Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

→

Archive 95

Squad templates

I suggest to write full name of managers in squad templates. For example, in Template:Chelsea F.C. squad must be José Mourinho instead of Mourinho. Managers always had greater authority than players, and their names are pronounced or written fully unlike players. XXN (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this. A manager's extra authority over the team is not a determining factor over whether we add his last name to our squad templates. – PeeJay 15:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay, no point in this at all. GiantSnowman 15:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, no need for this change. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the above posters. Kante4 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Season article fixture lists

Previously consensus was that fixture lists should not be included in season articles and games only added once the match was concluded. Partially this was because fixture lists were copyrighted and partly because we are not a sports site or fixture list site. Im wondering what peoples current views are on this after the court ruling in 2012 when Football DataCo lost a ruling, meaning they could not copyright fixture lists for English and Scottish football. [1]. Personally i don't think we should include fixture lists but would like to gain opinions on this.Blethering Scot 19:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times after 2012 (if I remember correctly) and there is always consensus not to add the fixtures. We can add one upcoming match but not more. QED237 (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd include them. Article looks unfinished when they are missing. -Koppapa (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I would also include them. @Qed237: The last discussion on the topic (December 2013) appears to have been concluded based on the mistaken belief that Football DataCo still had some kind of copyright over the fixture list, so I don't think counts for anything. Number 57 20:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Having had the same thought I looked it up earlier and the last discussion I can find is here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_83#Season articles which kind of petered out with a not yet as Football DataCo had not yet appealed the decision (which I assume that they were bound to do). Part of that discussion was on updating the MOS for season articles to help with the inconsistent nature of season articles. Having just got 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season to WP:GA I've put together this as a new basis (User:Spudgfsh/sandbox/FootySeasonMOS). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The copyright issue would not apply globally, but only for the affected countries, even if it would be binding for England and Scotland. In cases were copyright is not an issue, I do not see a reason not to include the fixture list, because it is the reason for the article to exist in the first place. A club's schedule is typically also widely published and can therefore be considered notable. CRwikiCA talk 22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the current copyright ruling. But even if we can include them, I don't see why we should. Appearance-wise, a long string of empty footballboxes is a mess, and would overwhelm the average season article. And policy-wise, a club's fixture list is indeed widely available, on its own website, which is linked from the season article, and on every football news service on the internet. Wikipedia isn't a news service. WP:NOTDIR says "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." I'd say the same applies to a football club's season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Struway has hit the nail on the head for me as to why we shouldn't include them.Blethering Scot 18:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The radio station analogy holds for the main club article in my opinion, not for the season articles. When the games are planned and certain to take place it should not matter for inclusion whether it is in the past or future. That is, if WP:NOTDIR would argue against future games, it would also argue against past games, because the section you quote expressively allows major past events, not all events. If anything, WP:FUTURE should apply here, which does not prohibit a sourced schedule of planned games; it even explicitly states: "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.". Therefore a fixture list can be included if it a) can be verified and b) is not prohibited by copyright regulations. CRwikiCA talk 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Major past events" is a relative term. The results of games in any given season obviously wouldn't be major for the club article, but would be vital for that season's page. And, assuming copyright laws permit, I don't think anyone's saying we may not include a fixture list. The question is whether we should. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As in many of these sort of debates my feeling is 'Does it matter?' - Leaving aside the question of copyright - individual editors may or may not believe they're necessary but if they've been added then why spend time trying to find reasons to delete them when eventually they'd all get added back in again? Surely time would be better spent in other endeavours? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The question whether it should be included is valid, but a statement that would read that it should not be included would be seen by some as a reason to delete these lists from existing articles. If individual editors do not include these lists, then that is fine with me. But if these lists would be removed, than that is not okay in my book (unless there is a copyright issue). Do we agree that neither WP:NOTDIR nor WP:FUTURE forbid these lists and that their inclusion is more a matter of personal style? CRwikiCA talk 13:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is looking for a statement of they must not be used, just what the general consensus of the project is and its pretty clear there isn't one either way. My issue with them is fixtures very quickly change due to a variety of factors, mainly TV scheduling and most of the time they never get updated and can be very inaccurate and often unsourced at that stage. However should the season pages be in a Jurisdiction where they are covered by copyright in no way should be including them. Basically editorial discretion will be the key factor here.Blethering Scot 18:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The frequency of scheduling changes is very different from one league to the next, to leave it up to editorial discretion is fine in my opinion. CRwikiCA talk 19:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Things go out of date and don't get updated on Wikipedia all the time. I've seen articles on players saying he currently plays for team x that are months out of date but you wouldn't argue that we shouldn't include such information in case no one updates it. As I said - why worry? if you don't feel it's necessary to add in a full fixture list then don't do it on pages you may edit but if other people do add them then there's no reason to delete them.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are hardly even remotely fair comparisons Bladeboy. Blethering Scot 18:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:DZfoot

Can someone help me update this template? DZFoot.com has the changed URL format for player profiles from http://www.dzfoot.com/joueur.php?joueur_id=2055&saison_id=18 to http://www.dzfoot.com/fiche-joueur?id=2215. I tried to change the code myself to reflect the change but it didn't work (I'm not good with templates). TonyStarks (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fixed. give me a shout if it's not. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, looks to be working. Thanks for the fix, I appreciate it! TonyStarks (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Season articles Player details (again)

Hello, Prof bed (talk · contribs) is adding player details to a lot of season articles, e.g. 2014–15 Fleetwood Town_F.C. season and while they might look nice, I'm concerned about how verifiable they are, for example, Fee and Contract End, not every club discloses this info. I would remove all these tables personally as (i) They won't be updated throughout the whole season for every club and will become inaccurate and (ii) saying the source is soccerbase.com is not enough. Your thoughts? JMHamo (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and per WP:NOTSTATS...having player name, nationality, position and appearances (broken down by competition) is enough. GiantSnowman 12:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I will wait a day and if there are no objections, I will delete all these player info tables from all club season articles. JMHamo (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you two. A statistics table with the fields GS mentions is the correct method. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And me. Most of that stuff isn't relevant to a club's season, which is what the article's supposed to be about (players' town of birth???) And most of the stuff in the Fleetwood one wouldn't be sourced by the player's Soccerbase page even if it was cited. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree to. Now I have seen a lot of season articles for the premier league clubs were contract ends and so on has been added and it should be removed. The same goes for total goals and apperences in the club, if readers want to know they can read that on the player articles. QED237 (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't add it to 2014–15 Norwich City F.C. season as I couldn't find a reliable source for the stats on it. When reorganising 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season to get it to GA I found the player details didn't fit in the article very well, to an extent I still think it gets in the way. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are more prominent teams information removed, including World Cup statistics. Half the Chelsea page has been deleted even with legitimate sources. Difference between Chelsea FC and Fleetwood Town FC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.19.86 (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What has the World Cup got to do with Chelsea's domestic league season? JMHamo (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, what should be removed? The parts unsourced and nott needed such as when the contract ends (as I interpret above discussion) or the entire squadlist as an other edits says is consensus. For example all squads were removed at 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season so now you cant see the team of that season. QED237 (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well anything not verified by RS should be removed per WP:BLP and WP:V. And as stated above player name, nationality, position and appearances/goals (broken down by competition) is enough. anything else should be removed per WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 11:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes unsourced and unnessesary parts can be removed but I dont see why squads should be removed completely when sourced such as the following two sourced squads:

Premier League squad Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
1	GK	CZE	Petr Čech
2	DF	SRB	Branislav Ivanović
3	DF	ENG	Ashley ColeHG1
4	DF	BRA	David Luiz
7	MF	BRA	Ramires
8	MF	ENG	Frank LampardHG1
9	FW	ESP	Fernando Torres
11	MF	BRA	Oscar
12	MF	NGA	John Obi Mikel
14	MF	GER	André Schürrle
15	MF	EGY	Mohamed Salah U21
16	MF	NED	Marco van Ginkel U21
17	MF	BEL	Eden Hazard

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
19	FW	SEN	Demba Ba
21	MF	SRB	Nemanja Matić
22	MF	BRA	Willian
23	GK	AUS	Mark Schwarzer
24	DF	ENG	Gary Cahill HG1
26	DF	ENG	John Terry HG2 (Captain)
27	DF	NED	Nathan AkéU21
28	DF	ESP	César Azpilicueta
29	FW	CMR	Samuel Eto'o
33	DF	CZE	Tomáš KalasU21
40	GK	POR	Henrique Hilário
46	GK	ENG	Jamal BlackmanU21

• HG¹ = Association-trained player
• HG² = Club-trained player
• U21 = Under 21 Player

Source: 2013–14 Premier League Squad

UEFA Champions League squad Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
1	GK	CZE	Petr Čech
2	DF	SRB	Branislav Ivanović
3	DF	ENG	Ashley Cole HG1
4	DF	BRA	David Luiz
7	MF	BRA	Ramires
8	MF	ENG	Frank Lampard HG1 (Vice-Captain)
9	FW	ESP	Fernando Torres
11	MF	BRA	Oscar
12	MF	NGA	John Obi Mikel
14	MF	GER	André Schürrle
16	MF	NED	Marco van Ginkel

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
17	MF	BEL	Eden Hazard
19	FW	SEN	Demba Ba
22	MF	BRA	Willian
23	GK	AUS	Mark Schwarzer
24	DF	ENG	Gary Cahill HG1
26	DF	ENG	John Terry HG2 (Captain)
28	DF	ESP	César Azpilicueta
29	FW	CMR	Samuel Eto'o
40	GK	POR	Henrique Hilario
46	GK	ENG	Jamal Blackman B
48	GK	ENG	Mitchell Beeney B

• B = List B Player
• HG¹ = Association-trained player
• HG² = Club-trained player

Source: 2013–14 UEFA Champions League squad

They are both reliably sourced and contain no unneccesary info. The CL squad is notable since players can be cup-tied and so on so it does nt have to be same as PL squad. I see no consensus to remove those. QED237 (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove the squad details from the CFC page. They are really useful and I can see most users objecting to its removal in the discussion above and below. Also, please do not mis-quote it as a consensus. Bot6789 20:41, 29 July 2014 (GMT)

Who is removing the Champions League squad from the Fleetwood Town article?! ;) GiantSnowman 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, 2013–14 Fleetwood Town F.C. season, interest lost at half way into season. Worthless article currently. -Koppapa (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Those squad lists are not as bad as some. Look at what is at the top of last seasons Norwich article (2013–14_Norwich_City_F.C._season#Players and club staff) it clearly gets in the way of the flow of the article and adds little actual value (I'll get round to deleting it at some point). It's got nothing in it that adds value over and above what is in the section at the bottom (2013–14_Norwich_City_F.C._season#Appearances, goals and cards). The Norwich article is a WP:GA. If there are members of the squad that are included in/excluded from specific squad lists there must be a way of putting that information in the appearances table. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So, should the two squads be listed or not? QED237 (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no need for two squad lists, it just gets too complicated otherwise. GiantSnowman 10:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of using the squad list templates that we use on clubs' main articles, why not list the squad in a table of statistics such as those that I have used on the Manchester United season articles? Then you have the squad listed and all their statistics right there. You could even add a couple of extra columns with a tick or a cross to indicate whether each player is registered for the Premier League/Champions League/[other competition] squad. – PeeJay 10:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that information is best kept on season articles, we don't want to over-clog club articles. GiantSnowman 10:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 in French football

This article has been virtually empty since it was created and the France task force doesn't seem to have done anything about it. Is someone willing to update it or should it just be deleted? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 13:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it's too hard to do, just look at 2012–13 in French football. If just someone can spare a bit of time it would be fine. William Tölöberg (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

MoM

Hey, should Man of the match "awards" being honoured at the "honours" section at player articles? Just because FIFA lists them at their website, does not mean they are really needed to be added/being "real awards" or we need to add every won MoM "award" from the UEFA CL/Leagues and so on. See James Rodríguez for example (and the history). Any input is welcome. Kante4 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To me no. Man of the match is not a real honour/award. Consider for example Messi, his award section would be huge, I dont know how many times he has been man of the match. QED237 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, fan based vote. Always biased and worth nothing more than a footnote in the match report. -Koppapa (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not. GiantSnowman 08:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it funny that you guys are talking about MOTM awards in GENERAL rather than the 2014 FIFA World Cup Budweiser trophy awards. http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/awards/man-of-the-match/ . FIFA itself recognizes it as an actual award by trophy earned at the world cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froboy69 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not an "honour". It's a trophy awarded as the result of a fan vote via social media, set up as a vehicle for attracting fans into using FIFA's social media channels and the FIFA app. A fun thing for the younger fan to do, nice for the recipient, and a good way for the sponsors to promote awareness of their product, but not an "honour". According to what the rules say, participants could start voting as early as half-time... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

So, we agree(d) to remove them from the articles. Or any more to add from other ediots (but we have only one editor who "wants" to have it...)? Kante4 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait so people and participants in general being part of the voting system (early or not) doesn't make it legit? Are you kidding me when voting like this is done in general with MOTM awards for finals (UEFA Super Cup, Champions League final,etc.), Puskas Award, Balon d'or, etc. While being acknowledged as a noticeable honor/achievement for player articles??????? I am sorry but that's VERY hypocritical if stating that public voting does make these trophies count as 'honor' and I have a feeling that you haven't mentioned this chat to others who are in support of the 2014 world cup MOTM awards. And 'fun thing for the younger fan to do', this, couldn't be more wrong when older fans are capable of voting as well; this sport has fans of all ages.Froboy69 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a legit award. It even had a trophy at the world cup, but you have to agree it is of so little value. There is no talk about it two days after the game. -Koppapa (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Only one editor is opposing so can we say consensus (not to include MoM as honours/awards) has been reached? QED237 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Kante4 (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If those who do support it like I do won't bother to step forward, then I won't bother anymore with what you decide.Froboy69 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

1995–96 UEFA Cup

The two 1995 Intertoto Cup semifinals Tirol Innsbruck-Strasbourg and Karlsruher-Bordeaux, belonged also to the preliminary round of the 1995/96 UEFA Cup. Now they aren't mentioned in the page. The sources I've consulted are the following article of Agence France Presse from 21 August 1995 and the following article of L'Impartial from 23 August 1995, page 9. They are written in French, after translating them, we can understand that the Intertoto semifinals belonged to the UEFA Cup. Also Uefa.com and the book Annuario del Calcio Mondiale 1996-97, page 793, confirm my point. --VAN ZANT (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Has it always been the case that the UEFA website considered those Intertoto Cup matches as part of the UEFA Cup? Seeing as UEFA effectively no longer acknowledges the existence of the Intertoto Cup or the Cup Winners' Cup (they don't list them on their website anywhere, as far as I can see), could it just be that they added the Intertoto matches to the UEFA Cup pages in order to fill in the gaps? – PeeJay 10:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

RSSSF, a page dating from 2002, list those matches as "Part of the preliminary round of the UEFA Cup". This UEFA.com page says explicitly that those two matches were part of the UEFA Cup preliminary round. And the Guardian and the Times of 23 August 1995 (can't do urls, sorry) list the results of those matches under the heading UEFA Cup Preliminary round, second leg. Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

El Mundo Deportivo from 4 August 1995 reports that both matches were semifinals of the Intertoto Cup. The same newspaper from 8 August 1995 mentions those games as part of the UEFA Cup. The Berliner Kurier from 22 August 1995 clearly says that the match between Karlsuher and Bordeaux is part of the Intertoto semifinals. I think now the situation is clear: the Intertoto semifinals were also valid for the preliminary round of the UEFA Cup. If I were able, I would fix the page, but unfortunately I'm not too skilled with softwares... --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please also note that UEFA is often inconsistent: the 1995 Intertoto Cup is awarded both to Innsbruck and to Karlsruhe, but this is not true. A while ago, I contacted both clubs and they confirmed me they don't own such Cup!! Only Bordeaux and Strasbourg were the winners of the 1995 edition. --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

German wikipedia suggests UEFA only added the two games to the tournament page after 2011. And probably they then got the honour listed, too. Of couse the winner of both semi-finals entered the first round, thus it effectively was a preliminary round game. But the teams surely weren't part of the draw for the preliminary round. You can argue both ways. I wouldn't include them personally though but explain in text, because: UI-Cup winners gets into UEFA cup and not UI-Cup semi-finalists get into preliminary round of UEFA cup. -Koppapa (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"But the teams surely weren't part of the draw for the preliminary round." Do you have sources? --VAN ZANT (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Managerial hisotry

