Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Is the Dutch Eerste Divisie fully professional?

The list of fully pro leagues says it is, but the source appears to be someone's essay on a publish-your-own-writing website that doesn't even say definitively that either of the top two divisions is fully-professional in the Wikipedia meaning of the phrase. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is fully pro. There is a much starker division between fully and semi-pro/amateur in the Netherlands than in most countries, largely because it was a closed shop until last year. Clubs must have a professional licence to compete in the top two divisions. This article provides some context. Number 57 16:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This from the KNVB also expands on the amateur levels. GiantSnowman 16:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought so, but was a little surprised to find that at least one item in the list of fully-professional leagues (on which so much reliance is placed at AfD) was sourced to something that couldn't possibly be considered reliable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to audit the references that are currently on there - remove + replace dead links, check reliability, add more if possible, as well as formatting them using the proper {{cite web}}? GiantSnowman 16:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I go on there from time to time and check links etc, and if more people do that it can only help in catching dead links more quickly. Hopefully there aren't too many inappropriate sources on there, like the one Struway seems to have flagged. Not sure there's a need to turn all the entries into cite webs though? Eldumpo (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It shows publisher + date of access for quick reference, plus is also useful if the link goes dead - have a read of Wikipedia:Bare URLs. GiantSnowman 19:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. We're questioning the likelihood of a player in the Dutch second tier being notable. If this hadn't obviously been made in good faith (which of course it has been: no question there) I'd regard this as a breaching experiment. NFOOTBALL's focus on "fully professional" is an absurdity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The average crowd in the Eerste Divisie is around 4,000, and some clubs are close to 10,000. Are you seriously suggesting that playing in front of that many fans every week wouldn't make someone notable? Footballers playing at this level will be watched and known by far more people than, for example, an international field hockey player. Number 57 21:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As a former resident of the Netherlands, I can ensure you the Eerste Divisie is regularly and nationally covered. They even have a national TV show with all goals on RTL 7 (one of the major Dutch TV channel), plus regular coverage in newspapers, magazines, etc. Not to mention the amount of fans for such teams as, say, Sparta Rotterdam or Willem II Tilburg, just to mention two. Angelo (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. Average crowds and general media coverage are not intrinsically tied to leagues being "fully professional". I'm fine with having a "blessed list" of leagues where we can presume notability, but it should be based on consensus as to how well that league is covered rather than whether it is "fully professional" or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say average crowds are totally linked to leagues being fully professional - clubs need crowds above a certain level (1,500 or so) to remain professional. We need some kind of indicator as to notability, and the FPL guideline is probably the closest we can get to a good barometer. To DuckisJammmy's point below, the rules are different to sports where there is no professional level (I assume you are referring to WP:NGAELIC). Number 57 08:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The two are certainly related, but unfortunately far too many editors take FPL as a bright line rather than just a good yardstick. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chris about the average crowds, they're not an inherent part of being classed as fully professional, some amateur sports have an average attendance of 10,000-15,000 with crowds of over 80,000 for finals. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, what we were questioning was not the likelihood of a player in the Dutch second tier being notable, but the quality of the referencing at WP:FPL. Struway2 (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above, promted me to take a look at the sourcing at WP:FPL and I have to say it's a pretty sorry state of affairs. The following is a list of all the leagues currently on the list that are sourced only with dead links. Please note that this is NOT intended as a comment on the notability of footballers playing in those leages:

• Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1
• Premier Soccer League
• Russian Second Division
• Football Championship of the National League
• Russian Premier League
• Liga I
• Lega Pro Seconda Divisione
• Lega Pro Prima Divisione
• Serie B
• Serie A
• Umaglesi Liga
• Gambrinus liga
• Primera B Nacional
• Austrian Football First League
• Austrian Football Bundesliga

In addition, Torneo Argentino A is currently listed with no source whatsoever. The source for Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 claimed to be down for temporary maitenance. I will check it again later. You're help in finding more sources is much appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Are any of the dead links retrievable at the Wayback Machine? GiantSnowman 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a good time to plug the Resurrect Pages addon for Firefox, which makes sorting dead links easy (and helps a great deal with general browsing as well). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, a great find. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Have clarified the Gambrinus liga is covered by the existing reference for the Czech second tier. Cloudz679 21:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Farnborough F.C.#Former players of note

Apart from the usual vague inclusion criteria ("those that are well known within the non-League (sic)"), what a truly bizarre way to format such a section....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Rocky Baptiste, slayer of dragons, scourge of the barbarians, scorer of FA Cup goals.--EchetusXe 22:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sacha Opinel, a player of note? If it's for being awful then fair enough. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What a strange thing to say. He's something of a club legend at Farnborough.  Omg †  osh  19:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not allowed to make jokes on here, obviously. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Port Said riot

Just checking, is there an article yet on the Al-Ahli/Al-Masry riot yet? Hack (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There is. It's currently titled Port Said Stadium clashes. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Local derby

What is the difference, precisely, between a local derby and a regular football rivalry, and is the term 'local derby' used in sports other than association football? Various comments at Talk:Local derby suggest that the two terms have distinct meanings but there is no agreement on a single definition. I had always thought of a 'local derby' as a rivalry between local teams that regularly play one another, but that definition would exclude many items listed in the article, such as the France–Italy football rivalry and probably even El Clásico.

The article provides a definition in the lead but it is ambiguous, containing qualifiers such as "in many countries", "generally local", "particularly in association football". It has other issues, too: two unsourced sections about the origin and usage of the phrase; an unsourced 'International' section which raises the question of just how 'local' a local derby is required to be; and, finally, a long and mostly unsourced list of derbies and rivalries. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no strict definition as it isn't actually a piece of game terminology; only a set of heuristics. The article is, typically, a diabolical mishmash of personal opinion, examplespam and original research. At some point someone simply needs to delete every sentence, bullet point of factoid in it not backed up by least one inline citation to a good, reliable secondary source. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I found a few sources that provide definitions but, as you said, there appears to be no unified meaning:

• Mad for it: From Blackpool to Barcelona: Football’s Greatest Rivalries, by Andy Mitten: "a fixture between two local sides", but also "used to describe football games between teams which may be situated far further apart , regional rather than local rivals" (link).
• Sports culture: an A-Z guide, by Ellis Cashmore, Ernest Cashmore: "soccer games between proximate rivals" (p. 89, link). This book devotes pages 89 through 91 to discussing the origins of the phrase 'local derby' and providing various examples.
• Phrases.org.uk: "a sporting contest between rivals from the same district[, o]ften referring to football (soccer) matches" (link).

Perhaps this could be a starting point. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

FC Zenit Saint Petersburg

User:Barocci have moved the article FC Zenit Saint Petersburg to FC Zenit, even though the result of the previous requested move discussion, started by him, was no consensus for move. User:Ilikeeatingwaffles have started a requested move discussion, to move it back, but I feel that the right thing to do is to move the article back to FC Zenit Saint Petersburg right away (as per the previous discussion), and then if wanted start a requested move discussion to move it to FC Zenit. I tried to move the page back myself, but there was an unknown obsticle there. Could a administrator look into this matter? Thank you, Mentoz86 (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think ana dministrator moving the page while there is an ongoing discussion would exacerbate the situation; a RM to move it back is the right thing to do. GiantSnowman 09:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, however, I think an administrator need to merge the content and the page history of Talk:FC Zenit Saint Petersburg and Talk:FC Zenit. — MT (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the move was strictly in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports) guideline. There were no further comments however since that guideline came to light. Do you guys mind commenting in the discussion with the regard for the guideline? Barocci (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hapoel Haifa F.C.

There is a user constantly changing the flag for Ali El-Khatib to that of Israel, even though he represents Palestine internationally and Tvrtko Kale to Israel even though he has never formally represented Israel after acquiring citizenship. I have asked the user to stop but they continue to revert the edits. -NYC2TLV (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Final warnings issued to both yourself & Nerova for this - please reach a civil conclusion on the article talk page rather than reverting & re-reverting. GiantSnowman 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Puddefoot

Does anyone know if Walter Puddefoot is related to Len Puddefoot and Syd Puddefoot? Unusual surname, all active in the 20s... GiantSnowman 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

List of players format

Most clubs seem to have a 'List of X F.C. players' now, which is only a good thing, but I think we need some agreement about layout/format so that they are the same across the board. Here are my concerns:

• Position - I don't think there should be a position column, for a number of reasons - the fact that primary position is not always clear, that some positions are not quite DF/MF (wingback) or MF/FW (winger), and that there are issues surrounding archaic positions (wing half/inside forward etc.)
• Player stats - just as we only have domestic league stats in the infobox, this should be reflected in these player lists. I also don't think we should separate appearances into starts + subs, as these stats will be hard, if not impossible, to source for older players. GiantSnowman 17:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to overall establish what position is referred to as what. Currently we use the basic GK, DF, MF and FW. And we currently ignore or generalise the following positions L/RM, L/RWB, L/RW, AM, DM, CB, LB, RB, CF ect. We need to establish how we on Wikipedia are going to list, name and describe positions. The current system is done as the can usually play all over defence, or midfield or in attack ect. But Phil Jags and Rio Ferdinand have played in goal before, do we class them as defenders/ goalkeepers? (Please don't answer that btw, I'm just making a point of players being able to play in pretty much an position). Then we have players playing a certain position at one club and playing another position at another club. Michael Owen was a normal striker at Liverpool but was more of an attacking midfielder/ centre forward at Newcastle. IJA (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree - I think info on the position a player has is essential for this sort of list - it adds clarity in some cases towards the stats. EG - Alan Hodgkinson played 600+ times for Sheffield United but never scored a goal - why? Because he was a goalkeeper. Positions are used across pretty much every football article from player articles to seasons to lists to squads etc. Are we moving to remove all of them? Also the disparity between the two stats formats is odd I agree - but only Wikipedia articles seem to differentiate between league and other competitive matches which I have never understood. A player could (in theory) make only three league appearances but play in 100+ cup games for his club, including scoring a hat trick in the Champions League final (unlikely but possible) but on the 'league only' criteria he wouldn't be included in these 'list of notable players from club x articles'Bladeboy1889 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• But we've already agreed that 'list of notable players from club x articles' shouldn't be the name of the article. It should be done on appearances - in the domestic league. I mean, if we are including cups, where do we draw the line? GiantSnowman 17:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating that as a naming convention but was under the impression that a standard criteria of inclusion in such player lists (ie 100 apps) was expected? By having such a criteria doesn't it imply notability and thus the example I gave showing how limiting to league apps fails the premise of the article? That's a genuine question. As for line drawing - competitive matches is a simple one eg FA/FIFA etc sanctioned matches in a competitive competition thus excluding friendlies, testimonials etc. Obviously there's always argument to be had about what is competative but I get the feeling that the current system of league only was arrived at simply as a pragmatic way of not having to have those discussions rather than any 'correct' solution. As I said - it only seems to be wikipedia that ignores cup games. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with cup matches, and partly for international matches is that it is hard to find that data for players. Most first round cup games and qualifying rounds for international competitions are rather poorly sourced. Even for this season (if you exclude few top European leagues), just imagine how it would be to find data for some season 15 or 20 years ago. Although I would like to include all official matches into this, I just don't know how would be possible to find required data. Nightfall87 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the starts and subs bit, substitutions were only introduced in the 1960s, so I don't think that will be an issue, a recent list that was promoted to fl, List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances), deals with the position problem nicely. Personally, I think lists should follow the layout in that list. I also don't agree with only including league stats, this seem odd to me, as we are documenting all the players that played for the club, therefore those players who only made appearances in cup competitions wouldn't be included when they have obviously played for the club. I think the model laid out in the list I linked above is what should become the standard for these lists. NapHit (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the above comments seem to imply that such list should only include league appearances. If so, how come so many Featured Lists cover all matches; e.g.

• List of Arsenal F.C. players – "Appearance totals include matches in the Football League, Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, UEFA Champions League, UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and UEFA Cup"
• List of Aston Villa F.C. players – "players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club"
• List of Birmingham City F.C. players – "Total appearances comprise those in the Football Alliance, Football League (including test matches and play-offs), Premier League, FA Cup, Football League Cup, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup,Associate Members' Cup/Football League Trophy, and several now-defunct competitions including the Anglo-Italian Cup, Texaco Cup, Anglo-Scottish Cup and Full Members' Cup"
• List of Manchester United F.C. players – "Appearances are for first-team competitive matches only, including Premier League, Football League, FA Cup, League Cup, Charity/Community Shield, European Cup/Champions League, UEFA Cup, Cup Winners' Cup, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, Super Cup and Club World Cup matches". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, stuff existing on Wikipedia does not make it right. Secondly, because sources obviously exist to show that. Are the same stats available for every club, or do they not matter? GiantSnowman 19:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that sources are available for most clubs, looking at a lot of the lists most of the clubs have a book entitled the complete record, which would include all appearances made in all competitions, making it easy to cite. In regards to just including league appearances what makes it right to just include league appearances? Surely that is subjective, yes league appearances are only included in infoboxes, but the rest of the appearances are included in stats boxes at the bottom of the players articles. I don't think it would be particularly wise to omit european and cup appearances from these lists, because as I stated above, players who only made appearances in theses competitions would no longer warrant a place in the lists, yet they have clearly made an appearance for the club in a competitive match. NapHit (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if statistics for all competitions are available then they should be used. If they're not then you can state clearly that the records are for league matches only. There should be flexibility and I think that has always been the case. Different lists can have differing inclusion criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a good way of doing it is to separately include League apps/goals and Total apps/goals, as the Birmingham example above and a number of other club lists. Position information should be included, as long as its sourced. Eldumpo (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the ability to source data for certain teams / players - surely just because something may be difficult in some cases that is not a reason for not doing it at all? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between something being hard to source and something being impossible to source. GiantSnowman 09:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

But even if appearance data for cup games in Angola (country chosen at random) is unavailable - and I'd maintain that if someone flew to Angola and spent months researching in local archives it could be possible to find such information - that shouldn't mean that information about the FA Cup final is also precluded from such articles (where I'd argue preclusion implies lack of notability). As with the examples given above the aim could be to include all competitive matches if possible and as long as the article is explicit about what has been included and what has not it would remain valid. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there are significant stats available for the majority of clubs in England, for that reason I see no value to just including league appearances when the data for all other appearances is there. It would help if you provided an example of information that is hard to source rather than just sating that it is, so we can ascertain where you're coming from. NapHit (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Bradford Park Avenue A.F.C. players or List of Hamilton Academical F.C. players (both ongoing projects) - are there sources for cup appearances? For starts and subs? GiantSnowman 16:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

They will be out there you just have to look harder, books will list this information and I'm sure there will be stats sites with this info on. The point is though, if the information is available for a single club, why exclude it when its not available for another? You can't shoehorn, all the lists into one format because some clubs don't have all the information available. If the information is there and its reliably sourced then it should be included at the absence of standardisation. Looking at the majority of these lists that are featured most of them are different anyway, so i don't think a consensus will be reached over format. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the local newspapers for each would carry such info on a game by game basis, not an easy task to collate but not impossible. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Tony Brown's "Definitive" series of books does Bradford PA, available on a well-known bookselling site at a not unreasonable price. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I was inspired by this discussion to put together a List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players. I stuck it in for peer review if anyone wants to comment. Ta. U+003F^? 00:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think player's position in infobox should be basic Defender/Midfielder/Forward, while it should be expanded on in a Style of play section if and also in the lead. Also I agree that full stats for most players will be available somewhere and that most clubs will keep a record. I know that Celtic publish a list of all player's; appearances, subs and goals in all competitions and I'm sure that most other clubs will have similar lists. I still think its a bad idea to only have league apps in player infoboxes. I think it should be all apps and where the info is not available a note can be left explaining why. Adam4267 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

MLS Importance

I feel that the Major League Soccer should become a higher priority for this (High Importance). It's growing in popularity and the article for the league is sub-par as is the ones for its clubs. The article is ranked start-class and I feel that that is because it's ranked as importantly as it should be. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr7ftw3665 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to contribute --MicroX (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good, but we need it to go up from "mid-importance" to "high importance" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr7ftw3665 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Momo Coly

This article appears to be in a bit of a mess. Coly was down as having played five games for Leyton Orient, which is untrue, and I've removed it. I can't find any reference to this guy ever being at Orient at all. Maybe Leyton F.C.? Or maybe neither. Was he ever at Palace? I sense notability problems too, as none of the clubs he has apparently played for competes in a professional league. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Zombie created the article. Enough said. Probably passes WP:ATHLETE, but still needs to be looked at. – JS^{Rant Away} 23:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed all the English teams and went with the clubs that are listed here for now. J Mo 101 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A link [1] on this version [2],includes "It is Senegalese and comes from the English club Leyton Orient, French Ligue One of England. In addition, he has fought in Woking FC, Wealdstone FC, Crystal Palace and Noisy".Murry1975 (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Noisy :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Need some opinions regarding a FLC

