Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Nationality guideline for football players?

After Mesut Özil played a good match at the World Cup it seems that his nationality has been questioned. Some editors deny that he is German. [1] I think it is wrong to to have an opening sentence for a German international (at least he plays for Germany) like Mesut Özil (born 15 October 1988 in Gelsenkirchen) is a Turkish footballer. That his Turkish origins should be mentioned in the lead is clear, but a sentence like the one above confuses the reader. Is there a general guideline which nationality to use in such cases? --Jaellee (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The nationality in the lede should always be the country for which he plays international football. If he has not played international football yet, then the either country of birth, naturalized citizenship, or the country for which the player has expressed an interest in playing (if it is different) should be used. There's nothing to to stop people mentioning his Turkish heritage, especially in a "personal life" section for example, but in the eyes of FIFA Özil is German. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling him "a German footballer of Turkish origin" is fine. I have met this phrase in a lot of articles and it explains everything in one short sentence. —WiJG? 06:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, MOS:BIO states the opening should have "the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." and that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." I can't see how having Turkish "origins" or "descent" is relevant to this persons notability, so if it can be sourced properly it could be included in a personal section but not in the opening. Camw (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

While I generally agree with Camw Özil's Turkish origins are indeed in part responsible for his notability. I would not say something like this for Mario Gómez for example, but a year ago there were many discussions about Özil's decision to play for Germany. The Altintop brothers tried to convince him of playing for Turkey, Germans of Turkish origin / Turks in Germany called him traitor and so on. On the other hand the non-Turkish German side praised him as an example of successful integration. In the end I'm still not sure whether his ethnicity should be mentioned in the lead, but in Özil's case one can at least easily argue, that his ethnicity contributes to his notability. OdinFK (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Camw. --John (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Whilst I agree with Camw 100%, it is interesting to note that the German Wikipedia article describes him as "ein deutscher Fußballspieler türkischer Abstammung" and the Turkish article says "Türk asıllı Alman milli Futbolcu." The French ("un footballeur allemand d'origine turque") and Spanish ("futbolista alemán, con ascedencia turca") and most others say something similar, so I guess it is only the English Wiki that is sticking to the guidelines. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe other language wikis have their own community derived guidelines and so on, perhaps they have decided to go a different way to us. Camw (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Xian of Yian origin" is a horrendous construction and should be purged with fire wherever it is found on here. It does nothing but fan idiotic nationalist bickering like this. If there is any doubt whatsoever as regards nationality then we should avoid using adjectives entirely in describing someone's nationality / ethnicity / whatever in favour of sticking strictly to established fact. The established fact here is that he plays for Germany. If someone wants to go expanding the article to include more detail on precisely how he came to do that (as with Owen Hargreaves) then be my guest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Like WiJG?, I have seen the phrase Xian of Yian origin in lots of articles and in my experience this a compromise most editors can agree on. Do you only object to the phrase itself (what about X footballer of Yian descent like in Dennis Aogo?) or would you avoid mentioning the nationality in the lead at all? In my opinion not mentioning it will not stop the nationalist bickering at all. Some editors will still insist to put their preferred nationality for the player most prominently in the article (Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski as examples come foremost to my mind). I have no problem with leaving out nationality from the lede altogether but I'm afraid that it won't help with the nationalistic types. --Jaellee (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is more trouble than it is worth and the number of times it is abused is simply incredible (have a look at the average Republic of Ireland national's biography for examples). I've already linked to an article which handles this difficult subject well (after a lot of discussion), and as far as I'm concerned that solution should be adopted everywhere that there is even the slightest contention regarding nationality. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I had recently agreed with some editors that if a player has played for a national team, the national team nationality should be included in the lede ONLY, despite the player being born in Xian, or having Jian origin. If not, well, the trouth that the formula of Xian of Jian origin has been the most comonly used. Despite the agreement I reached, I still had a lot of IPs reverting the change so they include the xian-Jian combination, and I tryied to fight that by inserting the "international" word in middle, for instance Marko Devic is a Ukrainian international footballer, but I still find IPs reverting to Serbian-Ukranian international player (making obviously a nonsence in leaving the word international, in the case). I also had cases about Vladimir Disljenkovic that played internationally for Serbia, and he recently retired from the national team and accepted Ukranian nationality so he want count as foreign in the Ukranian club he plays, but Ukranian editors inmediatelly started moving him as Ukranian footballer. I explained that it would be wrong to have his article begining with "Ukranian footballer" because he played internationally for another national team, and because he will be only playing his last seasons as "Ukranian", and only because of passport, but still, many find the solution of the kind Serbian-Ukranian correct, wich I disagree with. FkpCascais (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that these formulations are commonly used. That doesn't make them right. The question is how best to address that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what JonBroxton and Camw expressed. FkpCascais (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So you would describe Owen Hargreaves as "an English footballer" despite his having never lived in England prior to signing for Manchester United, by which point he already had several caps? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think in Hargreaves' case I would say he is a "Canadian-born English footballer", because despite the fact that he never lived in England before 2007, his father is certainly English (his mother is Welsh too, but I suppose that's by-the-by). – PeeJay 14:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

... Which is a ghastly inaccuracy which does our reputation harm. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it inaccurate? He was born in Canada, so he is Canadian-born, and he plays for England, so his sporting nationality is English. Therefore he is a Canadian-born English footballer. – PeeJay 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with calling Hargreaves a Canadian-born English footballer. Why should the places where he lived have any relevance for his sporting nationality? I must admit that I also completely fail to see why the phrase Xian of Yian origin is so horrendous (maybe someone can explain this to me).

I would prefer a solution for this nationality problem which is less likely to cause reverts. Leaving the nationality completely out of the lede will only attract editors to add it again (at least for the more prominent players). So far, two IP's have today re-added nationality in Özil's article and I believe the number is not higher because no one reverted this (yet). --Jaellee (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Our biographies are not written from the point of view of the sporting world. End of story. That so many articles pretend to do so is a grave problem. The solution less likely to cause reverts is flgged revisions. In the long run this will hopefully prevent nationalist nonsense of this sort. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original topic. One of the folk edit warring over this has now included a reliable source which talks exclusively about Özil's heritage, so I think it's okay to mention it here. I'll work on expanding the lede to cover this. Özil is a special case because he really is Turkish-German, as opposed to being a Mick McCarthy-esque "English-born Irishman" according to the bizarre logic employed by some. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup squads

User:PeeJay2K3 insists that the reason why he has removed the links from the section titles is because of WP:MOSHEAD. If that is so, I have yet to encounter another article that lists squads with section titles like this Uruguay and not like this Uruguay. Will someone please intervene and tell one of us who is in the wrong, it would be much appreciated as this user appears to live for edit wars. Thank you. --Spartan008 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I like bullet point #3: "To avoid accessibility problems, headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." Uruguay is a link and, according to the MOS, should be avoided. Uruguay is the best option then and, having learned what should be avoided, related articles should be modified to comply with that section of the MOS. Digirami (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with PeeJay, images and links should definitely be avoided in section headings. Uruguay seems like the best option to me as well. BigDom 18:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the MOSHEAD-friendly version as a result of this discussion. Links and flags in headings look awful, add nothing, and cause accessibility problems. If other articles have the same problem, they too need to be corrected. --John (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad we've settled the problem. Good luck correcting every single football squad article.--Spartan008 (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with following WP:MOSHEAD, but it is surely logical to have a link to each national team, just not in the header. I'm just not sure where the link should go though. --Jameboy (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Each section should have a bit of prose summarising each country's selection process and noting the exact date when they submitted their preliminary and final squads. That sounds like a perfect place to put a link to the team. – PeeJay 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Different question on the same topic

As can be seen from the header, I have a different question on the same topic/article. Should the club listed for each player in the squad list be the same as what is listed on the official list of players? Digirami (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. I would have gone through the article and checked it against that list, but I just don't have the time right now. – PeeJay 23:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure it should. It lists Joe Hart as a Birmingham player. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, that's who he played with throughout the entire 2009–10 season, and technically he will remain a Birmingham player until 30 June. Perhaps in the case of players who were on loan at another club at the end of the 2009–10 season we should add a note to say who their parent clubs were. – PeeJay 19:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

2009 UEFA Champions League Final FAC

Hello all. After more than a year of working on this article, I have finally submitted 2009 UEFA Champions League Final for a Featured Article nomination. I would appreciate any comments on the article, particularly from the members of this project. I hope the article can become a model for all other football match articles in the future. You can find the nomination page here. Cheers. – PeeJay 09:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

List of FC Barcelona players

Hello footies. After running for more than a month, the List of FC Barcelona players needs reviews. Kindly see the FL criteria and note whether you support, neutral or oppose the lists nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FC Barcelona players/archive2

• Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids vandalism

Hi all, I wondered if any editors here might add 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids to their watchlists. We've been getting a host of vandalism since the World Cup started, since I guess a lot of people across the globe are wondering about the upcoming tournaments. Thanks!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ljubiša Broćić, Juventus coach

do you have informations about him as football player? I'm working on his italian voice.. (thanks for your help!!)93.32.240.5 (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

RSSSF source from his article (Here on en.wiki) says he played in Belgrade´s SK Jugoslavija, but doesn´t say the seasons. That was one of the best clubs, and was disbanded in 1945 and its property given to the newly created Red Star Belgrade. I´ll add more in the article if I find more on his career. FkpCascais (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

on his italian voice there are some informations, look it ;)..93.33.10.78 (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Resource list

Considering the fact that we have a list of football books owned by project members, does anyone think it would be a good idea to list the DVDs that we own on the subject? I have loads that people might wish to take references from, and I'm sure that others do too. – PeeJay 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me...GiantSnowman 03:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Should I then create a separate page, or should I add a section for DVDs (and VHSs) to the booklist page? – PeeJay 09:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a separate page. The book page could do with splitting into sections, covering football generally, countries, clubs and players. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree about splitting the booklist into sections. I might have a go at it later today if I have time. BigDom 07:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be split per se; if you can just add a sortable column which states what clubs/players/leagues/tournaments/years etc. etc. the book covers, that'd be perfect. GiantSnowman 08:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging template talk pages

After following a few discussions on a couple group specific talk pages...I'm wondering if it wouldn't make sense to have a centralized talk page for the group templates. I would think that it would be better to have Template talk:2010 FIFA World Cup Group A - 2010 FIFA World Cup Group H all redirect to Template talk:2010 FIFA World Cup for discussion. I'm not sure there's a benefit to having group specific discussions on how to handle the templates. Now, I'll duck and run after proposing this as I have no interest in the sport or event itself... --Onorem♠Dil 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Templates need deleting

Recent deletion discussions resulted in a "delete" decision for both Template:Surrey Senior Cup seasons and Template:Surrey Senior Cup Seasons - but nothing has happened in the past two weeks...can an admin take a look please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! GiantSnowman 22:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality of World Cup articles

I was having a look at some of the WC articles and some of them are in awful shape. Original research, lack of verifiability, and a gushy, Roy of the Rovers in-Universe writing style need to be combated ruthlessly so that these articles can conform to our standards and our encyclopedic tone. I've made a start on a couple of the articles; can people please keep an eye so they don't fall back into "Statto's trivia collection" again? --John (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm gradually working on getting them featured, but at my current rate of one every three and a bit years it will take a while ;) Anyone for a group collaboration on 1934? Oldelpaso (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you work forwards and I work backwards, we should meet at 1958 in a week or two! --John (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Transfer records

After looking for some information on the topic but not finding an article on it, I started a sandbox article on national transfer records. Unfortunately I quickly ran out of steam when it came to finding sources in English. Anyone able to fill in some gaps? Oldelpaso (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention for non-English competitions

I noticed that we have a season article 2004–05 Türkiye Kupası and a final article 2005 Turkish Cup Final. Surely they can't both be right - both titles should be in English or both in Turkish, no? I'm not sure if Türkiye Kupası means Turkish Cup or Turkey Cup, but I'd have thought that we should use the commonly-used English name if there is one? --Jameboy (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The keyword is "if". If there is a commonly used English name, then use it. But if the commonly used name in English usage is the Turkish name, use that. And yes, I think the final and the competition should be the same language. Digirami (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the main article is Türkiye Kupası and the season articles are all named like 2004–05 Türkiye Kupası, I think the final articles should be moved from 2005 Turkish Cup Final to 2005 Türkiye Kupası Final. — Luxic (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

River Plate(s)

There are couple clubs in Latin America named after the famed River Plate. Disambiguating the very lesser known ones is pretty easy, except for the ones in Asunción, Paraguay and Montevideo, Uruguay. They both use different geographic units to disambiguate them. The question I pose is which should be the right way to disambiguate them: the city or country? Thanks in advance. Digirami (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest using the city just because it's more specific. It allows us to dissambiguate more clubs without relying on a second disambiguator, like the founding year or similar, should it become necessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Paraguayan club was my dad's favourite side. I'd argue that city is fine. On the disambiguation page one could include the country name. Currently that page lists them by city except for Puerto Rico.

• Club Atlético River Plate (Asunción), a Paraguayan football (soccer) club
• Club Atlético River Plate Puerto Rico, a Puerto Rican football (soccer) club
• Club Atlético River Plate (Montevideo), a Uruguayan football (soccer) club

Is there a change you're suggesting? My only comment is that English-speakers refer to Uruguay as yer-oo-guay whereas Spanish-speakers refer to it as oor-oo-guay. That means I would write it as "an Uruguayan". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The current link to the Uruguayan one is Club Atlético River Plate (Uruguay). That's why I asked. I'm going to go ahead and change the disambiguation to "(Montevideo)" now. Digirami (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to move it to Club Atlético River Plate (Montevideo) but this needs an administrator to do as the name is currently a re-direct. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a speedy delete on the redirect page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In this case a simple deletion and move cannot be done, as there were two pages on the same subject at one point. Merging the histories would be inappropriate as the parallel histories would get jumbled up. The two need to be merged using the process detailed at Help:Merge. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I put in a move request in the talkpage of the article. Go here and help have an admin move it. Digirami (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Future teams known?

Hi. In the list of teams Darren Stride played in, there are some dates in the future. Are these dates already known or is this a sign of vandalism or even a hoax? --Schuhpuppe (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Its complete fiction from an IP (I'm shocked...) This is the last good version. Articles concerning Burton Albion seem to be targeted often, probably by one person who has been banned numerous times for sock puppetry. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Koman Coulibaly

Was the Malian ref who officiated the USA-Slovenia game. As he made a decision unpopular with many Americans, there's some dreadful stuff going on at his article. Please help us to keep the flood of "we-wuz-robbed"-cruft at bay. Thank you. --John (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested mass move of Turkish league articles

It seems that all the article names (and league names in general) about individual Turkish top-flight seasons (and the league itself) have been translated. My issue is that no other league names have been translated in such a manner (for example, La Liga isn't called The League). I propose moving all the individual top-flight seasons from 1959 to 1962-63 (Turkish National League 1959, Turkish First Football League 1959–60, Turkish First Football League 1960–61, Turkish First Football League 1961–62, and Turkish First Football League 1962–63) to XXXX-XX Milli Lig (the top-flight was known as the Milli Lig from 1959 until the end of the 1962-63 season. The named was changed to the 1.Lig after the creation of the 2.Lig. See http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/6364/tl.html for more information).

That would mean all individual season from 1963-64 to 2000-01 will be named the 1.Lig. All seasons from 2001-02 will not be moved, as the league is currently named the Süper Lig. I will move them all myself. I will also cleanup all the articles, with the proper league names, but I wanted to run this by WP:FOOTBALL before making any drastic changes. Thank you. Invisibletr (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea if that was the league name in those years. Also, we have another talk section concerning season articles: WT:FSATF where we discuss these kind of issues. --MicroX (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I will take my enquiry to WT:FSATF. Thank you. Invisibletr (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

Is this list notable? I doubt there's equivalent lists for Europe, South America, etc. 91.106.116.18 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing but pure WP:LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 05:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion (see here) — Luxic (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this similar article also notable? 91.106.97.16 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That is basically just a collection of match reports, and is equally non-notable in my eyes. GiantSnowman 17:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Game summaries

Recently I've tried adding some match summaries of the group stages of the World Cup (see Italy vs New Zealand and Netherlands vs Japan). I admit, the style of writing isn't great, but what are your thoughts on adding prose to games earlier on in the competition? Also, one of the reasons why I started adding prose was because the World Cup was part of the Main Page's in the news section and updated prose is often seen as a criterion for it. Jolly Ω Janner 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the majority of editors here will be in favor of prose that talks about the game. I guess question is how to put it in the article effectively and to what detail. Digirami (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a summary of each match, although with 64 games to cover, they might be less detailed than you offered in that instance. The difficulty as I see it is to remain NPOV (was a shot narrowly wide, or was it a poor miss?) and, even more so, to retain encyclopaedic tone, rather than cliché-loaded journalese. Match summaries are often attempted, try looking at the final of most recent major knockout competitions, but as ever with the wiki, the quality varies enormously: anyone able to point us to any GA/FA examples, or "what to avoid"s? Kevin McE (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding adverbs or any commentary about opinions of the player or his actions spring to mind. BBC often report how far shots were fired, so there's no need for point-of-views such as "long-range"; we can actually write the distance instead. Jolly Ω Janner 15:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cesc Fàbregas

Would someone mind taking a quick look at Cesc Fàbregas? User:Chensiyuan believes the reference I added to the article should be unformatted (ie without the use of a cite template like Template:Cite news), whereas I would argue this should be used. Mostly due to it being the usual thing for the cite templates to be used. He argues it's for consistency, as most of the other references are unformatted, but surely those should gradually be properly formatted and the more formatted refs used the better? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I say ignore him. Consistency is all well and good but like you say, it would be far better for all the refs to be formatted properly than none of them. The citation templates wouldn't be there if we weren't supposed to use them. BigDom 16:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reprezentacija

I would like to inform you that reprezentacija, the Serbian Football Federation site, changed the URLs of the players' biography pages: this leads to misleading links in the current articles including this site's biographies. You can find how to link all the new bios here: where (in the URL) previously were the names of the players, now there's a number. Ok, i messed up the English, hope you'll understand :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cuban team

There is a question at Talk:Cuba national football team about its World Cup participation. Specifically, the article says FIFA didn't accept Cuba's applications in 1954 and 1970, and the team withdrew in 1994. Does anyone at this article know why? -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Expatriates?