I do not know the protocol for listing the managerial positions of someone over time. There is a request, posted on the talk page due to a COI, at Talk:Danny_McLennan#requestedit. Would someone be willing to see what could be done?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why the request was made - the list is already in the infobox on the article. Number 57 17:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Papas

Can someone keep an eye on this page? I am pretty close to 3RR and right now I have an IP and some random user who claims that the IP is Papas's brother doing the recent edits on the page. I have reverted these edits on the basis that the information the IP is adding goes against what sources say and also that the formatting in the infobox is atrocious. Some information is flat out wrong as well like the fact that he was offered the India U23 job straight away when really he was offered an Academy contract first before being given the U23 deal after the first choice for the position rejected the offer. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Very slim chance that that's his brother, he got to the page from the "getting started" suggestions. Probably just a vandal. William Tölöberg (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to risk it again for now. He just undid the edit again with probably the weirdest excuse to date: "Well looks like we are going to go back and forth about this bc you think you may know about him bc you read media". I mean, what? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 International Champions Cup

The group results tables for the 2014 International Champions Cup, have been formatted using Template:Fb cl2 header navbar. The algorithm which produces the points score in this template assumes 3pts for a win after penalty shootouts whereas the quirky competition rules award only 2pts for a win after a shoot out and also 1pt for a loss after penalty shootout. Accordingly the total points displays are incorrect. Can someone kindly point out which of the vast array of templates to use which would produce the correct points scores, thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Reason #4602 why wikitables are far superior to templates. – PeeJay 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It still looks weird with a draw column. doesn't anyone think that there should be a column for shootout wins and shootout losses? Kingjeff (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tmol42: the {{fb cl2 team}} template has a |wpts= option to change the number of points for a win. Frietjes (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes: We don't need to change the number of points for a win, since a win in normal time is always worth 3 points. What we need is another column for penalty shootout wins, which are worth two points. However, I think adding a new column to this pointless template would be even more futile than using the template in the first place, since it's a rule that only affects this tournament; I've never seen it used in any other football games before. – PeeJay 10:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3 and Tmol42: and there is a |bp= parameter for additional bonus points and there is a |dp= for removing points, ... so, in response to the original question, yes you can make make the template produce the correct point scores. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone here for the advice. Excellent as always!Tmol42 (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andres Acosta

Hello, football experts. Is this a notable player, or should this old AfC submission be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say non-notable. GiantSnowman 17:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it's gone now. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Saltmarshe, english pioneer in Naples

He was the goalkeeper for Naples Football Club in 1908: do you have something in your books? I know it, I need a miracle... --79.22.141.77 (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Louis van Gaal

As everyone knows, Manchester United had a horrendous season last year. Now Louis van Gaal has revived them and has shown the good he can do by leading them to both the International Champions Cup, defeating many top flight teams, and the Chevrolet FC Cup. Both of these trophies and awards are not made up, they are legitimate awards and honors to win, yet a user is saying they are not legitimate. Please confirm that these trophies are an honor and most certainly do count towards Louis van Gaal's managerial trophy arsenal. Note them even lifting the international Champions Cup here: [2] Holland9 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

To give this thread context, this relates to the addition of Manchester United's five pre-season games to Van Gaal's stats at List of Manchester United F.C. managers. For the record, I recognise that the competitions are not made up, the matches actually happened and that a Manchester United player lifted the trophies for both the Chevrolet Cup and the International Champions Cup. However, these are not official matches, they are friendlies, and they have no more official standing than either the Amsterdam Tournament or the Premier League Asia Trophy. Therefore, they should not be listed in any player's list of honours on their article, nor should the matches/trophies be included in the table at List of Manchester United F.C. managers; by all means mention them in prose in Louis van Gaal's article as an example of his good start, or even in the 2014–15 Manchester United F.C. season article, but don't give them more prominence than they deserve. – PeeJay 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

These tournaments are preseason/friendly tournaments, they exist, but they aren't usually put on that type of list. There are preseason cups as tough as these are, but they are still friendlies. And is also defined as exhibition competition in the pages 2014 International Champions Cup and International Champions Cup. GNozaki (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Convention is that pre-season warmup matches and similar non-competitive tournaments don't get counted as honours, whether the winners get a cup for them or not. Especially for a club like Manchester United and a manager like Van Gaal, who have won an awful lot of serious competitive trophies in their careers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hell no! Kante4 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If these were added then for consistency we would have to add the pre-season friendlies managed by all the previous managers. Best of luck finding data on that........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Soma Novothny

Hello, can some users rewiew this deletion?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soma_Novothny

The player has made his fully pro debut with Lega Pro side Paganese. And Lega Pro is fully pro. →http://int.soccerway.com/players/soma-novothny/191950/

I want to create this page but i can not do this, so can a admin rewiew this deletion? --Lglukgl (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Bartosz Bereszyński

Anonymous users (presumably Celtic F.C. fans) keep vandalising Bartosz Bereszyński after the decision by UEFA earlier today. I've reverted a few edits, so have others, but perhaps it would be best to lock it for anonymous users now? Cashewnøtt (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ymblanter (talk). It's protected now. Cashewnøtt (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone speak Belarusian?

I'm curious about the title of this article. It was moved nearly four years ago from 'Dinamo Stadium (Minsk)' to 'Dynama Stadium (Minsk)' with a rationale that simply said "Belarusan" [sic]. I'm not an expert in languages, but I like to think I'm pretty good, and my initial thought was that someone has seen the Belarusian name for the stadium (Стадыён Дынама; Stadion Dinama) and simply plugged it right into the article, when 'Dinama' is actually the genitive form of "Dinamo", i.e. 'Stadion Dinama' would actually mean 'the stadium of Dinamo', which we would simply call 'Dinamo Stadium'. Since UEFA uses the name 'Dinamo Stadium', should I just move it back, or have I got the wrong end of the stick? – PeeJay 16:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure any more about the grammatical forms, but as far as I'm aware, the stadium is simply called "Дынама"; in Russian "Динамо". In any case, since that doesn't really matter here, I'd move the article back on the grounds of the usual naming conventions, not least the similarly named stadia. And can anyone confirm that FC Minsk still play there or is the infobox in the club article correct (Torpedo Stadium)? Jared Preston (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the name may actually be Dynama, based on the fact that FC Dinamo Minsk still uses the "Дынама" form, even though it's the first word in the name ("ФК Дынама Мінск"). Number 57 15:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps it's an issue of transliteration, since the club is commonly known as "Dinamo". The stadium is also commonly known as "Dinamo Stadium", so I think the move back was justified if only because of WP:COMMONNAME. – PeeJay 16:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that is because Russian (in which it is "Dynamo") was the dominant language at the time the club/ground became known. Number 57 07:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have access to 1911 census info?

Hi guys, does anyone have access to detailed information from the 1911 UK census? I'm trying to find out some biographical info on Freddy Capper, who played for Manchester United (among others) in 1911-12. My books say he was born in Northwich, Cheshire, either in January or July 1891, but a cursory look at 1911census.co.uk shows the only Alfred Capper born in Northwich around that time was actually born in 1892. If anyone has more detailed info, it would really help if we could at least confirm his birth date to within a three-month span. – PeeJay 22:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

FreeBMD has an Alfred Capper from Northwich born July-Sept 1891. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Alfred Capper's birth was registered in September quarter 1891 in Northwich registration district. The 1911 census indicates age 19 which would indicate a birth in the range April 1891 - March 1892. He was an apprentice fitter at a chemical works (enumerator has changed to Alkali) with a birth in Winnington, Cheshire (enumerator has changed to Northwich}. Living with father Joseph, older brother Thomas and step-mother Annie at 65 Church Road, civil parish Northwich. 1901 census also indicates age 10 born Winnington, which is in Northwich registration district. Keith D (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds about right, cheers guys! @Keith D: If you wouldn't mind, could you add that info to the article for me? – PeeJay 23:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have modified article, feel free to change as you find more information. Unsure of how to quote census info but have put in the detail from the archives so you can find the item. Keith D (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

With UK census you can see also if somebody emigrated in Italy or he was born abroad? I'd need informations about some pioneers... --79.22.141.77 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure the answer is no to both of those -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If the person is living in the UK at the census date then it will give their birth place even if born abroad, assuming you are referring to 1851 and subsequent censuses. If the person is not living in the UK then they will not be listed. Keith D (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking for Hector John Eastwood, in 1919 at Ilford and born in Enfield, 1887 and Leslie Minter, born in Italy, around 1891, somebody has something, please? --79.22.141.77 (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Eastwood - born Oct-Dec qtr 1897 Enfield to Frederick and Emily Eastwood. In 1911 was living at Grosvenor Park Road, Walthamstow - Insurance Clerk. Minter - nothing shows up. This has been searched for before without success.see here.Tmol42 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

for Minter I did some researches, italian census says he was born here... The little problem is in that city was impossible for a woman give birth... --93.64.241.68 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack Wilshere

Hi, I want to bring the attention to article Jack Wilshere who has increased more then 12,000 bytes the last few days as someone has expanded the prose a lot. I have not read everything but the part I read described every goal player made and had post-match citations from the player. I bring this here since this editor has done it to several articles and I have previously had some encounters with this user when I have removed (what I feel was not notable) content to last year Arsenal season article and now a lot to this season as well. I would like for someone with godd knowledge take a look at what is notable or not. Dont get me wrong I like prose and a lot of article could your some good writing instead of just facts but I believe some (or many) of the text is not notable. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

""We have some big games coming up, we [need to] continue with the same work ethic off the ball, try to win it back straight away and press them," he said after the Sunderland win. "You see the best teams in the world like Barcelona and Bayern Munich do that and we have to try to do that as well, because when we get in their half we have the players to hurt them."" - wow, it doesn't get much more encyclopedic than that :-) Well done on chopping a lot of the waffle, while expanding prose is always good, we really don't need quotes from every press conference given by or about a player -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah I totally agree, and on the club season article we dont need minute by minute review of all matches the most important for the matches should be included. I have removed about 50-70 percent of the content everytime from the user and he dont listen, now I ask for input since he did not choose the best of words against me (hence the edit summary removal at wilshere article). He has added 3k at David Ospina as well. I will see if I have time to look at that. QED237 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

maps in Assessment department

The maps are not that old, just some two years. But I checked all men's red-marked African and Asian teams, and did not find any stubs. Some update could be useful. 85.217.44.90 (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Results table: help needed for abbreviations

I've edited this page and some promoted teams don't display their abbreviations in the results table. I'm clueless, how do I add them? Schnapper (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Try what it says on the documentation for {{Fb r header}} which is the header used for that result section. It says you need to go to fb team templates for the respective teams and add the abbreviation there. QED237 (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Jamie Sendles-White

Is Jamie Sendles-White notable? Says he plays for QPR but has not yet played in WP:FPL as long as I can see. QED237 (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Number 57 16:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not very good at this, should we CSD or AFD? QED237 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROD would be the best best. CSD wouldn't be appropriate. Number 57 16:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Blackpool FC squad

Some of you my have seen the reports today around Blackpool F.C.'s issues of not being able to name 7 substitutes for their match. [BBC match report]. Two youth team players were added to the squad (31 and 38 in the match report) - one of whom made his first team debut (31 - Telford, in the 88th minute). Despite the fact that they are not officially listed yet on the Blackpool website in the official squad list (given the fact the club failed to register players to be eligible to play - this is perhaps not surprising) - I'd say that the BBC report being cited against the players being added to the squad list as a reference is sufficient as a source. Views, please? Zanoni (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. It's not that uncommon for kids to get on the bench or even to play before getting a website listing, even for clubs without Blackpool's particular difficulties. If they've been on the bench with a number against their name, then they're in the squad. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Article created for Dom Telford who made his debut. if anyone can help out with additional personal information (date of birth, place of birth etc) - would be helpful. 00:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally would add them. Especially on the club season article. Kingjeff (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that we're ignoring the given reference(s). Plus, if the players weren't listed in the shirt-number assignments published the day before the game, clearly they aren't regarded as first-team players. As I mentioned, people get excited when they see squad numbers assigned, regardless of the circumstances. Makes sense to include them in the current-season article, but — as predicted — the stats aren't being updated, so I don't know what the eagerness to create these stats tables is all about. Surely there should be some discussion beforehand to see if anyone will be doing the necessary updates? - NewTestLeper79 talk 13:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Umberto Piccolo, an american from Wyoming in the italian championship

There is a little enigma to solve: Piccolo played only one season and then he disappeared: there is a chance to see if he came back in USA? --95.253.47.136 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Two articles nominated for deletion

Two articles that I created have been nominated for deletion:

• 2013 CONCACAF Under-15 Championship - Discussion here
• 2014 CONCACAF Girls' U-15 Championship - Discussion here

For me, it seems silly that the similar AFC, CONMEBOL and UEFA competitions have articles yet the CONCACAF (North America's equivalent to UEFA) versions are being nominated for deletion.

• 2013 AFC U-16 Women's Championship - Asian women's youth tournament
• 2014 AFC U-16 Championship - Asian men's youth tournament
• 2013 South American Under-15 Football Championship - South American youth tournament

Please comment at the 'Discussion' links above. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey @TheBigJagielka: well done on completely and utterly violating WP:CANVASS here... GiantSnowman 19:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also please refresh your knowledge of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fenix down (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Luciano Vietto

Hello,

I am a University of Toronto student, editing the stub of Luciano Vietto for my assignment. This is the first time I am editing a Wikipedia article so any insights and suggestions I can get will be greatly appreciated.

So, if you see the stub now, it has a small introduction and a brief Career section and obviously the References tab. What I am planning on doing is adding a Youth Career section to talk about his early beginnings, expand each section with more information based off my research, and lastly add Career Statistics section with all his career statistics in a table format just like how most footballer articles have nowadays.

This is all I have up until now so once again any feedbacks or suggestions on making this stub into an amazing article would be greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushalchavan (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Competition notability

In light of the above, I think it's worth setting criteria for what competitions (not leagues) are considered notable enough to have an article. I'd have thought that a competition organised by one of the six confederations would've notable enough for inclusion.

There's nothing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I agree; I can't see why an international tournament organised by the continental body wouldn't be automatically notable? Number 57 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• What level of coverage would the average continental U14 or U15 tournament gather? Hack (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• A competition might be notable, but that does not mean every individual edition merits an article. GiantSnowman 08:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

FC Universitatea Craiova/FC Torentul Secui

Could someone who knows something about Romanian football have a look at FC Universitatea Craiova and FC Torentul Secui (new article)? Hack (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the later is a local club playing the sixth (lowest) level currently. I see no connection between the clubs. Seems like that player Nicola Valentin (contributions) copy pasted from the University Club to have an article about his club. -Koppapa (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you say this version of the FCUC article was the last good version? Hack (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd prod the other club and player. -Koppapa (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone has done something similar at CS Universitatea Craiova (football) per a report at the admin noticeboard. Hack (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems tougher. I don't know. -Koppapa (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Annual question

Time for me to ask it (as I do each year it seems): does an appearance in the Football League Cup consititute notability sufficient for an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes - playing in a fully-professional competition (i.e. for one team from a FPL against another team from a FPL) certainly meets the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As I suspected. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, whether those players who make their debuts tonight would meet the GNG is another matter, but one that seems to be increasingly (and conveniently) ignored. BigDom (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A period of grace has traditionally been allowed for players making their debut; and if it proves to be their only appearance, then there is plenty of consensus at AFD showing that technically meeting NFOOTBALL but failing GNG is not enough for notability... GiantSnowman 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So how long do these joke articles like Teddy Bishop that contain no useful information whatsoever get? If someone created an article like that about anyone other than a footballer it would be deleted on sight. BigDom (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well first of all, I am sure if someone had the time they could perhaps add a lot more to the article, probably not enough to satisfy GNG but enough to say more than that. Secondly, I would say at least a year or two is enough to delete a one appearance player article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Dom, your argument basically boils down to "stubs are rubbish" and that is against everything Wikipedia stands for. Start it and they will edit! GiantSnowman 11:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

660 football biographies marked as unreferenced

There are currently 660 BLP articles marked as being unreferenced at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Unreferenced_BLPs/Full_list. Many are false positives due to poor tagging but most need some attention. Hack (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

From the 20 or so that I've looked at, at least half seem to be false positives caused by editors who don't know the difference between References and External links, which then causes bots to tag the articles as unreferenced. I had this very same problem a few days ago on Diafra Sakho with a stubborn editor who couldn't understand that general references are just as valid as inline citations so kept changing the section header to "External links". BigDom (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand and that very short article looks better now you have split the refs between the two types!--Egghead06 (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you understood, why would you incorrectly tag the article? All you had to do was place {{no footnotes}}. Hack (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jeez there are some snooty people on here running around with their insults. What I did I did in good faith as the article had no inline citations. Then a pack of wiki boffins get on my case. Just fix, move on and stop bitching. Not everyone knows every wiki tag you know.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

League tables and names

Hi, Tried this one time before without any success (only one editor replied) so I try again as this needs to be decided after a recent event I spotted.