I nominated Malmö FF in Europe for FLC (see here) on 23 December last year and it is still at FLC awaiting further input. I presume that the FL directors want further opinions before promoting or archiving it, it has currently two editors supporting it and none opposing it. I would be truly grateful if anyone wants to express their opinions to reach a consensus. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Would like to just bring this up now that we are discussing these "Clubs" in Europe articles. Should there be a category for these articles or a List page of all these "Clubs" in Europe? I know of the existence of Malmö FF in Europe, Real Madrid C.F. in Europe, FC Barcelona in Europe, Manchester City F.C. in European football, Manchester United F.C. in European football and A.C. Milan in European football. I also noted the inconsistency. --MicroX (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed quite recently at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Rosenborg BK in Europe/archive1. --Reckless182 (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There are Category:English football clubs in Europe and Category:Italian football clubs in Europe and their parent category Category:Football clubs in European football, to which I have added Category:Spanish football clubs in Europe. I have also added the Malmo and Rosenborg articles to the "parent" category. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Help

hi everybody, I have a situation here in AFC Futsal Club Championship page. One user is very persistent to add an unofficial tournament in the main table. in 2006 one trial tournament held link. I say an small explanation about this tournament somewhere in the page is enough, and this trial edition must not added to the main table. based on this link 2010 tournament was the first edition recognized by AFC. can anyone here help me and talk to this user, since he has personal problem with me and does opposite of what I say. I already reverted it 3 times and can't do it again tonight. Thanks in advance. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you haven't posted at the user's userpage or at the talkpage of the article. Why don't you use one or both of these methods to open a dialogue? - Cloudz679 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We already dicussed in my talkpage. but not in english, so you can't understand it. He thinks I'm stubborn and don't listen to my fact about official and trial tournaments. as an example, we already have a discussion here 1 and 2. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So why didn't you add a section history talking about the 2006 tourney then? That would be a good thing, whole article is basically unsourced besides that. But you just deleted the 2006 entry. -Koppapa (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaha Gold Cup player notability

Hello, I just want to know that if a player who does not have a wikipedia article yet plays in the Aaha Gold Cup would they then be considered notable being as they played in this tournament. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, playing in that tournament does not confer notability in my opinion. It's nothing more than an invitational friendly tournament with local and foreign clubs. TonyStarks (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya looking at the page now it seems that way. Thanks for clearing that up. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Most successful Spanish club"

Hi. A problem that seemed to have been sorted following a previous discussion has reared its ugly head again. It's basically an argument between Real Madrid and Barca fans about who should be described as Spain's "most successful" club. There is a ridiculous argument going on at Talk:Real Madrid C.F. right now. In my opinion, the articles should just list how many of each trophy the clubs have won, and to note whether that is a record (e.g. Real Madrid's 9 European Cup wins). It's plain and NPOV. Sadly, no-one is listening, and I was hoping that experienced WP:FOOTY editors could try and help out. Thanks. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• That will never stop as long as life exists on this planet (i can't imagine how the articles' situation in ES.WIKI must be!), just watch how the players and fans "have fun" in the Clasico. I could not agree with you more, plain and NPOV information (go tell that to the overzealous army of "fans" out there - and not just in Spain!). I would suggest limiting the articles to registered people, but from what i see the ongoing discussion is between precisely those, with threats of request for admin intervention to "go with it" :( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• As you've already intimated, the correct course of action here is simply to avoid subjective commentary like "most successful" entirely in favour of simply describing the achievements. The major problem here appears to be Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs)'s failure to get the point even after tag-team partner Crashwheelx (talk · contribs) was blocked. I can already tell you how this one plays out in the long run. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just mention that RM have won the league X amount of times and the Cup X amount of times, then mention that barca have won the league X amount of times and the Cup X amount of times. Then let the reader decide who they think is the most successful Spanish club. IJA (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, that's my position. Sadly the screaming arguments between (presumably) Barca and RM fans means that every time I suggest this it's ignored, and every time I make an edit to get to that state it is undone! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps write "Real Madrid is widely considered as the most successful team due to x trophies in these competitionsCr7ftw3665 (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's no improvement. Things seem to (currently) be stable with straight forward numbers. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox: national leagues

What is the guideline for the infobox for a national league if there are members of that league from outside the country of which the league is the national league?

Currently we have:

• League of Ireland, which states only "Republic of Ireland" in the infobox, although one of its members is from Northern Ireland;
• Scottish Football League Third Division, which states "Scotland (One team in England)";
• Premier League, which states "England; Wales";
• The Football League, which states "England; Wales";
• Ligue 2, which states "France; Monaco";
• Swiss Challenge League, which states "Switzerland; Liechtenstein]];
• A-League, which states "Australia, New Zealand"; and
• Major League Soccer, which states "United States (16 teams); Canada (3 teams)".

It seems, then, that League of Ireland is out of step. Presumably it should mention Northern Ireland in the infobox? Mooretwin (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there may be another anomaly: Welsh Premier League only refers to Wales in the infobox, although one of its members, The New Saints are based in England. Mooretwin (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Ireland + Wales should be brought in line with the other examples. GiantSnowman 14:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I must of been hoodwinked the last time this came up in regards to the League of Ireland. But if its wrong then its wrong. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The key question is what the 'country' parameter is supposed to be showing, rather than simply counting its current usage in the infoboxes. Is it supposed to be recording the 'country' in which the league is based, or the country whose FA oversees the league, or the country(ies) whose teams compete in the league? Should the 'country' field be renamed? Should there be a secondary field added for those leagues who have teams from more than one country? Whatever the decision text needs to be added to the template doc. Eldumpo (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go along the lines of what happens in MLS and SD3. A league with teams from other countries probably should mention this, but should also make clear that it is predominantly based in one country. —WFC— 12:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My view is that the infobox should state the country of which the league is the national league, and put in brackets any other countries in which are based any league members, e.g. "Republic of Ireland (one team from Northern Ireland)". Mooretwin (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What about having a part saying country and another part saying other countries below that.C. 22468 Talk to me 10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Also it it appropriate to use a Welsh flag for Cardiff and Swansea as they are now practically English clubs now as they are under full jurisdiction of the (English) FA.C. 22468 Talk to me 00:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I can recall of policy and guidelines, I'm not sure if we should ever use any flag for any club. I'm open to being corrected though. —WFC— 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I think he means the flag that goes next to Wales in the infobox under 'Countries'. DemonJuice (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A match where both teams lose

See UEFA Euro 1968 qualifying#Group 3. There it claims, citing no source, that the Austria vs Greece match was "abandoned at 83' because of fans disturbance in the stadium" and "declared void by the UEFA decision". The standings table does not take into account the goals from that game, but regards both Austria and Greece as having lost it, and thus it is claiming that there were a total of 9 victories against a total of 11 defeats in the group. Meanwhile the German and the French Wikipedias do not take into account that match at all, leaving each of Austria and Greece one match short, with the German one also saying that the match was abandoned and subsequently annulled. However, the UEFA reports for the qualifying group and for the specific game say nothing of that kind, and account the game as an ordinary 1–1 draw. What shall we do? --Theurgist (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess it was annulled in 1967 but then treated as a ordinary draw some years later, as the outcome didn't matter anywhere. Haven't found a source though. -Koppapa (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go along with the RSSSF, which does the same thing as the French and German Wikipedias [3]. —WFC— 22:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

UEFA.com treats the result as a draw. [4] and [5] TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(those are the same two links Theurgist gave above). The reason I'm leaning towards RSSSF is that UEFA have a potential interest in retrospectively sweeping fan disturbance under the carpet, given that the result wouldn't have mattered anyway. I'm not necessarily saying this is what did happen, but it is a possibility and therefore a relevant factor when weighing up the strength of conflicting sources. By contrast, the RSSSF have no potential vested interest, and are asserting that UEFA declared the match void. —WFC— 04:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If the match was declared void then it should not be included in the table at all. Treating both teams as having lost makes no sense at all, I've never seen a voided match treated that way...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a German source stating it was void. Wonder where the attendance figures come from, they are not in the UEFA reference nor in RSSSF. The amtch in question lists 31,000 while the reference i added states about 60,000 spectators. -Koppapa (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is excluded now, Koppapa edited the page. Speaking of the topic, would it make sense if we highlighted the group winners of the 1968, 1972 and 1976 qualifying pages with the colour that we normally use for teams proceeding to a play-off round instead of the green that we use for direct qualifiers (see the legend)? Back then, group winners proceeded to a quarterfinals stage, which was still a part of the qualifying process. --Theurgist (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd keep it this way. In any football tourney, green just means qualified to next stage of competition.-Koppapa (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

small question

Is the 2012 AFC Women's Asian Cup awarded yet? Qualificaion matches should start in April 2012 (when you add 2 years to the first match played in the last edition). -Koppapa (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on the AFC website or on Google. However, this link mentions the AFC Women's Asian Cup 2014, maybe it will be held every 4 years now? TonyStarks (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that sure reads like next edition is 2014. -Koppapa (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I would imagine so. Given that we're in February 2012, it's highly unlikely that they would have one this year without any information being available yet. TonyStarks (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Adebayo Akinfenwa

An attempt at WP:RFP would probably be fruitless due to the article never quite reaching the short term threshold usually required there. Instead I'm asking here whether we should consider long term semi protection. I see no net benefit to leaving it unprotected. —WFC— 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that, even though the IP who recently went on a vandalism spree has been blocked for a year. I can see him socking though - as he may already have done. GiantSnowman 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've semi'd it for three months - its clearly a long-term vandalism target. I did enjoy some of the "beast" videos on Youtube though. Number 57 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot for updating stats.

I don't really know much about bots on wiki but would it be feasible to have one which would automatically update a player's stats on the season page, player infobox, career stats etc. If possible I think it would be good because it would cut out a lot of time spent doing that. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

List of IFFHS top scorers

I notice that this page is back, following a previous deletion. I don't know what's best to do about this, could someone point me in the right direction? U+003F^? 16:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted it via WP:CSD and blocked the user in question for sockpuppetry. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ghana national football team

Apart from it being a messy article, I came across a section which I thought was disputable, the "top goalscorers" section. Initially, it looked like this... no references and it also only included recent players, so I removed the section saying so. User:MarkMysoe who was responsible for adding the section and is a regular editor on the article, put the section back with few changes. Sources say that Abedi Pele (33) and Tony Yeboah (29) are the top two scorers for Ghana. Asamaoah Gyan just scored his 28th goal the other night against Mali in the Nations Cup, making him third. Apart from them, MarkMysoe lists other players, recent-ish I might add, but only used national-football-teams.com as his source. That would be fine to reference their goal tally, however I've tried telling him that it doesn't state if that player is the 4th, 5th, 10th, etc. in Ghana's leading scorers list. He says NFT is accurate and all that and I've come to the point where I'm getting fed up trying to explain this situation to him. His latest reply just proves how stubborn (and arrogant?) he is. A little help would be nice. The "player drain to other countries" section is a bit dodgy as well. I guess MarkMysoe was the one who added it? Banana Fingers (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think national-football-teams.com is a reliable source. It's a self-published football statistics website by a group of people. Even their FAQ page looks like someone's personal website. According to WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:USERGENERATED, self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I don't think they've publicly reveal who the editors responsible for the statistics and where they gathered the statistics from. Therefore there is no way for us to know whether these editors have previously been published by reliable third-party publications or not. Even though their statistics are correct for most players, there are some obvious errors found in NFT. For example: 1) Compare Zinedine Zidane's international appearances in 1996 and 2000 from NFT (13 and 12), French FA (12 and 13) and RSSSF (12 and 13). 2) Compare Thierry Henry's total international appearances in NFT (122), FIFA (123), French FA (123) and RSSSF (123). These are only two examples and there are plenty more errors that I've found. Based on these, I don't think NFT qualify as WP:RS. — MT (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding NFT, here are their contributors. Regarding French players, there was a thread on here not long ago regarding Anelka's international stats - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 62#Anelka - International goals - where it was explained (by yourself no doubt) that certain matches are not official but, due to the stubborness of the French FA, FIFA has accepted them in their records, whereas NFT has obviously not. GiantSnowman 16:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, my point is, NFT did not follow the French FA or FIFA statistics, which means they fail to acknowledge the official statistics from these regulatory organizations. The contributors listed there doesn't seem to have anything published in reliable third-party publications, therefore, according to WP:SELFPUBLISH, NFT fails as reliable source. Regarding Ghana's team, NFT also made an error on their leading scorer, Abedi Pele. According to NFT he only has 31 caps and 11 goals, while FIFA listed him with 67 caps and 33 goals. I haven't had the time to check Yeboah's stats or the other players, but how does a self-published website that did not acknowledge official statistics, has plenty of errors and probably does not have complete statistics, can be considered a reliable source. — MT (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The "contributors" page appears to list people the site's owner has thanked for their support and help. Some of them are reputable names, but "support and help" doesn't constitute contribution of significant amount of content. The FAQ page makes it very clear the site is someone's personal website. And as Martin says, one with limited content and no evidence of where the information comes from or what standards of fact-checking apply. Not sure where that gets us with the Ghana problem, though... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

NFT is still the best source for a lot of players and countries. For a lot of African players, it's almost impossible to find the information the site provides. Some stats might be a missing, a game or two a year for smaller countries, but for the most part, the site does a great job. When no other option is available, I don't see a problem in using NFT. It might not be 100% accurate, but as long as it's not overstating stats I don't have any qualms with using it as a reference. TonyStarks (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Player Drain To Other Countries looks very much like WP:OR], and has a bit of a WP:POV feel to it too. I have tried removing this section in the past noting my concern, but another editor disagreed with my assessment. Plenty of other nations (particularly African ones) have eligible players who chose other nations, don't think Ghana is especially notable for this. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That whole section should be deleted. Like you said, its original research and frankly it's completely irrelevant to the Ghana national team article. Delete it.

Agreed, as the B & R elements of WP:BRD have happened, now is time to D - so let's take it to the article talk page please. GiantSnowman 11:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that Soccerway is reliable, but they don't backdate their information (yet). TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fabio Capello

Just a heads up that the resignation of Capello by immediate effect will likely to bring lots of edits - of course cleanup may be required. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A good thing would be to protect the page. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been done already. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Might be worth working on Harry Redknapp article.--EchetusXe 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for 1 month, until all this dies down - or at least I hope I have. A more experienced admin might want to check I've not made a boo-boo as it's my first attempt at a page protection... GiantSnowman 11:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Tony Kempster website

Just wondering if the non-league football season archives on the Tony Kempster website pass WP:RS. It's a very useful site with lots of info that isn't available anywhere else, particularly for the lower leagues. If this reference can't be used is there an alternative? Thanks. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely say so. Kempster was very highly regarded in non-League circles (he was a VIP guest at an FA Trophy final, and had tributes paid to him by Supporters Direct amongst others, who noted that "His site was a resource that gave crucial information to thousands and thousands of fans". The site also won the "Annual Services to Supporters" award given by the Football Supporters' Federation). He sourced much of his information directly from the leagues (from what I remember, league secretaries e-mailed him the results in many cases). There was also oversight via the attached forum, where mistakes were reported and several club websites used to link to his site for information. Number 57 21:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus, I've used it several times to reference articles. Number 57 21:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Tony also wrote for either the NLP or the other non-league paper that no longer exists, so was clearly well regarded in journalistic circles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That website appears to be for sale. Is that the right link? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/ Number 57 21:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some task

There is one task: User:Pakhtakorienne doesn't tag his created pages, so... --84.245.231.134 (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it that important? Who cares about the levels anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree Koppapa that the point of the project is to improve football-related articles? If we can't find them, we can't improve them... Cloudz679 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a part of the Project, yes, but only a minor one. A better idea would have been to assume good faith - the editor in question probably doesn't know that that is expected; I have now advised them of this. GiantSnowman 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged nine recent pages that the user created, just in case. Cloudz679 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, appreciated. GiantSnowman 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Match articles and the OVERUSE OF CAPITALS

