reference work. This means that fair-use images are kept to a minimum, and freely reproducible ones are used wherever possible (full details are at Wikipedia:Non-free content). What does this mean for Platt? Well, as a person who is alive, and of whom free-use images (like the one in the article) exist, it is unlikely that a fair use image of him could be justified. It would have to be argued that the image was of iconic status and/or historical importance. Given that even Hand of God goal has no image, this would be a tough sell. So unfortunately your print would not be a permitted image, not least because the very fact that prints are sold of it shows it has commercial value. This of course means that it would be very difficult to find a suitably licensed picture of Platt in his playing career. He played before the proliferation of digital cameras, so most photos of him in action will belong to press and photo agencies, and will remain in copyright for several decades. Sometimes that's just the constraints we have to work with. To use some featured articles as examples, John Wark and Bryan Gunn have post-retirement photos, but none from their playing careers. When I worked on Bert Trautmann, I didn't even have that, and had to make do with a picture of a statue. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ta very much. Very informative. Thanks for taking the time to deliver a response in such detail! 86.152.234.225 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Women's World Cup Final

As it's on Sunday, it would be nice to have no redlinks left on the template below. I've created a few articles, but am off on holiday early tomorrow so might not get a chance to do any more! The Japanese wiki has a full set, and although I can't understand much of what's on there, I was at least able to get clubs and stats from the articles. Number 57 20:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll do a few of them. Adam4267 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done 1-3,5&6. I will do a few more tomorrow. Adam4267 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I've done nine of them now, only one more to do before the final tomorrow. Number57 pointed out that some of the articles are a bit messy and I would probably agree so any help tidying would be welcome. Here is a list of the articles created;

Asuna Tanaka, Megumi Kamionobe, Miho Fukumoto, Nahomi Kawasumi, Mizuho Sakaguchi, Kyoko Yano, Azusa Iwashimizu, Yukari Kinga, Nozomi Yamago. Here is what Number57 pointed out

The main issues are:

• You need to categorise the articles.
• You need to include all the clubs - only using club5 in the infobox will mean the template fails to display the information if club1, club2 etc details are not filled in. All their details are on the Japanese wiki, and can be easily run through a translator (if you do this, beware that "FC Reinasu Saitama" is actually "Saitama Reinas" and is the old name for Urawa Red Diamonds Ladies!).
• Add the templates to the articles - you can find out which templates the players feature on by clicking on "What links here".
• Add the interwiki to the Japanese article, so that all the other ones can be picked up by bots.

Any help would be appreciated guys. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Joshua Markham

I think that the article Joshua Markham may be a hoax, since I cannot find a reference to the player on the team's website. Could someone look at the article and tag it for deletion if that seems appropriate? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged for CSD. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

USA at the 1991 Pan American Games

Good evening (it's 5 PM here in Italy) to everyone, I usually edit on it.wiki, where I created the articles about Football at the Pan American Games. I have a question for you: does anyone have a complete list of the US team for that competition? I only managed to find an incomplete list, the line-up for the final game. Sorry about my imperfect English. :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Boualem Khoukhi

Hello. The page Boualem Khoukhi has just been deleted in the French Wikipedia. I don't know if it meets the criteria of this project, but you should consider taking a look at this page. Thanks -- Quentinv57 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why it would be deleted in the French Wikipedia. The player plays in a fully professional league and has been doing so for the past couple of years. No reason for it to be deleted as the player easily passes WP:Footy.TonyStarks (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to update after my last message .. had a look at the notability criteria for footballers in the French Wikipedia and he does not meet their guidelines (very skewed and biased towards the top level of football).TonyStarks (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Good morning. I add a small word about the criteria present in the French Wiki: These criteria are the result of a compromise because the project:football was two years ago under attack from contributors who wanted to see sport and football especially leaving Wikipedia because the subject seems to you it was not "noble" enough. We had to make large concessions to continue to exist. Without these concessions football would almost limited to international players. We are fully aware that the criteria in place are very restrictive compared to other wiki, but we had to go through it to continue to be present. Matpib (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of players in Chile