I saw that someone replaced the entire content of {{Current Austrian Football Bundesliga table}} with {{2014–15 Austrian Football Bundesliga table}} (instead of a redirect). This was done after the later template was created a few days ago with the exact same content as the original current-template.

My response was to restore the current template and CSD (with help from twinkle) the date-template as a copy of an already existing template, but know I remembered the earlier discussion what the names should be.

The major argument is that we should not have a lot of old templates and they have gotten subst and deleted by TfD many times so during those TfD's there was discussions and minor agreement to rename all templates to current table and subst after the seasons and restart the table instead of removing the old one and create a new.

Following "what links here" to the current-template however links to some article from 2013-14 season which means that they have not been substituted and have the current table for this season on them now which is bad. So can we trust they willbe substed or should we use the season-date template instead?

Please comment. QED237 (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ideally the process would work like you say, but realistically I think it would probably be better to have one each season, then delete it when it has been completely substituted. Unfortunately a lot of stuff doesn't get cleaned up in the way we'd like. I actually spotted a problem with this exact template a couple of weeks ago, as no-one had substituted it onto the 2013–14 Austrian Football Bundesliga article, which led to one person trying to fix the link to the template when it got reset to zero for the new season (which made the table disappear completely, as it was an invalid link), and then another editor adding a really crap table. I then solved it by creating {{2013–14 Austrian Football Bundesliga table}} (the existence of which may have led to your situation, so sorry if that's the case) and adding it to the article, as I didn't know we were meant to substitute stuff. Number 57 14:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was not aware of the situation at that article, for some reason I did not have it at my watchlist and I totally understand the solution of creating the template for last season (so no worrieds about any creation of this problem, it lead to this discussion which is good).

In my opinion I believe these template should stay (but the TfD's say delete) and not be substituted and deleted as when older tables gets vandalized it is easier to have the template on watchlist then all articles the table is on. Also the new templates (described above) may (I dont know) be harder to substitute as they are divided in three templates with switches and so on. QED237 (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your point about vandalism, and I don't see a problem with keeping the tables in template format if they're being used on multiple articles - it's a (small) kb saving for the project. Number 57 14:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont want to jump to conclusion about consensus on the matter (and the old TfD seemed more like suggestions to rename the tempates) but in case we should have the date-templates instead of current what is the best way to move forward? Should I remove CSD-template? Should we remove the article and after that make a page move from current to the date-name? Or what is best? The absolute best is to find consensus first. QED237 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is always possible that standings are adjusted after the next season starts, for example in the 2004–05 Serie A. For this reason I think templates should stay, so changes like that could be easily implemented. CRwikiCA talk 18:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I created {{Current Austrian Football Bundesliga table}} because tables created for a single season had been put up for deletion. Kingjeff (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingjeff: Okay, I did not know that it was you who created it. What do you say about it? Should it stay given the issues I provided with table not being substituted everywhere or to you think we should keep it due to all TfDs? QED237 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me either way. But tables for each season will have almost no edits after that paticular season. Kingjeff (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Bot's job

Is there really no way to get a bot to do the updating of pages like this one? --Theurgist (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think there is. On a side note, I spotted several errors in that list, including the location of FK Qarabağ, who were shown as playing in the ghost town of Agdam. The city is their original home, but they now play in Baku. Unfortunately an Azeri editor has blindly reverted this change at a couple of other articles, so I would appreciate someone else having a look and deciding whether the map should represent where the team plays, or the original city they represented. Cheers, Number 57 10:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• FC Karabakh played in Quzanlı district, which is not Aghdam itself but it is Agdam District. Now, they moved to Baku but there is not guarantee they can move it back there.--Yacatisma (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The most important detail is in the tense of your answer - i.e. "played". The map represents where they are now (especially relevant to the 2014–15 season article), not where they were in the past or may be in the future. Number 57 10:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. Then I will restore it back. Thanks for ur cooperation.--Yacatisma (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Player lead

Hi, I was approached by an other editor regarding regarding the wording in the lead of player articles. He asked me if I could present it here so I will do that.

If we find some sort of consensus it could be good to update the player MOS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players.

The first thing is if we mention league or not, which I have read in earlier discussions we should not as teams can be relegated and promoted without it being updated on the player articles. (What I can see there is consensus so it is just to update MOS?)

Secondly (and our main discussion) it is about how we write the nation of the club the player is playing in (if we should mention it at all).

1. "Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays for Manchester City as a striker"
2. "Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays for Manchester City in England as a striker"
3. "Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays as a striker for Manchester City in England"
4. "Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays for English club Manchester City as a striker"
5. "Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays as a striker for English club Manchester City"

I believe we may have had this discussion before but could not find it.

In my opinion we should use alternative 4 or 5 (some articles dont have player position making 4 and 5 equal), and the editors I talked to seemed to favour 2 or 3 first and then suggested number 1.

My reasoning is that number 1 does not mention nation of club at all, which we should if the player does not play in his home nation. The number 2 and 3 alternatives I dont like because it somehow implies that the team only plays in a certain nation but they can play friendlies, Champions League and more in other countries. For example a match between Roma and Barcelona in Rome, Italy then Messi is not playing for Barcelona in Spain, he is actually playing for Barcelona in Italy. Therefore saying Spanish club Barcelona is better because the club is always Spanish no matter where the match is being played.

Your thoughts? QED237 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My preference would be 'X is a [nationality] professional footballer who plays for [country] [team], as a [position]', obviously not including 'country' if it is the same as nationality, and changing 'professional' to 'international' if they are an international. GiantSnowman 14:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC) GiantSnowman 14:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

On the league: I have no problem with its inclusion, it's informative to the reader, I think the lack-of-updating problem is sometimes exaggerated, and where the article has a substantial lead section, it's very odd that the leagues for a player's previous clubs can appear there but not their current club.

On opening sentence: 4 or 5, if the playing position must go in the opening sentence. Agree with Qed237's reasoning entirely as to 2 and 3: "club in country" doesn't mean the same as "country-ish club". On 1, I wouldn't include the country if the player is playing in their native country, but if they're playing abroad, it needs to be appear somewhere in the lead; we're here to inform the reader, after all.

I'd agree with GS about including "international" if appropriate, but I wouldn't bother with "professional". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I usually include professional to make it clear they aren't amateur. Its entirely possible a notable player has been professional previously but is no longer, however it is a minor quibble. I would choose #"Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays for English club Manchester City as a striker" whilst including the league. We have however discussed this very recently.Blethering Scot 19:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I use "professional" as that is the indicator of notability - just as we should use "amateur" for players in the early days of the sport. GiantSnowman 07:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I would go for #5. It makes the most logical sense to me for the sentence fragments to be placed in order of importance/permanence. His name and birth date will always be the same, so they go first. Then his nationality and what he is notable for (e.g. "[Player X] (born 42nd Smarch 3102) is a Fooian professional footballer"). Then I would put his position before his club because regardless of which club he plays for, chances are he will still play in the same position; furthermore, if he is unattached, you need only remove the name of the club from the end of the sentence instead of from the middle (e.g. "[Player X] (born 42nd Smarch 3102) is a Fooian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Sampleton Rovers" vs "[Player X] (born 42nd Smarch 3102) is a Fooian professional footballer who plays for Sampleton Rovers as a midfielder"). Probably works either way, but my personal preference is to put the current club at the end of the sentence. Oh, and the country the club plays in only needs to be mentioned if it is different from the player's nationality, IMO. – PeeJay 00:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be a note for players with significant connections to multiple countries. An extreme example of sticking to FIFA nationalities would be "Ferenc Puskás was a Spanish footballer and manager". Hack (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In those cases don't use nationality in the very opening of the lede, save it for later - say 'was a professional footballer [...] Born in X, he represented X, Y and Z at international level. I also disagree over the order, I think the position being last flows better, and the club should come before the position if we are talking about "order of importance." GiantSnowman 07:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

DeAndre Yedlin

I think this page should be protected because there are users adding that he signed with Tottenham and was loaned back to the Seattle Sounders, but the sources are saying he will stay with Seattle for the remainder of 2014 and then join Tottenham. That doesn't mean he was "loaned back". It could mean the transfer won't take effect until 2015. So unless there's a reliable source that indicates that he was loaned back, I think it should be protected. – Michael (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, from both news reports on both Sounders and Spurs' websites, it is a transfer which does not start till 2015. Of course this part should be of note: "DeAndre has signed a four-year contract..." This comes from the Tottenham report. So, does the 2014–15 season count towards his four-year contract? When does it start? That is the main question. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

BBC and Sky Sports are claiming he would remain in Seattle until the start of the 2015/16 season. None of them are saying anything about a loan. Would the contract start then? This is confusing. – Michael (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, so until an official source comes out confirming it is a loan then we should just assume he is a Sounders player till 2015. Really the only option we have. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not confusing at all. You can agree a transfer in advance, and the player moves only at a later date. Jermaine Defoe did exactly that moving from Spurs to the MLS. The official sources I've seen, including official announcements from the MLS and Spurs made no mention of a loan so Yedlin would officially complete his move after the current MLS season. LRD NO (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

From the official statements:

• MLS: The deal will see Yedlin stay with the Sounders through the 2014 MLS season, and Sounders part owner and general manager Adrian Hanauer said Wednesday that Spurs will assess Yedlin and their own needs this winter and decide if he'll join the club then or next summer.[3]
• Spurs: DeAndre has signed a four-year contract and will remain with Sounders before joining us ahead of the 2015/16 season.[4]

As it implies, Spurs will decide after the 2014 MLS season to bring in Yedlin in winter or summer 2015, both ahead of the 2015–16 Premier League season. LRD NO (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think where all the confusion came from was from twitter reports saying that it is a loan/not a loan and stuff like that. They way you put it though it seems simple. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion; the first team profiles page on the official Tottenham site does reflect that Yedlin is now owned by Tottenham and is on loan to Seattle. (http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/first-team-profiles/) He is listed at the bottom of that page. It is interesting that this was not reflected in either of the club announcements. OR is this just a mistake made by an over-zealous Spurs webmaster who's edited that page without actually having a clue? I'm actually leaning towards the over-zealous webmaster! 60.240.5.113 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 UEFA Europa League Final

Judging from this footage (please see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaM840xp6Kc), are there any wikigrounds to replace this reliable reference from UEFA.com (http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/matches/round=2000474/match=2012680/postmatch/report/index.html#spot+sevilla+leave+benfica+dreams+tatters) with this one from a non-reliable source (http://www.socceramerica.com/article/58069/brazen-goalkeeper-cheating-helps-sevilla-win-europ.html)? Also, per that, are there any grounds to change Beto's name to "Betoteiro" (Portuguese compound word of his sporting name and the Portuguese word for cheater, "batoteiro")?

Tried to address this situation (doing the same on several other Benfica players, where the due reference was removed on the grounds of UEFA/UEFA.com being biased), was accused of being a Benfica hater, an attention-whore and taunted after sporting thoughts of leaving the project after the run-in (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.81.115.107#Edit_warring_on_multiple_articles). If i was wrong in my approach, it was with the best intentions of improving WP. Also, if possible, i would like to have User:Panhead2014's input here if possible (i am forbidden of addressing him in his page by himself, so i have to oblige), he has to gone to the anon user's page to offer him his support.

Attentively, happy weekend --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? You want to change a player's name so that it implies he is a cheater and you're complaining that other people are biased? – PeeJay 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, misunderstood! I do not want to change Beto's name, someone else did here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beto_(Portuguese_footballer,_born_1982)&diff=621282219&oldid=620829402)! Please NEVER again accuse me of vandalism, 188.81.115.107 made that change, then taunted me saying "Oh, you don't like his new nickname :(" when i confronted him. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Then no, there are no grounds to change his name to "Betoteiro" or to introduce sources of questionable reliability (especially not if they're replacing an article from UEFA.com). – PeeJay 19:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

2014-15 Premier League Results

Any thoughts on this article? Is it notable? And thought we decided above not to list yellow cards. QED237 (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This is something for the 2014-15 Premier League article and I would not use templates for the matches. I would use prose. Kingjeff (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Could someone look at it please. Editor keeps adding livescores and liveupdates and football boxes full of yellow cards and say it is good. Yes I agree is is for PL article who currently lists the matchresults already he just wanted a page for all matches with all info. QED237 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Useless, results are at the mainarticle. No need for a stats article. Take it to AFD! Kante4 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I just put it up for deletion. Kingjeff (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• While I think the author is a bit too bold to challenge the establishment here at WP:FOOTY with this kind of an article, shouldn't the same kind of pursuit been made against 2013–14 A-League? If an overkill article such as the one exists then the detail that @M00036 wants to provide could be merged into the main article 2014-15 Premier League. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I might have been bold with my point above. I just felt that it hadn't really been covered in another page as a whole section.M00036 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Transactions

Hello everyone! I just wanted to note, that there is such template, essay and warning. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Fb out2 player

Hi, I have a question about {{Fb out2 player}} that I came across when looking at 2014–15 FC Barcelona season#Transfers out. I noticed that there were a column "moving to" that looked weird with flags and that a editor was adding flags to that section. Further investigation gave that some flags was automatically genererated and that the template uses fc team templates (which we should phase out I believe?) Could someone please take a look at this template if it needs a remake and perhaps remove use of fb team templates? QED237 (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd support the use of a plain old wikitable. This isn't really easy to edit now anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The templates in the "fb" series are attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist, so it would be best to do away with them altogether. – PeeJay 12:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have made some changes in that template some time ago to support the non-use of fb team templates. Instead of using the |nc parameter, you use the |ncl template. (I couldn't find a better name for the paramter, sorry). I'm still going on replacing fb team templates and deleting, (using but it takes time :( . Ah, but if you use the |ncl template you need to put the flag by yourself. The flag is auto-added by the template, I think, and it checks if the country of the team is different from the other team, and then adds a flag. GNozaki (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes they are useful, but in most cases it's simply easier to use a wiki table also when it adds a flag automatically there is greater chance it could be a violation of mos flag depending on the situation it's being used in. Personally i would prefer if we stopped using these. Blethering Scot 00:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

New MOS needed for club seasons

There have been a number of discussions recently over what should and what shouldn't be included in the clubs season articles. It's been the opinion of a number of editors that the current MOS (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons) is in need of an update (It's certainly been mentioned a few times). In response to another discussion I put together a draft based on a GA article (User:Spudgfsh/sandbox/FootySeasonMOS).

some of the currently ongoing discussions include

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Season articles Player details (again)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Season article fixture lists

does anyone have any suggestions for improving my initial draft. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am one of those believing MOS needs to be updated. I have a few minor things I would like to change but I dont have time now. Maybe I will take your sandbox and make an other example. First of all I reacted to the bright yellow color in all tables such as transfer, in my humble opinion it should be a lighter color (grey?) or should each team have their colors? Anyhow that yellow is a bit to bright. Secondly I think all match descriptions should be above the matches and not the other way around. Thirdly the team names gets a linebreak in them in infobox (attendance row), which may be avoided. I have not had the time to look at content that much but I am very positive at a new MOS and it is a good start. QED237 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The yellow/green colours came from the fact that it's come from 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season. I do like the idea that each team would have tables in their own colours. Feel free to make changes to the one in my sandbox by the way, it's supposed to be a 'straw man' first attempt. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea. I suggest that we work in one centralized place, for now that would be Spudgfsh' sandbox version. I do not have a lot of time now to comment in depth. We might also want to revisit some of the templates that are used in these articles though. CRwikiCA talk 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned in other discussions before - in the fixtures list I think you should also have examples of footballbox and/or collapsibles since they are prevalent in other articles already and is the standard way that matches are presented in competitions. I also think some of your statistics are an overkill. Squad statistics with substitutions etc. also Round by Round, Results summary and other statistics. While I understand that probably for Level I teams that a complete article like this is handy for other levels this information as I pointed out does not get updated fully and by the end of the season is near to useless (IMO). Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the fixtures and results should be presented in tables as opposed to templates. Kingjeff (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingjeff, a table can still be made through a template. I assume you mean you are opposed to using the footballboxes templates for game results? CRwikiCA talk 00:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to them because they aren't flexible like tables. The collapsible footballboxes templates violate MOS:COLLAPSE. I know somebody is going to come along and say it's a guideline and not policy. But why bother having guidelines if we're not going to refer to them at all. I think it might be good if we look at the guidelines. WP:GUIDES states that "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." Kingjeff (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you look at GAs other than your own before making this draft, such as the Manchester United and York City series? They're fairly plain and simple, and the tables include pretty well everything relevant to the clubs' season that's sensible to tabulate. the relevant bit of MOS says "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players" (bolding original). I realise we can't enforce the inclusion of sourced prose, but we ought to be encouraging people away from wanting to shoehorn everything they know about a club's season into tables and templated structures just because they can. As to collapsible footballboxes, Kingjeff is correct that they violate MOS:COLLAPSE: we shouldn't be trying to impose a local standard that contradicts the site-wide MOS.