Is a person born in country X but naturalised in country Y and playing international football for country Y still considered to be a country X expatriate playing in country Y?--ClubOranje^T 16:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that would depend on whether is a citizen of country X, but reliable sources for this can be notoriously difficult to find. Sporting nationality is different to actual nationality, e.g. nobody would seriously claim that Tyrone Mears is actually Jamaican, indeed he has stated that he wishes his Jamaica cap to be revoked as he considers himself English. BigDom 16:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How on earth did he actually manage to get a call up for the Jamaican team? Who checks these things? FIFA obviously don't! Jared Preston (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Parentage. A player can be born in country X, citizen of country Y and still possibly play for country Z if their parents are from there. In fact said player could be eligible to play for X, Y or Z, potentially. --118.90.10.216 (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing with Mears is he doesn't even have Jamaican parentage, nobody in his family's ever been to Jamaica as far as he knows. BigDom 16:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Olimpija Ljubljana

Hello editors. I was wondering what is the policy for article titles in cases where there are two clubs with the same name. I'm asking this because I want to clean up the mess surrounding the NK Olimpija Ljubljana article. The original Olimpija had traced its roots back to 1911 and it had been one of the top sides in Slovenian football for decades, and spent a number of seasons in the Yugoslav First League and later in the Slovenian First League before going bankrupt in 2004. In 2005 a new club called NK Bežigrad was founded in Ljubljana, and their club officials and supporters clamed that it is a direct successor of the original Olimpija even though the Slovenian football association and UEFA considers it as a separate legal entity and still regards honours won by the old Olimpija as belonging to the defunct club. Things got more complicated when in 2008 Bežigrad was renamed to Olimpija Ljubljana and then won promotion to top flight. Recently, to reflect this, someone had deleted all the historical info about the old club in the NK Olimpija Ljubljana article and turned it into an aticle which only deals with the new incarnation founded in 2005. What should be done here? Timbouctou (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

See Vancouver Whitecaps (NASL) and Vancouver Whitecaps FC or many of the original NASL clubs. The league folded and most of the teams with it. The Whitecaps are an interesting case because the current club claims it is a descendant of the NASL side. They had to buy the rights to the name. The current stance on Wikipedia is that the two teams are different though. There are other similar cases in European football that have a long gap and claim ancestry. There is talk on that article regarding future claims for the MLS side of the same name. It may offer you some guidance even though the discussion has ended and the consensus appears to be to wait to see how the MLS will handle the issue when the club starts playing in 2011. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I was thinking of moving the current article with information about the 2005 club to NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005) and digging up and pasting the information about old Olimpija to NK Olimpija Ljubljana (1911). Although it doesn't see likely, in case football authorities recognise the new club as a successor of the old Olimpija in the future these two ca easily be merged. Until then, I think we should have two articles. Timbouctou (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you on this.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

New idea

I was thinking of novel idea: season type articles for the countries participating in the World Cup (ex: United States at the 2010 FIFA World Cup), similar to what is done for the Olympic Games (ex: United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics). What does everyone think of this idea? Digirami (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but I would like to see the entire run up to and including the world cup matches recorded in such articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The reason these articles work for the olympics is because they consist of more than just a single event. In many instances, especially for the orlder competitions, such articles would simply be squad list and a summary of three or four games. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested the entire run not just the finals. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If such an idea were to be viable, it would include qualification matches/info and any run-up matches, as well. Digirami (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. I agree with Sir Sputnik. --MicroX (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the idea either. Most of these types of article are just lists of statistics, or just a list of match results that mirror what can be found on numerous other WP pages. BigDom 07:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This sort of content is often included in articles of the format (Season) in Fooian football, which usually have a national team section, (e.g. 2009–10_in_German_football#Men.27s_national_team), albeit invariably bereft of prose. Redirects to these may be appropriate, but not separate articles IMHO. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Such articles do already exist (this one for example), although in small number, and have survived an AfD. Although the article 2009-10 in English football exists, is its North Korean or Slovenian equivalent ever likely to? Without such articles, the temptation for disproportionate inclusion of the current tournament and recentist commentary in national team articles is increased. For the dangers of what happens to the article when a team with a modest history has one good competition, see this old version of the Panama article. Otherstuffexists is not a reason to include, but surely Germany at the 2010 World Cup will have far more validity as an article and opportunities for decently referenced prose than Kiribati at the 2004 Summer Olympics Kevin McE (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is also some off-field action that would be notable, but doesn't fit cleanly into the current article(s). Just think of what you could put in a France at the 2010 FIFA World Cup article with all the off-field drama they have had so far. Digirami (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

On a further note on this issue, there are currently some articles which detail more information on individual country performance at the World Cup, eg Brazil at the FIFA World Cup. There is even a template for it. Having an individual article for each country at each World Cup mean we will be having 32 new articles, 1 new template every 4 years. Out of 32 articles, we will have 16 short articles due to failure to qualify for the next stage. It will be much easier to have a <country> at the FIFA World Cup as a reader can easily read up a country's world cup performance. Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xavier on this. This type of information seems much better suited to section in article on that countries performance at the World Cup overall, rather than a whole article on a single competition. It makes the logistics of it a lot easier, and chances are people who are interested in how a country did at any one World Cup will have at least some interest in how they did at other tournaments. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And a chunk of countries have this already per Category:Countries at the FIFA World Cup --ClubOranje^T 11:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Football club season templates

I'm thinking of creating something like Category:Football club season templates and putting templates like Template:Manchester United F.C. seasons in it. Any ideas? Christopher Connor (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Do we have enough of these to make it worthwhile? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds good to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now created and populated the category - I have found 28 templates, all from British (mostly English) clubs. I am sure that there are others dotted around, but can't find any more. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

After wandering all over Europe, I have found 6 for non-British clubs, but can't see any outside of Europe. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Free agent article(s)

Does the article Free agent (football) really to exist on it's own? I'm thinking it should be merged with Free agent since there is really nothing significantly different between the two. Digirami (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you, they're pretty much the same article. Merging seems like the way forward. BigDom 10:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that too. Free agent (football) is almost a content fork, and not a necessary one. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ramin Ott

An roaming IP has found the undo button and repeatedly reverses my removal of the unsourced non-notability statement from Ott's page "In June 2010, he became a household name due to his star-rated performances for his National team in the FIFA World Cup Game on the Playstation 3.". If someone is looking for something to do, please stop by and offer an opinion. Thanks.--ClubOranje^T 05:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

I've noticed over the last few days that there has not been a single soccer (football) related article to appear on the main page during the World Cup yet. I took a look through the list of featured articles for this project and found England national football team manager, which seems like a legitimately related artcile to the World Cup that someone should nominate it. Are there any other ideas? It would be a shame to let the World Cup pass without having a single article from this project appear on the main page. Honestly, I think at least two could appear without much fuss about it being the same subject matter too often on the main page. --SkotyWA^T_C 21:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That article appeared on the main page on April 23, 2010 so that wouldn't work. If Scotland had made the World Cup I'd suggest that one, but I'm not sure what other articles would work...--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the list of featured articles again, Duncan Edwards could work...--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

1930 FIFA World Cup hasn't been mainpaged yet. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because it was still listed as a GA in the project list, oops... Oldelpaso (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

1930 World Cup on 11 July then? WFCforLife (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Does anyone have experience requesting an article for the main page that can do this one? --SkotyWA^T_C 08:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have many points but date relevance should be 1. It really would be a good choice IMO. Quality wise, Dab links is good, A single dead link needs to be fixed, and a quick clean up of the prose would be useful ("All" is used too much maybe). There are no other requests for tat date so might be worth a shot.Cptnono (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup statistics#Goal success by elevation

If we must have "statistics" articles (and thereby ignore WP:NOTSTATS, but anyway) let's keep it to the official stuff published by FIFA.

Two classic cases of WP:SYNTH: 2010 FIFA World Cup statistics#Goal success by elevation (and the associated columns in the Stadia section above) and 2010 FIFA World Cup statistics#By Club. Can we put an end to this before we end up with sections on "Goals by boot sponsor" or "Yellow cards by elevation"? Knepflerle (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On a related matter, could someone please keep an eye on Special:Contributions/UtubeGodwin, as they don't seem to get our WP:COPYVIO guidelines, and keep removing tags calling for references. Knepflerle (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the goalscorer by club sections. It's irrelevant and seems to be original research. Digirami (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Seeing as at least one other person is on the same wavelength I've removed the goals-by-elevation table as original research. If any one is truly, truly desperate to recover the statistics, they can work them out from the table in 2010 FIFA World Cup statistics#Stadia. Knepflerle (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

France task force

As a long-time creator and editor of France-related football articles, I can't believe that there still isn't a task force for French football. If anybody else would be interested in joining it, I will create Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/France task force, add a new parameter to the {{Football}} template, and set about tagging the existing articles. I would be grateful if any contributors who would consider joining the force leave a message here, so I can gauge how popular this idea is. Cheers, BigDom 07:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I can help you.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Hopefully we can get a couple more people on board. I'll make a start on creating the task force tomorrow. Maybe more people will join once it's actually up and running. BigDom 18:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now created a project page, so any editors who want to, feel free to join! BigDom 07:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As a test I added "France=yes" to the {{Football}} template on the Thierry Henry talk page, but nothing has happened. Presumably something will need to be added to the template. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have left a message at Template talk:WikiProject Football. An administrator will need to add the appropriate code to the template, as it is currently fully protected. Hopefully, that will be done soon and the task force can get properly underway. BigDom 07:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The template has been changed so that adding France=yes puts the article in the applicable categories. Does anyone know of a quick way to tag existing articles or is it going to be a long, long slog? Cheers, BigDom 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think you might go to Wikipedia:Bot requests and ask to have a bot tagging all the articles in related categories, such as Category:Football in France. — Luxic (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll have a look there soon. BigDom 19:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I can recommend User:Xenobot Mk V. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've filed a request with Xenobot. Just looking for some more people to join the task force now! BigDom 16:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup Finals

Worian (talk · contribs) has changed many significant details of all of the articles relating to ALL the various World Cup Finals eg 1930 FIFA World Cup Final. This includes changing the kits and the times of all the goals. I have changed some of the goal times back to reflect the times shown in the FIFA reports of the games but someone with more knowledge than me of kits might like to take a look....most of what has been done looks suspect and a bit of a mess.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

After checking the sources (and FIFA, as used in the articles, is definitely the way to go here), I reverted all of his edits as clear vandalism. Unfortunately, I'm not a sysop, so any disciplinary actions, if desired, need to be executed by someone else... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Raimondas Žutautas

On the above's page, it says that he played for Kings AFC and played one game and scored 6 goals. is this true or is it vandalism?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say vandalism, I've removed the info from the article anyways as it is unreferenced. GiantSnowman 01:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this vandalism in a soccer article?

User:83.212.78.223 seems to be removing "F.C." from the infoboxes of a wide variety of soccer club articles. I'm not familiar enough with soccer team naming conventions to tell if this is vandalism or not. If someone could check through the contributions and revert them if needed, that would be great. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of the changes are vandalism. The anon continues to change articles. A few changes are likely valid. Have reported IP to be blocked though. However someone who knows more about greek football should review the changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is more like personal preference than vandalism. It's not like he's blanking the page or submitting immature remarks. --MicroX (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The anon is from Patras, Akhaia in Greece. IP was blocked for 24 hours. Some of the edits like removing F.C. are likely a linguistic preference. Others aren't and that's why the anon was blocked. However, we need a Greek football fan to review the edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Standard procedure after controversial non-calls required, I guess

In wake of the events during the Germany–England match (the ball was clearly not in, was it?), I would suggest to keep an eye or two on Jorge Larrionda, 1966 FIFA World Cup Final and the likes. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Since pre-emptive protection is not allowed, I would suggest that we follow the same basic procedure as any other contreversial subject: Watch pages related to the controversy, and if vandalism gets out of hand, request protection. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sputnik, that's two voices expressing the same opinion... Where did I request pre-emptive protection or similar measures? *confusedly scratches head* --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This also brings to attention the Goal-line technology article - which isn't very good. An advocates 'For' and 'Against' seems asinine as well because as far as I can see it there are roughly eight billion for and one against.--EchetusXe 17:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess England's pathetic second-half performance will spare his blushes and let Sepp Blatter off the hook. He "should have gone to Specsavers". - Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

@Soccer-holic. The pre-empitive protection remark was meant with regards to the section title and as an explanation of my own comment, not a reply to yours. Hope that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry too much. Most of the hype and blame is turning towards Capello (who thankfully is protected). Besides, it will have largely blown over by the time Argentina reach the semis. WFCforLife (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas

After leaving my opinion in the discussion above of User:Zombie433, i present you an even worst case, a true bonafide vandal, User:Pararubbas: edits exclusively on soccer, has not written in more than two years one single edit summary, nor has he engaged in any conversation, here at WPFOOTY or regarding the block threats he has been fairly receiving. In the first 20 or so socks (User:Pep10, User:Pasd08, User:Kakd08, etc), he removed links and refs just because, engaging in overlinking like no other, and having an appalling grasp of English, as Zombie433, even though he edited from England!

Also (and this is quite serious regarding WP standards), beware! He has done on more than occasion this: opening two accounts simultaneously, and opening a new account minutes after having one blocked. User/admin Satori Son and i have been cooperating extensively to keep him out of the project, but it seems all but impossible. He has gone as far as re-creating a page after this administrator has deleted it!

The important data you need to "defend yourselves" can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Pararubbas). Regarding the latter - his sockpuppets' names - they are almost always a random combination of the same letters and numbers, so it's pretty ease to trace when he has a new account.

Whether i get a response to this report or not (most likely the second will happen), i have duly informed my "teammates" of the situation regarding this "user", work done! Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Silly me! Forgot this: his current account is QAZXCVBNM098 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Qazxcvbnm098). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for bothering everybody, again. Do i edit in Wikipedia? Yes, sir, massively. Do i feel like a part of the project? No way, but no problem, i don't mind working alone, and i'll deal with this vandal accordingly. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that Pararubbas has been permanently banned (along with his many sockpuppets). What else needs to be done? Jogurney (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• A ban is all what i hope for, with this "person". However - and especially given the fact i see that most discussions brought forward receive reply in sometimes less than 30 minutes - i also hope for some kind of reply to my WPFOOTY discussions and messages in general, as i think almost everyone does. Not the first time (in both cases) i feel like am not doing anything here with the "general population", because i do not receive a single word of feedback. Sorry i if created any misunderstading. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are seeking advice as to whether an editor's actions are in keeping with the practices that would be tolerated here, then by all means check out your inclination as to how to respond here, but if you only want to voice your apparent disgust, then there is not much we can do here. In such cases, you need to go to WP:AIV. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes KEV, i am fully aware of that. It's just a matter of exchange of words after a discussion has been brought up, nothing to do with blocks and bans (this "person" has been blocked every time a new account has begun), but just compare this discussion with the very similar of Zombie433 (not a vandal this one, but someone who does not write one single summary, and does not respond to people, politely or not, unless they address him in German): the discussion about him is brought up, thousands of remarks in one, two hours. I bring this one up, no words in one day?

Maybe i'm seeing it all wrong, probably a good night's sleep will fix it. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• • you're doing great Vasco and we all love your work. All praise to VascoAmaral. Sandman888 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thierry Henry

Henry was formally released by Barcelona today. Just a head's up for editors to be on the look out for unsourced additions which claim he has signed for other clubs, especially New York Red Bulls and West Ham United. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell would Thierry Henry sign for West Ham? More chance of him signing for Shamrock Rovers.--EchetusXe 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

They'd have to fight off bids from US Dunkerque HB and Montpellier HB --ClubOranje^T 00:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Handball jokes. Cute. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Darn, my sarcasm detector just exploded. BigDom 05:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NCAA Coaches

One Wikipedia user has recently created many profiles for NCAA Soccer coaches. Someone has suggested that the Mike Avery (soccer) article be deleted. I disagree, the NCAA is very well known and the article subjects are usually relatively high profile coaches despite not managing/coaching at a professional level. For example, one NCAA coach (Dan Gaspar) is the goalkeeping coach for the Portugal national football team.

Personally, I think that WP:Footy should be looking to keep the articles and I'm interested to see what others think. TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest this guy is possibly notable for his playing career. Hack (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very much on the fence with NCAA coaches, but the recent edits on his playing career establish his notability beyond any doubt. Nice work Hack! WFCforLife (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While the NC double A is prominent, you'd have to convince me that soccer in the NCAA carries the weight of football and basketball. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge it's not as popular as 'American football' but I think that WP:Footy should cover the NCAA soccer coaches in more detail. Can WP:footy not be expanded to deem them as acceptable by default?TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking is one thing. Can you give some stats on the popularity of the sport in the NCAA when compared to other collegiate sports? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the benefit of that? We both know it's not as popular as basketball and American football. The 2008 attendances can be found here TheBigJagielka (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it as popular ace their Ice Hockey teams? Field Hockey? Golf? Darts? If you can't give us an idea of their relative popularity, then I can't start to support the idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Behind American Football, Basketball & Ice Hockey. See here TheBigJagielka (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

@User:WFCforLife : Recent edits do not establish notability for playing career beyond any doubt. The reference provided is only a club bio, possibly sourced from his self provided CV, full of weasel words, no stats provided by reliable sources, only a vague mention that he played for a club somewhere around the time they played their one and only season in the NAPSL. Every reference I find is the same; "he enjoyed stints with Real Santa Barbara and Askims" Did he actually take the field for the first team in a competitive match?--ClubOranje^T 11:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I can't see how the recent additions show notability whatsoever seeing as there's no evidence that he actually played a professional match. For what it's worth, I don't think that NCAA coaches should be inherently notable (nor can I understand why college athletes should be either, but they are), they should have to have received significant coverage like everyone else. @TheBigJagielka, at the AfD you claim that there are over 2000 GHits for Mike Avery. If that's the case why would you want to change WP:FOOTYN when he would most likely pass the GNG anyway? Seems like a waste of time to me. BigDom 12:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dom, I'd like to see it changed because as I type this, the discussion is still ongoing on whether he should be deleted because of his playing credentials. A change in the rules would be advantageous for wikipedia's NCAA soccer coverage. The NCAA soccer as far as wikipedia goes is in a purgatory state, not quite amateur but not professional. It should come under WP:Footy. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But players from the English Football Conference are not amateur but not fully professional. Same with the top division of Finland, Wales and New Zealand. The consensus has been for years that players and managers in all these leagues are not inherently notable. Why should the NCAA be any different? We can't allow NCAA players without allowing all other semi-professionals. BigDom 14:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for players to be allowed. I'm asking for NCAA coaches to be made an exemption to the rule. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Being pedantic never solves anything. You still haven't made any case for why NCAA coaches should be inherently notable when coaches from other semi-professional leagues are not. Coaches in the NCAA do not have some divine right to an article. BigDom 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a go at cleaning up the Avery article. He's not included a list of 1990 Real San Bernadino players[2] and the club in Sweden he is supposed to have played for was third tier at best (depending on the year he was there). While I can find evidence of him having played in some capacity for the Indiana Invaders, it was at PDL level, below the fully professional level. I'm not sure much more can be done unless he is notable for his college playing career. Hack (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: would be advantageous for wikipedia's NCAA soccer coverage. You still haven't made the case that NCAA soccer coverage is recognized. Does it get coverage on networks? Does it get coverage in news sources? We would have to compare it to other coverage for other similar NCAA sports. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the comparison - if a subject (player, coach, etc) meets the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:ATH, it shouldn't matter if the sport is more or less popular than another. Hack (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The request is to make the football notability include "Soccer Coach of NCAA School" and that, by itself, would be sufficient notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NCAA soccer coaches would be covered under Wikipedia:NSPORT#College_athletes. Hack (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup neutrality

I have brought up an interesting section of the FIFA World Cup page up for discussion since I suspect neutrality is an issue here:

“ Brazil's victory in 1958 in Sweden is the only time a non-European team won a World Cup in Europe. A European team has never won the World Cup outside of Europe, as all World Cups hosted in either South America, North America, or Asia have been won by a South American team. Only twice have consecutive World Cups been won by teams from the same continent – when Italy and Brazil successfully defended their titles in 1938 and 1962 respectively. ”

This paragraph clearly entites that, somehow, winning a World Cup in Europe is more important than winning it elsewhere. This is trying to implemment a Europe vs Rest of the world figure...far from being neutral. Not to mention, it does not mention that Argentina also won a World Cup outside South America. I propose a change to a more neutral point of view which touches every important aspect of this section:

“ Brazil and Argentina are the only two teams to win a World Cup outside their continent; Brazil came out victorious in Europe (1958), North America (1970 and 1994) and Asia (2002) while Argentina won a North American World Cup in 1986. As a result, South America is the only continent to have teams win outside its zone. No European team has ever won a World Cup outside Europe. Only twice have consecutive World Cups been won by teams from the same continent – when Italy and Brazil successfully defended their titles in 1938 and 1962 respectively. ”

I don't read it as it's harder to win in Europe, I think it clearly points at European teams' inability to win outside Europe. And your comment "As a result, South America is the only continent to have teams win outside its zone. No European team has ever won a World Cup outside Europe. " sounds rather un-neutral as well, trying to push down European teams. No African team has won the World Cup outside of Africa either, but that's not in there. The reason Argentina isn't mentioned could be that they haven't won outside America. (which in some countries is treated as one continent) Rightly or wrongly (not really rightly) some people even consider Mexico part of South America by just forgetting it's actually in North America just because it's a Spanish speaking coutnry chandler 12:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How is that "un-neutral"? LOL Only South American teams have won a World Cup outside its borders. No European team has ever won anything outside its borders. Where is the un-neutrality in that? That is fact whether you like the information or not.