The notability of Juan Luis Mora Parada was brought to my attention by another user who also pointed me towards an editor who is creating a lot of articles on Chilean players. My knowledge of South American football isn't great so are players who have appeared no higher than Chilean Primera División B notable? The top division doesn't appear as a fully-professional league but is listed further down stating that a club needs 12 players to be professional so does that mean it is or not? If the top division isn't fully-professional then the second division certainly isn't and most of those articles will need to be deleted for failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Regards. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of that particular player, he has played in the top division e.g. [1] Oldelpaso (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The "problem" with determining his notability is this discussion back in 2010. It was "determined" that the Chilean Primera B and Primera A were not fully professional because of two phrases in the season regulations: 1) "Each club can authorize in this tournament all players who are properly registered in the Registry of Players, with a minimum of 12 professionals" (Article 7.1); 2) "Between the eleven players who start a match there must include, at the minimum, seven professional with a registered contract," (Article 34.1). I can see how people can assume that because of those phrases, the Chilean Primera is not fully professional. But, I don't think that is what they are saying. I think the wording on the first phrase is to make sure that each club is made of professionals (you would need twelve players to make a squad). Phrase two seems to be mainly about the contractual situations of the players. It seems to be saying that the other four do not need to have a registered contract with the ANFP, but still have to be professionals. In there end, there is nothing that says that the Chilean Primera is not a fully pro league. After all, it is run by the Nacional Association of Professional Football, not the National Association of Amatuer Football or a non-existant semi-pro association. I would assume good faith on the professional status of the Chilean Primera, which would make Juan Luis Mora Parada notable. (If it sounds a bit confusing, it is. Try understanding it at 5am.) Digirami (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, since that discussion I've come round to your way of understanding it, and would agree that the Primera is fully-pro. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On a similar note, I think it is safe to say that any top-tier league in South America is fully pro, and their second-tier as well if it is part of the same association of as the first (like how in Chile, the Primera and Primera B are part of the ANFP, and in Colombia, the Primera A and Primera B are part of DIMAYOR). Digirami (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. It makes sense that the second division is fully-professional if run by the same organisation, like the LFP's in France and Spain. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

More player notability issues

Moving further north than the Chileans, but staying in South America, is Oscar "Ñembo" Restrepo notable? Can anyone verify anything from a Colombian goalkeeper from the 50s? He is listed as an Category:Unreferenced BLPs and we need to either reference it or delete the article. But looking at the bigger picture, your project's efforts on UBLPs has been fantastic, down to only 60 articles now, from well over 7500 two years ago and 1700 last year. Well done all. The-Pope (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The only mention I found of Restrepo is a post to a blog from someone claiming to be his grandson (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.ecbloguer.com/capsulas/%3Fp%3D2374&ei=KoQkTqisMuLb0QHO9umxAw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ7gEwBA&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25C3%2591embo%2Bportero%2BDIM%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26rlz%3D1R2ADFA_enUS415%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D705%26prmd%3Divnsb). The blog itself seems like a reliable source (connected to the El Colombiano newspaper), but I notice that the blog author appears to question the validity of the "grandson's" post. In short, I worry that we'll never be able to properly verify the information in this article. Jogurney (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Juán Ángel Sebástio

Hi, does anyone know if this player really exists? The article was created by User:Robmorley who came to my attention with an unconstructive edit in Raúl González. I strongly suspect that Juán Ángel Sebástio is a hoax (Google only finds the Wikipedia page), but I'm not an expert on Spanish football. --Jaellee (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

An 18-year old who has scored 14 goals in 23 La Liga matches -wow! How come he has set his sights as low as Rochdale, Carlisle United and Workington! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a hoax not one hit on google despite such a "brilliant" season. Adam4267 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

They have modified José Luis García del Pozo from the looks of it... Hack (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

While I was still wondering what to do next (Prod? Speedy deletion?) User:Struway2 has already acted. Thanks! --Jaellee (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sam Hutchinson

I'm confused about this player's status - he retired due to injury in August 2010 and embarked on a coaching course, but appears to have played in a friendly today for a Chelsea XI against Crawley Town today. However, I can't find any news (other than on fan forums) about it. Can anyone shed any light? Cheers, GiantSnowman 23:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears as if he has come out of retirement. There might be something in one of the papers about him over the next few days. Adam4267 (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also confused on this matter,as it claimed he was release by Chelsea at end of this season despite the fact he retired the previous season. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 00:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

