Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80

Afternoon all. Two weeks ago, I received an email through Wikipedia from someone (I shall preserve their anonymity for now) stating that the logo currently located at Grantham Town F.C. is "not correct". The sender stated that he has a "web ready copy" of the actual logo, that he can email. I've never been in this situation, and have no idea how to proceed. Please advise. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 13:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the colours are quite different from the logo on the club website. As I see it, if you receive a copy via email and upload it with the appropriate fair use rationale, there should be no problem. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Reigning world champions at continental championships and vice versa

The article "National team appearances in the UEFA European Football Championship" has tables showing the performances of host nations and of defending champions, but then would we also like a table displaying the results of reigning world champions?

Year Reigning world champion Result
1960 non-UEFA team (Brazil) -
1964 non-UEFA team (Brazil) -
1968  England third place
1972 non-UEFA team (Brazil) -
1976  West Germany runner-up
1980 non-UEFA team (Argentina) -
1984  Italy did not qualify
1988 non-UEFA team (Argentina) -
1992  Germany runner-up
1996 non-UEFA team (Brazil) -
2000  France champion
2004 non-UEFA team (Brazil) -
2008  Italy quarter-finalist
2012  Spain champion

Also, the "National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup" article has the same two tables as the above article already has, but what about a demonstration of the performances of all reigning continental champions at every World Cup? This would produce an enormous table, whose last three rows would currently look like that:

Year AFC CAF CONCACAF CONMEBOL OFC UEFA
Reigning continental champion Result Reigning continental champion Result Reigning continental champion Result Reigning continental champion Result Reigning continental champion Result Reigning continental champion Result
2006  Japan GS  Egypt DNQ  United States GS  Brazil QF  Australia R16  Greece DNQ
2010  Iraq DNQ  Egypt DNQ  Mexico R16  Brazil QF  New Zealand GS  Spain 1st
2014  Japan TBD  Nigeria TBD TBD TBD  Uruguay TBD  Tahiti DNQ  Spain TBD

Let me hear your thoughts. --Theurgist (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't think those are needed. Those are different tournament. -Koppapa (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I also don't see a particular need or advantage in them. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

2005 Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira

Hello,

I recently made the 2005 Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira article which was a match between Benfica and Vitória de Setúbal in August 2005.

Is it possible to create the kits for both sides. In this message section I have added links for you, to help you create the kits.

Benfica's Kit

Vitória de Setúbal's Kit

User talk:Alexgreene87, 21 February 2013, 15:37 UTC


already good enough for me. -Koppapa (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I already suggested at your talk page you use the home kit from the infobox at this version of SL Benfica, which is a slight improvement on the plain red. All you have to do is copy the corresponding parameters from there to the Benfica kit in the 2005 Supertaça page, i.e. copy the contents of |pattern_la1= in that version of the Benfica infobox to |pattern_la= in the Benfica kit template at the 2005 Supertaça page, and so on for the other parameters. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Another blogger

It appears that User:Jstreatf is a blogger calling himself "The Soccerist". all of his edits have been to link to his blog. The information is mostly statistics, some of which are simply ignorant (salary of MLS designated players per points of one--which discounts defenders and goalkeepers entirely). I don't want to come into conflict with the editor. Would anyone else care to confirm that the blogger is not a RS and watch a few edits? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. If he continues to spam then we'll block. GiantSnowman 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslavia U21 Squad 1984

Further input would be appreciated - regardless of the outcome it is going to effect a number of existing & future articles. Discussion is here. GiantSnowman 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I voted to keep the template, they are useful aids for viewing squads instantly. At the moment there are 5 in favour of deleting and only 3 in favour of keeping the template. If the template is deleted, it could set a precedent that would see all UEFA, CONCACAF, CAF, AFC, and even FIFA youth-tournament squad templates removed from wikipedia. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone Stop this Circus please !!

There is a page related to all kind of records in Spanish football , this IP 83.63.128.68 , 49.244.173.62 keeps removing records he doesn't agree with, these records are sourced but his reason to refuse the source because its the official websites for the related club !! so its just a cherry records for him ! even though if you check the existing records there are many records as it in other football records pages but he keeps removing them.

the records he keeps removing :

-Only Spanish team to score in all away games in a La Liga season , he keeps deleting this record even he is the one who added Most games with three or more goals in a season?? so which one seems more picky trivia ?? it's a season long record and no other team in the history of la liga did it..so why remove it ?

-Only team in Spanish League to have won all away games in the first half of the season : It's a winning record for a set games of la liga !

-Most consecutive away wins in one season : he thinks only ongoing records should be added so thats why he keeps removing that

-Most consecutive games scoring: he keeps removing it saying other teams are holding the record...even the source is clear about who holds the record and he couldn't provide a source stating otherwise but still he keeps removing it

finally he keeps talking about biased records?? he keeps putting Ronaldo records which is :

fastest player to score 100 goals by number of seasons !?! there is one for number of games as all other records ...but since his FAVE team boy didn't get the record he searched to added them by number of seasons...it's for sure a trivia because there is no other records in whole wikipedia like that ! all just put number of games ! which is clearly he doesn't have .

thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:A0A2:1EFE:E57C:DD88 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose a bit of sanity needs to be added first. The article in question is football records in Spain.
Of the two anons listed, 83.63.128.68 is in Madrid while 49.244.173.62 is in Kathmandu, so I doubt they're the same editor. That doesn't mean that they're not working together over some chat mechanism.
Kathmandu is actually reverting your addition of club-based statistics and restored another statistic that was removed without explanation. All of that editor's actions were explained. You should take the time to open a discussion on the article's talk page about those.
Madrid then restored Kathmandu's removal and added a reference for another. Also, both were explained.
This seems to be a series of content disputes. Should we lock the article to anonymous editors until the disputes are resolved?
I for one find the article mind-numbingly trivial and would sooner see the whole thing removed as WP:FANCRUFT. For now, I have tagged the article as containing unreliable source, vis. Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation and a few other fan-edited lists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you , I really don't have a problem with both of them as personal level , I just think the whole article should follow one measure not depending if its real or barca , Either specific records kept or just don't be picky !

they both seem don't listen for whatever I put there and just interested in removing, I'm sure this IP has been blocked before over jose mourinho page or something...but he has a username by then..and it might just be a vpn program that is why he signed in from two different palces..anyway it doesn't matter i dont know how we can determine if its a WP:FANCRUFT...but I think you are right it should have more reliable sources . thank you . and probably if both aren't open to discussion and no reliable sources are found it should be locked .

thank you again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:481B:B0B1:8EC1:4CB4 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those IPs have been blocked before. That's not to say that the same person editing from a different IP have not, but without proof, I wouldn't even suggest it. Please focus on the content of the edits and not the editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I just watched as the Nepalese anon made what seemed to be reasonable changes to the article and then the IP6 anon reverted them all.
I have requested page protection for anon users and would request that a few editors look into this article with the goal of removing questionable material and those with dodgy refs (such as claims made by a club regarding their glorious record). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This edit made by the Nepalese anon makes it clear that the page needs to be protected and all editors involved need to start communicating. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes Please protect the page !! i wrote in both areas as you asked me but he doesn't seem want to communicate and i gave reason how we should measure it all in the same way ! but he just ignored all that and kept reverting ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:ACD7:6FE5:3DBA:365 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


also by the way...I did the same measure he was asking for when i reverted , he said the source shouldn't based on the club official website so he keeps adding two TRIVIA not even a record based on that .

first one : first 100 goals scored in a season ... you cant find something like that in whole wikipedia look at the english football records page as example ?? can you find silly trivia as this ? then first club to score 100 goals or more in 3 consecutive seasons ... is that even a record ?? for real ?? finally they number of matches won by margin bigger than 3 goals !so if that the case we can then find most did that two goals only ! and then 4 goals and 5 goals why not ?? I'm being fair and making sense but in the whole conversation no one even answered my questions about it ! just keep saying discuss it but the truth so only wanted to remove the records i added without even discussion what he added . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3878:81E0:ACD7:6FE5:3DBA:365 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

okay now I am officially confused!

On the Fulham website you have Moussa Dembele The profile seems a lot different to Mousa Dembélé, so are they two different players? If so I think I messed up a little on Mousa, the Spurs man! So I am hella confused!! Govvy (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ypu weren't around when Gary Stevens and Gary Stevens were both in the England squad, were you? The guy born in France in 1996 is not the guy born in Belgium in 1987. Kevin McE (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Both are different players. One of them played against the Arsenal U19s a few weeks ago [6]. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The article that was linked to on the Fulham website makes it abundantly clear that they are different players: "In sharing his name with one of Fulham’s biggest stars at the time" and "Whether he will go on to make the same impact as his namesake remains to be seen". Q.E.D. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

John Lundstram article

Please can an admin restore the John Lundstram article? He's been named in the starting XI for Doncaster Rovers.[7] I'll bring the article up to scratch. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Marko Knežević

I'm concerned that the photo listed here may be a copyright violation. It appears be copied directly from the FK Radnički 1923 website. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the proper procedure for dealing with this is, so I figured I'd bring it up here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Now deleted from Commons as copyvio. For future reference, if you suspect an image as being a copyvio you should flag it on Commons as such. You can do this via the toolbox tab in the left margin and click on "Report copyright violation" and follow the instructions. I hope this helps. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Cliff Jones (Welsh footballer)

I was wondering on naming conventions, should he not be named Cliff Jones (1935)? Govvy (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The correct title for what you are proposing would be Cliff Jones (footballer born 1935). I would support such a move - year of birth is preferable over nationality, given all the issues we have regarding footballer nationalities. GiantSnowman 12:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
k, I think we should move it, I can't see the option in my twinkle know, but haven't they changed the rules about moving pages now? Govvy (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Without a date of birth for Cliff Jones (English footballer), I'd suggest it'd make more sense to stay as we are. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
O, I just moved it! Can always move the English Cliff Jones to be the same style. Govvy (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not without a date of birth we can't. I'll put it back, assuming I still can. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Bear in mind the wording of the relevant naming convention, which says we should use the most conclusive of the two possibilities nationality or birth year. As nationality does work, there's no real reason for changing away from it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Until the next Welsh Cliff Jones comes along!! But still imagine paying Garath Bale £85 a week, [8]. Govvy (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any profession is still on the same pay scale as was applied 50 years ago. Average UK weekly income in 1963 was c £20. Not the money that Bale is on, but equivalent to c £170k annual salary now. Not so much sympathy needed. Kevin McE (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nico Claesen

Some IP put this copyvio tag on Claesen's page, but I don't understand why! Govvy (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it's a copyvio or not but it certainly reads like it's been nicked from somewhere - either way, the entire section is unreferenced & full of POV so I've removed it. GiantSnowman 12:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Well I created the article ages ago, I needed to cite the Spurs book I got some info from but thats at my parents home! Other than that, User Chanheigeorge wrote the international bit I don't think it's copyvio somehow and a couple of websites copy wiki anyway!! Govvy (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Outside opinion sout

Can a non involved editor please look over this content dispute and try guide the editors involved with policies to help them a achieve a consensus so meaning full protection can come off. Talk:Rangers_F.C.#Consensus_for_Board_of_Directors_debate. I am not involved as i dnt have a preference either way i have tried to get the editors involved to try reach a consensus with no luck, the problem reside round, editors said back at the time of the crisis surrounding whether rangers fc where liquidated or not that the club and the company are serperate, but those same editors now want to include company information on the club page so one editor disagrees that company information be included. editors saying it should say other articles do it so should rangers articles. but i aint sure where to guide them as layout templates would normal say to include it, but rangers articles is unique in what happened to them and since the argument for it to be the same club revolve around it being serperate to the company so not liquidated make it complex. any advice please post on the talk page for the other editors benefitAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fábio Coentrão / Hélder Postiga

After an absence of months i return here to solve a problem (last time last week, over the Lampiões thing, i only realized i was writing here when it was "too late", so that one does not count :)),

i've been having a run-in with a compatriot in these two guys' articles, over their (same) birthplace. He inserts TWO "People from" categories and a "citation needed" tag in the city of birth. In BOTH articles, all (not one or two, ALL) sources available say they were born in Vila do Conde, which together with Póvoa de Varzim "form a single urban agglomeration". However, they still are two separate locations no? That would be sufficient for us to reason they were NOT born in Póvoa no?

Inputs please, regards to the members --AL (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and does anyone know if i presented these templates for deletion (per request of User:Alexgreene87) in the correct place (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion)? Double thanks! --AL (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The two locations are deemed worthy of having separate Wiki articles, and the one article says they are linked urban areas, as opposed to one being a suburb of the other. Therefore it seems reasonable to have separate categories for each place and for each player to have the cat relating to the place he was from, although we've had a discussion about these cats before. Does 'born in' mean 'from'? Eldumpo (talk)

I'm saying that each player should have the cat that the sources say he was born in. If there are no sources saying they are from PdV (or vice-versa) then no they should not have that cat added. However, what happens if you're born in Place A and move to Place B when 2 months old and remain there. Are you 'from' Place A or Place B? Eldumpo (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem is in this case, you dont have to move from place A to B to live in B and keep living in A, because distances are too short. I, myself, I'm gray too... for over 12 years (until 2013, now I work in Povoa proper) i worked in this grey area. almost we all (people from Povoa and Vila do Conde) are grey here. If no traffic I can be in downtown Vila do Conde in 5 minutes and in this specific area (much closer to home), it often took me 6 mins driving to work. Im from the north side of the city of Povoa. That area is as close as it is from here to Póvoa de Varzim City Hall, the core of Póvoa.--Pedro (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd have to choose the first not the second (where you are raised does not constitute a category in my humble opinion, am not sure where WP stands on that). I agree with you 200% in the categories bit. I have asked the editor in question (which i notified of the discussion) to provide a ref for them being born in PdV, to no avail until now. --AL (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not into football, biographies or into endless discussions in wikipedia. So i'm participating only to justify my edits:

I'm just editing stuff about Povoa.

  • anyway, here's the issue:
    • the area where these players lived (and where they are considered from) in an extension of Povoa de Varzim into Vila do Conde, and closer to downtown Povoa, than to downtown Vila do Conde and it is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT an urban extension of Povoa, thus it is a suburb of Povoa de Varzim, although urban now. this area is called Caxinas or Poça da Barca, and people will say this, will not say Vila do Conde. People in this area, when referencing to Vila do COnde, they do not refer to all of the urban area but to the historic riverside area.
    • that land itself is disputed territory between both towns.
    • people from Povoa de Varzim and Vila do Conde, often, are born in Povoa. However, mothers may choose to put Vila do Conde in their birth certificate.
    • Both these players surnames are immediately identified with Povoa.
    • Both these players have their official home in Povoa de Varzim.
    • here's some sources stating Helder postiga born in Povoa: [9] IMDB I didnt had to search much, even with the bias that wikipedia creates in the net. As for Coentrão it seems different, several sources say he was born in Caxinas, which may indicate he could have been delivered at home. ---Pedro (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Pakistan squad 2011 SAFF Championship what can we do with that?

Save? Delete? Moreover the template is with 2007 AFC Asian Cup templates.--FCNantes72 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I say delete. The SAFF Cup is such a small competition, only played by 8 nations in South Asia. The only time templates should be made is for the World Cup, Confederations Cup, or a Continental Wide competition. Other than that I dont see the reason for why "Regional" tournament template should be made. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with deletion too as it's not recognised as an 'official competition' by FIFA. In FIFA's eyes the tournament is a series of international friendlies. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Same with the AFC Challenge Cup were templates have been made as well. That is not even an official tournament in FIFA's eyes and yet I see that someone created an India squad template from the 2012 AFC Challenge Cup. These types of templates are not unnecessary. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The AFC Challenge Cup is an "official competition" as it is organised by AFC. See page 7 of this where it defines an Official competition as "a competition for representative teams organised by FIFA or any Confederation." The AFC Challenge Cup falls into this category. :) TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So who can delete the template? And as the same time, can we delete that : Template:India squad 2012 AFC Challenge Cup?--FCNantes72 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I say we delete that as well. I know that Big has proven that it is a FIFA tournament but it is not the continental tournament. Personally I think templates should only be done for World Cup, Confederations Cup, and the the top continental tournaments. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
If you believe an article should be deleted then it needs to be discussed at WP:TFD. GiantSnowman 10:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Well first I think we all need to agree what competitions warent a squad template being made. I still say only World Cup, Confederations Cup, and top continental cups. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a strong case for Olympics Games squads given that for a lot of the history it involved full-strength teams and was the world championship for a while before the advent of the World Cup. Hack (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand that and agree but I meant with senior tournaments only. I mean, if you want, we can do seniors and youths. In that case then I would say that at the senior level there should only be squad templates for the World Cup, Confederations Cup, and the main continental cups. While at the youth level there should only be squad templates for the Olympics, U20 and U17 World Cups, and all the main youth continental cups (Example: For England I would only have the U21, U19, and U17 Euros and that is it for continental squads). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Club in European football" > "Club in international football"

Having been preparing an article about the history and record of a football club in European competitions, I'm basing its construction and development in similar pages, such as the featured article Liverpool F.C. in European football, the former FA candidate Real Madrid C.F. in European football, or the former featured list FC Barcelona in European football. Most of these European heavyweights have also won competitions where UEFA does not have exclusive organization responsibilities, such as the Intercontinental Cup, or no responsibility whatsoever, such as FIFA's Club World Cup. Although these accollades are mentioned as part of the club's silverware in those articles, they are directly ommitted in the {{Infobox European football}}, and in a more subliminal way in the article title ( "Club in European football").