This paragraph is for past winners of the world cup. There is already another paragraph RIGHT ABOVE the forementioned one explaining the performances of the other four confederations. BTW, Euroasia is much more of a continent than America; America is simply two landmasses connected by a strait of land whereas Euroasia is a continuous landmass. Not to mention, "America" is mostly used to refer to the United States of America. As a matter of fact, Euroasia is more often considered a continent whereas America is almost seperated by Northern America, Central America and South America. Regardless, there are two different continents on the Western hemishere and two different confederations. That is also fact. Please stay on topic. Jamen Somasu (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see the spin the way user:chandler does. I'm sorry. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"As a result, South America is the only continent to have teams win outside its zone. No European team has ever won a World Cup outside Europe. " The second sentence is totally unnecessary (since it is already stated in the sentence just before that only South American teams have won outside their own continent) and only seems to be there to talk down Europe. Since Jamen Somasu seems to think the old paragraph isn't neutral because it talks up Europe too much (which I dont agree with), it looks strange to instead go 180 chandler 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit radical. But we already have a map of winners, a table of results which includes the host country, and the bare bones of a potentially fantastic article on the subject. I say add the continent underneath each host in the table, and consider doing away with the entire section. WFCforLife (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Its always nice to add prose to table content though. Whilst I don't share the concerns of the original poster - I don't see how it suggests winning a World Cup in Europe is more important/difficult - I can see how it could be viewed as Eurocentric. I prefer the new wording except: replace qualify 'continent' with 'confederation'; and remove the sentence that is being objected to above. Note the continent links below are pipelinked to the relevant confederation: So,

“ Brazil and Argentina are the only two teams to win a World Cup outside their continental confederation; Brazil came out victorious in Europe (1958), North America (1970 and 1994) and Asia (2002) while Argentina won a North American World Cup in 1986. As a result, South America is the only continent to have teams win outside its confederation. Only twice have consecutive World Cups been won by teams from the same continent – when Italy and Brazil successfully defended their titles in 1938 and 1962 respectively. ”

Pretty Green (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I saw the implied subtext in the original anyway, but that's certainly a marked improvement IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the sentence "As`a result, South America is the only continent to have teams win outside its confederation." a little bit redundant? Surely the first sentence tells us just that. Jack forbes (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That could also be dropped. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok...so can we agree on this?

“ Brazil and Argentina are the only two teams to win a World Cup outside their continental confederation; Brazil came out victorious in Europe (1958), North America (1970 and 1994) and Asia (2002) while Argentina won a North American World Cup in 1986. Only twice have consecutive World Cups been won by teams from the same continent – when Italy and Brazil successfully defended their titles in 1938 and 1962 respectively. Brazil, along with West Germany, are the only teams to have appeared in three consecutive World Cup finals. ”

Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jack forbes (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

International caps sourcing

Does anyone know of an up to date reliable source for USA national team players? In particular I'm interested in Jay DeMerit. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

try http://www.ussoccer.com/Teams/US-Men.aspx --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although they don't provide full international statistics (only year by year, and only back to 2008). As a medium term measure, I've found his bio on the FIFA World Cup microsite. Although given FIFA and UEFA's internet history, I can't see that lasting indefinitely. WFCforLife (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

US Soccer's World Cup list seems highly questionable: it credits Hahnemann with 16 caps, while FIFA and Scoorbase acknowledge 7. Kevin McE (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that a case of FIFA being wrong and Scoorbase mirroring those numbers or that the USSF is trying to inflate their numbers? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If I were to guess (and it would be no more than that), USSF are including some matches that are not full internationals. Soccerbase lists appearances individually, so they do more than simply copy data summaries from elsewhere. Kevin McE (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Going by his biography on USSF, I think it is 8. The mistake is alarming but not altogether surprising: I struggle to find reliable sources for most current internationals outside of Europe, Argentina and Brazil. WFCforLife (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Swiss Challenge League

Is that Challenge League is fully professional? The Whole Swiss Football League (the first two level) is a member of the EPFL but Challenge League clubs only had a stadium of 1,000 people, how they finance? In the past someone dig out the source that FC Vaduz allowed players to work part-time, so could the club pay enough to made their players full-professional? As i know Hong Kong is not fully-professional at present (but fully-pro in the past), oppose to the source citing the league is professional. It is because the wage is too low and some African players in the past they were just construction worker (and employed by bottom team with betting scandal). Matthew_hk tc 02:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be very difficult to judge or source. But a full time player is a player that is contractually obliged to turn up to training 4-5 times a week and be available to play. For a part time player, football generally fits around his main employment. In short, it is possible to have a full time player that works to suppliment his income. If a reliable source states that a club allows players to work around their training, my guess would be that they're full time, but it would be a bit of a stretch to definitively conclude that. WFCforLife (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Most importantly, despite its name, the EPFL is not only open to professional leagues, and includes semi-pro ones (e.g. Finland), hence the Challenge League's membership is totally irrelevant to deciding its professional status. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at the external links board about player databases in external links

Hello, I am notifying you all that I have started a discussion on the external links noticeboard about the various player databases (soccerbase.com & transfermarkt.co.uk) in the external links section of football player articles. Please give your opinion on the matter here. Yoenit (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Storylines on players

After some editing at Pedro Rodríguez Ledesma, i noticed some stuff i want to bring up now here (and it's quite interesting that this is a fairly "new" player to the "big picture", it will only streghten - hopefully - my theory):

I noticed that the storyline of this player contains EVERY match he has played for the first team of FC Barcelona, even if it was one minute, with reference to the player who was replaced (or who replaced) - i do not want to mention the overlinking...Even if said matches are referenced, isn't it a bit too exaggerated to mention the ENTIRE career of one (any) player? I know that back in the 80's/90's there was no internet available, and if there was (latter decade), the contents were scarce, but imagine if the careers of the likes of Peter Shilton, Paolo Maldini - oops thought of a more modern example - Ryan Giggs were to be in such "detailed" detail?

All in all, my question is: should the storylines of players speak about the important goals and games - first-team debuts, hat-tricks, milestones, consecutive games scoring, etc, or should they contain EVERYTHING (in comparison with for instance American sports, the schedule is smaller, but the biggest soccer teams can play to up to 60 games in one season)?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Every game is far, far too much detail - it's an indiscriminate collection of info, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In short, no, we don't want a line by line description of every match played. Someone here once memorably referred to that as the in 1976 no one died... style. The easiest way to get a picture of best practice is to look at some of the biographies listed at Wikipedia:WPF#Showcase. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Really you want to just mention the big games in a player's career. Whether that be a debut, a hat-trick, a FA Cup third round appearance, a sending off, a Champions League final appearance, or whatever. If a young player makes a few appearances in a season don't be afraid to cover them all and then trim down the detail when he is a first team regular. Just use common sense.--EchetusXe 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Argentina's flag over time

Hey all,
I got a quick question about when to use Argentina's alternate flag. I don't know when the cut-off point for using Argentina over this Argentina, or even why to use the alternate flag. Anyone offer some insight? Thanks. Digirami (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1818, the non-alternativee one is anachronistic, but that's not an issue for this project! After 1818 both are used - the default is the national flag, the alternative is the civil flag. I've seen both used in sporting contexts, so I wouldn't worry too much - neither would be "incorrect" as far as I can tell. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Copa América (peer review)

The Copa América page is up for review in order to be submitted as a GA nominee. I have done extensive overhauls on the past two days to make it look decent. Please make contributions and notes. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Serie A club transfer

I'm tired to revert unsourced transfer. IP user added hoax shirt number and add players there even not appeared in a main Italy media. Per verifiability, could someone semi-protect A.S. Roma, Genoa. Moreover, same ip user even added no.29 for Dabo at Sevilla FC, which cannot happened (1-25 for first team, 26 to ? for youth players). I request to ban some ip but denied. Lastly, it happened not only in Serie A, La Liga also happened, could WP:footy develop a policy that lock all club page during transfer windows? People refer to transfer market web but the site i found were 75% wrong (at least all wrong for lower divisions). Matthew_hk tc 04:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In England, I revert any transfer that isn't verified by one of the clubs involved, or by the BBC (although in the spirit of assuming good faith, I always check those places before I revert). Even Sky are known to jump the gun.

Surely in Serie A clubs would be at least as on the ball as Football League clubs, and therefore their own websites could be relied upon? WFCforLife (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

the problem is ip user never given their source and La gazzetta dello Sport may consider as reliable source, but sometimes they dig out a fans site. Matthew_hk tc 07:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Youth teams on football club articles

What are peoples' views on containing youth/academy teams on football club articles? For example, Stoke City F.C. contains the club's Academy squad. I believe consensus in the past deemed these to not be notable and I don't see many of them knocking around on any other articles. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think including the squads of anything outside the first team is too much detail for the main club article. The featured article Arsenal F.C. lists a reserve squad, but they all seem to have first-team squad numbers, so I'd see that as just splitting a ridiculously-large "first-team" squad into real first-team players and the Carling Cup bench-warmers. Don't actually remember any prior consensus on this... perhaps someone should rewrite the club article MoS to incorporate any consensuses (sp?) buried in the archives of this talk page no, I'm not volunteering cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the youth and reserve squads from the Burnley F.C. page more times than I care to remember. These squads are just nothing but trivia. A good benchmark would be to say that only those players with official squad numbers should be listed on the team page (apart from, of course, new signings who have not yet been allocated a number). BigDom 15:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's generally the standard, although occasional exceptions need to be made. For instance, I'm 95% sure that Nathan Ellington isn't getting a squad number this summer, but (as much as I'd love to) you couldn't possibly leave him out of the current squad section. Agree with Struway about the likes of Arsenal. And obviously if a club's B team competes in a first team league, that's a different matter. WFCforLife (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What about Port Vale F.C.#Reserve and youth teams?--EchetusXe 15:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@WFC: True, there will always be exceptions. Obviously your new signings without numbers e.g. Aldred and Gilmartin should be on the squad list, but like you say there are often cases like this. I'm pretty sure that Remco van der Schaaf won't be getting a number for us for the upcoming campaign, but he is undisputably one of the senior players at the club. When I said players without squad numbers, I was really meaning youth players who haven't yet progressed to the stage of being given a number. BigDom 15:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've attempted an edit at the club MoS, as Struway suggested. Thoughts/rephrasing welcome. WFCforLife (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

INTRO scrambles

Again me, with a new "offensive move"!

I think introductions to players should be as accurate as possible, with just one club (for active ones of course). For instance in the case of David Silva's recent transfer to England - man gotta love that vandalism!! - i see that there are two clubs, the past and the current, i think it's too much, explaining:

If he only will move to Man.City after the World Cup, then we should leave just Valencia in intro, relocating the Man.City bit (with the pertinent refs of course) to storyline. When he moves, we remove Valencia as current club, simple. I think it would be much more coherent and unscrambled that way.

Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, good idea. I'm a bit confused as to what the 'new' consists of. Sandman888 (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, WP:LEAD says the lead sction should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article, so in Silva's case, including the fact that he joins Man City on whatever date it is would be standard practice. In particular, when a transfer's been agreed but doesn't take effect until a future date, people tend to include more detail in the lead than strictly necessary, as a temporary measure to head off "over-enthusiastic" editors who want to update the article as if the transfer were a done deal as of now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I totally see your point, man. But so, if (example) Silva has not joined ManC as of now, he IS a Valencia player. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I understand your stance, but the alternative is having to constantly reverse edits that incorrectly list him as a City player. You would not be able to protect it, as it's a legitimate content dispute, and you would not be able to get IPs or users banned, as they're not vandalising. Given those constraints, the best solution is to say that he IS a Valencia player that WILL be joining Manchester City. WFCforLife (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Photoshopped image

There's a discussion here about the use of this image in the 2010 World Cup article. The arguments for removing it are that it looks heavily retouched (read "fake"), and it was taken in 2007 (so at the very least the caption is currently inaccurate). One user is very keen to retain it though. Does anyone here have an opinion? --John (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They are trying to take down a picture because someone thinks it's "fake"? They need to get a life. Regardless whether it is fake or not (looks real to me), there is no good reason to take it down. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more a question of why we would use it if it's a fake. There are plenty of better real ones available. --John (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a fake, but should not be described as 2010 World Cup fans, as the photograph was taken back in 2007. This would be a false information. The file should be renamed.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a fake. It has been through image editing software but there's no indication that the subjects were not at that location. Another image in the series shows them on a beach as well. The subjects are people. So that's not fake. The background is in South Africa. So that's not fake. You have no proof that they were not on the beach. The image manipulation could have been used to compensate for a lighting imbalance. Unless you're an expert in digital photography, I don't think you should pass judgment on how the image was modified using the software. I've made that point in the talk page and now you pass on your accusations that it's "fake" here. The image is a real image. There aren't "better" ones. Their composition is much poorer. The subjects are less clear and the backgrounds are more ambiguous. So that's just your opinion that there are plenty of better ones available. In short: push off until you can prove something. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am an expert in digital photography and it looks like a fake to me. Anyway, thanks to your gracious acceptance of my compromise at article talk it looks like this is resolved. --John (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Show me your credentials as a certified expert. It doesn't look fake, it looks enhanced. That's the most you can say. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's fake or not, what does that picture show about the World Cup? Nothing, in my humble opinion. 91.106.98.181 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Alvaro Bianchini

I suspect this new article to be a fake since I could not find sources, but I am not sure. Could somebody verify this? Thanks. --Leyo 16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear to me. See this Google search: if he'd really played 61 games for Chivas there would be more than one hit. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy deletion as blatant hoax. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and deleted it. --John (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. --Leyo 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Red link

On the page: List of english football transfers summer 2010 the word Carlisle united fc is in red. Can someone correct it so it becomes a link.; cheers,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. The problem was that the link itself had been mistyped as "Carisle United". Alzarian16 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Giving a heads up

I don't know anything about football and that's why I need someones help here. David McAllister (Irish footballer) has been nominated for deletion for "Fail(ing) to meet WP:ATHLETE as he's never played in a fully professional league. No other signs of notability." It says here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues) that the League of Ireland Premier Division professional so under that this persons should be deleted, but I also looked and saw that all of the St Patrick's Athletic F.C. players have articles. This is probably very clear to you if this person is notable, so I just need someone to get it a look. Thanks.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the League of Ireland is fully professional, and he has played in it. Even if he hadn't there are assertions of general notability due to being Shelbourne's top scorer in a season, an argument that would merit an AfD even if it ultimately failed. Terrible PROD, thanks for the heads up. WFCforLife (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, you will see that it is not fully professional, so really, it's a good prod. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This news article states that there were only 3 full-time teams in the league in the 2009 season -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

ATHLETE shmathlete. Passing ATHLETE is not essential to inclusion here for leagues which might not be fully pro but still receive significant secondary coverage. This includes a majority of players in the Football League until it became fully pro and the current Scottish First Division (which is listed as fully pro even if that's very rarely true. That said, the article still needs reliable secondary sources to make a clear argument to passing the GNG. Ideally people would go and help with that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if I'm wrong on ATHLETE, and indeed even if it ultimately goes, I think the deletion discussion will provide a bit of much needed clarity as to what constitutes a pass under the GNG. I've also made a passing mention of this project's inconsistency in its definition of fully national professional leagues. WFCforLife (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Manuel Neuer height

I was checking the edits of someone who changed the height of John Terry away from the referenced source and noticed that they had also changed the height of Neuer. Unfortunately the three links (personal, club and a German statistics database) all give different heights. Any views on which to go with. (Ps. I'm busy this weekend and amnot going to follow this up until next week.) -- Peter cohen (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you follow the interwiki link to the de: article and post on the talk page asking for help. --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The guy who changed the height is in my opinion a vandal. I've reverted several of his edits (he does not only change the height, in some cases he is also removes the reference for the height). But the problem with Neuer's three different heights persists. As far as I remember, the club's profile or the player's official website are considered the most reliable sources. --Jaellee (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Costa Rica national football team

On the above above page it says that Rónald González is the interim manager. Is this same person as Rónald González Brenes because if you click on his name it goes to a disambiguation page.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the same person. See this Argentina FA page about a friendly between Argentina & Costa Rica. The words are in Spanish, but if you look down the bottom of the squad lists, it gives "Director técnico: Ronald González Brenes". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the same person. In hispanic-american media, it is commun for the press to use first, middle, second, and even third names in articles which contrasts American articles (it is almost first and last name only). Don't let that confuse you.Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Zimbabwe national football team

Can someone do an edit on the above page to show that benjani is now a free agent and not that he plays for sunderland,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Be bold my friend, change it as you please. Sandman888 (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Club" In Europe

Hiya. After adding all missing sources to FC Barcelona in Europe, I wondered whether there is any consensus to the content of this articles? Is it only UEFA competitions + Inter-Cities fair Cup which shd be included (seems to be the current way to do it), or can you equally well include participation in non-UEFA competitions, like the Latin Cup? Cheers! Sandman888 (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No rules as to what you should include or exclude. Manchester City F.C. in Europe includes everything. Not sure I'd have gone that far, but you've set me wondering whether I should have included the Anglo-Italian Cup in the List of Birmingham City F.C. records and statistics#Birmingham City in Europe section, or whether it would have just looked like I was desperate for content... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Paulin Kolombaye

Can an administrator delete this page as it says it is now allowed to be deleted.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by ChrisTheDude. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

England squad

On the england under 21,20,19 and so on.When it says the players club is it the club at the time of that last match or their current club,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is probably the current club, but try asking at the talkpage or whoever edits the page regularly. Click "Traffic stats" on your left, under the wikipedia globe, when viewing the article. Sandman888 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Should be the club at the time of the match or tournament, under-age teams are no different from full squads. Reliable sources say that England called up Chelsea's Joe Cole for the World Cup, not the unattached Joe Cole, or, if he ever finds another job, Template F.C.'s Joe Cole. Particularly appropriate with under-age teams, so the reader can see where the young players are coming through. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. We don't win much, but we do expect credit where credit is (De)Merited. WFCforLife (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This should go to all squads as well because I have noticed rosters are changed in relation to the player's club. On a roster, the last club should always be mentioned, not a last-minute contract, so to speak.Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Competition names

Another thing, teammates, that in my opinion needs unification, is the various competition names, i think they should all be in English, this being En.Wiki and stuff...I'll elaborate:

I have seen that some users have inserted, sometimes in storyline, mainly in honours, stuff like "CUPA ROMANIEI", "DFB-POKAL", "ALLSVENSKAN", etc. I'll be damned if English websites and reporters refer to those in their original names instead of "ROMANIAN CUP", "GERMAN CUP" and "SWEDISH LEAGUE". Granted, it's how they are named here at the site, so it either needs to be moved or have link hidden with English word.