Looks like he has been undergoing rehabilitation and is trying to make a comeback but am only finding links to forums about it at the moment. There should be something in a reliable source soon to confirm it. I thought his name was familiar so I looked and we were keen on him years ago. Back when we weren't pants! Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Winners of match X or team A/team B

Could I have further input here? It's a minor disagreement over whether the third qualifying round of the Europa league should be shown this way

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Winners of match 21	35	Winners of match 13	28 July	4 August

or this way

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Split or Domžale	35	Fulham or Crusaders	28 July	4 August

The second way is the way that UEFA themselves use. Valenciano (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Try using that second method in {{footballbox}} and see what response you get. The way it was done before I got to the article looked horrible. – PeeJay 12:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for comparison the full version is here and I don't see the problem with it. It makes it much easier to see who your team's opponents are and as I say, is the way that UEFA themselves present the info. Valenciano (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Numbers or teams. I can't say that I'm a fan of the latter, it looks messy and just screams laziness to me since there is a table directly above it showing the match numbers. You can use OTHERCRAPEXISTS to justify anything. To give an example for numbers, the last World Cup used "Winners of match x vs Winners of match x". Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Although the second is easier to see the information quickly. Using {{footballbox}} it looks really cluttered and messy. The first option is by far the better of the two. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Argyle, I've no idea where the "other crap exists" comes in, as you've linked to a section on deletion discussions which doesn't apply. The only "crap" being referred to is the format used on the UEFA home page, the home page of the people who, y'know, actually organise the competition! Nonetheless it's clear that the winner of match X format is the one preferred by most people but that's not to say it can't be tweaked. There are problems with it on days like today, where only half the second legs have been played and we have this godawful mess....

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Slovan Bratislava	3–1	Tobol Kostanay	2–0	1–1
Sturm Graz	6	Videoton	2–0	20 July
Zestafoni	7	Dacia Chişinău	3–0	20 July
Dinamo Zagreb	3–0	Neftchi Baku	3–0	0–0
Valletta	2–4	Ekranas	2–3	0–1
Malmö FF	3–1	HB Tórshavn	2–0	1–1
Shamrock Rovers	1–0	Flora Tallinn	1–0	0–0
Rosenborg	14	Breiðablik	5–0	20 July
Bangor City	0–131	HJK Helsinki	0–3	0–10
Skonto	0–3	Wisła Kraków	0–1	0–2
Linfield	1–3	BATE Borisov	1–1	0–2

How are people supposed to know in that situation that the 6, 7 and 14 refer to match numbers? Surely there should be a separate column on the left of the table which gives match numbers instead of placing them in an "aggregate" section? I don't know how to work the football box otherwise I'd amend that myself but surely match numbers in a separate column would be better? Valenciano (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of footballers - NSPORT and GNG

The WP:NSPORT guideline as written effectively gives a "free pass" to footballers who meet the football-specific guideline, on the assumption that they will meet WP:GNG, but the articles do not have to show that GNG has been met. Clearly this is the current/agreed position and applies to a number of sports (that have varying criteria). I wanted to get a view of what Footy editors think of this situation, whereby players can be deemed to achieve notability via a competition/team criteria rather than meeting GNG. Please note this is intended to be a question about the principle of this approach, rather than a discussion of what football-specific criteria should be acceptable. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

While the current consensus appears to be the "free pass approach", NSPORT explicitly states the opposite:

In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that you've selected this text from Nsport as I've flagged there before that I believe it can be interpreted the way you have, and that it conflicts with key text that is bolded in the intro of the guideline:

"The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or the sport specific criteria set forth below."

I would suggest that because it is in the intro and bolded it has more weight but I accept that is an arguable point, although I note you agree that 'free pass' is how things work in practice.Eldumpo (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the assumption is that any of those articles with proper time and research could be demonstrated to meet the GNG, but because time and resources are finite those are allowed to stand until someone has the resources and wherewithal to put everything into the article. matt91486 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Soccerway

I have been wondering this for a while and I have to ask now because I've run into a sourcing problem for a list that I'm aiming to take to FLC. Would Soccerway be considered a reliable source? I haven't used it much before so don't know who is behind it and what fact checking they do, but it has always seemed accurate to me. The problem I have is a friendly match between Luxembourg and the Faroe Islands. The sources I've been using don't cover it in detail and the best I've seen is this. I don't want to put it in if it gets pulled up at FLC and I have to take it out.