On a side-note, your NCFC colours fail this colour contrast check. Personally, I just see a yellowish blur at the top of the table, I have to strain to discover there are words there at all, let alone read them :) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

On colour. I'm colour blind so I'm not the best to comment on colours. If you think there's a better set of colours both for this MOS and the article I used as a basis feel free to tell me/change it. I have no sacred cows.

On collapsible football boxes I was of the opinion that it doesn't hide article content if the template is supported by text. the way the collapsible football box works is by showing the specific information that would be included in the prose but giving the reader the option to find out a little extra background information on specific matches. In fact, reading MOS:COLLAPSE I think that {{football box collapsible}} is just the kind of situation that it is promoting as a good use of hide/show. You can have a very harsh view of the term 'article content' which would mean that everything should be visible and you couldn't use the hide/show functionality at all.

On the point about having different examples using other articles as a basis. I think it's a good idea but I nearly started three MOS articles. 1) for articles prior to the season starting 2) for articles during the season 3) for articles following the conclusion of the season. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm colour-blind as well, which is IMO a damn good reason to comment on colours :) I prefer using the default Wikipedia colours for table headings etc, for consistency of appearance, but if people think using team colours is appropriate, they need to use something with enough contrast to be readable. E.g. for Norwich, pick either the yellow or the green and use black writing.

I could go with your interpretation of MOS:COLLAPSE so long as the main information is contained in the prose, but it often isn't. The reader can see more relevant content at a glance in a table-row than in a collapsed footballbox, without having to interact with it. And a table-row can include things like league position after the game, which is (again, IMO) rather more relevant to the club's season than who the referee was.

Collapsible football boxes does hide content. It would get tedious to have to put every little thing from the box into the prose. I have seen a table on the Dutch Wikipedia which I like. It has match details (date, kick–off, stadium, and city), score and goalscorers, lineup, and cards. The goalscorers column shows the score after that paticular goal. Kingjeff (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

TBH, I'm not sure how much we'd be able to confine enthusiastic editors to a particular style of anything. Might do as well getting agreement on things that really should and really shouldn't be included, and which bits of WP:MOS we want enforced. Wikilinking club name, home town and home ground in every single footballbox is a pet hate of mine: once in the lead and once in the infobox is enough. That and not referencing everything to the club's website. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Less is more. The biggest issue I find with club season articles is the amount of tables; there is no need for one to show top goalscorers and players with the most red and yellow cards – just merge it with the squad statistics table and add text. This is an encyclopedia, not a stat haven. Although the Arsenal ones now have written prose, there are still some things which could be removed like 'Squad information' (pointless), 'Reserve squad' (this is about the first team squad), 'Overall transfer activity' (speculatory). I've had a go cleaning up yesteryear seasons because they are stable and I don't have to get into edit wars (11 now GA, jillion to go]), and although the prose isn't pitch-perfect, they are consistent and make better use of the tables. 2003–04 is the most comprehensive of them all and it's the template I now use. I have no problems with collapsible footballboxes; in most cases when I work on a season article, results are presented in that style so I can just get to work with prose. For pre-1992 seasons like 1991–92 I used result tables similar to the Manchester United and Birmingham season articles as I initally couldn't get goal information about the other team. On the subject of MOS, I've started one at User:Lemonade51/Club seasons – feel free to leave comments here or there. It's uncomplete, but hopefully should get the ball rolling. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

One thing, these articles are for first team only? 2014–15 Stoke City F.C. season and that editor who completely controls those articles (removes team parameter in table all the time for example and display entire table) keeps track of all U21 matches as well. QED237 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Another issue that I have seen is that some editors use a squad template to show the squad and a table to show statistics. I believe that the statistics table could easily show the squad for the season without having to put any additional list. Kingjeff (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of what's been said already; only the squad statistics for the season in question should be shown, the squad template contains stats that have no relevance to the current season. Also the articles are for the first team only, therefore I don't see a need to include U21 results. Boddefan2009 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles are about a club's season and if the Under-21's are notable (they usually aren't) then they reasonably could be included. There shouldn't be a hard in fast rule on that.Blethering Scot 19:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

How is the MoS doing? Are we closing in to some agreement?

I want to discuss one thing. The previous MOS as well as this one has the score "compact" and not unneccesary space like some editors want. What is everyones say on this? In all big tournaments like Champions League, FIFA World Cup and so on we dont have that space so why have it on club season articles? To me it just feels not needed and I have started to remove it for consistency and as per current MOS. QED237 (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No need for spaces. Like you said, it's been done everywhere else now. Kante4 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the space, however its fine without, its unlikely something that will be argued over by referring to mos however so i would leave as no space on mos.Blethering Scot 19:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion we need answers to two questions before we can close the MOS discussion.

1. Does the proposed MOS contain everything that we expect to see on a season article (even if we don't agree with how it's displayed)?
2. Does the proposed MOS detail the things that we expect to NOT be on a season article?

My MOS needs an example CL group table => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Few issues, i don't think transfers should be at the top, the season summary and then fixtures are the most important part of the article, i prefer them at the bottom of the page after player & team statistics. Current articles seem to have a mix of both. The Infobox should follow capitalisation rules so should be Third round, not Third Round, league placing should imo be Seventh place not 7th. I don't think stats should be mixed with fixtures but in separate sections. I do however like the joint table for appearances, goals and discipline as this is one of the better examples i have seen, but it doesn't seem that easy to understand how to update so that could be a problem with some users less familiar with wiki code. I would prefer a template that calculates the total columns. Also given we have such a variety of season articles in use, how to we propose to deal with that. I personally think consistency between season articles of one club is important, so changing the way its laid out could be problematic if older seasons don't get changed.Blethering Scot 19:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Also Pre-season matches should have its own header not a sub section of transfers.Blethering Scot 19:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The way my MOS is supposed to work is there is a build-up to the season section (with prose) which includes subsections for transfers and pre-season matches. I admit that the inclusion of the January transfer window in the build-up to the season is not the most elegant solution but I felt it got in the way when placed halfway through the league season. With regards to existing articles I think the MOS shouldn't be a template we apply to all articles but an example of good practice which shows the kinds of information which should be included and specifying information which we have a consensus that shouldn't be included. The what being more important than the how. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that works to be honest, yes of course there should be substantial prose but that can be split between sections, its obviously only my opinion but i think it looks a bit of a mess whilst well intentioned. Also of course there should be an initial season summary but thats no reason stopping individual sections having prose especially a transfer section. Pre season matches should be treated as fixtures just like the Premier League so should have their own section. You definitely however need to change the detailing in the infobox as capitalisation rules do apply there.Blethering Scot 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record I'm not against a new mos, we badly need one. Just feel this could be much improved on that draft in a more organised way. Would be happy to help create a different version.Blethering Scot 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before I have no sacred cows. The problem is that the MOS is detailing layout clearly (which people argue about) but the important things (like not to include every substitution) are lost in the 'layout arguments'. Given the variety of current layouts (just in articles that are considered) GA I think we will never agree on a layout but we should be able to agree on content. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 07:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Need help at Fahrudin Jusufi

The issue is related to our discussion here (3 or 4 sections above) regarding the lede. An IP has been changing the lede from Yugoslav or Kosovar footballer to Albanian footballer with the claim that the family Jusufi is Albanian. I tried to explain in the talk page why I am reverting his change, but he ignored and reverted again. I don´t want to break the 3RR rule and I would also like for some other editor to step in because the IP seems to think that I am reverting him cause I am Serbian editor. The thing is that besides Jusufi being othnically Albanian is disputed (Jusufi family is Gorani) the main issue is that putting in the lede that he is Albanian footballer is totally wrong, as Fahrudin Jusufi played for Yugoslav national team and has no links to the country Albania. If anyone can just see the recent edits on the article and the talk-page and help, I would greatly appreciate. Best regards to all and I hope you´re all having a nice summer. FkpCascais (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable derby

Is Ashington–West Auckland Derby a notable derby? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a really local thing. -Koppapa (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not. Even if this were not at a very lowly level of football (five levels below the lowest professional league) the teams have only met a handful of times and the fact that there was a ruck at one game which got some minor coverage in the local press absolutely doesn't make it a notable rivalry -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

..............and now it is at AfD -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No idea about this example, but are there clear guidelines anywhere on what makes a "derby" notable to Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair that would be very difficult to define. Surely it would have to be GNG and non routine coverage just like any other subject. Blethering Scot 03:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources writing about it as an ongoing rivalry, preferably over a number of years, would be what to look for. In the case of these teams, there has been some coverage of matches between them in the local press (naturally) and some column inches given to what sounds like a very minor fight at one game, but that's it. Nothing has been written about how there's any more of an ongoing rivalry between these teams than between any others in the league..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gregoire Akcelrod

Dear football experts: Is this a notable football executive? Should the old draft be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

From a football point of view, he does not appear to be notable. Number 57 19:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Number 57. There isn't much information about anything else, so I guess I'll let it go. If no one edits it, it will eventually fade away. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

I can't think of a description for edits like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Buck&diff=621329498&oldid=615294785) other than vandalism. We had an argument about this a few months ago, which the user (GiantSnowman) lost, he failed to demonstrate why such material is contentious and should be deleted. Clearly a tag would have been appropriate for uncontroversial material like that. I'm not going to repeat my arguments, because they didn't get through (you can read them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_86#Referencing_honours), but what i did say that such an approach would put off potential editors. Well here's the proof - I've contributed a lot to this encyclopedia, and to this project, but I'm not going to anymore. I hate overly dramatic exists like this as much as anyone else, but what's the point in trying to share your knowledge if people are willing to vandalise your work, because all they want is to blindly (and inaccurately) enforce rules? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's not even about enforcing rules - unreferenced information should only really be removed if contentious, and not everything on Wikipedia needs to be referenced. This was clearly not a contentious biography, so at most it should have been fact tagged. I cannot see the benefit to anyone of removing all that information. Number 57 10:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Number 57, it's best that everything is referenced. If everything has a credible reference, then there will be no issue. Kingjeff (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Have no comment to make on your problems or your exit. Would point out however that following the 'Honours' dispute mentioned above, a list was created of unreffed honours, the articles so marked and editors given 31 days to find refs. For the vast majority of articles so tagged no refs were forthcoming and the unreffed data deleted.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? Arjen Robben's honours were deleted on 14 July claiming it was unreferenced for one month but I didn't see any tagging around 14 June. If there are more of these cases, then it is no wonder that the honours won't be referenced.

Everyone who has commented here also commented in the original discussion which set up the file and the 30 day 'rule'. To say now that you didn't know what had been decided and that unreffed lists of honours would go could be considered to be perverse.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all I haven't commented in the original thread but I've commented here, so your first sentence is just false. And your second sentence is also wrong, I did not claim that I didn't know about the 30 day rule. I don't know how you got that idea. If someone doesn't know about the 30 day rule, it is the one who doesn't even tag the article but deletes the honours section after 30 days have passed (after the tagging that didn't happen). --Jaellee (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of who knew what, none of the honours info is lost forever. If it concerns you, revert the deletion and add a reference and the problem goes away and we'd all have no reason for discussions like this!--Egghead06 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion and added references, because it did concern me. After a sufficient number of edits, the information is practically lost in the history because editors forget that it ever was there. At least I don't know how to find out if in a given article the information ever existed and in which version (if there is a tool for this purpose, then someone should tell me). If editors would stop "needlessly deleting information" as User:Macosal put it below, the whole thread would be unnecessary. --Jaellee (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason that page hasn't worked is that the burden of referencing every honours section has essentially been placed on me (which, as I said at the time, was far from ideal). I've had a busy month and so haven't been able to do a lot but try to do a few when I can... Can't entirely see the point being made in any case. Can very much sympathise with the frustration of seeing information needlessly deleted and agree that it doesn't seem to be ideal for any reason other than ("that it's allowed" - which I disagree with in any case). I think this is a good debate to have. Macosal (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW had I had access to my laptop (it's in transit from Nz To Uk ) I would have added more refs myself but on an IPad- forget it!--Egghead06 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Everything should be referenced, although sometimes honours are referenced in text just not directly in the honours section and that should always be checked before deletion. If they are tagged and no one has added a reference then i don't see an issue in them being deleted, however i know they aren't obliged to but in the interest of the encyclopaedia i always think the person who deleted should double check they aren't easily verified.Blethering Scot 14:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not true – not everything has to be referenced. See Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Also see WP:MINREF. Number 57 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

People should not be creating walls of text that are unreferenced. Everything in that article was essentially unreferenced and as far as I'm concerned GS was tottaly in the right. As far as I'm concerned that is contentious material. No editors or admins for that matter should be condoning that. Good practice is clearly referencing information you add, Bad practice is not. Not the only one that disagrees with you on this. Blethering Scot 00:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I have to conclude that you don't seem to understand what "contentious" means. I look forward to your answer to Macosal. Number 57 09:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

To try and clear this up - what about that material made it "contentious"? Macosal (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What is contentious was discussed in the original discussion about 'Honours'.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat unsuccessfully (with no real conclusion reached). The above comment suggests that "contentious" is not related to the content of the information at all, but some other factor? Macosal (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not referring to honours at all. An article with a wall of text unsourced is contentious. In what way does any editor know if any of it is verifiable and that's exactly why we end up with hoax articles. Number57 beliefs would lead to an incredibly unverifiable site. Sorry but it's an extremely poor show from him. GS did nothing wrong editors thinking its ok to add large volume of unsourced text are. Honours was never the issue as I said previously honours are often referenced in main prose and if not then they are unverifiable and should be challenged. Blethering Scot 15:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, this has been covered here before and also at WP:BLPN - this information does need sourcing to reliable, third-party sources in line with our policy on living people. It's not vandalism. We've advertised this page before - User:Macosal/BLP - where we add all articles with unreferenced honours. If they are not referenced in a month, they are removed. That is far more leeway than is required under BLP. GiantSnowman 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

spot on. Blethering Scot 15:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not spot on, it's wrong. We're not talking about honours here, we're talking about the text detailing someone's career. I've quoted above from the relevant guidelines - what is unclear about it? Number 57 18:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This applies to any information about living people. It needs citing directly, otherwise it can/should/will be challenged and removed. GiantSnowman 11:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not how I'd read WP:BLPSOURCES: " all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." Doesn't seem to apply to "all material" to me? Macosal (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