I have only seen two exceptions to the naming of competitions in English language, in my many "visits" to UEFA.com and other sites: The SPANISH LEAGUE and CUP are often referred to as PRIMERA DIVISIÓN and COPA DEL REY, and the GERMAN LEAGUE is simply called BUNDESLIGA.

However, if we are going to write a list of honours in one player or team, it is not very coherent to have one thing in English, another in a foreign language. Any opinions? I also tend to insert stuff in italics (not in honours, just story) when a foreign word "pops up".

Off to Uruguay-Ghana, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is true in the general case (although "La Liga" is more common than "Primera Division" for the Spanish top tier league in English sources so far as I can see), but it's important to check that the English name is in common use before using it as a proper noun. For instance, I've seen "DFB-Pokal" used pretty often in English sources, even if it has to be accompanied by the text "the German equivalent of the FA Cup". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"I'll be damned if English websites and reporters refer to those in their original names instead of "ROMANIAN CUP", "GERMAN CUP" and "SWEDISH LEAGUE"" - don't damn yourself so easily! See Talk:DFB-Pokal#Requested move to see evidence of quite how common DFB Pokal is in English usage, and you can see use of Allsvenskan by English-language reporters at the BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times, and on English-language websites like Soccerway, Statto and FIFA.

To answer your question, we should be using the most common unambiguous name for both the honours lists and the page name - so the simplest solution is to use the current page names for both. If you feel that a page is not at its most common name, then feel free to start a requested move discussion. This may result in honours lists which you personally feel look a little inconsistent - but then again, English language usage in general is a little inconsistent. Knepflerle (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about Jordan League Season pages

Please look at Wikiproject Jordan for a discussion on the season pages Mcmatter (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup

There are a few editors who are looking for match details to be added to 2010 FIFA World Cup. My argument is that this article is supposed to be a general article and there are several articles that have details. Since the general article is already loaded with templates, tables, and other nonsense, it's taking a long time to load. I would like to come to some sort of conclusion on the inclusion of this material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What kind of match details? --MicroX (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It was an accident. --MicroX (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Importance" question

According to this project's assessment page, mid-importance should be assigned to "Players...that have participated at international level or in a top-level league". However, I see many articles are tagged as low-importance despite having played in the top division in their country (assuming that this is what a top-level league means). Should the importance of these players be re-assigned or am I missing something? Cheers, BigDom 21:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The example of a "low" importance player is someone who played four times for AC Milan and over 300 times for Palermo. My rule of thumb is that high importance is very rare for a player, it would have to be someone who has won a continental or world player of the year award, or 100 caps for a big country or some other major achievement. Mid importance would apply to most international players from large countries, ie the player would be pretty well known in his own country but perhaps not that well known elsewhere. Everyone else low importance. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I would assign importances on the whole. If there's some consensus I reckon we should try and change the wording on the assessment page to clarify that because it's very ambiguous at the moment. BigDom 21:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In this article to lack a important fact: In the Chile's World Cup (1962) the Colombia's player Marcos Coll made history when he scored a goal direct from a corner kick (called an "Olympic Goal" in Latin America), the only one ever made in a World Cup, in the match that Colombia and the USSR the equal score 4 - 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.25.202 (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:ATHLETE has lead members of this project whom I respect to conclude that someone like this is more notable than this bloke, based on the level of football he played at. Attempting to follow that process of thought, I can see the argument for giving youth and B internationals low importance, but not senior ones. WFC (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, going off ATHLETE, you can't deny that Laurie Adams passes the guideline while David McAllister does not. It does seem pretty clear that some clarification is in order though. BigDom 18:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that I personally disagree with ATHELTE. But if our criteria for inclusion are that black and white, our criteria for importance should be similarly black and white. Saying that a player would be mid importance for a career in the SPL and League Two, but low importance for the LOI Premier and League Two, would be a continuation of that principle. Saying that an exception could be made for Scottish international players, but not Irish ones, would not, as their importance would be based on having competed at the same level. WFC (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Many people here are forgetting that this is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. The articles are rated based on the importance of the subject at hand, not the substance. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, WPFA is perfectly clear and well thought out. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. To complicate it would involve us deciding which international teams are "important" enough to justify a mid rating. WFC (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

World Cup managerial casualties

With all the coaches and managers who lose their job because of their teams performance during the competition, do you think there should be a section similar to this?--EchetusXe 10:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No. At best, it should be mentioned on each of those people's individual articles. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD help

I'm trying to nominated Matt Friesen for deletion as a non-notable soccer player. However, during the process, I discovered that a completely different person, also called Matt Friesen, was subject to an AfD in 2007, and the deletion discussion I'm trying to create for the soccer player brings up the deletion discussion for the other guy. Does anyone know the proper protocol for creating a new deletion discussion for someone who coincidentally shares the same name as a previously deleted person? --JonBroxton (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It would need to go to a second nomination but explain in the rationale that the previous discussion was about a namesake. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Useful article?

I found this today: List of United States soccer players playing abroad. Useful article? Pointless? Prime for deletion? I guess it could be useful for career-tracking, but it's completely lacking citations, and could be murder to maintain. Just canvassing opinion. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be better defined at least. Jamil Fearrington has never played for the United States at any level, yet he shows up. I think it could be useful if clearly limited to US internationals (as opposed to people who have some US parentage, etc.). Jogurney (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to do it myself, but if it went to AfD I would argue for deletion. If it's limited to USA internationals I don't see the point, as this information is by and large available in United States national football team. If it's not limited to USA internationals, we come back to that old chestnut of proving nationality, which would be a lot of hassle for very little reward in this article. Besides, imagine how big a similar list would be for Scottish or French players. WFCforLife (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the converse list to articles such as List of foreign Premier League players and categories such as Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany. Personally I agree that these collections are fairly useless (certainly completely useless without strict and enforced inclusion criteria) and collect all sorts of poorly-sourced and unsourced entries, but opinions do very widely. Knepflerle (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But the lists of foreign players are fairly well defined about inclusion criteriums. Some do miss them however, but not a majority... FkpCascais (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup "controversies"

It seems to me that just a few of these entries in the refereeing errors section should not be there. Obviously Lampard's shot, Tevez's offisde, Edu's disallowed goal should be up there. I can also see the case for Cahill's red card getting a mention. But we have stuff like Italy's exit where apparently we "saw the Slovakian defender clear the ball after it had already crossed the goalline". Gee, could that be the same incident where TV replays seemed to indicate that if anything the referee made the correct decision?

I have made a start by separating errors and disputed decisions, because a goal not allowed because the official failed to spot the ball cross the line is a bit different to whether the a challenge warranted a yellow card or not. I class errors as where obviously the officials did not operate within the letter of the law, and disputed decisions as the rest of the crap that is up there atm.--EchetusXe 10:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed the Italy - Slovakia entry.--EchetusXe 11:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Get rid of the "Disputed decisions" section as soon as possible, as this is a modern form of pillorying someone. The game is played AND judged by human beings after all, and thus the occasional error happens from time to time. While there were quite a few disputed decisions, there is absolutely no need to list each and every one of them, especially if the decisions were within the laws of the game. Furthermore, will these questionable decisions be remembered in a few months time? How about a year, two years, five years from now? Think WP:RECENThere.

On a minor note, I would put the "French team discord" as a subsection of the "Gamesmanship" section because there is no difference when players behave like *censored* against opponents or members of their own delegation. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This article smells like someone just washed themselves with a shampoo bottle of POV and "soap opera" soap. An encyclopedia surely does not need such controversial articles. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If there's one thing we don't need, it's to further encourage people to fork "controversy" sections out into their own articles where they fester indefinitely. This should be re-merged as soon as possible lest it gets any worse. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, if the controversy has been appropriately covered in third-party sources and it can be written up in an NPOV style, then I don't see why it can't stay. – PeeJay 08:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep it (or restore it). The section is vital. The "no goal" call in the Germany-England may be a key factor in changing rules to permit some sort of video technology to creep into the game. Provided that the section remains neutral, I think all controversies with WP:V sources are fair game. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing that worries me is that it only seems to be a 'controversy' when a big team loses out. The Italians tried to get New Zealand players sent off by pretending to be hit in the face by elbows, yet this article makes it seem like they were robbed by the officials for not recognizing these phantom "goals".--EchetusXe 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the best way to do this is to write a high-quality kernel in the main WC article and then split for length, rather than splitting early and having the thing become flypaper for people to add "vital" information on their pet peeve. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Club in Europe" and "List of Club Honours"

Hiya. I'm nominating some articles for FL & FAC over time, to make a little topic of all key barcelona articles, progress can be tracked at my userpage or FCB talkpage.

The question is, is there any consensus that for a large club we have a "Club in Europe" article? I've always thought they were a bit weird. And while we are at it, Spanish and Italian clubs sometimes have a "Club honours" article, eg Juventus F.C. honours, how do people feel about those? Shd both of these articles be merged into a "Stats and Records" article (which wd be very long scrolling-wise), or leave them as 3 separate articles? Sandman888 (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Honours are not statistics...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Honours may not be statistics but surely they could be construed as records. Although I suppose the number of times a team has won something is a statistic by definition. BigDom 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to find all of the club of honours articles available:

• List of FC Barcelona honours
• Valencia CF honours
• Juventus F.C. honours
• F.C. Internazionale Milano honours, records and statistics - stats and honours page together, only one I believe to have it in title

I doesn't seem like there's any real consensus for separate articles, but perhaps it has never been thought of before. If the honours articles goes into more detail on the different regional trophies, which perhaps don't have their own article, then I believe a separate article wd have some merit and/or go into detail of the effect winning an honour had on the club; E.g. cd the barcelona honours article explain why they wore the FIFA Club World Cup trophy on their shirt for the rest of the season. Sandman888 (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Inter example isn't the only one like that. List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics (an FL) encompasses honours and stats together, as I believe do equivalent articles for other English clubs, they just don't mention honours in the title.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry that was what I meant. There's not a lot of detail on the honours in the united list tho Sandman888 (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What more detail could be needed than a simple list of the honours won? – PeeJay 10:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

runners up, the score in the final (in a cup competition), interesting facts (e.g. won champions league undefeated etc.) Sandman888 (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say who the runners-ups were has nothing to do with Barcelona's honours. Cup final scores would happily belong in an expanded column of the Seasons list, or in footnotes. Interesting facts could go in a prose paragraph before the honours section in the stats and records list. Stats tables are supposed to be introduced/explained with a bit of prose, though they rarely are. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to discuss the exact structure of honours and statistics. As for XXX in Europe, my suggestion is slash, burn and salt, unless you want Watford F.C. in the Football League Cup's popping up all over the place. WFC (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, watch this space for Burnley F.C. in the Lancashire Senior Cup ;) BigDom 14:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok ;) WFC (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent, which is actually a FL and survived deletion! Sandman888 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WFCforLife, what is your opinion of the style of article I am trying to create at Manchester United F.C. in Europe. It is not just an indiscriminate collection of stats; I have actually tried to add some prose. It's a slow process, but I hope I can get it finished before it gets deleted! – PeeJay 16:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to knock it too much, because there's some brilliant work in there. But I think the prose is a complete overlap of the history articles. I think most of the hard work can be salvaged though. The combined results table could go in an expanded section of an article along the lines of the Luton one Sandman listed, or failing that the list of seasons. The overall record and by country sections are nice innovations, and with a bit of additional work (adding League and domestic cups to overall record, adding all English results to/removing England from by country) they would make the already featured List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics the best football list on Wikipedia, IMO. WFC (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, the prose would be a more focused version of the club history, targeting the European matches and allowing for more detail. As you know, the history section of a club article and its History article (if it has one) should only be a summary, but the prose I'm writing focuses on a small proportion of each season, going back only 55 years (compared to the 132 years of the club's history). – PeeJay 21:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Others' opinions may differ. But with five or six articles dedicated to the club's history, I just can't see the case for this article staying as-is on account of the prose. WFC (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(OD): Runners up are encouraged per the MOS at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. The score cd go in the seasons page, but wd IMO make more sense on a list of honours. Yes interesting facts cd go into lede of section, but my point was that perhaps that wd make the section too large if it where for a club with many honours. But if not then I suggest that the format shd be "Club Honours, records and statistics", per the Inter Milan page and Danthepreuvian's concern above. Sandman888 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood "runners up, the score in the final (in a cup competition)" as going together i.e. the r-u and score in a final, whereas you must have meant the club's runner-up places. My mistake :-(

As to title, there was a brief uncontroversial discussion a few months ago, at which "records and statistics" was agreed. Don't see the problem with including honours under Records. The OED's 2nd definition of "record" — "the sum of the past achievements or performance of a person, organization, or thing" — covers honours quite nicely. If you prefer US English, Merriam-Webster's definition 3a1 click on entry 2 Record (noun) reads "a body of known or recorded facts about something or someone". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what is meant by record is: "(2) : an unsurpassed statistic" not that it's just something that has been recorded. The word statistics cd then be said to include honours (as per above). TBH I don't care what it is, but it still isn't consistent. Are people here generally in favour of moving all of the different articles to "List of XX records and statistics" ? AND merging any honours articles into said article? Sandman888 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Marvin Morgan

On this page,it says that he has scored 21 goals but on socerbase 20. Should i go with soccerbase or keep it as it is?

Soccerbase. Whether or not he has scored 21 or 20 goals, what people often forget is that Wikipedia strives for verifiabilty rather than truth. If a reliable source says 20, so should Wikipedia. BigDom 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccerbase can be unreliable and frankly incorrect. I'd try go looking for further verification, most notable the Football League individual season totals, Aldershot Town's website and the Football Yearbook. 91.106.100.26 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccerbase is by far and away the most reliable statistics website for Football League players since 1996. The websites of most league clubs are created by the same company and the statistics provided are questionable at best. If you don't want to use Soccerbase, although there really is no reason not to, the Football League website or the Sky Sports yearbook (when it comes out) would be good alternatives. BigDom 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've found countless number of mistakes on Soccerbase. It's very good. But reliable? No. 91.106.100.26 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, Soccerbase does contain some mistakes. So do the Football League Players' Records books and the Rothmans/Sky Sports yearbooks and the official club histories. Find us a source with no errors in it and we'd gladly use it. BigDom 22:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying don't use it, but the correct and thorough suggestion is to verify the statistics (especially ones that are questioned) by more than one source. 91.106.100.26 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough and certainly is a good thing to do, but to say that Soccerbase is not a reliable source is patently untrue. Fact of the matter is, what's probably happened here is some Marvin Morgan fanboy has come on here and tried to make his favourite player look better than he is (yes, I know I should assume good faith and all that, but I've been around here too long to keep up the pretence that everyone edits with the best intentions). BigDom 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Last words of BigDom, sooooo true (for instance, check out what this "user" did at Santiago Ezquerro here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santiago_Ezquerro&diff=317949073&oldid=314698740), added just 100 more goals for his Athletic Bilbao career, not that much really...Enough with that: regarding this "stats scuffle", i think it's best to go along with this or that site for this or that player, depending on nationality, hence: SOCCERBASE.COM for English players, BDFUTBOL.COM from Spanish ones (previously LFP.ES, it's crashed, at least the pages of individual players, even had a sub-link which led you to the match you wanted, a pity it's not available now), ZEROZEROFOOTBALL.COM and FORADEJOGO.NET in Portugal and FUSSBALLDATEN.DE for "Teutonic" ones.

Being that Marvin Morgan is an English footballer, i would not hesitate in choosing the SOCCERBASE link to "illustrate" his stats. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Hi Vasco. FYI, we had a discussion on BDFutbol in here (search archives if you like), and consensus was that it did not meet with WP:RS. Sandman888 (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Óscar Tabárez

Someone with time or enthusiasm could possibly look at Tabárez if they wanted a little project. Last mention in bio text is that he coached Uruguay at the 199 World Cup.... and here he is 20 years later coaching them to the semifinals.--ClubOranje^T 01:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done, hope you like it! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Superb. A definite improvement taking it closer to where it should be. Ultimately could do with some additional references, but at least now it looks like a page for a successful international football team manager.--ClubOranje^T 07:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Goalscorers list

On competition and qualification articles, how are goalscorers supposed to be listed? It seems right now that everyone just lists them however they want on different articles. Some articles use a table, while others use columns. Some articles include all the goalscorers, while others only include the "top" goalscorers. Some articles direct readers to a separate article for goalscorers, while others neglect to do this. We should settle a standard method for this, especially across the major tournament & qualification pages. The does (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Competition-related articles for national teams

I noticed that here on the English Wikipedia, the national teams have only their main articles which are updated with current World Cup related material. On the German Wikipedia, in addition to the main article, there is a separate page about that team at that competition. E.g. there is the general article Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft, plus the team's competition page Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft 2010/Deutschland. The team competition pages are arranged as subpages of the main World Cup page, which imho is not necessarily a bad idea, although rather untypical on the English Wikipedia.