I'm therefore proposing that we rename these pages to the form "Club in international football". This way non-European exclusive competitions such as the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup are also included. Consequently, the {{Infobox European football}} template would be edited to include parameters for these competitions. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a proposal I could certainly get behind, it'd lead to far more content we can cover. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 20:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. Plus, it would not affect clubs which have only won European titles, such as Liverpool, for instance, as they are still international titles. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I am more against this idea. Considering the fact that the only real world competition for domestic clubs is the FIFA Club World Cup and the other fact that only 1 team per continent (unless your country hosts the cup) gets to qualify each year I would still allow the pages to be called European competitions or Asian etc because most clubs only play in the Club World Cup once and then are automatically done and may never play in it again. Maybe for a club like Barcelona you can call it "international" competitions but for a club like Liverpool I would leave it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point of view. Indeed, only select clubs like Milan or Barcelona have such a strong weight of "world" titles in their silverware collection, that we can truly call it international. I can concur that the article title is not changed, but what about the ommission of these world titles in the infobox? Parutakupiu (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must disapprove of any attempt to widen the scope in such a way without a move to reflect this: no-one would refer to the IC or the World Club Cup as "European football". Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 00:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think a move is a good idea. The Club World Cup is not a continental tournament, but a global tournament, therefore to include these tournaments while referring to an article by a specific continent is misleading. The only other option is to omit the global competitions, but that's not really an option since we have no other place to include teams' performances in those competitions. – PeeJay 00:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this move too, it seems a simple enough change. I agree with ArsenalFan that there wouldn't be a great amount to add for most clubs, but this is precisely why I think it should be done, to get the small amount of information not already in the article there. Fenix down (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I too think it's an integrative but innocuous change, honestly. If we base this decision on the weight of global titles in one club's trophy case, we would just have too many different cases. But calling theses titles European would be erroneous. Should we put this officially for a vote? Parutakupiu (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense now that I think about it. I think this may involve a redesign of these pages though which is no problem. We need a new infobox, and new lay-out. Simple really. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

International football is usually understood as between nations: between national teams. When Lionel Messi plays "international football", he plays for Argentina, not Barcelona. The handful of global club tournaments are rewards for participation in continental tournaments, and it seems disproportionate to be so pedantic as to rename for the sake of a tiny proportion of the matches covered. Kevin McE (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Although you are true on what the common meaning of "international football" is, there should be no confusion when the page title clearly mentions the name of a club. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So...just change the name to i.e. "Liverpool in international club football"... EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That could be a solution. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup, friendly?

I write here because the topic is relevant and related with the European/Intercontinental/Worldwide/International football. This user, like this one et al before, has reprinted the FIFA Club World Cup article and in the text the Intercontinental Cup (known as Toyota Cup since 1980) was referred 6 times as "friendly". He argues it based on "the official FIFA's point of view" when in fact is based on the Spanish Mundo Deportivo opinion article (and articles like these are potentially POV) and another article of any Brazilian newspaper that can only be read by their subscribers, while at FIFA.com while there is nothing to confirm this theory (actually your item claim otherwise) and rejects that article which points out that FIFA officially recognises all Intercontinental Cups since 1960 due "it is not pertaining to the highest organization".

I understand that EpidemiaCorinthiana minimize (like God Football et al prior him) the Intercontinental Cup for enlarge the Club World Cup, but Intercontinental Cup was organised by two confederations affiliated to FIFA (UEFA/CONMEBOL), FIFA consideres it the only predecessor of its competition (cf. p. 62) and the results of all Intercontinental Cup issues (including the titles) are included in the official statistics of the clubs, coaches and players involved starting with the Europeans (cf. pp. 30-61), so call it "friendly" is false.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

P.D. The Club World Cup started in 2000 with a controversial format and since 2005 is annual (i.e. has less than 10 years of history), so expose the miseries of the "friendly" Intercontinental Cup (was never lower than the Afro-Asian and even Interamerican Cup althrough were three different worlds in terms of sporting level) and expose any "consideration" from FIFA (or the POV or any FIFA personnel) about it (althrough that organisation has never had legal responsibility for the tournament) nothing contribute to the quality level of an article full of "sources" that say nothing and, shamelessly, sought to establish itself as "featured".

Corinthians asked FIFA, immediately after the 2012 Club World Cup, to reaffirm the previous statements made by FIFA about the European/South American club, later known as the Toyota Cup. It is clearly readable in the following link. The letter given by FIFA is written in English so anyone can clearly see that FIFA doesn't consider the Toyota Cup, a competition which outright rejected other participants, a world title. It makes sense: after all, I can't invite you to a party and expect you to pick up the tab, could I?
Also, during the late 1960s when the Scottish FA were looking towards FIFA to provide penalties due to the mishaps caused by the Argentines, CONMEBOL and FIFA clearly made it known that the IC was ultimately a friendly played between two confederations. That is why other outside participants were rejected as per the references.
I thought about using the Gazeta Esportiva link and the letter, among other things, in the FCWC article. But I feel there is more than enough references quoting FIFA from 1960 onwards to confirm the status' of the competitions in question and saw it redundant to put any more. In Europe, the European/South American Cup was called the "World Club Championship". An analogous naming of the competition was used in South America. In short, it was nothing more than a monstrous myth despite the official standings quoted. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
In principle, the "questions" were not made in 2012, but in February 2000 when the relationship between FIFA and UEFA/CONMEBOL block (who rejected any FIFA competition due calendar and the objetive poor sporting level of Asian and African teams) was very different before their agreement in 2004 under which the Intercontinental Cup was merged with the pilot FCWC edition in favor of the currently format. In neither official FIFA document IC is described as "friendly" or "unofficial" (and I repeat, I argue here that someone does not insinuate that tournament as "unofficial" based in opinion articles regardless the competition was "worldwide" or "Intercontinental" (like minor cups as Afro-Asian and Interamerican Cup), in fact, all articles published in its official media claim otherwise. For finish, if FIFA hypocritically considers IC "friendly" or not is irrelevant due that organisation has never had legal responsibility (for example, FIFA considers European Cup as the FCWC's "European qualifier" when really it is a tournament in itself), but it is false that CONMEBOL considers IC as "friendly" when considers it as official CONMEBOL competition, just as does the UEFA. Finally, here is textually official says FIFA considers all Intercontinental Cups since its inception in 1960 until its last edition in 2004. If you want to discuss "how" recognize it (worldwide or intercontinental), do it elsewhere.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlike the references I provided, that sole online article is not quoting FIFA at all. I would have been inclined to agree with you if the article was directly quoting someone from FIFA but that is not the case according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is merely stating something that FIFA supposedly did and you can't provide any evidence of the nature. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cliff Jones (Welsh footballer)

I was wondering on naming conventions, should he not be named Cliff Jones (1935)? Govvy (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The correct title for what you are proposing would be Cliff Jones (footballer born 1935). I would support such a move - year of birth is preferable over nationality, given all the issues we have regarding footballer nationalities. GiantSnowman 12:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
k, I think we should move it, I can't see the option in my twinkle know, but haven't they changed the rules about moving pages now? Govvy (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Without a date of birth for Cliff Jones (English footballer), I'd suggest it'd make more sense to stay as we are. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
O, I just moved it! Can always move the English Cliff Jones to be the same style. Govvy (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not without a date of birth we can't. I'll put it back, assuming I still can. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Bear in mind the wording of the relevant naming convention, which says we should use the most conclusive of the two possibilities nationality or birth year. As nationality does work, there's no real reason for changing away from it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Until the next Welsh Cliff Jones comes along!! But still imagine paying Garath Bale £85 a week, [10]. Govvy (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any profession is still on the same pay scale as was applied 50 years ago. Average UK weekly income in 1963 was c £20. Not the money that Bale is on, but equivalent to c £170k annual salary now. Not so much sympathy needed. Kevin McE (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nico Claesen

Some IP put this copyvio tag on Claesen's page, but I don't understand why! Govvy (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it's a copyvio or not but it certainly reads like it's been nicked from somewhere - either way, the entire section is unreferenced & full of POV so I've removed it. GiantSnowman 12:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Well I created the article ages ago, I needed to cite the Spurs book I got some info from but thats at my parents home! Other than that, User Chanheigeorge wrote the international bit I don't think it's copyvio somehow and a couple of websites copy wiki anyway!! Govvy (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Outside opinion sout

Can a non involved editor please look over this content dispute and try guide the editors involved with policies to help them a achieve a consensus so meaning full protection can come off. Talk:Rangers_F.C.#Consensus_for_Board_of_Directors_debate. I am not involved as i dnt have a preference either way i have tried to get the editors involved to try reach a consensus with no luck, the problem reside round, editors said back at the time of the crisis surrounding whether rangers fc where liquidated or not that the club and the company are serperate, but those same editors now want to include company information on the club page so one editor disagrees that company information be included. editors saying it should say other articles do it so should rangers articles. but i aint sure where to guide them as layout templates would normal say to include it, but rangers articles is unique in what happened to them and since the argument for it to be the same club revolve around it being serperate to the company so not liquidated make it complex. any advice please post on the talk page for the other editors benefitAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ottawa Fury

Ottawa Fury have announced that their NASL team is to be named Ottawa Fury FC. It's owned by the same people and the NASL offers a professional outlet to the academy players. Should the two articles be merged into one ? TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say yes as they are using the same offices as can be seen at http://www.ottawafuryfc.com/ http://www.ottawafury.com/ottawa_fury_office_info but different sites for the senior men's side (FC) than the rest of the club (SC). Also, I'm not sure that the operating team is the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

2009–10 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

Peer Review for GA class? Govvy (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Argentine Primera División foundation and stats

Greetings (and long time),

There is a point of contention another user and myself concerning the beginning of the Argentine Primera División. User:Fma12 contends that it was founded in 1891 when the first amateur football match was played that year. I say it began in 1931 when 18 clubs broke away from amateurism to form their own professional league. This is important to establish not only the year the date was founded in the article, but also the title count and list of champions. Input is appreciated. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

RSSSF appear to regard the professional era from 1931 as different from the previous competitions. Eldumpo (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I need to clear the point: The Primera División was established with the first championship held in Argentina, in 1891, as an amateur competition. This extended until 1931 when football became professional in the country, but the tournament has been the same since its foundation in 1891. I thik user Digirami is a bit confused about this issue: "Primera División" is not a name of a individual tournament but the first division of the Argentine football league system.
To support my arguments: the Argentine Football Association (AFA) website has a list of all Primera División champions, starting in 1891. (See list here). The article Argentine Primera División was edited citing not only the sources mentioned but books written by football researches (See the list of references and bibliography there).
The Primera División article on Spanish Wiki (written and edited mostly by Spanish-native speakers, many of them from Argentina) includes tournaments since 1891. The article Football in Argentina provides further information since the first football match was held in Argentina in 1867.
If the intention is just to list professional titles, a specific article could be created: "Professional era in Argentine football" or similar. - Fma12 (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Copa del Rey

many of the earlier Copa del Rey articles are using some customised infobox, bracket, and table format. for example, compare one of the later articles, 2010–11 Copa del Rey, with one of the earlier articles, 2000–01 Copa del Rey. from a brief inspection, it appears the ones with this customised format are

  1. 2000–01 Copa del Rey
  2. 1997–98 Copa del Rey
  3. 1996–97 Copa del Rey
  4. 1995–96 Copa del Rey
  5. 1994–95 Copa del Rey
  6. 1993–94 Copa del Rey
  7. and earlier

seems like we should convert these to use the standard infobox and bracket templates? Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would amend to the standard format. Those templates are too colourful and we don't need the team logos. Eldumpo (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. Use the standard template. Digirami (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Bobby McAlinden

I need some help trying to piece together this guy's career. mcfcstats states he was at Man City in 1963 only; Neil Brown confirms the 1963–64 season (but not calendar years), whereas 11v11 says he was there 1964–1965. If we work out when he left Man City, we then need to know where - Neil Brown says he joined 'Los Angeles', but the Los Angeles Wolves (if that's who Brown means) weren't founded until 1966. NASL Jerseys says he joined the Los Angeles Aztecs in 1976 - so if that's the first LA club he played for, we have a career gap of 12-13 years. 11v11 says he was at Port Vale from 1965 to 1976, but he never played in the Football League for them and I'm not sure anyone would be in the Reserves for over a decade... GiantSnowman 21:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Canon League Football Players' Records 1946-1984 (Barry J Hugman, Newnes Books, 1984) has the following:
Joined from Club Date Apps
Aston Villa (apprentice) Man City May 1964 1
Man City Port Vale September 1965 0
Glentoran Stockport October 1966 0
Los Angeles Aztecs Bournemouth September 1976 1
Not sure that helps enormously, other than to suggest that he didn't spend 11 years in Port Vale's reserves.........rather he potentially spent 10 years in Stockport's reserves! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
According to bluemoon-mcfc, his one City appearance was in October 1963. He led quite an interesting life, as George Best's friend, gambling mate and business partner, etc, before going to the States on Best's recommendation. Try Google books search on Best's autobiography.

And 11v11 is one of the many sources that are worse than useless because they just omit anything they don't know about: so if he joined Port Vale in 1965 and went to the US in 1976, then according to them he must have been at Vale for the entire intervening period..... It's so blatant with Mr McAlinden's career that it's clearly nonsense, but can be seriously misleading where gaps aren't quite so huge. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Date of appearance confirmed by Guardian match report: "It is hard to criticise the City club, for it is so badly hit by injury and one had sympathy for the young McAlinden playing his first league game for it in such a makeshift side in which the kindest thing one can say is that some were not so bad as others." Source: "Manchester City's late rally in vain", Guardian, 21 October 1963, p. 12. Can't link directly to it, unfortunately. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
According to Colin Schindler's George Best and 21 Others (p307-8), after Port Vale (?) he played in South Africa for Durban City. He then quit the game and worked as a roofer. Five years later he returned to football as a part-timer, with Stalybridge Celtic. He went to LA with Best, and stayed four years. He was then traded to Memphis. Short on time now, but will add some details to the article when I get the opportunity. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The 1965–66 season saw a lot of comings-and-goings at Vale Park and I have seen no trace of him in any of my sources.--EchetusXe 23:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the research everyone - once expanded & updated this could end up at WP:DYK should anyone be inclined...GiantSnowman 10:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you planning on expanding the article? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

another David May

I was trying to find details on another player called David May, who played in the 80s and 90s, played for Sheffield Wednesday and Chelsea I think, last I knew he went on to coach the Portsmouth youth. But my searches fail me! Anyone get any better results? Govvy (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No record of a David May playing first team football for either of those clubs......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a guy that came to my school for six months when I was in my final year called I thought he was called David May, half-cast retired pro footballer the year was 1996, So I thought I could find him, but can't. Govvy (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Larry May played for Wednesday, retired in about 1989, looks like he was of mixed race (here is a photo of him) and according to this admittedly not hugely reliable looking source, he was a youth coach at Pompey..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Taiwan task force

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Taiwan task force has been nominated for deletion. The {{inactive}} tag was not applied as the project has no articles and was "never very active and [does] not have substantial historical discussions". Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Taiwan task force and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Taiwan task force during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. C679 21:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Arsène Wenger

Hi, could someone with more knowledge about Arsène Wenger look at his article? There has been some edit warring going on for days. --Jaellee (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Jake Taylor

Over the past three weeks or so, a succession of different IP users have kept removing the same passage from Jake Taylor's page. Although they are different IP's I am assuming they are the same person as each address has only been used to edit this specific passage. They seem to take exception to a sentence saying that he recently struggled to break in to the first XI during a recent loan spell and despite it being referenced, have kept removing it. I have reverted each time and also left a couple of messages on their talk pages but have had no response. I have also tried altering the wording a bit but it was still deleted.

The passage was removed today again without explanation for about the sixth time. I have reverted it again and left another message but I don't expect a response. What are you supposed to do in a situation like this? Cheers T 88 R (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would probably remove or move the first two sources as they do not mention him struggling at all. The third does but if I was being really picky I would say that it was a minor copyvio. I would rephrase the sentence to correct this but there is no reason a statement to that effect should not stay in some form. Fenix down (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have followed your suggestions and changed the wording to avoid any copyvio, and moved the references to make it clear which part of the sentence they are referring to. I will wait and see what happens, though I suspect that the user is not concerned with the referencing, but rather removing any 'negative' parts of the players career. Cheers T 88 R (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Well the material has been removed again twice in the last 24 hours despite the clarification. I have asked the user to explain their actions several times but never get any response. We are just going round in circles at the moment. Any more ideas? Thanks T 88 R (talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Could try changing it to something like "He was recalled by Reading on 28 January, having started just one of Cheltenham's four matches since his loan was extended." Sourcing the first bit to current ref#13 and the second bit to Soccerbase or Soccerway or stats source of your choice. It removes the emotive word "struggled", but keeps the facts. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I have changed the wording as per your suggestion and will wait and see if anything happens. Cheers T 88 R (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Billy Meredith stats

I'm trying to take the article to GA status. Can anyone find a reference for the stats table?--EchetusXe 18:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Total stats can be sourced to page 182 of "Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939" by Michael Joyce. Year-by-year stats can be sourced to StretfordEnd.co.uk and MCFCstats.co.uk. – PeeJay 02:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, cheers.--EchetusXe 11:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, neither of those sites are visible on a I-pad. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I had some trouble with the City site, and its not too useful anyway. So yeah, I'm assuming the book mentioned verifies completely the stats table as it is, but still any other Man City or North Vics stats would be handy, just to be safe.--EchetusXe 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The Man Utd stats are also available here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, thats a good source.--EchetusXe 19:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The Joyce book only lists his total appearances (league only) for each club, not season-by-season -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
MCFCstats.co.uk is no longer updated and may go offline at any time, as sadly the guy who ran it has passed away. Use [11] instead. The stats there are provided by the author of statistical tome Manchester City The Complete Record, and thus meet RS. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
May go offline you say? Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 13:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The site has a flash based interface that makes it impossible to use WebCite etc. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The 'bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk' website does not match the existing stats table entirely: 1896–97 (apps and goals), 1901–02 (apps), 1902–03 (goals) and 1921–22 (goals). Could somebody please check these out for me?--EchetusXe 23:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Manchester City The Complete Record has 1896–97 League 27 (10) Cup 1 (0); 1901–02 League 33 (8) Cup 3 (0); 1902–03 League 34 (23) Cup 1 (0); 1921–22 League 25 (0), no cup apps. For 1901–02 the culprit is a cup tie against Preston North End on 25 Jan that was abandoned *in extra time*. This is only included as a footnote in Complete Record but is included on Bluemoon. This match looks to be included by other sources e.g. FCHD Oldelpaso (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Team Association Flags

A discussion has been initiated regarding the inclusion of national flags in competitions. Please comment on the discussion at Talk:2013 Football League Cup Final#Team Association Flags. Please note, per WP:SILENCE, we must assume that silence implied consensus for the status quo, i.e. the retention of the flags, so please comment, regardless of your opinion. – PeeJay 21:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Asian Games template

Can someone tell me if making squad templates for the Asian Games is alright now. User:Banhtrung1 decided to create the squad templates for this tournament but I ask, is it needed? The Asian Games are an U23 tournament which is not even an Asian Football Confederation or FIFA tournament. I dont mind creating a template for the AFC U-22 Asian Cup squads as that is the official U22/U23 tournament of Asia but for the Asian Games... that is a bit excessive really. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Gershon Koffie's nationality

Here's an interesting one. Born in Ghana. Been capped by at the U20 level for them. Has played for the Vancouver Whitecaps since 2010. Now they are in the MLS and they have foreign citizen guidelines: a certain percentage of the players must be either Canadian or American. He has now acquired a permanent residency card, which in the eyes of the MLS makes him a Canadian. Now the interesting part. Our general guidelines have been to show FIFA eligibility. However, some people use club rosters to determine foreign content on the team. Which should we be reflecting? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Has been called-up, not capped. May be simpler than I first thought. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Having a residency card does not mean he has Canadian nationality (even if MLS deems it such) and it does not make him eligible for Canada national team. He should therefore be considered Ghanaian. GiantSnowman 10:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with GiantSnowman. List him as Ghanaian, but by all means add a note to say that he does not count against his team's foreigners limit due to having a residency card. – PeeJay 17:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Fábio Coentrão / Hélder Postiga

After an absence of months i return here to solve a problem (last time last week, over the Lampiões thing, i only realized i was writing here when it was "too late", so that one does not count :)),

i've been having a run-in with a compatriot in these two guys' articles, over their (same) birthplace. He inserts TWO "People from" categories and a "citation needed" tag in the city of birth. In BOTH articles, all (not one or two, ALL) sources available say they were born in Vila do Conde, which together with Póvoa de Varzim "form a single urban agglomeration". However, they still are two separate locations no? That would be sufficient for us to reason they were NOT born in Póvoa no?

