Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 80

Torquay United Programmes

Hi guys,

As a Torquay United fan and the creator of the Martin Rice and Daniel Leadbitter articles, I am wondering if it would be possible to illustrate both these articles and the biographies of Torquay's current squad with images of them on the front of the club's match-day programme.

Torquay choose one player as the "cover star" of each programme (example: http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc7/373729_272170339468913_1204166126_n.jpg) and it seems this is the best image available of most of the players; currently, Craig Easton's page is the only one of Torquay's current squad to be illustrated with a decent picture.

Although I'm far from an expert in the rules regarding image use, would it be more acceptable if I uploaded photos of the programmes (from my own collection) for each player? It seems a shame that very few players at this level have articles containing photos.

Thanks,

Drawley (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that those images wouldn't be usable on WP. They are copyrighted, and copyrighted images of living people can't be used unless there's some truly exceptional reason why a free image couldn't be obtained. As there's nothing to stop someone taking a camera to a game and photographing the players, it couldn't really be argued that the above applies, sorry about that....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly Chris. It's a shame that the pictures can't be used but I understand the reason - thanks for your help. Drawley (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

inthemadcrowd

The inthemadcrowd.co.uk website, a site that has profiles on every Hartlepool United player, has been blocked by Google and others as an attack site. Quite a lot of articles link to the site. Does anybody know if the site has been hijacked or if we should remove all links to it?--EchetusXe 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Google's diagnostic page, it looks pretty dodgy to me. Best keep away until it's been cleaned up. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a 177 links that need to be fixed here. U+003F^? 09:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a good site, so if we can we should replace them with archive.org links. GiantSnowman 09:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Where archive.org don't have copies for any page, Poolstats has a similar level of detailed information. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of them are Tranmere players; I used inthemadcrowd because it gave full names for opposition players: for example Wilf Charlton was listed as "Wilfred Sydney Charlton". This info isn't available at neilbrown, for example, nor in my Tranmere book. Are there other online resources that give full names for long-retired players? U+003F^? 12:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the South Korean flag used in fb template

As I was patrolling my watch list, I noticed this edit. I noticed that both the normal and the right-hand version of the template does not include the flag: South Korea. When I checked the template, {{fb}}, it linked to Category:Country data templates which also displays the problem. Any idea what the underlying issue is and how to correct it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It all looks OK to me. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No flag appears for me. Forced a browser cache refresh. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Flag is showing for me as well. GiantSnowman 15:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Flag still not showing. Now at a separate computer on a separate network. Odd. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's somehow that IP ranges show this problem. I have seen missing flags on articles also. For example the UEFA world cup qualification. And i have seen this on some, never all, flags in the past. After a few days it always sorted itself. -Koppapa (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a same problem with the Romanian flag, I see a white square with a gray border instead of the flag. Stigni (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that it's IP ranges since my IP at work is in the 67.21.*.* range while at home it's 96.55.*.*. This is the external address, not the NAT address.

I just noticed that this is also happening with Chile but not Romania as reported above. For those who do see it, may I suggest clearing your cache as it may be stored in your browser's cache and then go to List of FIFA country codes? Clearing cache in Firefox and Chrome is easy CTRL-ALT-Backspace (CTRL-Option-Backspace on the Mac) and follow the instructions. This takes a bit more effort in other browsers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that only 2 countries have this problem. South Korea and Chile. their small flags are blank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozix (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40980 — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Chile is working now. The ticket helps. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion..

I see vandalism on the United Arab Emirates Men's Soccer Team went undiscovered, which led to the Asian Football Confederation referring to the team as the Sand Monkeys, which prompted an international row and apology. I would think perhaps similar articles should have an eye on them, just in case similar vandalism occurs. [1] SirFozzie (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by what a "similar" article might be. Interestingly the edit immediately after the offending edit was reverted by a bot. Surely these sorts of words should trigger action by a bot or be flagged by the system. Hack (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It reminds me of vandalism to the article on Russell Brand that changed the name of his mother; certain british tabloid newspapers then used the fake name in their photo captions, to much hilarity and red-faces. The fault lies with those relying on Wikipedia as a reliable source - because unforunately it isn't. GiantSnowman 08:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Going through journalism school only to end up writing about the bottoms of celebrities is a real downer. Perhaps those depressed people forget to check their sources – give them a break, yes? :P – Kosm1fent 10:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And this my friend is why we source everything. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't stop someone changing the text though. In any case, we usually don't have refs in infoboxes. Hack (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata just might deploy something akin to Flagged Revisions, which will hopefully reduce the potential for things like this. In my off-wiki experience, infoboxes are (wrongly) considered to be more reliable than article prose. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 16:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Olympique Oran

Hi guys,

I have just stumbled across a very strange club article and thought I'd bring it to your attention. The article in question is Olympique Oran, supposedly a top-flight team in Vanuatu. Clearly, not all of the information on this page can be true: the club's stadium capacity is listed as 55,000 (Vanuatu's national stadium holds 6,500); the team's manager is named as "Tony Jamieson" (Jamieson is the goalkeeper for the Cook Islands national team); and, perhaps most obviously, the club's "Current squad" of 25 players comprises 15 nationalities!

It's hard to imagine any Oceanic club attracting players from countries as diverse as Russia, Brazil, Pakistan and Eritrea; the only player named in the squad who is actually proven to exist and could possibly be playing in Vanuatu is the American Samoa defender Pesamino Victor. However, as I made Victor's page, I am highly suspicious of this article's claim that Olympique Oran signed him for Kiwi FC - national-football-teams shows him to have spent his entire career at PanSa East FC in his home country.

A quick search of the club's name only turns up a stadium in Algeria; the Olympique Oran article itself even inexplicably mentions "FC To" in the first line, another club which may or may not exist. Finally, the "external links" link to what appears to be the website of the Tuvalu futsal team and the Tuvalu FA, and both of the editors of the article are not registered (possibly the same person?).

Thanks,

Drawley (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've tagged it as a hoax for CSD. GiantSnowman 16:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've tagged a further 5 articles created by the same editor, all hoaxes as well. GiantSnowman 16:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ledley King - report of asault charge

I am sure this has been tackled before but would appreciate some help over at Talk:Ledley King. I have been engaged in trying to hold the line on an editor with a dynamic IP address whose been adding excessive uncorroborated info about Ledley King's assualt charge in 2009. There has been a section on this since the time but the editor has after 3 years just started adding more and more details from tabloids which was never more than speculative at the time and has no credibility. LK was charged with asault and bailed but all charges were subsequently dropped. As such these events would not be normally considered notable however, as LK himself commented and apologised this I guess might justify inclusion of the verified facts. However, the unsubstantiated material from tabloids in particular and inaccurate reporting in tabloids and broadsheets to the nature of the offence and what words that are suggested were exchanged, including a racial slur, in my view should not be included as there was no court case to verify this and so such commentary is just that. My understanding is policy is clear on this e.g. WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:CRIME. So could anyone with some experience of this contribute over at the Talk Page, thanks. Tmol42 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Juventus Primavera players

Category:Juventus Primavera players

Thoughts on categories for youth teams? I think it's overkill and some players on the list may never have even played for the Juventus youth team.... GiantSnowman 10:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is actually something I have thought about for a long time and basically what I think now on this is that youth team categories are overkill. Why group them together in that category when the reader can just easily read the article and find out what youth team the player is on. Also what about players that come from youth teams for clubs that are not notable. Do we make the category for them? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be quite useful. We have a problem with Bayern Munich, where people who have played for the reserve team but not the first team go into Category:FC Bayern Munich II players, while people who have only played for the youth team often go in Category:FC Bayern Munich players, which seems odd to me. A Category:FC Bayern Munich Junior Team players might solve the problem in this case., ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Will players who play for the youth team and then the senior team be placed in both categories? or is the 'youth player' cat just for those who never make the grade? Cos the Juventus creator is removing the senior team cats - this is one of many examples - I have reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 10:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC

Yes, they should definitely stay in the senior team if they made it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Falque didn't, though, as far as I can see, so presumably the editor is using the Primavera cat for those who made it no further than that level......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Agree 300% with Snowman, totally overkill. There is a similar category, Category:Real Madrid Juvenil footballers, but nothing similar created for FC Barcelona or Atlético Madrid to give some examples. Regarding Art's input, if a player has never played for FC Bayern Munich but has been part of the roster on some seasons (example Christian Saba), he should have both categories (full team and amateur team) in his article. In the second part of your reasoning, yes, i have seen it in several articles, players who only played youth football for one club have the first team's category. Odd, especially as it's not consensual (some players have it, others don't).

Attentively - --AL (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Long-held consenus is that a player should be categorised by any club he has played for, junior or senior. GiantSnowman 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• What i meant by "non-consensual" was that i see it (the category) in some articles, not in ALL. But glad to hear a project consensus has been reached. --AL (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• CfD. GiantSnowman 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Liban Abdi

Is this guy an international or not? According to this link (please see here http://www.foradejogo.net/player.php?player=198710050006, check the top-right corner), he has played thrice (gotta love this old word!) for Somalia. However, both FIFA.com and NFT.com yield no results for him.

In S.C. Olhanense's page, people keep changing his nationality to Norwegian. Per Zerozero yes he has that nationality, but is Somali as well (see here http://www.footballzz.com/jogador.php?id=50754&epoca_id=0&search=1). Given that he was born in Somalia, why not keep it simple? My summaries may be hysterical sometimes, but at least i provide them. The guy(s) who change(s) his nationality do(es) it without "spending" as much as one word!

Returning to the first question: bearing in mind the information i provided in the first paragraph, should we consider him an international or not? Attentively - --AL (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Our default position is that is the absence of international appearances or clear case of temporary displacement of parents at time of birth (the Tom Hately clause) then place of birth is the main determinant. To that extent, whether he has valid international appearances or not is moot, but note that neither FIFA.com nor nft.com make any claim to provide team lists for non-competitive matches for lower profile nations, so such absence proves nothing.

However, as I have often opined, and as this case amply proves, this is a ridiculous simplification of the truth, and there is nothing meaningful in saying that this is his nationality "as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules".

And as I have suggested before, such issues should only be brought here when there is a clear impasse after discussion on the club article or the player's own article, neither of which avenue has even been attempted. Kevin McE (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Have done so in the club's article. My question about his international status had nothing to do with simplifying or not the issue, because: 1 - if he was an international, he should have that flag in the club's squad 200% for sure; 2 - if he was not, he should have the same flag, "only" 100% in that case (what's with the Norway bit i really don't see, even if one of his parents hails from that nation) --AL (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Stupid me, did not bother to check Adbi's article before filing my report :( I did so now and found this (please see here http://www.vg.no/sport/fotball/norsk/landslaget/artikkel.php?artid=10068265), looks like he does have dual citizenship. Thus, in that case, it's not wrong to "label" him a SOMALI is it? --AL (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Kevin, i forgot about those sites not keeping track of all the matches for "lowly" nations, good input. --AL (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The story about this guy is actually a bit funny. He was made famous in Norway a couple of months ago when the Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang wrote that there were a Norwegian footballer playing regularly in Portugal and that was not on the Norwegian national team (which is kinda shocking, since Norway only have a dozen players playing outside Scandinavia). At first there were no sources in Norwegian newspapers that he has played for Somalia, so I removed it from the article and rewrote the lead the prevent nationalistic POV in the opening paragraph. I've later found a source that states that he has played three matches for Somalia but is still eligible to play for Norway. I've now added more information to the article about this, but until he plays for Norway he should have the Somalian flag in the club's squad. --Mentoz86 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Does the Norwegian word "uoffisielle" mean a friendly international? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know what they mean by "uoffisielle", except that he is still eligible for Norway. Given that they aren't listed at fifa.com or nft it might be one of those caps that are unofficial, but the Norwegian source doesn't really say if it is friendly matches or unofficial matches. --Mentoz86 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering, really. Whether a word in a tabloid report that might perhaps refer to training matches against a club or regional side or whatever, was a good enough source for adding said matches to the infobox as internationals? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you for questioning this: After more research I found this, where it says (translated): After VG wrote about Abdi's success, have several readers asked us if the 23-year old is eligible to play for Norway as Wikipedia states that the played three matches for Somalia. - That is wrong, I've never played for them and haven't been there since I was 13. I want to play for Norway, says Abdi. I'll remove the caps immidiately. --Mentoz86 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't stop that same newspaper awarding him three "uoffisielle" internationals for Somalia a few weeks later. I do love the mass media... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's amazing. But to the originial question: I guess the "right" thing to do would be a double flag, but I guess common sense would be to have a Norwegian flag (as we don't do double flags in squad-templates), since he didn't play for anyone and has stated that he want to play for Norway? --Mentoz86 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

He's declared for Norway, whether Mr Olsen wants him or not, and that declaration has to count ahead of place of birth. Struway2 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

While I don't doubt the reasonableness of that conclusion, where does determining nationality by an informal interview leave our description of squad nationalities as "as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules"? Kevin McE (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If he were not qualified for Norway "as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules", Mr Olsen wouldn't be considering him. MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspersons makes clear that if a sportsperson has declared for a country for which they are eligible, then that country's flag should be used. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say anywhere that Olsen has been considering him? Even if he is, surely it is not unknown for international managers to approach players before initiating the steps that would confirm their eligibility for international representation. And even if Olsen is "considering" him, that does not alter his place of birth and so he remains eligible for Somalia until he appears for Norway, so the notion that "FIFA eligibility rules" identify him uniquely as Norwegian is blatantly flawed. I'm not arguing with applying a Norwegian flag to him: I'm disputing the header that says that this is his one and only nationality as defined by FIFA regulations: the place of birth of the player himself, his parents and his grandparents is not negated by the fact that he moved to Norway before he was 13. This phrase was introduced years ago in the midst of argument about the sourcing of nationalities, it has been challenged several times, and has survived not because anyone has ardently defended it, but because alternative phrasings have been criticised and discussion has frittered away without resolution. Kevin McE (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, if you were just questioning his being uniquely defined as Norwegian according to the wording of the squad list header, then he's not. But his having lived in Norway for ten years, including five years after the age of 18, does make him eligible for that country per FIFA rules. Perhaps the difference lies between "potentially eligible for a non-birth nationality according to FIFA eligibility rules" and "committed to a non-birth nationality for which he had been potentially eligible etc etc by having applied to FIFA for a change". The MoS says that "if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used". And if the project has taken a local decision to ignore the MoS in favour of a header that people aren't particularly happy with, it shouldn't have. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Only allowing one flag, when stating in a header that this is the person's nationality (singular) as determined by FIFA rules is simply wrong for a large proportion of people. MoS goes on to say "If these [eligibility] rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent." Yeah: but what of the thousands of players who are nowhere near needing to make any such decision? Does anyone really expect an Anglo-Scots player at Hinckley Utd to discuss which of those two nations he hopes to represent? Yet we allocate him a sporting nationality, and claim the authority of FIFA for doing so. Kevin McE (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese names in infobox

An editor has been adding the Chinese-spelling of the player's name to the name parameter of the infobox.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long_Tan_%28footballer%29&diff=prev&oldid=518607810
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wang_Gang_%28footballer%29&diff=prev&oldid=518611526

From my reading of the template, the common name should be used and have been reverting. Is this the correct procedure? Special:Contributions/AFCShandong has a list of many other Chinese players where this has been applied. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure but this is not only the case with Chinese articles, their are many different players from Japan and mainly South Korea who have this as well. I always wondered about this issue as well. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have seen it in several Serbian players as well, i think it was User:Tempo21 who did it but cannot be 100% sure. I feel the pronunciation or akin should be referred to, if it should, in the introduction, not in the box where it takes up to much space. --AL (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox_football_biography}} states:

name: The commonly used name of the player.

fullname: The player's complete name.

{{Infobox person}} has two parameters:

name: Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name). If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lede of the article, and are not specified seperately in the birth_name field, include them here.

native_name: The person's name in their own language, if different.

Perhaps this omission is causing problems.

Jackie Chan uses a different template and has Chinese-language character in the infobox, but not the title, which is in English. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it on Israeli players as well - it should be removed from the football infobox. GiantSnowman 08:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese name was complicated as they sound the same, the characters were not the same. But did it really required in ENGLISH wikipedia? I think just put the Chinese characters in topic sentence is ok, not in infobox. Matthew_hk tc 14:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Infobox heading not necessary, perhaps we can add it as a parameter (will take that up at the template), and in the lede sentence is ideal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sean McDermott (footballer)

Sean McDermott (footballer) made his professional debut tonight for Sandnes Ulf in Tippeligaen. (source) The outcome of the AfD was that it could be recreated when he did so. Could any admin assist on the refund, and I'll update the article to make it look like he passes WP:GNG. --Mentoz86 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it; I'll leave it to you to update and improve if you don't mind. GiantSnowman 14:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the article. --Mentoz86 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Chris Kirkland

Rather predictably Kirkland has been attracting some attention - and I imagine more may be to come. In the absence of sources I've removed any naming of the bloke who appears to have smacked him - I'm sure that information will come into reliable sources sooner rather than later, but it strikes me as dodgy ground to be on just now. Perhaps people could add the page to their watch list and keep a bit of an eye on it in the short term? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your project is being adopted by the WP:GOCE

Just wanted to drop a note here letting this project know that the Guild of Copy Editors is running a "blitz" from October 21–27 to copy edit all tagged articles from this WikiProject. Drop by and take a look if you're interested in helping. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed mass deletion of Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol season articles in Spain

Some 23 articles which cover league tables within the Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol in Spain have been subject to a PROD and will shortly be deleted. The work covers the years 2007–08 and 2008–09 and has not been kept up to date for subsequent seasons. This in itself indicates that whilst an Editor may have the enthusiasm to prepare lower tier tables (levels 5 to 9) for a couple of seasons there is not the desire to perpetuate this work over time as it is not viable to maintain this level of detail year on year. Having said that the top level tables covering tier 5 are helpful when considering Club Notability issues and I suggest that at the very least two articles are retained - Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol 2007–08 and Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol 2008–09 and the level 5 tables are displayed in these articles.