I believe seperate competition pages for each team means the main article remains stable and focused on the team in general, while rapidly developing information related to the current event is served in greater detail in the competition page.

What do you guys think of the idea? Where would I "file a proposal" to adopt competition pages for the next major competition (i.e. Euro 2012)? --87.79.86.238 (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with individual tournament articles is that you'd get 16/32 short articles with fairly little content. What we already have instead is articles on each country's performances over the history of the tournament as a whole (a list can be found at Category:Countries at the FIFA World Cup). These aren't quite as comprehensive but they do much the same job, although there are big differences between each article (for example Peru at the FIFA World Cup is very comprehensive, while England at the FIFA World Cup is just a table of results and Algeria at the FIFA World Cup is in between). If you create an account you could start writing articles like this yourself. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, the major football competitions are kind of a big thing though, and this is also kind of a big change to boldly make as a single editor for example because it would affect most of the links from other competition articles (most of which would then be changed from the general article to the team's competition page). That's why I'd like to gauge other contributor's opinions before starting articles (which btw. I could also do via WP:AFC if need be). --87.79.86.238 (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Another point, regarding your claim that most of those competition pages would be too short. I don't believe that is true. Consider e.g. Germany national football team which currently contains the current (World Cup) squad -- but only in a constantly updated section. That information (who was on the team at the World Cup) should be permanently stored somewhere, no? That, in addition to other details about the team's competition appearance would more than justify a separate competition page for most teams imho. --87.79.86.238 (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a point on subpages, they aren't allowed in mainspace on the English WP. See Wikipedia:Subpages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks. That's off the table then but it doesn't affect the general proposal for team competition pages. --87.79.86.238 (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Squads are already there as separate articles for the major tournaments. I don't think more than that is needed, tbh. Madcynic (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

...and squad templates are on the page as well.--ClubOranje^T 09:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

oops, ..well, not on that particular page...but they could be.--ClubOranje^T 09:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Coach's international matches: DRY?

Is there any good reason to maintain a list of every game for a specific coach (e.g. Bert van Marwijk)? Seems to me like the DRY principle would suggest that it's far better to have one list of each team's results, then link the coach's page there. Separate lists of identical information require more maintenance effort and may get out of sync. (I realize we're already far down the path of duplicating information, but I'm interested in the theoretical information architecture implications.) -- Regards, PhilipR (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as an example of another DRY issue, I made a minor correction to a wikilink at Estádio Olímpico João Havelange. I'm not going to hunt down the same game in other contexts to see if those links have the same problem (copy/paste error), because a well-designed structure wouldn't require it. I'm disappointed no one else thinks DRY issues are worthy of discussion. - PhilipR (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

2010–11 Football League Championship

Does anyone have an opinion on this section? WFC (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Although there is nothing to say against a season summary, it definitely should not be done by using proseline, and definitely not in this much detail. If there is a significant event (for example this one from the Russian Premier League), put it into prose, but do not list each and every bag of tea that spills in a clubhouse (WP:NOT#NEWS, anyone?). --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

FLRCs

Not sure if you all were notified, but two UEFA-related list have been submitted to FLRC:

• Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners/archive1 Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd whiff of WP:POINT. 91.106.105.96 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

More Hungarian hegemony

If you thought the article on the national team (flagged up here the other week) was bad/comical, check out Ferenc Puskás#Brief Overview. Gotta love prose like this:

A man with a touch of Midas in him, every team to which Puskás was attached as a captain and player were eminently the best in the world that seemed to prosper immensely from his seniority; profiting from an elegant yet fiery competitor with the sunniest of rough-diamond manners who could seem to annex the most obdurate lines with brilliant expositions that sparkled nigh on goal. As captain of mighty Honvéd, the greatest club side before the emergence of Read Madrid, and captain of Hungary, he was paired with the formidably talented and his near equal Sándor Kocsis. They were the greatest redoubtable scoring tandem that ever graced world football with 159 goals between them, vastly outdistancing all those that came before to write records that would be everlasting.

:-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

SIAAAAAAAAH!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the prose, well, what can I say? That is what happends when you add romance to football... Regarding the comment here, well, I think Jamen´s laugh was the bigest one ever seen on this page... :) FkpCascais (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely classic. Who on earth adds this sort of stuff?! On a serious note though, that entire section is unsourced and seems to duplicate existing text. Could we reasonably remove the whole lot? Would it get added straight back in by the same people? Alzarian16 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

PFCC

Any help with this article would be appreciated. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Noel Bailie

Hello, I'm an Italian wiki user. I'm looking for some sources and statistics in order to update the it.wiki page about Noel Bailie, who recently played his 1000th match with Linfield FC. Does anybody know if there are any websites where I can find all his appearances? --France$om (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Jong Tae-Se

There is a suggested move for Jong Tae-Se to VfL Bochum but there is nothing concrete on the move. Kawasaki Frontale article has been already updated not to have Jong already. I have updated the possible move with a source and reverted back to his original club. I have done edits to both Jong Tae-Se and VfL Bochum not to reflect any changes but have been edited by IP editors again. I do not want to get into any edit wars so I am leaving it as it is. Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Zombie433

Can i open a request to admin to action with him? He is often creating hoax or read wrongly and then create a very wrong information. Other problem is provide a transfer fess but not citing any reliable source or he wrote a sum with cite, but the references material itself did not say the sum (Ondřej Mazuch case). For the serious case, there is no single reliable source he provided for Fabio Borriello current club (i can't find any either), but he wrote his current club is A.C. Rodengo Saiano. And for Mayola Biboko, the source his cite, just wrote Visé against Union Namur, but he wrote Mayola Biboko current club is Union Namur! Matthew_hk tc 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Zombie433 adds loads of imaginary stats to relative obscure footballplayers (in my opinion). You were right to remove them for Mayola Biboko Correct was : Vise 2004-05 13-1 (or 13-2), 2005-06 Vise 1-0 and Spa 13-1, 2006-07 Bas Oha 19-0, 2007-08 Vise 10-0. Nothing in Belgium in the top 4 divisions the last two seasons. Source : [www.bsdb.be] It's free but you need to register to enter the site. Cattivi (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This user is an absolute pain in the proverbial backside. As an editor interested in French football, I have been unfortunate enough to have come across him more than most. Not only does he perform countless questionable edits, he also refuses to converse with any user whose native language isn't German. His current efforts seem to be adding "notable players" sections to obsure French clubs, despite such sections having been widely criticised in numerous previous discussions here. BigDom 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

He has been there for years...but doesn't observe English wikipedia rules. His edits are often incomplete, when they are not wrong. He also NEVER talks to others...--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Zombie433 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)for ref.

I have noticed they don't reply to posts. Uncivil. And won't talk unless it's German? Even worse as this is English Wikipedia. Yet they claim "near native level of English". Not the only 'silent' editor unfortunately. Can only try to get their attention. (block?) Adding false information is vandalism. But over 83,000 edits and only 1,700 deleted, which seems below average. Only blocked once in Dec 2009, for 4 minutes! here Despite lots of varied warnings esp AfD right from their first edits. here Seems very odd! --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, he makes lots of edits on articles of obscure football players. Not easy to verify for most Wikipedians. You can Assume Good Faith once , maybe 10 times, but what about one hundred or a thousand times? This user should be asked he provides sources for all his edits. He adds sources and links, but these only partly support his edits. When he adds playerhistory.com as a reference [3] He adds contradicting information . I call this source manipulation. For me this is the worst kind of vandalism as it suggest knowledge that just isn't there. He has 6 blocks on German wiki. 62.194.188.112 (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC) <--Sorry Cattivi (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had issues with the user as well. He adds contradicting information to confused users. The user has created many players' biographies who fail WP:ATHLETE and he inserts bogus information into the infobox, which leads many to think they (the players' biographies) are legit. Shocked to see some users finally and officially complain about him. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Who HASN'T had issues with this guy...? Can an admin advise on any realistic action we can take, thanks. GiantSnowman 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone had any success on his talk page? My experience has been that he is making good faith edits, just careless ones. I usually undo the edits that are contradicted by existing sources, but I only run across this user occasionally. It seems like the problem is that he is prolific and unresponsive; not that he is vandalizing or purposely being misleading. Jogurney (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have left him numerous messages, none of which received a response. The problem I have with him is that his command of English is tenuous at best; he says he can write at a near-native level, but he can't. His grammar is appalling, his sentence structure is clearly based on German and not English, and more often than not he uses the wrong word for the context. The problem is that he is clearly trying to add stuff and make positive changes; he just does it SO poorly that you constantly have to clean up after him, and he never responds to constructive criticism from other editors. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Borriello is here or google listen by Rodengo. for other infos worked with google and match infos from serious newspaper. The stats can find over google and the player / clubname or e-mail at the club. Few players are list with stats in Club chronics in book form other the book Football Almanach.

Several users here worked with Unserious sources like ZeroZeroFootball, Transfermarkt, Weltfussball this platforms are incomplete and user edit! the stats there are incomplete and few plays are listen in wrong clubs! Magazines and newspaper are seriously as these Unserious sources! talk: Zombie 433

Thanks for coming here to talk Zombie433. Keep communicating and I'm sure we can sort out any issues. --ClubOranje^T 12:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, certainly where Transfermarkt is concerned. But without knowing what sources you use, the reader cannot tell whether your sources are serious or not.

Can I suggest something we should all be doing, not just you :-) Every time you add stats to a player, you also, at the same time, add a reference to the source you used. If you found the stats on a webpage, then reference the webpage you used, not just the google search. If you found them in a magazine or book, then reference the magazine or book. Whatever it is. Then the reader, and other editors, will know where the stats came from and can judge whether they are reliable or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have messaged Zombie433 on two or three occasions, receiving ZERO replies, with messages being removed in a matter of minutes. I have politely asked him to watch his tense and overlinking, he continues to engage in both (the problem with the latter being that he writes like he talks to friends about a transfer - i.e. "X team have signed Y player" from - overlinking, unneedded - to an contract of Z years" (the "an contract" being VERBATIM!). As seen in Onésimo Sánchez (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On%C3%A9simo_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=354291436&oldid=354210835), he, being true to his M.O. of only inserting FOREIGN sources, removed the ESPNsoccernet source, and added a Spanish-speaking one...The bit that several users also addressed here, of him only replying to German editors is quite distressing, to say the least.

Remembered this now: he also creates - wrongly! - sections called COACHING CAREER for club presidents or directors of football and akin, those are not managers last time i checked...I suggested he tried a different approach regarding that, he did not care to respond and continues, as much as he does with the stuff i addressed above (overlinking, etc).

Have no idea of actions that might be taken, which leads me to warn you folks of an even worst case, User:Pararubbas (please see below Zombie's entry). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

If people genuinely think this is a case of a WP:COMPETENCE problem, then take it to ANI. We needn't tolerate editors who can't work with the community indefinitely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This case is already at ANI here. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's more of an incoherent rant than an action plan. Prepare a list of evidence (the blanking of the notice that was just given to said editor, for instance), and propose an indefinite block until such point as the user is prepared to acknowledge the problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And so we go back to WP:AGF. If you want to go down this route, be sure a notice was blanked; because it may have just been archived. Ensure the user is uncivil before accusing user of being uncivil; (a lot of "user won't respond" comments, and yet after one polite notice I see said user here responding). Be sure that changes are deliberately wrong. What I see, (and I stress it is only my view) is a "English not my first language" user making largely positive contributions. Perhaps some of the stats come from alternate sources and may be questionable, possibly including cup matches? possibly just not very reliable, or gossip columny sites? that is not vandalism. Perhaps user is simply making errors due to language difficulties, interpretations or other reasons. Maybe some edits need checking and or cleaning up, but this user has contributed a whole lot more to en.wikipedia.com than I have to de.wikipedia.com. Beware Systemic Bias - doesn't just apply to articles. This particular Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia may be (1) a woman, (2) technically challenged, (3) formally educated, (4) non English speaker, (5) coloured, (6) aged over 50, (7) from a majority-Atheist country, (8) from a 3rd World nation, (9) from the Southern Hemisphere, and (10) employed as a blue-collar worker not studying anything - but maybe their contributions are overall still beneficial. --ClubOranje^T 12:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

...and sorry if that gets lost in translation, it is not a dig at (criticism of) anyone, juts demonstrating a point. --ClubOranje^T 12:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; however, looking at that archive, I left this user a message myself about unsourced edits to BLPs practically a year ago. Adding unreferenced, controversial or just plain bogus content to BLPs is not merely annoying but can be actively harmful (there's an open OTRS ticket for a US player requesting deletion of his article for just that reason right now), and if there's no sign of an improvement then we have to take action to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

German Wiki almost 2000 edits 6 blocks, English Wiki 83000+ edits, one short accidental block. Does this mean anything?. Cattivi (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys are just insane and I guess you didnt care for too long. Its terrible how his edits start to affect german Wikipedia because there are enough people who just copy the stats into other Wikipedias. Nearly every edit is unsourced, the few that can be checked are wrong in most cases. I would be really glad, if u find a solution fot that problem, it isnt just one of en.Wikipedia, he affects all projects with his imaginative edits. Greetings from de.WP --Ureinwohner (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that his edits are uncited? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I make a great many uncited edits particularly to the USSF D2 articles. The match results are completely public and the match attendance is referenced in the match results sections of each game, but I don't cite each edit. So unless you have some specifics, it doesn't particularly help to throw around vague accusations like how often he's been blocked on the German Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I do and everyone else, if theres no problem to find the specific information. Just one of the latest - african league appearances: Vincent Aboubakar (you'll find several hundreds if not thousands edits like that). Cameroonian league isnt really something u find all over the net, in this case he also writes, that Aboubakar was promoted to the first team in summer 2009, so there was only one season to get his 31 (6), but they played only 24 matches in the league [4]. mysterious. Or Brice Owona. He uses this Ref to source he was starting his career in 2002 at Fortuna Yaoundé and again unsourced league appearances, neither his club profile at Cotonsport nor any other reference mention them. --Ureinwohner (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying they don't play any non-league games, etc. It's all insinuation on your part. I have no further desire to investigate these purported claims. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What he is saying, Walter, is that this user has a long history of inserting all sorts of dubious and unsourced information into BLPs. Whether or not that user's edits happen to eventually be discovered to work out (several of them have evidently not), it is not "insinuation" to doubt them: it is simply good practice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what he's saying. I also understand what he's implying. What I'm saying is that he hasn't provided any evidence to back what he's saying. In order to apply a permanent block to this user, which is what I think he is requesting, we would have to have some specific instances where dubious material was added to a biography of a living footballer. We would also need to balance that against the myriad of viable edits he makes. We would then need to approach the editor with the irrefutable evidence and request explanation. We would have to provide some ground-rules for his continued editing: providing general references, in English, to support edits, supplied in at least in the comments. While I understand that may be difficult due to the volume of edits this user makes, we can't really sanction another editor until there is some specific proof. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I dont ask for instant permaban, but u should really start to demand for his sources and explain which of them meets criteria for reliable sources - and which not. --Ureinwohner (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle Finger?

I think the message of Zombie 433 is clear Abdul Aziz Moshood Or can someone find a reference of this player actually playing in the Éast German Oberliga or Regionalliga Süd His knowledge of the Finnish language is remarkable, mine is non-existent. Anyone with some basic understanding of the Finnish language out here? Was Moshood on trial? Did he play for the first team or maybe the second team? Moshood happens to be the footballplayer that made me aware of this user. User Ureinwohner recently removed information Cattivi (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you do not need to know much Finnish to see from this picture cited as a source that there are no years given for his suspected time at Dresden and Stuttgart. However, I highly doubt that Moshood played for the first teams of either club. His article states that he was with Dresden in 1989 - which is not possible since East German sports politics did not allow foreign players to be used at that time. He is also not credited with any first-team time since 1991 by Dresden's archive. There is also no evidence to be found (at least in German online sources, it might be different with Stuttgart newspaper archives) that Moshood was with Stuttgart at the time in question. So unless someone wants to ask the player directly about his club career, there is no sufficient evidence for the facts mentioned regarding his German clubs in the article. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Stuttgarter Kickers Archive [5] doesnt know his name as well, his answer is just typical: Google urself (result see soccer-holic) or use "Almanach" Problem is, the 1995/1996/1997 almanachs only contain the final league tables of the Regionalliga, no squads (i asked for the specific almanach - no answer). There is also a Regionalliga Süd archive which doesnt know about Moshood. --Ureinwohner (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And his second answer..., I should do my own research in finnish newspapers, ask his club or look at the finnish Wikipedia. Moshoods article there was created one month after the one in en.WP, so u can guess where the data comes from. --Ureinwohner (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Atlantis FC site that he linked here does say that Moshood played in Germany for Dresden and Stuttgarter Kickers. However, it also says (according to my translator) he has played for Nigeria once. Madcynic (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Level 4 of "English"

As illustrated here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordi_Figueras_Montel&diff=344686800&oldid=344010564)... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I will admit it's not particularly good English, but maybe because I speak German, I understand it. Compared to the current structure, it's not much worse.

Current structure (emphasis mine) : "After an unsuccessful short spell at Real Madrid (to where he arrived at age 18 from hometown's UE Lleida) - only appeared for the C side - Jordi moved to Celta de Vigo in the 2008 summer, initially being assigned to the reserves.

"In 2009–10, he was firmly established in Celta's starting XI, with the Galicians in Segunda División. However, on 17 February 2010, he was sold to Russia's FC Rubin Kazan for €1 million, joining compatriot César Navas.".

Sold? I don't think he's a slave or under contract to the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Overcategorization/Overlinking

This is another issue where this user has been engaging profusely, against all recommendations: creating cats for ALL clubs, whether they are obscure or not. Today, i found CD San Fernando players - all the respect for this club, but isn't this getting too much? Besides, in the case of one of the players, David Barral, he only played there as a youth. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't see much of a problem with that, to be fair. I understand from the CD San Fernando article that they spent many years in the Spanish league structure, including several seasons in the second division. The club may be defunct, but it's hardly obscure. As to youth players, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 28#Category:FC Example players, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 31#Football player categories, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 32#Youth player categories, undoubtedly more, see where it gets you :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• And what about the overlinking? EVERYTIME a transfer happens, he writes the SAME SENTENCE: "On (date), (club that buys) have signed the (age of player, followed by position) from (old club, resulting in overlinking) on AN (not "A", "AN") x-years contract" - not to mention the present tense ("have signed"). He also seems to take it upon himself to remove the player position in INTRO (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_Moutinho&diff=368870594&oldid=363946818 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borja_Fern%C3%A1ndez&diff=363611816&oldid=363310665) ...so when a players changes teams, he changes positions two?