Inputs please, regards to the members --AL (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and does anyone know if i presented these templates for deletion (per request of User:Alexgreene87) in the correct place (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion)? Double thanks! --AL (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The two locations are deemed worthy of having separate Wiki articles, and the one article says they are linked urban areas, as opposed to one being a suburb of the other. Therefore it seems reasonable to have separate categories for each place and for each player to have the cat relating to the place he was from, although we've had a discussion about these cats before. Does 'born in' mean 'from'? Eldumpo (talk)

I'm saying that each player should have the cat that the sources say he was born in. If there are no sources saying they are from PdV (or vice-versa) then no they should not have that cat added. However, what happens if you're born in Place A and move to Place B when 2 months old and remain there. Are you 'from' Place A or Place B? Eldumpo (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem is in this case, you dont have to move from place A to B to live in B and keep living in A, because distances are too short. I, myself, I'm gray too... for over 12 years (until 2013, now I work in Povoa proper) i worked in this grey area. almost we all (people from Povoa and Vila do Conde) are grey here. If no traffic I can be in downtown Vila do Conde in 5 minutes and in this specific area (much closer to home), it often took me 6 mins driving to work. Im from the north side of the city of Povoa. That area is as close as it is from here to Póvoa de Varzim City Hall, the core of Póvoa.--Pedro (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd have to choose the first not the second (where you are raised does not constitute a category in my humble opinion, am not sure where WP stands on that). I agree with you 200% in the categories bit. I have asked the editor in question (which i notified of the discussion) to provide a ref for them being born in PdV, to no avail until now. --AL (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not into football, biographies or into endless discussions in wikipedia. So i'm participating only to justify my edits:

I'm just editing stuff about Povoa.

  • anyway, here's the issue:
    • the area where these players lived (and where they are considered from) in an extension of Povoa de Varzim into Vila do Conde, and closer to downtown Povoa, than to downtown Vila do Conde and it is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT an urban extension of Povoa, thus it is a suburb of Povoa de Varzim, although urban now. this area is called Caxinas or Poça da Barca, and people will say this, will not say Vila do Conde. People in this area, when referencing to Vila do COnde, they do not refer to all of the urban area but to the historic riverside area.
    • that land itself is disputed territory between both towns.
    • people from Povoa de Varzim and Vila do Conde, often, are born in Povoa. However, mothers may choose to put Vila do Conde in their birth certificate.
    • Both these players surnames are immediately identified with Povoa.
    • Both these players have their official home in Povoa de Varzim.
    • here's some sources stating Helder postiga born in Povoa: [12] IMDB I didnt had to search much, even with the bias that wikipedia creates in the net. As for Coentrão it seems different, several sources say he was born in Caxinas, which may indicate he could have been delivered at home. ---Pedro (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • AL asked me to comment on this. Really, any discussion ought to be at the relevant talk pages, but as there's more here, I'll comment here.
    • I know nothing about the places in question, or about Portuguese birth certificates. In England, it's easy to access the registration district in which a birth was registered, but less easy to access the precise place of birth. Editors on here often add a subject's registration district in preference to their precise birthplace, because it's more widely sourced. It isn't wrong, but it isn't necessarily accurate;
    • A subject's birthplace should always be referenced to a reliable source. Being mentioned in one or more of a string of external links isn't enough;
    • User-edited sources such as Zerozero, Transfermarkt or IMDB aren't reliable, and football stats sources tend to copy each other, whether right or wrong;
    • For Postiga, there appear to be reliable sources for Vila do Conde (e.g. the Real Zaragoza ext link present in the article), Povoa de Varzim (e.g. Soccerway, which isn't user-edited, and this BBC Factfile from when he signed for Spurs), and Caxinas (e.g. this from Povoa Semanario, presumably the local weekly paper, which describes Bruno Alves as "nascido na Póvoa" in contrast to Coentrao and Postiga, "naturais das Caxinas, Vila do Conde"). I can't tell which of these are correct, though you'd think the local paper might get it right;
    • Standard procedure where there's a doubt about the facts would be to set the birthplace to something suitably vague, perhaps the local government district that covers all three possible birthplaces, and link it to a sourced footnote outlining the various possibilities;
    • As to categories, it's perfectly fine to include a category for where the person "comes from", was raised, etc, (see WP:COP#By place) so long as the fact of their "coming from" or being raised in that place is explicitly sourced within the article. hope some of this might help. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, but not the reason as you might expect.
        • Povoa Semanario is not sold only in Povoa, but all over Povoa de Varzim and urban Vila do Conde, as Vila do Conde doesnt have independent newssources and because Caxinas is inclined towards Povoa. Povoa Semanario is now named Mais Semanario.
        • Local newspapers such as Povoa Semanario are very parochial, maybe because these are small or because they want to sell in that area, by parochial I dont mean urban or biased towards Povoa, it is not, but the exact word, parishes. Caxinas is a religious parish. So, I wouldnt expect anything else from it.
        • Portuguese newspapers (even national ones) in general are bad sources and poorly written/investigated. I just have a positive view on one newspaper, Publico. But thats because their writing is way better than the average and they go deeper in reports.
        • IMO and according to several reads, Postiga was born in Povoa, and is probably what he has in his ID card, but because he is from Caxinas, people get confused, and put Vila do Conde instead. As for Coentrão it may be different. It is not true that most sources state Postiga as his birthplace, that's what Always Learning said and not what I've seen.
        • As for Bruno Alves it is different (although all three are from the same reality and all three have been joined in Povoa supporting the local firefighters, for instance), while Caxinas is the periphery of Povoa, Bruno Alves lives in the city core, born in the city core, also has a Povoa surname (Refuge) and despite having a Brazilian father, he has an ethnically Povoan mother and always lived in Povoa city center, his favourite beach to play volleyball and futevolley with his friend is also in the city center and lives in one of the main avenues in the city, near his beach which is near Varzim stadium. But if Bruno Alves would had his house located in a parish, such as Aver-o-Mar, Aguçadoura or Caxinas and everything else in Povoa city center, then Povoa Semanario would say to the seven winds that the player is from that parish, was born there, etc. I'm positive of that. It happened before... --Pedro (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Conrad

Over the past few months, ever since this video on was posted on YouTube, there's been a bit of an edit war on Jimmy Conrad's page. People keep adding Real Madrid to the infobox, saying he signed a 1-day contract with them and using the youtube video as a reference. He never signed a contract with them. The video was meant as a joke, that's what KICKTV does. If this continues, we might want to consider protecting the page. – Michael (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added to my watchlist - too early for protection just yet - but the article is in need of a massive overhaul anyway. GiantSnowman 20:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
It is too early, which is why I said "if it continues". – Michael (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sunday Seah

First a disclaimer: I'm not a soccer fan ("footy" if you prefer; I'm a USAian), and I came across Sunday Seah via the "Random page" button.

Here's my note from the talk page:

Going by http://www.footballdatabase.eu/football.joueurs.sunday.seah.8495.en.html, a lot of the data here is out of date. I updated his current club and position, but I don't know enough about it to figure the years and stats. Here's what I got from FootballDatabase.eu for the years since 2005/2006. Somebody fix, please?

2012/2013 LSCR Monrovia

2011/2012 LSCR Monrovia

2010/2011 Club malaisien

2009/2010 LSCR Monrovia

2008/2009 Persiwa Wamena

2007/2008 Persiwa Wamena

2006/2007 Persiwa Wamena

2006/2007 PSIM Yogyakarta

2005/2006 PSIM Yogyakarta

--Thnidu (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

spursodyssey.com

I've noticed a few references on Spurs articles pointing to spursodyssey.com but I think it's a fans website, but not quite sure. Should I remove them? Govvy (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Generating league tables from results

How are the league tables generated? Presumably not by manually entering all the data. I gather if we have a results table (those generated by {fb r} template) then there should be a tool to generate tables from that one. Is this how it is done? (obviously I am a newbie) Hg03u (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

everything is entered manually. -Koppapa (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sisaket FC

Wikipedia:Sisaket F.C. this has somehow become an article title. Sisaket F.C. and the old name Esan F.C both redirect to this as well, so I can't move the article (or don't know how to, perhaps). Two issues here: firstly the article title needs to be changed. Secondly, I am not convinced they are called Sisaket FC. Soccerway still has them down as Esan United here, their hompage still uses the Esan Utd badges here and is the page linked to from the Official Thai League website. Although there are other websites that do refer to them as Sisaket FC, so maybe a recent change. anyway, could someone with the ability please move the article name? Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, think I've fixed it all - currently at Sisaket F.C.. If you want to move it elsewhere, please use WP:RM. GiantSnowman 16:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks GS. I thnk the name is correct, but is just a recent name change so western sites haven't really caught up yet. Fenix down (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiWork

After reading in the Signpost about WikiWork being used to measure the workload of WikiProjects I decided to run our task forces through their WikiWork calculator and I came up with this table that quantifies the workload of each taskforce. The scale is between 1 and 6, with lower numbers being better, and measures the average quality of articles within the task force.

Taskforce WikiWork number Total articles
National teams 4.898 433
Celtic 4.938 451
Liverpool 5.056 784
Seattle Sounders 5.109 220
Non-league 5.11 3,073
Sheffield United 5.134 374
Manchester United 5.162 1,337
Sheffield Wednesday 5.216 555
Arsenal 5.228 982
England 5.33 20,969
DC United 5.349 229
Scotland 5.499 6,646
Wales 5.525 1,566
US and Canada 5.526 5,779
Italy 5.534 4,241
English Wikipedia 5.544 3,466,009
Season 5.547 16,401
Germany 5.576 5,410
Australia 5.58 1,702
Netherlands 5.626 2,174
Women's 5.646 3,079
Spain 5.648 3,385
Hong Kong 5.688 282
WikiProject Football 5.728 147,552
Sweden 5.739 2,996
France 5.805 6,287
Argentina 5.819 3,116
Iran 5.843 1,306
  • Finland – no articles tagged
  • Taiwan – no articles tagged
  • India – less than 100 articles
  • Real Madrid – less than 100 articles
  • Bayern Munich – less than 100 articles

As you can see, the project as a whole gets a mark of 5.728. This shows that the average quality of a football article on English Wikipedia is just above stub class, as you'd expect with there being so many football player stubs.

However, many of the task forces have been able to improve on this and are hovering at about 5 which means that their articles average about start class. You could take this two ways. The optimist would say that the task forces are working by helping people focus on a topic they enjoy and thus improving the article quality. The pessimist would say that, independently, popular topics automatically get more edits to improve them, and only popular topics get task forces. The reality is probably somewhere inbetween.

I've also added a list of total articles within each project. It shows that, as this is the English Wikipedia, there is a bias towards English speaking countries, particularly the United Kingdom. Unsurprising I know, but it's nice to see it in a quantitative way.

I may add this table and brief explanation above our list of task forces at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects unless there are any objections. I could then update it every now and again to see if there is much change over time. Hopefully having a number to aim for in article improvement can help focus the work of taskforces on a specific target. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Great work. Unfortunately I'm not optimistic about the mean quality increasing over time (as our work already expands faster than we could possibly keep up, at least on a global level), but I suppose this depends on whether we can attract new editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Good work and I think this would be a good addition to the task forces subpage. C679 14:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

F.C. Internazionale Milano

Please someone move it back. Inter Milan could be a good redirect.--Dipralb (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM is that-a-way - and good luck... GiantSnowman 14:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, Grande Inter should be merged with Inter Milan (same content). Should be non-controversial. But I need help.--Dipralb (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The move request for Inter Milan to return to F.C. Internazionale Milano has now been opened (in case you missed the update to the list at WP:FOOTY). You can find it, and contribute, at Talk:Inter Milan#Requested move 3. – PeeJay 21:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What's with the new football squad on pitch template?

I'm not usually one to complain about ugly, but this absolutely needs to be complained about. It doesn't have the fine control of the previous method and it frequently causes overlap of players on the "pitch". Why are we moving to {{football squad on pitch}}? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What browser are you using? I don't see any problem with overlap in either Firefox or Chrome in Linux. Given the massive reduction in the code, and transparency of the usage, I would say this is a step forward. We should be able to resolve any technical problems by making adjustments to the template. I see it already has some "shift" parameters for fixing text overflow. So, we could add more shifts for other issues? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
What are you going to do with long name? I've tried a couple of Thai squads where names of wide players (LW, RW, LB, RB) are going off the edge after 12/13 characters. Hack (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that is addressed in the documentation (Template:Football squad on pitch#Long labels)? It looks like you add LB_shift = 2 to shift the label 2 em units. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
That's no good if you have three long names in a row (eg LW, RW, SS). The names mash into each other, even without shifting the text. Hack (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The browsers I have tried it with to date are IE9, Firefox 19, Chrome 25 under Windows 7 64 bit and Firefox and Chrome under Mac OS X 10.6. Which kernel of Linux are you using and at what screen resolution? Linux is about as precise as saying "Windows".
It's a step backward. You can select from a handful of predefined positions so placement is not at all precise and flag placement (which I hate anyhow) is bad as well, particularly with the Swiss flag, which is taller than many other flags.
I think we should solve the technical problems before we add it to any further articles and we should remove it from the ones where it has caused problems until the problems are resolved. If you want to beta test it, don't do it in live articles. Create unit tests and try it on those.
None of this, however, answers the question of why this imprecise format was selected and forced on the project without consultation.
Now, I have to try to go fix an article where the line-up is completely screwed-up because of this template. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A few major problems.
  1. Where's the sweeper? Holding midfielders?
  2. Doesn't consider that a team may play three in the backfield, or five.
  3. Assumes that the keeper is at the top of the screen. See Midfielder to see a different view. MLS traditionally represents the field looking at the keeper first such as http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151469069598794 Cannon is the keeper. Now how do I represent that with the new template? I can't because it assumes that the back line consists of a right and left centre back and a right and left back. I can't represent the two holding midfielders (Koffie and Davidson). I can do the front line though.
  4. Another configuration that can't be represented is a 4-2-3-1-1 which has been used against a 5-whatever defensive position I seem to recall that configuration used by Bayern Munich in a Champions League match against an Italian club last year.
So why are we using this inflexible and incomplete template that forces overlapping text? See Schweinsteiger at 2010–11 FC Bayern Munich season#Starting 11 in Firefox 19 where the underlined text is obscured by Muller's flag. You'll see that did not happen in this version Besides, Muller does play further forward and it is better represented there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Why on earth would we have flags in the middle of a pitch formation listing??? (I didn't think I would be challenging you over inappropriate placing of flags!) Kevin McE (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree. I hate that. I would sooner do it without, but convention appears to be to include. And apparently in MLS, foreign content is important in determining the team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you place multiple formations for a team that changes formations during play or just how they line up at kick-off? Hack (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Might want to review formation (association football) to see some additional formations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Why not replace the underlying image to half a pitch (to clearly show who's the keeper)? That way you could increase the width more too for longer names. For those many varying positions. To make it more flexible, you could just lay an 5x7 grid under it, name the goalie number 0, then have 7 rows of five positions in fron of him. Name those pos1 to pos35 and explain on a image in documentation. Then just use pos3=... pos7=... and so on, i doubt there is anything you cant represent then. -Koppapa (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that unless these are very well-sourced then they absolutely shouldn't be getting used on general team articles. For particular high-profile matches, we're probably okay with these because sources will be easy to come by, but the last thing we want to do is encourage yet more OR-heavy busywork on club articles. I trust Frietjes with the general implementation (i.e. that it's not going to adversely affect article accessibility), but we should still be very cautious in deploying these. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