Some of you will be aware that I have prepared the user essay WP:NFOOTYCLUB in which I list leagues in the Yellow and Grey Columns. As a general principle I suggest that we always support season articles for the notable leagues listed in the Yellow Column. Season articles may be appropriate for leagues listed in the Grey Column particularly with regard to maintaining historical continuity. In the past some of the leagues (including the Divisiones Regionales top tier in Spain) were of much higher status and contained high profile clubs. However a season article for a current league that is not listed in the Yellow and Grey Columns can in my view be considered for deletion.

We have discussed similar issues in the past covering Season articles for Regional Football Leagues. This refers to the 2010–11 Primera Catalana which is also within the Divisiones Regionales (tier 5). It is clear from this discussion that there is a view that we can never have a proper project policy on league season articles. From my comments above you will see that I disagree.

The bottom line for season articles is of course whether the article meets WP:GNG. In terms of articles for the Spanish regional leagues this should be quite achievable given the amount of coverage in the regional newspapers in Spain (some of which appears on-line). League Octopus (League Octopus 09:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC))

Alessandro Del Piero

In this article is reported that Del Piero is the third Italian top scorer of all time. But I found a source (this from iffhs) that reported that Chinaglia scores 319 goal in domestic championship and, adding the goal in other competition, he scored at least 347 goals in his career. I think that we have to delete this kind of all-time statics because the references are contradictory and there is the risk to give wrong information to readers. What do you think about this kind of statistics? Restu²⁰ 12:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Italian tops scorer"? Goals in Italian competions is meant here, even by foreign scorer? Or goals by Italian player in any top league? Sentenced should be sourced anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Its way to over sourced. One straight reference should be enough. Also do we count IFFHS as a reliable source. I don't know why but I had the impression that we did not. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

@Koppapa: it means Italian football players that have scored the highest number of goal in all official competition in every country they played.

@Arsenalkid700: it's plain that the statistics, in this moment, is wrong because IFFHS said that Chinaglia scored more goal than Del Piero in domestic championship and, with little calculation, scored at least 347 goals in all competition. I think there are only two possibility to solve that problem: remove that sentence or find more reliable source about this statistics, because with current sources we give a wrong information. Restu²⁰ 13:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There are references about this ranking:
http://www.tuttosport.com/calcio/2012/09/14-212432/Del+Piero%3A+%C2%ABVado+in+Australia+ma+%C3%A8+solo+un+arrivederci%C2%BB
http://www.calcionews360.net/2012/07/ciao-alex-del-piero-buona-nuova-avventura.html
http://www.tuttomercatoweb.com/nazionali/?action=read&idnet=dHV0dG9uYXppb25hbGkuY29tLTIzOTA
http://archiviostorico.gazzetta.it/2012/gennaio/26/Festa_Del_Piero_Questa_maglia_ga_10_120126051.shtml
http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/SerieA/Milan/16-09-2009/7-vite-inzaghi-501316594152.shtml
http://www.sportmediaset.mediaset.it/mercato/mercato/articoli/70877/inzaghi-riflessioni-sul-futuro.shtml
http://www.tuttosport.com/calcio/serie_a/juventus/2010/03/15-60075/Del+Piero+a+quota+301+gol+in+carriera%3A+nel+mirino+c%27%C3%A8+Inzaghi
About the goals of Del Piero, Meazza and Piola there aren't doubts. So the questioons are:
1 How many goals scored Chinaglia? The IFFHS says 319 in domestic championship, but other competitions?.
2 NASL has been recognized by FIFA? If the answer is no, the goals scored by Chinaglia in NASL are not valid, so he can't be inserted in the ranking
3 If the goals are valid, how many were the goals scored indoor and with shootout? The IFFHS doesn't specify it and it's a problem, becouse for the FIFA the indoor's goals and the goals from shootout are not regular.
4 Is it right to delete a ranking with secure informations becouse there is a phantom player who could have scored an indeterminate number of goals?
I think that before deleting the ranking we have to understand if the NASL was recognized by FIFA, if the number of goals set by the IFFHS also considers the indoor's goals and shootout, what is the number of goals without those indoor and shootout, and determine with certainty even the remaining number of goals. All these questions haven't an answer in the link of IFFHS...--Marcosax3 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

According to this the NASL was recognized by FIFA up until its demise in 1984. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, all other questions?--Marcosax3 (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Giovanni Trapattoni

What do people make of these recent additions to Giovanni Trapattoni? While some content is cited, controversial claims such as "whence his indecisiveness has caused confusion and outrage among the public" and "Long's subsequent stint in the international wilderness, contributed to Trapattoni's fall from grace among the Irish public" are not, and are clearly this user's personal opinions. Further, the comparison of Darron Gibson's and Paul Green's career achievements ("Gibson's a World Champ, whereas Green only has a measly Conference play-off medal, and that somehow makes Trap a load of crap" is the gist of it) is another way of portraying the subject in a negative light. These are just a few examples; I'd say most additions are in some way a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:OR. It seems to me this user has a bone to pick with Mr. Trapattoni and is using WP as a means of expressing this. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No responses, so assuming this hasn't been noticed. Sure it will be of interest to some. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence you mention above certainly is not written from a neutral point of view just because it can be referenced doesn't mean it's relevant or neutral. Some people don't seem to realise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an opinion piece. However with that said his rigid formation, his reluctance to pick in-form Premier League players, his inability to communicate with the players properly, the lack of attendance of games to watch players & his poor man management leading to him falling out with some players who have even made themselves unavailable is probably worth mentioning but how to put it in, in a balanced way is the problem. I would have said earlier this stuff needs mentioning but doesn't seem imperative now, as he has keep his position. The reasoning behind him remaining as manager is also a matter of debate as the FAI stated they felt we could still qualify for the play-offs after the result in the Faroes, but the reality is much different. I would have said I'd go through the article and removed POV & neutralised it, but given I'm very biased on this matter I don't think I'd be the best candidate. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Commentary should be deleted from our articles on sight, particularly BLPs. Zero tolerance. If and when reliable sources document a particular theme of analysis such material can be trivially re-added. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon it's about Trapattoni but it's OT, I'm a 50 y.o. italian, I'm used to shorten my name as "Nick". On it.wikipedia too I'm Nipas. Some years ago I helped a friend compiling the C.S.C. Juve Cusano Milanino (1913-2003) "My championship - CSC - Juve - Cusano Milanino, 90 years between story and memory" book (it: Il mio campionato CSC - JUVE - CUSANO - MILANINO, Novant'anni tra storia e memoria) (Trapattoni named at page 14). On the weekly milanese sportspaper "Lo Stadio Lombardo" I found that Trapattony was in the "U.S. Cusano Milanino" (red and black striped shirt as A.C. Milan) junior squad (season 1954/55) with Noletti. They both were sold to A.C. Milan entering the youth team "boys" (Campionato Ragazzi) attending the regional championship 1955/56 (they won it and then won the national final too). This means your career detail (at A.C. Milan since 1953), I'm sorry, it's wrong.--Nipas (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:86.42.12.125

An IP for people to keep an eye on: 86.42.12.125 (talk · contribs). He/she has been updating the infobox stats of Irish players, but seems to have an unexplained aversion of the five tilde approach to updating the club-update parameter, by removing datestamps (e.g. [2]). He/she's also prone to using foul language (e.g. [3]) and making edits that are just plain vandalism (e.g. [4]). This isn't the first IP I've come across whose edits centre on Irish football biographies and employs this antisocial attitude. Makes me wonder if there's some socking, or rather, frequent switching of IPs, going on. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

HA I love it... "Dear Dickhead, will you stop (something)... thanks." I don't know about you but I read that in a tone of him/her being an arse at the beginning but then says "thanks" in a nice tone. But ya, got my eye on him. Will keep a look at his/her contributions when I come on here. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've quite some history with the editor in question & it's not a laughing matter. It's not just vandalism, he makes a vast amount of disruptive edits across multiple IPs some of which have been blocked but he normally moves on to new IPs before reaching block limit. I took a case against him to WP:AN (which can be seen here) & requested a range block with User:Dianna implementing a few tight range blocks which turned out unsuccessful. The IP went on to further vandalise & disrupt & even falsely accused me of racism, he disappeared for a while when he returned, I tried avoiding him got feed up reverting & the abuse with nobody doing anything. The IP is one most disruptive editors & a black stain on this WikiProject, dialogue is pointless as Matty has demonstrated above, he just lives in denial & makes outrageous accusations. User:Murry1975 who has received legal threats from the IP has kept a detailed list of his disruption see here, so I've invited him to join the discussion he knows best what the IPs like. -★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for divulging that info, I've been suspicious of something like this being the case for a while. I wonder if 86.40.195.203 (talk · contribs), the IP who was adding dubious content at Giovanni Trapattoni, is another? Mattythewhite (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you see disruptive edits - revert, warn, and then report to AIV. I see nothing on the IP talk page so far. GiantSnowman 18:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There's not really an appropriate warning for the removal of timestamps, and besides, what's the use when he'll switch to another IP? He knows very well what he's doing is wrong; indeed, that's apparently the reason he is doing it. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

His disruptive edits would be covered by {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} and upwards. If he gets a new IP, give him warning level 2. A third IP, level 3. If it continues, and warnings/blocks don't work, then we can look into rangeblocks (though that's a last, last resort). GiantSnowman 19:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Snowy did you not read my above passage he was warning on several & blocked on at least 2 IPs probable more & a rangeblock didn't work & a larger one would have too much collateral damage & Matty I'm not sure on the Trap IP will have a proper look through their edits tomorrow & get back to you. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have taken so long in joining the discussion. This IP editor has caused disruption through adding POV and OR to many articles, lack of good faith and disregard for discussion on the encyclopedia, not only on football articles but on articles of people who may be of Irish decent. They have on a few of occassions made legal and general threats against myself and Duckisjammy, and accused both of us being rascist against the Irish (oh the irony of that!). They seem to have a good rounded knowledge of football but display a IDHT mentality that impedes the use of this knowledge for the good of both project football and the larger wikipedia community. If someone, an admin, would like to take them on board and try to get them to work their knowledge for the benefit of the project I would support that, but that would only be if the editor agreed and from the interaction I have seen in the past (about a year now), it seems unlikely that they would agree and stay within the guidelines. Unfortuantely because the IP is dynamic and they know this, a range block is too big (added to the fact that sometimes they edit off a Sligo based IP aswell Eircom one), we are left with sifting through the good and the bad edits to see which are vandalism and which are good. But this takes the biscuit. If I am not online feel free to use my talk page directory of IP86 for evidence if this goes to another line. Murry1975 (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like they have hopped to 83.70.199.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Keith D (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Category renaming for Indian football clubs.

I am currently trying to add the right categories to player articles or club articles yet some of the categories are wrongly named and I do not know how to change the name. If someone has the time can you please help change the name. The categories are...

• Category:Churchill Brothers SC → Category:Churchill Brothers S.C.
• Category:Churchill Brothers SC players → Category:Churchill Brothers S.C. players
• Category:Dempo SC → Category:Dempo S.C.
• Category:Dempo SC players → Category:Dempo S.C. players
• Category:Dempo SC managers → Category:Dempo S.C. managers (This one can be deleted; only 1 page in here)
• Category:Mohun Bagan AC → Category:Mohun Bagan A.C.
• Category:Mohun Bagan AC players → Category:Mohun Bagan A.C. players
• Category:Mohun Bagan AC managers → Category:Mohun Bagan A.C. managers
• Category:Mumbai FC players → Category:Mumbai F.C. players
• Category:Mumbai FC managers → Category:Mumbai F.C. managers
• Category:Pune FC players → Category:Pune F.C. players
• Category:Pune FC managers → Category:Pune F.C. managers
• Category:Salgaocar SC → Category:Salgaocar F.C.
• Category:Salgaocar SC players → Category:Salgaocar F.C. players
• Category:Shillong Lajong FC → Category:Shillong Lajong F.C.
• Category:Shillong Lajong FC players → Category:Shillong Lajong F.C. players
• Category:Shillong Lajong FC managers → Category:Shillong Lajong F.C. managers (Going to add more to this category)

Thank you so much. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to use WP:CFD. GiantSnowman 18:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do that. Thanks for the information. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

They could be eligible for speedy rename. GiantSnowman 18:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well let me first read CFD. Currently trying to finish something else quickly and then I will focus my attention to here. Thanks for the advice and I shall keep that in mind. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to change the categories - reliable sources almost universally refer to the clubs as SC or FC, without the dots. Hack (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case the articles need changing, as the articles and cats do not match. GiantSnowman 11:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It is actually both. Just like in England where say Arsenal is known as Arsenal F.C. or Arsenal FC. The I-League had it as Dempo S.C. , United Sikkim Football Club (The "." used to show the two words), or Mohun Bagan A.C. . Their really is no preference when it comes to that. Pune F.C. will use Pune FC or Pune F.C. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I just checked now as well. Search for Manchester United F.C. and its F.C. for wiki but FC for everyone else (F.C. is used sometimes). Same with Chelsea. Same with Liverpool. Same for Barnet. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what format they use, as long as the club article and club categories are the same. GiantSnowman 13:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay so what do you want me to do? The pages are already in F.C. form instead of FC. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well which one is correct per WP:COMMONNAME? GiantSnowman 19:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Churchill Brothers S.C. is correct. Mohun Bagan A.C. is correct. Salgaocar F.C. is correct. The rest I need to look at more. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The three working refs at the Churchill Brothers article all use "Churchill Brothers SC". Eldumpo (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the AIFF refs are the key. Anyway I do have the standings from the AIFF here which use different styles of naming. I am willing to change the names of the clubs to FC instead of F.C. but before you guys ask; McDowell and Kingfisher are only sponsors of Mohun Bagan and East Bengal. The Common name for both clubs in Mohun Bagan and East Bengal. Same with URO. Also if we do agree to go with what the I-League website has then what do we do with Dempo, Prayag United, and United Sikkim. The I-League website have Sports Club and Football Club as the name not an acronym. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Under WP:COMMONNAME, prevalence in reliable sources trumps offical naming. Hack (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As Hack says, naming should be based on Common Name, not necessarily on official names. Looking at the Mohun Bagan website all the references appear to use "Mohun Bagan". Eldumpo (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually have a problem with that. People will use Arsenal and Manchester United more instead of adding the FC to the end. Most of the stuff on the Arsenal website has Arsenal and not Arsenal FC. Also this is the Mohun Bagan website. AC is used in the website to show Athletic Club. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Adebowale Ogungbure

Hi guys. Saw the Adebowale Ogungbure article, it looks to be on quite dodgy ground as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't find a record of the guy at FIFA.com or NFT, despite the claim of him being an international player. Also there are seemingly controversial unsourced statements about this player. If anyone could take a look, I would appreciate it. Thanks --Cloudz679 12:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

He's notable, but not an international. Ideally we need a German speaker to proeprly interpret the two sources regarding the Nazi salute. GiantSnowman 13:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The accident with the Ukrainian guy happend, see 1 or 2. I don't know though if it is that notable. -Koppapa (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Champions League maps

Having just seen the maps showing the geographical locations of the UCL group stage participating teams for each season, I really like the idea of having them. I have two suggestions about them:

• England/Scotland and England/Wales borderlines should be drawn (that's actually more of a necessity than of a suggestion).
• Using another colour, countries could be highlighted that are represented by one or more clubs in the respective group stage.

Also, what do you think about having such maps for Europa League, or for the international club competitions of other confederations? --Theurgist (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Help

hi everybody, I have a problem here in Template:AFC Futsal Club Championship seasons. One user is very persistent to add an unofficial tournament in the template. in 2006 one trial tournament held link. There is already an small explanation about this tournament in the main page, It was a kind of friendly tournament, something like an invitational tournament. based on this link 2010 tournament was the first edition recognized by AFC. can anyone here help me in this case. any idea ? Thanks in advance. Mohsen1248 (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I see you linked the user to the previous discussion where, after reading it, it seems as if their was never any conclusion. Also you both violated 3RR. Smart idea coming here before it was detected. Anyway, to me, the trial should be added. It is technically the AFC Futsal Club Championship. Difference was that the AFC did it as a trial. Just have a note saying that it is a trial and you should be good. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Youth teams categories

Per the discussion still in this page (JUVENTUS F.C. PRIMAVERA PLAYERS), i think a consensus must be reached on having (preferably NOT) those categories.

User:GiantSnowman - as myself - deems it as completely overkill and, from what i can see, only Juventus F.C. and Real Madrid C.F. have it. Why those and not all the other clubs in the world, or at least those who have a cat for their senior counterpart?