...and this material is being challenged, is it not? GiantSnowman 12:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case why have a policy at all? Why not just make a guideline that says "delete all unreferenced information"? You aren't challenging the information, just removing it purely because it is unreferenced, which removes information which could be sourced and frustrates/alienates other editors (as above). Further, WP:V has this to say re "challenged" material: "Whether and how quickly this [deletion] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." I.e. not in any/all cases (as your conduct suggests). Macosal (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would anyone NOT want information verified by reliable sources? A list of honours without references counts for nothing. Anyone could have added any old tat in there. How would we know without good references?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Egghead06: We're not talking about honours here (I don't know why people keep bringing that up), we're talking about prose in an article. I agree that referenced text is preferable to unreferenced text, but if there is unreferenced text that is uncontentious, it should not be deleted - it should be tagged. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and simply deleting material rather than highlighting the fact that it's unreferenced or bothering to check for yourself if it's true or not is extremely negative behaviour. Number 57 13:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of course we want information verified by reliable sources. And deleting the unsourced information altogether is not the best way to achieve that (it may be worth restating that this discussion is significantly broader than just honours). I haven't seen any guideline advocating immediate deletion of any/all unsourced information which is on its face believable, easily verifiable or supported by other sources used in the article. Nor does this seem to be a proportionate or beneficial response. Macosal (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: we are talking about honours because that is what the original complaint was about. Oh and @ArtVandelay13: I did not "lose" the argument, remember when it went to WP:BLPN and consensus was fully with me? GiantSnowman 14:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: No, the original complaint was about this edit, which has nothing to do with honours. Number 57 14:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

...which is part of AV's long-term gripe with me and honours. Anyway, regardless, removal of unreferenced content on BLPs is completely fine, as the aforementioned discussion at WP:BLPN concluded. GiantSnowman 14:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it a large stretch to say "the consensus was fully with you" when of the new contributors 2 agreed with you and 1 did not... Obviously this discussion refers to more than honours (why shouldn't it? You delete much more than just honours, as seen in the edit which commenced this discussion!) You also have avoided addressing any of the points raised in this discussion. And no point "ping"ing AV as they have left (as mentioned in the first post) (to quote WP:V: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references". Case in point). Macosal (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: If you want to be a pedantic about it, you are allowed remove unsourced material. However, the complaint is about the behavioural aspect, and whether what you did is reasonable or not. Personally I don't think it was, as you unnecessarily damaged the article by removing material that (a) does not need to be referenced and (b) could easily be referenced if you took the time to google the person in question. The question remains as to why you chose the most negative option available to deal with that article? Why not fact tag it or look it up yourself? Number 57 14:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the information does need to be referenced, in line with WP:V and WP:BLP. I fully stand by my removal of it. If editors bothered to add references in the first place, rather than writing unreferenced walls of text and then getting upset when it gets challenged, this would not be an issue. In the Stefan Buck example, AV added that unreferenced wall of text in December 2013 - so 8 months ago, and there has been no attempt since to add any references. WP:BURDEN applies here. Also it was not only unreferenced, it was also full of POV, such as "His first spell [...] was a successful one" and "Buck only made six league appearances the following season, the highlight of which was..." and "He was named as team captain, as one of three experienced signings." Are you honestly saying that was an acceptable addition to the article? I'm sure if an IP added that you would have removed on sight as well. GiantSnowman 15:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't need to be referenced. WP:MINREF quite clearly states:

Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material [i.e. everything except quotes, challenged or contentious material], although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards... For all other types of material, the policies require only that it be possible for a motivated, educated person to find published, reliable sources that support the material, e.g., by searching for sources online or at a library.

And no, I would have not removed it, I would have toned it down. Number 57 15:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP!!! GiantSnowman 17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how many exclamation marks you want to use, BLP says exactly the same thing as MINREF:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.

Number 57 17:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Is tagging the way forward? Ideally I agree that everyone should at least attempt to find sources for unsourced material if it is in question. In practical terms we all know because so much is unreferenced, this might not be realistic. So is it best to tag and leave it or to delete it? Take one of Britain's most high profile footballers and broadcasters, Gary Lineker. Almost all his career in unreferenced. As are his goals, international goals and honours. Tag all that is unreferenced and it just looks like drive by tagging. Delete it and there is precious little left. What is the best way forward?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps tag and create a sub-page for this project where references are requested for certain articles? Number 57 15:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove on sight, in line with WP:BLP policy. GiantSnowman 17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what BLP says. What it does say is that "Contentious material about living persons... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Not all material is contentious. Number 57 17:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not all material is contentious but all material can be contentious - and this clearly is. I challenged it, and removed it. It should not be re-added without being "explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source." GiantSnowman 17:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In theory anyone can claim anything is contentious, but there needs to be a valid reason. Did you think details of his career were untrue? If so, why didn't you just fact tag it? You basically blanked a poorly written but reasonable well detailed article. Number 57 17:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So this all hangs on finding an acceptable definition of 'contentious'. From my point of view, if I can't validate something from the references given, it is contentious.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So you're basically claiming that anything is contentious. I think that's an extremely unreasonable approach. No-one could say that "Michael Owen is a former Liverpool player" is a contentious statement. Number 57 18:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't, but his article has many good refs to show his career. If I wrote "Joe Foo is a former professional footballer" and did not reference it, people would be all over it asking for refs.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The point of this discussion (at least from my point of view) is that people should not be "all over it asking for refs" if the statement seems reasonable. I quoted from MINREF above, which states that apart from contentious material and quotes, "policies require only that it be possible for a motivated, educated person to find published, reliable sources that support the material, e.g., by searching for sources online or at a library." Sadly, it seems that some editors prefer to bulldoze an article rather than be that motivated, educated person, and that is what I am very unhappy to see happening. As I said above, what it might be worth doing is creating a WP:FOOTY/NEEDSREFs subpage where editors can list pages that they've tagged. These articles can be left for a reasonable period (say a month) before having material removed if someone is really insistent in deleting it and not verifying it for themselves. This is far preferable to editors going around deleting large chunks of material from articles that may not be watchlisted by anyone (resulting in the content being lost forever unless someone happens to check the page history). Number 57 08:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been more than happy, as a compromise, to list unreferenced honours at User:Macosal/BLP - but I will not agree to listing every single entry on footballer articles that need citing. It's just impractical. GiantSnowman 11:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to list every article that needs citing, just any article that you would otherwise butcher. Number 57 12:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernesto Amantegui

Dear football experts: Six months ago I postponed deletion of this draft because the subject was nearing notability. He appears to have an [[5]] in the Spanish Wikipedia. Is it time yet for this to be moved to mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he has played in the Thai Premier League, which is a fully profrssional league. However, it does need updating though. Useful info here. Number 57 19:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; it's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

League table templates, new version

Last season there was consensus to develop new league table templates (earlier the displayed only full tables). The new tables were more complicated with switches and such, but displayed only 5 teams on club season articles since there is no need to display entire table, only the team on article (and closest opponents) are interesting. The result was for example {{2013–14 Premier League table}} and helper template {{2013–14 Premier League table/p}} (and redirect {{PL13}}) who both needed updating every time.

This work really well on the articles and was used on entire English leaguesystem and dutch eredivisie. Although working well there are always improvments to be made and this summer @CRwikiCA: developed a new version (I tried to help with minor things afterwards). This new version was mainly made to avoid the most common mistake when updating the table, which was that the switches got moved around and the wrong rows was displayed on articles. For example there could be positions 8,9,13,14,15 in one club season articles. Also editors did not update the helper template with teams positions which made the same problems with wrong rows showing.

This new solution means one extra template but only one template needs to be updated (no swiches there) and this will most likely make updating much more easier. Now I had to take close watch all the time and felt like only I could update it. The major drawback currently is that the layout template must be edited at end of season when clubs enter Europa League after domestic cup victories, but I think it will work and perhaps we can work on a decent solution until then. Also H2H rows (e.g. LaLiga) are a bit more complicated but I have an idea for that, but it will only show for a full table.

This new version can be seen at main template {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}} and helpers {{2014–15 Eredivisie table/layout}} {{2014–15 Eredivisie table/teams}}, were only main needs updating (until more qualification rows is needed in layout)

What do you think? Should we try this new template-layout? It should be easier to update with only one template without switches and I am hoping the layout is not to hard to understand and should not be to hard to copy to new leagues. QED237 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The main though between this setup is the separation between the data and the lay-out, which would make it a lot easier to edit for most editors. As primary author of the new setup, I will not give my opinion here, it might be more interesting to hear from people that are less comfortable with the intricacies of coding. CRwikiCA talk 15:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I like it. It is a more elegant solution than the old one as it limits the part of the template that needs updating to just the bits that are updated. looking at it, the likely error that will be made during updates is editors forget to renumber the teams and/or stats but that is a much more obvious error than the current solution. good work chaps. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at these templates? In particular for Carlisle United its wrong - {{2014–15 Football League Two table|team=CLS}} I'm inclined to remove these templates because of this continual instability.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

---

@Brudder Andrusha: I will look at it right now. Most likely someone has not updated the helper template (on of the reasons for this new setup when only one template needs to be updated. I am ready to fix it if no one opposes. QED237 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: Now I have fixed league two. Is it the same for all english leagues? Anywhere else? QED237 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So much work. I'd go for using the whole table altogether, it's just much easier. After the season, change it to a wikitable if you like and then copy the 5-6 places you need to the season articles. -Koppapa (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Koppapa: Maybe, but there was interest for it as we dont need to list all 20 teams on all club article. When you look at article for a top team you dont care about 16th place (probably, it can be seen at main article). And there was consensus to do this and some editors wanted to do the work. This is not discussion if we should list entire table or not, it is wheter or not we try new setup. Do you have anything against the new setup other then "so much work"? QED237 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay since no one really has opposed the new layout other then it is two much work and we should list entire table (not what consensus was before so in such case you may want to open discussion and find new consensus for that) I will go ahead to implement the new setup when I have the time, (If anyone else want to do it feel free to do it). Or does anyone else have something to say? QED237 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a set thing, not everyone will want to do the work to display only a partial table. Im with Koppapa just show the full table if thats what people want.Blethering Scot 14:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone want's to do all that work, that's fine. -Koppapa (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Update #1 - This has not been fixed after the second game. Currently Carlisle is 22nd... Template is not even showing the team... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is same IP every time not making complete updates. I am working on the new. Will fix it ASAP and fix this for now. QED237 (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Update #2 - It was wrong for a while and then all of a sudden it was right. Puzzling!!!! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: That is because the table itself was updated at 15.36 UTC and then the helper template used to decide what rows should be shown was updated three minutes later at 15.39 UTC. In this case it can almost be seen as bad luck as the page you looked at got rebuilt in those minutes, that can change depending on queues. QED237 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought it might be some time lag for this to get fully propagated. Brudder Andrusha (talk)

Zijad Švrakić

Dear football experts: I have accepted this article after removing some promotional language. I have previously posted it here and the subject was declared notable. It may need a check to see if the sources are appropriate. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo nationality

Several players who have played for other nations, such as Ardian Gashi, have now switched to Kosovo. Is it correct to set Kosovo as their nationality for such things as the flagicon template, or should we wait until Kosovo is officially a FIFA member? I noted that an IP user changed his flag from Norway to Kosovo in the Odds BK article.Cashewnøtt (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If this comes up in a club season article or any other article requiring a year, I would think you keep it under the old nationality for season prior to the switch and the new flag for after the switch. As for any other article, you would keep the most recent country. Kingjeff (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Malky Mackay

Given the allegations published about him and Iain Moody today, please have a look at this article. I reverted one constructive edit on the basis that it was sourced to the Daily Mail, then expanded the section regarding Cardiff City to include reliably sourced info as to how he dropped out of the reckoning to be Crystal Palace manager. I think this is a better way to approach the story, but I would welcome further input. There has since been some vandalism by one IP. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute at 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season and input needed

Hi, I am having a minor content dispute with an other editor at 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season and now the editor reinserted same content again hidden in an other edit. Maybe I am overreacting, prose is good but history on Arsenal articles are that it becomes a wall of text and last season I had to copyedit a lot and remove not notable things.

I dont want to effect you to much but I will give a short explanation for not agreeing with this editor (I can expand if needed). First of all it is WP:POV with wordings like comfortable, clumsy and perfect afternoon. Secondly it is way to detailed and long, we dont need to list names of opponents (it is Arsenal article). Thirdly regarding the wikilinks it is incorrect to say winning FA cup in previous season and link previous season to premier league, they did not win fa cup in previuos PL season they won it in last year Arsenal season (or 2013-14 in English football if that's better, just not PL).

Please voice your opinions. QED237 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The amount of text devoted to the Besiktas game is ridiculous. At most the score and the red card need to be mentioned. The fact that Ba hit the bar (how silly does that sound when you say it out loud?) has no place in the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes and dont get me started on the preseason section. Last year it was an editor (currently blocked for personal attacks) who added the content, now a new editor just joined wikipedia and I see same pattern (not saying they are the same though I believe it might be coincidence). But a lot of text added is unsourced and not notable, and being attacked in the past after some copyedits and removing some content I dont want to get in to new fights so I ask for help. QED237 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly most of it is unreferenced. It is also full of opinion, puffery and peacock terms. It is also way too long for a match summary. Imagine the article after 50 plus games. Apart from that it is fine!!!--Egghead06 (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed down that section, including removing the Besiktas section entirely. Partly because it is unreferenced, partly because we don't need a blow-by-blow of every match in a potentially 50 game season! On a related note, the squad stats table violates consensus we had here a few days ago where only basic stats should be included, no contract info etc. I don't have the time today to tackle it, does anyone else want to step in? GiantSnowman 15:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor did it on other articles (RM) aswell. I cutted it down a bit. Kante4 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And now he he reverted GS as well saying summaries of the games are explained pretty straightforward. QED237 (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@PsychopathicAssassin: is edit warring, can somebody please have a word? I am INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 06:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have loved to but I started by "warring" with him so I am also involved. QED237 (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Duplication at Premier League Top scorers' list and Premier League Golden Boot

There appears to be some duplication at Premier League Top scorers' list and Premier League Golden Boot. It would make sense to redirect the former to the main article at the latter, considering that the Premier League began from the 1992–93 season too. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a merge seems sensible, but maybe a rename is also in order so that the pre-Premier League era can be covered; perhaps List of top scorers in English football (and also include the other divisions of the Football League?). The prose about the Golden Boot can be included somewhere in the article/list. Number 57 13:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That would indeed be the other option if such an article doesn't already exist. LRD NO (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There is English football first tier top scorers, but it's only all-time scoring records, rather than by season. We could simply add the by season list into it? Number 57 13:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And to complicate matters, we also have List of top Premier League goal scorers by season. Should this one be merged back into the individual season articles, or does anyone think it serves a purpose? Number 57 13:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Premier League golden boot by far is the best article. I'd redirect Premier League Top scorers' list to it (straneg title) and PROD List of top Premier League goal scorers by season, there is no need for that info in a own article. -Koppapa (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Top goalscorers by English top division season are already included at list of English football champions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll merge Premier League Top scorers' list (including a redirect) to List of English football champions if there are no objections. LRD NO (talk)

Cardiff City F.C. personnel

Should this be deleted? Cardiff City F.C. personnel, doesn't seem to warrant its own article. Thoughts? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say redirect to a section at Cardiff City F.C.#Staff. GiantSnowman 15:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Template footballbox & footballbox collapsible

A query about the the Template:footballbox and Template:footballbox collapsible...
Are these templates supposed to behave identically except that collapsible is to collapse the information given by the parameters? There is a difference in the parameter !team1= and !team2= in Template:footballbox |team1= and |team2= in Template:footballbox collapsible. The difference causes the teams to always to be displayed in bold using Template:footballbox but they can be turned off in Template:footballbox collapsible. Is this an error? Is there a workaround so that the teams in Template:footballbox remove the bold demarcation? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It is probably a forking issue, like so many of the templates used by this wikiproject... CRwikiCA talk 19:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if its a forking issue but when I tried to view the source (and it can only be viewed in a sandbox since this template can only be edited with template editing privileges) definitely the template parameters used for Template:footballbox are !team1= and !team2= - which indicates headers. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Examples:

Template:footballbox

Wicked Wanderers	1–2	FC Tryers

---

Template:footballbox collapsible

Wicked Wanderers v FC Tryers

Wicked Wanderers

1–2

FC Tryers

Request for modification

A request for a modification to Template:footballbox has been made and is documented at Template talk:Football box.
A consensus needs to be reached before such a modification is to be made.