note that I have not added this template to any articles that did not already have a diagram. the entire reason for this template was to replace
<table style="float:center; width:200px; border:0;">
<tr><td>
<div style="position: relative;">
[[File:Soccer Field Transparant.svg|200px]]
{{Image label|x=0.27|y=0.06|scale=350|text={{flagicon|ENG}}</font>}}  
{{Image label|x=0.262|y=0.10|scale=350|text=[[Robert Green|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Green</span>]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.07|y=0.25|scale=350|text={{flagicon|USA}}</font>}}
{{Image label|x=0.055|y=0.29|scale=350|text=[[Jonathan Spector|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Spector</span>]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.18|y=0.16|scale=350|text={{flagicon|ENG}}</font>}}
{{Image label|x=0.145|y=0.20|scale=350|text=[[Anton Ferdinand|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Ferdinand</span>]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.07|y=0.51|scale=350|text={{flagicon|ISR}}</font>}}
{{Image label|x=0.33|y=0.20|scale=350|text=[[Danny Gabbidon|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Gabbidon</span>]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.46|y=0.25|scale=350|text={{flagicon|ENG}}</font>}}
{{Image label|x=0.42|y=0.29|scale=350|text=[[Paul Konchesky|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Konchesky</span>]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.36|y=0.16|scale=350|text={{flagicon|WAL}}</font>}}
{{Image label|x=0.035|y=0.55|scale=350|text=[[Yossi Benayoun|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Benayoun</span>]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.18|y=0.42|scale=350|text={{flagicon|ENG}}</font>}}
{{Image label|x=0.165|y=0.46|scale=350|text=[[Hayden Mullins|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Mullins</span>]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.37|y=0.42|scale=350|text={{flagicon|ENG}}</font>}}
{{Image label|x=0.33|y=0.46|scale=350|text=[[Nigel Reo-Coker|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Reo-Coker</span>]]}} 
{{Image label|x=0.46|y=0.51|scale=350|text={{flagicon|ENG}}</font>}}
{{Image label|x=0.42|y=0.55|scale=350|text=[[Matthew Etherington|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Etherington</span>]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.18|y=0.66|scale=350|text={{flagicon|ENG}}</font>}}
{{Image label|x=0.164|y=0.70|scale=350|text=[[Bobby Zamora|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Zamora</span>]]}}
{{Image label|x=0.35|y=0.66|scale=350|text={{flagicon|ARG}}</font>}}
{{Image label|x=0.347|y=0.70|scale=350|text=[[Carlos Tevez|<span style="font-size:0.8em; color:Black;">Tevez</span>]]}}
</div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><small>Starting 11 with the most used starting formation.
</small></td></tr>
</table>

with 

{{football squad on pitch
| GK_nat  = ENG|  GK = [[Robert Green|Green]]
| RB_nat  = USA|  RB = [[Jonathan Spector|Spector]]
| RCB_nat = ENG| RCB = [[Anton Ferdinand|Ferdinand]]
| LCB_nat = WAL| LCB = [[Danny Gabbidon|Gabbidon]]
| LB_nat  = ENG|  LB = [[Paul Konchesky|Konchesky]]
| RM_nat  = ISR|  RM = [[Yossi Benayoun|Benayoun]]
| RCM_nat = ENG| RCM = [[Hayden Mullins|Mullins]]
| LCM_nat = ENG| LCM = [[Nigel Reo-Coker|Reo-Coker]]
| LM_nat  = ENG|  LM = [[Matthew Etherington|Etherington]]
| RCF_nat = ENG| RCF = [[Bobby Zamora|Zamora]]
| LCF_nat = ARG| LCF = [[Carlos Tevez|Tevez]]
| caption = Starting 11 with the most used starting formation
}}
if you look at the first block of code, you will see several problems: (1) the random closing font tags after the flag icons, (2) the use of span tags to override the link colour, (3) the scale for the image labels is based on 350, but the image is only 200 wide, (4) how do you resize the diagram?, (5) the use of html table markup, and mixing {{image label}} with a div container, (6) the difficulty to tell which flags are associated with which players (e.g., ISR is not for Danny Gabbidon).
yes, I can make a version that allow for free form placement of players on the pitch, and still can be resized, and doesn't have the issue with flags not being attached to the players, and doesn't have the problem with overriding the link colour. in fact, I will do that right now if this is what everyone wants. however, as Chris said, the exact location of a player on the pitch is heavily OR, which is why I decided to stick with the positions as defined by Association football positions. if there are positions missing, it is easy for me to add more. if there is a problem with excessively long player names, I can work on that as well if you provide me with a concrete example. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do we even have this template? We shouldn't be adding "Starting XI" stats to season articles as it is blatent OR. – PeeJay 17:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
feel free to send it to WP:TFD, but we should then remove all the non-templated versions as well (see Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Soccer Field Transparant.svg). as I said, I did not add this template to any articles that were not already using the non-templated version. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The way the starting 11 is usually done is in two parts. The first lists the starts at various positions. The second is the placement on the pitch of the most frequently started 11. Ideally that should be referenced.
With that said, the 11 may have been positioned that way one match only. Good managers will adjust the positions of the players based on their opponents. As I wrote above, I have seen some odd configurations used for a single match, and if that happens to be the referenced match, it could give the wrong impression of the team's usual configuration. I wouldn't have a problem removing the field configuration, but the statistics of the number of starts is still valuable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems the thrust of this discussion is to remove the formations. Until that is decided, it would probably be best not to exert any energy in converting the existing formations to the new template, particularly for previous seasons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

sure, although I may fix a few more as I work through the problem pages found in this report. if there is a final decision to delete them, I can certainly do that as well. Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

The discussion seems to have stalled?

  1. Shall we leave the old, accurate placement of the Image label template?
  2. Shall we move to the new, easier-to-use football squad on pitch template?
  3. Shall we remove all pitch templates as a violation of WP:OR or similar policy?
  4. Other?

It would be good to complete the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I am in favour of either (a) using the new template, or (b) removing the pitch diagrams. if you want more freedom to specify the exact position of each player, I can add 'GK_x', 'GK_y', 'RCB_x', 'RCB_y', ... options to allow you to override the default location of each player. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel that these templates should be kept, but for use only for formations in specific matches eg History of Liverpool F.C. currently uses images for major European finals (ideally, of course, with references): the template would be much neater. They should not be used to illustrate 'general' formations for a particular season or current starting 11. I like the simplicity of the template, though I'd also like to remove the nationality field from it. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
you can remove the nationality, just omit the POS_nat fields. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think we should use the new template, instead of the old "wall of text". There are plenty of match-articles where this will be useful, so I think it is great that Frietjes took the time to make this easier. However, everytime we see a "starting XI" that is OR, it should be removed on sight. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

International goals tables again

Surely this is a bit OTT..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely; I think there's prior consensus from numerous discussions here at WP:FOOTY that these kind of tables are not needed. GiantSnowman 11:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't remember of having seen a discussion where there is consensus to remove International goals tables on sight, only discussions where consensus was to remove tables that lists every match. I am aware of that this example was a table with every match, but from the headings it looks like you are discussing international goals tables... Mentoz86 (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It listed every match: see. -Koppapa (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
...and was completely unreferenced. GiantSnowman 11:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In my defence it was headed "international goals".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

2007–08 Football League Cup

I was wondering, should each match in the competition, should there not be a citation next to each result? I was using this article out of example and there is hardly any citation in it!! I come to another problem over citation presentation for 2007–08 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season. I've been working through the article changing things around, have been following the Peer Review from the talk page ect. But for each result it's using an external link (match report), I wasn't sure about this and question should the result value be in plain text and at the end table, after the attendance, have another column with the reference in? Thoughts? Govvy (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not all references need to be included as footnotes, in my opinion. I would just add a hyperlink to an external match report as a source for each result, as is the practice in the Manchester United season articles. – PeeJay 20:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

African Youth Championship

There's a bit of inconsistency in the naming of the articles. According to the competition's regulations the official name is the African Youth Championship,[13] although the competition's logo uses "African U-20 Championship". The most recent press release from CAF refers to the 2013 edition as the "12th Orange –African Youth Championship"[14] (the wiki article calls it the 19th - it seems CAF do not count the African U21 Cup of Nations) and in short form as "Orange CAN U20". Incidentally, the 2011 edition was referred to as the 17th edition. It's inconsistent from CAF.

Should the redirects be reversed or be kept as they are?

If the 'official' name of the tournament has changed year-to-year then we should reflect that. Same with 'Africa Cup of Nations' and 'African Cup of Nations'. GiantSnowman 12:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"Category:Club X footballers" vs "Category:Club Y players"

Why are there so many categories in Category:Footballers in Spain by club that use the naming structure "Category:Club X footballers"? I understand that a few are necessary due to there being a number of multisport clubs in Spain, but surely not 115? Would anyone be opposed to a mass renaming of the categories to use "players" rather than "footballers"? – PeeJay 20:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. Often wondered this myself and it makes it harder to add appropriate categories. GiantSnowman 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
In the cases I know, this happends when the following situation is founded:
  • If the club name is strictly for the football club (exemple: Category:FK Partizan players) the format saying "players" can be used.
  • If the club name is common to other sports played within the club (Exemple: Category:Red Star Belgrade footballers) the format "footballers" is used so they are distingushed from the sportspeople playing other sports within the Red Star sports society.
Basically, if the X and Y are clerly refering to the football club, the format "players" can be used, and when it is ambiguos about the exact sport within the club, the disambiguatory format of "footballers" is used. That is at least what happend in the case within Category:Footballers in Serbia by club and in some others where I noteced the same pattern. FkpCascais (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
But in the Red Star Belgrade example, the article on Red Star Belgrade is about the football club - or the football department of the larger sports club. Therefore Category:Red Star Belgrade players is fine. Given the prominence of football as a sport in the world, I strongly suspect that the same will be the case for most (if not all) of the Spanish/Serbian clubs. GiantSnowman 17:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes GS, you noteced it right, as in Red Star case only the football club got to be translated per COMMONNAME while the other clubs within the sports society (such as basket club: KK Crvena zvezda) kept their Serbian name version despite the fact that they are also refered mostly as "Red Star" in the English language media, but even so the decition to use "footballers" was made back then so there would be no doubt (that was even earlier from 2009 when I came here).
Also, there was a RfM at Red Star Belgrade talk page some time ago to do it right and to have in that article content about the entire sports society (not only the football one as it happends now) but it was a close call to keep it the way it is now as the football club is by far the most well known one.
I absolutelly agree with you that consistent naming would be desireble here, I only spoke about the reasons why those two, players or footballers, were used in this cases, as far as I know.
There are also exemples where even the prefixes for "Football Club" are used in other sports within the sports society, and such exemple is F.C. Porto where the FC (Futebol Clube) is not disambiguatory as there are also F.C. Porto (handball), F.C. Porto (basketball) and F.C. Porto (rink hockey), all of them using the FC as part of the name, and that happends in Spain as well. In FK Partizan case there is no problem, as the FK (Fudbalski klub) is only used for the football club, and the others are named KK Partizan, VK Partizan, etc. so no confusion occurs when saying FK Partizan players. FkpCascais (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with FkpCascais. Any category for an article which has F.C. (or a variant for Football Club) can be named "players", but it's not always safe to use players for a multi-sport club where the main article is about the football club. Jogurney (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Confused Editor

It appears that this user is a bit confused about how things work. I don't think he is a vandal, but he seems to have redirected this page to a User page and has done the same to talk page where he has just copied over the actual article. He also copied the this article in its entirity to its talk page. I presume he is doing this because he thinks it is some way of creating a draft to edit, but I think an admin needs to undo this mess and perhaps let him know that it is not the way to do things. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I copied back the text but I think it is not the correct what i had done. If it is the wrong procedure, sorry about that.
There is also this page, this one and this one. Stigni (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The user is not strictly a vandal, but does make a lot of unsourced edits (likely from pure imagination) to the articles of 2014 AFC Champions League and 2014 AFC Cup. So I think somebody should first restore the pages as they were before the user made the moves and edits, then warn/ban the user temporarily from editing. Chanheigeorge (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What a mess. I've pinged RHaworth (talk · contribs), an admin who (seemingly inadvertently) helped Mncskyvision97 with one of these improper moves. They should all be undone promptly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

List of AC Bellinzona players

AC Bellinzona isn't a professional Italian football club.--Dipralb (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it´s a Swiss one... FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
For the record, "players who are well remembered by the supporters for particular reasons" must be the weakest ever claim for inclusion in a "List of So-and-so F.C. players" article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The original comment refers to the fact that it was listed under Category:Lists of association football players by club in Italy. Hack (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
0 appearences is nice too. :)

Algeria national football team

I'm currently in Algeria and my internet connection is too slow to fix/update the article. An anon IP has completely made a mess of the current squad/recent call ups section by copying text straight from the French wiki. Can someone please just revert the edits to the most stable version? Here is the list of players called up, for comparison. I really hate to ask for such a favour but it's the national team article and I hate to see it like this. Thanks in advance. TonyStarks (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried to revert it but it couldn't be undone so unfortunately I guess I have to do it manually. TonyStarks (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Done, wasn't too bad afterall! TonyStarks (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ghanaian expatriate footballers in Nigeria

Category:Ghanaian expatriate footballers in Nigeria - I cannot locate the FOOTY discussion, or relevant CFD, but I am sure there was consensus that '[Nationality] expatriate footballers in [country]' categories were deemed overkill, and that the existing '[Nationality] expatriate footballers' and 'Expatriate footballers in [country]' were sufficient. Can anybody please help? GiantSnowman 14:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You looking for this discussion? Mentoz86 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks, though I'm sure there was one more recent... GiantSnowman 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

2019 AFC Asian Cup

Can somebody change the redirect of 2019 AFC Asian Cup from AFC Asian Cup to 2019 AFC Asian Cup bids? The bidding process is ongoing, but the page has been protected indefinitely. Chanheigeorge (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 12:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate template

So, I was browsing Category:1975 Copa América squad navigational boxes, and found these two {{Peru Squad 1975 Copa América}} and {{Peru Squad Copa América 1975}} ... does anyone know how to find which is the right one, and what should be done after? GNozaki (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

the Template:Peru Squad 1975 Copa América has interwiki links, so you could always cross ref with those. Also given that the second one is unused, it is less likely to be correct. I would just redirect the second one to the first one, after making a reasonable effort to check for correctness. Frietjes (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hum, I found in RSSSF that the order of the players are the same of the first. Both templates have the same ´players, though some are with broken wikilinks on the second. I'll probably redirect the second to the first template... GNozaki (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The correct naming format would be {{Peru squad 1975 Copa América}}. GiantSnowman 12:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to be sure, the correct format for these navigational boxes is Country squad YYYY Competition ? THere's a lot of templates with Squad instead of squad, so I'm asking just to be sure before I start renaming some templates GNozaki (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

List of career goals

Think these have been discussed before, but lists of this nature are over the top, right? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh 100% delete on sight. It's not even referenced. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Definitely; even if it was fully referenced, it would violate WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 09:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

FIFA Anthem

Guess any link to a private youtube channel should be deleted in that article?-Koppapa (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and replaced with actual reliable sources which demonstrate notability. GiantSnowman 14:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Winners of AFC Asian Cup

I want to find winners of AFC Asian Cup in 1968, 1972, and 1980 because I work on french wikipedia on templates (all winners). And there are only 3 templates which aren't created about winners of an important tournament, so I want your help. I did Copa América winners' templates, AfCoN winners' templates, OFC Nations Cup winners' templates, Euro winners' templates, Gold Cup winners' templates, and I must finish my work on AFC Asian Cup. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The results are all here. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, but I want to find squads, and it's difficult to find that. So if someone helps me, it will be a great advance on asian football. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Try contacting the AFC directly. Send an email to media@the-afc.com TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I send an email. Thank you. But i don't know when they will answer me.--FCNantes72 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories that need creating

As a side-effect of something else I was doing, I found myself with a list of ~5000 categories to which articles had been assigned but the categories did not exist, it's probably about 15% of the total red-link categories. It was easy enough to apply a few crude filters to them to split out 500 or so that mostly are relevant to this Project. It's not perfect, but I found that most of the xxx players categories turned out to be footy clubs rather than anything else, ditto managers and seasons. I've picked out most of the obvious gridiron/rugby/Gaelic/Aussie ones, there's probably a few left in there, likewise I suspect there's a lot of "club" categories left in the main list as it's hard to design a filter that pulls them out. I don't have much knowledge of the clubs in the Belgian or Turkish second division so have to look them up, but someone who knows the subject will be able to recognise them instantly - I figure this is a case of "many hands make light work". Some of the category names need bringing in line with Wikipedia standard formats, some of them are probably too detailed, some might need some Project discussion about what standard format should be applied (it seems x players is mostly used, but in Mexico and in other places at random x footballers is the norm?) - but they could all do with eyeballs from several people, particularly ones who are good on the Balkans, there seem to be a lot from down there. The footy list is at User:Le_Deluge/categories-football - feel free to hack it about how you want, it was just thrown together for convenience. Le Deluge (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial reactions - I'm sure some of these categories are non-notable, and some already exist but are just mis-named i.e. your Category:Portuguese managers already exists as Category:Portuguese football managers. GiantSnowman 00:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure - tell me about it! I've just spent the best part of a week on the 2000 or so worst examples of typos/spam/"problem" categories in that list, it's much cleaner than it was! As I made clear in the headers of the lists, I don't expect that every red link means a category should be created - it's a combination of mis-namings in the articles, the implied use of disambigation pages and redirects as parent categories, and categories that genuinely need to be made. I'd guess that I made fewer than 5% of those 2000 red links into blue ones, the hit ratio here should be a bit higher. As for notability - I don't presume to take much of a view on that, I guess most of the non-League manager cats come from articles on people who were notable for their playing careers and then helped out their local semi-pro/amateur club after they retired from playing. In principle if the club is deemed notable in itself, there's no particular reason why it shouldn't have the same category structure as more glamorous clubs, although such cats will likely contain fewer articles as the individuals will struggle to reach the notability needed for a biographical article.Le Deluge (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I've created a few categories (and populated them when I could) and struck through those that are now empty. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added a few and populated them as well, thanks for the notification. C679 08:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the Indian football ones. Those were added by me with the intention to create the categories at a later date. It is all part of my project with Indian football pages because none of them had categories before and its really hard to just implement it, it takes a lot of time. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Update