Attentively - --AL (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take it to CfD this weekend. GiantSnowman 08:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Real Madrid B once played in professional league and currently semi-pro? PRIMAVERA is youth or reserve league in its dedicated system. I did not come to project often but as i remember West Ham United players sub-cat by positions was deleted. Support CfD Category:Juventus Primavera players Matthew_hk tc 14:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• CfD. GiantSnowman 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please MATTHEW, i am not talking about Real Madrid Castilla, i am talking about Real Madrid YOUTH teams. The second category has to go, not the first of course. --AL (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

FA Community Shield

The FA Community Shield is considered a competitive fixture, isn't it? In other words, it ought to be counted in player statistics? I'm in disagreement with Tody copp (talk · contribs) at 2012–13 Chelsea F.C. season regarding this, with this user arguing it isn't considered competitive on the basis that suspensions are not handed out for red cards (per this post on my TP). However, as far as I'm aware, this doesn't have any impact on its status as a first team, senior, competitive fixture, and it is recoded in official statistics; for example, Soccerbase record it in their player statistics. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources include them, then we should include them as well; Super Cup competitions all over the world are considered competitive and Tody's statement for the contrary is illogical. – Kosm1fent 05:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, if RS say it is so, then it is so. GiantSnowman 08:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

yes you are correct for sure, the FA Community Shield is a competitive fixture , the only thing differ it from other supercup matches is the tickets outcome go into charity but still for sure competitive fixture.

anyway if he needs a prove : check Chelsea website under matches section there they separated pre-season matches from other competitive matches , as you can see the FA Community Shield is with the competitive group of matches . ( http://www.chelseafc.com/fixtures-results )

Adnan Talk 10,9 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it technically considered a non-competitive fixture, it was reported that Branislav Ivanovic wasn't banned for league games despite being sent off in the Community Shield this year because of this. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Template

Is there a welcome template for the new members of the WikiProject Football. I create one in Greek WP and i am trying to improve it. el:Βικιπαίδεια:Επιχείρηση Ποδόσφαιρο/Καλωσόρισμα. Xaris333 (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't believe there is one here. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 20:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should consider renaming WikiProject Football to Operation Soccer per the Google Translation :-) --Jameboy (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

We could be footballing commandos. Hack (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Manuel Alexandre Nana Bikoula

This article is currently sourced to this site and I'm not sure it's a RS. Claims of playing for Cameroon are not supported by NFT or FIFA and I'm not sure he ever played a first-team game for Troyes. Can someobody else help please? GiantSnowman 17:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The website itself appears to be a self-published source (registered to asso-web.com), so it's definitely not reliable. – Kosm1fent 17:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The player otherwise known as Emanuel Bikoula played for KS Besa Kavajë in the Albanian top flight for years see e.g. his name appearing among their goalscorers in 2005, 2008, 2009 etc, won the Albanian Cup in 2007 per RSSSF here, etc. Links are to RSSSF. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those. Was the Albanian a WP:FPL when he was playing then? Cos he sure doesn't meet GNG. GiantSnowman 08:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No idea. WP:FPL only lists names of leagues, without any indication of when the FP status applies to. As you say, there's no evidence for his playing for ESTAC Troyes first team, per LFP, select relevant seasons. Google translate isn't great at Albanian, but I'd guess a foreign player with 4 seasons at a top-flight club, winning FA Cup, playing in Europe (albeit only qualif rounds), couldn't possibly go unnoticed by the media. He played until 2009, then there's an interesting couple of pieces [5] [6] that appear to have him detained for passport irregularities, possibly using his twin brother's passport(?)...

What doesn't help is the variety of naming/spelling, e.g RSSSF above has Emmanuel Nana Bikoula, footballdatabase.eu has Emmanuel Bokolula Nana, UEFA has Bikucla Nana, etc. The article 2002 CAF Cup Final says Emmanuel Nana Bikoula played, but then Fecafoot has "Nana Bikoula Alexander" scoring for Tonnerre Yaoundé in an earlier round. Is this the same Alexander as in "Manuel Alexandre", or his alleged twin brother, or someone else entirely? Playing in the African equivalent of the UEFA Cup final would be a claim to notability? An article Emanuel Bikoula was deleted by PROD; if the contents are still available for you to see, there might be better sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the research. The deleted article was only sourced to footballdatabase.eu so provided nothing new. As the Albanian league was only added to FPL earlier this year, I'm not entirely sure it was FPL back in 2009 when he left. GiantSnowman 10:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

HONOURS

I was thinking about going to Gabriel Heinze and adding the runner-up honours in his article, but that would only lead to an endless edit war between me and User:PeeJay2K3, so i instead come here first, and ask the question in a different way, since the last two reports about this situation yielded zero consensus:

If i go to Heinze's page and add such stuff, would i be in the wrong? Where on earth is a second position at a FIFA World Cup, a UEFA European Football Championship or a Copa América (to cite only some) not an honour?

Attentively - --AL (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see why being the runners-up is not notable. We do it for clubs so why not the players who play for the club/international team. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we were agreed that runners-up honours should be included, provided there is the room.--EchetusXe 08:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends what RS say. GiantSnowman 08:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Niall Quinn

Did he ever play for this club? I got a feeling he did not (see NOTABLE FORMER PLAYERS)... --AL (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Quinn apparently did play for Bec Tero but for only 1 match in the Thai Premier League and that one game was for some sort of event which he did as an agreement. Source: [7] --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks mate! Was already fearing it was the HABITUAL vandalism... --AL (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was going to be about a time in the mid-1990s when I could have sworn he almost made a transfer to a far-eastern team. But I can't find anything about that so I may be mistaken. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Messi (again, I'm afraid)

Hi, just a heads up that Adnan n2 (talk · contribs) is continuing to add assists to the career stats table at Lionel Messi. Consensus in the above discussion was that they should not be included, as has been the case (generally speaking, not just regarding Messi) for as long as I can remember. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just added a hidden message stating not to add assists and why you should not. Whether that gets to him or not is his problem. I talked to him earlier and I thought we were in agreement that whatever the consensus is, we go with it. And the "assists" section almost every single user agreed to get rid of. Hopefully the latest message will get to him. I will probably tell him to come here as well. Be prepared. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDONTHEARTHAT? – Kosm1fent 06:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't me who started adding assists again, Lexstraviex (talk · contribs) did that, several time so it wasnt me until last night when I saw that was thinking after everyone agreed in consensus assists are an important aspect of footballers stats so you decided adding it again anyway as you noticed i didnt add them again after telling me consensus still the same ( before you start this topic again ) . sorry for inconvenience :) no need to be prepared i think because you are right i couldnt find any official assists definition over any websites like UEFA or FIFA . --Adnan talk 08;11 23 october 2012 (UTC) .

Hid unhelpful section. Misread Adnan's opening comment, now resolved. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No they're all agreed against it as you can see in the two above discussions & in this discussion about assists, definitely a cause of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. No more twisting things saying it's just five people it's far more & we're all agreed they shouldn't be included. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC) DUCKISJAMMMY comment is useless,not needed and probably didn't even read what i wrote,anyway the fact I'm still new and learning here doesn't mean you can or have the right to act as above being questioned because you are not. I hope you learn from Arsenalkid700 how to be a gentle man. after all at least I man enough to admit I misunderstand the conclusion about assists & now at least i really have it clear not confused but at the same time still unlike you didn't feel offended because someone else tried to contribute or express his point of view ,Its ridiculous ! Adnan_n2 talk 13,04 23 October 2012 (UTC) First of all don't make personal comments, as you did above questioning my gentlemanliness. As Arsenalkid knows himself, I often help other editors & never bite the newcomers. Secondly of course I read your comment and your were still Edit warring earlier today which isn't justifiable because your new. So my comment was relevant although I did misread your comment as it was poorly written & I thought you were debating the outcome of previous discussions which you weren't it an attempt to mislead people. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC) First of all stop making accusations like that,keeping doing that is much difference from explaining/discussing stuff with me,then don't tell me you don't bite the newcomers because certainly you only seem to (since I'm the new wikipedian ) especially when everytime I try to understand something new for me at expedia I end up listening to silly accusations from you & other people like you(unlike Arsenalkid700 who is trying to make me understand) about misleading others,or I'm just trying to sway others opinion when i posted mine detailed in talk page. because certainly I'm not misleading any one so read my comment again , I'm crystal clear now : Assists is very important aspect of footballers but we cant add because no certain reliable source is available with clear official rule right now , unfortunately that is the reason we cant add them ,not because they are not important , so where is the misleading in what I'm saying ? can you show me ? when mattythewhite told me I misinterpreted the consensus result I just didn't re-add assists without even arguing. and when i read this discussions i immediately admit i misunderstood the whole point so what do u expect me to do? or what can I do more than admitting I wrongly understand that? . so yeah unless you have something more than false accusations your comment is irrelevant . Adnan_n2 Talk 18,33 23 October 2012 (UTC). I'll continue this conversation with Adnan on his page starting to go off topic no need to waste anyone else's time. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if this isn't the correct place for this. I, mayoklashy think a lot of football fans, like me who follow (without editing) Messi and C.Ronaldo stats religiously will be very disappointed with the removal of Messi's assist from the stats section. Wikipedia shouldn't strive to achieve consistency between players, but rather provide as much IMPORTANT information that people are looking for. There is a reason why some footballers are have very long pages with multiple sections and others don't have more than a paragraph, talk less of a stats section. The truth is some players are going to be much better than others are always going to gather a much bigger fan base and thus, interests in their achievements/stats. For a player like Messi whose numbers of assists is incredible in addition to his massive goal tally, I'd say its an injustice to deny users access to his assists' tally (as long it is kept accurate). There is absolutely no need to withhold information than can be easily given. —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason the assists were gotten rid of was not really due to consistency. They were because there is no accurate way to tell how many assists Messi has. Many different websites have different amounts, depending on how they base assists. FIFA does not accurately say how assists are accounted for. Until that day no page should have any assists section. If an assist is awarded on the Barcelona website then add it in the text. People are not that lazy to read the actual article. Its not only about stats. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Standings in 2013 UEFA Euro U-17 Championship

There was a lot of edit and undo on 2013 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship qualifying round for the standings of Group 4, because the regulation of the tournament is quite clear about the Tiebreaker criteria (art 6.09 of [8]) but on the Uefa official website [9] the standings don't respect the regulation. So what we have to do? Is Bulgaria first or Poland? Source or Regulation? Stigni (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Tiebreaking criteria: Poland first. Both cases were present on UEFA site, it changes due to updates. Article [10] states: "...the tie was broken by the direct head-to-head records of the top three, leaving Poland at the summit and Bulgaria second." Dr. Vicodine (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You should not be trying to decipher the intricate rules yourself, as that is nothing but WP:OR - we always rely on reliable sources to inform us. GiantSnowman 13:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok GiantSnowman, so if every source say something that with OR we proof that is incorrect we have to said the wrong thing? And in this particular case with the article found by Dr. Vicodine we put Poland first because there a source that confirm the OR? Stigni (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So it's Poland first and sourced with the above mentoned news article. -Koppapa (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Stigni - yes. I refer you to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. GiantSnowman 13:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

UEFA corrected standings according to regulations now. -07:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

On the next matchday

I think it was asked a lot of time but when in a page there is 6 (six) undo on this matter is better ask again what WP:Football think about it. I think that the "On the next matchday" can not be verified and violates some few WP:NOT items, such as WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTCASE; but some user said it doesn't like this one: [11]. Stigni (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Those will always reappeaer, and they will be gone on the next matchday anyway, so why bother. Concerning the change from uefa refs to soccerway refs, consensus was to prefer third party sources. and most likely uefa will change url to those reports sometime anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Koppapa, people come to Wikipedia to search for information, and these scenarios are valuable information, and just as verifyable as the fact that certain teams have already qualified. To keep deleting them is wasting the time of those who wrote it, and of those who comes looking for it and have to do the work themselfs. And for the guy who deletes it as well. Everyone loses, noone wins. And obviously the information will be gone when the article is no longer about an ongoing event. In principle, deleting this information prior to consensus being achieved is also a violation of WP:CONLIMITED Lars Ransborg (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Shortcut for u21 teams

I know the national team shortcuts {{fb|England}} = England (with a flag) and [[England national football team|England]] = England (without a flag). Now for youth teams, such as u21, there is {{fbu|21|England}} = England, but how about a version without a flag? I think that would be very useful. Thanks for your feedback. --Cloudz679 14:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Nftu ? Nanonic (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What are these templates needed for? I've never had a problem with writing those links out in full, do we really need a template to do it for us? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

We are all lazy. You know that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently so, but if we can't be bothered to type something as simple as "England national football team" then I'm honestly quite worried. Pretty sure I've read that templates like these should be avoided, as it is preferred we write them out in full. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when I started editing I used to use the 'fb' shortcuts for English football clubs. I noticed people changing them to be in full at times, and when I asked they said they shouldn't be used. Not sure if there's a rule or further guidance on this? Eldumpo (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's because the more templates a page has, the slower it loads up. To get round it, you can just use subst: (e.g. {{subst:nft|England}}), which saves time when writing out links but substitutes the template for the full version as soon as you click "Save page". This also works for the {{fc}} and {{afc}} templates, but for some reason I've found it messes up with the {{nwft}} template so you just have to write out the full version (I've never used {{fb}} so don't know whether it works with that or not). BigDom (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nanonic. Mattythewhite I find these templates are quite useful on some international players' pages because they may have links to 10 or 12 different teams. Quite why you'd want to write out "national football team" so many times when a template will do it for you is beyond me. The same goes for the {{fc|Arsenal}} = Arsenal template, in an article where there are dozens of links it makes it clearer in the code and reduces file size on the servers. Cloudz679 11:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

See BigDom's message for a basic explanation of why they should be avoided. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Campeonato Ecuatoriano de Futbol Femenino

Anyone able to make out the 2008 champion? The 2012 edition is currently underway. -Koppapa (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Winners can be found here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's only a regional final. RSSSF doesn't have the main one. -Koppapa (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Required google phrase was Pichincha 2008 ecuador futbol femenino. 4th link then. Eventually easier than i expected, I tried so many before. -Koppapa (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice find, couldn't find anything myself when I looked after you said the other thing was only regional. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wanny try another? Try to complete this winners list : Chilean women's football championship. RSSSF misses those too. -Koppapa (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

MOS on season format

The MOS states use of a slash rather than an emdash in season formats. An IP has queried this and a discussion has just started here if you have any views on which it should be then voice your thoughts. If you go by the manual of style as it stands then all our season formatting is wrong. Keith D (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

it.wikipedia has problems, again

if you want translate some articles do it right now.. 217.57.102.242 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What kind of problems? GiantSnowman 17:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that he ref to this. Stigni (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Weymouth F.C.

Having a dispute with Tribe 2 (talk · contribs) at Weymouth F.C., with my sorting of the players in the Current squad and removal of the Reserve squad being reverted on numerous occasions. I've listed the players by position, then alphabetically, in contrast to the previous version's layout of ordering by position and then in a seemingly random order. Long-standing convention is that reserve squads shouldn't be included in club articles, whether they're sourced or not, thus I removed it. I've left a message on his TP explaning my edits but he never to got back to me, although he has seemingly accepted a few of my earlier amendments to the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The notion of sorting by position, which we seem to do on not only on squads that have no numbers but also on national teams, is based on a rather naive assumption about the limited adaptability of players and rigidity of tactics. Sometimes, but far from always, it is possible to find a journalistic source that may attribute positions, but these are often open to debate, and are far from factual exactitude. I'd rather see us move away from the current degree of reliance on a sometimes arbitrary description, and would also question whether it ought to feature in squad listings, when reducing it to one category is often misleading. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Am continuing to be reverted, with the user ordering me to "leave our page be and go sort someone else's squad out in alphabetical order?". Clear case of WP:OWN by a fan who doesn't appreciate having someone who's not "one of us" editing his team's article. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to see why you consider that the reserves should not be listed on the club article. They are listed e.g. for Manchester United and Arsenal. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The articles you cite include the reserve team squads on separate articles. I'm of the understanding that either separate articles (e.g. Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy) should exist, or reserve team/youth team squads shouldn't be given any coverage on club articles. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

1974 AfCoN Mauritius

Mauritius has appeared only in 1974 for African Cup of Nations, but I don't find players who played in 1974. I know only dany Imbert and the coach. Can you help me? Thanks.--[[User:FCNantes72|FCNantes72]] ([[Discussion User:FCNantes72|d]]) (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• RSSSF does not have squad lists, and I wouldn't know anywhere else that would - sorry. GiantSnowman 17:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Try contacting Mark Gleeson, [12]. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• The 11v11.com website has match reports (not a full squad listing) here, here and here. I don't know what source that site used or whether the site is entirely reliable (in my experience they have been very accurate for CAF competitions, but this is such an old tournament, I cannot find other sources to verify it). Jogurney (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • After a little more searching, I found a Le Cerneen article from 2009 that lists the entire Mauritius squad which is consistent with players listed in 11v11's match reports. Le Cerneen doesn't appear to provide match reports though. Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Mamade Elahee was the manager. He died recently and you can find a few obituarities like this one online. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to much for your help, with those links I can develop mauritian football. There are some differences between the links (David or Percy Bathfield or Cassam Moniaruth ou Mooniaruck), but I try to make a template in french and in english. Merci beaucoup!!Mersy (in Mauritian)!--[[User:FCNantes72|FCNantes72]] ([[Discussion User:FCNantes72|d]]) (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I do that in french wikipedia fr:Modèle:Palette Maurice coupe d'Afrique des nations 1974. I will do the same thing in english. Are you ok with that?--[[User:FCNantes72|FCNantes72]] (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a need for a navbox template like that when probably only Imbert and Elahee are likely to ever have enough sources for articles. Jogurney (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• In case no one noticed, 11v11 has opened its archives in June and has not closed them yet (in spite of what is claimed on the main page). As they may do so without notice, I discourage linking to individual matches.109.173.212.187 (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirect converted into article despite AfD consensus

What it says on the tin; ZZ47 (talk · contribs) is readding content to 2012 President's Cup (Maldives), despite the consensus of the associated AfD from February 2012 being "redirect to President's Cup (Maldives)". I've reverted twice but the user seems intent. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk)

Have just realised the AfD conclusion was reached on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL as the competition had not yet taken place. Presumably, the article is now notable? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering, why is there a separate article for a 4-game long tournament anyway. Would it be better to combine them all into one page. Also, dont highlight the players who have no page. They wont become notable from playing in the Pres Cup. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chinese footballers...