And if anybody tells him to watch his M.O., he erases messages and says "talk to the hand", and we have to respect that? I don't think so, but i could be wrong... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also, discovered a new aspect from this "user": as seen in Eduardo dos Reis Carvalho, he seems to like removing pertinent external links (in this player's case, a Portuguese website for a Portuguese player). I don't know about you, but here's "my deal": i will revert/remove/compose ALL of his "contributions" that add nothing when i see them, will keep doing it until someone - with the power to do so - tells me "STOP!" He shows NO respect for the community, why should we? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Templates (rowed or not)

Hi, I was looking at some league seasons templates and I wanted to know what is the suggested or "official" style to to make them, the one with <br>'s between decades (like this one) or the one without separation between decades (like this other), so is there any prefered way to make them? or both are OK? A18919 (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Serie A template is like that because of the many different names the league has had over the years. However I must say that that the Italian template looks much more professional than the French one, so go with the Serie A template I say.--EchetusXe 14:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this template for something similar to the Serie A template without row headers. Aside from that, I share EchetusXe's opinion. The wider a screen is, the more unnecessary space is consumed by the French-style template. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand the reason for the narrow display: it keeps the dates lined-up in neat columns. However, it becomes artificially narrow. Most users have the ability to display at least 1024 x 768 and allowing the browser to choose the width is a better option in my opinion. Since the years are sequential, it's not that much more difficult to find a previous season. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Line breaks are an unnecessary hack which exist only because someone decided that having the bullets lined up was nicer back in the day. We shouldn't be using hacks like that for mere aesthetics, especially when it results in the templates looking ridiculous on widescreen displays. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Line breaks are necessary, especially for competitions in which some seasons were skipped or their format had changed. It is far more easier and faster to find a particular season when years are ordered by decade then go through a messy line of numbers to find a particular season you're looking for. And having that messy line of numbers stretched across the whole screen is hardly helpful. Timbouctou (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that stealing screen real estate is valid to represent some information about missed years which rarely happen? Can't the same information be represented differently? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

2010–11 club season categories

Although Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2010–11 season has been around for a few months, someone else – whom I've notified of his duplication error – recently created this new category, Category:Association football clubs 2010–11 season. I admit that the latter is a preferred title, but only a portion of the articles and categories have been migrated to the new category name. Is there a speedy way to merge the contents of the former into the latter? I could do it manually, but it would take longer than I care to spend doing it. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Try the process at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy. Extra bonus points for you if you list the other club season categories as well. :-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Consider it done. However, this raises another question for me about the club season articles: they don't have their own category, so what should we do about that? For example, Category:Association football clubs 2010–11 season is only categorized in Category:2010–11 domestic association football leagues. Shouldn't there be another category? Perhaps Category:Association football club seasons by year? Thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I gathered all of the club season categories, and I'd like to run this by everyone here before I bother to put a speedy tag onto 139 category pages. Do these look like appropriate titles and requests? There are only a few types of moves and mergers, so I've only included one of each type in order to preserve space.

JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Also, proceed with your idea of a second parent category as proposed. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone write a bot to change all occurrences of "Football (soccer)" throughout Wikipedia? Seems like that would be simpler than fixing each occurrence piecemeal. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is done. My left hand is killing me after about 1,000,000 Alt+Tabs, Ctrl+Cs, and Ctrl+Vs. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

List of english football transfers summer 2010

On the above page,it says wayne brown has moved the preston but when you click on his name it goes to the disambiguation page. can someone changed it so it goes directly to this wayne browns page?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Gobbleswoggler, I don't mean to sound rude, but why do you keep asking people to do these simple edits. Don't you know how to do them yourself? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidently not, I've seen his contributions during his time here. I did laugh when I saw the declaration on his user page that he's expecting awards for his work on football articles. I also had a chuckle when he complained to User:Simon nelson, who had the temerity to edit Ipswich Town stats one weekend despite Gobbleswoggler having done it all season. Sigh. BigDom 21:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Orient players

There are articles for a couple of Leyton Orient squad members which may not reach the notability requirements, since George Porter (footballer) and Josh Millwood have never played for a professional team. Millwood has never actually played for anyone, and is not likely to play for Orient anytime soon, being 5th or 6th choice in his position and on a very short-term contract. Porter will probably get a game sooner or later, but I'm not sure what the procedure is - delete and rewrite once he has played a game, or wait? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles are now up for PROD. Regards, GiantSnowman 04:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners merge suggestion

It has been suggested that the above list be merged into UEFA Champions League. Given my previous interactions with the proposing editor, I was dubious. I initially deprodded, albeit partly because I don't think a Featured List would ever be an uncontroversial deletion. On inspection through I'd say that he's spot on. The merge conversation can be found here. Regards, WFC (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a quick scan of the history of the main article reveals that the list was added as a template transclusion here – the reality of the situation is that the list's existence pre-dated its inclusion in the main article by five years. I suggest the transclusion is removed and we leave the list as it stands, with any obvious issues with current FL criteria fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm down with that. Any objections? Jamen Somasu (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as there was no objections, I took the transclusion out of the parent article, making the list viable to keep. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake with this whole transcluding a redirecting template which then accidently made the infromation fork itself. Should be sorted now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

John Harbin

This is probably going to sound a bit silly. I've been doing some work on the John Harbin article and was interested to know if when he was in England he spoke with an Australian accent... Hack (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

2009-10 La Liga "new section"

In the article 2009-10 La Liga someone has added a new section showing the results of each team week by week. This does not appear in any other article (not even in the Premier League). What should be done? He thinks that as he has worked on it for more than a day that he has the right to leave it as it is. I disagree with this, but I would like to ask if this section should be kept, and if so, then it should be used in the rest of the articles. I personally think that this section must be removed. Qampunen (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if this user 77.127.195.129, although not currently registered at Wikipedia, were to be asked to add more of these kind of tables to pages of other competitions, it could become a more regular aspect. In the meantime we could put it between <!-- --> in order to save the data. I personally believe that these statistics could be very interesting.Mltinus (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me why the extra section that has been created and put between <!-- -->, has been deleted. I still have not heard a reason for deleting it, other than "it does not appear in any other article". I don't mean to be rude, but if we could only add things that are in other articles, we wouldn't get very far with Wikipedia. Mltinus (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added the discussion of the week-by-week results at WT:FSATF. Mltinus (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Turkey Football years

I'm crossposting this to both the Turkey and Football in hopes that someone from one or the other project will have knowledge to assist.

Two new short stubs have been added to the project. Turkish First Football League 1956–57 and Turkish First Football League 1957–58. These claim to be the first and second years of Football in Turkey. These appear to contradict the Süper Lig page and the 1959 Milli Lig page, both of which say that the league was formed in 1959. I do not personally have any information on whether there is a hoax in progress here, might the existing pages be incorrect, or what else might be responsible for the contradiction. I'm hoping that someone who actually knows what is going on here could assist in the handling of these two new pages. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick google search pointed me to 1956–57 Federation Cup and 1957–58 Federation Cup, which seem to be the leagues in question. The created pages thus should be redirected to these articles. As for the controversy which article (1956-57 or 1959) is the first professional league of Turkey, I think I might have read somewhere that it has to do with the question if these two leagues are officially recognised as Turkey-wide championships from the Turkish Football Federation or not. The current status quo is that they are not, if I am correct, much to the dismay of Besiktas fans. However, further confirmation on the matter would be welcome. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Federation Cup wasn't a national league, but instead a cup competition held between the best clubs of Istanbul, Izmir, and Ankara. It was used to decide who would be sent to represent Turkey in the European Cup. You can read more about it here (it's not written very well, but it's understandable). The 1959 Milli Lig was the first national professional league that replaced the regional professional and amateur leagues around Turkey (which you can read about here). Invisibletr (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell, the Turkish Football Federation even sent out a press release (here) in 2002 saying that the Federation Cup championships should NOT be counted towards Besiktas' league title count (even though it's still listed on the Super Lig page, check it Süper Lig#Star rating system). Invisibletr (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain and Netherlands

Why is Spain's place in the final shown with a golden background, whereas the Dutch place in the final has a silver background? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the octopus has spoken? WFC (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but another octopus, a kookaburra and a parakeet have said that the Netherlands are gonna win ;) 94.212.31.237 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Montgomery

On the above page,it says he made 513 appearances in the league for arsenal but on the stats table it says he played 537. Which is right?Gobbleswoggler (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither...he played for Sunderland :-), but it would appear 537 is the correct number.--ClubOranje^T 22:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What are points?

Could someone please explain to me what these "points" are supposed to be that they talk about on Neil_Warren_Jones#At_UCSB. Thanks--ClubOranje^T 05:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It must be some sort of original research (either by the college association or in the article itself) whereby a goal = 2 points and an assist = 1 point, ergo 3 goals + 1 assist = 7 "points". Somewhat similar to the scoring systems that are used to rate players in the NHL, ie Sidney Crosby registered 109 points last season. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, as an ice hockey fan, I've seen something like this before. For statistical purposes NHL players are attributed points – 1 for each goal and assist. I hadn't seen a similar system applied to football before, but after investigating the NCAA website it would seem that college soccer in the USA does exactly that, except a goal is worth 2 points. See this table for example. As far as I can tell, this is unique to college soccer – the MLS, for instance does not appear to do likewise, although it is curious to note that assists seem more highly valued in the States than elsewhere. AJCham 07:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

International club competition records move

Dantetheperuvian (talk · contribs) has moved International club competition records to List of confederation club competition winners. Should have this been discussed? And that title doesn't seem very accurate. --MicroX (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This should absolutely have been discussed. I agree entirely that the new title inaccurate, and unless there is any objection I'll move it back. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This list only includes all international competitions organised by UEFA/CSF/CONCACAF/CAF/AFC/OFC (the six Confederations) and FIFA Club World Cup winners. Is it necessary to discuss the change of title?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The title needs a grammar edit or something because the word confederation is redundant and misplaced in the title. --MicroX (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be redundant if not all international club competitions were organized by the Confederations? What would be the most appropriate title for the article?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You are contradicting your move. Confederation should be removed from the title because, effectively, not all international club competitions in that article are organized by the confederation as some are inter-confederation tournaments like the club world cup. My main point is that the title you have chosen—List of confederation club competition winners— is bad English. Confederation cannot go before the word "club" because it implies the idea of "confederation clubs". Football clubs are just clubs. In general, the title is a mess. --MicroX (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Confederation" can be a qualification of "club competition". Kevin McE (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

FIFA defines a set of international club tournaments such as "Confederation club competitions" (FIFA Club Licensing Regulations - Extraordinary aplication of the club competition licensing for entering club competition, p.20: "If a club qualifies for a confederation club competition based on its sporting results [...]"). I agree to add the term "inter-confederation" in the title...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that we are starting to complicate things. We need a simple and precise title. I recommend this: List of international club competition winners --MicroX (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That title is, IMHO, very generic, considering the content of the article, which includes only international competitions organized by the 6 Confederations, Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup. This should not be specified in the title to avoid conflicts with the other tournaments (Fairs Cup, Latin Cup, Central European Cup, etc.)?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

However, under the current title, FIFA CWC and Intercontinental Cup aren't confederation cups. --MicroX (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Anullment

If a player makes appearances and scores goals in games that pass WP:ATHLETE, but they are subsequently annulled (for instance, due to the club going bankrupt, or war interrupting his career) is he eligible for an article? This isn't a hypothetical question. There is a player that I would like to write about, but I only want to put the effort in if there is consensus on the matter. Regards, WFC (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(addendum) In this particular case, he holds the distinction of being his club's joint highest scorer before the outbreak of war, if that makes any difference. WFC (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered this myself. Personally, I think it would be harsh to say such a player isn't notable as, despite their appearance(s) being excluded from the records, they still meet the requirement of WP:ATHLETE of having "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Matty. If he competed at a level that would pass WP:ATHLETE, and there are sources to verify that, then he's notable. Notability is not temporary. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This could turn out to be a "Did you know..." article. --MicroX (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve O'neill and steven o'leary

On soccerbase for Bradford city fc,it says there are two players called Steve o'neill and steven o'leary. On bradford's official website it says steven o'leary has made 7 but on soccerbase only 1 and on the bradford city website,I can't find a steve o'neill and on soccerbase 'steve o'neill' has made 6 appearances. Have soccerbase made an error?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's one of Soccerbase's many mistakes. They're the same person, called Steven O'Leary, his profile on Bradford City's website makes clear that O'Leary's debut was in the Port Vale match which Soccerbase attributes to "O'Neill". Well spotted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We had a player called O'Neill on trial last summer. He never signed but O'Leary did. In the end, everywhere reported that O'Neill was playing whenever O'Leary did, BBC, Soccerbase, including. 91.106.123.149 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Thorne

On soccerbase it says he has made 77 appearances but on his wikipedia page it says he has retired and played 73 games for bradford.What should i go with?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Go with what the sources say. If Soccerbase and his club profile both say the same number of appearances, then it's probably right. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic football stats

Well, this is a long shot but here goes. Does anyone know of a database for Icelandic league appearances and statistics? I'm trying to find out about the career of Bjarni Larusson without much luck. Cheers, BigDom 11:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

List of international appearances at all levels and Bjarnolfur Larusson's domestic apps/goals since 2001, both at Iceland FA site, any use? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the first link. click on the various headings on the 2nd link and it gives details of his various int'l apps, detailed club apps etc. Daresay Google or something can translate, I can't :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I couldn't find anything in English and my Icelandic is non-existant so they look pretty useful. In the meantime, someone else has created the article. Cheers, BigDom 11:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ian Bowyer

The image on this article is just showing as a red box when I load it, although it used to work OK before. Are others having the same problem, and if so anyone know how to fix it? Regards Eldumpo (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Lea

On Michael Lea's page it says he made 3 league appearances for scunthorpe and on soccerbase no league games just one cup appearance.On the scunthorpe official website it says no league appearances.What should i go with?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccerbase lists him as having played in three cup matches for Scunthorpe, one FA Cup and two Football League Trophy. It seems that someone has listed them in the infobox but, as they are not league appearances, they should not be included in the infobox. Kosack (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

William Saunders (footballer)

Following on from a discussion at User talk:EchetusXe, I was wondering if anyone can help. A man named William Saunders played for Watford (until 1898 known as "West Hertfordshire") between 1895 and 1899, and a man named William Saunders played for Port Vale between 1899 and 1901.

Unfortunately neither of us have a date of birth/death or place of birth/death. If they played the same position, I'd be tempted to assume they're the same person (although I still would have checked). But while the Watford William Saunders was a "leading scorer" for the first team, with another Watford book explicitly stating that he was a forward, the Port Vale William Saunders made one appearance, in goal. However, my source also mentions that he Watford's Saunders kept goal for the reserves. I was just wondering if anyone has a source that could give us an idea of whether this is one man or two? Thanks in advance, WFC (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

They are most likely two different players. The Watford Saunders was still playing for Watford in April 1900. Last Southern League match on April 17th. (Source Watford Season by Season ,Trefor Jones) Cattivi (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. And quite embarrassing, given that I currently have that book on loan! I guess it's best to assume that they're two people (although it's still possible that the Port Vale equivalent was wrong about the date he joined). On the bright side, if the Watford Saunders never played for Port Vale, he would fail the pick and mix test, so at least there's no risk of duplication. Regards, WFC (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's quite possible that the Port Vale book was wrong about his join date, and that they are indeed the same player...GiantSnowman 20:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In 1898–99 Bolton were relegated out of the First Division, in 1899–1900 Bolton won promotion out of the Second Division. Therefore that 5-0 defeat had to have come during the 1899-1900 season. My stat book confirms the 5-0 result and the Saunders appearance in said match. I stand by my books.--EchetusXe 22:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues?

Is this pic adequately copyrighted? Doesn't look it to me. 91.106.123.149 (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the size and place taken, seems like a picture taken by an agency and put on a news article. --MicroX (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nathan Stanton

On Nathan Stanton's page is says he scored one goal for scunthorpe but on soccerbase it says he scored no goals for scunthorpe. What should i do?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

His only goal for Scunthorpe was in the play-offs so it doesn't belong in the infobox. The correct stats per Neil Brown are 237 (0). Not being funny, but why not try using some common sense, being bold and doing some research for yourself for once? BigDom 08:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Webster

Can someone update this players page especially the goals and appearances. I can't do it as soccerbase are miles behind and the goals and apps haven't been updated for over a year.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with Soccerbase being miles behind. It's simply that when Webster started playing for Burton, the team was competing in the Southern League, and later the Northern Premier League and there is no way that Soccerbase could have those statistics in their database. I don't know how someone has supposedly found out those stats and added them to the infobox in the first place, they're probably plucked out of thin air like most of the unsourced crap on Wikipedia. BigDom 08:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the stats, from Soccerbase during the period they cover, from 2002/03 onwards, and from Webster's profile on Burton Albion's website for the earlier seasons. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Summerfield

At the bottom of Kevin Summerfield's page are some categories that are red links.What should I do about it. Keep them there or delete them? If delete i am not sure how to.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd leave them. They're doing no harm, and quite a few other clubs have non-playing staff categories, even if no-one's created those particular ones yet. If you wanted to delete them, each one is on its own line at the bottom of the page, and you just remove the line that contains the category you don't want. Try practising in the sandbox. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, though some are very sparse. I'll add Plymouth Argyle's in a minute, which I will need to have a good go at when I've got time, before I see the end of the match. I've spent a bit of time cleaning up the article and adding alot of references (why some people find it so hard I don't know). Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fran Merida

Can someone change fran merida's goals so it says he has only score one goal for arsenal becuase it doesn't work with me for some reason?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The goals1 and goals2 parameters in the infobox had got mixed up, so when you thought you were changing the Arsenal goals, you were actually changing the Sociedad ones :-) I've fixed it, and corrected the Sociedad stats while I was there (Soccerbase aren't a reliable source for Spanish second division). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• For SPANISH footballers, please have a look at BDFUTBOL.COM (comprehensive stats for DIVISION 1 from 1950-2010, DIVISION 2 1985-2010; pictures of players with HONOURS "attached"), the only alternative we have right now, as the individual pages of players at LFP.ES all crashed down. For instance, here you have Mérida's "outlook" at this site (http://www.bdfutbol.com/en/j/j6376.html). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Alfredo di Stéfano

See request for article name change at [6]. I had a quick look, and Spanish, French and Italian wiki's also have hime with a small 'd', but German uses a capital 'D'.Eldumpo (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No more hypothetical questions for a while, promise!