The manager categories have now been sorted. Does anyone fancy contributing to tidying up the player categories? There are over 300 red-linked categories. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to do some of the Scandinavian when I have time. Is there a lower limit for how many articles those player-categories should have? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
If it's a valid category, that can be reasonably populated over time (i.e. once articles get created), then there should be no minimum. GiantSnowman 10:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the "players" list to get rid of almost all the red links to the parent club articles - usually it was just a question of formatting it with an FC here or there. I've also cleaned out a lot of the non-football clubs. The remaining clubs that are red links are : Brandon Braves (US indoor footy), Club Renato Cesarini (Argentina - articles tend to use Renato Cesarini which links to the player not the club), CS Crisul Santandrei (Romania), CS Zlatna (Romania), FC Breukelen (Dutch), FC Eurocollege (Bulgaria), FC Oaia București (Romania - "Bucharest Sheep", are they part of Steaua??), FC Politehnica Galaţi (Romania), FK Bratstvo Bratunac (Bosnia), Toronto Hungarians (or Toronto Hungaria, Canadian National Soccer League), Wisła Nowe (Poland). From what I can tell these are all real clubs, but they may not be notable enough for Wiki articles. In which case they aren't notable enough to be categories either, but I leave that for someone else to make the call. Someone who knows Romanian football would be particularly useful!!!! Le Deluge (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've now gone through the list and resolved all the redirects and in most cases adjusted the categories on the articles as well - I now really hate FC versus F.C. and that Romanian s-that-isn't-an-s!!! It's taken time to do it, but it should make the process much quicker now. In a couple of cases I've left the category untouched if it looks like there's a major discontinuity in the history. A couple of things need more sensitive handling than I can give things. FC Baku categories are all at Category:FK Baku - I don't know which is correct. The Thai Port F.C. hierarchy may want to move over to Singhtarua F.C.. And as I've posted over on Talk:Jess Thorup I suspect his article is confused about the various Innsbruck teams of the 1990s, but I don't know for sure - could someone take a look? Le Deluge (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I've already requested that the Thai Port FC categories be moved. – PeeJay 00:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Donaghy brothers

I have, over a long period of time, quite unintentionally, and without even knowing they were related until just now, created articles on three brothers - John, Peter and Eddy/Ted. All three seem to have had mediocre playing careers followed by much more success coaching in the Netherlands. If anyone can add any details to any article it would be much appreciated. GiantSnowman 20:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter managed VUC Den Haag for two seasons including a match which was the first Dutch league or cup match which was played in artificial light. [15]. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

U-17 women's qualifying rounds

Quick question. You think 2013 UEFA Women's U-17 Championship First qualifying round and Second round need two articles. I think they'd be perfectly fine in 2013 UEFA Women's U-17 Championship qualifying. It's just like four more groups lengthwise and would give a better overview, easier linking. -Koppapa (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. C679 09:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Neither would I, unnecessary splitting. – Kosm1fent 10:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I have boldly merged the 2 x 2013 and 2 x 2012 articles. GiantSnowman 10:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS discussion regarding football seasons in player infoboxes

Please be aware of this discussion at MOS: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Years; reverts. This discussion grew out of a feature article review for an NBA basketball player Juwan Howard. Before jumping into the discussion, I suggest that you read the relevant MOS section, MOS:YEAR. As I'm sure you can see, this has the potential to significantly change the currently used year span conventions in the footballer infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

2000 UEFA Cup Final riots Review request

I am thinking of taking 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots to FA as I feel it is as comprehensive as it can be. I would like to ask if project members could take a look at it and recommend any possibly improvements before it is taken to FA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

File:1938_world_cup.png

"Austria withdrew after the draw as a result of the Anschluss with Germany: some Austrian players subsequently joined the German squad, leaving the tournament with 15 teams." Shouldn't Germany in this map include Austria? ibicdlcod (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. FkpCascais (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

El Salvador

Hi there - I have tripped over the following two separate articles that appear to be about the same country/season:

  1. Primera División de Fútbol Profesional - Clausura 2013
  2. Primera División de Fútbol Profesional – Clausura 2013

I think #2 should simply be redirected to #1, but there are subtle differences that leave me unsure. Please have a look and consolidate these articles. Thanks, PKT(alk) 22:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Enfield 1893 F.C.

I am not sure but should there be two sepearate articles one for the old club and one for the new club? Like what was done with Wimbeldon-MK Dons? Govvy (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say so. They both seem to be different clubs. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Disagree, personally. You'll find that many clubs that died and rose again, even after lengthy gaps, are described on Wikipedia in the same article, because with the benefit of hindsight they're viewed as having a continuous history: Port Vale is one example. With clubs that go bust and reform now, we obviously don't have that benefit of hindsight or historical perspective. So perhaps influenced by the American franchise model, there's an increased tendency to view old and new clubs as different. In the case of Enfield, the new club sees itself as the direct continuation of the old: see its history page. Don't think we'd be justified in taking a different view. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be what the club claims; it should be what the relevant footballing authorities recognise. GiantSnowman 15:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That was my first thought Snowman, but I am not going to do anything to the article, I just had a question about it. Govvy (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Single article IMO. Enfield 1893 is a continuation of the old club - same players, same ground. As Struway2 points out, several clubs are liquidated and a new entity starts up that assumes the place of the original club (e.g. Middlesbrough who were wound up in 1986 then immediately reformed) and we do not have separate articles for them. Wimbledon and MK Dons having separate articles is even more absurd as there was not even a liquidation, only a name change, but emotion trumps rationalism when it comes to matters like this. Number 57 16:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, the FCHD provides a continuous history for Enfield/Enfield 1893. Number 57 17:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Marcos Alvarez

Marcos Alvarez just goes to a German footballer, what ever happened to Marcos Alvarez article for the guy who was fitness coach at Sivilla, Tottenham, ect? I made an article for him a while back, but it's.... gone...? Govvy (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the history, there were a number of moves and temporarily a disambiguation page. Marcos Álvarez was a subject of WP:PROD and deleted as non-notable on 17 February 2010. Jared Preston (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep, we have Marcos Alvarez the footballer and Marcos Álvarez the coach. You did not start either article, unless you edited under a different name. GiantSnowman 15:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I might not of started Marcos Álvarez but I remember editing it, I was trying to find him to link to him because I have been doing a lot of work on 2007–08 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season‎. There were about 3 or 4 citations on the article if I remember. But there wasn't much there at the time. Didn't realise he got deleted. Govvy (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
2 references, both of which mention him only in passing. I can restore the article to your sandbox if you wish to work on it but I'm not sure he'd be notable. GiantSnowman 17:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
If that's all maybe it was ment to be! heh, There is enough for me to work on anyway, now I am wondering how many edits I have done on footy articles. Govvy (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Cayetano Bonnín Vasqúez

Please can someone restore the Cayetano Bonnín Vasqúez article? He made his international début this weekend. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Better to start from scratch; there's nothing worth restoring, just gibberish. GiantSnowman 20:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Parry Rovers AFC

Is this team notable enough for this entry? 81.151.60.155 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No. I've deleted it per WP:CSD#A7. Number 57 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:Overlink.

I have applied WP:Overlink to lots of tables and have been doing so for a long time, I feel it really applies to tables like International goals and caps career statistics. I just wanted to point out the worse offending article I have seen to date Robbie Keane. I had sorted it out a while back, but someone has reverted all the work I done. I will get around to applying it again unless someone beats me to performing the task, but I just want editors to see what exactly I mean by overlinking!! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed 3 of the 4 stats tables entirely - as unreferenced; as per consensus here at WT:FOOTBALL; and in violation of WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 16:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand unreferenced, when the reference is run via the external link (i.e soccerbase.com or soccerway.com) which has a duplicate list or equal too. Content must be the same as the external link, I don't know about any consensus for removing the tables, I do feel you don't need to list international goals scored. I've always considered that overkill. But I see nothing wrong with career stats. And why do you think football stats are indiscriminate? Govvy (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There have been numerous recent discussions here about removing international apps/goal tables; as for the club stats - feel free to re-add if ou wish, but only if it is in the agreed-upon format, and with direct, explicit references. GiantSnowman 16:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Having just seen what was there before, I commend your removal of the tables. I think the word is "clutter". Or at least the polite one. Number 57 16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What about list of international goals? I really didn't like that at all on Keane's article, very much clutter as you have said. I'd rather leave it out of it, but the career stats I might return. Govvy (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
List of international goals is trickier, as I don't think there was clear consensus either way (i.e. keeping or removing) - I am in favour of removing, a sentiment shared by some, while others believe international goals tables have merit. If you want to be WP:BOLD and remove it, do so. GiantSnowman 16:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
What gets me is a little table with one or two career goals for a whole career! I've never seen the point of that when you can write it down in a simple paragraph. Govvy (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Keeping to the topic - how should we handle the linking on sortable lists such as List of Wales international footballers (alphabetical). Only the first mention of the international opponent should be linked, which I think is how it stands today (although I haven't checked this thoroughly). As soon as the table is sorted into any order than alphabetical, the first such mention will no longer necessarily be linked. The other problem is that a list like this is fluid and will change after every Wales international. Thus, should Joe Allen (the first currently active player on the list) play for Wales against France, the present linking of the Mexico team (in the most recent international column) against his name would disappear and France would be linked. As a result, the link to France against Dai Astley would be unlinked, until such time as Joe Allen was to play another international, in which case that team against his name may be linked (if not linked above). At the same time, the next player in the list to have played against Mexico (Colin Baker) would have it linked. Thus updating a list such as this becomes rather complex. (As is my attempt to explain the problem , I suspect!). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The first problem I see with that particular list is the DOB formats, they should be DD-Mouth-YYYY or DD-MM-YYYY, but considering the linking, you don't always need to link at all. Also if you are going by naming conversion for the article, shouldn't you have the most common of what people would type of, List of Wales international footballers shouldn't be redirecting the article, the article should be on that page, having (alphabetical) in the name isn't necessary. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You have made three very valid points. The suggested date format cannot be sorted on - the year must come first. Your suggestion would sort the subjects by the day of the month first - not particularly useful. As for the article name, there was a reason why I chose the present one, but I've forgotten why! To move it to List of Wales international footballers needs an admin. As for the linking, perhaps we should delink all the opposition. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
On the dates, there's no reason why you shouldn't use the all-numeric ISO format, i.e. what you've got but with hyphens: 1961-06-24. WP:DATEFORMAT says we can use that form "in references, tables, lists or areas where conciseness is needed".
The linking question is interesting. WP:REPEATLINK always used to say that (precisely because of the sortable table problem you raise above) links in tables/lists were an exception to the rule against overlinking, but it changed a couple of years ago. Which I only found out today, after seeing this thread. At WP:FLC, we were always told that if any item in a column was worth linking, we had to link every item: wonder if they know it's changed... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the problem with using dates in the all-numeric ISO format was that some of the dates were incomplete; i.e. we only had the year of birth. It's all a long time ago - actually it's less than 3 years but that's a lifetime in WP terms. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Still is a problem, apparently :-) What ought to work even with incomplete dates in the ISO format is if the column is headed
! data-sort-type="text" |Date of birth
which forces the column to sort as text. See meta:Help:Sorting#Forcing the sort mode for a column. There is a sort type called "isoDate", but that doesn't seem to work for incomplete dates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Why not just use the DTS template which formats dates as text but sorts them in ISO format? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Size, maybe? ~800 players x 3 date columns = ~2,400 additional template calls, which seems an awful lot. There used to be a limit on template calling, but I've no idea if there still is, or what it is. As well as the additional characters to change yyyy-mm-dd to {{dts|dd mmm yyyy}} ~2,400 times, which would add another ~25kb to a page that's already 80kb+. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Fb

A while back I asked on the actual template but got no responce. So I shall ask here now, can someone add an option to delink country name in it for me.

Example: |link=no

The reason why I think it's needed is for lists like international goals, like on Jermain Defoe, as he has a hat-trick, it should be only necessary to link to the first use of the country name. Also to go with what I stated above about WP:Overlink.

Cheers Govvy (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Just use "{{flagicon|AND}} Andorra" for example. Maybe it would even be better to use just one column per game. -Koppapa (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there a point to having both of these templates? Is the fb one needed or overkill? Even still it doesn't hurt it if it had more useful function. Govvy (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Italy

Has this template been set up correctly, as I don't seem to be able to edit it. However, I'm not sure how useful it is - there are a large number of red links and some of the entries were actually competitive events e.g. Anglo Italian Cup. There's also an English version of this template which may need looking at. Eldumpo (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The templates listed at Category:Association football international friendly competitions navigational boxes are aready on my 'To Do' list i.e. take them all to TFD. I recently took the Polish version to TFD and it was deleted, so we have consensus. Any help appreciated! GiantSnowman 19:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The Scandinavian ones are at TfD here. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've fixed the edit link thingy. The file name in the template source was different from the actual file name. I don't see the point of the template's existence in its current state, either. If it were restricted to friendly tournaments for which articles existed, possibly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

London derbies

Was there ever any sources (citations) on this article? Especially for high profile matches like West Ham v Millwall or Arsenal v Spurs, you would of thought there would of at least be some sourcing going on! Anyway I shall come back to it at a later date and have a go, thought I should at least point it out to editors the lack of... to give others a chance to do something. Govvy (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You could consider merging with Football in London. GiantSnowman 11:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Honour(s) or dishonour(s)?

Ladies and gentlemen, cast your vote!

since i have seen there is hardly any consensus, i feel a discussion is pertinent (don't know if any has already occurred): should we have numbers in front of the given competition a player/manager has won or not? An example being "Premier League: 1999-2000, 2003-04" or "Premier League (2): 1999-2000, 2003-04".

As User:Daemonic Kangaroo put it superbly, those numbers are insulting, at least when the amount is equal to or lower than five. For the likes of Ryan Giggs, Roar Strand, etc, etc, who are bound to have leagues (cups are tougher to come!) in double digits, it's debatable, but then we would have no coherence (numbers for some, no numbers for others).

I vote "NO" obviously, what's your input? Attentively - --AL (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also a no. I don't really edit player articles very often, but when I see similar efforts on club articles, I delete on sight. Number 57 11:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It's nice to have for more than 5 titles. Having it for one is a joke ofcause. -Koppapa (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It might not be obvious to an outsider that 1999–2000 is a single season and not a two year range. Hack (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how it is insulting. If a player won the Premier League twice then Premier League (2): YYYY–YY, YYYY–YY isn't really a big problem for me. Consistency would be ideal but this is such a large project, I don't see how this particular issue is a priority. The notability guideline, in particular, is. C679 13:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Cloudz, i never said it was a matter of the greatest importance, i only said there is no consensus, i have seen tons of articles with numbers, tons without, and speaking ONLY of articles that are good/featured or in that vicinity. Regarding the "insulting" bit that the other user used, he meant it's an insult to the WP users who might read the given article, because who cannot count to 1,2 or 5? I agree with him 200%, but i also concur with you that it's hard to get a clear consensus in a project of this magnitude. --AL (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You're right, there is no consensus, but knowing that player X won three Premier Leagues is pertinent, perhaps it only needs to be mentioned in the main body (and possibly infobox) but what harm is there in listing it in the stats section; also given lack of consensus there seems to be little point fixing it one way or the other at the present time. Also per Hack it leads to ambiguity because some leagues use single calendar years as seasons and others use an autumn-spring format. One particular example that springs to mind is the Russian league, e.g. 2010 Russian Premier League and 2011–12 Russian Premier League. C679 18:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I also say no. Those numbers are ridiculous and I've often removed them. --Jaellee (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No, they serve no purpose.--EchetusXe 23:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You're presenting four numbers and telling people it's two. It's perfectly logical. Not everyone who views these pages is going to be a football expert. Hack (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I am neutral on this discussion. I have read what you guys wrote and it does all make sense but from my experience editing both club and player articles regularly (mainly Indian football articles where you have the many pages where their are over 10 honours and the ones with maybe 1-2) I think what we should do is what was suggested before and only add (X) when the honours for a specific competition have reached past 5. Also I would like to stress the importance of highlighting the years for seasons. I see many articles with "Premier League: 1998–99" instead of "Premier League: 1998–99". I believe that will be the easiest way to stop confusion of the readers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should include number of titles. As Hack says, it not obvious that four numbers are two titles, or in Cloudz' example: three numbers are two titles. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove - Not only are they ugly and often pointless I'd disagree that they improve understanding - in fact they can be inherently confusing. Eg. - A player whose honours section consists of:

Foo United

What does the '(1)' mean? There's nothing to indicate it represents the total number of winners medals he has and as he only has one entry the number is obvious - to my mind it just looks like a random selection of characters, particularly as it's in the same format as the surrounding text. If it is decided they serve a purpose it should at least be written differently eg: FA Cup Winner (x1) where at least the x indicates that it's a cumulative number. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What about the use of Roman numerals which (I assume) mark the level of the league in the football pyramid, for example here and here? T 88 R (talk • contribs) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree about those, they'd be completely unintelligible to someone who's not well-versed on the pyramid..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, delete those I think! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I am absolutely undecided on this, as both sides have valid arguments. However, it would be benefitial to have a consensus about this. FkpCascais (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in them. Perhaps an emerging consensus would be to include them for 4 or more titles in a tournament? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Outfit"

Is it encyclopedic to refer to a club as an "outfit" e.g. "in 2013 he signed for League Two outfit Gillingham"? I see it quite a lot in players' articles, but for me the word seems too slangy and to carry something of an unwritten sense of being a low-level/no-mark club. What do others think........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it used in the media/RS to describe the club? If so then maybe - but if not then no, agree it's too slangy. This ain't the pub. GiantSnowman 10:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd consider it journalese... it's one of those words used so that journalists don't have to write 'club' or 'team' several times in one paragraph. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It is seen in the media (to avoid repetition, as SNC states), but encyclopaedic tone is more formal than journalistic. I don't think I see it as necessarily disparaging towards the club, but simply inappropriately informal for an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