Support – To bring the template in line with the Template:footballbox collapsible so that the display of the team is user controlled typeface rather than just bold. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support – It makes sense to keep the templates ({{footballbox}}, {{footballbox collapsible}}) as similar as possible functionality-wise as users of them will expect them to be. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Good idea. -Koppapa (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Workaround

After investigating a bit of the functionality of {{footballbox collapsible}} there is a parameter which renders a no collapse feature using the parameter |class=uncollapsed vevent. From there teams can be unbold or bolded etc. The font size of some of the parameters are not the same as in {{footballbox}} but at least there seems to be a workaround. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Order of Qualification Column

I noticed this while editing 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, but instead of asking there, I thought I would ask here in case this is used in other places and I haven't noticed. In the Qualified Teams section there is a column in the table for the order in which the teams qualified for the tournament. My question is: Is this notable or important information? Or, another way to ask, does it matter what order the teams qualified? Equineducklings (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not particularly significant. The order would depend on the timing of the qualification tournaments/matches. Hack (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

List of UEFA club competition winners

If this page is about UEFA competitions, why in the last edition is also included Club World Cup and minor trophies as Fairs Cup and Latin Cup?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo/Archive 8

Not sure what to do with this, CSD under wht criteria?. Seems like a edit used it as talkpage. QED237 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

CSD G8... I have requested that it's deleted. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Damián Martínez

Hi, need input regarding Damián Martínez. He has always been known as Damian Martinez but this week Arsenal suddenly changed his name to Emiliano Martinez instead on list of first team players on their website. This has led to IP changing his infobox name and name in the lead. Is that what we should do? Or should the article be moved to Emiliano instead? We should use WP:COMMONNAME and he is still known as damian?

To me it seems a bit strange to have article at one name and an other name in infobox and lead.

Lot of guestions so feel free to add your thoughts. QED237 (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

His full name is Damián Emiliano Martinez[6] and that at least should be reflected as such in the LEDE and infobox without brackets. Whether the eventual consensus is to use his first or middle name, a redirect should be included. LRD NO (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If the article is located at 'Damián Martínez' then the infobox should display name as 'Damián Martínez' and fullname as 'Damián Emiliano Martínez'. Any change to 'Emiliano Martínez' should be supported per COMMONNAME via a WP:RM. GiantSnowman 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Surely the article should be changed to the name he is listed under on Arsenal's official site, irrespective of what he was listed under here with a redirect.--87.74.76.51 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

As stated, use WP:RM. GiantSnowman 15:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Go on then Mr Snowman, can't make head nor tail of that RM page. Says don't edit page cos it'll be reverted by a bot so how you supposed to do it?--Doris Kami (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd not move for now. Every source but that website (even there only currently) calls him Damian. -Koppapa (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

But that one website is the one that is used to verify signings etc so if it's good enough for that, why not for his name? And what does "even there only currently" mean?--Doris Kami (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It means the majority of sources currently present within the article give his name as 'Damián' and not as 'Emiliano'. GiantSnowman 12:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Is no one going to put him in RM? No one has given a reason why Arsenal's lead should not be followed?--195.234.243.2 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you must have missed the post directly above yours where I said that "the majority of sources currently present within the article give his name as 'Damián' and not as 'Emiliano'." GiantSnowman 17:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So what? All the sources for Katharine Hepburn (prior to her own autobiography) - biographies, reference books, fan articles, magazines, newspapers - list her birthday as 8 November. In her book she reveals it as 12 May. By your logic that should be ignored and her DOB should continue to be listed as 8 November because that's what the majority of sources say.--195.234.243.2 (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

But Arsenal (his employers) list him as Emiliano...--143.252.80.100 (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Arsena's website lists him as Emiliano, the commentator on Arsenal Player called him Emiliano. It's daft to call him Damian on here.--143.252.80.100 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Fall Experimental Football League (FXFL) Review help, please

Will this be a valid article, assuming the draft meets the relevant criteria, or will it be out of scope? Fiddle Faddle 11:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you may be looking for WP:NFL. Hack (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So I may! Thanks. Fiddle Faddle 19:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Player article and stats updates

Hi, Every time there is a match IP editors and new editors come in and update infobox and career stats section and often make three mistakes,

1. Updating while match is still in progress, which is against current consensus
2. Updating infobox when it is not a league match (infoboxes are for domestic league only)
3. Not updating the timestamp when update was made (seen to many time same match/goal has been added two or three times

After creating an editnotice for livescoring (used at world cup and now champions league), I wanted to see if there is any interest for me to make a short but informative editnotice to minimize these three issues. The editnotice is not seen nduring regular reading, only when the edit window is up.

Any interest in such edit notice? QED237 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the last two are the more serious offences with the middle one probably worthy of creating an editnotice. Kingjeff (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

A good idea, in principle, but you'd have to add the edit note to every active player, and it's also impossible to police. Seems like it's just wasted energy. GiantSnowman 09:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There should more emphasis on what is post completion of result. Live scoring updateds lasts for probably 90 minutes and is usually accurate. In correct information with regarding to league match performances and dates last for a much, much longer and involves a great deal of time to research and correct. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont think every article is appropriate and needed, but definately the most major players as I have seen yesterday. The scorers in particular and seeing the info on some articles may help the other articles as well if editor are informed. And yes the timestamps are very important. I have no problems in creating such notice (and put it here for comments before being used). QED237 (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Loans on infoboxes

Where should the team of players who are on loan from go in the infobox, on the bottom of the player's current team or next to it? For example Javier Aquino has "(on loan from Villareal)" next to his current team but Nani has "(On loan from Manchester United)" below his current team. Which is the correct way? I tried to put "on loan from Villareal" below Javeir Aquino's current team on his article but a user reverted it and added it back next to his current team but gave no reason why.

Which is correct?

Javier Aquino

Personal information
Full name	Javier Ignacio Aquino Carmona
Date of birth	(1990-02-11) 11 February 1990
Place of birth	Oaxaca de Juárez, Mexico
Height	1.67 m (5 ft 5+1⁄2 in)
Position(s)	Winger
Team information
Current team	Rayo Vallecano (on loan from Villarreal)
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2013–	Villarreal	38	(1)
2014–	→ Rayo Vallecano (loan)	0	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

Nani

Personal information
Full name	Luís Carlos Almeida da Cunha
Date of birth	(1986-11-17) 17 November 1986
Place of birth	Praia, Cape Verde
Position(s)	Winger
Team information
Current team	Sporting CP (on loan from Manchester United)
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2007–	Manchester United	147	(25)
2014–	→ Sporting CP (loan)	1	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 05:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Either way is fine. Some editors prefer the latter as having it in a single row could unnecessarily lengthen the infobox. Having a break or otherwise doesn't affect content in any way. LRD NO (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't really see that it makes any difference -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asking because sometimes when you add the team next to it, it stretches out the infobox. GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 08:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Both are fine. GiantSnowman 09:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If the infoboxes are to be summaries to players careers, why have "(on loan from...)" added? The opening paragraph states as much and the infoboxes shows the player is on loan by having open-ended dates (yearly season). The additional info clutters the box. Raul17 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

...and why...?

Is it necessary to have Javier Aquino listed as being on "until June 30, 2015" on the team page? Unless the loan period is more than a year (or season), since loan transfers normally end at season's end. Finally, when did listing players as 3rd captain, 4th captain and even 5th captain became encyclopedic? I have only seen Barcelona use the terms 2nd-, 3rd- or 4th-captain when the team elected replacements in their captaincy. Thank you. Raul17 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

North Shields F.C. stats

Does the bottom 2/3 of the North Shields F.C. article run contrary to WP:NOTSTATS? Seems to be a tonne of stats. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed. GiantSnowman 17:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Albert Ebossé Bodjongo

This footballer, Albert Ebossé Bodjongo died after being hit by a projectile as he was leaving the pitch. I have added the Category - Association football players who died while playing. This carries a description which includes those who die as a result of something on the pitch. Another editor reverts this as he "died in hospital". Isn't this Category for any footballer who dies shortly after or on the pitch or just on the pitch?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

He should be included in the category, and also added to List of footballers who died while playing. His death is as a result of playing so he is eligible. GiantSnowman 17:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted 3 times and tried to engage the editor on his talkpage so if someone would care to re-add this category as I don't need a ban!--Egghead06 (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted and left a message. GiantSnowman 17:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccerbase.com

It seems to me that Soccerbase.com is not a credible source, at least for foreign managers/head coaches. Here is an example of a problem. Ottmar Hitzfeld started coaching Bayern Munich in 1998, but Soccerbase.com has him starting in 2001. Manchester United fans would know he was there before 200 since he coached against them in the 1999 Champions League final. Another example is here. Ståle Solbakken coached the whole season up to 12 April 2012, when his was dismissed as head coach, for a total of 32 matches. Soccerbase has only 31 matches. If you look here, 1. FC Köln had indeed played 32 matches (30 league and 2 cup) up until 12 April 2012. Should we really be using this site since we know that there are inaccuracies? Kingjeff (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccerbase should only be used for English/Scottish-based players, and even then with a pinch of salt, though it has got better recently. I would never use it for foreign players. GiantSnowman 07:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm even having doubts about that. They were slow to add an uncounted match for David Moyes after he was sacked by Manchester United. It's says "only games with a date in the database counted here" which is probably where the problem is. Kingjeff (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I really wish there were a better alternative to Soccerbase for English/Scottish careers. They must get massive Wikipedia-driven traffic through being the stats source of choice, yet there are many errors, and they're extremely reluctant to make corrections. Players' summary totals often don't add up to the totals you get by going through their appearances for each season, a significant number of playoff matches are listed and totalled as ordinary league matches (and sometimes totalled as both league and other), and other omissions are often invisible unless double-checking against an alternative, more accurate source. Even with "games with a date in the database", they don't always have lineups, so that no appearances are counted for players in that game (apart from goalscorers, who will get their app/goal counted).

Because Soccerbase is published by an established media organisation, it's considered RS, but far more accurate non-commercial sites are dismissed as "fan"sites. The serious amateur club historian has far more genuine interest in getting their content correct. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

For the Scottish-based careers of footballers, I highy recommend http://www.fitbastats.com/ which covers lineups and player stats for over a dozen Scottish clubs + Scotland international at U21/U23 levels and senior levels.ShugSty (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what people think about Soccerway? It looks to be a decent alternative. Although it doesn't go back further than 2004, it does cover a much wider set of leagues. Number 57 11:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I rate Soccerway highly. GiantSnowman 12:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's RS, which always helps. I don't work enough with other country stats to compare, so just addressing their coverage of players in the English leagues: the quality is improving, a lot, and if you send a valid sourced correction to their published contact email, not only do they make the correction, they thank you for submitting it. For recent seasons they're probably as accurate than Soccerbase, though they share the problem of sometimes having no lineups for a game, or having starters but not subs, so an appearance can go missing.

There are things you need to be careful of, e.g. if you're looking at appearance totals, you need to know that they count playoffs as league matches, which we don't. And if you're wanting cup appearances as well, for a career stats table, they don't go back as far as league coverage does: the FA Cup goes back to 2008/09, the League Cup only to 09/10. I tend to use it as an additional source when Soccerbase is wrong, but I am tempted to start using it regularly instead of Soccerbase for recent players whose career falls entirely within their coverage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the playoff issue, where is that documented? Hack (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football biography#Parameters, under |goals1=. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Australia would be an exception to that. Appearances in the A-League Finals Series are usually recorded as league matches. Hack (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccerbase name

What does "foreign" mean in the first two posts above? HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Foreign to anywhere that isn't England or Scotland, really. Soccerbase is a site owned / operated by a British sports betting newspaper (Racing Post). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But that's a surprise. The ".com" makes it look American, and hard core fans of the game here in Australia insist that nobody in the UK ever calls the game "soccer" because it's insulting and derogatory. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccer was originally an English term and was sort of commonly used in England until about 25 years ago. It was a term that divided on class terms to some extent. The upper classes would use soccer because it was disambiguated from what they called rugby union ("rugby football"). You would quite often get BBC news reports or Tory politicians using soccer rather than football. That basically stopped from about 1990 as football became the dominant sport in English media and it became more middle class / gentrified. [7][8]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Sun published a "Sun Soccer Annual" for a number of years in the 70s and 80s. Charles Buchan's Football Monthly, despite having "football" in the title, used "Soccer" often in articles (always with a capital letter for some reason.........) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It gets used a lot more in titles than prose or conversation, often due to the appeal of alliteration e.g. Soccer Saturday or a tabloid headline like Soccer Star in Sex Shame. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

To clarify further, spells with clubs not in the leagues of England or Scotland. It isn't the nationality of the manager that matters, as Soccerbase's manager dates are random in general. (not sure why this has been split off under a "Soccerbase name" heading?) Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I split this because it is a different issue (i.e. HiLo is trying to establish why / if the term "soccer" is used commonly in the UK) from the main topic (is Soccerbase a RS?). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass BLP prods

Just an FYI, AlanS (talk · contribs) has just BLP prodded 58 articles (not a criticism - it's perfectly justified), many of which appear to be footballers. It's probably worth having a look through and rescuing them (I've just done Ronny Aloema). Cheers, Number 57 12:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Even though most definitely need work, not all of them are unreferenced. Hack (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Again for information, this is still ongoing: we're on to letter B, and most of them are notable... The annoying thing is that a good proportion of the footballers prodded were sourced to Transfermarkt up until links to that site were removed as unreliable, some as recently as earlier this week. While I don't have a problem with that either, it would be nice if in future editors would take an extra few seconds to replace those Transfermarkt profiles with the player's Soccerway or other appropriate profile, rather than removing and then tagging the page as unreferenced. Would have saved AlanS a lot of prodding and saved those of us trying to fix the prodded pages a lot of work. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. What is gained by leaving easily referenced articles unsourced like that? I know we should not link to transfermarkt, but it is so easy to add soccerway or a comparable reliable link in its place. Jogurney (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As the person removing the transfermarkt references, I feel the need to explain myself. My goal here is to remove every transfermarkt reference from the pedia if possible. Given the sheer number of them (there were over 20,000 when I started), I have tried to find the most efficient method possible. What I've discovered works best for me is to focus on one task at a time, i.e. to first remove all the references, and then once that's done (which should be in a week or two given my present rate of editing) to replace them where necessary, and to deal with the interim consequences as they come up. I have every intention to "take an extra few seconds replace those Transfermarkt profiles", just please bear in mind that when multiplied by the number of articles I'm dealing with, those few extra seconds add up to several days. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Better to take the extra time than to risk the articles getting deleted for lack of sources, especially when we know such sources exist. – PeeJay 17:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not save time by making ONE edit with removing transfermarkt and adding a new source? Instead you go through every article and delete the reference and then come back and visit EVERY article again. Sounds odd to me... Kante4 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a report that shows articles about footballers that are tagged as unreferenced or under-referenced? Hack (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of these articles are starting to get deleted regardless of the validity of the PROD. Hack (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

if its unreferenced then the BLP Prod will be valid even if the player is notable. It would be far better if the source was added when removing, yes it would take longer to remove all incidents of transfermarkt but overall it wouldn't take any longer.Blethering Scot 01:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue was that this user was PRODing pre-2010 BLP creations with an invalid rationale. They have now stopped but the removal of references is continuing, meaning the number of unsourced BLPs is significantly increasing. Hack (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hack: I'll try and run a report tonight if I can... GiantSnowman 14:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

575 footballer articles are tagged with {{BLP unsourced}} according to CatScan. GiantSnowman 17:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be the number for all of the footballs and it's picking up articles tagged with {{BLP unsourced section}}. Hack (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ángel Di María

Somebody could take a look at the edit request. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

East Anglian derby Stats

Can someone give me a bit of advice on East Anglian derby#Statistics. I went to look at the accuracy of the head to heads but can't find a source that covers everything that is there.