I can't say that I am happy to say this -- but I say this: Category:Chinese footballers remains as dysfunctional as ever. I've waiting for a diffusion different than what I implemented (and subsequently, I will say, irrationally reversed). I'm not seeing anything delivered by anyone who advocated/carried out the reversal. --Nlu (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You already have Category:Chinese footballers by province. I do not know what else is needed. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What I'm referring to as this: Category:Chinese footballers itself remains an undiffused, 549-article mess that is completely non-compliant with WP:CAT. I didn't see a good policy reason to keep those articles in Category:Chinese footballers (for players whom we can identify a geographical origin) and I still don't see one. No one has come up with any kind of a convincing argument why leaving the category in its current state makes the category at all helpful.

The idea of leaving the articles in the category until positional diffusion was brought up. I was waiting to see if anyone would actually make that work. It's not working because no one is willing or able to actually do that work yet. Meanwhile, the category continues to sit in its non-compliant state.

I am not hearing any good reason why the articles should not diffused — not "removed," as those who reverted me apparently without taking the time or effort to understand WP:CAT stated. Therefore, when I have time, I am intending to go ahead and re-diffuse the articles — i.e., not leave them in the parent category Category:Chinese footballers, only in its geographical subcategories — soon.

But I'll admit and say: I'm bitter that people reverted me without apparently understanding how the underlying policies of WP:CAT work, without willing to put in the work themselves to implement an alternative diffusion scheme, and without willing to own up to that failure to understand. It's frustrating to put in the work to try to make a completely unorganized mess more organized and useful, not only to be unacknowledged but to have those who undid the work not even willing to own up to their mistakes.

(And, incidentally, this is work that I've done once before and am now going to have to do again without any good reason's having been proffered why I should have to. Certainly nobody's offering to share that work with me.) --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I still do not see what is the problem (and yes I read WP:CAT)! If your Chinese then go into Category:Chinese footballers. If you know what area they are from then put them there as well. Its not hard and I do not see what the problem with the category is. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(unident) The key issue is this: (quoting without rehyperlinking):

The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.

An overly large category (549, I'll submit, is overly large) serves none of these goals. So I created the geographical diffusion subcategories and moved the articles to those subcategories. Then the movements got reversed because people don't understand that:

A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (however, see directly below). For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". Since the first category is in the second category, readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France.

That's what the people who reverted me did not understand and didn't bother to try to understand before doing so. --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There is some policy which states you should leave the category as it is - WP:CONSENSUS. There has been minimal support, and quite a lot of opposition, to your proposed changes. GiantSnowman 16:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

From WP:CONSENSUS (without rehyperlinking}}

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

The consensus of the community regarding subcategorization is contained in WP:CAT. Whatever is the "consensus" among WP:FOOTY editors cannot, and should not, override that consensus. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll also add that the argument "it's consensus" without any additional reason to back up that "consensus" is not a logically valid way of arguing for the consensus. A consensus that is backed up by nothing by inertia — which, based on prior arguments made here, appeared to be an inertia that was caused largely by ignorance of or misunderstanding of WP:CAT — is simply not a good way of building an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"The idea of leaving the articles in the category until positional diffusion was brought up. I was waiting to see if anyone would actually make that work. It's not working because no one is willing or able to actually do that work yet." I'm in principle happy to carry out the work, and was in fact going to do so this weekend. But I see the example of positional diffusion I had started (Category:Chinese association football defenders) has been quietly undone.Dsp13 (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not a good thing to see. I'll still say, anyone who's going to do this, please come up with one good reason why this would be compliant with WP:CAT. Otherwise, we're back in a holding pattern where the category is a mess and people who want it to stay in a mess have no convincing reason why it should. --Nlu (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As stated on the earlier thread, there are major issues with a 'footballer from region' category - how do we define that? We can't. It's a BLP nightmare. GiantSnowman 19:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is this a problem with footballers when it is not a problem with pretty much any other BLP category? Please look around Wikipedia, not just footballer articles. It's a nonissue. (For the ones that we don't know their origins, we can/have to leave them in the parent category, but the vast majority of players, we know exactly where they're from.) I'm sorry, but again, I think you're being provincial here (no pun intended). Please see the WP:CONSENSUS portion that I quoted. (And, assuming that this is a problem for, say, Spain, it's a nonproblem for China, and the fact that it would be a problem for Spain, arguendo, would not/should not prevent subcategorization for China.) --Nlu (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the point - it IS an issue with ALL categories. The example I used last time was Australian film actors. They're not broken down into regions. Neither are any others sports apart from the generic 'People from X' and 'Sportspeople from X' - but even those are problematic. How do you know where the "vast majority of players are from"? What WP:RS are you using to WP:V these claims about WP:BLP? GiantSnowman 14:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(unident) Snowman, take a look at Category:People by state in the United States. Doesn't seem to be a problem there at all. There are always ways to imagine why we should paralyze ourselves in fear about categorizations. I tend to think, if nothing else, clubs' Web sites are pretty reliable sources in this regard. Regardless, I do not believe, given the fact that these categories exist and are commonly used by many Wikipedia editors, your fears are either unfounded or not shared by users' consensus. I mean, by your logic, how do we know that people are male or female? How do we even know that they're humans? How do we know that they're Chinese? Might as well upmerge the Category:Chinese footballers category to Category:Footballers, by your logic. The Wikipedia categorization scheme exists to help us organize articles logically, not to achieve 100.00% accuracy. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There tend to be a great number of sources which say that Person X is from State Y in the USA. Sources also exist to say that Person X is from China, or France, or wherever. Sources do not exist for other localised regions. GiantSnowman 09:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's still not a reason why not to subcategorize. I realize you disagree, but I think that you are being overly picky abut what constitutes a reliable source there. Where there are genuine disputes about where a person is from, the person can be left in the parent category, but that should be the exception, not the norm. Otherwise, we'd be paralyzed into not doing any subcategorizations at all, leaving us with gigantic, unusable categories throughout Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, a lack of reliable sources is precisely a reason not to subcategorise! Read Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By place. It states that "People are sometimes categorized by notable residence" (my emphasis) - certainly not all people, and certainly not by place of birth as you seem to wish. After all, and I quote again, "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." The section just above it says that "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation." The example it gives is Category:Ethiopian musicians; a similar category would be, I dunno, something like Category:Chinese footballers. Luckily for us, it already exists ;) GiantSnowman 17:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that, for example, Luxembourger footballers may be a small population. There are huge numbers of Chinese footballers who are notable enough for articles. (549 already, and the number will grow). Unless you can propose an alternative reasonable subcategorization scheme, you're just going to make it more and more unusable and unnavigable. --Nlu (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The main problem from my point of view, is that while Category:Chinese footballers might be the same as Category:Footballers from China, Category:French footballers is not the same as Category:Footballers from France. Nlu's new category-tree could be made a subcategory of Category:Footballers in China or Category:Footballers from China, but that category doesn't exist. As mentioned before, Category:French footballers is a category for every footballer that is eligible to play for the French national team, not for every footballer with a French passport or for every footballer born in France. I still think we should avoid diffusing Category:Chinese footballers into Category:Chinese footballers by province, but instead rename Category:Chinese footballers by province to Category:Footballers from China by province, and make it a subcategory of Category:Chinese sportspeople and Category:Footballers in China. And if you still want to diffuse Category:Chinese footballers, you should diffuse it into Category:Chinese footballers by position. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese footballers who did not come from China can simply be left in the parent category. That's the way that I've been dealing with such categories as Category:Chinese writers and its subcategories. --Nlu (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nlu (talk) these arguments are getting extremely repetitive and tiresome to read so I put it to you if you are so obsessed with your diffusion of players why don't you go to the Category:Brazilian footballers and diffuse their players? Brazil have a state system, which could easily be translated from China's own province system and more importantly with Brazil being a leading figure or a least a popular figure within football your views will certainly reach a larger audience and if they accept your point of view then you will have genuine validity to your argument.

P.S. when we previously had this discussion and it was concluded that Category:Chinese footballers should remain in the players category section I personally asked you restore all the 400+ pages you deleted this category from, however you didn't bother fixing what could be argued as disruptive editing even though I gave you sufficient time to fix this, why was that? User talk:Kai Lau 15:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

1. We must have had two separate discussions, because the discussion I was in certainly, in my opinion, came to the consensus that a 500+ member category was useless.
2. I can't diffuse Brazilian players; I don't have the expertise over Brazilian geographical/geopolitcal entities. I believe I've proven that I am a resident expert on Chinese geographical divisions, over the years and over the number of edits that I've done, on the other hand, and I don't understand your failure to appreciate that.
3. There is no deletion, because subcategorization is not the same as deletion. (Again, please read WP:CAT, because that policy makes that completely clear.) The state the category is in is completely in non-compliance with WP:CAT, which it appears that you continue to refuse to read.
4. Is it truly beyond your understanding that, for example, Liaoning is in China and Dalian is in Liaoning? Saying that someone is from Dalian indicates that they are from Liaoning, and therefore from China. Again, WP:CAT makes that completely clear. As would any basic logic class.
5. If anyone is being disruptive, it certainly isn't me. I'm the one who's trying to create/maintain order here in accordance with WP:CAT. You're the one who's refusing to read that consensus. Can you at least bother to read it? I am finding it utterly surreal that someone who won't defend the current state of of the category based on policy — because I certainly see no policy that can be used to defend the state that the category is in — argues that cleaning up the category is "disruptive" and that it should be "restored." Restored to what? Utter chaos?
6. But in any case, it is completely false that "when we previously had this discussion it was concluded that Category:Chinese footballers should remain int he players category section." That's not what was concluded at all, and it simply can't be "concluded" that way. As I cited above, that is against Wikipedia global consensus and therefore cannot be the conclusion. There has to be diffusion. Whether it's diffused the way I propose or not is the question. There was the alternative of positional diffusion which was brought up and the not implemented. That's not a solution at all if it won't actually get implemented.

I am sorry to say this, but you are reminding me of a child whose room is in a complete mess who won't clean it up and who won't let adults clean it up. That's not the way that Wikipedia should be. --Nlu (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nlu (talk) I have given you sound advice yet you have reacted petulantly. You have accused me as a being a child, well thank you for lowing the level of this discussion however by your constant nagging you're the one whose acting like a child who isn't getting his way.

P.S. Please take my advice and go do your diffusion on a major footballing nation, it doesn't have to be Brazil but if you persist with your complaint with the Category:Chinese footballers you're gonna get the same people saying the same things and get nowhere. User talk:Kai Lau 21:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nlu second point above, about not being able to diffuse Category:Brazilian footballers because he "don't have the expertise over Brazilian geographical/geopolitcal entities" tells me that we can stop this discussion and deleted Nlu's tree as it only a result of his "expertise" which is also known as WP:OR. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Dalian's being in Liaoning is OR? Liaoning's being in China is OR? What ridiculousness is this? --Nlu (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mem Martins Sport Clube - AfD all over

From this link i retrieved (see here, in the top-right corner you can browse through the several seasons http://www.foradejogo.net/team.php?team=800), i (very much!) doubt this club has played in more than the REGIONAL championships in Portugal.

Plus, the user who created this has been told several times to "take his game" to the Portuguese WP due to the level of his English. Seems he has heeded because his account has been inactive for a very long time now.

Attentively, happy week - --AL (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Attentively, happy week" If you mean staying inside my house in anticipation of the electric board outside my house to explode because a tree fell on it due to the upcoming hurricane Sandy then yes, happy week. But seriously, AfD. If you can not find any proof of national level experience then unless you can help it pass GNG then it should not be created. Cheers and hope to see you all again soon. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Poor article but club reached the second round of the Taça de Portugal 1990/1991 - see http://www.foradejogo.net/tournament.php?round=1991154500198. League Octopus (League Octopus 16:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC))

The article should be kept if it can be shown to meet GNG, not just because they reached a particular round in the cup. Eldumpo (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - but I am too busy to take to AfD at the moment, I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• I may be confused on this subject, but User:GiantSnowman once told me if a player competes for let's say Xerez CD in the Copa del Rey (but has not played in Segunda División or La Liga yet) and the opponents are also a club that passes notability, then he deserves an article, am i wrong or right?

Thanks again - --AL (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• A player is deemed notable (via WP:NFOOTBALL) if they have played in a league or cup game between two teams from fully-professional leagues. WP:GNG is, however, more important. GiantSnowman 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

An informative debate is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mem Martins Sport Clube which may be of importance in considering the issue of Club Notability for clubs that have played a few games in a national cup but have not played in a league that is generally considered to be a "notable level" (the yellow column in the user essay WP:NCLUB. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC))

Unsourced BLP: Mamadou M. Diallo

This article is ineligible for BLP prod due to external links, but is an unsourced BLP. Gigs (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's therefore not unsourced. GiantSnowman 10:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's still unsourced. BLPPROD can be avoided by any external links, even primary and unreliable sources. Even a link to youtube or myspace is enough to avoid BLPPROD. Once it's properly added, its removal requires a real source with inline citation. It's a screwed up situation and it doesn't make sense, but there's been opposition every time we try to fix it.

I'd argue ELs are covered by WP:GENREF - after all, they source the information in the article. All I've done is place reftags around them and move them into the main body. GiantSnowman 15:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to clear out the unref BLP backlog. Thanks for your help. Gigs (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any more. GiantSnowman 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Aleksandr Sergeyevich Molodtsov another unsourced footballer, ineligible for BLPPROD. Gigs (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Again it is sourced - but not notable. I've PRODded. GiantSnowman 15:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

FA cup qualifying matches in career stat tables

Do they count as 'FA Cup' or 'Other'? I'm using Soccerway which doesn't provide a Soccerbase-style breakdown. GiantSnowman 11:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

FA Cup, I'd imagine, with it being the FA Cup and all...! Soccerway do list appearances; using this profile as an example, go down to "Matches", access "Domestic Cups" and there each FA Cup app is listed. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but they lump all cups in one. GiantSnowman 12:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

But each competition is specified; on the Coulson profile, they differentiate between FA Cup, FA Trophy, League Cup and Football League Trophy appearances. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

But the FA Cup qualifiers are not the FA Cup proper - if they were then we'd have a barrage of non-notable low-level non-league players, with claims of "but played in FA Cup!" as notability. GiantSnowman 12:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what hypothetical notability claims have to do with career statistics tables, but if that were to happen they'd correctly be shot down. As a matter of proper organisation of statistics it seems only logical to place FA Cup (no matter the round, whether it be QR1 or the Wembley final) apps in the FA Cup column, in the same way we list UEFA Champions League/Europa League qualifying round apps in the "Europe" column. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Matty. We should not be separating FA Cup stats data depending on whether someone appeared in the 'competition proper' or the qualifying stages. The qualifying rounds are still very much a part of the competition. The issue of player notability is a separate one, but yes I agree that players should not be deemed notable just for appearing in any kind of FA Cup match.Eldumpo (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

We're probs going to have to disagree on this one, but failing any other input, I will go with the flow and include it in the FA Cup column. GiantSnowman 15:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Also agree with Matty. Whether its domestic cups, UEFA competitions or whatever, they are still senior appearances in that competition. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list

Up to 42 - help appreciated. GiantSnowman 20:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution request filed

Since, certainly, it's possible that I've gotten overly heated, I've decided to ask for dispute resolution aid as to the Category:Chinese footballers issue. Anyone who is involved in the dispute with me is free to give his/her side of the story as well. Again, I will accept the possibility that I've acted too rashly on this and am acting wrongheadedly. I'd like to hope that others will, too -- but also consider that maybe you are. I do believe that I have earned my spurs on China-related articles. You don't have to agree. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#WT:FOOTY for the dispute resolution request that I filed. --Nlu (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

José Luis Gayá

Please explain this like i'm a five-year old, in the (similar) words of the great Groucho Marx (another one could be "I refuse to attend any club that will accept me as a member!"),

this footballer has played in a Copa del Rey match with Valencia CF. The problem is he plays mainly for the reserves, Valencia CF Mestalla, thus does not have a professional contract (he is 16!).

In the light of this, does he merit a WP article? Attentively - --AL (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The article fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the player hasn't played in a fully pro league, and at present there's no indication the article passes WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As Matty already said, he's not played in a fully pro league, and there's no sign of him having received anything but routine coverage. Consequently, the article fails all relevant notability guidelines, so I have WP:PROD'ed it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be technically correct, but if we're explaining stuff as to a child, perhaps someone could do the same for me. If a 16-year-old with little non-trivial media coverage, from the Academy of a comparable English club, say Spurs, played for even a few minutes in the FA Cup against a Conference side, or in the qualifying rounds of a European competition against the runners-up in the Faeroe Islands league, that 16-year-old would have his WP article before the final whistle went, and no-one here would be trying to delete it. What's the difference? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If I was trying to explain this to a five-year old the first thing to note is that there are no hard and fast rules as WP:GNG can blow all such assumptions of rules out of the water. For example this guy's article was nominated for deletion earlier this season as he had only played in a Europa League qualifying game. Result was - keep. The references given for him were not extensive but WP:GNG is a subjective thing. Someone may say he meets the level for notability, others won't. My advice to said 5-year old is... if he hasn't played fully pro league or at least a cup game between fully pro sides or for an international side, get as many good, verifiable references together and the article may survive. Just my view, of course, having watched the footballer notability saga rumble on for 6 years now......--Egghead06 (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I only see a BLP-prod in Mr Campbell's article, within hours of its creation as an unsourced BLP, not an ordinary PROD or AfD?