League season articles - positions by rounds

What are people's views on these sections? I've seen them on a few pages, but are there always reliable sources actually showing the position by round? If you look at the 2012–13 UAE article there is a source under the table but it does not directly show positions by round. Theoretically it could be derived by going through all the results but that would be OR. Should these sections be deleted unless there is a direct source for positions by round? Eldumpo (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if sourced i don't see much use in them. How relevant is a particular standing at matchday x? -Koppapa (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

CSP UM Timișoara

Can a member of this project please take a look at CSP UM Timișoara? A couple of new editors are adding unsourced content and a mass of poor quality images. I don't want to go 3RR so would appreciate someone here taking over. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity in manager histories

I've noticed quite a few articles where the managers' histories have ambiguous two-digit years (e.g. Bohemians FC and subsequent edit). I think it would be helpful to make clear that when there is a tenure that involves a month-year combination, that the year should always be stated in full. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 10:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to prohibit something that is given as a permissive example in the relevant part of WP:MOSNUM. There is nothing ambiguous about it: nobody thinks that Billy Young time as manager of Bohemians runs from 1973 to 2089. If you think it is a problem, it is not restricted to football, so should be raised at MoS. Kevin McE (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
He means where there's an intervening month name, as in "Sean Connor (Nov 2006–Dec 07)". When the month is included, the year should be written in full (the dash should be spaced, as well). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Nothing to that effect in WP:MOSNUM, and nothing explicitly to do with football. If he wants a policy to that effect, it needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, a page familiar to the OP who has 9 posts there within the last 10 days. Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps he thinks that because he's noticed the problem in several football articles, then those examples might be something of interest to the football project. I agree with you that there's no actual ambiguity in the examples given, but they do violate MoS. WP:DATERANGE says "Dates that are given as ranges should follow the same patterns as given above for birth and death dates." Those patterns (at MOS:DOB, examples of how to set out the opening bracket in biographies) all repeat the century. As far as I can find in MOS:NUM, the only circumstance in which we may and should abbreviate the century is in year ranges, and Nov 2006–Dec 07 is a date range, not a year range. Interestingly, the line "Roddy Collins (1998–01)" at Bohemians FC should definitely include the century, by MOS:YEAR: I'll go and fix it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I sense a certain hostility to my above request, which was based simply on my observation that my script changed these instances when upon review I suspected were better left alone. Whilst human parsing may be more capable of resolving such apparent ambiguities, there is no way it can be resolved or avoided with any sort of automated processing because these are highly contextual. Thanks for pointing out that these contravened MOSNUM... so that is one more reason for not having these two-digit years after the month. FYI, I'm trying to forestall complaints of my script action on football club articles, particularly when I note there's a significant component of contributory negligence. At the moment, I'm fixing these manually before saving. But I mean if people think it's a problem only for me, then perhaps I won't be quite so responsive or accommodating if I receive complaints that this, for example, (from here):
becomes
Regards, -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 13:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Must admit, looking at it with a human eye in context, I hadn't noticed the potential for ambiguity when editing by script. Thanks for the clarification. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears, I'm afraid, to be a problem with your script rather than with article content. You haven't told us what the goal of this script is, and whether its benefits to the community will be so great as to justify a change in instructions to editors to accommodate it. Kevin McE (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that you take a closer look at MOSNUM, and then consult the script documentation. I think you will find your assertion to be plainly false. As has already been said, it's not a question of changing the instructions, but issuing a reminder for editors to simply follow them. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 16:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
As I have already proved, MOSNUM gives an example of date range with the century absent, and if it makes any statement insisting upon century year when a date is given, I can't see it. Point it out and I will happily retract and apologise. Of course, such a statement is not in MOSNUM, you should follow that course. Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I never asked for an apology for being wrong, nor do I believe any is warranted except perhaps for your apparent hostility. The lead of MOSNUM states: "Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood, and take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers"; WP:DATEFORMAT lists as an example:
Incorrect Correct
9th June
the 9th of June
9. June		 9 June
June 9th June 9
June, 2001 June 2001
9 June, 2001
09 June 2001		 9 June 2001
June 9 2001
June 09, 2001		 June 9, 2001
'01 2001
WP:DECADE states: "The two-digit form, to which a preceding apostrophe should be added, is used only in reference to a social era or cultural phenomenon that roughly corresponds to and is said to define a decade, and only if it is used in a sourceable stock phrase". Given WP's tolerance for both md(y) and dm(y) dates, you continue to maintain there is no ambiguity when I demonstrate that there manifestly is, now you say there's no prohibition. I'm sure you would agree that to state any more would be generally viewed as instruction creep. When you said "you should follow that course" I presume you're suggesting that I fix it myself. Indeed, I have adjusted my script to cater for certain of these forms where there is little danger of false positives. I will all the while continue to exercise caution. If you spot any 'preventable' errors, please let me know; I am open to regex change proposals. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Kevin, it's not good style in a formal register to write "08", unless perhaps it's very space-constrained, such as in a tight table. The only exception, noted at MOSNUM, is the double-digit closing year range: 2006–08. Tony (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

2011 D.C. United season article set

I just discovered a set of articles about D.C. United's 2011 season (2011 D.C. United season, 2011 D.C. United regular season and 2011 D.C. United season statistics). Now, to me, this seems like overkill, but I can't figure out for the life of me what to do with them. Any ideas about a course of action? – PeeJay 01:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

tag for AfD or merge on the superfluous ones, being the "regular season" and "statistics" pages. Note that the lead on the "statistics" page is apparently a word-for-word copy of the "season" page, and the rest violates WP:NOTSTATS. C679 10:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. – PeeJay 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Indoor soccer seasons

I've just discovered season articles for some American indoor soccer teams buried in the category structure designated for proper football clubs. I realise there is free trade in players between football and indoor soccer, but should season articles for their clubs be categorised in the same category tree? At the minute, we have Category:American soccer clubs 2011–12 season and Category:American soccer clubs 2012–13 season, which only contain articles about indoor soccer teams, but their parent category is Category:American soccer club seasons by year. I suggest we start a new category tree specifically for indoor soccer seasons, branching off from the already-existing Category:Indoor soccer. Opinions? – PeeJay 21:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Are these seasons notable? GiantSnowman 11:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Good question. Indoor soccer certainly seems to have a bigger following in the United States than anywhere else in the world. However, I'm not the notability of individual club seasons has been established. Does anyone else have any idea? – PeeJay 16:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GoalControl

I think we'll need an article on this seeing as it's been given the green light for the Confederations Cup anyone working on it? Hawk-Eye and GoalRef will have to be updated as a result, I'm still retired just thought I'd mention it hope your all well. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need seperate articles on every company that springs up, why not have redirects to Goal-line technology and mention there? Or create a new article at Goal-line technology in association football? GiantSnowman 11:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. GoalRef, being a mishmash of primary sources on that specific tech and general discussion of goal-line camera legislation, would serve as a good start if retitled. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

SFL1

Hi, there is a discussion over the professionalism of the SFL1 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Scottish Football League Division One - as this will impact a large number of articles wider input is welcome. GiantSnowman 11:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Urgh. What is it with random IPs and their fixation on SFL1? We've had long discussions regarding the exceptional status of SFL1: nobody is arguing that it's fully professional, but that it's notable regardless. Restored. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I very much doubt they are "random" IPs... GiantSnowman 09:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I recall this was previously the pet subject of an "anti-Scottish troll" persona, but without evidence linking that to the current situation I don't think that needs to be pursued here. Nonetheless, this is a settled point of consensus that shouldn't getting overturned lightly. I'll see about rewording what FPL says about SFL1 (and any other exceptions) to try to head this off in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that's who I think it is as well, and it's a sentiment I know is shared by others, but I cannot currently be arsed to take to SPI as the disruption is currently minimal. As for FPL, I still think we need to replace the list of fully-professional leagues with a list of leagues which, if you play in them, you are assumed to be notable and meet NFOOTBALL. There are many technically fully-pro leagues which I don't think players should be considered automatially notable (Burma? Malaysia? Moldova?) and there are semi-pro leagues which should be promoted (Conference? Ireland?) GiantSnowman 10:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
A proposal that we've been looking to get some traction on for about two years now. I'm tempted just to be bold and move it myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It could be slightly too bold - but no harm in trying. GiantSnowman 10:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"There are many technically fully-pro leagues which I don't think players should be considered automatially notable. " On what basis is this? Number 57 10:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Because being playing in a fully-pro league does not necessarily mean that you receive enough coverage to be actually notable. It means nothing. GiantSnowman 11:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with N57 here. If they are fully professional, then prejudice against inclusion seems likely to be systemic bias. There are probably few editors inclined to create articles on players in Moldova, but why should any so inclined be stopped? Do Moldovan newspapers not cover Moldovan leagues? Reliable Sources do not have to be in English.
GS's argument would lead to deletion of most player articles for those in League One and Two who have never played at a higher level. Kevin McE (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Exactly my point. The question is how you measure "coverage" for leagues in countries without well-developed media sectors. The fact that a league is fully professional is a sign that sufficient people attend the games to allow them to have such a status. Granted this is not media coverage, but is it better than using the fact that the BBC covers Football Conference games, but there may not be a national broadcaster in Malaysia that covers the top flight in such detail despite the fact that some clubs get crowds of over 30,000. Number 57 11:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because a league being fully-professional or not is actually a pile of bullshit with regards to notability, as we all full well know. It has worked OK so far but needs to change. Do Moldovan newspapers cover Moldovan football? Of course they do. Do we have access to that information so we can evidence that the player(s) pass GNG? Probably not. All editors should be discouraged from creating players purely because they technically meet NFOOTBALL, GNG is far more important, and there is plenty of consensus at AFD that backs that up. And no, I am not proposing we delete League 1/2 players, sources are patently there, they just need to be found/added. Stop being so difficult. GiantSnowman 11:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that there are fully-pro leagues which don't meet the spirit of FPL's notability requirements because it simply doesn't make sense for such things to exist in a free global market. And in fact I rather think GiantSnowman has missed the point in the comment above regarding Moldovan media: the whole point of FPL is to provide a useful yardstick of implied notability when we can't personally vouch for every individual case, in particular where the required reliable sources are non-English, non-Latin or offline. I'm sure the other examples of potentially non-notable leagues were arbitrary as well, based on my extremely brief examination of the Malaysian top flight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, based on the fact that I don't think I have ever seen a player from Malaysia or Moldova or numerous other countries even come close to meeting GNG - but they are deemed notable for having played 5 mins in a "fully-professional" league. GiantSnowman 11:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Malaysia is a country of nearly thirty million people; its most popular sport is football; its top flight apparently has specific rules regarding professional contracts, and a cursory examination of the constituent teams suggests regular crowds in the tens of thousands. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the reason you've never heard of any Malaysian footballers is the same one that means I couldn't tell you the names of any of the top ten Malaysian pop singers, movie stars or indeed heart surgeons: because Malaysia is an utterly foreign country located on nearly exactly the opposite side of the world to me, and literally the only fact about it that I came to outside of Internet research was when I learned the name of its capital city in primary school. The "five-minute rule" is a red herring, as we apply precisely the same rule to players who get one 88th-minute sub appearance in League Two. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, having a professional contract does not make one notable! Notability is shown through media coverage, something which nobody has evidenced for Malaysia - or numerous other leagues. Burma? Azerbaijan? The Albanian 2nd division? I could go on... GiantSnowman 14:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The same applies to our coverage of Malaysian / Burmese / Azerbaijani anything. We have a systematic problem with the collection and scrutiny of non-English sources, and it gets worse the further one gets from areas where English is dominant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we are conflating two issues: (1) the bright-line nature of NFOOTY where 1 minute of play in a fully-pro league creates the same presumption of notability as a 10-year career of play in that same league; and (2) the appropriateness of using "fully-pro league" as the measure in NFOOTY. As GS pointed out, there is a fairly strong concensus at AfD that the notability presumption which comes with very narrowly passing the bright-line test of NFOOTY can be rebutted when the article shows no sign of meeting the GNG (especially after years of existence). I don't think there is concensus to change the "fully-pro league" list to something like "leagues which should create a presumption of notability for their players" (or simply "notable leagues") - but I strongly support such a change. The real problem with changing to "notable league" is we may never come to an agreement on what is a notable league (though we've never completely agreed on what a fully-pro league is either). Jogurney (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I have to weigh in here. Basically it's a case of WP:N and WP:V. In countries like Malaysia, WP:V is much more difficult to establish due to reasons mentioned above. I'm not talking about a guy who got one kick of the ball in the last minute of a cup game between two teams playing in FPLs, I mean the "normal" players, a guy who had a significant footballing career. We presume notability in this case, as sources, which are presumed to exist, such as newspapers, journals, magazines, almanacs and so on are not particularly easy to find, translate, etc. On the other hand, in an English-speaking country like Scotland, it seems to me that any presumption of notability, particularly for modern-day players, is redundant because if they meet WP:N, then there is a very easy way to show it, thus meeting the GNG - the only one between GNG and NFOOTY which is actually binding as a policy in any rate. Dropping a league from FPL mid-season is moot because any article which only exists because of this, should not exist at all. C679 08:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's be honest, the problem is this project contains too many lonely caucasian men who contribute from their room at their mother's house. They tend to pore over local coverage of their own favoured teams/leagues so footballers who are seen as Irish, female, fuzzy wuzzys, etc. are deemed non-notable by default. This seems to happen even when the local players are part time or semi pro. Naturally when faced with the prospect that they have spent years (in some cases) copying across stuff from "Soccerbase" only to find it is non notable and likely to be deleted, they are bewildered and humiliated. That's why we then have unsourced and fantastical tales about "historical exceptionalism" for favoured part-time leagues. 90.208.162.146 (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

under-20 footballer stubs

Just a heads up that User:Crosstemplejay seems to have created at least 56 stubs on under-20 footballers of dubious notability since 3 April. A list can be found here. Is there any way to mass delete these other than an unwieldy AfD? C679 09:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I found 129 in this category Category:2013 African U-20 Championship players, have sent the first 5 to PROD. Will AfD the other 124 together unless anyone can come up with a better solution. Thanks, C679 06:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in keeping them, most (if not all) have played at a professional level. I'm not certain about Benin having a professional league, but Nigeria, Egypt and Algeria certainly do. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
There's no indication they have played at a professional level, the user who created them apparently didn't bother to check, other than they are listed on transfermarkt as being part of a squad, which is not an indication of notability, per the three PRODs which have already been removed. C679 11:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of under 21 competition squad templates

Relating to the above discussion, User:Cloudz679 has nominated all navbox templates from the recent African U20 Championship for deletion, some navboxes have every player linked and there are no redlinks. It seems to me, to be a hasty and overzealous suggestion. I strongly disagree with the stance taken here to delete all navbox for official youth competitions. It's counter productive. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no redlinks on some templates because stubs have been created for players who are in all likelihood unnotable and articles have seemingly been created for the specific purpose of populating these navboxes. Consensus at the previous discussion, which you already linked, leaned toward not having such infoboxes for multiple reasons, not only because of the redlinks. Anyway if anyone wants to discuss the templates, the place to do that is over there. C679 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
There is community consensus (which I personally don't agree with, though I will abide by it) that says youth tournament squad templates are not notable, regardless of the number of players they link. GiantSnowman 18:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I wont discuss the TfD for the African U20 Championship here, but my interpretation of this discussion is that is was closed as delete because that template failed WP:NAVBOX 2-4, not that every youth tournament squad template fails WP:NAVBOX 2-4. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability question

I couldn't seem to find it on WP:FOOTYN so I'll ask here. Are individual FA Vase Finals notable enough for their own articles? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb I'd say probably not, I don't think they will get enough coverage in reliable sources to justify a seperate article. There are, of course, probably the odd exception - but overall "no". GiantSnowman 18:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
OK. So coverage on the BBC wouldn't be enough or would it need more from national or regional sources (ie. newspapers)? I'm only asking because I'm thinking of creating a page for this years one and I know there is something on the BBC website about it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." GiantSnowman 19:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

LDU Quito/Liga Deportiva Universitaria de Quito

I'm having a bit of a dilemma as to whether I should be opening an RM discussion to move Liga Deportiva Universitaria de Quito to LDU Quito, or set up CfR-speedy templates on all the categories relating to the club since they all use the form "LDU Quito". Opinions? – PeeJay 03:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is the correct name, but the cats/templates should match the article title. GiantSnowman 11:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
My feeling would be that since some of the nicknames allude to both the "Liga" or the "Universitaria" bits, the article name should be spelled out in full, LDU is not a "permanent" contraction like AC or FC which is never expanded in general conversation.Le Deluge (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Flags for Welsh clubs in England.

Currently for Welsh clubs located in England the current system is to use the Flag of Wales most of the time in things such such as National Team players clubs but Swansea City uses an England flag for the Europa league page. I think it would make sense to use a single flag for all English Clubs located in Wales and I would suggest using an England flag for them all and have a footnote saying the club is located in Wales as currently none of them compete in an FAW competition. C. 22468 Talk to me 21:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The Europa League flag is there because it is an English berth they have qualified under. Essentially they are representing England so the English flag is used. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
We certainly need a footnote, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Most messed up page move I have ever seen. Help from Admin is needed.