Would a player whose sole fully professional appearance at a national level was as a substitute in the Football League Trophy be eligible for an article under WP:ATHLETE? WFC (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, although I'm not convinced, particularly in those years when Conference teams entered the FLT. I did once successfully contest a prod on Adam Legzdins on the basis he had two years previously appeared as a sub in a Football League Trophy game between two League clubs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While I'm happy that the lad can now tell his grandchildren that he was a professional in the Football League, from my perspective it's a shame that the subject of that article subsequently played for Crewe.

My intention is to start an RfC (possibly a centralized one, if there is agreement that there is scope to do so), focussing on WP:ATHLETE. But it would also ask the wider question of whether our methods for determining notability in general are too arbitrary, or inconsistent between different fields/countries. At the moment I'm thinking of using Kurtney Brooks to do so. But if there is consensus that a player who once came off the bench in the Paint Pot is notable, the argument would be that little bit stronger. Regards, WFC (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, by "our", I am referring to Wikipedia as a whole, rather than WP:FOOTY. WFC (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, although I presume you are fully aware of WP:NSPORT.Eldumpo (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. The problem with regards to football is that it's replacing a flawed guideline, with an incomplete and factually questionable list of Fully Professional Leagues. While it might work for other sports, for us it is if anything making the worst part of ATHLETE – its somewhat arbitrary and at times counterintuitive nature – even stronger. WFC (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see this guideline tightened up a little so that we can loose a few '1 appearance for Boston United before disappearing into non-league obscurity' players. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A related RfC on the matter has been initiated below. Regards, WFC (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please help expand West Yorkshire Derby?

I am calling upon all users with knowledge on the West Yorkshire Derby(s) so that the article can be expanded. Any help or co-operation would be much appreciated. Regards IJA (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

South American club football winners

South America is one of the most important centers of world soccer or football and it definetly merits being a feauture topic. It has been, mostly, me being a one-man army building this thing with the assistance of Digirami and MicroX. I am well aware that I still need some more things but I would like to ask any and every editor here whether this can potentiallly cut it and, if not, what can I do to improve it.

CONMEBOL club competition winning clubs, Lists of

6 articles

Copa Libertadores

Copa Sudamericana

Supercopa Sudamericana

Copa CONMEBOL

Recopa Sudamericana

I recently went over every competition's winner list in order to synchronize the coloring, symbols, identification markers, etc.

Thanks. Jamen Somasu (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, you won't be able to use the symbols for copyright reasons, as simply making the box look good is not a strong enough fair use rationale. Note that current featured football topics (such as Gillingham) don't use their logos, and the laws are no different for South America. WFC (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the logos as they are not allowed outside of article space, per WP:NFCC#9. BigDom 07:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Team of the year source

Is there a source for this template because I swear Luke O'Brien and Peter Thorne were not in the final team. 91.106.102.76 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You were right, the proper team is here. I'll go ahead and correct the template. BigDom 12:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the template was created not from an original source, but from the team listed at PFA Team of the Year#2009, which was vandalised shortly after it was first added and nobody noticed. In which case, I wonder if there's any more old vandalism still in there that's found its way into the templates... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we're talking about this... Can we get references together for each list? I've added them for 2002 after I did the Second and Third Division teams the other day. Since then the 1996 Premier League team has been changed but I can't revert it because I can't remember who was in it. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Season Start/Finish "dates"

I have had a discussion with User:PeeJay2K3 on Talk:2010–11 Manchester United F.C. season regarding season start/finish dates. he has advised me that apparantly it has been decided on here that the English season articles run from "1 July to 30 June the following year". I have raised with him that this makes no sence at all as there are things that happen in the preseason of the next season, say 2010-11, such as transfers that end up in the season 2009-10 article. The events have no bearing on the season that they are being recorded in. As posted in Talk:2010–11 Manchester United F.C. season, if you see Transfer window and Page 150 of the Premier League Rule Book, the transfer window of the new season commences from the day following the completion of the previous season. 'Season' articles should conform with the events of that season. There are 2 transfer windows in a season and the new season article should apply immediately following the end of the previous season. Why should events of the the Summer transfer window of season 2010-11 appear in the 2009-10 article???? Especially when it is widely reported as occurring THIS season not last, such as Sky Sports which lists the transfer of Ben Foster as occurring in 2010-11, however for whatever reason there has been a decision made such that this is to be recorded in 2009-10. I think this needs to be revisited. Ck786 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

PeeJay is correct about there being consensus to do it that way. And despite being one of the more radical editors on here, it's something that I've never felt the need to challenge. Nonetheless, you raise a good point. Perhaps there is a case for duplicating transfers that take place between the final game of the season and 30 June? WFC (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been here well over 4 years now and I know nothing of this 1 July to 30 June rule. When writing season articles I have almost always started from the last match of the previous campaign, so I would agree with Sky Sports and the thread originator that the Foster transfer, and indeed all this summer's transfers, should go in the 2010–11 season articles.

And WFC a radical? God knows what that must make me then ;) BigDom 18:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was also unaware of such a consensus. PeeJay's comments in the talk section of the 2010-11 United season article suggest he is also in support of a change. How do we get this moving? Ck786 (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

By being the first, and then converting other people here. WFC (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange indeed

Can anyone understand why on earth was this page moved (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiago_Miguel_Ba%C3%ADa_Pinto&diff=372562457&oldid=361115489). Does the user include himself as the other TIAGO PINTO? And what about the "a more and more obscure player each day that passes"?!?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for others and got confused. I'd found another Tiago Pinto at Vitória F.C. but it turns out that it is the same one[7] and his profile just hasn't been updated yet. Judging by the username that performed the move I suggest this may be some form of self-promition (especially as Tiago Pinto was left as a redirect and not a disambig). However, assuming good faith, would Tiago Viera Pinto Carneiro qualify as reason to make Tiago Pinto a disambig? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Crystal Palace F.C.

On crystal palace's page it says on the right side under where it says what league they are in it says 2010-11:The Championship,21st. How can they be in 21'st when they haven't played a game yet?Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that means that it is Crystal Palace F.C.'s 21st championship. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything of the sort. It's meant to say that they came 21st in The Championship last season but someone has changed the season parameter to 2010-11 for some reason -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW has anyone seen the table of contents for History of Crystal Palace F.C.? Sheesh! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Section 26.2 is particularly compelling.--EchetusXe 21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And there was I, thinking that PFA Team of the Year was long. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit confict x 2) {{sofixit}}. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Now corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oldelpaso, have you missed this editor's recent deluge of posts here? There's no point telling Gobbleswoggler to actually perform an edit himself. There's more chance of Robbie Blake being the Premier League top scorer this season. BigDom 21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If Gobbleswoggler asking for help bothers you, then perhaps you might consider reading WP:CIVIL before reacting. Struway2 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Gobbleswoggler's requests are at times irritating and often simple to fix. But by the same token they almost always result in a net positive outcome. That's more than can be said for a lot of people's queries on here, myself included. WFC (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sam thompson

Can someone please take a quick look at this guy's contributions, and possibly give him a bit of a steer? As a precautionary measure, I have my reasons for not doing this myself. Regards, WFC (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Rupert1904

He's on a "[player] is a World Cup-winning footballer" crusade. I've reverted a couple of his edits, but obviously there will be a squadful. - Dudesleeper talk 23:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also reverted some of them, in Spain's squad. Indeed, a bit too much on the strange side... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also speaking about this user (he has been the most pressing about these TWO subjects, and i promised i would send him a message with the results of the discussion, if any would emerge): i know this is the umpteenth time i bring this up - i know i must be getting annoying ;) - so now i'll ask the question that needs to asked, at the end...

1 - He has been removing runner-up honours in players, i already replied to him what a previous discussion on the subject "born", that is, that the runner-up in WC and UEFA CL are no small achievements and should stay in players' pages, unless the list of honours in one player was so big it would be just too much.

2 - He says that competition names should be written in its original name, arguing that English commentators call them LA LIGA, COPA DEL REY, SERIE A, CUPA ROMANIEI, ALLSVENSKAN, A LYGA, etc. I beg to differ: yes sometimes they address these competitions by "birthname", but not always, and i feel there should be some coherence - this is English wiki, names in English - again, i stress, some names like the last three seen above and DFB-POKAL for instance are never referred as such in 90% or more of the UK broadcasts, in TV or written press (and please, i don't links which could be sent to this discussion page to illustrate that i am not correct in my approach are not totally reliable, unless you would sent me 50 or more; most of the time, it consists in nothing more than an X or Y stylistic approach in writing, nothing else.

For 1 and 2, teammates, i would really like to know what is the WP guidelines. I do know the following: i have edited MASSIVELY in Spanish players, writing SPANISH LEAGUE, CUP and SUPERCUP in their HONOURS, and in 99,99999999% of the cases it is not reverted. My guess is that it is mostly a question of likeness of a given user, but if someone tells me "Vasco please stop, it's LA LIGA, COPA DEL REY, LIGUE 1, WP says so here or there", then i will obviously "convert" to the majority's cause. My concerns are mainly on point 2, since i believe 1 (runner-up, etc) is pretty much clear (allowed, if honours are not too many).

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I think it's acceptable to list major runners-up honours for players, but this should generally be for the major continental cups. However, if a lower level player had 3rd level runners-up medals listed, and they were his only honours, I don't think I'd seek to revert that.

2. My view is that we should be seeking to use own-language names for competitions where they are generally used in other sources, so I would always put La Liga, Bundesliga, Copa del Rey etc. Beyond these top-level leagues it can vary as to naming terminology. I'd like to see own-language names used more, and certainly where there's a fairly even naming usage. Most of the time these competitions do not have an official English name and any English-language references are normally the result of 'lazy' journalism (often historical admittedley). We also have to be aware that most of the time Wikipedia articles will be towards the top of the search list for these competitions, and thus our usage can often inform future uses elsewhere. Eldumpo (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

1. We're an encyclopedia, so should be recording what a player achieved. If players' achievements only stretch to runners-ups in "lesser" competitions, that (IMO) that's what we should record.

2. When you raised this a few days ago, User:Knepflerle clarified that we should be using the most common unambiguous name, by the guideline WP:COMMONNAME. If literate English-language sources use Serie A for the name of the Italian top division, or format their sentence "Tim Template plays in the Allsvenskan (Swedish premier division)" and then go on to use Allsvenskan unqualified rather than an English translation, then so should we. That isn't inconsistency, it's following standard English usage. A shop where you change money from one currency to another is called a "bureau de change": the words may not be English words but it's the common English name for the entity.

Incidentally, in the earlier discussion, you mentioned UEFA's usage. Personally, I wouldn't follow UEFA as an English-language style guide. It's a multinational organisation with a lot of politics behind its house style, which may be why (for example) it insists on using the full names of clubs, e.g. putting Manchester United FC rather than just Manchester United in its prose, which no literate British-English source would (maybe the Americans do, I don't read enough US sources). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

1. If a player finishes runner-up in the FA Vase then that should be listed in honours. If a competition has it's own wiki page then any appearance in a final should be listed in a player's honours section unless they are have an extraordinarily long list of major accomplishments and it looks silly putting a Birmingham Senior Cup runners-up medal next to a Champions League winners medal for example. Also every promotion is an honour (unless its part of a big league system reorganization).

2. Use the most common names; so it is La Liga, Cope Del Rey, Serie A and B, Bundesliga etc. So yeah "Vasco please stop". Even if it was the Verbandsliga, I would say write "player played for a season in the German Verbandsliga (6th tier)" rather than "player played for a season in the German 6th tier. I say you call a competition by the article title that it has.--EchetusXe 09:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I will most definitely comply, i respect the "project"'s work, overall and without hesitation :) However, not my fault if folks from now on consult the honours of several Portuguese footballers, see Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira and ask: what on earth is that tournament? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it because if the reader wants to know what the competition is all he/she has to do is click the link!--EchetusXe 22:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Struway2 has pointed out my recent comment on this matter, but just to reiterate: we don't need any "consistency" that means we don't use the common name for tournaments. English adoption and usage of foreign terms is inconsistent - we should be consistent with its inconsistent usage, as it were. When referring to tournaments, use the article name; if you believe that isn't the common name, then start a WP:RM discussion at that page to have it changed. It also should be noted that in two of the cases mentioned (DFB Pokal and La Liga) there have been extensive move discussions with usage evidence which established that the current article names are actually the common names in English. Knepflerle (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What to make of this?

Found this at Carsten Ramelow - not available anymore because i reverted it - (please see here http://www.rhein-berg-online.ksta.de/ks/images/mdsBild/1124874092453l.jpg). Clearly the picture, which was the entire content of the reference, can be a hoax, and to have a song with the same name as that of Robbie Williams?!? Hhmmmmmm....

In the German version of the article (here http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carsten_Ramelow), there is a reference to his music endeavours ("Sonstiges"), albeit, how to say...unreferenced! That, coupled with the fact that it is irrelevant for his career/article overall (as if we were to refer to ONE charity soccer match R.Williams appeared in), makes me have serious doubts about the aforementioned "addition".

What is your opinion? Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if the anon contributor who added that fact made mountains out of mole hills. Ramelow did in fact record that "album", featuring three cover versions from songs by the Backstreet Boys, the No Angels and Lionel Ritchie, but the record was for his family and friends only, it was never released for sale in any store. The source for this is here (German, try Google Translate for an English version if you like). So it was not a hoax, but it is nothing that belongs in the article with its own section either. Perhaps a sentence under "personal life", if at all, but definitely not more. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

POV or not POV

Again me teammates, looking to wiki-score...

User:Active Banana has been on my case on several articles, removing stuff he deems as POV, as: writing a player is "an automatic first-choice" or an "undisputed starter" when player appears in 95% of more of the team's matches, that is POV; wins and/or goals in matches against bigger clubs, that is POV; saying that player battled for first-choice status with a player known worldwide (not POV when it becomes clear both players were in this or that roster in this or that season), that is also POV. I always thought POV was another thing ("great dribbler", "his team won the championship because of him", "unfortunately he was injured", etc, etc, not the above.

What should i to? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not what you're saying, that's good information. The problem is that the way you're say it appears to be taking side, even though it is true. For instance, instead of "undisputed first choice", consider "missed only 2 of 46 games". Instead of "battled with (world class player) for a starting berth", consider "(this player) faced competition in his position from (world class player); making ABC appearances compared to (world class player)'s XYZ.". WFC (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, reformulating the sentences in the way WFC proposed should deny anyone the right to remove the info with the POV reason. FkpCascais (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To reinforce what WFC said, it appears Active Banana has a good point here and you should try and find sources for these statements, and replace subjective analysis with objective facts. That's WP:V in a nutshell. Knepflerle (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Alan Osório da Costa Silva (where his reversions included renaming the player from "ALAN" to "OSÓRIO"!): could you folks tell me where i went wrong? Thanks a million in advance. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nevermind. ALONE, i duly rephrased the storyline removing and/or replacing some contents, although User:Active Banana still says it needs to be improved, because it needs a third-party reliable source, UEFA.com (which has two refs in Alan's article) being a main party. Can anyone please explain me what a third-party source is? Thank you in advance. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Vasco - your style of writing is close to journalese. Its easy to do and sometimes difficult to overcome, but remember that the aim of Wikipedia is to report and describe facts - numbers, appearances, achievements - and to let these stand for themselves. For example, there's no need to use 'triumph' when 'win' will do. Not all of AB's changes were correct, but many were.

As for third-party sources - this is a source independent of the individual(s) discussed in an article. I'd argue that UEFA.com is third party concerning player biographies, but not tournaments and competitions. Nevertheless, you should attempt to have multiple sources where possible. Try searching in Portugese news sources (it doesn't matter if the source language is not English, but that would help). If you want, I'll remove the header tag on the article and replace it with {{cn}} at points which need referencing to show where further verification is required. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured topic question

Hello footies. I'm trying to make Barcelona a featured topic by making all main articles in the navbox featured. I have here a question of merging/3.b (stand alone list criteria).

There exist 3 articles which cd be merged:

1. FC Barcelona in Europe
2. List of FC Barcelona records and statistics
3. List of FC Barcelona honours

• I have merged 2 and 3 here: User:Sandman888/Sandbox (55 kb)
• I have merged all 3 here: User:Sandman888/Sandbox2‎ (110kb and ugly)

What do people think: Merge all, some or none? I prefer 3 seperate because it makes a nicer layout and keeps focus on topic. Sandman888 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You could merge List of FC Barcelona records and statistics with List of FC Barcelona honours, but I would leave FC Barcelona in Europe as a separate article. It definitely needs a big cleanup though, and all those succession boxes are extremely ugly. – PeeJay 11:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So merge 2&3 and remove succession boxes in the Europe article? Or do you just want different colouring/layout? Sandman888 (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the layout of the Europe article is fine (although I would merge the European Cup/Champions League, UEFA Cup and Cup Winners' Cup tables to create something similar to the table in Manchester United F.C. in Europe). What you really need to do is get rid of those succession boxes, and sort out a bit of decent prose. – PeeJay 11:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove succession boxes. By decent prose, do you then mean as much text as in the manutd article? As to merging I'm slightly in favour of seperation. Perhaps I should add a list of how they faired in the continental cup/Fifa CWC? Shd I add a "overall record by country"? It wd really be neat if we cd form some form of guideline to the layout of this type of article. Sandman888 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Transfer-listed players

Earlier today, a player from my club was told that he would be allowed to leave when they receive an offer for him.[8] Nothing has happened as yet, he is still under contract and therefore a part of the squad, but some IP's don't seem to understand that. Am I right or wrong? I reverted one earlier, explaining why, but the player has been removed again and I'm aware of the three-revert rule. Should I just let it go? Its nothing serious, I just get tired of constant pointless edits from random people. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The player should not be removed until he has actually left the club. I hate IPs. – PeeJay 11:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Now trialists have been added to the squad! I'm just going to ignore it for a while because if I do revert then it'll get changed again and my blood pressure will go up. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

To cat or not to cat

I had, a few months ago, a (friendly)discussion with User:Kolins, about categories in players. My approach is the following:

I think that even when a player is naturalized, he should have the categories of his former country in his page. For example Liédson became a Portuguese citizen in 2009 (at 32), Marcos Senna a Spanish one at 30 - and there is one Serbian guy whose name i cannot remember, but he started playing for Singapore at the age of...37!! What about the past from these guys, do we erase it? They were, for a long (sometimes VERY LONG) period in their careers, "x footballers" and "x expatriate footballers".