Drifting off the original point a little, I've been practising getting articles to survive at AfD, and it's clear that presumption of notability is defined differently depending on what country the player played in. Five minutes in League Two is worth more than half a game in Allsvenskan is worth more than several games for multiple clubs in the Albanian top flight, when it comes to deciding how much and what quality of sourcing is needed to qualify for "presumed" notability as per WP:NFOOTY. Let alone how much of it has to go in the article, rather than just be shown to exist. Despite there not being a great deal of difference between countries as to whether a half-decent short article can be produced for a player who technically passes NFOOTY, so long as there's enough of that country's media online and Google translate works with it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Japan task force

I suggest creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Japan task force. about football in Japan, for example

• national team, domestic competition (Template:Football in Japan)
• clubs (List of football clubs in Japan)
• seasons (Category:Seasons in Japanese football, Category:Seasons in Japanese football competitions, Category:Japanese football club seasons)
• international footballers (List of Japan international footballers)
• J. League players (List of J. League players)

--Japan Football (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot say whether it would be okay or not but if it is accepted I would not mind joining. You will need users to join the WikiProject so you have me and then you but are there any other users who would like to join a proposed Japanese football WikiProject? This seems like a good idea and I actually planned on doing work in this area but lets see. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How many editors are likely to be an active part of a Japan task-force? To be worth the effort of setting it up, you want at least half a dozen active participants, preferably more (the guidance suggests 10-20). While there are many taskforces listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects, the majority of them are completely inactive, most haven't had a single post on the talk page this year. An active taskforce would be a great addition, an inactive one would not. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

is there a correct use of the goal template for extra time?

This editor seems to think that it should be 91+ rather than 90+1 and duplication of other names. The rationale is that the MLS does it this way as do previous Toronto FC season articles. However the template does it the other way around. Can both be used? Should they? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think 90+x is better. -Koppapa (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Just do it whichever way the source does it - in England for example the 90+1 format will be used and if US sources use the 91+ format that's fine too. BigDom (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

But then if one source consistently uses 91+ and another uses 90+1, it could be argued that one match using the first source could have the injury time activity listed as 90+1 while the next match using the other source could be 91+. This could be two matches within the same article or the same match reporting for the home team and the other for the away. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, surely we can agree that it's not "incorrect", as Walter claimed, to use this notation. It's simply a matter of style. I agree with BigDom, we should follow local sources. In this case, since the MLS uses this notation it would be better to follow their lead, just as we do with the standings. TDL (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as the plus is in there, I suppose it's a matter of style. It hopefully goes without saying that a goal in time added on should never be written as "91" alone, as this could be mistaken for a goal in the first minute of extra time. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 15:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with fbwu-rt template

I just notice that there is a problem with the {{fbwu-rt|17| }} because in some cases it doesn't link the women's national under-17 football team (e.g. of correct work Germany), for example Republic of Ireland link to the men's u-17 team, instead I also try with COD and DR Congo link to the men's A team. Stigni (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Has something to do with how e.g. Template:country data IRL differs from the ones that are working. -Koppapa (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Germany and Ireland were fixed with this addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AFbwu-rt&diff=521204781&oldid=377933160 . For Congo i guess an admin would have to change the line

| link alias-football = Congo DR {{{mw|}}} national football team

into

| link alias-football = Congo DR {{{mw|}}} national {{{age|}}} football team

in here: Template:Country_data_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo . -Koppapa (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

For the millionth trillionth time.... PRS Football Club

Can someone please take the liberty of again AfDing this article and SALT it as well because after many AfDs it seems that the creator does not understand why the club is not notable. I would do this myself but sadly because of Hurricane Sandy I am forced to use my phone and wiki has not created a mobile version in which i can edit to. Basically if I did the AfD I would 100% mess up. Cheers.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The article has never been to AfD, previous deletions were through PROD. Has it been AfD'd under a different title, and if so, what title? If that were the case it would be eligible for speedy deletion and I could delete and SALT. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, must have been thinking of another AfD, its been a long week. Anyway I proded the article now. Just hope that it can be SALTed when deleted.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The article can't be PROD'ed when it has previously been deleted by PROD? Mentoz86 (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Then Im done. The only thing I can do currently is PROD and no the article was never created under a different name so I dont think I can speedy it. So AfD it is but i cant at this moment.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've taken in to AfD for you. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRS Football Club Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Thank you so much.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"hang up his boots"

Someone mentioned the phrase "hang up his boots" as a potential phrase to avoid when a sportsman ends his playing career (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#.22hang up his boots.22) and I agree completely that "retired" is better. If you have any comments, please add them over at that talk page. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am put in to mind of a passage from Arthur Hopcraft's book The Football Man. It was written more than a decade before I was born, but applies just as much today: "The trouble with most football prose is that it is deliberately aimed downwards with a flourish, the assumption being that the distraught, swearing fan on the terraces is exactly the same when he coughs over his newspaper in the bleak of the morning tea break...Red-haired players are fiery, little ones big-hearted, big ones gentle giants. Managers never say anything, but snap, declare, deny or challenge." Oldelpaso (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think what he was trying to say is that football is a game of two halves  :-) --Jameboy (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Bits and pieces

After seeing what i saw in Andoni Iraola, i bring this discussion up, instead of trying to edit and have my changes reverted,

1 - Honours; why can't we write (example): Copa del Rey: Runner-up 2011-12? Why does it have to be Copa del Rey runner-up 2011-12. First, did not know COPA DEL REY RUNNER-UP was a competition, second if we added Copa del Rey (name of competition) then the : we could follow with the years of wins, followed by ; and years of runner-up finishes (example: Supercopa de España: 2003, 2005; Runner-up 2007, 2009, 2010 - no need to write WINNERS in first bit because i feel it's implied).

2 - what do you people have against transfermarkt.com? I have heard it's not a reliable source, but what harm does it do as a link? Again with Iraola as an example, why is transfermarkt.com "so very bad" and soccerway.com (allowed to stay) "so very good"? Intriguing...

Attentively - --AL (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as it was me, and AL kindly notified me:

1. put the punctuation anywhere (sensible :-) that you like, but runner-up shouldn't have a capital;
2. the question is what does Transfermarkt add as an external link, not what harm does it do. We're supposed to add ELs only if they actually add value to the article. In the case of Mr Iraola, where there's already a BDFutbol link and a Soccerway link (moved by me when I replaced it as an inadequate source for the stats table} and an excellent statistical profile on the Athletic Bilbao website, a link to Transfermarkt contains nothing of additional value that I could see. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I see, it refers to the additional value. Thanks for the input very much (and you are correct, no doubt that the official club profile is very accurate and sufficient). --AL (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Soccerway.com is good as it owned by Global Sports Media, GSM are a partner of CONCACAF. As a result, their statistics are very accurate for North American international players etc. TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

List of XYZ F.C. players

I am currently trying to expand the List of Southampton F.C. players to cover every player who has pulled on the red & white stripes. This will be split into three sections: 100+, 25–100 and <25. My query is should the primary sort be alphabetical, chronological or by number of appearances? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably you're dividing the list across articles, so something like List of Southampton F.C. players, List of Southampton F.C. players (25–99 appearances) and List of Southampton F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances))? For the York lists, I sorted players by appearances, then by goals when tied on appearances, then alphabetically when tied on goals. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done the two Bradfotd City articles alphabetical, but sortable. GiantSnowman 20:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no definitive answer. Logically, if you're splitting into three articles on number of appearances, it'd make sense to use number of appearances as your primary sort key. But of those footballer lists to have reached featured list status, some sort alphabetically, some chronologically, and some by number of appearances. The Birmingham ones are sorted initially on number of appearances, but use number of league appearances as first tiebreaker, and then chronological order (date of debut) as a further tiebreaker where necessary. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For the Gills ones, I sorted on appearances and then career span, with the most recent first -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your advice. I think I'll follow the Birmingham City approach which seems most logical and leaves the current players near the end. As Matty says, the articles will be titled List of Southampton F.C. players, List of Southampton F.C. players (25–99 appearances) and List of Southampton F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Scott Allan

WP:BLPCRIME states – editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Now with that said his article already includes an incident in the past which I added when expanding the article from a two line stub as I deemed it relevant as he went to court & included a number of his team-mates. The reason I'm bring this here is because there has been a new incident involving a pedestrian. A passage about it was initially added by User:WBAKris which I reverted on basis of addition of unreferenced controversial information about living person. It was then re-added by User:Gunk 78 with this BBC reference, which I again reverted on the basis of WP:BLPCRIME as that reference stated the following: the police said the driver of the car was not being investigated nor were charges expected to be laid. User:Bashereyre has re-added with this reference which sounds a good bit different from what BBC stated, so I thought I bring it here to see whether it's inclusion is warranted. I left user Bashereyre's addition in place where he split both incidents & notified all interest parties. Thoughts Please ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If we word it neutrally, I think it should be included - it has enough media attention to warrant inclusion. GiantSnowman 15:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is disputed that Allan was the driver of the car. He played for Pompey the next day in an FA Cup tie with Notts County, although manager Michael Appleton acknowledged he was not "mentally prepared": he was sent off during the match (The News p 48 Issue no 40,850 dated 5 November 2012)

Crystal Palace in Europe

I was looking at this template when a redlink to a Crystal Palace F.C. in European football article caught my eye. I did more digging and this "European football" amounts to a two-legged third-round defeat in the Intertoto Cup in '98. Surely that doesn't even deserve its own section of the Palace article, never mind its own independent article? Your thoughts, please. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 22:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I would get rid of it. If there is barely any history of Europe then there is no need for it. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A few weeks ago I was considering creating Bradford City A.F.C. in European football after seeing a redlink for it on that very template, but there's not nearly enough content to justify. Much better to help update and expand English clubs in European football. GiantSnowman 17:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. While the issue's at hand as it were, I'd like to suggest the criteria for creating a "Wiki Town A.F.C. in European football"-style article. My own view is that the team in question must have partaken in at least one season in either the Champions League/European Cup, the Fairs Cup/UEFA Cup/Europa League, the UEFA Super Cup or the Cup Winners Cup. Minor cups like the Texaco, Anglo-Scottish or Anglo-Italian Cups (and the Intertoto Cup if not giving rise to a UEFA Cup campaign afterwards) can be mentioned in an existing article, but can't give rise to one on their own (or as a combination of minor cups). Not sure about the Mitropa Cup for non-British teams, mind you. Just my own submission, and again, your thoughts and ideas please. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 12:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say at least two seasons - otherwise why not just include in the relevant club season article? GiantSnowman 12:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you make a good point. That'd spell the end for the existing Coventry City, Norwich City, Portsmouth and Watford articles, which are quite substantial. Don't really know what to suggest now.... Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 12:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That '2 season' rule of thumb would be to dissuade editors from creating new, brief articles - "Wiki FC played two Intertoto Cup games in 1999-2000, losing to obscure Albanian team on aggregate" kind of thing. Existing articles which cover one season in great detail are fine as a spin-off from the season article. GiantSnowman 12:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A bit like "Portsmouth F.C.'s record in Europe was in the 2008–09 UEFA Cup where they played Vitória Guimarães and Braga of Portugal, Italian team A.C. Milan and Heerenveen of the Netherlands" kind of thing... If I was that way inclined, I'd be tempted to prod the Portsmouth in Europe article. It's just the same content as 2008–09 Portsmouth F.C. season#UEFA Cup, namely 4 footballboxes and no prose at all, with the footballboxes expanded to give full team lists and endless flags and the prose expanded as quoted in its entirety above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So if we have a redlink listed on the template that does not meet this new proposal, should we remove it? Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 16:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say remove the link but not the club name - so that there's a record of the club playing in Europe, but not an article about it. GiantSnowman 16:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability question

Could I get some outside opinions on the notability of The Distance Derby and the other articles contained in Category:A-League rivalries? Hack (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise taking it to AfD. Even the (only) reference used doesn't refer to the match as the "distance derby", it may just have been made up. The only thing that shows up when I do a Google search is the "distance to Derby, UK" and the Wikipedia article. Also looks like the logos in the infobox may break the non-free license and should be removed. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not made up - if you do a google search for "distance derby" (with the quotation marks) and the words Perth and Wellington, you will find a few refs. Hack (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The derby is mentioned as the Distance Derby by The Football Federation Australia (FFA) and FOX Sports Australia so no doubt it is an actual derby. Needs more refs and a clean-up. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the subject is notable, those crappy little flagicon-style logos need removing. – PeeJay 14:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no source for it beginning in 2007/08. Why are goalscorers counted only since then? -Koppapa (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The teams only been playing when Wellington joined the competition in 2007/08. Hack (talk)

Crowd abuse

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Barracking. Is there really no article on Wikipedia abouse crowd abuse of sportsmen? --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've responded at WikiCricki. GiantSnowman 11:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

A new article at Waterbeach F.C. suggests that the team played in the Eastern Counties League from Divisions 4 to 1 during the 50s and 60s. But when I check the article on the Eastern Counties League, it says that the league didn't even have a Division 1 until the 80s. Is there some confusion here between the current level 9–10 league and a league with a similar name? Also, the club was supposedly promoted to the Cambridgeshire League from the Eastern Counties League, which seems unlikely seeing as the reverse would happen today. If the team has not actually played at level 10 or a national competition (and I find no evidence of this on FCHD) maybe it should be taken to AfD. A recent PROD was removed, but no reason was given. It was removed by someone who has been advised against mass-removing PRODs without giving any reason. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the club has not played in the ECL. Some time ago I used the official History of the League to write articles on clubs, and I do not recall it being listed. I assume that if this isn't a hoax, that they've confused the ECL with another league, possibly an "East Cambridgeshire League". Also, the history is a copyvio of the club website. Number 57 13:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that may may be where the confusion has arisen. If that is the case then the team is very unlikely to be notable and I shall take it to AfD. Good spot on the copy paste. Thanks very much for the advice! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Taken to AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterbeach F.C.‎ Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin needed

Please can an admin sort out the copy/paste move that's been done from Tom McKenna to Tom McKenna (footballer) this afternoon? Cheers, BigDom (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - but can't believe you've de-sysoped yourself. If anything we need more admins here... GiantSnowman 18:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it. I couldn't be bothered with the hassle of being an admin any longer, fair play to the ones who stick at it but it's not for me. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you help again? I created User:BigDom/Helena Ólafsdóttir (over 30K bytes) in my user space and tried moving it to article space but accidentally moved it to User:Helena Ólafsdóttir instead of Helena Ólafsdóttir. Now I can't find it in the history of any of them... Cheers, BigDom (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Should all be OK now. GiantSnowman 19:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Is there a quick way of checking what pages have been added into a category in, say, the last month. The reason for asking is that Category:England international footballers has 1193 pages, including 4 lists, making a net 1189 players, whereas the List of England international footballers (alphabetical) has 1188 players. Try as I might, I can't identify the rogue article. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The odd one out is Maurice Setters – he was in the England squad for the 1958 World Cup but apparently never won a full cap so I guess he should be removed from the category. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Recreating an article

The previously deleted article Adrian Avrămia now meets the notablitity standards. If someone would be so kind as to restore the page I would be thankful.Katz191 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• How does it meet notability standards now? Nothing's changed. He's still playing for the same team. Still looks like a blatant failure of WP:NFOOTY to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point - I've asked Katz to clarify - if not I will G4. GiantSnowman 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When I checked it out before undeleting, I found that while his team was in Liga II when the article was deleted, they had since been promoted and are now in Liga I. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The player's Soccerway profile says Liga II, but the actual club profile confirms Liga I - hence the confusion. GiantSnowman 19:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If you move your cursor over the competition for 2012–13 season on soccerway it actually say Liga I it's just an abbreviation issue. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How to deal with releases?

Whitecaps FC announced today the release of three players http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2012/11/caps-sylvestre-ulisses-barbara however the release will not take effect until the transfer window opens. Does this mean that they were cut in the 2012 season or the 2013 season? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Where the league is a calendar year, if they leave at the end of the 2012 season, they leave in 2012, then start with their new clubs in 2013. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 09:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Playerhistory

The template was listed for deletion in June following this discussion. However it seems to be working again, so can the deletion be reversed, or some other solution? Cloudz679 14:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Website is still down. GiantSnowman 14:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, forgot to include the link. Cloudz679 14:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a mirror site which I believe the Playerhistory guys are taking legal action against. GiantSnowman 14:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Strange how the consensus was to delete the template five months ago but it's still active, though. Cloudz679 15:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding the India task force to Template:Football

Okay, I have now completed the necessary steps to get the India task force added to Template:Football. Of course I need an admin to officially get the India task force there. My request for the India task force can be found here. Thank you very much. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Colours

I was wondering what colour should be used in national team tournament pages in group standings as the second colour (the first is #cfc (or #ccffcc)) if there are, for example, 3 options from preliminary round: a) qualification to knockout stage (that could be #cfc colour) b) qualification to second round (that could be x colour) c) no qualification to nowhere (ends the participation) [that could be #fcc colour, which isn't used]. I hope you understood what I'm asking about --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean something like what's seen here? This seems to be pretty standard, although I've also seen a yellow background used before.MrStoneman (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like to something that I mean to. I really don't want to make some revolution :D but shouldn't there be used some lighter colour? #ccccff looks too dark. Personally I like   #ffffcc --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I thing we need four color because there is four possibilities (I have in the head the CL group stage): Qualified to A tournament; Qualified to B tournament/At least qualified to B tournament (if the phase is not yet finished); Eliminated from A tournament but can still qualified for B; Eliminated from both. And I suggest   A tournament,   B tournament, /  Eliminate only from A,   Eliminated. Stigni (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Tokelo Rantie

Hi! Just a heads up for this article. I've reached my limit for 3RR so I'm unable to do anything more about the issue. The issue is as follows: Tokelo Rantie is on a 17 months loan deal to Malmö FF. Now, South African media and Swedish media differ on which club he is owned by. South African media is reporting that he is owned by IFK Hässleholm while Swedish media reports that he is owned by the Stars of Africa Academy and that his spell in IFK Hässleholm was only a 3 month loan. Since I follow Malmö FF very closely I am well aware of the fact that Malmö FF is negotiating to seal a permanent deal with Rantie, they are negoition this deal with Stars of Africa Academy and not IFK Hässleholm. How should we solve this? I've reverted the edits of Kamg213 with reliable sources. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My primary sources: www.fotbolldirekt.se (previously used by the Swedish FA for news), fotbolltransfers.com, www.expressen.se, www.fotbollskanalen.se, sydsvenskan.se, www.eurosport.se, www.dn.se. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And here are some sources claiming that he is owned by IFK Hässleholm: www.kickoff.com, www.soccerladuma.co.za, www.citizen.co.za and mobifootball.com. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Also in his Malmö FF profile it is not specified exactly but the wording is suggesting that he is loaned from the academy. The page says that "he comes from the Stars of Africa Academy" and that "he spent three months in Hässleholm". --Reckless182 (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Kamg213 has now broken 3RR with his fourth revert inside 24 hours. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that communication by edit summary saying basically my source is better than your source is all that helpful, especially as the other editor concerned is a newcomer, so can't be expected to know how Wikipedia works or what 3RR might be. In hindsight, it might have been an idea to try talking to them at their talk page, or take the matter to the article talk page and point them at that discussion, or even let them know about this thread other than as part of a 3RR warning.