Hey project. I've noticed that in a number of match articles which feature team lineups etc, we seem content to use the team names three times, one of which is usually in capitals. I don't see the point in this at all, so unless otherwise advised, I would advocate we just don't do it. For instance, see the edit I made here. Both Zenit and Rangers are mentioned above (in the score summary) and below (under the kit description). Do we really need ZENIT and RANGERS below those? Also, why is the score in the final spaced (e.g. 2 – 0) while all other instances of score lines in the article unspaced? Consistency please... Note: I've changed a few, but will change all the others (and there are many!) unless there's a consensus against it... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The score in the {{footballbox}} template is spaced because it looks silly unspaced. – PeeJay 21:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay, so it looks "silly" in the template if unspaced but the rest of all the prose everywhere else is unspaced. I think your argument is silly. MOS suggests unspaced en-dashes. Why should this be any different? And actually, the template doesn't put a pair of spaces in, that's just down to the user. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The MOS suggests unspaced endashes in prose; the footballbox template isn't prose, so the same rules need not apply. It really does look truly ridiculous to have the score unspaced in the footballbox, especially when there's so much whitespace around it. – PeeJay 21:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So you'd go just one single scoreline in an entire article spaced? Where's the logic in that? "Truly ridiculous"? Really? Your only argument is that "it looks silly"? And it doesn't "look silly" in the prose, but it "looks silly" in the summary? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would. Consistency is fine, but we're after a good-looking encyclopaedia here (as well as being factually accurate), and you can call it my own subjective opinion if you want, but I do think it looks silly to have the score unspaced in the footballbox template. – PeeJay 21:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So your argument is 100% fundamentally subjective to the point of "I like it better than that"? Well considering all other score lines in all articles use an unspaced en-dash, I would suggest your "good looking" encyclopaedia argument is ill-founded. I like Comic Sans (who doesn't?) but I don't insist on imposing it on all articles that I like. That's why we have a manual of style and why we should strive for consistency in our article formatting. Not "because I like it", more "because it fits the style guide the entire project is based upon". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen many other people complaining about the use of spaces in the template before, so that would suggest that a fair few people here have no problem with it. TBH, your argument is very similar to my own in that you seem to prefer it aesthetically unspaced. Nevertheless, I suggest you leave the spaces as they were until some other people comment in this discussion. – PeeJay 21:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. Why have every single score in an article unspaced bar one? It's not a template issue either, it's just the fact that some spaces have been added. The template is free text so it is very easy to make it align with the MOS and align with the rest of every single article per WP:DASH. Of course, if you could offer an objective argument why the only scoreline in an article to use spaced en-dashes is good and fine, I'm happy to hear it. There are many dozens (maybe hundreds) of articles like this with just one single spaced scoreline, with unspaced score lines in the infobox in the lead, unspaced score lines in the body of the text, and just one single spaced scoreline in the summary. Why is that a good idea for a professional, consistently formatted encyclopaedia? You don't seem to have any substantive argument other than "I like it that way". Unless I've missed something? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TRM on this they should be unspaced, it is inconsistent, and goes against MOS. I changed this in a few of the articles I got to GA a while back, but by the looks of it, those edits were reverted, based on the argument Peejay states above. I also agree the use of team names above the players should be scrapped, it's overkill having the names repeated three times in close succession. NapHit (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing I can find in the MOS that suggests it applies only to prose. The advice to editors in this older version of MOS:DASH (that isn't there any more, but the point still applies) "Editors should consider recasting complex measures; particularly where space is not at a premium (i.e. body text and not tables)" (my highlighting) made it explicit that it does apply outside prose. Personally, I do use unspaced endashes in scorelines in order to comply with the MoS. And have reverted changes to spaced where the changer cited the instructions at Template:Footballbox_collapsible#Usage. The matter was raised some time ago at Template talk:Football box/Archive 1#WP:ENDASH, and appeared to come to the conclusion that the template wasn't MoS-compliant and should be be made so, but it was never done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's inconsistent yeah, but there are other bigger things in WP:Sports in general that don't fit with MOS. Date ranges in season articles according to WP:YEAR should be separated by a slash rather than an endash as they are periods of 12 months, not 2 years. I personally prefer the endash use as it fits with all other date ranges used in, for example, birth–death ranges or career ranges on football player articles. But yeah, MOS seems to be quite flexible at times. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well just because other articles don't fit with MOS, it doesn't mean they're right. We, as a project, should do our best to produce a professional set of articles, which means going with the MOS wherever possible and producing internally consistent formatting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like everyone is agreed that the USE OF CAPS should be deprecated. That's a good start. Cloudz679 10:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm absolutely certain that User:Tony1 has raised the issue of spaces within football templates before. I'm not particularly bothered about the MOS on dashes, but whether we comply with it or not, I do agree with the argument for internal consistency within individual articles. —WFC— 20:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So, are we heading towards a consensus to (a) remove the repetitive and over-capitalised team names and (b) at least maintain an internally consistent format to scorelines e.g. either all unspaced en-dashes or spaced en-dashes or whatever? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I believe that there's a reasonable argument now to remove the overcapitalised team names and make sure internally that score lines are consistent. I will commence a sweep tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Africa Cup of Nations - statistics

The table at Africa Cup of Nations#Overall team records (permanent link), which currently takes into account tournaments up to and including 2010, is obviously wrong because there is a difference of one goal between the total goals scored and the total goals conceded. I dug out all the match results from the articles on the past tournaments and, using MS Ecxel, I calculated the records of each team - and several errors in that table showed up. While there's no guarantee I haven't mistaken anything, there is not a single difference between my results and de:Fußball-Afrikameisterschaft#Ewige Tabelle (permanent link) - except that it gives 29 losses to Algeria instead of 20, but that looks more like a typo than an error in the calculations. Both tables will require updating tomorrow. Shall I change the figures in Africa Cup of Nations according to my calculations? --Theurgist (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If your table is right and the original table is wrong then yeah, go nuts.--EchetusXe 14:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it not be WP:OR though? Since it's the users work and unreferenced? Although I do agree that it should be updated .. TonyStarks (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I did edit the table. I double-checked the figures, and I'll be watching it from now on. The version prior to my edit wasn't referenced either, and data that is unreferenced but almost certainly correct is preferable to data that is both unreferenced and mathematically impossible. On the one hand this is original research, but on the other it's pure 'rithmetics. --Theurgist (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ghana doesn't add up: 96-59 is not +38. -Koppapa (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem is these tables are really hard too keep track of and the meaning of them is very little. Many all-time tables were proded and deleted for that very reason. I linked two sources in the article, both are consistent in number of wins/losses, and goal difference by itself. They differ however slightly. RSSSF is only up to 2006 and has 1116:1116 goals, which should now be 1116 + 99 + 71 + 76 = 1362:1362. the-sports.com has 1366:1366. The OR-wikipedia one is now, with 76 added from 2012, 1364:1363. I'd say either find which is right (if even possible) and follow that one, or delete that section completely. -Koppapa (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I did correct Ghana, but someone found it nice to undo my edit. --Theurgist (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of updating it to reflect 2012. Again, it perfectly coincided with the German Wikipedia, except for a couple of technical errors there which I also corrected.

I think the-sports.org may have mixed up the two Congos somewhere.

DR Congo

	Apps	Pld	W	D	L	GD	+/−
the-sports.org	13	50	16	14	20	62:70	−8
RSSSF	15	56	16	15	25	64:80	−16
me and the German WP	15	56	16	15	25	65:81	−16

Congo

	Apps	Pld	W	D	L	GD	+/−
the-sports.org	8	28	5	7	16	24:45	−21
RSSSF	6	22	5	6	11	21:34	−13
me and the German WP	6	22	5	6	11	21:34	−13

Apart from that, the-sports.org gives one more goal in favour of each of Tunisia and Ethiopia and one more goal against each of Nigeria and South Africa than I managed to calculate. --Theurgist (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Years in European association football navigational boxes

Does anyone know why the templates in Category:Years in European association football navigational boxes all have a "(UEFA)" suffix? Even if the type of football was considered ambiguous (which I don't think it is for these navboxes) "UEFA" is not a code of football. --Jameboy (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Previous CfDs have concluded that "English football" is sufficient to identify the sport without further disambiguation. I suspect a similar nomination for "European football" would result in a similar outcome. —WFC— 13:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like UEFA is used as a constraint (used only for countries which are UEFA members), which is not exactly the same as Europe. So it looks like UEFA is defining Europe, not football. Cloudz679 13:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cloudz is exactly right. Since "Europe" is not the same geographically as it is in footballing terms, the "UEFA" suffix merely serves to define the scope of the templates. – PeeJay 00:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Years in UEFA football then? -Koppapa (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to change something that doesn't seem to be broken. I say leave it. – PeeJay 10:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment backlog

I noticed that at the Requests for assessment, there are two articles (Northwich Victoria F.C. and 2010-11 Juventus F.C. season) which have been waiting more than one year for an assessment. There are five more which have been there more than six months. These are Mansfield Town F.C., History of Mansfield Town F.C., List of American and Canadian soccer champions, 1903 German football championship and FC Nordsjælland. If anyone has time to assess them, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. - Cloudz679 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Mattythewhite for blitzing the entire list in one go! Cloudz679 17:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:UEFA Champions League seasons

Aren't the Knockout phase, Second group stage, Group stage, and Qualifying rounds rather excessive?--EchetusXe 20:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd delete all but season and final. Everthing else is easily accesssed though the main season article. -Koppapa (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Second that. Considering the competition format has changed a jillion times, would be best to delete all bar final and season. – Lemonade51 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangers

Just a heads-up, Rangers have announced an intention to enter administration. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangers have now entered adminstration and will be deducted 10 points. I'm guessing the 2011–12 SPL table needs to be updated and anyone with time to add the administration bit into the Rangers article should do so. – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

James Jennings

Would someone mind casting an eye over James Jennings? An editor insists on readding unsourced information and unlicened images, claiming that the details have come from the article's subject. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Jacopo Sala (footballer)

Could a sysop please move Jacopo Sala (footballer) to Jacopo Sala? The latter was salted back in 2010, but the player has since made his professional debut in Germany and the article was created with the disambiguator. Jared Preston (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Jared Preston (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom football derbies

I think there are a number of derby articles linked at this template which may not be notable. I've glanced at a few and they don't appear to demonstrate the derby has sufficient coverage, as opposed to just listing matches that have been played. Particular examples include M4 derby, Humber derby (check out the use of colour) and South Lancashire derby. The parent article at the top of template appears to contain many other such 'derbies'. Any other views? Eldumpo (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, this is purely from life experience and anecdotal evidence and not backed up by sources, but I, too, struggle to see how the M4 derby is notable, especially as there's no article for Swindon's (much fiercer) rivalry with Oxford. On a related note, This and this are a mess, both in terms of sourcing and consistency. Perhaps Local derbies in the United Kingdom could be split into four articles and a link thereto could be left at List of association football club rivalries by country and the relevant section blanked.  Omg †  osh  13:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that it contains derbies from the top 2 divisions in each country (possible 3for England) and that new pages be created for all the derbies in each country eg- English football derbies and Scottish football derbies etc. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It should only contain derbies that can be shown to be notable. The tier is not important. I suspect that Luton v Watford is far more notable than Swindon v Reading (agree that their derby is with Oxford Utd) despite Luton now being in the fifth tier of English football. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I of course would be biased to comment on the Watford derby's notability in isolation, but agree with the point Ilikeeatingwaffles is making. The important thing is to take into account a derby's current and historical importance, not the size of the clubs involved or the current or historical level at which it is played. I'd say for instance that the Bradford derby was notable in its time, even though it's of little relevance to either club today. Despite being between two massive clubs, Arsenal-Chelsea is more borderline in my eyes. Arsenal have historically seen Spurs as their main rivals, and their second has generally been the most successful team of the time from the North West. Chelsea would usually put Spurs, West Ham and the other teams in Hammersmith ahead of the Gooners. (EDIT: I forgot to mention Millwall, but no-one cares about them and they don't like it —WFC— 16:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC))

I'm also dubious of "circumstantial" derbies: ties between two clubs that have no obvious reason to be considered a derby other than the fact that they happened to be successful at the same time and have one or two high-profile matches. Specifically I'm thinking Chelsea-Leeds and Arsenal-Manchester United. —WFC— 15:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose me standardising everything in this category to 'Association football rivalries in X'?  Omg †  osh  17:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean WP:CFD to 'Association football rivalries in England' etc.? GiantSnowman 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with consistent use of the "(appropriate name of the sport) in (country)" format, although not necessarily using "association football" universally. While we're on this subject, I think Category:United Kingdom football derbies should be deleted. The one article in it can just go in Category:Association football rivalries. —WFC— 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to completely disagree and say that the template is fine as is. It's a template to navigate across different derby matches. If the derby match is notable enough to have a page, then why not contain it in the template for completeness. Brad78 (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

LFC in Europe FAC

Hey guys the article Liverpool F.C. in European football has been at FAC for a while now and has only had reviews from two users. I would be extremely grateful if anyone could have a look at the article and give a few comments, cheers NapHit (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about templates

Hello, I have just a quick question regarding how to change the way a template works. Here's the issue:

• {{fbw|ASA}} should link to the American Samoa women's national football team, however when I put it in an article, it comes out like this American Samoa, instead showing the men's national team. Can anyone tell me how to fix this problem? Thanks in advance, --Spartan008 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Might be it was this addition other countries don't have taht parameter. -Koppapa (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's right, as USA has the parameter too, and {{fbw|USA}} works fine United States. U+003F^? 11:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a FYI, that addition was done upon a request of mine. I didn't think that would do anything wrong, because I hadn't thought of the American Samoa women's team. Template:Country data United States has a "United States {{{age|}}} {{{mw|men's}}} national soccer team" value for the {{{link alias-football}}} parametre. Maybe this would be the correct addition for the American Samoa template too. I'm not sure though... --Theurgist (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which names are correct, but for American Samoa and Samoa football team articles, the naming convention should really be standardized to either all use "national association" or just "national" in the titles so these templates can work for any instance without creating redirects. So that everyone knows, American Samoa uses "national association" for men's but not women's and Somoa uses "national association" for both. However, both use just "national" for the "under-nn" links in their navboxes (the pages aren't actually created yet). The simplest thing to do is move the American Samoa's women's article to use "national association" and update the redlinks in the navboxes, since that's just one page move. Then both countries' templates can use the |link alias-football= parameter set up like some of the other countries' country data templates. Just need a consensus on the appropriate naming. — Bility (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your course of action in order to solve the problem. --Spartan008 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree but ... is it possible to change the value of the alias to get a temporary (but quick) solution to the problem? I don't understand the intricacies of these templates. U+003F^? 10:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've already proposed a solution at the template talk page that will work, only it creates redirects in the case of American Samoa men's football. This note was to suggest some football experts clean up a title standardization issue—we'll take care of the template functionality. — Bility (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Petko Vasilev

can someone check this article? someone is continuously trying to remove all the references and change it to another individual with a different birth date. I can't tell if any of these corrections are legit. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone already reverted, but I went to the talk page of the user and it looks like he is trying to create an article for a different player. I've left him some information at his talk page, so hopefully the original page will now be ok. - Cloudz679 15:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I just noteced an equal case with Aleksandar Vuković, where the page was sistematically blanked so another (btw, non-notable) player content is put in place... FkpCascais (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fan Chun Yip

The years in the infobox for Fan Chun Yip don't add up. The infobox says that he played for Hong Kong from 1998 to 2008 and for Hong Kong U-23 from 2005 to 2006. That would mean that he played his first senior international 7 years before his national youth team debut. But since he was born in 1976, it would also mean that he made his U-23 debut at age 29. Which obviously is impossible. Most likely explanation is that the years should be reversed, that he played for Hong Kong U-23 from 1998 to 2008 and for Hong Kong in 2005 and 2006. But that is also impossible. Because it would mean that he played his last U-23 match in 2008, at age 32. Does anyone know the real dates? 83.80.170.157 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears he played football at the 2006 Asian Games. Now I don't know about the Asian Games, but I presume each team is allowed to nominate three "over-age" players, similar to football at the Summer Olympics. Jared Preston (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

International football match titles

Is this projects naming standard for international matches "Country A v Country B (Year)"? I ask because I came across an article at WP:GAN with that format and initially thought it was a mistake. It looked like it should be an article on some legal case. If this is the convention I would be surprised if it met WP:Title as it is not recognisable or unambiguous. It at least needs "match" added to it to turn it into a proper descriptive title. AIRcorn (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe that article's even at GAN, it basically just recounts the wacky story of the deliberate own goal and doesn't tell us anything else about the game - only 3 of the 22+ players involved are even named! There's no way this is the depth of coverage I would expect to see in a GA, and in fact if this is all that reliable sources tell us about the game I'm curious as to why it even needs its own article separate from that on the overall tournament..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

For reference - the article in question is Barbados v Grenada (1994), and it was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 62#Notability for matches. GiantSnowman 20:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus at the previous thread mentioned above was if there were enough details, then the article could be created. It passes GNG. The article does have enough detail about the game. Reading the article 1994 Caribbean Cup, seeing paragraphs of information on one game made me think that it was out of place. Why does one match get paragraphs and the others just a score? To me, the article is a legitimate encyclopedia entry. About the title, see England v United States (1950), England v Ireland (1949), England v Hungary (1953), Scotland v England (1872), and Scotland v Wales (1876). BCS (Talk) 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

While it is going into a bit of a tangent I will take the opportunity to request more interested editors to review football articles at GA. One of the requirements is broad coverage and members of this project are probably in the best position to assess this. The sport category is almost always backlogged and there are usually a few football topics waiting review. I would be more than willing to help anyone with their first few reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to the title. I realise other articles are titled this way, but that doesn't mean they aren't wrong as well and that is why I brought it up here. I don't think it meets WP:title, but this is just an outsider opinion and I won't be changing anymore titles or monitoring new ones. If there is a relatively recent previous discussion deciding on this format then fine, otherwise it may be worth doing so here. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If the example titles are wrong then why have none been moved except for Scotland v Wales (1876) once in 2010? Some pages have been around for four to six years now without any argument about the name. Therefore, the name abides by the consistency bullet at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (which is the same page as WP:TITLE). BCS (Talk) 22:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Because certain articles get more attention than others here. As I said above the only reason I know this one exists is because it was nominated for WP:GA. Consistency is good, but can easily be achieved by changing the other titles (there are not that many[6]). What is important is that I have raised an argument now, so unless it has been discussed within the last year it is perfectly valid to discuss it now. AIRcorn (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay put in a requested move at Talk:Barbados v Grenada (1994)#Requested move to get some more opinions. On a side note, I don't know what your inclusion criteria is, but some (especially England v Rest of the World (1963) look a bit suspect notability wise. AIRcorn (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion needs more input. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• As a result of discussion at Talk:1994 Barbados vs Grenada football match#Requested move the pages have been moved as requested. Example format is 1994 Barbados vs Grenada football match which covers ambiguity of sports involved and that it is a match and not a season or series. I will assume that this applies to the international matches and not clubs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Would 1994 Barbados v Grenada Caribbean Cup qualification match not be a better title. Seeing as football match is a fairly ambiguous term and doesn't tell the reader what competition it is. Adam4267 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding representative league appearances to infoboxes

I started a post on this topic a little while back, whereby I queried the addition of representative appearances (e.g. at Billy Steel) to the infobox. There were a number of comments made, but the discussion ended without agreement. There are four main approaches that I can see:

1. Amend the 'National Teams' section of the infobox to say 'Representative Teams', so that the heading would allow for the inclusion of these League XIs.
2. Add new coding to the infobox to allow a new 'Representative Teams' section to cover these appearances i.e. this would be in addition to the National Teams section, and representative apps should move to the new section.
3. Remove all instances of these matches from the infobox.
4. Allow inclusion of these games without any additional labelling i.e. as the Billy Steel example.