Since there were no goals scored then I could use FIFA since the result is listed there, but it doesn't include the attendance and I'm a stickler for completeness. The company behind Soccerway is Global Sports Media and they seem legitimate, but I'd rather ask and be certain instead of including it and then having to take it out again later. Regards. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've generally regarded Soccerway as a reliable source, although I don't know where their information comes from. Eldumpo (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You won't have any trouble with Global Sports Media. Their about page identifies them as a serious media organisation, and as such assumed to do proper fact checking. Make sure you put them as publisher in your references, to clarify who Soccerway are. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks guys. They employ a large number of people and any time I've used the site it has appeared reliable. Their website indicates professionalism and reliability so I'm happy about that. The amount of competitions they cover is insane. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. Where on this new layout at UEFA.com does it list the attendance for a match? For instance, here the attendance for Estonia vs Faroe Islands is 5,201, but I can't find it anywhere on the match page. I don't like the way FIFA operate, but their website isn't at all frustrating compared to UEFA. Nice and simple - [2]

With regards to SoccerWay, I just want to add my thoughts .. very reliable website that I use quite often for Algerian football. They cover many leagues, most which aren't covered by anyone else, and do a great job with the stats. Whenever there is a mistake (rarely), a simple email with references will usually fix the issue within 1-2 days.TonyStarks (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i found one when writing the Czech Women's Cup, i.e. http://women.soccerway.com/national/czech-republic/pohar-cmfs-zeny/2008-2009/final-stages/ Sparta didn't lose but win 7-0. So one should double check sometimes. -Koppapa (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Placar Guia

Whatever it is, it's apparently getting a lot of citations. It seems to be football-related, so I though I'd drop by here asking about it (specifically about what should be done a potential article about it). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is Brazilian's most important football magazine. There is already an article about the magazine (see Placar). Placar Guia 2011 is the specific magazine for the 2011 Brazilian season. Hope that helps. --Carioca (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Many thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

John Buttigieg (footballer)

If the reliable RSSSF shows all his caps in detail and says 95, why can't it be the number that appears in his box? I have been reverted 2,3 times, most puzzling is that those reversions contained...you guessed it...ZERO words in summary!

So much for teamwork, happy week all - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, warned, reference added. GiantSnowman 23:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted who and warned for what? An innocent IP made a good faith edit mentioning Buttigieg guided the team to the Euro Cup - which was a former name of the Maltese Lowenbrau Cup - and which Birikara won in 2008.

Vasco, other than today, you last edited in July 2010 and left 97 caps there. Prior to that you edited in September 2009, also leaving it with 97 caps. Where are these "reverted 2,3 times"? --ClubOranje^T 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted & warned an IP who changed the number of caps from 95 to 97 - despite a reliable source (which existed as an EL before I added ref tags) which contradicted their edits. GiantSnowman 13:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That IP did not change caps from 95 to 97. That change was done in December 2008 by a different IP who only ever made 4 edits to the page and was never talked to. --ClubOranje^T 20:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, apologies in that case, I was acting on Vasco's information. I'll pay more attention in future... GiantSnowman 20:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to ORANJE: the edits to which i refer date from way back, mid/late 2008, sorry i only "reported" it now. The only reason i edited in July 2010 (for example) and left 97 caps was because i knew someone was going to change it back to 95! Regarding the sentence i erased, i did not remove the most important, which was the team won the MALTESE CUP in 2008, if the cup was named EURO CUP before, then the anon user "doubled" that info (his addition read "... leading the side to the 2008 Maltese Cup and the Euro Cup.") and i was right to remove/adjust it.

Thanks for your inputs people - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice for Season Pages

Can someone please give me a list of websites that may help me with information when creating past Season pages, specifically Scottish clubs past season pages. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

Any particular clubs. Warburton1368 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Its ok, I found the necessary websites, currently doing Dundee FC past seasons. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 13:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC))

Which is it?