In my opinion, FWIW, neither set of sources appear any more convincing that the other, though I do find it approaching incredible that a football club should announce the arrival of a player on a 17-month loan and fail to mention where he's on loan from. I understand the Stars of Africa Academy and IFK Hässleholm have a close relationship via a South African agent? perhaps the ownership of the player isn't as clear-cut either way as you and the other editor think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I should have handled the situation much better. I don't know much about South African media so I can't compare, but Sydsvenskan, Dagens Nyheter and Eurosport are reliable sources not to mention major news companies. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

kickoff.com is the website of a well-established and reputable print monthly magazine specialising in SA soccer. This September 2011 interview on the Orlando Pirates website is interesting, and his Pirates club profile says "Rantie has joined Bucs from Swedish side IFK Hasselholm on a one-year loan deal to bolster the strike force." Not sure where this gets us... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright thanks! So we have reliable sources telling us the opposite side of the story. The situation is very confusing, SA media were talking about how Pirates negotiated with Hässleholm over a permanent transfer this summer and now Swedish media are saying that Malmö are negotiating with Stars of Africa over a permanent deal. Perhaps Rantie is somehow contracted by his agent's company? A possible solution would be to trust the latest available information, this would favour the point of view that Rantie belongs to Stars of Africa. As Kamg213 pointed out to me. Sydsvenskan first said that the loan was from Hässleholm when the transfer occured (August this year), however they have now changed that view to that the player belongs to Stars of Africa in the latest ref (1 November). --Reckless182 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly appears that when he was at Orlando Pirates he was on loan from Hassleholm: not only Orlando Pirates but also the South African Premier Soccer League say so. So for him to now be on loan from Stars of Africa, he'd have had to re-sign for them, which doesn't make sense. Can we read anything into this snippet from Hassleholm's website, which just says Rantie is going on loan for 17 months to MFF with option to purchase? That reads to me as if they mean "our player Rantie" is off on loan; otherwise, wouldn't they include additional information? The best solution would be for MFF themselves to state explicitly who they loaned him from :-) If you use Twitter, it could be worth asking them that way, they might reply... Confusing, indeed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes very confusing. Thats a good idea, I've sent them a tweet so now we'll have to wait and see. --Reckless182 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Benidorm CF

Teammates,

if the last additions (or "additions") to this team's article are not vandalism, it surely looks like it. Even if true (i doubt i very very much, could be wrong though) the stuff is not sourced.

Can anybody provide any sources as to the club's current status and its connection to England? Thanks in advance, keep it up y'all! --AL (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's people messing about. Calling your 5-a-side or Sunday team Benidorm CF doesn't give it a connection with a real club of that name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Member List

I'm in process of updating the members list, marking semi active members & removing inactive editors from the active list & moving them to the former list. But would someone care to explain the note at the bottom of the former list which reads: 'The 4 inactive members marked with 3 stars, will automatically be removed to the Active member list, if they manage to post minimum 1 football related edit in the second half of July 2011. Makes no sense to me as some of those marked where marked before the last update (July 2011) & were still marked afterwards, what makes those different from any other former members? As for other former members, I was of the understanding that if they became active again it was their responsibility to re-add themselves to the active list yes/no. If the list is going to be updated then why not the updater re-add those who have become re-active, seems a bit silly only moving people former list & not moving people back, surely the list would be more accurate if we did both. I think we've over complicated things or maybe I have. Bang my head off the wall here (not really but almost), would someone answer the above question what's the difference. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove an editor's name from the list - let them do it if they feel they are no longer a member. GiantSnowman 16:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I get how you feel Snowy but we have a section at top of that page stating: general maintenance rule, all project members who fail to post any football related edits within the past 12 months, will automatically be removed to the Former members. What would be your alternative to that to get an accurate list. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If anything I'd say we should start over - remove everyone, and have a bot message everyone listed on there asking them to re-join. The list should be a simple *{{user|USERNAME}} arranged alphabetically. GiantSnowman 17:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see the point in starting a new simplified list. The current list is a mess & updating it, although time consuming should be simple but it's not. Would your new list have any inclusion criteria. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, no inclusion criteria, other than someone wanting to be a member. GiantSnowman 17:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to reset the list and notify the people on the list that they can rejoin. Then we could create a more accurate list that does whatever it is these kinds of lists are supposed to do (and apart from showing people which projects are popular... I'm not sure what else that is). I think there should be at least one criterion to stay on the list, that an account on the list is removed if it has't even been used for 2–3 years or however long. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify by inclusion criteria I meant what Delusion suggested not sure on the timespan though. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Will the list include member of the task forces as well as the main project? Hack (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think TaskForce members should be listed at a similar page on the TaskForce main page. GiantSnowman 08:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so are we now making a new members list... did we really have a list in the first place. I never knew. Nor did probably many others who have Template:WikiProject Football member on there user pages. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Members lists are really a relic of the days when our contributors numbered in the tens rather than the hundreds of thousands. Still, there's no point in starting over as it'll just end up getting out of date again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I can't really see what the point of the members' list is....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Footballbox Collapsible problem

In the article 2012–13 Hyde F.C. season i use a Footballbox collapsible for the results, please could someone have a look a this a tell me what is the problem with the 2012–13 Hyde F.C. season#Conference National section, the bottom result doesn't seem to want to format, i have checked over everything, thanks, LiamTaylor 18:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ermmm well it seams to have fixed itself, odd! LiamTaylor 18:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Might want to try clearing your browser cache next time something like that happens. Chances are its a minor cock-up on your end and no one else can see it.--EchetusXe 08:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Vicodine fixed it: you had ordinary brackets instead of curly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

League records

I have started the article Fulham F.C. league record by opponent modelled on the featured list for Manchester United. The database of head-to-head records on Soccerbase only dates back to 1907/08, but the player records go back to 1898-99, when Fulham were playing in the Southern League. My question is, should I include results from the southern league if available or not. I am also not quite sure how the overall league records should be divided up given regular changes in leagues. Should Division 1 (pre-2004), Division 2, League One etc. be combined. 03md 01:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You should include the Southern League, and should make a note if they are not available to say they are not included. Championship / League One / League Two should correspond to Second / Third / Fourth Division. I would recommend that the First Division (1992-2004) to be included in the Second Division stats and so on, with a note to explain the score.--EchetusXe 08:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the relevance of a records by league division table to a league record by opponent page. I'd have thought it more appropriate to the stats and records page. Just wondering why you chose the Man Utd model, with its stress on goals for and against, ahead of the format used in the other five featured lists of that type, which include the seasons (or in one case, the dates) when the clubs met first and met most recently? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your help. Struway, I had a little look before I started and the Man United one was the only one I could find - I was not aware of the other lists. I will take a look at the other articles. I can move that league division table to a more suitable article, but it was just what was included on the Man United page. Thanks. 03md 00:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Fb r template broken?

Something is wrong with {{fb_r_header}} template. First, its first column became too narrow and the club name is often split in two lines, making the row much thicker. And when half of the rows are thick and half are normal the table looks hideous. Second, rightmost of the table I can see an empty column that doesn't bear any information but still consumes width space. It doesn't add to appearance as well.

I tried to dig into template but couldn't find the way to fix it. —WiJG? 09:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

2002–03 FA Premier League looks fine here. Got an example of a broken article? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I see it . Check 2012 J. League Division 2 for another example. In addition, league table has this empty column as well. I use Chrome in Windows 7. —WiJG? 12:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't reproduce here (Firefox 16 on Windows and Linux, IE7 on Windows). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Try a smaller font size or larger resolution. -Koppapa (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I still can't reproduce in either Firefox or IE. In any case, font issues may be responsible for overflow in the team names column, but I can't see how that would cause phantom columns to appear. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a problem of Crome with all the wikitable (I tried with Firefox and Safari on Mac OS and no problem, but with Crome yes); I don't know what is the problem but there is only with that web browser. Stigni (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Albert Cook (footballer) and Bert Cooke

Looking at their photographs I must ask, are they per chance related? Of course a 1900–1911 playing career followed by a 1912-1935 management career by two men of the same name would suggest that they are the same person, but I cannot find any link in sources?--EchetusXe 17:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I dug out the old books, and Bert is Herbert not Albert, and born in Birkenhead. I added this to his article. Cheers, U+003F^? 18:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, good work.--EchetusXe 23:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dimitar Berbatov stats table

This has been rumbling on a while. A number of editors (inc. myself) feel that the parameter 2012–13 Manchester United F.C. season should be included in his statistics table, with a number of other editors feeling otherwise & removing it. Given he was still at Manchester United at the start of the season I think it's warranted & it clarifies he made no appearances. Involved parties have been notified, Thoughts ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that depends. Was he on the bench for Manchester United during any of there official games before he was transfered? If so then yes, you should add the 2012-13 season there. If not then dont. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It should include Man Utd 2012–13, because he didn't leave them until two games into the season. But particularly so because he was an unused substitute for one of those games. It'd be misleading the reader to leave it out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@Arsenalkid700. Not sure it should be dependant on whether he was an unused sub or not, but nevertheless he was as showed by Struway2. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Berba should be left in both his page stats and in the season stats as he was only sold after season started and removing it will make it look as if it he was sold prior to the season. I don't think it should matter more that he was an unused sub, but in this case it should seal the deal and keep him in stats.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well lets see. First of all I dont think it will make a difference really if we add it or not. If the reader gets confused and thinks that Berba left before the season began then he is not reading the article... he is just looking at stats. The reader should be able to read the actual article and read that he was sold on 31 August 2012. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it makes a difference. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and as such should aim at providing accurate information. Leaving it out would be inaccurate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What do WP:RS say? Do any stats sites etc. have him listed as a Man Utd player in the 2012–13 season? GiantSnowman 09:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the BBC link above, that has him listed as a Man Utd player among the substitutes for their first game of the season. As to stats sites, try Soccerway, Soccerbase, ESPNSoccernet, Premier League, ... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Then we have our answer ;) GiantSnowman 09:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless he played it's pointless. Being an used sub doesn't count as an apperance, therefore it doesn't count. He didn't play for United in the 2012-2013 season, therefore it doesn't need to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.74.156 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

An appearance on the bench, although it provides no notability on its own, is an appearance nonetheless. Moreover, reliable sources treat him as a ManU player after pre-season was over, so his ManU stats should definitely be included. – Kosm2fent 10:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of league season articles

League season articles provide an important link with the past that I certainly find very useful in preparing club articles. Some of the league season material is not readily available in other sources such as those covering the Delta Ethniki (Greek fourth tier), a semi-professional league. In this respect I find it very disappointing that 5 articles have been put forward for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007–08 Delta Ethniki.

A lot of hard work has gone into preparing the articles and they are useful in determining the movement of clubs that have been relegated from Football League 2 (Greece) which is a fully professional league. The Delta Ethniki is part of the national league structure for Greece and is administered by Hellenic Football Federation.

I find it difficult to understand why the following leagues are acceptable but the Delta Ethniki (Tier 4 Greek League) - a national league administered at a national level - will be consigned to the "recycle bin"?

• 2012–13 Hessenliga (see also Category:Hessenliga seasons) (Tier 5 German League)
• 2012–13 Fußball-Bayernliga (see also Category:Fußball-Bayernliga seasons) (Tier 5 German League)
• 2012–13 NOFV-Oberliga (see also Category:NOFV-Oberliga seasons) (Tier 5 German League)
• 2012–13 Western Football League (see also Category:Western Football League seasons) (Tiers 9 & 10 English League)
• 2012–13 Northern Football League (see also Category:Northern Football League seasons) (Tiers 9 & 10 English League)
• 2012–13 North West Counties Football League (see also Category:North West Counties Football League seasons) (Tiers 9 & 10 English League)
• 2012–13 Combined Counties Football League (Tiers 9 & 10 English League)
• 2012–13 Eastern Counties Football League (Tiers 9 & 10 English League)
• 2012–13 Essex Senior Football League (Tier 9 English League)
• 2012–13 Hellenic Football League (Tiers 9 & 10 English League)
• 2012–13 Kent Football League (Tier 9 English League)
• 2012–13 Kent Invicta Football League (Tier 10 English League)
• 2012–13 Midlands football leagues (levels 9–10) (Tiers 9 & 10 English League)
• 2012–13 Spartan South Midlands Football League (Tiers 9 & 10 English League) etc

I think we need better "signposting" to avoid abortive work. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC))

You're making the mistake of assuming that something else existing is an excuse to create something similar. None of those lower-tier English leagues have anything in the way of reliable secondary sources and they'd all likely be deleted at AfD; that hasn't been done yet, primarily because we don#'t have the infinite manpower required to watch for the creation of every possible article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have commented on the aforementioned AfD. The Delta Ethniki articles require (enormous) work in the sourcing department, but I think that some seasons at least could satisfy GNG. – Kosm2fent 10:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Kosm2fent highlights in the above AfD the key constraint as we go back in time - "link rot" - and I would also add that as we go further back there is a paucity of hard copy sources such as newspapers. The issue that I would like to see us address is whether we really want season by season league tables in Wikipedia? and what level/tiers do we accept them? The issue needs addressing properly in order to avoid abortive work and disappointing deletions. We cannot expect comprehensive sources that pass WP:GNG for historic tables - often we only have the RSSSF source. Either we agree to give some sort of a dispensation for historic tables or we actively discourage them? And perhaps place our tables elsewhere? League Octopus (League Octopus 12:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC))

No, see, this is the major problem we have: instead of people simply using the most basic rule we have (start by finding reliable sources, and then create an article when you have enough of them to establish notability) people run around trying to invent heuristics and thencreating articles to match them. The result is that as soon as we have any decent articles at a given level someone's off creating hundreds of pages for subjects at the same level based on that precedent. The concept of automatic notability is the biggest generator of poor content on the entire project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Having prepared the essay WP:NCLUB I am very familiar with the very poor standard of articles throughout Wikipedia Football - I therefore share many of your concerns Thumperward. However, I am also aware that for many Editors (including myself) the overarching desire is to see a reasonable standard stub (rather than a red link) as the basis for further development. In this instance we are talking about season by season league tables and for me the real issue is whether articles that I have prepared like 1992–93 Terceira Divisão and 1997–98 Segunda Divisão B are beneficial to the Project or whether I would be better off assisting RSSSF to develop their database. I just do not want to spend hours on abortive work and I desperately need some guidance. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC))

Nacho Fernández - Help

Would like to see if it's possible to reinstate the former page name, NACHO (FOOTBALLER BORN 1990). Why?

1 - the present is a NAME/NICKNAME compound, like having Pedro Mantorras, or Ricardo Kaká, or Joaquim Quim, etc, etc; 2 - player not even remotely referred to as FERNÁNDEZ, hence the name being 100% expendable.

Tried to move it, was not allowed (but someone moved it to the present state even after me referring to the name/nickname "hazards").

Attentively, thank you very much in advance - --AL (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Why include the year if there is only one Nacho? Btw, Real Madrid have called him Fernandez. -Koppapa (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it should be called, the move of Nacho (footballer born 1990) to Nacho Fernández was a cut-and-paste move, so needs an admin to sort the history out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the C&P move, merged the histories, and warned the IP who did it. The article is back at Nacho (footballer born 1990) - I have no opinion on the merits of any name, I suggest somebody uses WP:RM if they wish to move again. GiantSnowman 21:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks all three of you. Answering Koppapa's question, we also have these two guys, Ignacio Fernández Rodríguez and José Ignacio Fernández Palacios (at least! Dunno if more are lurking). Regarding Snowman's input: merit? Of course it should be NACHO man, that was i asked for the page (re)move. Cheers --AL (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata

As users here may know, Wikidata is now up and running in a limited form. At the moment it is basically a collection of language links (intended to eventually replace the interwiki system), plus a very brief description of the subject in each language, but it will eventually become a full-on collection of data. I don't know too much about future development, but as far as we're concerned the basic concept appears to be that infobox data can eventually be shared between projects – as far as stats are concerned I presume that there will be different data entries for league and total appearances, so that individual projects can continue with whatever convention they use.