An effective comparison would be when a player changes teams. What do we do, remove the cats from ALL his previous clubs? No we don't, so i think the same M.O. should be applied in the contents shown above. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If a player publicly changed nationality, we should keep both as categories. I'm less sure about expatriate ones though. WFC (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Serbian-Singaporean guy you mean is Aleksandar Đurić. – PeeJay 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But I think that contemporary sportsmen have only one nationality sports. In my opinion, to change nationality is not the same thing that to change club. A Jew transformed to Christian, continues being a Jew?--Kolins (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Jew continues to be a Jew racially (as long as his mother was a Jew), but a Christian by religion. So for example Disraeli's categories include the following: English people of Italian descent, Converts to Anglicanism from Judaism, Sephardi Jews, English Anglicans, British Jews, Jewish politicians. I think Vasco Amaral's approach is the correct one.--EchetusXe 22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The religion topic as example for my idea it wasn't good. But in the association football (at least), the player has only one nationality. "Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.", said the message in the template of "football squad" used for the clubs... and is the truth.--Kolins (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with this: it opens a huge can of worms. Is Andy Goram an English goalkeeper because he was born there? (update:bad example: apparently he currently is.) Exceptions can certainly be made for Ferenc Puskas and the like (who actually played for two different national teams), but for better or for worse our national categories reflect this "sporting nationality" nonsense exclusively right now and changing that would be an atrocious amount of work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Autonomous football teams

Teammates: User:Satesclop has been removing the infobox data on Catalan footballers regarding their appearances for their autonomous football team - and apparently ONLY for that one, not for Basque Country, Andalusia, etc, no, just Catalonia.

I have exchanged a few ideas with him, and he bluntly said he WILL NOT ALLOW for any comparisons to be drawn with pertaining to a national team proper and an autonomous one, he will NOT ALLOW IT, period! To avoid any edit warring, i told him i would not re-insert any such data, but i would like to know the project's view on this matter. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that they need to be referred to as Spanish in the lead (with Catalonia becoming relevant if they have played for the team). However, I agree with you that an appearance for that team is worthy of mentioning. The last time I checked he wasn't the boss, so he's not in a position to ALLOW or NOT ALLOW anything.

You've done the right thing by coming here first, and if there is consensus here, I'll be happy to help reverting the edits. Regards, WFC (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• For sure, i am only referring to the box situation, in the lead they should always appear as only Spanish, in my opinion. My doubt is if the data in the infoboxes is to be shown or not. Thanks for the help W! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As a completely neutral observer (who had never heard of autonomous football teams until I read this) I can see this from both points of view. It could become a slippery slope. Would we add teams like Aragon national football team to Álvaro Arbeloa and Andalusia autonomous football team to Jesús Navas' infoboxes. I expect not. There are alot of autonomous teams in Spain and while Catalan is more notable – mainly because a higher proportion of Spain's team come from there – it shouldn't a rule for Catalan and something else for the others. There are quite a few List of non-national representative teams in men's football and maybe others not listed there. Maybe the simplest thing is to keep it to FIFA teams. I should point out I am not advocating the way Sateslop went about this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am all for including players' appearances for Catalonia/Andalucia/Basque Country in the infobox. These are representative honours that these players are earning. The only difference between someone playing for Wales or Scotland and someone playing for Catalonia is that Wales and Scotland are regarded as separate nations by FIFA. – PeeJay 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would maintain that representative football for regions that are not recognised as national FAs by FIFA could validly be included in the article, and perhaps tabulated in the main body of the article, but should not be in the infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But it has already been mentioned that one wouldn't put "... is a Catalan football player ..." in the lead but we would put "... is a Welsh football player ..." so it can't be the only difference. If it goes in the infobox it needs a new section. The section clearly says "national team" and these autonomous teams are not national teams. In my opinion, you should only be representing one nation at a time (i.e. not Spain and Catalonia). While it is an honour, so is playing in the UEFA Champions League and that doesn't go in the infobox. By all means mention it in the prose but I don't believe it should go in the infobox. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(for the record, I'm withdrawing my offer to revert the edits, because I have an opinion and it seems as though consensus is less clear than I had expected). WFC (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While it's clear that playing for Catalonia is not comparable to playing for Spain, the same argument seems a lot more flimsy when compared to Spain under-16s or under-17s. WFC (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Recognizing Catalonian players is essentially supporting a nationalistic movement inside the country. It's my understanding that unless the region is recognized as distinct by FIFA it would not be correct to recognize them in this way. I have an "enjoyable" discussion with a Catalonian shortly after the match who said that the winning team was mostly from Catalonia and without them Spain would have lost. I'm not sure we should inflict this sort of debate on the Wikipedia community. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We had the Kosovo national football team appearances in several players biographies, but for exemple, I, a Serb (suposedly an "enemy" of Kosovo independence) have not been oposing the introduction of the stats for those non-FIFA NTs in the national team sections in the infobox. Despite these non-FIFA national teams being obviously not comparable in importance to the FIFA ones, their stats are appreciated, and excluding them has no actual benefit... FkpCascais (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree with Rambo's comment: "If it goes in the infobox it needs a new section." Unlike Rambo I think it does belong there, but it would be wrong to represent it as a country. Walter: surely the fact that some of those players have played for Catalonia AND Spain says something about that player's opinion of his identity? I.e. that he sees himself as Catalonian and Spanish, in the same way that someone from Scotland might, or might not, consider themselves Scottish and British? WFC (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: regarding Kosovo, the solution found was to use Kosovo in the infobox in Italics, so it can be differenciated from possible other FIFA recognised NTs. I don´t know who started this, or if there is some agreement about it, but it has been widely used for Kosovo exemple. See Kristian Nushi, just as one exemple. FkpCascais (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's setting yet another unique-to-WP precedent, but I think this italics idea might be a winner. It's either that or remove the appearances in question entirely because they're meaningless friendlies. I think this is worth a proper RfC as it's got fairly heavy repercussions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit too much?

Just wondering folks,

Should FILIPINO FOOTBALLERS be included in David Silva's article? I think not, since not even his mother is from than nation, she is Spanish of Filipino descent. Of course, i did not remove it again (after removing it once, it was reinstated), sorry if i did it wrong last time.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely should be removed. It would be fine if he were Filipino, but he is Spanish so he should in the category "Spanish footballers" only. BigDom 06:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on WP:ATHLETE

Is WP:ATHLETE an appropriate way of gauging notability for association footballers? WFC (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that the well-meaning but mismanaged WP:NSPORT has now failed, I think there is a need for individual sports to attempt to write their own guidelines, although such guidelines will only be valid if later accepted by the wider community. To that end, this is the first step in what I hope will be a three-stage process:

Stage 1: Gauge the extent to which this project feels WP:ATHLETE is working for footballers.

If the project feels that WP:ATHLETE is insufficient...


Stage 2: Brainstorm ways in which this project believes it can improve the process, and attempt to come to some sort of consensus on broad steps forward.

If that actually produces something...


Stage 3: Amending WP:ATHLETE to take this consensus into account. If there is significant opposition, proposing it centrally as a stand-alone guideline, and if successful, later merging it back into WP:ATHLETE.

Explanation of this stage

At this point, we are not attempting to rewrite anything, nor are we even claiming that it will be possible to do so. We are merely discussing what we like and dislike about WP:ATHLETE. The rationale being that where there is a will, it's worthwhile trying to find a way.

The case for sticking with WP:ATHLETE

Comments by...

Comments by...

The case for changing from WP:ATHLETE

Comments by WFC I do not disagree with the way this deletion discussion (on this guy) was closed. Clearly, he does fail WP:ATHLETE, and while I disagree with the argument, there was a case that he failed the WP:GNG. My argument, which was rightly void during AfD, was that his career is far more noteworthy than these three fellows. But the problem is that all three of these examples would pass a deletion discussion, by virtue of passing WP:ATHLETE. It's an institutional problem. Sure, no system is perfect. But is anyone here going to tell me that a substitute in the Football League trophy is more notable than Shelbourne's leading scorer who subsequently played for the League of Ireland leaders at the time? WFC (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by...

Discussion on changing from WP:ATHLETE

Perhaps the key question is do we need any additional criteria beyond WP:GNG - is that not the over-arching policy relating to notability? Does GNG need amending, and if so, is that the first point to address? If Athlete is agreed to be worthwhile as a follow-on/additional to GNG then do any discussions on it need to be made at a more central level? Eldumpo (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an excellent question. While this response is not really relevant to football, I think ultimately the answer is yes, we do need something on top of the GNG. Otherwise you could have otherwise completely unknown Olympic medalists being deleted as WP:BLP1E. WFC (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E is a policy and trumps your local policy and sitewide N but I really fail to see how any Olympic gold medallist will not have a substantial reported history to base a proper bio on. Anyway, best to stick to real examples rather then unrealistic hypotheticals. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

With regards to your point about central discussion, I agree that we cannot simply decide what we want and add it to the notability guide. But my belief is that this project better understands the shortcomings of ATHLETE. It works very well for American sports, where Major League players, professional second level baseball and gridiron players (in leagues covering areas and populations still comparable to our major leagues), and college gridiron players are eligible for articles. It works less well in football, where players who once played 20 minutes for a small town club are deemed notable, yet players known by most football fans in medium sized countries are not. I'm doing my best not to steer anyone in a direction on what we should do, but surely I can't be the only person that finds this an untenable situation? And if we believe we can do things better, surely the logical thing is that we discuss it, attempt to improve it, explain to the wider community why we think ATHLETE alone is unsuitable for our sport, and see what they think? WFC (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think that there is an elephant in the room that you need to deal with. ATHLETE is a sub-guideline to N/GNG. N is the overriding notability guideline and you cannot set up a local guideline to say that someone is not notable when the overarching guideline says that they are. ATHLETE is is extremely flawed in the way that so many users seek to use it to limit the range of bio-articles and - if nothing else - this suggests that it needs to be deprecated. Recent developments of BLP policy are starting to make this moot as there is now a clear site-wide consensus that unsourced BLPs are a bad thing and should be deleted if sources cannot be found. This is obviously a significant movement for sports bio articles as it largely does make ATHLETE moot as, if there are sources, then the article meets N and can be keep and, if there are no sources, its fails BLP and will be deleted. Now I accept this may be seen by some as an extreme position but I do believe that is the way that policy is shifting and that a lot of local guidelines are no longer accurate and need updating to reflect this new reality. BLP is a policy so it can will be enforced over guidelines any day. Anyway, just some thoughts to try and help shape this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• But do you not agree that if the three examples I gave in the previous section were to be taken to AfD today, they would probably survive, rightly or wrongly? WFC (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• At this stage I'm not arguing that the notability threshold for footballers is either too high or too low (yet ;) ). At this point I'm merely trying to see if people agree with my position that WP:ATHLETE is a far too inconsistent yardstick by which to judge a footballer's notability. WFC (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point of debate, and regarding sources, I will like to say that the biographies that I consider most valuable here on WP are exactly the ones about great footballers from decades ago (some cases, century), that are exactly the ones that have less sources, being WP in these cases, and because of dedicated editors, the most wide and complete "source" found online for them. That is why I find the parameter about the number of reliable sources missleading and posibly harmfull. There are still many players, geographical areas and historical periods that simply lack good sources, but that should not be a reason for those articles not to exist... FkpCascais (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Using only the GNG would be hopelessly biased towards players who have had the good fortune to play in the last ten years or so in countries with highly active sports media. Dean Bouzanis had enough coverage to survive an AfD when he was only 17 and had never played professionally, yet if we relied solely on GNG we'd probably wind up deleting Pedro Cea, who played in both the World Cup final and the Olympics, but had the bad luck to do so 70 years ago....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That isn't strictly true. There will be tens, if not hundreds of sources covering Pedro Cea and other similar players. It's just that finding them would involve scouring through newspaper archives (and I don't mean the nice kind of archives that you can find on the internet). Not many people can be bothered to do that, and I don't blame them. But rest assured that the sources for these people do exist and if the worst came to pass, and GNG was all we had, the articles about these older players would not necessarily be deleted. For what it's worth I think that the ATHLETE guideline as it currently stands is probably slightly too lenient. If I were to change it, I would at least stipulate that a player had to play one full match in order to meet the criteria, mainly due to the fact that before the 1960s there were no substitutes so it is easier nowadays for a player to make a fleeting appearance in professional football before disappearing from the radar forever. BigDom 08:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, we need something to reduce the number of articles on modern non-league players and increase the number of articles on historically notable but harder-to-source players. Whether WP:ATHLETE is the right method is debatable, but it does manage to do both. I doubt that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve McNulty would have ended in a delete outcome if it wasn't for ATHLETE, for example, while articles such as Alf Young (footballer born 1900) couldn't exist without it as, despite being 100% verifiable, they would fail GNG. Perhaps we should be looking at tweaking the existing guidelines slightly rather than proposing whole new ones? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

McNulty had done nothing notable. Main problem with this whole debate is the faulty premise that a couple of articles in some two-bit local rag that mention someone and quote their response to a couple of questions makes the individual encyclopaedically notable. If article creators would first ask "what has this individual done that is truly of note" rather than than simply plug in any kid's name because they want to create an article and have found one that once played football in the n^th tier of some football league system or an over exuberant apprentice gossip columnist claimed that 2nd rate club might be interested in signing them, then half the issues would go away. McNulty's GNG claims for example (per his AfD) are nothing more than the standard crap that appears in every newspaper about the local team. Outside his local club(s) no-one has heard of him and 5 years down the track no-one will remember him.--ClubOranje^T 11:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify: I wasn't challenging the close, and I wasn't suggesting that the guideline was too strict, but merely using it as an example of where ATHLETE can lead to a result that perhaps wouldn't have happened otherwise. Where there's no specific guideline keep-per-GNG opinions are frequently based on local sources and are sometimes in the majority, such as here and here (I've used examples that I was involved in becasue I can find them easily but I'm sure there are others). ATHLETE does a good job of deleting articles on modern-day players that are borderline notable under GNG, and an equally good job of keeping artices on historical players that would fail it. The question is, is this what we want? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is what we want if it means that players from the early 20th century can have articles without a constant threat of deletion. Guidelines are meant to be inclusive rather than exclusive after all. Don't get me wrong, I've used ATHLETE as a reason for deletion as many times as the next editor, but I wouldn't propose a player for deletion if he clearly passed the GNG. The thing is, despite all the coverage players get nowadays, very few would pass the GNG as they stand as most coverage is deemed to be routine per WP:NTEMP. As an aside, a good source of information for older players is club Who's Who books, which certainly cannot be considered routine and are generally quite comprehensive. BigDom 15:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But Dom, the GNG provides for players with that sort of non-trivial coverage, particularly when the Who's Who is unofficial. If anything, ATHLETE means that some subjects of non-trivial coverage in such books can be deleted. This is a particular issue for clubs that didn't play in England's de-facto Northern League until 1920, such as Watford, West Ham, QPR, Palace, Portsmouth and Southampton. They played in the Southern League, which is deemed non-notable on the basis that it didn't subsequently become a national competition. WFC (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's very true, I hadn't considered that seeing as it isn't a problem I've ever come across due to me concentrating on the players of Burnley and Nelson. I've seen articles on many players who represented several of those Southern clubs in the early 1900s and never thought of deleting them because I know the GNG covers those players in club history books, that's why I brought it up. When those clubs played in the Southern League, was it a fully professional competition like the Football League was? I'm assuming it wasn't or else we shouldn't even be having this conversation, but I'm intrigued. BigDom 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

When we entered it we were amateur (turning professional circa 1897). By the time we won the title in 1915 it was predominantly professional, although I know that Croydon Common folded as amateurs and have no proof that everyone else was fully pro. WFC (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

On re-reading GNG it does appear that articles of notable players from the past could suffer from over-eager 'deletionists' if the existing text is taken literally. There is some merit in having an approach whereby certain leagues have been classified as notable, and thus if someone has played in them they are generally deeemed notable/worthy of an article. I would prefer the focus to move away from whether the league was 'fully professional' to whether it is regarded by the (football) community as being 'notable', although there should be a degree of correlation between these two approaches anyway. On a related point I notice that wording has been added under WP:Athlete to the effect that further sport-specific information is available at N:SPORT. Eldumpo (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that people otherwise notable under WP:GNG should be deleted for failing WP:ATHLETE. As things stand, however, I think that the association football section at WP:NSPORT could be expanded somewhat to give more guidelines. The problem at the moment with WP:ATHLETE is that it is very unsubtle, resulting in some players being included who are otherwise not notable, and siwnging the axe for others who might be much closer to notability. Taking the example above, I argued for deletion of Steve McNulty, but, as a former player of the year in the Conference North and a record signing for Fleetwood Town, he's much closer to notability than, say, Mike Pearson (footballer), whose notability is based on 42 minutes of football over two now-forgotten matches. The problem, in a nutshell, is that the current guidelines defend players who have made a handful of appearances at professional clubs on that ground alone, whilst making it more difficult to introduce articles on players who have significantly influenced football at certain clubs, regions or nations but have never made that all important professional appearance. I think a change needs to be made to toughen the number and/or level at which professional appearances give you a 'free pass', and to introduce guidelines for influential players (I'm thinking club's top scorers/most appearance holders, multi-trophy winning players/managers as examples) outside of the professional game. Pretty Green (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Pearson would fail ATHLETE if Dom's proposed change (at least on full match) was enacted, which is perhaps another point in its favour. Looking at the BBC sources he might almost meet GNG anyway (I'm sure someone would argue as such anyway), which could confuse the issue even further. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

True, though I'm not overly keen on differentiating between starting a match and playing a match though. How is a player with 1 start more notable than someone with fifteen sub appearances? If you wanted specifics, I'd like to see a higher appearance threshold where the professional appearances are outside of a top-tier* (could include some major second-tiers, perhaps defined by attendance levels), of perhaps 10 or 20 appearances; this would equate to around half a season's worth so is still not a huge ask. I'd then also add a condition allowing the creation of articles on most capped, most goal-scoring or multi-trophy winning players/managers for some non-professional - precise definitions of what 'multi-trophy winning' means and which non-professional levels would qualify to be left to another day.

As for players such as Pearson and WP:GNG, there's an interpretation issue there - I'd argue that many footballers 9including Pearson) would fail WP:GNG as the coverage of them is routine sports journalism. Yes there are plenty of references but that doesn't automatically generate notablitity. I'd liken footballers to local counicllors here - lots of writing about them does not mean inherent notability. This is why WP:ATHLETE exists - to provide criteria beyond WP:GNG to help make a decision. Pretty Green (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, as strongly as I am against ATHLETE, I agree that if it is to go there needs to be a replacement. WFC (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I made the case for keeping ATHLETE as a common-sense supplement to the GNG at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Relationship with more specialized notability guidelines. I reckon the current setup as argued there works well for us. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting that WP:NSPORTS has passed its RfC and replaced ATHLETE as the guideline, which makes this discussion somewhat moot. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)