It may be there are other solutions. Can you indicate your preference so we can take things forward. Whatever the outcome the template doc will need to be updated accordingly. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with the third one: "Remove all instances of these matches from the infobox." I don't see any reason why we should include these in the infobox, especially considering it only applies to a select few players (among the tens of thousands of footballers out there), whereas club and international football apply to every footballer. I suggest you add the information to the body of the article with a stats table similar to the national team one.TonyStarks (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I take the opposite view - that representative appearances should be included in the infobox. Of the "tens of thousands" of footballers, the percentage with any form of international appearance is quite low, so that argument is a non-starter. Personally, I would rank the options in order 1, 2, 4 (never 3). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Third one for me. The infobox is a quick way to find out about league club and international team appearances. Any appearances of another sort, e.g. World XI, matches against Hong Kong which don't count as FIFA-recognised matches, etc can be integrated into the main article, with the stats table similar to the national team one if absolutely necessary. "Representative Teams" is too PC for me. Cloudz679 06:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think they should be included. Although I don't see any major problems with 1, 2 or 4. I think option two would be the best to make it as clear as possible. Edinburgh Wanderer 08:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh Wanderer Mobile (talk • contribs)

I would prefer option 4, and if not then option 2 - the seperation of 'International' and 'Representative' in the infobox, just as we have seperate sections for 'Youth' and 'College' career.... GiantSnowman 09:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd not mention them, they are just friendlies. Most stars play a last goodby-friendly agaisnt a world 11 or national 11 or league 11 with their frieds. Should those all be included? -Koppapa (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Option number 4 is easier. Lets go with that.--EchetusXe 09:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Kangaroo, what I meant by "tens of thousands", I meant that these League XI's are only used by a select few countries and only at a select point in time (if I'm not mistaken). Therefore, this issue only applies to maybe a hundred footballers. I really don't see how we can justify adding that to the infobox. According to this template , only 9 such teams exist, and half don't even have articles. On the flip side of my earlier comment, when I said tens of thousands, I meant that every single football has the potential to represent his country, meaning every footballer is "affected", that is not the case with these Select sides. Long story short, I'm completely against it and it makes absolutely no sense to me to include these. But as is usually the case, our euro-centric approach to football related matters will probably push this through. TonyStarks (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I will go for number 3 mainly because, like some other users pointed out, these matches are just friendlies and most of the time are just testimonials or charity games. Also if we add the representative caps it would make notable articles, like Gary Neville, Patrick Vieira, Robert Pirès etc have the wrong information as all three of those players were in the Paul Scholes testimonial which was a match between Manchester United and the New York Cosmos. These three players were on the Cosmos for that match. Does that mean we should add New York Cosmos 1 (0) to the infobox? I would hope not.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think people are misunderstanding what we mean by "representative" - not just any old charity/friendly match, but official league teams, such as Scottish League XI and Irish League representative team. GiantSnowman 12:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not official. They are friendlies, albeit organized by the leagues themselves. They are not FIFA sanctioned matches, they don't fall under club or country, they are just gala matches, no different than "Zidane's friends vs Ronaldo's friends" friendly that took a place a couple years back. TonyStarks (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You've kinda contradicted yourself there - officially sanctioned by the league is waaaay different to Zidane getting his jet-setting mates to play 90mins for his charitable foundation. GiantSnowman 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the contradiction? At the end of the day, they are both gala matches, the teams are just assembled differently. TonyStarks (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Option 4 is fine, it's clear enough from the text of each article what the term means. There is an awful lot of recentism in the argument that the inter-league internationals aren't important. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for option 4 as well. BigDom 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 4 would be my first option actually - have clarified my earlier comments. GiantSnowman 15:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I would support 4 in the absence of sufficient support for 3. Cloudz679 17:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a weak preference for 3. While I do accept that these games were significant, IMO trying to put them in the infobox is more trouble than it's worth. If we are doing this, I think it should be options 1 or 2. I'm strongly opposed to 4: I don't think we should inaccurately label these matches as internationals in the name of simplicity (especially when it would be simpler not to have them in the infobox at all). —WFC— 23:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary

Most people have provided reasoning for their choice, and there is a slight preference for removing over keeping them without changes, with a couple of people choosing the 'extra labelling' options. Given that these are to a degree a halfway position between keeping/removing, what do people think about choosing one of these as the way forward, in order to try and achieve overall consensus. If you haven't already provided your order of preference, which of the two labelling options do you prefer (Option 1 or 2), and do you agree that trying to progress with one of these is the best way forward, given the outcome. Eldumpo (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Cup notability

I was just wondering if a player who appeared in the qualifying rounds of the UEFA Cup (now Europa League) qualifies as notable. I had always assumed that it was a fully pro competition but there's nothing to confirm that on the article or here. Does anyone know? BigDom 20:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My experience is that it does not grant notability. Over the past two years, I've nomminated for deletion some 20 articles on footballers whose primary claim to notability was having played in the qualifying rounds of the UEFA Cup, Europa League or Champions League. All of them were deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks for the reply. I think the player in question, Thierry Steimetz, will be notable come the weekend anyway as he should make his Ligue 2 debut. Was just wondering because he played (and scored) in the UEFA Cup for Grevenmacher a few years ago during his time in Luxembourg. BigDom 20:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely if they are both fully pro teams and its a notable competition it would. Could you explain why it wouldn't.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:NFOOTY says nothing about this, but my impression is that if a player appears for a fully pro team against another fully pro team (or was it only when two teams from FPL's? meet) in a cup match, they are notable. Not if one of the team are not fully professional.Mentoz86 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is true, there are literally hundreds of Irish footballers whose articles could/should be deleted. BigDom 21:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel if its a notable competition like Uefa/Europa league which does receive heavy coverage then they should be notable especially if they are pro teams.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that any UEFA qualifying match receives as much media (be it local, national or even continental) coverage as say, an English League 2 or German 3. Liga match, players in both of which are considered notable. BigDom 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case, particularly in the early rounds in which you can have clubs from the Faroes and Andorra playing each other. But back to the original question, I was under the impression that any competitive appearance for a club in an FPL (league or cup) confers notability, even if the opposition is semi-pro (so, for instance, someone making their Liverpool debut against a Conference team in the FA Cup would meet the spirit of WP:ATHLETE, if not the letter of the law. To EW, the reason why cup matches between two fully pro clubs does not count, is that they might both be from non-fully pro leagues (so, for instance a cup match between Luton and Wrexham does not lead to WP:ATHLETE passing as both clubs are in a non-fully pro league). Number 57 09:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was meaning fully pro leagues teams not just lower league teams who happen to be pro. I agree about the Liverpool comparison as we'll. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a player from a FPL, playing against a team from a FPL in such a competiton is notable. However, if either team is not from a FPL, then they are not notable. We need consensus on this though - I've just come across Alex Darlington. I don't think playing for a Welsh semi-pro team against an Irish semi-pro team makes you notable... GiantSnowman 12:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither do I - I've prodded that article. Number 57 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If there both semi pro then to me there not notable. If they are both from FPL then they are. I've always felt though that if in the example above Liverpool play a lower league team in the cup then to me that should become notable but it's obviously a grey area given the number of times we've discussed it. My reason for that is being the pro team they will receive a high level of coverage. Wouldnt work the other way around though. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Notable?

This chap - I've been watching the page because he was once on the Canaries' books... Sam Habergham. (Ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Habergham, which pre-dates his Tamworth days. --Dweller (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, he's not notable, playing at the Conference level does not confer notability. TonyStarks (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article which was recently re-deletedusing CSD, doesn't appear to meet GNG either - we could userfy it for you if you want to work on it to bring it up to scratch? GiantSnowman 09:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Filip Filipov

I've skrewed up some page moves and need the help of admin to fix it. I came across Filip Filipov (defender), which is obviously the wrong disambigutor. Realising that the article at Filip Filipov was also a footballer, I moved it to Filip Filipov (footballer born 1988). It wasn't until after the move, that I realised the two articles are about the same person. I can someone please sort this out. Sorry about the mess. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

All sorted - all the histories of the various pages are now merged into that one. I left the one with the picture as the current version. Number 57 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Games: Football events

If you're participating or considering in participating in Wikimedians to the Games, you may be interested in attending the events below. They may provide an opportunity to get information to write a Wikinews article or to take pictures for points on Commons. If you're not participating, it would still be great to see people attending these events to take pictures for use on Wikipedia and Wikinews. If you do decide to attend, consider hosting a Wikimedia meetup at the end or the evening of the event, or even just letting HOPAU organisers know you are planning to attend. If you leave a message on my talk page, I can help you promote the meetup. :) If you need help with organising attendance because of transport cost issues or accessibility in terms of wanting press access, again please get in touch. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disability football in Queensland

• Sunday 8 April National Championships TBA Rockhampton [7]

Blind futsal in South Australia

• 17 March 2012 - National Champtionships, Campbelltown Leisure Centre Adelaide, South Australia[8]

Disability Football in Western Australia

• Sunday 26 February WA Paralympic Session (with match) Cambridge [9]
• Sunday 4 March WA Paralympic Session (Competition preparation) Gibbney Res[10]
• Sunday 11 March WA Paralympic Session (with match) Gibbney Res[11]
• Sunday 18 March WA Paralympic Session (Competition preparation) Gibbney Res[12]
• Sunday 25 March WA Paralympic Session (with match) Gibbney Res[13]
• Sunday 1 April WA Paralympic Camp TBD[14]
• Friday 6 April WA Paralympic Camp TBD[15]
• Saturday 7 April WA Paralympic Camp TBD[16]

Font size

Standings tables with clubs have the default value of the text font size (example), while standings tables with national teams usually specify a 90% value (example). Why? --Theurgist (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen a similar thing with career statistics tables for players; some are set at default while some are set at 90%. Going by what WP:Font#Font size says default-sized text should be used in this instance; it says that "large tables may require a decreased font size in order to fit on screen", but this is not the case here. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

To me, too, rendering the text smaller seems needless, but there are already awfully many templates that are having the font size decreased. Shall we begin to gradually change them? --Theurgist (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly; I've been changing font size back to default on a number of articles, this, this and this being a few examples. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But what shall we do upon such an occasion?

Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central African Republic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turks and Caicos Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Micronesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bosnia and Herzegovina — 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 Central African Republic 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 0–0 Turks and Caicos Islands 0–0 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 Northern Mariana Islands 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 Micronesia 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 —

There needn't be all six of them, one is fairly enough. --Theurgist (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

With the 90% value these tables look like this:

Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central African Republic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turks and Caicos Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Micronesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bosnia and Herzegovina — 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 Central African Republic 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 0–0 Turks and Caicos Islands 0–0 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 Northern Mariana Islands 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 Micronesia 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 —

That makes a difference, although not much of one. Yet, it made me think that decreasing the font size hadn't been an inherently bad idea despite the inconsistencies it produced. --Theurgist (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The template could be edited the way it has no fixed width. -Koppapa (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The return (?) of Antony1821/1994

Prokingsley (talk · contribs) is showing disturbingly similar editing behaviour (editing predominately Olympiakos F.C.-related articles) and also disturbingly similar aversion to policies and guidelines (he has recreated the recently nominated-for-deletion article Nikos Papadopoulos twice so far). Could someone set an eye on him, because I'm 80% sure this user is a sock? – Kosm1fent 20:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated an WP:SPI to look into the matter. Please place any further comments here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1821. Sir Sputnik (talk)

Thanks! – Kosm1fent 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh (but still very far from the record holder and his 70+ accounts)... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Premier League Manager of the Season FLC

Just a quick reminder that this list has been nominated for little over a month and could do with a consensus being reached. As it currently stands, the nomination has two supports as well as comments from two different reviewers which have been addressed. I would appreciate if anyone can give some input, preferably making a final decision. Thanks -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this move correct.

The page Celtic 9-0 Aberdeen was moved so that it was an en-dash between the two scores rather than an ordinary dash. Is this correct, to me it doesn't look right because the dash it too big but I've never really paid to much attention to WP:ENDASH. Could someone who understands it please tell me if the page is titled correctly. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes the page move is correct, as en-dash is the correct way to separate the scoreline. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Chicken and egg

How do we distinguish between club article history sections copy-pasted from club websites, and situations where a club has copy-pasted its own website history section from Wikipedia? I'm wondering because the Bracknell Town history section is very similar to the one on the official website and I'm not entirely sure which way round it is. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be the edit in which the info was put on. Seeing as it was all put on in 1 edit rather than a series of smaller edits it suggests that he copied and pasted it. However, that is not definitive it just seems very likely that it was copied. Adam4267 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd delete the wikipedia one. There are no sources anyway in the text. -Koppapa (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual giveaway of a copyvio history section is the use of "we" to refer to the club, I see that quite a bit. That doesn't apply in this case, though, as far as I can see..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'History' section was added by an IP in September 2007; the first appearance of the same information (or the first time it was captured) ion the club's website appears to be March 2008. Take from that what you will. GiantSnowman 10:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That archive capture is dated November 2007, not March 2008 (it says in the bar at the top, and in the url), and if "the club are looking forward to a new challenge in the Southern League" is anything to go by, that version appears to have been last updated in 2004. If I had to guess, I'd guess the wording was copied from the club website, in which case, as there's no evidence for the text being free to use, it should be removed. Or edited down and sourced to the current website history page would be better, if anyone was keen enough to do it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I clicked on 'March 2008' on the Wayback Machine as that was the earliest one available - odd. Good spot though, as always. GiantSnowman 10:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a go at re-writing the history section some time later today. Had to do the same with Chippenham Town the other day, so this one is similar. Thanks for the help in working out which way the copy paste occurred! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the copyrighted material and replaced it was a proper history section now, plus stadium and colours sections. Squad was in need of a big update too. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A note for these in future: if you can definitively identify an off-wiki piece as being a copyvio from here, please be sure to flag our article with {{backwardscopyvio}} so that future editors know that it's us being plagiarised and not the other way around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Bean

Ex-footballer Bobby Bean is reported in my local paper to have died recently. He played professionally for Bexleyheath & Welling F.C. 1952-57, and had one trial match with West Ham Utd in the 1952-53 season. He had the option to sign professionally for Chelsea in 1953 but decided to continue his apprenticeship as a printers' engineer. From 1957 he played for Tunbridge Wells F. C.