1. Is it all notable?
2. Is there a better source that I'm unaware of?

=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This archived copy of the Pride of Anglia page sources the results up to 2006/07. Personally, for pure match results (if you don't need scorers or lineups) I prefer Statto to Soccerbase, it covers more competitions and IMO is more trustworthy. In context of that article, I'd say the contents of that section were notable enough; it's when people insist on having match result details for every meeting that it gets silly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

cheers for that => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

JS Kabylie

JS Kabylie is in the news at the moment, and there seems to be just one poor link for such a big article. Could do with some gutting, if anybody has the inclination. Thanks, C679 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a translation of the well-referenced French Wikipedia article. Unfortunately the translator didn't bring the references across with the prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Football League 2 (Greece) - Greek Third Division

Is Football League 2 (Greece) (Greek Third Division) fully professional?

This league is on the fully pro list→[9]← but in the page this is the intro:

On August 3, 2010, it was announced that the division had been renamed Football League 2.[1] From season 2013-14, the football League 2 is merged by fourth division championship (Delta Ethniki).[2][3] The new third division will be held in six groups, with the clubs divided basis of geographical criteria, while it will return in an amateur form.→[10]←

So what is the status of this league??--Lglukgl (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Professional or semi-pro amatorial?

I have long had my doubts that this is a fully professional league, even when it was split into two divisions. Now there are six, that would mean there are 139 fully professional clubs in Greece. I can't see this being possible, and I would be very surprised if even the second tier (which now has 28 clubs) meets the criteria. Number 57 21:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well i'm sure about the second division(professional) but about the third division there are something wrong. And also Turkish Second Division is fully pro.--Lglukgl (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced sections "Managers"

User Fenix down (talk · contribs) on 22 August removed dozens sections of "Manager" from articles about Ukrainian football clubs, saying that "Transfermarkt is not a reliable source". Some links: Olimpik [11], Dnipro [12] (only part of list was removed). Although it was correct information anyway. WP:UNSOURCED say: In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Wikipedia:Citation needed: To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an un-cited claim by inserting a {{Citation needed}} tag. I propose to revert all similar edits from 22 Aug, restoring correct info added by ip-user and insert {{citation needed}} tag where its need. NickSt (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As discussed on your talk page, Transfermarkt is considered an unreliable source. Per WP:BOLD I don't feel there is anything wrong in removing information that claims to come from an unreliable source. My apologies if I caused you irritation by not adding a CN tag to these edits (but as they were parts of lists there would be a need for many in each article), but the fact is that per WP:PROVEIT the dubious information has been removed and an editor restoring it has the burden on them to provide a reliable source. I don't think slapping a CN tag on bits previously claimed to come from an unreliable source helps things, adding a reliable source though would. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a Cn tag and removing if not sourced within a valid time frame is a reasonable request, unless of course you believe the information to be false. If you believe it is likely to be correct but unsourced or previously was sourced i would add the CN tag.Blethering Scot 19:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree but in this instance the material added is from an acknowledged unreliable source so it is difficult to tell whether it is accurate or not. Additionally because these are additions to lists one edit would require a number of separate templates which would be visually unappealing. I have made clear from my edit summaries why elements have been removed and have no problem with them being added back if a reliable source can be provided. Fenix down (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Angel Di Maria

So, the top of his article says he "plays for English club Manchester United", but apparently it's not acceptable to say it's an English transfer record. Thoughts? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's a British (as in this case), European or world record, why would you want to restrict it to just English? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Because Manchester United are an English team? If we aren't restricting ourselves, should we expand to the entirety of Northern Europe? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

England is part of Britain, and the English media including The Guardian, The Independent and The Telegraph see no problem with stating it as a British record. LRD NO (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no British league. Manchester United don't represent Britain in UEFA competitions. Angel di Maria doesn't play for a "British team". This irregular use of Britain is just daft and conspicuous. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Di Maria does play for a British club and mutiple reliabe sources have stated it as a 'British record'. There is nothing irregular, daft or conspicuous about it. LRD NO (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The very first sentence of di Maria's article "who plays for English club Manchester United". Ergo, he doesn't play for a "British team". This use of British is clearly irregular as no player is described as playing for a "British team", the Premier League isn't described as a "British league", the FA Cup isn't described as a "British cup competition" nobody represents Britain in UEFA competitions. It's irregular, clearly. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Manchester United is both an English and a British club. For consistency across football articles, we list them under the football association or league they are registered with. In regards to transfer fees as is the issue here, stating it as a British record is neither wrong nor confusing. Seeing as it was mentioned as such by multiple reliable sources and is the convention in the English media, we should list it as such. LRD NO (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

So when is the article title being reverted back to Ángel di María, as those very same reliable English media sources use a small d for his name? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That is of no relevance to the issue under discussion. If you feel Di Maria's article name should be amended, request a change at WP:RM. LRD NO (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion's title is clearly Angel Di Maria, hence me bringing up various issues about the Angel Di Maria article, ergo it is extremely relevant. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, you are within your rights to request a RM on whether it should be upper-case or lower-case 'd'. That in itself, has no relevance to the English/British issue you have raised nor does it in any way discredit the reliable sources regarding the same issue. LRD NO (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Danny Welbeck

Danny Welbeck is a played usually classified predominantly as a striker but who has been quoted as saying he has played a significant part of the last three seasons as a left midfielder for both Manchester United and England. So, by the very definition of the term "utility player" being that of a player who is used in varying roles in the team, I added him to the category [[Category:Association football utility players]]. For some reason, this was opposed but I haven't been given any semblance of a reason. I was advised to bring this here. So... (here are two sources to verify the quotes that I used in the Welbz article -The Guardian and FourFourTwo).

As I've tried to explain, describing Welbeck as a left midfielder implies he was played on the left of a four-man midfield, when in fact he has only ever been used on the left wing in a more forward role. Utility players are players like Phil Neville or John O'Shea, who could play right-back, left-back, centre-mid, etc. Next you'll tell me that Wayne Rooney is a utility player because he sometimes plays slightly deeper than the main striker, or that Patrice Evra is because he sometimes plays as a left wing-back instead of a standard left-back. – PeeJay 08:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a direct quote from Danny Welbeck which you would have read had you bothered to open the article up I've given you, where he describes himself as just that. Seeing as you've proven that you're too lazy to do so, here's the most pertinent of the several quotes within the article, directly from the mouth of this left-midfielder: "For United I'm more likely to be left-wing in a four-man midfield". Hmm, what's that, Danny, you play on the "left-wing in a four-man midfield". Thanks Welbz, you're great to back up my point that I was explaining all along that you are a UTILITY PLAYER. It's even better because he also explains how he plays in a different wide role for his country, and couple that with the fact he is a striker, this makes him capable of playing a minimum three separate positions, which is indicative of a... UTILITY PLAYER. Massive LOL at all this. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Simply playing in multiple positions does not make one a utility player. I've not seen any reliable sources that refer to him as such, which would be the clincher. Anyway, I'm done talking about this. I'd like to hear some other voices. – PeeJay 21:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop moving the goalposts. First you say Welbeck isn't a utility player because he doesn't play left midfield. When I prove you wrong, you say there are no reliable sources. "Simply playing in multiple positions does not make one a utility player" - Yes it does. That's literally how it works. "I've not seen any reliable sources that refer to him as such" - Danny Welbeck isn't reliable on whether Danny Welbeck is a utility player. OK. "I've not seen any reliable sources" - here's Manchester United's website in 2011 saying it, and here's Sky Sports saying it last season. I'll make the change, then. There is literally no debate now. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

For mine the issue is what a "utility player" is defined as. If it's simply any player who plays more than one position then it would apply to Welbeck. I'm not so sure I like the definition because that seems to inclusive, and there are a lot of forwards/wingers who I wouldn't label "utilities" (in my own opinion). It would be pretty tough to find a reliable source which definitively states what a utility player is (there is, as I see it, no clear definition) which makes dealing with questions like this complicated and ambiguous. Macosal (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wimbledon/MK Dons

Reading the BBC Sport report on the MK Dons game last night, I was rather annoyed to see MK Dons as having been "founded" 10 years ago. I don't think this perception is helped by the fact that we have two articles for one club.

I know that there was a lot of (perfectly justified) anger at the time, and having two articles was the only way to keep a lid on it. Now it has been ten years since the rename, I think it's time for rationality to override emotion and for us to merge the two articles into one (much of the Wimbledon stuff can go into a separate "History of" article). I dislike the Franchise as much as the next fan, but I'm also keen on us being a factual encyclopedia - we don't have separate articles for Woolwich Arsenal and Arsenal or Meadowbank Thistle and Livingston (and having Wimbledon infobox stating the club was dissolved in 2004 is just wrong)

Obviously this needs to be done via a merge discussion on the two pages, but I thought I would test the water here first. Cheers, Number 57 11:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think (original) Wimbledon and MK Dons are the same club. MK Dons themselves accepted this by giving the trophies won by Wimbledon to Merton Council [13]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

They are the same club - it was moved and renamed, but remained the same legal entity. Number 57 12:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Then why doesn't MK Dons have a page on their website talking about how the "same entity" won the FA Cup in 1988? By comparison, Livingston do list the honours of Meadowbank (and Ferranti) [14]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Because they made a gesture of pretending they are a new club to try and soothe ruffled feathers. The trophies were given to Merton Council as part of a deal to admit MK Dons Supporters' Association to the Football Supporters Federation, which also involved MK Dons having to state that the honours were won by Wimbledon FC.[15] However, we deal in reality, not gesture politics. Number 57 12:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect reality; it should not impose its own view. To give another example, Airdrieonians F.C. (formerly Airdrie United) is legally the same entity as the last senior club called Clydebank F.C. (the present Airdrie owner bought Clydebank out of administration and moved the club to Airdrie). If you look at Companies House, Airdrieonians FC (reg SC042250) was incorporated in February 1965 (when that Clydebank was formed); the new Airdrie was not formed until 2002. By your logic, we should include the records and honours of the 1965-2002 Clydebank within the records and honours of the present Airdrieonians club. If everyone concerned considers MK Dons to be a new (2000s to date) entity, why should Wikipedia ride roughshod over their wishes? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My whole argument is based on the premise that Wikipedia should reflect reality. Not everyone regards MK Dons as a new club, and those that do are mistaken or living in la la land. And we should also be doing this for the Airdrie/Clydebank situation. Number 57 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal form does not always equate with reality. Most major clubs in the UK are "older" (by their own claim and/or consensus of others) than their legal entity (e.g. Rangers F.C.). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The question about clubs that fold and are immediately re-established is a different issue. What we are talking about here is a club that moved, and a year later, changed its name. There was no refounding, as the club never ceased existing. Number 57 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if, there is a definitive cut in the history. So i guess two articles are fine. You said "(much of the Wimbledon stuff can go into a separate "History of" article)", you'd have two articles again then, just at other names. -Koppapa (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem at the moment is that they are presented as two different clubs with foundation/dissolution dates that are imaginary. The Wimbledon article could be merged with the Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes and become solely a history article, not a football clubs one. Number 57 15:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Football League recognise MK Dons as being founded in 2004, although someone else will have to look for a source on that one, I'v not got time tonight. Either way, Wikipedia should be using the founding date that the Football League and Football Association use. Cheers, VanguardScot 19:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything on the Football League website about foundation dates. However, this Guardian article makes it clear that "the Football League has given Wimbledon permission to change their name to Milton Keynes Dons FC". The League would not have had to give permission for a name change if this was a new club. Number 57 20:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

When Newton Heath changed their name to Manchester United, they retained the history, even when they moved 6 miles away a few years later. Just because Wimbledon fans got uppity about it, doesn't make it right. It's the same club. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Manchester United claim the history of Newton Heath as their own. MK Dons don't claim Wimbledon's history; they gave its physical remains to Merton council. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming physical remains means the stadium. Or are we talking about training ground? Kingjeff (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't matter if they claim it or not, it's factually theirs (and they only agreed not to claim it so that the supporters' association wouldn't be boycotted anymore). Lots of people who do bad things try and airbrush their history - that doesn't change reality. I could move to Milton Keynes, change my name and claim that nothing that happened to me before last Friday actually did. It doesn't make it true. Number 57 17:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

List of women's association football clubs

What really is the point of such broad articles? I maybe understand the men's lists, but for women i think it is nearly useless. Information isn't updated, many clubs are red-linked and it is incompelte. Maybe a redirect to Geography of women's association football would be better. I guess the article exists only anway because it is in this {{International women's club football}} that copied the men's version. Another example for too broad lists would be List of association football competitions in my view. -14:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"medaltemplates" parameter in Template:Infobox football biography

What is the actual purpose of this parameter? Do we have defined limits for what honours should be listed here? I know it's collapsible, but for players like Ryan Giggs who have won upwards of 20 honours in their playing career alone, it seems a bit much. Whose bright idea was it to add such a parameter to the infobox anyway when we have a ton of (predominantly unreferenced) honours sections in players' articles already? – PeeJay 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's specifically for medals awarded at sporting games like the Olympics or Asian Games. See, for example, Aya Sameshima. However, the section could be better named - perhaps "Games medals" rather than "Honours". Number 57 16:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought that might have been the case, hence why I removed a bunch of honours from the Patrice Evra article earlier today. – PeeJay 17:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Redlink Player Names

I have noticed, especially in qualifying tournaments for women and youth, many if not most player names end up as redlinks. As a result, some editors enter goalscorers as plain text without [[ ]]. Is one way or the other correct? Is there a policy I should be following in these situations? Equineducklings (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If the player is notable, they should be linked so as to encourage other editors to create an article for them. If they are not notable, no link, as that would encourage other editors to create articles that should not exist. – PeeJay 18:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

For full international tournaments, every player (that plays) should be linked, as the players are automatically deemed notable. For youth and club tournaments (for both sexes), players should only be linked if the editor is aware that they meet WP:NFOOTY. I would always err on the side of not linking for the latter set of articles, especially for the younger end of the scale. Number 57 19:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To err on the side of not linking makes sense. Youth tournaments, especially U-17, rarely have players who are notable enough to already have a page. Although, I have been surprised on occasion while editing women's qualifying tournaments when a player already has a page. Based on your advice, I think I will go with linking players for national teams only in FIFA competitions or confederation finals (with a few likely exceptions).Equineducklings (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is best to add links for youth tournaments as many articles will later be created and the editors probably won't think to look back and add the links. In fact thats how I find new information sometimes about new articles I am creating, by clicking 'What links here'. But otherwise if a player is unlikely to become notable in the future then don't add a link.--EchetusXe 23:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Noone goes around and creates articles for women's youth articles, because he saw a redlink at such a page. So, whatever. -Koppapa (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I initially asked in order to find out if there was an accepted norm, but it seems like it's up to the individual editor. This is fine with me, I will likely decide on a case by case basis. I mainly wanted to make sure I didn't do something which caused someone else to come behind me and add or remove links (basically, avoid unneeded busy work). Thanks Equineducklings (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What Pee Jay said above is what the actual Wikipedia guideline says. There are many junior participants who will never be notable. Hack (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Weekly salaries

Are the weekly salaries of a player relevant? A user has included them for a lot of Bayern Munich players (e.g. [16] [17] [18]) and I have severe doubts whether such information is relevant and whether the data is reliable - such contract details are supposed to be confidential. --Jaellee (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty of guesswork when it comes to tsmplug.com so it's not really a reliable source. And as mentioned, wages aare meant to be private and confidential so unless someone has their paycheck leaked, any figure is at best an estimation. LRD NO (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. There are no reliable sources out there for any player's salary (at least not their current wage), so because of WP:RS, we shouldn't list any salaries here. – PeeJay 09:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Stambouli

Suggest protecting Benjamin Stambouli. Reports coming through the past 24 hours that a deal has been reached with Tottenham Hotspur. His current club Montipillier, released a statement saying a deal has been reached pending a medical. Of course, fools are taking this to mean he has transferred already and his page is taking a few hits. 60.240.5.113 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Spamming of agent details

AgronTetova (talk · contribs) has persisted in spamming dozens of player pages with the same uncited details of their football agent, a page he created. I don't see how it helps in improving the pages in any way. Thoughts? LRD NO (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, its not spam,1000% not, its only information. He is not the agent of 100= players, only of some players and he is really known player agent, thats normal adding of information, nothing more. That is your POV thats spamming. It usually to add such things. Football coaches also be added ect. The same is with Pini Zahavi and others.--AgronTetova (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• Why you do not understand it? For you it may be so, but not for the football world, where it is extremely relevant who are the agent of the player, especially if it is a high relevanc agent like Ramadani. We have a lot such examples here on WP. I see its not your topic buddy.--AgronTetova (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