Just noticed two links on the main page today "Japan women's national football team" and "United States women's national soccer team". Shouldn't these be consistent? BUC (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because WP:ENGVAR says we should use the appropriate form of English for the nationality of the subject - clearly for the USA this is "soccer" whereas for other countries it's "football"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Icons

What do the colored boxes and arrows next to players' names mean on "match" articles? For example, in the article for the 2011_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup_Final, under Match Details, where the players' names are listed out, Azusa Iwashimizu and Aya Miyama have colored rectangles next to their names, and several other players have red or green arrows pointing up or down, accompanied by numbers.

The meanings of these may be perfectly obvious to a football fan, but I think it would be great if there were some explanation, either in the references section, or at the top of the Match Detail section, or, as some other things in Wikipedia do, if there were a question mark next to them you could click on to find out more. For example, the "Nihongo" template used to render Japanese words in Japanese characters and romanization and/or translation, uses it. e.g. Azusa Iwashimizu (岩清水梓, Iwashimizu Azusa). Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A red arrow means a player was substituted off, and a green arrow means a player was substituted on. A yellow icon indicates that the player was booked and a red icon (sometimes accompanied by a yellow icon) indicates that the player was sent off. The numbers refer to the minute when the substitution, booking or sending off occurred. – PeeJay 12:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Pedroza‎

Had a look on soccerway and it has him down as a Spurs player. Is this a mistake? I can't see anything on google news to confirm. doomgaze (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

he claimed he was joining, but it all fell apart later. (disclaimer - no opinion as to the reliability of sources is implied) --ClubOranje^T 12:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's the latest I'd heard. As neither of the clubs have confirmed anything anyway I've emailed soccerway about it. doomgaze (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick player notability reminder, please

Does playing in the qualifying rounds of a continental club competition such as the UEFA Europa League suggest notability under WP:NFOOTY? I am asking because I was wondering if the articles of this Fulham and this Dundee United player should be prodded or not... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, they're not fully-pro competitions (same as the qualifying rounds for domestic cup competitions) so the player would fail WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nélson Oliveira - check edit history please

And why is the vandal that did that not blocked already?! I know, i know, rules...he has not been warned several times, incredible!

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV - but there's been nothing for a few days, so they won't act. GiantSnowman 20:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Only 56 left - including about a dozen which are at PROD/AfD - in case anybody fancies joining me in trying to get that figure down to a tasty fat zero. Cheers, GiantSnowman 20:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, keep in mind that most of these are recently (and inappropriately) tagged. Let's also be careful about PROD'ing some of these as at least some of them are pretty easily referenced fully-pro-league players. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Also, I have boldly introduced a new listing of 'BLPPROD' on the Project's table of nominations, for two reasons - partly because BLP PRODs last for 10 days rather than the usual 7, and partly because having a seperate list makes it easier for editors to know which articles require sourcing to save. GiantSnowman 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• All done, those that are left are at PROD/AfD. Thanks to everyone who helped. GiantSnowman 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Great work. I had a bit of time to kill earlier so expanded a couple of them. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

What is the best way to disambiguate between two players with the same name. Adam4267 (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Year of birth usually. Player name followed by (footballer born xxxx). Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What happens if two players are born in the same year? Adam4267 (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If they're from different countries you could do that, but if not then you could do it by position or month of birth. I've never had to disambiguate by the latter two but I'd imagine they would be fine. Who is the player in question? Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Morten Rasmussen (footballer born January 1985) and Morten Rasmussen (footballer born March 1985). Both Danish. Although one's a defender and one's a stiker. Adam4267 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexanderalgrim and his continual creation of non-notable footballers