As a Kent-related subject, I have a passing interest here. Does this player meet the notability requirements to sustain an article? Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not, Bexleyheath & Welling and Tunbridge Wells have never played in fully professional leagues (in fact I'd question the paper's claim that he played professionally for B & W, who only played in the Kent League at the time - at best he would have been a semi-pro, not an actual professional), and having a trial or being offered a contract with one which did is not sufficient to pass WP:FOOTY. So, unless an exceptional level of coverage could be demonstrated to meet WP:GNG, he does not meet any of the notability requirements.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Chris, did you mean "have not played in fully professional leagues"? I just want to be completely clear as I don't want to waste time by writing an article that has no chance of surviving an AfD. I'm not interested in the fact that he was a footballer per se, just that he is a possible Kent-related bio. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've corrected that whilst I was typing my question. OK, thanks for the info. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If he meets the WP:GNG then he would be notable, regardless of what level of football he played at. GiantSnowman 11:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There is probably lots of coverage in local papers, but I haven't the time to research these. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think local papers count towards the GNG. Otherwise we could have articles on many semi-pro players and Sunday league teams. Number 57 09:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no distinction in WP:RS between local, regional and national newspapers. They are all reliable. That established, this WP could have many articles on semi-pro players, iff an editor was to take the time to do the research. Sunday league team players would be much harder to argue for on notability grounds, but there is possibly a case to be made for semi-pros. That said, I'm not going to write Bobby Bean's article. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't reliable (I've used them to source notable subjects), but rather that local news coverage does not confer notability. I was also referring to Sunday league football clubs, not players. Number 57 15:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that the Kent League, while not exactly a stepping stone to the Premier League, is still very much not a "Sunday league" (which refers in England to amateur football which isn't even on the non-League pyramid). And it's important not to be too strict regarding "fully professional leagues" when discussing players from before the sixties, or indeed later in many countries. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Players in the First League of Montenegro

Greetings everyone, there's just an issue that I would like to bring to light here. Any footballers who have played solely in the First League of Montenegro can't get articles due to speedy deletion. Apparently, the justification for such speedy deletions is that "the league in which these players play isn't a fully-professional league." Now, this is on the basis of one news article from several years ago (back when sports were just being reformed after the nation's independence in 2006) that an "amateur league had been formed in 2006." Players who have only played a single minute in the first-tier Bosnian or Macedonian leagues can get their articles, so how is it that players who are having remarkable careers in the first-tier league of Montenegro can't get an article too? If professionalism is the sole barrier here, it is still not an excuse for keeping editors from making articles on players in the 1.CFL because players who have only played in USL Premier Development League get articles even though the league's article clearly states that it itself is not a fully-professional league. I think this should be brought up to attention. Thanks in advance guys. Balkanskiredneck (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The USL PDL is not listed at WP:FPL. If you have more recent sources showing that the Montenegrin league is professional then add the source. Eldumpo (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that any articles exist where a player, who doesn't meet the general notability guidlines and has only played in the USL PDL, has a page. Do you have an example, Balkanskiredneck? Any football article which doesn't meet GNG or WP:FOOTYN can be reasonably deleted. Cloudz679 08:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the clubs from this league states that their players have signed "professional" contracts, is this a proper source or on the right path? http://www.fkbuducnost.co.me/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=338:nika-golubovi-vukevi-i-jovovi-vjerni-matinom-klubu&catid=19:vijesti Zastavafan76 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Big Jock Knew" article.

Hello everyone, I came across this article after User:The C of E talked about it on the Jock Stein page. I don't think its an appropriate article because firstly, it isn't even about the song (that word being used loosely, the lyrics are just shouting Big Jock Knew) and the word song isn't even in the title. It just seems to be a way for The C of E to try and get his views onto Wikipedia after he wasn't allowed to put them in the Jock Stein article. Also it seems to be lacking inherent notability on its own and the majority of sources don't seem to be mainly about that song. Even still its not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article. What course of action, if any, should be taken. I personally think it should be AfD'd but I could be completely wrong. Thanks.Adam4267 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but unfortunately the song has had significant coverage in the mainstream media (eg1) and would almost certainly be kept at AfD. Anyway, you may not have to worry too much longer about Rangers fans singing anything! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well according to SSN they'll be in administration in less than 90 mins. Anyway regarding the article, do you think it should be moved to Big Jock Knew (song) and maybe tidied up a bit. Adam4267 (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any point moving it, since there isn't any ambiguity in the title. BigDom 14:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you check the history as I did not try to put it in the Jock Stein article before I made it and only suggested that afterwards. I do object to the notion that these are my own personal views, I simply wrote what the sources said. After all, if I was so for it, then I wouldn't have included the bit where it was called repugnant. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Im of a similar view to Jmorrison. I don't like it all but thats not a reason for deleting. It is covered in multiple sources so probably not going anywhere. I would prefer it to be moved to Big Jock Knew (song) however.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of unpleasant football songs. Occasionally they get mentioned briefly or alluded to in mainstream media. Very few of them are notable. To me the article reads like a compendium of minor media mentions tied together with synthesis. At most, a redirect (not merge) to Old Firm is warranted. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Old El Paso, distasteful songs sung by many English clubs are often covered in the media yet don't have articles. This article isn't really about the song, its about this supposed Big Jock Knew incident. The majority of the sources mention it in passing and do not confer notability per WP:GNG. Adam4267 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Its up to you but if you strongly feel that way take it to AFD and see what happens. Yes there any many tasteless songs in football not just in england but from other Scottish clubs as well Rangers certainly aren't alone. And personally i don't think they have a place here but I don't like it is an argument to avoid. have you looked to see if there are other sources out there as i can see it scraping through and if there are any other sources out there then its highly likely to stay. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be moved to Big Jock Knew (song)? What other meanings of Big Jock Knew are there that would mean disambiguation was required? --Jameboy (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ideally what we want here is a separate article for the Torbett incident. It makes no sense to have details on the incident (which certainly is notable) spread out on three separate articles about Celtic Boys Club, Stein and the song. Once such an article is created, both the song and Torbett's name should be redirected to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Newcastle United - stadium name in infobox

Following all the news about the signs being removed at St James' Park, Leaky caldron (talk · contribs) changed the infobox on Newcastle United F.C. to list the stadium as Sports Direct Arena. I reverted and noted consensus on using non-sponsored names. They then simply removed the name of the stadium from the infobox. I reverted again, was threatened with being reported, and was reverted (on the faulty premise of BRD). I have asked them to bring the issue here to discuss, but the response was to label WP:FOOTY as a "obscure little workshop page"/"little old group of editors". Can someone else intervene, as currently the infobox is missing a stadium name! Thanks, Number 57 11:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the name, and advised them to discuss the matter here. GiantSnowman 11:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Hopefully this issue will die down soon. Adam4267 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The stadium currently has no name - end of. I did not, as 57 states, change the name to the sponsored name. I simply reverted to a previous version which happened to contain only the sponsor name. When it was pointed by 57 that you have some local agreement about not using sponsor names I immediately removed the sponsor name so as not to upset that agreement. The fact remains that as of yesterday the stadium has no formal name [17]. Giant, please explain why you insist on continuing to call this place SJP when the whole of the North East is up in arms because the stadium names were removed yesterday? Are you ignorant of the facts here or just intransigent? Leaky Caldron 11:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because signs have been removed doesn't mean that the stadium is not still called SJP. Having the name of a stadium written on it is probably a moderately recent development. I would guess that most football stadiums of a similar age will have not had the name written on them for decades. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is still called SJP - it is merely temporarily the Sports Direct Arena for sponsorship reasons. There is absolutely no consensus for your edits. Oh, and I lived in Newcastle for a number of years so am fully aware of the issues surrounding the name/club. GiantSnowman 11:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Have you actually read WP:COMMONNAME which has been pointed out to you several times. Regardless of the name change people will still call it by its original name. Unless a source shows that the prevalent term used to describe it is something else. The article shows the sponsored name/former names and has appropriate redirects. One way in which this situation could be helped is by introducing a Also known as section in the infobox. Rather than (or aswell as) former name or nickname which doesn't always accurately show how many stadiums have more than one name. Adam4267 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Giant. You are incorrect. The official club website describes it as "formerly known as" SJP [18]. Leaky Caldron 11:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I am correct. The BBC says "The club said the change was temporary and it hoped to "showcase" the sponsorship opportunity to "interested parties." (my emphasis) GiantSnowman 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The only time it will be officially called SJP will be during the Olympics. It is "formerly known as SJP" by the club itself. It has no signs on the ground. How can you possibly maintain that it is still currently officially called SJP when you have no source to support it. Do you think that the earth is flat as well? Leaky Caldron 12:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying it's definitely not SJP, even though that is what it will be for the Olympics - in the future? And even though that is what the fans and media call it? Official name doesn't matter - I'd advise you to acquaint yourself with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS. GiantSnowman 12:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - The Premier League does not use sponsor names. [19].--Egghead06 (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Egghead: I think you'll find that that link proves exactly the opposite of what you sought to demonstrate: see the large blue box at the right of the screen. Kevin McE (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Kevin: scroll down to the 'Stadium Information' section, where it is still SJP. GiantSnowman 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a field headed as the address of the ground. The name of the ground is given as Sports Direct Arena, and is given far greater prominence on that page. There is no way that that page supports the position that Egghead claimed it did. Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The club website calls it "formerly SJP", the media reports it as no longer SJP, the official league website currently calls it something else but WP has to be held hostage to SJP by a few zealots who care more for history than reliably sourced fact. You couldn't make it up. Leaky Caldron 13:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To those clinging to the notion that WP:COMMONNAME supports continuing to call the stadium SJP despite all the contemporary evidence to the contrary, can I suggest "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change.". By the way, that insightful piece of policy comes from WP:COMMONNAME. Leaky Caldron 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not open a WP:RM? GiantSnowman 15:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move? Of What? I'm not looking at the SJP article. This is about an incorrect mention in the NUFC article infobox and refusal to describe it as "formerly SJP" in the lead, both of which contravene content policy. It will end up as a NPOV dispute unless it's changed to keep up with the WP:RS which clearly show that the stadium has changed name (or has no current name). I don't see what WP:RM has to do with it. Leaky Caldron 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The stadium is located at SJP, so that is how we should refer to it in other articles. If you wish for it to be referred to as DSA, then that's where it should be located. As a compromise, why not follow the lead of Valley Parade, which is a FA - "SJP, also known as the DSA through sponsorship rights..." GiantSnowman 15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your actions in reverting good faith edits this morning, without absorbing all of the facts, are a disgrace. For a veteran editor and newly appointed Admin. they are reprehensible. I've a good mind to go straight to ANI, not about the content dispute but regarding your actions. If you cannot accept good faith edits made based on policy, i.e. WP:RS and WP:NPOV without knee-jerk reverts I hope you show better judgement when it comes to your Admin. responsibilities. You make the change, and stick by it when your footy pals revert it. Leaky Caldron 16:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If anything here is reprehensible it is your attitude. I began the discussion with you on the subject in good faith, and it quickly deteriorated when you started making threats and misrepresenting guidelines. As GiantSnowman suggested, if you want the Newcastle article changed, start a WP:RM on St James' Park. In the meantime, any links to that article should reflect its title. Number 57 16:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The stadium is officially the Sports Direct Arena, the rights were bought by Sports Direct and all signage with the former name of St James' removed. Stop referring to it by its old name as it has been rebranded. You might want to place the address of the Sports Direct Arena as St James' Park but the stadium name has changed. Peoples personal views should not be allowed to continue giving out misinformation, this is Wikipedia not a fans site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.130.113 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest it might be an idea to decide how to deal with these stadium namings which, I suspect, will become a bigger part of the football scene. For example - JJB Stadium redirects to DW Stadium, Whaddon Road does not redirect to Abbey Business Stadium, if fact the opposite. We also have the problem of timeline. The Wigan Athletic F.C. article says they have played at the DW stadium since 1999 when they have played at the JJB Stadium and the DW Stadium since 1999. It's obviously emotive - any change on deciding on a Wiki naming and usage convention?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We have had a convention for years - that sponsored names are only used for stadiums that have only ever had sponsored names (the DW Stadium fits into that category). I don't think the timeline in the Wigan article is an issue, as it is the same stadium. Number 57 16:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Conventions are not a substitute for policy. St. James' Park is history - I'm watching the rebranding to SDA now on BBC Look North. You can live in the past with your outdated convention - WP needs to reflect the facts, with an obvious reference to the venerable history. Leaky Caldron 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest renaming it to The Stadium Formerly Known as St James' Park. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems strange how heated debates on this project always seem to be ended by someone making a bad joke. Nice one doc, hehe.--EchetusXe 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm here: is everyone happy that this truly lame dispute has been settled? That the page will remain at the poorly-apostrophised St James' Park until such point as there's reason to believe the common name has changed, but that the infobox is headed with the "official" name? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think calling it a truly lame dispute is helping matters. Evidence suggests the stadium has been renamed - in that it is *currently* called by a different name, which may or may not change again in the future. Invoking COMMONNAME is not valid (and a bit daft in some respects) because it's going to take people some time to catch up with the new name. A bit like writing last years date in a new year. --HighKing (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Naming disputes regarding inanimate objects which result in heated debate here are lame by definition: I should know, as I've been involved in my fair share of them. :) In this particular case, where there are well-referenced reports of fans protesting the new name along with various groups making public their refusal to abide by it, I don't think it's a case of "waiting until people catch on"; the common name is likely to remain the "former" name for a long time to come, and we'd need significant evidence to the contrary (rather than rhetoric about living in the past, et cetera) before it's worth considering changing that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a mildly similar situation at Aviva Stadium and Lansdowne Road - and there's now two articles. Possible because the new stadium is physically a different stadium, albeit in the same location. But two years on, the original name is still used although less frequently as time passes... --HighKing (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that yes, the two being literally different buildings which happen to have been located on the same bit of ground at different points in history makes that quite a different case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. Expunged from the official club website, no longer referenced on the League website, universally reported as having been changed and signs removed by reliable sources. WP:Commonname states that "if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change." It is entirely unacceptable for a clique of football supports to withhold factual changes to encyclopaedic content on a non-existent policy relating to the none use of sponsored names. Leaky Caldron 22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Reasonable" != "imperative". If you want a (long) list of examples where everybody agrees that the official name of a given subject has changed while the common name has not, I can provide one. Ramping up one's rhetoric to smear those disagreeing with a given argument has been effective in approximately 0% of naming debates I've seen in the last five years on here, by the way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It is both perverse and disingenuous to use WP:COMMONNAME as a fair justification here. That policy relates to article titles. I have restricted my required change solely to the infobox and reference to the name within the NUFC article - not the St James' Park article. Leaky Caldron 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've said nothing about how the stadium is to be referred in random articles. I specifically asked if the situation with the stadium article itself, and the infobox therein, was acceptable and you objected. For what it's worth, though, use of the common name is almost always more appropriate than use of the "official" name in random articles because the additional recognisability helps with content clarity. In the Newcastle article a simple compromise would be to list both in the infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea I think - some stadiums are known by several names and this could see the Infobox ballooning. The name in the infobox should always be the same as the article name (minus any DABs of course). Number 57 09:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You are both mistaken. As clearly indicated, this section relates to the infobox within the NUFC article. This has been repeated in the text. I have not the slightest interest in the St. James' Park article which stands alone, as St. James' Park. WP:COMMONNAME would apply if that article's title was being disputed. It is not being disputed by me. As for "57", you seem satisfied to disregard WP content policy relating to reliable sources on this basis that YOU think everything should look like some view of the world that you and your soccer cronies have dreamed up. It will not stand up to wider community scrutiny, I'm afraid. A cabal of editors cannot trump a WP:5P such as WP:V. I'll be putting an appropriate tag in the NUFC article. Leaky Caldron 12:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"You are both mistaken" = lol. The only person arguing the same as you Leaky is...you! Everyone else seems to agree on the matter. Please accept consensus and move on. GiantSnowman 12:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is slight, and I mean slight inconsistancy on this. Arsenal play at the Emirates, even in the info box, yet the stadium was originally Ashburton Grove, Man City play at the City of Manchester Stadium (again in the info box), even if it is the Etihad for sponsorship purposes. Which is right or wrong, if even either is? Should the name in the info box be the common name, original name or sponsored name?Murry1975 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The name in the infobox should be whatever the article name is. Consensus on the stadium names should be determined on their talk pages. Number 57 13:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers 57.Murry1975 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Possible compromise - why don't we put something like [[St James' Park|St James' Park / Sports Direct Arena]]? GiantSnowman 14:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the compromise - for now. There should be no absolute golden rule. It should be well sourced and therefore encyclopaedic, not based on a discussion (which incidentally I cannot find) that appears to be based on POV/editor preference. Tomorrow, both BBC and Sky will be reporting match updates and cannot, for commercial licencing reasons, call it SJP. There is simply no encyclopaedic justification for retaining that which has now been changed. Fact: Newcastle no longer play at a stadium called SJP. The stadium is still within the park called SJP, but the stadium ground designation has changed. Supporters can call it what they like, WP must call it what it is. Leaky Caldron 15:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And if Newcastle finish 5th in the Premier League, they will qualify for Europa League and UEFA will be reporting match updates and will call it SJP. When UEFA rejects to use sponsor-names, why can't Wikipedia do the same thing?Mentoz86 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. We don't write Derry/Londonderry in articles despite the naming dispute. The link should just be what the article title is. If Leaky Caldron is convinced that the stadium is no longer called by its current name, they should use the WP:RM process on the St James' Park article. Number 57 15:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it bad? Is this your personal point of view or is it based on an encyclopaedic policy that we can evaluate. Don't quote WP:COMMONNAME again. That is about the naming of articles, not the content of infoboxes within articles which I would remind everyone that the content of an infobox must represent what is contained in the body of the article Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain, as must the lead section. Leaky Caldron 15:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't quoted WP:COMMONNAME once in this discussion, so I'm not likely to do it "again". But anyway, it is my personal point of view that this is a bad idea, but so is the idea that a stroke city compromise is acceptable. I merely think it is asinine in the extreme to not have the link with the same name as the article it's linking to. Number 57 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Commonname was raised by Giant, sincere apologies about that. Article content is governed by WP:NPOV. Obviously expressing your personal view that something is asinine is not necessarily consistent with what is neutral and therefore encyclopaedic. The infobox and lead relate to the NUFC article itself. Nice though it might be to correspond with the associated ground name article, there is no encyclopaedic imperative. Leaky Caldron 15:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason it is asinine is that this is in effect a naming dispute, as the argument is over what the stadium is now called. These disputes are not settled by compromises on piped links, but rather the WP:RM procedure. I don't see why you are so reluctant to use this option given how strongly you feel that the stadium's current name is apparently incorrect. Number 57 16:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the title of the SJP article. I am solely concerned with the accuracy of NUFC. As to the name of the stadium, there is no substantive dispute because the stadium owners, for commercial reasons, have renamed it. Officially it is no longer SJP. The SJP article is a good article - I would not support renaming it. All I am seeking is that the bare facts about the stadium name reflect what the club, the league and all media outlets are now obliged to call it. This will change for the Olympics and again when a long-term stadium sponsor is named. I cannot see any encyclopaedic reason for the NUFC article not to reflect the real world facts as we currently know them. Leaky Caldron 16:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that the FA Gillingham F.C. lists the club's ground as Priestfield Stadium, despite its 'offical' name being "MEMS Priestfield Stadium". Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, all British football club articles use the non-sponsored name at present (Shrewsbury Town, Bradford City, Accrington Stanley amongst others). Edit: I did find one that wasn't (AFC Wimbledon, but have changed it, and I should probably admit that I recently changed the Gillingham one to be in line with consensus. It's difficult to stop the odd one or two slipping through the net, but they shouldn't be taken as examples that this convention doesn't exist). Number 57 16:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Kingsmeadow lists the current sponsored name and the old name as a 'former name'.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The subtle, or not so subtle difference, depending on your outlook is that NUFC's owners have removed any reference to SJP. It is not Sports Direct at SJP, or the Sports Direct SJP arena or any similar title derived from SJP. SJP is currently expunged. The club's website calls its ground "formerly St James' Park". It really couldn't be any clearer, unlike Gillingham and other numerous examples. Leaky Caldron 16:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I think it's quite clear there is an impasse here. Do we need a poll on whether the consensus on stadium names (article and infobox) is still valid? Number 57 16:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If the proposed compromise is not acceptable I'll take the dispute to WP:NPOVN to establish whether uninvolved editors assess whether the article is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Since you have agreed that your position is based on preference rather than verifiable, policy based facts such as WP:V and WP:RS is should be a straightforward determination. Leaky Caldron 17:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not agreed that my position is "based on preference rather than verifiable, policy based facts", and I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting things I have said (the way you have approached this debate is utterly deplorable and will do you no favours). My position is actually based on a long-standing consensus that this project has had on stadium naming. Number 57 17:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking for favours, just article content based on facts, not POV. Where can those of us who are uninitiated in this footy group see this long-standing consensus? Leaky Caldron 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_25#Clubs_with_sponsored_names? But is there even any point in answering, because so far you have seemed to think that the consensus is irrelevant anyway. Number 57 17:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going off to a noticeboard without all of the evidence. Leaky Caldron 17:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's about clubs with sponsored names. Leaky Caldron 17:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I used it because it states "I know we normally keep grounds and leagues at their "unsponsored" names". By the way, do you not think that going off somewhere else because you didn't get the answer you wanted here is WP:FORUMSHOPing? Number 57 17:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hardly. I haven't been anywhere yet but as you said above, we have reached an impasse. You also claimed a consensus. It now appears that is based on no discussion, just a synthesis from an entirely different issue. If there is no documented consensus for this specific issue it is highly irregular for this discussion to have implied that there is one. Leaky Caldron 18:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all consensuses come from a single discussion, and there have probably been numerous discussions on the issue on this talk page and article moves that led to the development of this one. The link I provided merely proves that the convention does exist because the editor references it. As I stated above, I'm happy to do a straw poll to confirm whether this still exists or not. Number 57 18:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The rationale provided is unconvincing, I'm afraid. Changes come, changes go. Plenty of editors like me willing to make wiki-gnome changes when required. Fundamentally this is a content dispute. For the record, what do you think/believe/maintain is the name of the ground where NUFC play? Leaky Caldron 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get drawn into your games about personal opinions on the ground's name. Why are you so unwilling to do a straw poll if you are so convinced this convention does not exist? Number 57 18:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly claiming a consensus when there isn't one, then claiming it to be a "convention" and now seeking to establish it after the event isn't something I'm keen on. There is nothing binding about a poll. This is a fairly simple issue relating to verifiability and sourcing. Facts will always outweigh opinions. Leaky Caldron 18:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Then there really is no working with you on this. If you can't accept what editors tell you, what editors in the past have said, or aren't willing to discuss it anew, then this discussion is pretty much over. I will start an WP:RFC on the Newcastle talk page. Number 57 19:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what editor's have said in the past. I asked you for the consensus discussion - none. As for accepting what editors tell me, you cannot seriously expect me to be coerced by you into agreeing to non-encyclopaedic content because YOU tell me. Leaky Caldron 19:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Break