Wikipedia talk:India national under-14 football team - I am still wondering why the user who moved this page decided to move it to this. Anyway I tried fixing it back to India national under-14 football team but apparently I cant do that as it already exists. If an admin has anytime would you please see if you can do anything about this. Thank you very much. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Pfft, I've seen/dealt with much worse than that ;)
I have moved back to India national under-15 football team as that was the original location/topic. On a side note, is it even notable? Would it be worth creating India national youth football teams or similar to deal with U16/U15/U14, and merge/redirect there as appropriate? GiantSnowman 15:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Whatever ends up being done with these articles – personally, I'd suggest that anything below under-17s is unlikely to be notable – please remember that WP:BLP applies not just to biographical articles but also to articles that include biographical detail. Birthdates of a string of non-notable minors shouldn't be included here, let alone unsourced birthdates... I've removed the whole "current" squad section as unsourced. Please don't put the birthdates back. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Ya, this is something that I have been thinking about since I discovered this page in 2011. Obviously this page was created as the U15s at the time were playing in the 2011 Dallas Cup so back then I would probably have said yes straight away to deletion but now I am more 50/50. We now have an actual U14 competition for under-14/under-15 teams in Asia called the AFC U-14 Championship. Now if you look at the qualifiers you will see a lot of red links with the only pages existing for the U14/U15 category being for India and Indonesia. So I think it is best now to focus on whether we should allow such pages or not and then if not un highlight the teams because, lets face it, if a person sees all those red links then he/she will create them all (Also meaning a bunch of stubs that are not notable).
Struway I understand what you are saying. I agree 100% with what your saying, especially with WP:BLP. However the reason I am now 50/50 on this is because again, there is an official Asian Football Confederation tournament for this age group. So overall I will let the rest of WikiProject:Football decide and I will go with whatever the decision is. Thank you again Snowman for fixing the page and thank you Struway for giving me something to think about. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The 'national youth football teams' page could - and should - apply to every country, not just India. If we havea full bag o' redirects, there won't be any red-links, and therefore editors won't be 'enouraged' to create non-notable articles. GiantSnowman 15:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not saying that it should only apply to India. I am saying that if the majority of people here feel that there should not be any under-14/under-15 teams then we should un-link the current red links in the AFC U14 qualifiers page and at the same time delete the India and Indonesia page. But if not then we should keep these pages and keep the red links and hope that someone has the time to create them. Simple. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

USL Pro-MLS player notability.

Just wondering now because yesterday the Portland Timbers Reserves played against VSI Tampa Bay FC in an actual USL Pro game. Now for those who do not understand see this. Basically the Major League Soccer teams made an alliance with some of the USL Pro teams (3rd tier) in which the MLS Reserve team will play USL Pro team twice this season in a match in which the result will count to the standings. Now the USL Pro is part of WP:FPL so that makes me wonder: Are the players who play for the MLS Reserve team against a USL Pro team in an official USL Pro game notable? Now note that the MLS Reserve teams due not have a place in the standings. They only play 2 games against their USL Pro affiliate in official matches which only count towards the table for the USL Pro team. So decision? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite the MLS reserves playing against a USL Pro team and the fact that they count as official matches, I don't consider that to be notabe on the part of the reserves. As for the USL Pro team, I would still consider that as notable since it counted as an official match in their regular season stat. I've never seen an interleague match in soccer (or football). In baseball, they do this a lot so it's nothing new for that sport. You know, it's a fully pro team against a reserve team that's not considered fully pro so I understand your confusion. In Cup matches, it's obvious you wouldn't count that as notable for both teams. But in league play, I think it should count as notable for the USL Pro team and the USL Pro team only. MLS reserve team? I don't think so. – Michael (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't imagine playing in this match alone creates a presumption of notability for any player from either team. It gets scant coverage from SoccerAmerica, OurSportsCentral and the Plant City Observer (a regional online newspaper). Otherwise, the main coverage is from the club websites and the MLS website (effectively primary sources). Jogurney (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
True. The league as a whole does get a lot of independent coverage but this game barely got any and if any it got 2 from Florida based papers. I could not find anything independent from Portland. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Review request

I am thinking of taking 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots to FA. There is currently a PR running on it but I would like to get some feedback from WP Football for any possible improvements and alterations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor thing: it might be worth pre-emptively archiving your references. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 15:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
OK done that. Any other recommendations? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That's all I can think of, other than an appropriate picture for the infobox. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 18:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

man

can you make a pattern kits with commons?

[16]

[17] --2.6.124.215 (d) 8 avril 2013 à 18:43 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.6.124.215 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

when is the soocer/football pub?--2.6.124.215 (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


Paweł Brożek almost B-class, close to GA class

In case anybody is interested, this is one-two sentence refs short of B-class, and seems like it would have a decent shot for a GA class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Memo"

Received this message (when i saw an anon briefing unsigned my jaw dropped, started thinking that the Colombian punk had returned to harass and insult me; not that thank god),

cannot make much of it as it is (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Always_Learning#Reuben_Gabriel), any inputs? Thanks in advance --AL (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

Resolved

I have enter an article of WikiProject Football as a Featured article candidate. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nea Salamis Famagusta FC/archive1. But someone say that the article meets the prose criterion (1a) at the moment. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; The problem is that language is not my first language, so i may made some mistakes. Can you please read the article and correct it? Xaris333 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem exists all the way through the article, the best way for you to proceed may be to ask for a copy edit at the Wikipedia:GOCE although there is a backlog of almost 3,000 articles. For now, FA status for the article - or even GA status for that matter - seems impossible. Thanks, C679 15:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
FAC has now been closed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

England 1991/1992, First Division, typo / miscalculation

Hi there, I don't want to mess around with the article if I'm wrong. But according to soccerway.com, the records (goal balance) of Arsenal and Luton Town have to be corrected to 81-46 and 38-71 respectively. If the game scores are added (Arsenal Home/Luton Away), the results are 51-22 and 13-54 resp., i.e. the error results from the Arsenal-Luton match. The result of this game was 2-0, only the calculated sums are wrong. Best regards Smettbo50000 (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally, tables like this are likely to have errors, as they are typed in manually. I encourage you to be BOLD and correct it. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
An even better idea would be to find a reliable source that shows the tallies, rather than using original research to calculate them. As well as being Wikipedia policy, it makes sense: there may be an error or errors in the match scores you're depending on, rather than in the tallies. --Dweller (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
1, 2 seem to confirm. -Koppapa (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
News of the World Football Annual 1992, published at the conclusion of that season, concurs also -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Coaches vs managers?

Whilst doing more category cleanup I came across Category:Association futsal managers by nationality. It's going to need a rename anyway to get rid of the "Association", but is there a standard on using managers and/or coaches? The main Category:Futsal people hierarchy already has a Category:Futsal coaches‎, I know there can be a difference but is trying to make this distinction a case of overcategorization? TIA Le Deluge (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Judging by Category:Association football managers by country, the phrase manager should be used for every country except Canada and the US, where coach is preferred (I assume this is due to WP:ENGVAR). Certainly in British English there is a very clear difference between manager and coach. Number 57 07:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Australia generally uses coach or head coach with manager occasionally used. Hack (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
What do WP:RS say? If someone is described more often than not as a "manager", use that. Same goes for the country as a whole. GiantSnowman 08:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories/articles for playoff tournaments

I've come across another horror in Category:Atlantic 10 Men's Soccer Tournament whose only member is 2012 Atlantic 10 Men's Soccer Tournament. Aside from the fact that the capitalisation needs fixing and Conference inserting for standardisation with the rest of the Category:Atlantic 10 Conference men's soccer hierarchy, should this category/article exist at all? I'm guessing the non-standard name means that it wasn't created by one of the regulars. It's not remotely my field, so if someone wants to sort it out then be my guest! Le Deluge (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Update: I've just found Category:Conference USA Men's Soccer Tournament as well.Le Deluge (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It was created by an over-enthusiastic editor who creates reams and reams of well-written, but non-notable, articles on American soccer. Consider aking to WP:CFD. GiantSnowman 08:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Linvoy Primus £20 bounty

If anyone fancies the challenge of getting Linvoy Primus to FA, I have placed a £20 bounty towards Wikimedia foundation if it happens. There will be the possibility of the money going through, anyway, if it turns out that there just isn't enough information out there to get his article there. It is a GA at the moment and not much has changed since that GA status was confirmed, given that it went through around about the time he retired.

Note: I am also happy for a bounty of some sort to go ahead on any of the other 10 football articles I helped become GA (Kakha Kaladze, Baichung Bhutia etc.)

Leave a message on my talk page if you're up for the challenge. Spiderone 09:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from a "style of play" section, I can't see anything that really needs adding/improving, so FA promotion should be quite easy, I would have thought. That's not me necessarily volunteering to do it, though ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe one criticism of the article was that it uses his autobiography as a source and apparently that's not a good thing. See his talk page. I'm not too familiar with the FA criteria, though. Spiderone 12:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
True, I hadn't noticed that, the number of refs from the autobiog does seem rather high. Using an autobiog as a source is not prohibited per se, but it should only be used sparingly and for personal life-type stuff...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have entered an article of WikiProject Football as a Featured list candidate. The List of NK Maribor players was nominated for FLC in late February and has since received two reviews, which have been addressed. The problem is that the project appears to have stalled and would need at least one or maybe two additional reviews to be successfully promoted, even though I believe that the article is more or less completed (but I guess they need three or more different opinions when promoting). What has been addressed with in the review can bee seen on the project nomination page (here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NK Maribor players/archive1). Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Ratipok (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Career statistics. Date

A small minority of people keep adding "match played" following as of and before the date. So it reads: as of match played 6 april. This is terrible english and makes no sence!!!! There is already a thread on here about it and about the box on the right of footballers profiles. The article says that it is wrong to add matched played. I have seen that this has been brought to the attention of mattythewhite (the worst offender) but they continue to ignore!!! As has been said to them, if the rule is for you not to add match played in the box on the right, then the same goes for career statistics. It makes no sence and helps nobody unless people on here cannot read dates. This rule is there to cause as little confusion as possible in the box on the right and so it should be for the career statistics. This should be obvious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.182 (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This arose from my spotting an article on my watchlist in which the above anon editor had removed "match played" from the as-of above the career stats table, with the edit summary "incorrect format, bad english. per WP:FOOTY consensus". I undid their edit, which they had applied to multiple articles, many York City-related, and suggested they began a discussion here.

There is no WP:FOOTY consensus about what wording to use above a stats table, AFAIK. An increasing number of editors, myself included, prefer putting As of match played 9 April 2013 or whatever above the table, rather than just the date it was last changed. The reason I do it that way is to make it explicit what match was the last to be included in the career stats, for the benefit of both reader and updater.

While writing this reply, I noticed the anon re-introducing their version with the tasteful edit summary "It is wrong for the "infobox" it is wrong here. DUH!!!!!!!!!".

Other opinions invited. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

On here it has already been heavily discussed and agreed that putting "match played" before the date on the "infobox" is wrong. So the same should be said for the career statistics. From reading the article that came to this decision it was stated that no adding match played is the correct way of doing it, is the way you're meant to do it, is the way wikipedia is et up to do it and the way that cuases the least confustion.

There is no reason to say "as of match played 6 april" it is terrible english. In fact you don't write "as of" that si the wiki preset. When doing this you just write "6 april" after "updated|" therefore wikipedia preset is to add the "as of" therefore it is wikipedia settings that you just add the date. As saying as of match payed 6 april is really bad english. It is a sentance fragment. It helps nobody. It has already been agreed that just saying "as of [date]" is the best and correct way to go as it is simple and easy to understand. How do you think that "as of 6 april" can be hard to understand? It's simple!!!!! It's the way wikipedia is et up to work!!!!!

Look!!! -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_72#PC.26NT_updates_in_infobox

The quote was posted to the mattythewhites profile:

OK, so can we conclude that we have a consensus about the usage of the pc&ntupdate parameters in the infoboxes? It is obvious that we do have editors that would prefer to have the match date, but most editors use the current date and besides, the template is made in a way that the current day should be used. So, editors should not do in other way (namelly AL), neither should advise other editors to do it that way (diff) and leave them confused? Correct? FkpCascais (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)'

NOT ADDING MATCH PLAYED IS THE CORRECT WAY TO DO IT!!!! FACT!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.182 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • ALSO in the link I posted, the member causing this trouble (Struway2) was told not to keep adding match played as it's the incorrect way to do it, with the quote I got and posted showing that everyone was told "editors should NOT do it in other way, neither should advise other editors to do it that way and leave them confused!

So Struway2 you have already been told not to do this. You have carried on doing it, said there is no discussion about it, which there is and YOU WERE PART OF IT! So stop it!!!!! 92.40.254.182 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What we do in the infobox – which is what the linked discussion was about, as I suspect you're well aware – doesn't really have any bearing on what we do at career stats. The infobox includes the wording "and correct as of", which should be followed by a date or date/time at which the stats are correct. As the infobox stands at the moment, we're stuck with that wording because it's generated automatically. At the career stats table, where we can choose what wording we use to define the accuracy of the content, I'd suggest that choosing a clear explicit wording is preferable.

I do like being described as "the member causing this trouble", though :-) Thanks for that, Struway2 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you're wrong again. You clearly didn't even read what I said. I'll repeat myself for you. You do NOT choose what you write in career statistics as it IS automatically generated by wikipedia. As I said above, you write the date following "updated|" and wikipedia automatically generates it so say "as of".

I repeat. YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOLD NOT TO DO THIS AND THAT IT CAUSES CONFUSION AND IS NOT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AND GOES AGAINST WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS SET UP TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO STOP BEING SO BLIND & STUBBORN! Your last comment shows this. As you sau "we're stuck with" showing that you still don't agree with it, even though it's been discussed on here and you have already been told to stop it as what you're doing is wrong and NOT helpful and causes confusion which goes against your false claims that it is helpful.

AGAIN. AS OF MATCH PLAYED 6 APRIL DOES NOT MAKE ANSY SENSE!!!!! WHEREAS AS OF 6 APRIL DOES!!!!!!!! Use your head! Stop doing what you've been told not to and stop being so petty about something you don't agree with but have been told by wikiepdia not to do!!!!! see link I posted and quote for proof of this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 92.40.254.182 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you're just bitter about not getting your own way in the infobox discussion about this very same thing. Hense your obsession with adding match played to as many profiles as you can and why you will undo the edits of people who correct your mistake. Grow up, open your eyes and realise it makes no sense, shows a lack of knowledge about the English language, is against what wikipedia is set up to do, goes against wikipedia presets and you have already been told that it is wrong. Pathetic!!! 92.40.254.182 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with you - I don't see the point in having the "as of match played" in career statistics tables. But you need stop with the personal attacks, and you should start writing without the excessive bold text and exclamation marks. Mentoz86 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it is useful to make it clear the last time someone actually played a match, especially if that was a little while back. Eldumpo (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If it's just the grammar, get rid of the as of template and write something like "Correct after his match played on Day Month Year." -Koppapa (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the IP and Mentoz that there is no real point in having the "as of match played". However, there is no point in edit warring over something as silly as this, and as long as the actual date is accurate then we should all be happy, regardless of wording. GiantSnowman 08:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, I don't regularly edit any of the many articles changed by the anon, and it wasn't me who added the "match played" thing on those pages. The articles concerned were stable with that format, and were initially changed by the anon citing a non-existent consensus in their edit summary. I reverted once, and suggested to the anon that they discuss the matter. And it's a format I have no intention of unilaterally imposing on others.

But what's really silly, is that the infobox date discussion persistently referred to by the anon concluded that we shouldn't use a bare match date in the infobox, because the reader can't tell definitively whether it includes that day's match or not, but they're now advocating doing exactly that above career stats tables...

I believe the subject was initially raised by a registered editor at Mattythewhite's talk page. Interestingly, the anon has put a tasteful personal attack against myself on the talk page of that user. Pity they can't play nicely. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've warned him for the personal attacks. GiantSnowman 08:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As Struway has said, the problem with the "as of" format is when someones statistics are updated on the day of a match. Without checking the page history or an external source it is unclear whether they were updated before or after a match. I see no problem with being explicit and using the "as of match played" format, but I agree that if grammer is the issue then just get rid of the template and write it manually as Koppapa suggested. T 88 R (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I believe my own opinion on this subject is known already. The consensus for the infobox was that adding "match played" was against the way Wikipedia is set up and is confusing. The discussion ended with members being told not to use it and just to input the date. As a result all infobox updates include purely the date. Logic dictates that the same should be said for career statistics. I briefly discussed this with 'Mattythewhite' who suggested starting a discussion on here about it, though in all honesty, I did not think it was worth the trouble. But seeing as the issue has been raised here and I have been referenced (and got a, rather terrible, message on my talk page about it) I thought it best to add my own opinion.
  • Simply, I think that because it was agreed not to use "match played" in the infobox to reduce confusion and members were told not to add this phrase or tell others to do so, coupled with the fact that the Wikipedia presets are set up for people to just input the date and not add match played, should be enough to end this matter. Afterall what's the point of us having presets on here, if we're just going to overrule them and even remove then?
  • May I also add that the IP that started this has perhaps weakened this side of the debate through unnecessary aggressiveness, personal attacks and rudeness. I do not like how my name and what I have previously said has been used in order to be so rude to a fellow member.
  • Just to clarify that in that earlier discussion, no-one ever advocated using the words "match played" in the infobox. I commented as an aside that the person who updated Everton player stats used it, and it got round the bare date problem neatly. But that discussion was about the merits of using a bare match date in the infobox, as opposed to the five tildes timestamp, and the conclusion, which I personally agree with and have always done, was that we should use the five tildes timestamp and not a bare match date. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • My fault, I should have made it clear I was referring to Pippin0490's statement that it was agreed not to use "match played" in the infobox etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't be arsed reading this whole discussion to check whether what I'm about to say has been said already, so here goes nothing: I think that the "match played" bit is useful, albeit a little ungrammatical, as it indicates that the stats are up to date as of a particular match rather than simply being when the update was made. If nothing else, I think this is the best reason to keep it included. – PeeJay 20:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I shall just copy what I posted on Struway2's talk page - Indeed I do and I believe that way is not to include "match played". Though, in all honesty, I'm really not bothered, it's just a personal preference. On a player's wiki page it'll keep changing between not having "match played" and having "match played" depending on the personal preference of the person that edits it. The only reason I can see it becoming a rule or whatever, is because the wiki "preset" is just to add "some of these ~" following "updated|" and it automatically comes out with "as of [date]". But, as I said, I'm not really bothered. :) Pippin0490 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Gentlemen, shall we conclude that both arguments are valid and simply leave it up to the preference of the individual editing a certain page? Say if a profile doesn't include "match played" and the person who updates it chooses to add "match played" then that's fine and to be left until the next time to update? With the same for not including the term? Would this be better than having people undoing edits and the such? Just a thought, other opinions are, of course, welcome. Pippin0490 (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest that if an article's stable with a particular form, and that form makes clear to the reader when the stats go up to, and the table is properly sourced, and the content reflects the source, then editors should stay with that stable and functional form. We're not supposed to edit-war, whether it be frantic and wilful like the anon above going through a load of York City-related pages to impose their favourite form, or making sure we get in first on a matchday before the sources have even updated to impose ours. "Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable." The quote comes from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in stadium article titles

We have Princes Park, Dartford and yet we have Recreation Ground (Aldershot). Which format is right.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Our disambiguation page tells us to use parentheses for things other than geographical forms that follow the model "Small place, Big place". So it should be parentheses. So long as disambiguation is actually needed. --Dweller (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Could one not consider a stadium a geographical entity? GiantSnowman 20:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Only by applying one heck of a stretch to things. See WP:NCDAB for Comma-separated disambiguation. "Ambiguous geographic names are often disambiguated by adding the name of a higher-level administrative division, separated by a comma, as in Windsor, Berkshire." Even the most fervent Darts fan wouldn't consider the stadium to be an administrative area of a lower level than Dartford itself. --Dweller (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

See the massive inconsistency at Recreation ground (disambiguation). I think the geographical forms refers only to villages, hamlets, towns etc, so I'd prefer parentheses. Number 57 20:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I, too, have always gone for parentheses when it comes to stadia. Jared Preston (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
My take on this is that we should never treat stadia as geographic entities, because a great many of them are named directly after the geographic entities that they're built in and said entities may need their own articles. So yeah, boldly moving any comma-separated ones to parenthesised titles should be encouraged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Flags before managers (for the sake of clarity!)