I'm posting here to ask if people had thoughts on how to standardise descriptions of players? For instance, in a British English description (yes, the one true form of English is a separate language option), I can uncontroversially describe any player as a "footballer", regardless of the correct term in that player's native country. But how should we describe players in "English" (a default used for all forms of English)? "Footballer", "football player", "association football player", "soccer player"? Should we add positions? Do we add words such as professional and international? Etc. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 15:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I always use "footballer" or "footballer, football manager". American football players are not called footballers, so there is no confusion. There are though goalkeepers, defenders and forwards in other sports. I don't see that professional really adds anything.--EchetusXe 20:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to describe them as 'Nationality professional footballer.' GiantSnowman 18:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Tangential but related: The sports categories are terrible. There's no rhyme or reason. There's something like 1800 subcategories under Cat:Footballers using a deep scan. Gigs (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What's the issue? GiantSnowman 16:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The issues are numerous. I can probably generate a tree view at some point so I can illustrate the monster. Gigs (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ballon d'Or

FIFA Ballon d'Or is not a separate prize, but only successor of Ballon d'Or.(France Football official website) And Messi is a three-time winner of the prize, as Platini and Kroif and Van Basten.(telegraph.co.uk)--46.241.220.189 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Link. --Aleksander Šesták 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksander Sestak (talk • contribs)

This implies it is the same award. GiantSnowman 13:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Award itself has not changed, only the rules of voting (previously voted only journalists, but now also coaches and captains), but such changes were previously too. But this does not mean that the list should be divided into three or four parts.--46.241.211.15 (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So we probably should combine them but make a good section about the voting/awarding procedure. -Koppapa (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, create a separate section about changes in rules and the agreement with FIFA.--46.241.238.225 (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

There have been multiple discussions about this before. Simply the FIFA Ballon d'Or is the result of a merger between the Ballon d'Or and FIFA World Player of the Year. Therefore, it is not the only successor of the Ballon d'Or. They are two different awards, hence they have separate pages. If you look here FIFA lists the winners of the France Football Ballon d'Or separately and lists the FIFA World Player of the Year winners in conjunction with the winners of the FIFA Ballo d'Or. The way it is now is the best way, the pages are stable, there is sufficient explanation of the awards, a merger is not needed. NapHit (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, FIFA continues his list, but France Football official website continues his own list, but none of these sites does not consider the FIFA Ballon d'Or is something new.--46.241.254.205 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

About what article in Wikipedia? About the award or ceremony? Award itself has not changed since 1956, as it awarded tо Stanley Matthews, the same award, without any changes, awarded to Messi. What's the difference what company or organization at various times were presented the same prize. All changes in the rules, agreements and so on it's just the facts from history of the Ballоn d'Or .--46.241.234.242 (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read article on sports.yahoo.com Sneijder would've won 2010 Ballon d'Or under old voting system. Changed only the rules, but not award itself.--46.241.214.46 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No the rules and the award changed its an amalgamation of two awards. Its not hard to understand, I don't know what point you're trying to prove. NapHit (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not hard to understand your opinion, but I want to remind you that rejecting is not argument.

So, I gave several reliable sources, which say that the prize is the same. OK, you think otherwise,can you give a few sources which say that the award itself has changed? Then we can also continue the discussion, because now you only reject all my arguments.--46.241.207.218 (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Its not my opinion, its fact, there were two awards the Ballon d'Or and the FIFA World Player of the Year and they were merged to create the FIFA Ballon d'Or, that is a fact not an opinion. I don't have to give sources to prove anything, because nothing needs to be proved. The award is not the same award, ho can it be, when its an amalgamation of two former awards! This is the consensus we've had since 2009, it not going to change despite your claims. NapHit (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

it not going to change despite your claims.... what you want to say. If you don't like this discussion and you have nothing to add, may not even participate in it. But i'm not going to consider your opinion as a fact, you're not the director of this project, and certainly not representative of FIFA. Cite sources.

You have consensus since 2009? it's interesting, because the rules changed in 2010.--46.241.247.186 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Article in Wikipedia should be based on published reliable sources (in FIFA Ballon d'Or article there are no sources except the official site of FIFA). In this case, both the source and the famous sports figures equate "old" and "new" prizes. And Messi achievement is comparable only with the achievement of Platini (three time Ballon d'Or winner), but not with the achievements of Zidane (three time Player of the Year winner).--46.241.193.241 (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've already explained why there are separate pages. The two awards are different, the FIFA page lists them differently. How can it be the same award if the previous one was merged with another award to create the current one? Just because they get the same trophy does not mean the award is the same.see here it is clearly stated the FIFA World Player of the year award was merged with the Ballon d'Or to create the FIFA Ballon d'Or. It couldn't be clearer they are different awards. NapHit (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Still most sources treat them the same, you can't argue against that? -Koppapa (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think they are bound to when the name is the same apart from the addition of FIFA. That doesn't mean the awards are the same, they are two distinct awards. NapHit (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

West Germany merged with East Germany and created a new national team of Germany, but we still consider Germany triple world champion, although three-time champions is not the German national team but the team of West Germany.--46.241.203.55 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And in this case the FIFA Ballon d'Or is the successor of the old Ballon d'Or, although it was created after the merger of the two prizes.--46.241.206.243 (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

West Germany and East Germany were not merged the countries were reunified, there is a big difference. A quick google search for ballon d'or merged with fifa world player of the year gave me these two sources which clearly say the FIFA Ballon d'Or is a new award. The fact people refer to the award as the Ballon d'Or is mostly likely due to lazy journalism and the fact the trophy awarded is the same, that doesn't mean it is the same award. This discussion has been circling for a while now, you're not going to achieve a consensus about your view of the award, so I would just give it up. NapHit (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm arguing about the list of the winners, not about the name of the article. The list is not divided in the official website of FIFA, it is not divided in official site of France Football too. Is there any other site which is begins to count the winners from 2010? Cite references.--46.241.219.29 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You still fail to understand the issue. Its not about who is listed as the winners, the fact is they are two different awards, that's all there is to it. That FIFA list you referenced combines winners of the FIFA Ballon d'Or and FIFA World Player of the Year excluding the France Football Ballon d'Or, so saying it is not divided is missing the point. Two separate awards were merged to create the FIFA Ballon d'Or, so we can't list all the winners of these awards in one page, as one of the merged awards will have to be excluded from a list of winners. As the two sources you provide lists different lists of winners, it is illogical to go down this path. The current format of articles for the three separate awards is the right way, they are different awards, the sources I provided show it is a NEW award, any request for lists of winners from 2010 is mute. NapHit (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

False. FIFA Ballon d'Or and (France Football's) Ballon d'Or are different awards according with the FIFA's web site and documents.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You can not only refer to the website of FIFA, it is not very correct. And in this document list of Balon d'Or winners ends in 1990. Which also raises doubts about the objectivity of FIFA website.--46.241.198.120 (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the above statement is ridiculous. FIFA run the award, if they consider it a new award then it is a new award there is no way around it. That document proves it is a new award, no more discussion is needed. NapHit (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the best decision is in the Italian Wikipedia. I offer such format of list and I want to know the views of other users.--46.241.235.139 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Its clear from the document above that they are different awards and they should be treated as such. What the Italian wikipedia does is irrelevant, we have a consensus that the articles should be separate, that is not going to change. NapHit (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, FIFA will say that the prizes merged, they will not say that they slurped it up from the french. "Merging" is the most appropriate word in this case.--46.241.220.2 (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

But your opinion is clear, I want to know the opinion of other users too.--46.241.220.2 (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ángel Guirado

Regarding this player's article, the following (infobox) observations,

Last year or so, someone brought forth (here) that there were several ways of presenting an infobox, namely: 1 - years1, years2, years3, years4 / clubs1, clubs2, clubs3, clubs4 / caps1, caps2, caps3, caps4 / goals1, goals2, goals3, goals4; 2 - years1, clubs1, caps1, goals1 / years2, clubs2, caps2, goals2, etc, etc. Can't remember of any more forms right now.

However, in this footballer's piece, there seems to be a mix of columns, making for a very poor display in my opinion. Plus there is this guy, User:Banana Fingers, who edits massively there, and he also has had (still continues it seems) several run-ins with several users including myself (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Always_Learning&diff=483332687&oldid=483172027 and - much worse! - here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Always_Learning&diff=483504750&oldid=483464134), i tried to "make" another infobox, was immediately reverted by him. I am known to be quite discourteous, but never have i been so for NO REASON as in the cases i present, so i ask for the "commission"'s opinion: is that way to present a box wrong, right or none of the two?

Attentively, thank you very much - --AL (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

He is now under the control of the Indian football police department. We will take it from here. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed! Now then, case dismissed. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@AL: As I'm sure you're aware, it's standard practice to notify other users whose behaviour is being mentioned in discussions. Presume you notified BananaFingers of this thread? Struway2 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Struway, what did i say in my original message? After being called a SMART ASS and a WANKER for a minor difference of opinion, i am not going to converse with this person anymore. But you are correct though, i did not follow WP procedures, i apologize to the forum and Mr. Fingers, won't happen again, delete the whole thread if it's for the best. --AL (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Mandela Challenge

Zambia won this competition - but what is it? Is it notable? Not to be confused with rugby union's Mandela Challenge Plate. GiantSnowman 13:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a one off competition. I dont know much about it but I remember that the USA played in it in 2010 (See this). Now in my opinion sense it is a once a year competition I would say that we can make an article for it but dont make separate yearly articles. Just have all the results on the actual Mandela Challenge Cup page. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That source also confirms US played in 2007. Looks to be big. Shall we create the Mandela Challenge Cup, with Mandela Challenge as a disambig page for the two sports? GiantSnowman 13:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There already is an article, at Nelson Mandela Challenge, which appears to be the correct name of the thing. A hatnote on each page pointing to the other would be a good idea, but there's no real need for a dab page just for 2 pages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good spot Struway, I've created redirects / added hatnotes as appropriate. GiantSnowman 14:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done Struway. Still can't believe it took till this month though for someone to create the article. Anyway this article needs some more work. Reports, goalscorers. Basic things. I might take that up but at the moment I am busy. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Football Records in Spain .

Hello ..

the following IP address 49.244.75.155 keeps removing records from both Team records and individual records at football records in Spain page.

The records are the following : Individual : Players with most consecutive wins in la Liga & Players with most consecutive games without losing in a league game. Ofcourse both of them have references , I really see them similar to the record for most consecutive scorer which accepted , especially the information provided are well referenced also at team : Most goals scored by players from the youth system ,and Most scorers in official matches in a season its both referenced also and sounds similar with most goals in a season or Most games with three or more goals in a season:

Thank you .

Adnan Talk 1.54 pm 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I had a look (per your request on my talkpage) and the IP first time round removed sourced content without providing a reason, which of course they must. Second time round the IP removed content with the comment: frivolous records removed, done without consensus. As far as I know we don't have any consensus on what should/shouldn't be include in these types of articles. Last time the IP removed the content they provided the reason: no consenus to put youth infos in a teams record. The record that you (Adnan) added wasn't a youth record so the IP's comment was untrue & at the same time the IP also removed four other records which were most definitely senior. So as far as I can see IP (who is a hopper) hasn't provided a legitimate reason for removal. Per consensus on removal good-faith additions should remain in the article pending consensus. As for the records themselves I certainly don't have a problem with there inclusion but they may need rewording. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Anyone else have an opinion on the matter, here are the records in question:

• Players with most consecutive wins in la Liga: Sergio Busquets with 25 wins between Ligas 2009/10 and 2010/11.
• Players with most consecutive games without losing in a league game: Andres Iniesta with 55 games (47 wins and 8 draws)
• Most goals scored by players from the youth system: Of the 190 goals scored by Barça in the 2011/12 season, 150 were scored by players from Barça’s youth system
• Most scorers in official matches in a season: In 2010/11 23 Barcelona players scored at least one in official competitions.
• Most games with three or more goals in a season: 20 games, Real Madrid (2011–12)

Anything that isn't explicitly referenced should be removed. Anything that is referenced but of questionable worth should be discussed on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 10:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed with Snowman. The only records in question are the ones that have been added recently by Adnan without consensus and without taking it to the articles talk page. The records the user included are ones that are ALREADY in the article under team records like consecutive wins in la liga for barcelona. Putting a barcelona player and rewriting the same record only gives WP:UNDUE prominence to one team. The second record does NOT fall in the individual record as teams are the ones who win games and lose games, its not a Player who wins or not lose a game. Players score goals and all records in the individual section are of goals not of winning or losing. The third record are clearly written by a barcelona fan, because barcelonas team goalscoring record are already there. there cannot be a goals record scored by a youth system. otherwise, everyone will start putting records like oldest to score, and FYI every player comes from a youth system, SO that record is invalid!. The 4th record is as undue as the rest of them and only shows undue support and favor for a team. the point is these records are very recently added and have no validity and no consensus.as such they cannot be added until a consensus is made.49.244.161.201 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, most of the records in La Liga is held by either FC Barcelona or Real Madrid, this is simple facts and not undue prominence. It is simply the reality of a league that has for most of its 80 years of existence been dominated by these two teams.

Ok thank you. and I think some information at the page doesn't have references so either we provide references for it or should be removed. and for sure anyone who can rewording it in better way it would be great. --Adnan Talk 11:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok i will check which ones have reference and remove ones without it. I will also see the reword issue. First you move back your edits and take the article to the original stage before you added those records. Basically, revert your own edit. Before an agreement is established for these new records, these cannot be allowed int the article.49.244.140.244 (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who added most of the records on that page, almost none of them are directly sourced as there are no published works on La liga records that is up to date. When I started to add records I simply copy pasted them from the English Football records page as I thought that page was fairly well structured. Since my edits, there have been a fairly large amount of fluff added, Messi and Ronaldo records that just clutter the page.. My idea was to collect the more significant records such as streaks of various kinds, positive and negative ones. About the sources, the problem is that there are no published sources that are up to date so I used the official database found at lfp.es as the source, it is based on official match reports and contain all relevant data for the entire history of the league. I we strictly want every entry sourced, then it will be down to original research as I did or outdated published works on la liga (as in La Liga 75 years of history 1929-2004 which is the latest published work and as such, missing most if not all of the significant records).

51 Unreferenced BLPs

I updated the list. 10% of the entire URBLP backlog is footballers. Please help. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Unreferenced_BLPs/Full_list Gigs (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a meaningless list if so few are actually unreferenced. Hack (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Gigs, like so many others, doesn't believe that external links count as references - unfortuantely. Means we are all creating more work for ourselves. GiantSnowman 08:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems disruptive to mass tag articles purely on the basis that inexperienced editors placed general references in the wrong section. I went through the list and found two articles that did not have at least one general reference - one of which was an American football article. Hack (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just get people to add at least one inline references when they create articles. Is that too much to ask? Gigs (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's unrealistic to expect everyone with article creation access to be fully across the vagaries of referencing. Fixing the problem should start with correctly tagging the issues. Hack (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Gigs - it's be easier for whoever tags the articles to convert the ELs to inline, rather than tagging and waiting for someone here to do the conversion. Like I said, this is creating more work for everyone and isn't needed. GiantSnowman 16:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a bot half the time. Gigs (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Can the bot not be re-programmed to recognise, and convert, the ELs on these articles? GiantSnowman 17:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend the bot use the correct tag (BLP sources), but if it can convery ELs to inline citations, that's even better. Jogurney (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Converting ELs to references would involve reading each EL to confirm it actually referenced something. A bot can't do that. Perhaps a more precise tag would be {{No footnotes}} with the BLP parameter set. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Anything tagged this way should be looked at by a human for notability purposes and BLP violations anyway. Gigs (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

How was the list generated? There were quite a few on the list that were not tagged as WP:FOOTY articles. Hack (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That was my fault. I did an intersection on Category:Footballers. The bot that normally does it has been down for over a month so I ran it manually that way. That's why you got a few rugby union footballers in there. Gigs (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Pedro Barbosa

Have done it twice, now i give up. Someone keeps adding the SPANISH version to this article after i remove it, but it refers to a 16th century jurist! Any suggestions? I browsed the Spanish Wikipedia just to be sure, Mr.Barbosa does not have an article there.

By the way, Marc Batta's (Barbosa scored in a decisive 1998 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) game against Germany refereed by this man, hence the relation) article is in dire need of attention, a Portuguese bitter fan (no racism, i'm Portuguese also) can not get over his refereeing AFTER 15 YEARS: it's true, the man was overzealous i saw the match, but it's unsourced and in very poor English.

Attentively, thanks in advance - --AL (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The interwiki link is being added by a bot, so it doesn't know any better. I'd suggest talking to the person running the bot. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Have done so, thanks! --AL (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but both users that added the ES.WIKI entry seem to be users mainly active in other WP, haven't contributed here in months. --AL (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

On es:Pedro Barbosa, I have changed the link at en.wiki from Pedro Barbosa to Pedro Barbosa (jurist), this should stop any further issues. GiantSnowman 13:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Again with Mr. Batta, cleaned up the article, added refs. But could not resist and share this YouTube video with footage of Rui Costa being sent off (please see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30zJUN6JbGg). Makes me sick to my stomach not Batta's action (which was VERY WRONG) but my countrymen's comments, saying for example "If i could i would break his fucking face", "Motherfucker" repeated to exhaustion, whilst one also urges the many Portuguese immigrants in France to physically harm him. Again i note, ALL the comments haven taken place more than ONE DECADE after the game, yes, Batta's a regular Adolf Hitler (irony on).