Ideally I'd like to see the original names kept but we have to follow whatever the reliable sources are showing, but not just the position of the club themselves. However, this thread is discussing a slightly strange argument in that the infobox should change and not the article, whereas I think they should be the same. Eldumpo (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to make that point for some time. I don't see how you can use a different name on a different article. Number 57 17:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Eldumpo also said "we have to follow whatever the reliable sources are showing". Are you just picking and choosing the bits of other editor's comments that suit you? The case of NUFC might be unique in that they have not relocated stadium and have not retained any element of the former stadium name. The SJP article could easily stand a test of not needing to be renamed. That is not the same argument as what the current stadium name is. Leaky Caldron 17:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC

I've moved this to Talk:Newcastle United F.C.#Stadium name RFC as I think it's fairly clear this discussion is going nowhere. Number 57 19:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Any comments welcome of course! Number 57 23:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

CAF U17 women

I created an article about the CAF tournament determining the African qualifiers to the U17 FIFA world cup, but have now redirected as i became aware it already existed: African U-17 Cup of Nations for Women. That name sounds strange, should it be moved to African U-17 Women's Cup of Nations? There also exist two articles for the 2010 tournament 2010 African U-17 Women's Championship, 2010 African U-17 Cup of Nations for Women with the first the better article. So should we move the main article and the the individual tournament, redirecting all the others? -Koppapa (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

First we should decide on the correct name, then request a WP:HISTMERGE. GiantSnowman 20:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've googled "Cup of Nations for Women" , but apart from Wikipedia mirrors and unreliable websites, there were no sources naming the event as such. "African Women's Cup of Nations" was more successful, as it produced two reliable links [20] [21], among others. – Kosm1fent 20:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, you are talking about the under-17 event. – Kosm1fent 20:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

CAF website calls it mostly just AFRICAN PRELIMINARIES OF THE U-17 FIFA WORLD CUP, the section is called CAN though, which is short for Coupe d'Afrique des Nations. Fifa doesn't name it. -Koppapa (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The U20 has the same naming. After some googling i guess "CAF Women's U-20 Championship" or "CAF U-20 Women's Championship" should be the name. CAF used it, FIFA too. -Koppapa (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Any more input? I would propose either CAF U-17 Women's Championship or African U-17 Women's Championship same with the U-20 articles. -Koppapa (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Excess detail in player articles

Some of the player articles are turning into commentaries that note every goal a player scores because some editors don't know the difference between an encyclopedia and Match of the Day. The project may wish to keep an eye on this. Britmax (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Feel free to do something about this yourself in any pages you watch. I certainly do that myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I will do that but cannot stem this tide alone. (Ha! Where did that amusingly dramatic sentence come from)? Britmax (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I remember when i first edited Pedro Rodríguez Ledesma, there was a sentence for EVERY MATCH he played in two seasons or similar, i duly arranged it but still think it's too long. Also, one anon editor took it upon himself last year or so (he seems to have ceased since) to write about EVERY GAME played by Blackburn Rovers' footballers. Quite the tide to be stemmed indeed! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This has always happened: we can do little to prevent recentism of this sort, and so long as it gains us content and new editors it should probably be tolerated. As time passes, the articles in question will hopefully be rewritten with better prose. The only time to really worry about it is when the content in question is not written in a neutral style and thus is affecting more than just the readability of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Squad templates

I dare say this question has been asked before but does anyone know if there is a policy regarding how a players name should appear in a teams squad template. i.e should Robin van Persie appear as van Persie or as it apppears on his shirt v. Persie. Any help gratefully received. Quentin X (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He is listed as 'v. Persie' in the Arsenal template so I am guessing that that is correct.--EchetusXe 00:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would use "van Persie". Digirami (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignacio Pérez Tella - AfD all over

User:MYS77 and another one of his creations, i am 99,999999% sure this chap as not played in higher than Tercera División! Could someone help me out please? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

PROD'ed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahmed Khalil (Emirati footballer)

Ahmed Khalil (Emirati footballer) does not appear to require disambiguation as far as I can see. Could an admin please move it back over the redirect? --Jameboy (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Done - however I don't have time to check redirects/templates etc. - are you able to do so? GiantSnowman 10:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. I will fix the incoming links, however could the talk page also be moved back over the redirect talk, as per the article page? --Jameboy (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

David Healy (footballer)

An unregistered user insists that Healy being photographed with a UDA loyalist and thus being reported in the Sun means that he has "sparked outrage". The Sun seems to be the only newspaper to have reported this. Should it be reported in the article or should it be removed? Approaching the 3 revert rule here.--EchetusXe 00:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

He didn't know he was having his photo taken with anyone other than a normal fan and as far as I'm aware its one article so wouldn't say outrage. Even with others we would need to be careful as to what we right as its a BLP.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but apparently the user known as 'MyStruggle' has made it his struggle to have this incident on the article. The 'flute player' incident and the famine comment are already reported on the article as those had a genuine controversy that was widely reported.--EchetusXe 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ive added the page to my watchlist will try and keep an eye on it. It really does not seem like an incident worth mentioning it was a photo which could of happened to anyone.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You really should have discussed this with the editor in question first - I have now done so. GiantSnowman 12:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We already discussed it whilst reverting each other's edits. I stated my views, he stated that because the Sun reported it then it should be on the player's article. I came here to see what other people thought of it.--EchetusXe 12:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Making your argument in an edit summary is not appropriate, I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 12:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, is The Sun a reliable source? Surely not? Secondly, the article claims that the photo in question 'sparked outrage' yet only comes up with a quote from one anonymous person. An outrage of one isn't very notable in my opinion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok fine, but he wasn't breaking any rules and wasn't completely wrong, and Healy has a history so I wasn't 100% certain that 'MyStruggle' was being unreasonable. Small incidents such as the photograph can be widely reported and become notable, so I just wanted to make sure that other editors felt that it was minor and not worth including in the article. And yeah waffles, that was my view, but the Sun is the most widely read paper in the UK so it can't be dismissed out of hand despite its less than stringent journalistic standards.--EchetusXe 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I have your attention Snowman, an editor is attacking Adnan Ahmed on his article. Only a couple of edits that have started in the last few days but from what they have been writing I suspect they know the guy and have a genuine dislike towards him so they may be persistent, especially if they use unregistered accounts like Worfkurn. Admin attention may be required if it escalates.--EchetusXe 13:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. GiantSnowman 13:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Help to make a move

Hi everyone. I need some admin help. The thing is that I wanted to move Igor Kojić (footballer) to simple Igor Kojić, as there is no need for the disambiguation factor, however I receved a message saying:

You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation

I never saw that message in my years long wiki history, but I guess someone blocked that article creation? Anyway, not sure if it was intended to be because of this article, so the guys found a way to make using the disambiguating factor (footballer), however the guy passes notability as he played in Serbian top league (1 match :) so it can have an article. Although I have been notecing this article from time to time for one specific reason: the autors seem to have a real difficulty to understand that WP is not their mean to promote the player, so they really insist to add him a horrible propagandistic crap about him being brilliant, etc. I removed that, and left the sourced info, with a good-will unsourced tag for one particular unsourced claim. But the article could be moved to a simple title, for a start. FkpCascais (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SALT. Jared Preston (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the link. I imagined that it was something of the kind, that is why I checked if he passes notability and mentioned it. FkpCascais (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The page has been moved, but is in massive need of improvement. GiantSnowman 12:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, I´ll see what more can I do. FkpCascais (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Honours for Barcelona players

Hi, I recently amended the competition titles in the honours sections of a few Barcelona players recently (e.g. Éric Abidal). For instance, I unpiped [[La Liga|Spanish League]] to just [[La Liga]]. These were later reverted by User:Raulseixas with no explanation given. My amendments are correct though, right? It seems unnecessary and a little condescending to our readers to use generic names for competitions rather than list what they're actually called. Not to mention that it's factually inaccurate as there's no such thing as the Spanish League; it's name is La Liga. And by this logic, what should lower tiers be referred to as? "Spanish League 2"? "Spanish 2nd League"? It just seems silly to me to use these generic, fictional titles rather than the actual titles. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say you're right here, I've never heard La Liga referred to as anything else, so that is what we use. Regarding Raulsxias he has reverted the Abidal page three times in 24 hours which is a 3RR violation. I'm not an admin but doesn't that qualify for a warning/block? NapHit (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that 'La Liga' is correct; and agree that he has been edit warring. I have issued a final warning for the Éric Abidal page. GiantSnowman 12:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, LA LIGA/COPA DEL REY/similar is correct, but what is also correct is that runner-up accolades count, and those have been sistematically removed in the R.MADRID/BARCELONA players - without summaries 99,9999% of the time! - by both anon and registered users. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Spanish League (Liga española) is disambiguous. I gather it is perfectly acceptable on the Spanish Wikipedia having checked some of the other football player articles. From my time in Spain, La Liga more often than not was (still is) colloquially referred to as the 'Primera División', Spanish for First Division. They use ordinals like most leagues → Segunda División, Tercera, et al. The exception with this is France (Ligue 1, Ligue 2...); you don't use 'deuxième division' unless you are describing that it's the second division. – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Spain might be a bad example, because term La Liga known so well. Something like Ugandan League, or Barbadian League, Romanian League is fine in my opinion. -Koppapa (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ivan Babovic

The article was going through AfD when it was eventually speedy deleted under CSD G5. However, GM1995 (talk · contribs) has re-created it. Does it qualify for CSD G4, or it has to be nominated for deletion all over again? Cheers. – Kosm1fent 13:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Even though it was at AFD, it was not deleted by AFD, so I would say it is inelgible for CSD G4. GiantSnowman 14:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Poo. I thought so. – Kosm1fent 14:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nikos Papadopoulos (footballer) is eligible though, so I have speedied that. GiantSnowman 14:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"European Champions' Cup"

When was the European Cup EVER known as the "European Champions' Cup", except perhaps in translation from some European language other than English?! This is the kind of fifth-hand cobbled-together Wikipedia information that gives fifth-hand cobbled-together Wikipedia information a deservedly bad name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.217.69 (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The proper name for the pre-Champions League tournament was the "European Champion Clubs Cup". – PeeJay 01:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability question – Canadian team

Not sure about where the cut-off point is for notability of Canadian association football teams, so I'm wondering, is Champlain Cavaliers Men's Soccer team notable? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues any current day club in Canada that is not in Major League Soccer and the North American Soccer League is not notable unless this club was in the old Canadian Soccer League (1987–1992). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not quite true. WP:FPL refers to notability of players not clubs. I'm not entirely sure where the cut-off level is in Canadian soccer, or if there even is one. That being said, Champlain Cavaliers quite clearly fail WP:GNG, making the club non-notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Canadian Soccer Pyramid you could say that the cut off is either the North American Soccer League or the current 3rd tier Canadian Soccer League. I would say that the North American Soccer League should be the cut off though as the Canadian Soccer League has all its teams in Ontario thus making the league non-national across Canada. Going back to the Champion Cavaliers. It looks like the club is a college team. I know American College Soccer teams are notable but I dont know about the Canadian Soccer teams. [22] --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the team of Champlain College Saint-Lambert; there is no evidence of independent notability, so I have redirected it to the parent article. GiantSnowman 09:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

England national football team crest

Umbro have released a new home kit with the three leopards(! ;) [23]) all in red. Does the logo in the infobox on the England national football team now need to be updated? If so, I have created the file:

file:England_national_football_team_crest_(2012).svg

TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont think so as it is still the old crest on the Football Association website, [24]. I would wait till the FA confirm it before making a change. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a quirk of the design - in the same way as clubs/nations sometimes add stars to celebrate an anniversary, that kind of thing. GiantSnowman 09:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Further - the new goalkeeper kit crest has the same design, with the colours inverted (white lions on red background). GiantSnowman 10:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, what was the point asking whether you should add it? Even though nobody replied you still put it on the page within a few minutes of posting this message. Surely if you're going to ask you should wait til someone answers. BigDom 11:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This comment would have been more suited on the Talk:England national football team, since that is the place to discuss the relevant changes to the attached article. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Defaultsorts

I know this has been done before, but it remains an issue. Say there is a Brazilian/Spanish/Portuguese player - his article is at 'John Smith', but he is known as 'Johnny'. What should his defaultsort be? I am firmly in the 'surname, firstname' camp... GiantSnowman 09:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I repeat my two cents to the general public, again...in that case i think it's more a short than a nick, so the keyword should be "S" still. In cases like Juan Francisco Torres (football name JUANFRAN), the key should definitely be "J", not "T".