How much longer are we going to put up with this? Vasco told me a while ago that he had tried talking to him without success. I've prodded quite a few of his creations in the past and found another one at Tiago Ilori. I was going to prod again but decided to check his contributions first and there are a lot more creations about players that aren't yet notable, including Ricardo Sousa Esgaio, created on 10 July, which was speedily deleted the day before as Ricardo Esgaio. What should be done? The guy has been around long enough and had enough pages deleted to know what is and what isn't acceptable, yet he continues to create work for other people to clear up. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a similar problem with Raggi2010 (talk · contribs) - I've sent them both a {{subst:uw-create1}}, which is for "Creating inappropriate pages", so hopefully they'll get the message... GiantSnowman 22:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you beat me to the punch on Betinho. ;) I've left a message on his talk page and been as friendly as I can, given the number of times I've had to prod his creations, and hopefully he will understand. It is clear from his work that he has a basic grasp of English so there is no excuse. Vasco has tried talking to him before and got nowhere, so I've warned him what will happen if this continues. I didn't think I'd be doing this at midnight today but it's Wikipedia, there is always something to do! Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• No he won't get it Snowman! He has been saying "talk to the hand" for two years now! Has even been granted autopatrol rights and did not even then communicate with the person that bestowed that honour upon him. The ESGAIO example is quite good to see his M.O.: he creates an article, has it deleted, creates it AGAIN with a different name, what gives?! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well guys, if he continues to ignore our advice + the policies of this encyclopedia (one must always remember to AGF!) then he is obviously becoming disruptive, and further action should be taken - either to ANI or maybe a RFC. GiantSnowman 23:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's up to him now which direction we go. I left him another message before prodding more articles about players who have gone no higher than the Portuguese Second Division, pointing him in the direction of WP:FPL. His articles created can be viewed here. I've only reviewed the most recent 13 and they're all non-notable which doesn't bode well. His activity shows no communication with other users at all so I'm not holding out much hope of a response, never mind a positive one. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

He has been editing since I left the messages but they have been ignored so far. Classy. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He may not have responded - as we expected - but at least he has probably seen them, and so has had fair warning should further action be needed. GiantSnowman 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ah forgot this: User:MYS77 also engages in the same behaviour, even players from the reserves, they get ONE first-team callup (mind, callup, not appearance), bam! They get a WP article. I have notified him once, he did respond, but his behaviour persists... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• AfD the pieces and block this person (or have it blocked)! If he starts another account without asking anyone, we'll known with what type of user we're dealing... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Carles Puyol - Bits and pieces

In another story, what could possess a "person" (quotation marks intentional!) to go into the page of one of the most clean players i have even seen, Carles Puyol - am cleaning up his article as we speak, for POV/WEASEL and overlinking, also removing who his current girlfriend is (who cares?) - and write "...plays for Barcelona and Spain and IS A DOUCHEBAG". Bitter Real Madrid fan maybe?

Also in this article, Carlos Marchena, Puyol's teammate at EURO 2008, is mentioned in that article regarding that competition, and he played in Valencia CF at the time. An "enlightened" user corrected his team to the one he plays in since 2010, Villarreal CF...Don't these people have a clue? A pity - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First editor is clearly some bored teenage vandal, but with the second editor assume good faith - I presume they merely got the two teams confused, rather than anything malicious! GiantSnowman 23:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks mate! Still, could you have a look and see how much of the PERSONAL section is relevant, even if ref'd? I mean, some of it is RIDICULOUS - his puppet in this Catalan show owns a sheep?! Also, from what i've read, the REF#25 says nothing of the sort, only containing a twitter comment about his Napalm Death preferences - and he only hears it on warmups! How reliable is a twitter comment for an encyclopedia?!

Cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If something is referenced, then I'd say keep it in - however 'trivial' it may seem. After all, it simply adds to a more complete biography. If it's unreferenced, remove on sight, especially with regards to BLPs. GiantSnowman 01:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 in International football