What I want to discuss is NOT whether we should add flags before managers in the infobox, but the consistency and clarity. For example, on this page, the practice is that if a manager is from the same country he coaches, then the flag icon is omitted, otherwise it is added to indicate his nationality. I don't know who conjured up this practice, but I think it's stupid to do that. A wikipedia article is written so that people could read it, get information quickly, not to cause confusion. But how would a common reader (assuming he is not a frequent editor and not familiar with the complicated flag policy) know that the omission of the flag indicates that the manager is from the same country he coaches? Does he have to go through several pages, carefully inspect them, find the patterns, make a tentative conjecture, go through more pages, so that he could finally conclude that the omission of SOME flags indeed indicates something? Is wikipedia a place for training logic so that not-so-smart readers should be excluded at all?

My opinion: if we add flags before managers, add to all of them. If we don't add flags before managers, add none. Never add some flags while omitting others. Opinions?Sofeshue (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG suggests that as the managers don't actually represent their country of origin when they are working as a football manager, their flags are not welcome - and particularly not in the infobox. C679 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
"Who came up with it" is pretty simple to answer: some nationalist determined to plant flags in every entity on Wikipedia remotely associated with his country of origin, as usual. These should be removed on sight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, MOSFLAG is clear i.e. no flags in the infobox. GiantSnowman 10:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Errr, he specifically said that he is not talking about the infobox (he even put the 'not' in capitals). He is talking about the manager field in template:footballbox. But agree that manager flag is inappropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Err, they are talking about the infobox, specifically the "consistency and clarity"... GiantSnowman 11:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Er, the example page has no infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh. OP either needs to provide a correct diff, or clarify their question. GiantSnowman 12:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks to me like the issue is an Argentina flag by the Paraguay coach/manager. Well obviously he isn't representing Argentina, so the flag should be removed. C679 15:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I will wait for three more days, and if there is no further objection, I will systematically remove all flags associated with managers.Sofeshue (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Categorising footballers by religion

What is the consensus on this? I removed Zinedine Zidane from the category of French Muslims because he is non-practising and Islam does not play any significant part of his public image. My thoughts were that, if their religion is a notable part of their life (like with Freddie Kanoute and Linvoy Primus) then they can be categorised accordingly. But should someone like Samir Nasri be categorised by religion if it plays no notable part for them? Spiderone 12:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT is pretty explicit:
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.
So your thoughts are correct. And not only must the subject self-identify with a religion that's a significant part of their life, the article has to contain reliably sourced text to prove it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, the category Muslim footballers was deleted in December. Kevin McE (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I will continue to remove the category from the Zidane and Samir Nasri articles. My only concern is that they keep getting added back, despite the fact that neither player has said they are anything more than nominal Muslims! Spiderone 13:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Little World Cup query

In a mid-70s profile of Brian Little reprinted from "Shoot" in the book "Studs! The Greatest Retro Football Annual the World Has Ever Seen" his listed honours include "a Little World Cup winner's medal". Does anyone know what tournament this could refer to, as it doesn't seem to match anything listed at Little World Cup..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This calls the UEFA U18/U19 championships the Little World Cup. England won in 1971 and 72, don't know if Mr Little was in the squad? He'd be about the right age. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rican v American nationality

The previous discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 34#Taylor Graham Nationality was split so I'll raise this again. The background is that FIFA declared that Americans could no longer eligible to play for Puerto Rico in 2008. There were at least two players who were capped by Puerto Rico prior to that ruling. Neither team was capped by their nation of birth. Are they Americans or Puerto Ricans? I say they're Puerto Ricans because that's the last country that capped them even if the were later ineligible to play for the nation. Were they then eligible to play for the US? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

They didn't declare that Americans were no longer eligible to play for Puerto Rico, they restricted it to players who have live in Puerto Rico for at least two years, which neither Taylor Graham nor Kupono Low did. And there were other American born players who played for Puerto Rico back then and still do now. And a couple of the folks do have a point. If they're not eligible to play for Puerto Rico, then their sporting nationality can't possibly be Puerto Rico. – Michael (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The firm consensus of the project as a whole, and of every previous discussion we've ever had on the subject at WT:FOOTY, is that if nationality is ambiguous then it should not be presented unambiguously. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Simple solution - if nationality is ambiguous, then don't include it in the lede. "John Smith (born 1 January 1990) is a professional soccer player who plays for FC Wikipedia and the Puerto Rican national team." Categories should include US soccer player, PR soccer player and PR international soccer player. GiantSnowman 08:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Depends what you're asking. If we're talking opening sentence, then as said immediately above, we shouldn't present an unambiguous "nationality" if there isn't one. GiantSnowman's model works well. But there's no reason why his being American or born in the US shouldn't be mentioned in the lead section; the lead is supposed to give an overview of the article, and presumably his international representation is discussed in more detail within the body of the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
We're also talking about this sort of editing (club rosters). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
That is very obscuring to me actually. On most squad templates it is based on FIFA nationality (which in this case is Puerto Rico). Sometimes you may need to bend the rules to go with the specific league rules (Example: Boima Karpeh in India. I have him listed as an Australian as each team is only allowed 4 foreigners and Karpeh is added as an Asian foreigner due to his Aussie passport, thus the league sees him as Australian). However with the new squad templates that are very common in MLS, NASL, and USL Pro articles it is more confusing. I came upon this problem when I was editing the Seattle Sounders FC page and saw that Andy Rose was listed as an English player despite him being born in Australia. Thus his FIFA nationality is Australian (Note that he has not played internationally at any level) but User:Mikemor92 undid the edit as his nation was England. Now that confuses me. How are we supposed to base flags on these rosters. Obviously I will stay with basing certain players based on league rules but what about for guys like Rose or the guys listed above. Do we do it by what their preferred nationality is or do we go with their "FIFA" nationality? I say we stick with using the "FIFA" nationality. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
"Thus his FIFA nationality is Australian ": Once again with this invention. For a player who has not appeared internationally there is no such thing as "FIFA nationality": FIFA are unaware of him, and he may have several countries for which he is eligible. Our squad template gives enormous prominence to a concept that simply does not exist. Kevin McE (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there evidence he is an Australian citizen? Hack (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I was stoked when I saw Giantsnowman and Struway giving some good thoughts. Right then in my mind, I thought... "dear God, what about flags?" That is why I am against using flags altogether. In regards to Rose, it is news to me that he is Australian. Sources I have seen say he is English (but I didn't look too hard). Maybe one or both parents were English so he is eligible for both like Bradden Inman with Australia and Scotland? In Rose's case, the Sounders official bio says nothing about who is eligible to play for but lists his home town as Bristol, England. Flags should go away and I love the solutions presented for the lead.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up: Citizenship is mentioned in a primary source: Hometown (Citizenship): Bristol, England (United Kingdom) Hmmm.. maybe Rose's article needs some love. Cptnono (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For squad lists, players with ambiguous nationalities should have the flags omitted. End of story. There are only two reasons to oppose that: nationalism (i.e. The Plague Of) and naivete (if one thinks that sticking an arbitrary flag somewhere never hurt anyone, one is a poor student of history). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Or - established convention for how football players' info is presented. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Some of us might have been pretending we weren't discussing the F-word... Actually, for Graham and Low, MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspersons is fairly explicit (all highlighting added by me):
Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags).
So if they haven't declared for the US since representing Puerto Rico, they get a PR flag. If they have declared for the US since playing for PR, then use a US flag and add a reliable source to prove it. It goes on to say:
If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent.
Which means that we shouldn't make stuff up based just on birthplace. And as per the Clarity section:
If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.
Hope this helps ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have always read that last paragraph as referring to the table/infobox/list being rendered unclear, not the assertion of nationality, so I am not sure that it applies to our current discussion. I have asked for clarification at WT:MOSICON. Kevin McE (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Could interpret it either way. One of which would be: if you can't sum up someone's nationality accurately in one flag, then you may and should leave it out to avoid creating controversy, ambiguity or a lack of clarity: an explicit refutation of the argument that "all the other entries in the table/list have got a flag so Fred Bloggs has got to have one". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
But the players have played for PR and then when they were disallowed that indicated that would like to play for US but have never (to the best of my knowledge) even entered training camp. In my reading of the rules Struway2 offered, the two examples here should be represented with PR flag. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Qucik thought on flags - what nationality is given to the player by reliable sources? If a dozen sources say a player is Xlish, but he has not played for X at any international level, then it is common sense that he should have X's flag next to his name, regardless of place of birth or any MOS here. GiantSnowman 11:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

One thing I want to point out because this somewhat relates to this. Tyrone Mears capped once for Jamaica before he found out that his father didn't qualify through Jamaica, making him ineligible to play for Jamaica which means his sporting nationality is still British. – Michael (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
If the sources are unanimous then so be it, but in contentious cases they rarely are. Regional sources will tend to "claim" the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Tyrone Mears would be Jamaican based on our rules. He was capped for the nation and so he is Jamaican. If he was later capped for England (there is no British national team!) or another nation in the UK, then we could consider him to be of that nation. It's really quite simple. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"Catalan football club seasons" CfD

Can I ask that some more people contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 31#Catalan football club seasons? It seems to be heading for "no consensus", and it's better to have a discussion end in a definite consensus rather than fizzle out into nothingness. – PeeJay 14:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:National A' association football teams

Can anyone explain to me the significance of the apostrophe in the title of this category and the articles contained within it? – PeeJay 23:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it's their version of a 'B' team, for use in local tournaments. GiantSnowman 09:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
That's apparently teams from the African Nations Championship. A tourney open only to nationals playing in the domestic leaegue. -Koppapa (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely PeeJay was inquiring about the specific use of the apostrophe? Without any investigation at all, I'd assume these were supposed to be primes? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Does any source actually use that apostrophe? Seems made up. I'd go with Tunisia CHAN team, if those articles are needed anyway. They don't really contain much more info than the previous tournament record (which is also covered in the main tourney article). -Koppapa (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not actually a 'seperate' national team is it? It's the senior team, as playing in the CHAN is considered a full cap, but tournament rules simply mean that the squad must be made up of local-based players. I'd say merge and redirect with the national team article. GiantSnowman 14:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that might be the best idea. -Koppapa (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Since when did playing in the CHAN count as a full cap? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
FIFA doesn't consider CHAN matches to be "A" internationals, so we shouldn't considered such matches a "full cap". Jogurney (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Late to the party .. in Algeria, the local team is referred to almost exclusively as the A' team, while the A team refers to the senior national team. There's tons of references if needed. Not sure if it's the case in Tunisia as well but I'd assume it is given the historical, cultural and linguistic similarities. TonyStarks (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Lebanese_Premier_League#Notable_players

Notable players for a whole league? Haven't seen that so far. Best to delete entirely? -Koppapa (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as WP:OR. GiantSnowman 11:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Have removed it, also the similar "notable managers" - eyes on it please, to see if it mysteriously comes back! C679 14:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hringsolal Thomte

He reappeared, see AfD. The previous article was even sourced showing he played at Air India since at least 2002. Not like the new article suggesting he just joined there. -Koppapa (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In these situations you can tag with {{db-g4}} and it will be speedied. GiantSnowman 14:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Source says 2002 but still it is tough because that was the only source back then for anything in India. Hell, even today for Air India FC it is the only source (the author has his own website now). Also what about everything else. Did he leave at any point in the last 11 years? Has he always played at Air India only? Many things were missing. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Including full match line-ups at club season articles

What is the view about separately listing the match line-ups for a team's matches for a whole season, including its opponents e.g. at [23] It seems like too much detail to me. Eldumpo (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

When sourced it is a valuable information. Personally, I am not against them. How about putting all the match details inside a collapsable template? FkpCascais (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with FkpCascais that there is nothing inherently wrong with this amount of detail, providing the source is given, although it ought to be in a collapsible form to make the article more easily readable. One surprising thing is that every player for Stoke's opponents has an article - there are no red links; User:Add92 was very busy back in 2011/2012. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Brian McDermott (footballer)

A number of IPs keep changing his nationality in the lead from English to Irish, on account of the subject's parents being Irish. Is this a case where it would be appropriate to remove mention of his nationality from the lead, on account of it being ambiguous? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

By birth he's British, by under-age national football team he's English, but he's said relatively recently that playing for England youth was a mistake and "being Irish is in my blood". Which is quite enough ambiguity for it to be removed as a definitive fact either way from the opening sentence. No reason why it can't say something like "McDermott was born in Slough to Irish parents" at the start of the paragraph that follows the opening sentence. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Playing for England youth might have been a mistake but he did it, so he should be listed as English, the rest of the intro goes on to state that he was born in Slough to Irish parents so that explains his story. As per WP:OPENPARA, ethnicity should be only emphasized if it's revelant to subject's notability. His notable for being a footballer and as a footballer he represented England. As such it should state English. TonyStarks (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Just because he played for an England youth team, it does not mean he is 'English'. Eldumpo (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
TonyStarks, you are not new to these discussions. is there any particular reason you're having to have the consensus position here, which is the opposite of what you've asserted, repeated to you? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I have my view, you have yours, this is a discussion, so I'll state my opinion. You're entitled to disagree with me but that won't stop me from maintaining my views. My logic is very straightforward, however you guys continually choose to complicate matters. A footballer, whose claim to notability is by virtue of being a footballer, that has represented country X in international football is a X-ish footballer .. very simple. The rest of the article can go on to state his story and whatever mistakes he's made in life. TonyStarks (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that your opinion, if actually carried though to the editing of articles, decreases the factual accuracy of our encyclopedia and increases nationalist edit warring. We don't want either of those things to happen, which is why we've spent years formalising our recommendations on such. So please don't make edits like that or encourage others to do so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Tony, there's a big difference between someone playing a few youth games for England U18s, and someone playing 100+ senior games. GiantSnowman 15:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Chris: Once again you're taking your own opinion and making it fact. And once again you fail to understand that you might be wrong with regards to this discussion. And once again you fail to understand how discussions work. For future reference, I'll keep stating my opinion, whether you agree with it or not, if you have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion do so. @GiantSnowman: Actually there is no difference. A player that has represented England exclusively in international football is English, whether it was at the youth or senior level. David Beckham isn't any more English than Nicky Ajose. Who are we to decide where to draw the line? Camel Meriem has 4 caps for France but said he regrets playing for France and should have opted for Algeria. Should I change his intro? Sabri Lamouchi is another example. Should I change his as well? TonyStarks (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Great catches. Ajose and Lamouchi updated: Meriem's lead was already fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris, some of your edits in this regard are OTT. Ajose - born in England, represented England at youth level, no mention of any other nationality, happily left in Category:English footballers - but we cannot describe him as an "English footballer"?! GiantSnowman 11:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
What reason is there to introduce that confusion? Who are we helping? We do not want our articles to confuse or to mislead, full stop. If a player's (or indeed any person's) nationality is not absolutely unambiguous we should not go labelling them with one in an authoritative manner. Unsurprisingly, a quick Google suggests that much as we have plenty of English editors who want to throw an English flag on him, there are Nigerian sources describing him as "Afro-Nigerian". We avoid all of that nonsense by not using bold adjectives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
And here we go again. There's absolutely no reason to remove English from the lead of Nicky Ajose. He's born and raised in England, represented England internationally, never represented Nigeria and yet you remove English from his lead and claim that I decrease factual accuracy of articles? @Giant: I'm sorry to say but you encouraged this type of editing with your first message when you said that "there's a big difference between someone playing a few youth games for England U18s, and someone playing 100+ senior games" .. when really it doesn't matter if a player has 1 cap at U15 level or 100 at senior. TonyStarks (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
And now Chris has decided that appearing 28 times for Jamaica and representing them at the 2006 World Cup is not enough to warrant being labelled as a Jamaican footballer, removing it from Frank Sinclair's lead .. sorry but if this is not going completely over the top then I don't know what it is. TonyStarks (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You'd do well to actually read the lead of Sinclair's article, which still details his international career without introducing wholly unnecessary confusion. I'm at a loss to figure out quite why you're so insistent on introducing deliberate confusion to articles simply to inflate the egos of Wikipedia's nationalists. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_77&oldid=1143712487"