User:Jun19, other than the fact he talks to no one and moves pages just like that, is having a totally different approach: Portuguese players are sillily referred to in TV broadcasts with TWO names (i'm Portuguese, so no racism there!), ALWAYS, but Adrien Silva is known as "Silva" (keyword "S"), João Moutinho is known as "Moutinho" (keyword "M"), etc, etc. The M.O. for Brazilian footballers has to be the same, so (example) Fábio Bahia has to be sorted under "B", not "F", as he's not known solely as "Fábio" (some are indeed known by their first name, as Raí or Romário).

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would very much prefer that we avoid obvious contradictions in our defaultsorts. It is better in most cases to move the article itself to the common name, even if this results in a disambiguation clause like (footballer) or (footballer born 1985) or whatever. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but surely that leads to issues of when fourteen Brazilian players vying for the title of 'Juan (footballer born 1980)' or whatever? GiantSnowman 11:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the situation is that bad in general. There may be edge cases where an alternative solution is best, but hard cases make bad law. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It still doesn't solve the problem of 'John Smith or 'Smith, John'. GiantSnowman 09:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by that. The original example was "Johnny" (one name). I'd prefer if, in that case, the play article was moved to Johnny (footballer born 1985), which obviates the need for a defaultsort at all. I don't know what you mean by 'John Smith or 'Smith, John', though a naive answer would seem to be that it's definitely "Smith, John" in that case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't explained myself very well - apologies. Basically, we have a player called John Smith who is sometimes known simply as "Johnny" (not enough to warrant moving the article), so the article is located at 'John Smith' and the defaultsort is 'Smith, John'. We have one user (Jun19, mentioned above & already notifed about this discussion) who insists on changing the defaultsort to 'John Smith' despite us telling him multiple times that that is not correct. GiantSnowman 10:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Then there's no case to answer. Leave a note to this discussion on the article talk page, invite direct discussion, and if it isn't forthcoming then treat it as any other case of disruption. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as I believed - though I thought it would be better to have consensus to back me up before any further action is taken. GiantSnowman 10:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there has been an unformal agreement between Portuguese language editors to use the most common name in defaultsorts, thus making the players easier to find... Not sure how much weight this argument has, but that has been the case for a couple of years now. For instance, Adilson dos Santos, commonly known as Adilson, should be defaulted by Adilson, not Santos, or dos Santos. Defaulting him by Santos would just make impossible for anyone to find him, as the vast majority of people doesn´t even know that Santos is his surname, but everyone searching for him will certainly find him by Adilson. This specificity for Portuguese and Spanish language names needs to be stressed out, as it definitelly doesn´t follow the rule of surname as most common name, although there are cases of those, as well. FkpCascais (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see the explanation of mine at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_62#Portuguese_footballers.27_names_.2F_Introductions, most preciselly (I copy/pasted the most important part):

Portuguese players are known by either one of the following ways:

• Name + surname: meaning, usually first name and last surname, as it is the last surname the father´s one (oposite to Spanish where is the first). That is why Paulo Manuel Carvalho de Sousa [Paulo Manuel being the first and second names, and Carvalho de Sousa being mother´s and father´s surnames] is known as Paulo Sousa.
• Any other part of the name: exemple Cristiano Ronaldo [Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro], using only names combination, disregarding the surnames. We even have the extreme case of using a real name mixed with surname of another player who´s the idol of the player in question Nuno Gomes, [Nuno Miguel Soares Pereira Ribeiro] with Gomes coming from his idol Fernando Gomes who is not his relative.
• Nickname: Litos [Carlos de Oliveira Magalhães], or Petit [Armando Gonçalves Teixeira] for exemple, which is neither a name or surname.

I must say that I think that people with common surnames (Costa, Sousa, Silva, Gomes, Lopes, Pinto, etc.) usually because of disambiguation reasons leave their first name in their commoname, while others like Luis Figo don´t need it, as "Figo" is not a common surname, thus easily recognisable simply as Figo. That is why is common to see in line-ups, exemple: 6 - Paulo Sousa, 7 - Figo, 8 - Rui Cosa, 9 - João Pinto, 10 - Pauleta, 11 - Capucho.

What I really concluded is that Portuguese (including most places using Portuguese as mother tongue, like Brazil) players don´t really have a rule for their names, and they often choose one while still young, which will help them to be recognisable, and usually keep it troughout their careers, weather being real name, nickname, or whatever. FkpCascais (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet more reason for player articles to be placed at the common names, rather than some weird hybrid system where the defaultsort is by common name but the article is titled by birth name. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

1983 AFC Women's Championship

Someone up for some detective work? Someone added a sourced result to the then unknown third place play-off of the 1983 tournament by finding a web-archive of an english language Singaporan based newspaper archove from 1983. With that start i searched the previous days for more results. I improved the article from this to that but there are some inconsistencies. Day 2 reports that feature a table don't really add up for match-day one when subtracting the day 2 results. Also the 5th matchday results/pairings are unclear to me. There are some clues given in the cited sources like "singapore tied 3rd place after day 4" and so on. I started a table on the articles talkpage. What really would help would be finding a report about matchday 1 (which should have appeared on 11th april) or the last matchday. (although i believe when the paper talks about semi-finals the effectively mean the 5th matchday). If anyone finds a clue please replay on talkpage of article. :) RSSSF is no help for that year btw. -Koppapa (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, found ref for day 1. Strangely India played Malaysia on day 1 as well as on day 3. That leaves 4 matches unplayed for day 5. -Koppapa (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My guess is the final matchday was abolished. I wrote the article in that way for now. A source for Japan and Taiwan not entering, but withdrawing within one month of the start of tourney, should be easier to find. Pressured by the AFC? And as the tournaments were not sanctioned by the AFC. I guess the lead and naming of the 1983 and previous editions should be changed? -Koppapa (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

List of UEFA Super Cup winners and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Competitions

Just stalking a talk page and saw that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Competitions was being quoted as the way a football competition article "must be styled". Now I looked at the style guide and, frankly, it's years out of date. Do we want to update it in line with MOS and ACCESS etc or should we just remove the "guide" altogether? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Updating it would be very much appreciated. The more good examples we can point to the better. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should re-look at all of or MOSes. GiantSnowman 17:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I (mostly) did the player one last summer IIRC. I can't vouch for any of the rest of course. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there actually any examples of our finest work (i.e. featured articles/lists) that in any way resemble this "competitions" guideline? Perhaps it's better to start again based on something that actually looks good and has a proven track record. Oh dear. I just saw the "stadium manual of style".... Does anyone realistically look at these or use them ever? Double oh-dear, just looked at the "Competitions" one in more detail, and it recommends a "trivia" section. Ouch. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It definitely needs overhauling. The problem with the Super Cup list is notifying the reader which competition a team won to qualify for the competition, which leads to a lot of colour. Plus sorting is a bit of a problem with two-legged finals, I'll have a go at trying to make a sortable list for two-edged finals in my sandbox. NapHit (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but it goes way beyond that, it's basically taking our pathetic attempts at MOS guidelines and throwing them out of the window (not a bad idea because our MOS guidelines are simply terrible). I suggest, if we insist on having such local guidelines (and I don't agree with them at all, we should just use the all-encompassing MOS) we base them all on the most recently promoted examples of each type, not some "one-size-fits-all" concept that was created five years ago and hasn't really been updated since. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the UEFA Super Cup list and any two-legged finals lists, should we just adopt the format used in the majority of finals lists anyway. This is the most recently promoted list, which is the best format in my opinion, as its functional and is sortable which is my main concern with the Super Cup list at the moment. One problem is that the first and second leg scores would not be listed as I would just use the aggregate score and perhaps use a note to tell the reader the scores, as for the venues, I merged the two-legged and single finals tables here and would propose doing the same again. Thoughts? NapHit (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the majority of these guidelines stem from the dark ages when having any guidelines at all was a novelty. I was actually looking for a canonical example of how to lay out FA Cup Final articles the other day and couldn't find one I really agreed with. There is certainly a need for these, if only so that we're all copying from the same (good) source instead of scrabbling around for the most recent GA that fits the bill. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd never suggest using a GA. We have a couple of hundred or so FAs and FLs, and the most recent ones would be decent frameworks for this kind of thing, don't you think? I see no good reason to do otherwise, but I'm happy to hear suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Imagine that my finger slipped there and I meant "FA". The point stands: we should simply pick an article to act as an exemplar in each case and use it to update the relevant example page. Creating these examples and then updating articles to match sounds like an excellent idea for an improvement drive, per the new discussion below indicating how widespread the issue is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Cup icons in football players' honours section

Hi, MarkMysoe (talk · contribs) has added cup icons to football players' honours sections like this. I've removed them with regard to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 18#Euro cup icons. The discussion was in 2008. Has consensus changed in the meantime and do we want to have these icons now in the articles? --Jaellee (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these icons are appropriate to be added. Eldumpo (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that these should be removed - no cup icons, no club badges. GiantSnowman 19:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with everyone else, they are discouraged by guideline and don't seem to hold any actual value. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS:ICONDECORATION is very clear on this. Icons of this type are firmly discouraged across the board, especially where the icon in question both displaces text and is barely recognisable at the given resolution anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

List of non-league clubs in the Fifth Round of the FA Cup since 1945

Discuss. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT#IINFO. Lord knows the BBC's live matchday updates service uses our more trivial articles as content fodder enough already, but we are not beholden to continue that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fairly pointless I'd say. Number 57 20:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost exactly a year since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 52#List of non-league clubs in the Fifth Round of the FA Cup since 1901‎. GiantSnowman 21:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it was created in the lead up to Manchester United's tie with Crawley Town, which was a year ago last week. – Lemonade51 (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Okeydokey, I find it to be an unlikely notable intersection of vaguely notable events (i.e. non-league, fifth round, FA Cup, 1945). I'll prod it and see how it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Already de-prodded........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-league clubs in the Fifth Round of the FA Cup since 1945. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Malmö FF TFA

Malmö FF will be TFA today the 24th of February. I'm the main contributor of the article, however, as a European I won't be able to keep an eye on it for the next eight hours so I would appreciate if people kept their eyes open for vandalism and good faith edits. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Schedlinski

Could anyone confirm that Adrian Schedlinski played one game for OFI Crete in the 2008–09 Superleague Greece as per this link? The German Wikipedia also sources his time at PFC Lokomotiv Plovdiv to transfermarkt. I have a feeling this isn't quite right... Jared Preston (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

According to SoccerWay, he did not play in that game vs Larisa, which is his 1 league match for OFI Crete according to TransferMarkt. I don't know which source is better for the Greek league but I'd lean more towards SoccerWay given the way some people on here have described how Transfermarkt is run. I don't know if the Greek Super League website has match details from the 08-09 season but you can look there too (I can't be bothered to translate at the moment :D). Hope that helps. TonyStarks (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source - anyone can edit it. GiantSnowman 09:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't play according to the match report on ESPN. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Article has been nominated for PROD here and AfD on the German Wikipedia. Jared Preston (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Transfermarkt has many mistakes, but has millions of stats... "Anyone can edit it" is just not trouth. Anyone can register, but please try to submit a wrong info and come back to me saying they accepted it, ok?

-Transfermarkt asks you for a source, and then the change is submited to an website admin who checks the source before inserting the facts to the page, a process that usually takes a day or two. The changes are NOT done directly as here on WP, please GiantSnowman stop giving that phalse idea. I am not saying that it is reliable, but lets not exagerate the other way around. FkpCascais (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on GS, I explained this already, Transfermarkt is not a WP:RS, but it has as much mistakes as all other similar websites like Playerhistory, NFT, Weltfussball, Footballdatabase, etc. I only dare to say that Soccerway is slightly better, but in comparison, it has only about 1/8th of total ammount of info Transfermarkt has. As one German editor once said, it is quite reliable for German football, and as you move further away from Germany it becomes less and less accurate... FkpCascais (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Manual of style for domestic cup articles

Domestic football cup articles all have a different style in depicting their tournament matches. As we all know, most football federations have a single elimination policy for their domestic cups. It's simple, the losing club is eliminated. Here, I list a few examples from current season. All are okay in their own terms, but overall they look like a hairy mess. Maybe we could work on a comprehensive WP:MOS for domestic football cup articles.

• 2011–12 FA Cup → (Template:Football box collapsible & brackets)
• 2011–12 Coppa Italia → (Template:Football box & brackets)
• 2011–12 KNVB Cup & 2011–12 Austrian Cup → (Template:OneLegResult)
• 2011–12 Scottish Cup → (Template:Fb match)
• 2011–12 DFB-Pokal & 2011–12 Swiss Cup → (a weird table for participating clubs, probably imported from de.wiki mos)
• 2011–12 Cupa României → (Template:Football box with alternating background colours)
• 2011–12 Coupe de France & 2011–12 Belgian Cup → (multiple columns of wikitables, probably imported from fr.wiki mos)
• 2011–12 Ukrainian Cup → (borderless wikitables)

So, what are your thoughts? — Ekin^(talk·@) 09:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See #List of UEFA Super Cup winners and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Competitions above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Its completely ridiculous - we need to establish a model page for sure, and have editors watching that all the pages for every season follow the guidelines. I personally favour the Football Boxes in the FA Cup article as the standard - for years we don't have scorers it doesn't matter because they are smart enough tables anyway. 03md 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Football player pictures from Facebook.

I was on a forum today and someone asked me if I could put a picture of Amrinder Singh on his page. I said okay and give me the picture. He told me that his picture was on facebook in one of his albums, in that album there is a picture of him in his jersey and that because nothing on Facebook is copyright (supposedly, I am not sure about that) that I can just us that picture on wikipedia freely. I said I would think about it and now I am here. So, are we even allowed to use pictures of footballers from there facebook pages without there consent. I am pretty sure its a no but just to make sure.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No we can't, unless the pictures have been released under a sutiable license. Your associate's idea that nothing on Facebook is copyrighted is ridiculous, as I'm sure you suspected. However, one could perhaps contact Amrinder via Facebook and request that he make the picture available by follwing the guidance at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. AJSham 18:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep that is my plan. Although the funny thing is that I actually went to Amrinder's FB before coming here and he did not even have a picture of him in his jersey on his profile. The ones he did were just pictures of him in photos owned by Pune FC, the club he plays for so I definitely cant use those. Although I will start asking a few others. Thank you for confirming this. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation of James Forrest

Hi guys, I'm sure some of you will have heard of James Forrest (footballer born 1991) the footballer at Celtic. I think his page should be at what is currently the disambiguation page. He is IMO by far the most notable of all the forrests listed on the page and actually the only one who is called James Forrest. I'm not entirely sure on the protocol, does this need an RM or can it just be moved. Cheers. Adam4267 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You would need an admin to move the current James Forrest disambiguation page to James Forrest (disambiguation) and the footballer to James Forrest (the space having been cleared). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This may be more work than you anticipate. Reading recentism may alert you to the possibility that other editors will ask you why you assume that your footballer called James Forrest is a more automatic enquiry subject than theirs. It will pay you to have your arguments ready. Britmax (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go further and suggest simply dropping the issue. The Forrest in question isn't even the most-capped Scottish international with that moniker, nor anywhere near the one with the most appearances for top-flight clubs (or even Old Firm clubs). There's no solid argument for his being the primary subject at all that I can see. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The two other football players were both known as Jim Forrest, rather than James Forrest. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless there's a significant enough chance of confusion there to warrant a dab page being in place. I don't see that there's any compelling argument suggesting that when the mythical average reader looks for James Forrest on Wikipedia he is overwhelmingly likely to be looking for the current Celtic player. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Honours in infobox

I thought displaying honours in the infobox was only reserved for competitions that actually distribute medals such as the Summer Olympics. User:MarkMysoe has added an honours section in the infobox of André Ayew, but it lists international and domestic competitions. I reverted because I remember this being brought up before and, subsequently rejected, but the user reverted me citing Alessandro Del Piero's infobox, which has honours in his infobox. The honours have also been displayed in the infobox for over a year. — JS^{Rant Away} 03:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

MarkMysoe is using WP:OTHERSTUFF. As far as I know having honors is one for Olympics or related medal tournaments. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that this is rarely-used and that the use of medal templates should, in general, be avoided (it introduces a mess of additional table markup which likely negatively impacts the accessibility of the infobox), there's never been a consensus that it shouldn't be used for professional competition and indeed {{infobox football biography}}'s own documentation includes an example from club football. If we're going to take a stand against this then we should start there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The restriction to Olympics pre-dates the medal templates being included in the infobox. There's absoultely no reason to restrict it to that, it's completely arbritary: even athletes' articles quite often don't. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lineup images

I'm just wondering, does anyone here know with which program or editor I can create a lineup image such as File:PAR-NZL 2010-06-24.svg? I can't seem to find any information of how they were created on images such as that one. JaumeBG (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I would rather propose the abolition of such images. Which centre back is on the left or right, which forward is further forward or back, whether the wide midfielders are more advanced down the pitch than the central midfielders is A) unverifiable in the vast majority of cases, and B) constantly changing during the match. Such images seek to portray information that is unreliable, and as such they are intrinsically unencyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather we came up with a scheme by which such things could be automatically generated given a nicely marked-up playing squad. But to answer the original question, that SVG was created using Inkscape, which is pretty much the universally best option for free SVG editing software at this point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin - what purpose do these images serve? What are we basing the positions on? GiantSnowman 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The lineup images for UEFA matches are reliable as UEFA provide a tactical lineup, thus providing a reference to base the lineup on. here is a link to confirm this. I'm not sure if other organisations do this, but I don't have a problem with images, I think its useful information, yes the positions change during the course of the match, but I think its helpful to the reader to provide a visual aid to accompany the text. It helps explain the positions, and where they correspond to on the pitch. Without the image, a reader unfamiliar with football would have trouble discerning what position corresponds to a certain area on the pitch. Also as players are defined as defenders, strikers etc, I'm not sure how it can be unencylcopaedic, as yes their position may vary, but the lineup image represents where they started the match, so the text can provide the reader with the info on whether there position changed or not. NapHit (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If a reader really is that ignorant of the positions of football, they will be even more confused by images that suggest that every player is positioned in his own half. It does not indicate where they start the match. The Uefa diagrams might enable editors to claim that they are following a verifiable source (for that small proportion of games), but verifiability of that which is not reliably true or clear communication is of very limited value. Kevin McE (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Every player is positioned in his own half at the start of the match though. I think NapHit was trying to make the point that this is at the start of the match. Anyway have you ever watched a match where they didn't show the line-up beforehand, and most newspapers now have that graphic in as well. Its common practice now when reporting on football matches. Adam4267 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but those newspapers don't necessarily match each other. For example even if a team fields 5 players in a row, most tv-graphics will make 2 rows of that, because of wifth reasons. In that UEFA link above i bet 95% of all graphics for that show Kaka and Inzaghi in line. Those graphics really aren't needed. -Koppapa (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, they're not needed. That doesn't mean they don't exist - they do and they are commonplace. They're not always accurate either but that goes for all sources. If it is commonplace amongst sources to do somethin then Wikipedia should do it to. Adam4267 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding style and location of navbox "xxxx in Fooian football" in (league) season articles

The issue in general is rather minor, but nevertheless – I recently noticed that Scandinavian league season articles (e.g., 2012 Norwegian Premier League, 2012 Allsvenskan, 2012 Veikkausliiga) began to include collapsible boxes à la Template:2012 in Norwegian football below the standard infobox, partially although a navbox with the same content had already been placed within the stack at the bottom of the pages. Both navbox styles are valid in WP:MOS terms, nevertheless two nearly identical boxes seem to be one too many.