Do we have an article in Wikipedia like '2011 in international football' which lists all International Football matches (matches between FIFA meber nations - friendly matches, tournament matches etc.) for the year 2011, giving the results, goal scorers, ranking points earned etc. ? if not, can we have such an article for every year. I saw a similar article for Cricket. Thank You.
Anish Viswa 02:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 in association football is probably the current nearest equivalent. --ClubOranje^T 07:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Anish, do you refer with "similar article for cricket" to articles such as International cricket in 2011? If so, a list with every football match between national teams might not be a particular good idea because such a list will become very large and very difficult to overview, especially if a variant of the footballbox template is used, as there are more than 200 national teams alone, in comparison to a few dozen nations with cricket teams. The current consensus, as far as I am aware, is to include any national team match into articles like 2010–11 in English football, so you might like to follow this path instead. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I do admit that the list will be big and also that be the reason why such an article is not created. But currently, if we like to have the information on International matches in 2011, we virtually have to browse through 200 odd articles in Wikipedia. That is why I think we can have a go at this, segregating it into month wise tables and giving colour-coding to Tournament matches, WC qualifiers, Euro qualifiers, Friendly matches, Matches between a national side and a club side like that. We can also have at the end of the article, statistical data like 'Performance by Nation', 'Top scorers' etc. A bit ambitious, but we can make it possible, with all your support.
Anish Viswa 00:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't RSSSF cover this? I don't think it is needed here. -Koppapa (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, we may not require thousands of articles here in Wiki. We are not doing original research in Wikipedia. Almost all the information in articles are available in some other place, which we call 'references'. RSSSF can be a reference for the proposed article.
Anish Viswa 07:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but i don't see a need for that article. Especially friedlies are pretty uninteressting and not notable, ranking points have basically no meaning in soccer and it would just create a lot of redundancy here in wikipedia. -Koppapa (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ranking points decide how hard a teams group will be for tournaments and qualifying stages. They are incerdibly important to international football. Adam4267 (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Why has the discussion moved to ranking points all of a sudden? The proposal was to have a simple list of international matches per year, not anything which includes any sort of points... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Neymar - mass vandalism

Can we have some more eyes on this article please? There's been so much vandalism, and I don't know much about him, so trying to find a correct version to roll back to is proving difficult. doomgaze (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is how it looked when page protection expired. It'd be safe to revert to that and then update his statistics again if necessary. Why it wasn't renewed immediately afterwards is what puzzles me. Long-term protection, like Romelu Lukaku, would be the best thing to do. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Javier Balboa's B international matches - mentioned once

Seriously, even if ref'd, do we need mention to EVERY game he played with the EQUATORIAL GUINEA B team? From what i have seen, in many many articles, there is not even mention to all the games a given player played in a World Cup for A-TEAMS (refs or no refs), why do we need the detail here? User:Kolins is really really raising the bar here in my opinion...

Really puzzling - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between over-the-top detal for 60 A-games, and mentioning (with a reference) that a player "made two appearances for the B team in 2004, against Spain and Portugal." The level of detail in Balboa's article is appropriate, I feel. GiantSnowman 14:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An editor adding one line of what you consider excessive detail isn't an excuse for calling their edit "appalling rubbish" in your edit summary. Believe me, not using edit summaries at all is much, much, less damaging to the encyclopedia than using them as a vehicle for abusing and belittling other editors' contributions. Please stop it. Struway2 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are correct Struway, i apologize, but i am not a punk in search of a wiki-fight ("abusing" others), and my contributions are no better than those of the average well-intended user, just a big big anger management problem hanging over me...About the technical input, you are correct Snowman, as long as the B-team matches does not get over-detailed. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have been discussed at the article's talk page and then only brought here if a consensus couldn't be reached? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, a discussion would have been good, but i did not revert Kolins in the article at all, so i thought a mere input here would suffice... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Antony1821

Another User:Zombie433 in the making? No summaries, does not talk to anyone...In the last days, the following: he receives warning messages, he removes them (see example here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antony1821&diff=436103777&oldid=436051338).

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

His edits don't seem bad. He updates quite a bit. It's his user page, if he doesn'T want to see something there, he is free to remove anything. -Koppapa (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I first encountered him while referencing Petar Grbić. I undid his most recent edit that added an appearance and goal to the infobox for Olympiacos despite the note at the bottom being very clear. At the beginning it looked like this and he blanked it after being WP:BLPPROD. Odd behaviour. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Club notability

Basically, WP:FOOTYN is not fit for purpose - saying that there are at least 6000 notable French clubs is nonsense - and needs a massive overhaul, on a country-by-country basis. Ideas welcome! GiantSnowman 14:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Since a few countries already have some sort of inofficial notability criteria, it might probably be a good idea to collect these first in order to get some fundamental input. I would suggest to do so at User:Soccer-holic/Club notability criteria. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have started the list. Number 57 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand this obsession with allowing FA Vase teams an article. Why say that teams down to Level 10 are notable, then contradict yourself by then including Vase clubs, who can play at Level 11? If clubs playing in the Coupe de France aren't automatically notable then clubs competing in the fifth-most prestigious cup in England (after the FA Cup, League Cup, FL Trophy and FA Trophy) certainly shouldn't be. BigDom 16:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between FA Cup and FA Vase is minimal - the vast majority of clubs that enter the FA vase are also eligible for the FA Cup (I believe it is a qualifying rule for FA Cup entry that the club must have played in the Vase the year before) and the number of clubs entering the Vase from Step 7 is marginal as clubs have to have floodlights to do so. Number 57 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page:

"I read your message at WT:FOOTY and agree that Club notability needs a overhaul. My personal suggestion regarding French clubs in the Coupe de France would be since every club is eligible to participate in the competition, the only clubs that should merit notability on Wikipedia are the ones that reach the 7th Round since that is the round professional clubs in France start off or possibly the Round of 64 since that is the round where the French Football Federation site starts archiving results at leaving the early round results to the regional sites. See here. — JS^{Rant Away} 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)"

GiantSnowman 16:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll also add that 655 clubs are participating in the Coupe de France from the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region alone! Club notability, particularly for the Coupe de France, does need to change. The constant yearly increase in clubs has resulted in this year's Coupe de France beginning almost two months ago. — JS^{Rant Away} 16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:France, I'd say any club that has played in the Round of 64 of the Coupe de France (i.e. the round at which the FFF website archives results) would be an ideal candidate, as it implies GNG. GiantSnowman 19:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems unfair allow 64 teams from the French Cup, if we're allowing over 700 from the FA Cup. Surely in France a better measure of notability should be based on league standings rather than the cup competition. How about teams from the CFA2 (fifth tier) and upwards. That would include 17 divisions, so around 250 clubs - still less than a third of the English clubs but still a bit fairer. There are websites (such as this one) that keep a record for French clubs showing which divisions they have played in, so it would be easy to enforce. Results and league standings from this level are also readily available for GNG purposes. BigDom 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Unofficially, the CFA 2 is kind of the limit for club notability for clubs in France. Like here for example. After skimming the round, excluding Sablé-sur-Sarthe, the clubs that are red-linked played below the CFA 2. I understand where BigDom is coming from, but I think the primary issue is a some user making an article about.......let's say Athletic Club de Paris, a club that plays in the 14th division of French football, on the basis that the club playing in the first round of the Coupe de France makes it notable. — JS^{Rant Away} 21:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Man Utd FC on 59 trophies and Liverpool FC on 59 so why not parity on the Wikipedia trophies won table?

See

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/honours

LFC have won 59 including the English Super Cup of 1986 an FA/Football League endorsed competition for top flight English Clubs. if the Intertoto Cup is included (a defunct summer tournament) then why is the Super Cup of 1986 not included also. let's get history right.

Cheers,

JoeRob55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeR55 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He talks about Football_records_in_England#FA_Premier_League_.E2.80.93_Since_1992.E2.80.9393_season. -Koppapa (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually he's referring to Football records in England#Most successful clubs overall (1871 – present) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Intertoto cup was a 40 year long European competition, it was played in summer because the winners qualified for Uefa Cup, Champions league. The Super cup was a one off competition and its inclusion doesn't seem merited just so Liverpool can have the same number of trophies as Man U. Adam4267 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector

Can we have some input here please folks - it's been listed for nearly three weeks! Cheers, GiantSnowman 00:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On the topic, can someone explain to me what makes a youth team notable? I really fail to see how most pass the notability test (although I can't say I've really looked into the issue). I see way too many youth teams (and even amateur clubs) that make me wonder how they're notable. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

They are notable because they are run by the owning club so if they didn't have there own page they would be a subsection of the owning clubs page. Also youth teams are not amatuer. Adam4267 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

New club page : Al-Jaish

I created a new article for a club in Qatar that just got promoted to the top flight (Qatar Stars League): Al-Jaish (Qatar). There's not much info out there but I managed to add some details (and some of their signings). The article needs a lot of work, so if someone doesn't mind taking a crack at it I'd appreciate it! Thanks.

hi club manager

i an a nigerian guy who is intrested in playing for your club my position is central defence this is my mail add ganiyu_kolawole@ yahoo.com