Happy weekend all of you, "extra" thanks to Snowman for his help in Barbosa. --AL (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ersan Gülüm‎

Australian-born. Father is Turkish. Plays for a Turkish professional club. Has been capped by the Australian U-23 side. Has been called-up by the Turkish senior side but has not set-foot on the pitch for them. A Turkish national changed the article to indicate that he is now a Turkish footballer. I explained that it's not the rule on Wikipedia and that he must be capped for the Turks before we change the article. Anon reverted and called me a vandal. Anyone else care to watch the page since it may be going back and forth for the next few weeks? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Most recent match for Turkey was 12 October 2012 and he was not capped in that match. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Different IP, but likely the same person who is insisting on similar at Samed Yeşil, a player who is German-born and has been capped by Germany at youth level, by referring to him as "German-Turkish" in the lead and adding the "Turkish footballers" category. Have added Gülüm‎ to my watchlist. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Best thing to do is not attach an arbitrary nationality to him in the opening sentence, just call him a footballer and then say later on that he has played for Australia U23 and also been called up for Turkey. Gets rid of this type of problem straight away. BigDom (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

When he was called up by Turkey, was he named on the bench? Hack (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No. He was not. http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/europe/matches/round=258374/match=300183571/index.html --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Suriname's aversion to Netherlands-based players

On this FIFA.com article, the then coach of Suriname, Kenneth Jaliens said that he is not allowed to call up players based in the Netherlands due to political pressure from within Suriname. Does anyone have further information on why that is the case? There is nothing on the Suriname national football team article. TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably an unofficial policy of the FA to encourage local growth, rather than Dutch players who are eligible due to grandparents and just want to play a few games at int'l level. GiantSnowman 00:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is Surinamese law, it doesn't allow dual citizenship. Cattivi (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You were right, I saw it on FIFA Football Mundial[13]TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup and "world club champion" honorific title

I note this discussion.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Youths turned pro before "their time"

After exchanging some words with User:Struway2, discovered there is a consensus on closing youth spells in infoboxes after a player has made his professional debuts (he provided the examples of John Bostock, Jermaine Pennant and Theo Walcott).

Can't that be altered? It mades no sense in my opinion. Have a look at Fabrice Olinga, he's 16 years old and still plays for Málaga CF's juniors. What if he wins a youth national championship in the following THREE seasons? That box will look a bit incoherent no?

Attentively - --AL (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If a player played a senior match in 2011 but then played 2012 mainly in the youth team. I see no reason to have the youth end at 2011. There should be no problem in overlapping. -Koppapa (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Joyce

A new edition (3rd) of Joyce has come out - has anyone got it and how different is it from the old (2nd) edition? Thinking of investing in a copy but 2nd is considerably cheaper... GiantSnowman 13:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Had no idea a new edition was out, so I can't help you there. My copy of the 2nd edition has been invaluable in writing biographies of pre-WW2 players, especially as there is no Neil Brown-type online resource for these players. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2nd edition is excellent but has quite a few mistakes/errors/omissions in it (missing dates of birth/death, non-league clubs etc.) so I assume that this new edition will just have some of the gaps filled in. Definitely worth buying a copy of one or the other though. BigDom (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposition

User:El rayo que no cesa has the following proposition to make, i am the vehicle chosen to do so:

In the footballers' infobox, there is a YOUTH section and a SENIOR section. Since he was reverted once for adding a youth club to a manager (on the grounds of being irrelevant), he asks if there is a possibility of having the manager stuff divided in the same way as done with the players (YOUTH section, followed by SENIOR section).

Attentively - --AL (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't really work. In the case of players, they start out as youths and then progress to the senior ranks and stay there. There is no such progression for managers - they don't automatically start out as "youth managers" before then becoming "senior managers" and staying there. A guy could start out as manager of a senior team, then manage a youth team, then manage another senior team, then manage another youth team. If the two were separated in the way you suggest, the infobox would look incredibly confusing.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed Chris great point! I'll convey it to Rayo, never looked at it that way. --AL (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

2011 L. League

Is this article questionable notability? I think that this article is notability. --Japan Football (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely is notable as a top-level league (of the current world champion). -Koppapa (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Japan Football (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We need to move away from assumed/inherent notability and get articles meeting GNG. GiantSnowman 10:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

References for stadia

I am interested in creating pages for stadia used in the Czech 2. Liga, which has been no problem for me in the past. However I am short on references and loathe to creating an unreferenced stub. The stadiums are:

• Pod Vinicí, Pardubice (have a couple of references for this one already [14] [15])
• Stadion FK Holice, Olomouc
• Stadion SK Prosek, Prague
• Sportovní areál Soukeník, Sezimovo Ústí
• Městský stadion, Hlučín (2. Liga 2010/11)

Can anyone help out with reliable websites which cover any of these stadia? Thanks in advance, Cloudz679 22:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football biography

I want your opinion about an idea i have for Template:Infobox football biography. For example, in the parameter position we can put the player's most common position or positions: defender, forward, midfielder, goalkeeper. We can have, automatically, the exactly category for the article. For example, if we put to an article the parameter defender in the infobox, the Category:Association football defenders could automatically put in the article. And we can to this for the teams he/she played etc... Xaris333 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

possible, but we shouldn't have the template add categories per WP:TEMPLATECAT. Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We're still waiting for the college parameters to be rolled out so don't hold out on immediate change...Hack (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thxs. It was just an idea. Xaris333 (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Retirement

Teammates, in April i "threatened", now i "deliver", will retire 100% as an editor to focus solely on my admin work (just kidding :)),

"Just kidding" about the admin stuff, i am retiring for good, six years and one month was a good run overall, but several (former)fellow users will most certainly point out (and i will agree!) that i pretty much worked "outside the box", never brought myself to follow the due WP guidelines overall.

Not being able to: 1 - do the above; 2 - not feed the trolls (unfortunately have a "legendary" reputation for anti-vandal retorts!) and sick and tired of the times i have been insulted for nothing (will never forget as long as i live that a 15-year old punk - so some claim he was! - started calling me a crybaby faggot after i politely told him Quique Flores was (is) the most common name in EN.WIKI. Some people in this life focus on the positive beautiful things, some on the negative nasty ones, guess to which group i belong?), i think this is more than high time for me to go, i have failed miserably in doing what WP wants us to aspire to: working as a well-oiled team/unit, no questions asked (did i just say "no questions asked"?), tried my best, not good enough not by a mile - another good example of that would be my "very-near WP:OWN" posture regarding X or Y article.

All the best to all you project members and editors in general. You know who touched my (bleeding)heart, i apologize those with whom i had run-ins (sometimes more than once, also cannot forget User:Joao10Siamun resorting to utterly ignoring my attempts of talking to him - sometimes even when i asked him if he could help me with a wikidoubt, really classy! - after he was not pleased with something i said), i feel WP is better off with guys that don't have my passion or language skills but can abide by the rules, simple as that.

Sincerely from BEJA, PORTUGAL, VASCO MANUEL AMARAL (signing off) --AL (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you do go, you'll be sadly missed. Wikipedia needs more free spirits and less bullshit & redtape. Sure - we've all had our little disagreements but that's what makes life interesting. As they say, don't let the buggers get you down. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page - take a few days to think things over before going for good. GiantSnowman 16:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki editors are like pro wrestlers, they never really retire. There's always one more match and one more edit. --Jameboy (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

List of feeder teams in football

This article is outdated, and could do with some cleanup. I've removed unreferenced entries, but could do with some help from people more familiar with some of the clubs listed, or the languages used for some of the references. One problem is that a lot of the references are short on detail. Typically, a tie-up between two clubs will be agreed for a finite period, but this doesn't always make the press articles. Based on my experiences with the references that do mention duration, I suspect there is significant proportion of outdated information present. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow... the accuracy is appalling. Sporting Clube de Goa has never had any affiliation with Sporting Clube de Portugal. Just turns out that the Indian state of Goa is more Portugese than English and has the same type of names (Sporting etc). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We need to remove all unreferenced entries, and then check the accuracy of the what's left. GiantSnowman 08:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Captains in squad templates

What are your opinions on the merits of having a little (c) next to the captain in club/international squad templates? Some include them, some don't; my personal preference is that we do not include them. GiantSnowman 13:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

For squads for international tournaments, I would, so long as the source is included. Not for club squads: too fluid, you'd have people changing them on a match-by-match basis. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You do mean templates such as {{England squad 1966 FIFA World Cup}} as opposed to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads? GiantSnowman 14:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes: templates, not articles... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NAV says that navboxes exist to link related articles. Captain (association football) is not part of the topic, so I would not link it, but instead expand "(c)" to "(captain)" if included unlinked. Unlinked text itself also needs to be kept to a minimum however, again because the purpose of the navbox is navigation, not information (information is provided by articles themselves). Therefore, when deciding what unlinked text to include (e.g. squad numbers, captain), we should focus on what is helpful for navigation purposes. What that means in practice I'm not too sure. --Jameboy (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the box is for navigation as opposed to information; someone's captaincy seems superfluous. Squad numbers are a good way or organising, if nothing else. GiantSnowman 15:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again, sir, although not sure what your football team think they're doing up the top end of the Prem... You have a point re WP:NAV, at least where captaincy is concerned. Squad numbers are useful, for finding out who the bloke was wearing number 14 for Fooland in a Youtube clip, so you can read about him. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Copa Libertadores Femenina

The tournament finished its 3rd matchday. So far i am basically the only editor on the article (and the last editions). Started it from the ground, considering it's a continental championship it gets pretty few views. Also sad the official CONMEBOL website still lists the last edition only. Maybe someone interested in women's football sees one or two things to improve on the spot. ;) Anyone digging deeper into it may find how Quito qualified, without Ecuador having a national club league, if they were awarded the place or played some kind of playoff or prelim competition. -Koppapa (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, while watching a stream i found out its a different Quito team from last year. Anyone here speaks better Spanish than google? google.com/search?q="Deportivo Quito participará en la I Copa" Does that single searchresult (which gives a dead link) mean they were nominated to take part? -Koppapa (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Group stage concluded. Only missing goal scorers of match Universidad de Santa Cruz vs Formas Íntimas. -Koppapa (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Tweets as a reference

James Vaughan has tweeted that he wants to play for Jamaica at international level but it's Twitter and no media outlet has picked up on it. Am I right in thinking it's not suitable to be a reference? TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:TWITTER would indicate it's acceptable. GiantSnowman 13:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and you can use this template to cite it with. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 13:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Expert needed

Looking at the references on Patrik Berger, ref. 3 is for a certain "Matthews, Tony (2006), p. 29." but there is no mention of the book. Would somebody please help with this. Also, on the same page, there is an unreachable link for an Independent article here, which I can't find archived anywhere. There is also one more here from 4thegame.com . Thanks, Cloudz679 21:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Googling the title should be one'S first irea, not? It's here. -Koppapa (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently not, but it's a community project, which is why it's useful to involve other project members from time to time. Thanks for the help. Cloudz679 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

For the book ref, the ref name is "WHO". Matthews wrote the "Who's Who of Liverpool", published in 2006, its almost certainly that. It was added by User:SoLando here. He's still around occasionally, so if there's still any doubt in your mind you could ask him. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I will drop him a message. Cloudz679 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I searched within Wikipedia and found other articles with the same source so I copied the information from that. Job done. Thank you. Cloudz679 22:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnet F.C. International players section

I question myself is it really needed on the article. Would like the opinion of a few others. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not needed - unreferenced and without inclusion criteria. Are they players who played international football while at Barnet, or Barnet players who have ever played international football? WP:BEBOLD and remove it, stating why on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 15:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edgar Davids

Reference 7 says he is Jewish I think, but I can't read it and google translator is exceptionally poor at translation. Can anyone read it? Govvy (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it says that his mother and grandmother are, but unless he has made any explicit comments about having Jewish faith that is a major influence in his life, or we have RS evidence of him having faced anti-Semitic abuse, or that he has taken out Israeli nationality with a view to being selected for the national team, I fail to see the significance either way. In regard to which, why do we have a category Jewish footballers or the article List of Jewish footballers? Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting fact, I was trying to find if there was a reference in English earlier, but wasn't sure how accurate that ref was there in Israeli. Govvy (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A ref for him not being Jewish: [16] Translation: Edgar Davids thinks the Ajax Board of Directors is discriminating him. Question: Is it because you are not Jewish? Answer: I don't think so. Then why do you feel discriminated? Answer: I'm black, can't you see that? The NRC is a Dutch quality newspaper. Like Madonna he is/was involved in Kabballah, but that doesn't make you a Jew Cattivi (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Football strip

Can anyone fix the strip used on the 1993–94 Southampton F.C. season article? The actual strip can be seen on this page. Thanks. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad. But it'S the problem with too much detail. I'd just use last seasons one. -Koppapa (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it some time in the next couple of days, possibly tonight after the Liverpool game. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 19:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done, and also did the West Ham kit from the same season, by the same manufacturers. Hopefully it's good enough. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 21:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - it looks great. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This sort of challenge is one reason why it'll be a long time before I create 1990-91 Gillingham F.C. season...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

TV technology in 1990 still made dodgy vertical hold a reality in many households. Kevin McE (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Youth players in club article

See Norwich_City_F.C.#Development_Squad.

Do we think youth players should be included in club articles? --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well why not? If its sourced then I dont see a reason why we should not add the youth squads. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source, then yes, I see no reason to include reserve / senior youth squads within reason i.e. not listing the under-8s or anything ridiculous like that. But if there's no source, then it should be removed. GiantSnowman 14:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they should be. To me they fall into WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Some clubs have a separate daughter article for reserves and youth, in which such lists are obviously suitable. But the main article? I'm against anything that results in a list of mainly blacklinks for a professional club (see also those lists of club staff that include everyone down to the tea lady). Club articles are frequently too listy as it is (though Norwich, as a well-maintained FA, is not one of them). Oldelpaso (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Football chants website

Is [www.footballchants.org footballchants.org] a reliable source? --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely not. According to the front page, anyone can submit anything they like and there seems to be no editorial oversight/moderation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • BTW it's hard to think what content could be sourced to that site. If it's a notable chant like YNWL it'll be covered elsewhere, and if it isn't covered elsewhere it's almost certainly not notable anyway............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It was this --Dweller (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Good template?

{{India squad 2012 AFC Challenge Cup}}

When i saw this unusaul template, i wanted to put on each article, but when i arrived on the coach, it wasn't the correct coach because Houghton was fired on 2011 after 2011 AFC Asian Cup, but I ask me if this template is true. If it's wrong, people can coorect it. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

According to text Savio Medeira was trainer during the (final) tournament. I changed it. -Koppapa (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!--FCNantes72 (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the editor who created the template copied the exact 2011 template. Therefore the majority of the players in the template are wrong, hence the inclusion of the wrong manager. The original link from the Asian Football Confederation is dead so we might not be able to find the squad numbers, but official 23 players can be found here. So FCNantes72 you will have to remove the template from the incorrect player's articles & add it to the players included in the corrected template. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think we must supprimate this template because when i find it, it was on the category: 2011 AFC Asian Cup, so i don't know what we can do with that.--FCNantes72 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I will correct the players in template & order them by positions as squad nos. are unavailable, maybe User:Arsenalkid700 will find a source. PS: what does supprimate mean? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Supprimate is a mistranslation of the French word supprimer, meaning to delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the wrong word. if i understand, you wait before putting template on each article.--FCNantes72 (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for definition Sputnik, no need for it be deleted FCNantes72. I've corrected the squad in the template so you can go & add it to the players pages now if you wish & remove it from any players you added it to which were incorrect — through no fault of your own. I'll ask Arsenalkid can he find a source which provides the squad numbers. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hola. To be honest I feel that this template should be deleted. I have never seen templates made for smaller competitions. I thought for Asia it is only AFC Asian Cup and World Cup. And then at youth templates its the same but only using the Youth versions of the continental and world tournament. Also if this is needed then there would be a lot of templates that need to be created for the past tournaments. Also if you allow the Challenge Cup then you have to have a template for the Caribbean Cup as that cup acts as the CONCACAF version of what the Challenge Cup is for Asia. And also what about the African Nations Championship? There really is no reason to have these templates for the smaller championships. However if you want to continue to use this then fine. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, you should take it to WP:TfD, but I would like to quote User:GiantSnowman from a similar discussion one year ago: Notability for these templayes shouldn't be determined by what tournament they represent, it should be determined by how useful they are. These templates are used for navigation between players, and so if templates allow that (i.e. by having a number of blue links) then they should remain. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yep, was just about to repeat myself. If a template serves a purpose i.e. aids linking between notable articles, then it is probably valid. GiantSnowman 18:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What your saying is true but I just dont want us to get to ahead of ourselves. I mean I dont think we should make say a Template:India squad at the 2012 Nehru Cup or a Template:India squad at the 2011 SAFF Championship. That would also justify making say a Template:England Under-17 squad at the 2010 Victory Shield. I think we should make a fine line between when its acceptable and appropriate and when it's not. For the AFC Challenge Cup I will be okay with it because this is an official AFC competition and for many nations in it this is their equal to the AFC Asian Cup. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• In a subject upon (good template?), we have talked about the suppression of the template.

{{India squad 2012 AFC Challenge Cup}} But i notice it is still present, so can anyone delete this?thank you?--FCNantes72 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Any consensus to deleted a template should be via WP:TFD - but I would oppose the deletion of this template. GiantSnowman 20:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Queens Park Rangers F.C.#Out on loan

Is it necessary for there to be citations next to each player out on loan? Surely the citation on the player profiles is enough? As as soon as they are sold, return you are removing that list. Govvy (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I always assumed it was unnecessary, but not really worth actively removing. Your comment about player profiles is interesting: what would you suggest for young lads without articles yet? Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 16:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it was necessary. We shouldn't expect the reader to go off to the player's WP page to check the info, and we shouldn't rely on that page being properly sourced, even though it should be, where BLP information is concerned. The squad list on the QPR website doesn't include the loaned-out players, so the link above the First team squad section doesn't verify the info. Even if that link was correct, which it isn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to include them (Watford's currently doesn't because I haven't maintained the page in ages). Even aside from WP:BLP, a specific source will usually include the loan's end date, whereas some club's squad pages go unmaintained for weeks at a time. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 20:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)