So... is there a preference regarding the location (top of article vs bottom stack) and the style (collapsible box vs standard navbox) of these boxes within the project? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

These templates are inappropriate. We have essentially universal use of footer-style navboxes for these links; now is not the time to decide to alter that in some given set of leagues. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a minor matter that should be left to the relevant Sweden task force and Finland task force to address after considering this debate in WikiProject Football.

There are at present basic navigation problems in migrating between divisions in a particular season - this is faced by the ordinary Wikipedia user - but of course not by WP Editors and Reviewers like ourselves who are familiar with templates and page layout. Most users do not know how to (or lack the patience to) filter through the footer-style nav boxes to find the particular link that would take them to the relevant league tables - they may not even perceive that they could view say the " 1957 Fooian Third Division Tables". A list of closed templates at the bottom of the page can at times be a somewat intimidating environment to sift through.

The collapsible vertical navbox or non-collapsible infobox at the top of the page provides an easy point of reference to a few key divisional and cup links. Hundreds of theses have been incorporated in the Swedish and Finnish football pages over the last 6 months with a very dramatic increase in page views. With reference to the "Wikipedia article traffic statistics" in Sweden, the impact has been a tremendous increase in traffic statistics with page views more than doubling in some instances.

The vertical navbox is a simple resource that really does assist navigation and increase user traffic - for me that is the bottom line "to improve the user experience". In new small devices such as an iPhone the ability to use the navbox becomes even more critical in achieving seamless navigation. (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 10:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)).

Increased page views does not necessarily equate to increased user traffic, and nor is it always desirable even if it does: we could link every word in an article and that would increase page views as well. My major concern, however, is that these all seem to have been created using hand-hacked {{navbox vertical}}s, which is the completely wrong approach and means that updating or otherwise altering them en masse requires a tremendously increased level of effort. It shouldn't be at all difficult to create a meta-template which can be used for these templates, and I'd very much like for that approach to be put in place before any more of these are rolled out. Lastly, "these have been in place for six months" is an argument of fait accompli: we've had years and years of central discussion over the implementation of navigation boxes at WT:FOOTY and it doesn't seem appropriate to simply bypass that for a novel new scheme and hope that wide deployment makes up for the lack of original discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

England national football team protection

Can we please put the England national football team on protection. The page is consistently vandalized and many IPs refuse to use the talk page. Until the issue of the crest is over I think we should semi-protect the page. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Season ranges

Another Spanish player-related query. I changed the season ranges displayed in a number of Barcelona players' career statistics from 1999–00 to 1999–2000 in order to reflect what the wikilinked articles are titled (e.g. 1999–2000 Segunda División B is used, rather than 1999–00 Segunda División B). However, I have been reverted on all counts by User:Raulseixas, with no explanation given as to why. So I just wanted to raise this here and make sure the amendments I made are correct. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What is changed is just the way it looks for viewing, not the link. Thanks. --Raulseixas (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• In WP, all the seasons articles expect for the last year in the decade have the display of four digits followed by two (i.e. 1985-86, 1999-2000). However, in the chart, 1999-00 suffices 100% well for compression/display purposes (and the understanding is a breeze, if a season starts in the year 1999 and ends in the year 00, what year is 00?). Really can't see what's the problem Matty. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As you may be aware, the English Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that applies to the whole project and that we're supposed to follow, the relevant bit of which says "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." (my highlighting) Mattythewhite's changes were compatible with the MoS, so in my opinion at least shouldn't be reverted just because we don't happen to like it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• But in that case, the graphic is all messy...No problem, MOS away! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what "No problem, MOS away!" means. The career stats table in the featured article Thierry Henry follows the MoS format, as do most of the featured lists that include a seasons column, including List of FC Barcelona seasons. As these are by definition reviewed in detail and promoted as examples of Wikipedia's best work, using the format prescribed by the MoS can't be all that messy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• My sentence means that i will comply with the manual of style, even though i don't agree. The "messy" bit: since it's a chart, i don't think it's quite correct to have bits with six digits (1998-99) with bits with eight up and down (1999-2000), that was all. It would be exactly THE SAME as if we had an infobox with "1999-2006" for one club, followed by "06-11" for another... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I see Raul has reverted me again, despite WP:YEAR being brought to light and recommending that the closing year be written in full when it is in a different century from the opening year. Assuming good faith, perhaps he had hadn't checked this discussion at the time of his reverts. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Needing history merge favour

Last summer some user redirected a long existing article into a new page, thus making it loose its edit history. The page is Milan Stojanoski, and the edit history is at Milan Stojanovski which is now a redirect. FkpCascais (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 08:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Many, many thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:MarkMysoe

Since we didn't spent too much attention to User:Zombie433 so that his vandalism in footy biographies grew to unimaginable dimensions I'm forced to report here User:MarkMysoe who is adding to Ghanian footabllers articles fictious youth years, stats and info unsupported by sources, just like User:Zombie433 did. His trademark is to add his own opinions or other info about a player using "ghost" sources that not support the claims. I already reported there his actions in Kevin-Prince Boateng article and User:Basalisk cleaned a lot his POVish. After that he continues to do the same thing like for example in Kevin Mensah. By the way please look how high is the level of his arrogance, he added later another not supported claim, "He usually plays the ball with his right foot but is actually left-footed" based on "Preferred foot: Right/Left" from source, he removed not supported claim in next edit, but look at the summary "so what not supported in the source?" - what a cheek! Go now to his recent edits: Masahudu Alhassan, he added a source which says "...he signed for then Serie B side Rimini. He left after one season to join Genoa", he include this info and by the way added contradictory info that he played 4 years for Rimini as well as fictious years for Prampram Mighty Royals[25]. The same he did in Rashid Sumaila with some POVish and a lot of the same things in Richard Mpong. Please look also into Emmanuel Baffour, this is common example how he adds his own opinion using random sources that not support a claim. As you can see we need to precisely look at his edits, even if he adds references often these are references without cover.--Oleola (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Two things quickly - firstly, I have notified Mark about this discussion, and secondly, do you have any diffs showing where yo have tried to explain to him what he is doing is wrong? GiantSnowman 16:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at the history of articles I posted above, I always tried to explain him what he is doing is wrong in edit summaries,User:Basalisk left him a clearly message here too. I told him also to avoid using peacock and weasel terms per[26] however he failed to comply with. Finally left him a warning, but shortly he edited Richard Mpong again changing club years without providing a references.--Oleola (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Basalisk, GiantSnowman, Oleola, I want you three to know that I don't mean to vandalize association football players articles, I just try to do my best, whenever I can, sometimes I get the editing on an association football players article correct then sometimes not correct. The three of you must know that I'm obviously not as skilled as you three, when it comes to editing on association football players articles, I edit all different types of articles subjects not just mainly association football players articles. Please Basalisk, GiantSnowman and Oleola, you must all know that I do not in no way intend to vandalize association football players articles and when I do edit association football players articles, its because, as a Wikipedia editor I try and help improve various subjects of articles whenever I can. I would now please suggest that Basalisk, GiantSnowman and Oleola, if you three in the future can please try and give me some help with any editing mistakes on association football players articles that I may accidentally make, instead of Basalisk and Oleola, thinking that I am not listening to their advises.

Basalisk, you previously thought me about the the type of language and wording that I should use when I edit association football players articles and I have tried to follow that advice from you.

GiantSnowman, you previously thought me about [icons] being used in association football players articles (Honours section) and I have followed that advice from you.

Oleola, you have recently thought me about the correct years of when an association football player played for a club or national team and also the amount of caps the association football player received when they played for the club or national team should be sourced with a 100% reliable source, and that the sources that I have inserted into a few association football players articles must be supported by a 100% reliable source, and with the correct wording used in additional paragraphs to be a 100% aligned with the accurate wording that is in the 100% reliable source provided in specific association football players articles.

I want to let the three of you know that I have taken in all what you have thought me and I'am very grateful, if in the future I accidentally succumb to a editing mistake, please leave me a message with a clear instruction of how to edit in a specific way and etc. Thank you three for helping me with knwoledge of how to correctly edit association football players articles. Regards and many thanks - MarkMysoe (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by Basalisk. I haven't been involved in any of the articles other than Kevin-Prince Boateng, and in the face of my persistence Mark seems to have given up on that article. Nonetheless, I found my interactions with him there extremely frustrating. I have to support the OP's claims - Mark seems to have an MO of adding original research under the guise of apparently reliable sources, which, when read, are found not to support the claims he makes in the article. He seems to be under the impression that as long as he inserts any old source which mentions the subject, that then gives him leave to write whatever he wants and use the source as validation. In addition, he seems to have a few problems with encyclopaedic language and synthesis (for example, one of the revisions I removed from the article included the statement that Boateng possessed "nuclear explosive speed", a pathetically cringe-worthy phrase that was not mentioned by any sources that Mark used). I've tried to help Mark, as can be seen in the archives of his own talk page or that of Kevin-Prince Boateng (though I admit I got extremely frustrated at times), but it was a long, hard slog to get him to stop what he was doing, and he only eventually desisted when other editors got involved to back up my position. Overall, Mark seems to be engrossed in fanboyism when it comes to footballer articles, and uses his own personal knowledge to turn articles into football magazine-esque puffery pieces. I feel this is a WP:CIR issue as Mark doesn't seem capable of getting the point regarding encyclopaedic writing and proper use of reliable sources. I'm sorry that it's come to this, because Mark is obviously passionate about this subject area, but from what I've seen his actions are damaging wikipedia and consuming a huge amount of other editors' time, and he needs to stop. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply by MarkMysoe. Basalisk, what I have written above your comment is basically answering all that you have just wrote. I have mentioned that I now have the knowledge of how to correctly edit association football players articles, and that the problems that arose by my editing on the association football players articles will no longer happen. I really do not know why you would say that my edits (all my edits) are a problem for Wikipedia, after all, as far as I am aware of, Basalisk & Oleola, are not Wikipedia administrators so why play something you are not!, but I do know GiantSnowman is a Wikipedia administrator and he does not seem to share the same views as both of Basalisk & Oleola, in that my edits (all my edits) are a disruption to Wikipedia, with what seems to now be looking like a personal mission by both Basalisk & Oleola to get me blocked from Wikipedia that is. I have kindly said all that I can to try to explain, in that those problems previously regarding my editing on association football players will no longer persist, but yet especially Basalisk still pursues the mission to get me blocked from editing on Wikipedia, that is not good. - Regards. MarkMysoe (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, Mark, calm down. How can I possibly be pursuing a vendetta against you when you yourself informed me of this discussion? I wouldn't even have come here if you hadn't notified me, and I haven't had any interaction with you since the nonsense on the KPB article ended. I have never, at any point, asked for you to be blocked (I didn't even report you over the fiasco at KPB, I just resolved it directly with you), but I was mentioned by the original post and so gave my account of the situation. Secondly, stop admin-following. My opinion (or that of any other editor, such as Oleola) is not worth less than GiantSnowman's just because I don't have access to the same tools; I'm just being honest about my interactions with you. Lastly, you're intimating that I've made an aggressive comment after a statement from yourself saying that you'll stop your disruptive behaviour, but you'll forgive me if I remain skeptical as that's exactly what you said last time, and yet a few months later we find ourselves in the same position, discussing the problems you're making on other football-related articles. Mark, I don't want you to get blocked. I don't even want you to be proscribed from editing football articles. I actually want you to carry on editing, because your enthusiasm is valuable. I just want you to do it in an encyclopaedic fashion and according to wikipedia policies and guidelines, not as though you were writing your own football magazine. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also Mark, I'm going to assume good faith on this one, but could you please restore your talk page archives to their state before your brief "retirement"? Archiving talk pages is encouraged, and I'm always extremely suspicious of editors who attempt to censor a troublesome talk page history by blanking. It would be easier for everyone if you would restore it. Thanks. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was intrigued enough to look through a few disputes recently over your edits, both to other footballer articles and to Ghana, and you know what? I stand by everything I said. You just don't seem to get that you can't just write whatever takes your fancy. I'm trying to AGF, but it seems like your usage of vague (and possibly even rankly false) sources, and your tactic of making dozens of small edits all with summaries of "minor update" to cover a larger change, are perhaps attempts to subvert attempts to moderate the damage you're doing. I've said my piece; I don't really have anything more to add. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mark - any particular reason why you informed me about this discussion six hours after I informed you about it? GiantSnowman 14:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• User:MarkMysoe just did it again, he changed Sulley Muntari first name to Sulleyman with reference to Milan website, that doesn't mention Sulleyman as his first name, just Sulley Ali Muntari[27].--Oleola (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The cheek, from User talk:Oleola just amazes me. Oleola you do not know what your doing. The name given in the Sulley Muntari article was given as "Salomon Alfred Ali Muntari", then an edit from a IP Address changed it and not me, so please get your facts correct User:Oleola. The IP editor put the correct fullname of Sulleyman Ali Muntari (see here), as anyone who is familiar with Islam would know that "Sulley" is a shortened and nickname for a person named Sulleyman, so I put a reference from the Milan website originally intended for the height as the previous source was broken and also used it for the name Sulleyman as I said before that "Sulley" is a nickname for the Islamic name Sulleyman, and anybody with a good brain would know that. There are even many sources throughout the Internet supporting the obvious of waht I am claiming, that show Sulley Muntari's real fullname is Sulleyman Ali Muntari (for example see Suleyman Ali Muntari is finding his own way to his goals, Sulleyman Ali Muntari - Allsports.com Sulleyman Ali "Sulley" Muntari, Ghana Leads Remaining Muslim Stars, Ghana’s Black Stars Target Win At Congo Brazaville and Football Association International Friendly - England 1 Ghana 1, with many more throughout the Internet. I really don't know what User:Oleola is trying to do to me. I believe perhaps he is obviously trying his best to get me blocked from editing on Wikipedia. - MarkMysoe (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, you didn't do anything wrong. It's obvious that everyone should know that Sulley is nickname for Sulleyman not Suleyman, Suleiman, Sulaiman, Suleman, Soliman, Sulayman, Süleyman, Sulejman, Sleiman, Sleman, Solyman or Seleman. But sadly none of has as "good brain" as MarkMysoe. But see what, MarkMysoe added other reference but his good brain missed that it states that Muntari name is Suleyman, not Sulleyman as he wrote. But what's the difference. And btw MarkMysoe I'm not trying get you blocked from editing, so please stop accusing anyone who is complaining about your wrong edits of this, only your own actions could lead you to this. I created this topic to draw other users attention on your controversial edits similar to what User:Zombie433 did, not to discuss with you because I can't get along with you, sadly as other editors too. So please be so kind and don't replay me.--Oleola (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? You can't change his name to something just "because you know it's short for something else" because that's original fucking research. Honestly, why can't you understand this? It's even more staggering given that you apparently found a wealth of sources but didn't bother to use them. I would advise you to start again from the very basics Mark: don't write anything, not even one single word, on wikipedia without supplying a direct reference, until you gain a full understanding of the policies on referencing and original research. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The "omniscient one" has struck again............. lol!!!! Banana Fingers (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)