He is the agent of Stevan Jovetic for example, and Ramadanis interviews and statemants you can read in english press, German ect- many times, an I as a reader wish to know this about Jovetic ect. and the rest.--AgronTetova (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance in spamming those pages with the agent link. Say, if I know who Messi's agent is; how is that going to help me know more about Messi the player? LRD NO (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but only because you do not see it, does not mean that it is for 1000 other readers so. I see that you have no idea, because you call immediately highhhhh known players like Messi, and Messis father is his agent. For you not, but for others.--AgronTetova (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because you do not position yourself in the position to other users or readers? About other you can read what they have for hobbies, with what they've done for things and then should not be there who his the agent? Ok, not every agent, but the most famous and popular for sure. The relevance is high. Ramadani is this.--AgronTetova (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

AgronTetova made a fine article for Fali Ramadani an extremelly controversial and famous players agent, and the article will certainly have many views and be popular, and en.wiki wins by having an artticle on him. However, AgronTetova has then been adding the link to many footballers (personally, I know many of them are indeed his players) however, he has been adding that info without any source, and also without any reason. I don´t think all of his players need to have that info added in their article. So, good thing to have Fali Ramadani article, not so good to add to players articles unsourced info about him being their agent. FkpCascais (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no issues with the Ramadani article itself. I see no point in adding agent details without any context or relevance though. Knowing who Jovetic's agent does not help in understanding Jovetic the player. Unless there is a notable event regarding the agent and the player, the agent detail is unnecessary. LRD NO (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you LDR NO. @AgronTetova, sorry, but you are not right here. There are 3 issues hee: 1-You are adding unsourced information to players articles. 2-Even if sourced, it is not commom to add info about players agents on players articles unless there is a reason for it. 3-You are edit-warring, and per BRD you should stop and discuss onde reverted. FkpCascais (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@AgronTetova: Please note that Transfermarkt is not a reliable source and should not be included on wikipedia. All content with transfermarkt is to be removed. QED237 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

....I add sources now....--AgronTetova (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not reliable and I don't consider "agent details" relevant. SLBedit (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is not Transfermakrt a source???AgronTetova (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Thats your serbo-amrican POV. Transfermarkt is realibel source.AgronTetova (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you create a list of players managed by that agent in his article? (with reliable sources) SLBedit (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I will do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgronTetova (talk • contribs) 14:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@AgronTetova: I explained why in the edit summaries. Transfermarkt is not reliable as it is user edited (same reason why wikipedia itself is not a reliable source): This has been decided by consensus at reliable source noticeboard and is not something a single user has decided. QED237 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how it is in any way encyclopedic to note in individual players' articles who their agent is. If the agent has an article, listing the players he represents there would be OK (as long as it is cited). For the agent, it is noteworthy who his clients are. For the player, it is not noteworthy who his agent is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Dispute at Relocation of Wimbledon to MK page

Just thought I'd give everybody a heads up that there's dispute at Talk:Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes. A few more opinions might help out as right now we're making little progress. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Other foreign players section on 2014 Indian Super League season page

I started a conversion here on this section in the 2014 Indian Super League season article. Participation would be welcomed. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

help required on Leicester City F.C.

I have noticed people keep adding Zoumana Bakayogo to the first team squad list but the player isn't listed on the clubs own website, can other users please watch out for this as well as getting the article protected as it doesn't look like the user doing so is registered. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 19:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems he should be there. It's all written out, including references, on the player's wikipage. --SuperJew (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

But he isn't listed on the clubs website, people are presuming he kept his previous number but there is no source provided by Leicester City, I'm not saying he's not a Leicester player but he wasn't mentioned when squad numbers were announced. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 19:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So keep him without a number --SuperJew (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That was the case but an unregistered user keeps adding hte number so either way I'd be going past the 3 revert rule thing. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 19:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season

Further help requested here, we have a registered account and an IP (likely the same editor) making near-identical changes, by adding incredibly detailed match reports of every game, full of peacock terms and POV. This was discussed here recently, consensus was to keep it limited to basic facts, as supported by RS, about important games. GiantSnowman 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered a CheckUser request since the edits are of a similar nature no the same article page? LRD NO (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

CUs won't link IP addresses to accounts on privacy grounds, unless the editor is already blocked/banned. GiantSnowman 12:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you all know my point from prevoius discussions and the fact that I reverted the content addition a couple of times. A lot of info could be included in the prose such as goalscorers and notable events like a major injury or red card. However, there is no reason to add information about the coach of the other team and to write it in a POV way saying words like "dominated", "incredible" unless it is very well sourced. The text addded is currently not encyclopedic. 17:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)QED237 (talk)

@GiantSnowman:

• What is considered an important game?
• What is considered basic facts?
• At what point is it considered excessive detail? Kingjeff (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but it was decided at the last discussion that the previous wording was over-the-top and unencyclopedic. Just take a look at the article history and tell me you don't agree... GiantSnowman 19:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Premier League began at home for Arsenal in a London derby at home to Crystal Palace." Who was the home team? In a 38 match Premier League season, how would you pick out an important match? As far as basic details are concerned, I think date, the score, who scored, suspensions, any injury, debuts, where the team is in the standings after the result, and any other notable event in a match. I'm not opposed to having match details for every match. But there has to be some sort of definition of what is basic information. One thing the ip user put in is "following the departure of Tony Pulis, Palace entered the game under the guidance of Keith Millen,..." Why do we need to know the managerial information of the opposing team? This is something I would put into the Crystal Palace club season article, not the Arsenals club season article. Kingjeff (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Spanish last names

What's the consensus on last name for Spanish people? For David de Paula Gallardo, I only see "David de Paula" as the name in sources. Kingjeff (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand from Colombian friends, the second of the surnames is only a formal name, and is rarely used except when spelling out their full name (as we English would do with middle names). De Paula's Soccerbase profile doesn't use his second surname in the main title, nor does the Bilbao profile (which simply has him by the surname De Paula). Number 57 07:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, I would be right to move it to the shorten name? Kingjeff (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

His UEFA and soccerway profiles also list him as David de Paula and Spanish naming convention support that too. If that is what he is commonly known as, there should be no issue moving the article to the typical Spanish short name. LRD NO (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingjeff: I would say yes. Number 57 08:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice article. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Spanish names use allways the first surname in the shorter version name, because the first surname is the paternal one, thus David de Paula Gallardo becomes David de Paula in a shorter version (de Paula is paternal surname, Gallardo maternal). One needs to be carefull and aware that Portuguese naming customs are the opposite of Spaninh, and in Portuguese language countries people have the maternal surname first and paternal last, thus, except rare occasions of personal choice, the last surname is used in a shorter name version. FkpCascais (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute with user Gringoladomenega‎

Hi, first of all I want to say I have reported Gringoladomenega‎ (talk · contribs) to WP:ANEW, which you can read about and comment on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gringoladomenega reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ). I am not trying to forumshop or anything (if you think I am we can just close this thread) but I want comments on the content in the dispute as I am trying to solve this rather then keep on edit warring. I stopped editing and the editor refuses to discuss (he has his version so I guess he hopes I will forget about it) and has not responded to attempts at discussion so need your help to discuss the content.

The main dispute is about squad list at Athletico Madrid article were the source say Antoine Griezmann is forward but he says source is wrong and puts him as MF. Also the source say the name of an other player is Miranda (our wiki article was also named Miranda (footballer) but the editor insist of adding the first name of player to Joao Miranda, which is not what source say. I said in edit summary that it was not what source said and that our article did not have Joao in it so then have moved the article Miranda (footballer) to João Miranda (footballer) to give him right on the athletico article. Claiming it was controversial page move I moved the page back but immediately he moved the page again both a second and third time.

I have as i said stopped and ask for your opinion. Should page be moved without WP:RM or is he allowed to keep moving it even if I said it was controversial? Under what position are we to list Griezmann? And what name to use for Miranda? QED237 (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

re your point about Antoine Griezmann, on his wiki-page he is listed as a Winger, which isn't really clear-cut if it is a midfielder or a forward, so personally I think either way would be okay no? Do we have a consensus on if Wingers are MF or FW? Maybe we should just list them as WI? --SuperJew (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

WI would be even worse. Then hundreds of players would be moved around positions. Just stick to source. Googling "miranda Atlético Madrid" gives plenty of results, half of them use Joao Miranda, so whatever. Both names are fine. -Koppapa (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello friends. First, it became something personal to you Qed237. Incidentally, it is not true that I did not answer him, just to see his talk page. Look at my edits, I'm not a thug. I try to maintain consistency in my edits. Know much Spanish championship. In several seasons at the Royal Society and in the first game with Atletico Madrid, Antoine Griezmann has been a true winger, listed as MF. Many advanced players are listed as forwards, but really, he's a winger. Regarding Miranda, actually many sources cite him as João Miranda (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/joao-miranda-set-manchester-united-3673176) and (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2654243/Manchester-United-target-Miranda-reveals-talks-English-Spanish-clubs.html), so it is common sense that your full name is listed, after all, Miranda is his last name and not his surname. Greetings User:Gringoladomenegatalk 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, wingers have always been listed as 'MF'. GiantSnowman 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not as clear-cut as that, GS. Some "wingers" are actually more like wide forwards (e.g. Cristiano Ronaldo), whereas others are more like wide midfielders (e.g. David Beckham), so I don't think we can lump all "wingers" in the same pot as midfielders. Danny Welbeck, as was brought up in a discussion here in the last couple of weeks, is another one who I don't think any of us would actually describe as a midfielder despite playing quite regularly as a left winger, and although Griezmann doesn't play up top in the same way as Welbeck, I'd put them both in the category of "wide forwards". – PeeJay 20:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

When the official source and his own club list him as a forward, then he is a forward. Why even have that section unless we dont follow the given source, then it is WP:OR and might as well be removed. QED237 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gringoladomenega: You should read the policies and information about moving pages. When controversial, dont move seek conensus and definately not re-move a second and third time when first move was disputed. That is disruptive and edit warring. You must know we should not mave around pages? 'If you speek for a page movbe and others agree on a RM then fine, but do not move when controversial. QED237 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ronaldo is a forward, not a winger. GiantSnowman 19:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CommonName

Just a query about WP:CommonName - limiting this to English football, for now, why are Wikipedia articles titled with the (A.)F.C. suffix? Here are four examples of how they would/could/should be changed accordingly:

• Manchester United F.C. → Manchester United
• Leeds United A.F.C. → Leeds United (at the very least, this should be changed to Leeds United F.C.)
• Newcastle United F.C. → Newcastle United
• West Bromwich Albion F.C. → West Brom (or WBA)
• Queens Park Rangers F.C. - Queens Park Rangers (or QPR)

Apart from Owen Coyle, who ever says "Football Club"? A quick Google search shows the shorter names used far more frequently. We remove the suffix in the articles anyway i.e. [[Derby County F.C.|Derby County]] or [[Hull City A.F.C.|Hull City]]. Even the club badges of those clubs don't have the (A.)F.C. suffix. Obviously it's helpful/necessary for Wiki pages for clubs like Chelsea, Reading, Bury, Blackpool, Arsenal and Burnley, but elsewhere it seems totally pointless. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

[[West Brom (football club)]] (as it would have to be) would be a horrible name for an article. Also, West Bromwich Albion actually gets far more Google News hits than either West Brom or WBA, so in that particular case I think you have the common name wrong............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of WP:CONSISTENCY, I completely disagree with this proposal. It might work for clubs that have suffixes after the city name, e.g. Manchester United, but what about for clubs that are just the name of a place, i.e. Liverpool, Chelsea, Barcelona, Roma, etc.? You'd end up with some clubs using "F.C." (or equivalent) to disambiguate and others using "(football club)" or equivalent. It would look ridiculous. – PeeJay 22:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3:, going from Manchester United F.C. to Manchester United clearly meets four out of the five points from the section linked to WP:CONSISTENCY and you could debate that the fifth point isn't being violated by keeping the F.C. for clubs like Liverpool, Celtic, Rangers, etc. There wouldn't be any issue about how you disambiguate these clubs. You would either go with "Liverpool F.C." or "Liverpool (football club)." Using "Liverpool (football club)" would clearly violate naturalness, precision, and conciseness points of WP:CONSISTENCY. Kingjeff (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA clearly states that consistency is one of the five components of a good article title (specifically that "the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). The AFC/FC suffix is the only way to achieve consistency rather than the mess that would emerge from scrapping their use. Number 57 22:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

We also have WP:OFFICIALNAME. GiantSnowman 10:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Which seems to be suggesting that common names should be preferred to non-ambiguous official names. Hack (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" - which Liverpool F.C. is, as opposed to the awful Liverpool (football club). GiantSnowman 10:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, but the likes of Manchester United and Leeds United are unlikely to mistaken for anything but the football clubs. Hack (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I think we should still keep Liverpool F.C. as "Liverpool F.C." The discussion should be over articles like Manchester United, Newcastle United, Vancouver Whitecaps, Seattle Sounders, Leeds United, etc. Kingjeff (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And what about all the clubs called 'City', it would be quite easy to mix them up with the actual city. Using 'F.C.' or 'A.F.C.' or whatever is consistent, official, and looks better. We are an encyclopedia, after all! GiantSnowman 11:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So, you don't think we should go with WP:CommonName? The article should be linked to the city of the club which should end any confusion. Kingjeff (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 AFC Ajax season

What do FOOTY editors make of the article and similar 'seasonal' pages? Of concern are:

• WP:NOTSTATS - listing selection by nationality, statistics for the 2014–15 season (matches, number of substitutes used, penalties for, penalties against etc.), 2014–15 Team records
• listing pre-season friendlies at the bottom of the page when it would make better sense to list them chronologically, at the top
• unnecessary or redundant icons e.g. green and red arrows under Transfers for 2014–15 when the headers would suffice
• a general lack of referencing, including those for transfer fees and awards (previous seasons, including but not limited to [19][20], [21])

Could someone have a look so that we could bring the articles more in line with the rest of the project and wikipedia policies/guidelines? Opinions are much appreciated. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The article need some cleaning up. Kingjeff (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if an editor could help in any necessary clean-up based on WT:FOOTY consensus since I'll refrain from editing this article owning to a disagreement involving me and anther editor. Much appreciated. cheers. LRD NO (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Do we know of really good Dutch sources for prose? Kingjeff (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

De Telegraaf, the largest Dutch daily and Voetbal International, an established football magazine. Ajax's website is also available in English.[22] cheers LRD NO (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

De Telegraaf and Voetbal International sounds good. I actually prefer not to go with non–independent sources. If there is absolutely no alternative, then I would consider. Kingjeff (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Prose might be a little bit harder for the non-Dutch editor but Google Translate is a reasonable tool. Stats-wise, I don't see how, for instance, knowing the number of substitutions made in a season or player selection by nationality is anything more than mindless numbers. LRD NO (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would never copy and paste something from Google Translate. As far as the stats, I would use my match info table to combine the match templates with "total points by match day," "standings by matchday," and replace "goals by matchday" with an accumulated goal difference and of course this would also go in the matchday table. The colour codes that go with the match template and my table should indicate how many points they get. Therefore, "points by match day" section isn't needed. So, the article is trimmed down a bit there. 2014–15 "Selection by Nationality" section isn't needed. "Statistics for the 2014–15 season" and "2014–15 Team records" are overkill sections. We don't need a "Top goalscorers" section. The first template in the article should show the same thing in the "Placements" section. Do we really need the arrows in the transfer section? The title of "arrivals" and "departures" should indicate the exact same thing as the arrows. There are no references in the reference section. So, that is another issue. Kingjeff (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with your evaluation there. Topscorers would be covered by the player stats section, with perhaps a wikitable sortable and limited to competitive matches. There's quite a bit of work that needs to be done. LRD NO (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Season article First Team Section

I have been trying to add 'signed in', 'signed from', 'appearances' and 'goals' in the 'first team' section of '2014-15 Liverpool F.C. season'. But I have been told that there has been consensus on not adding these things. If you see the '2014-15 Chelsea F.C season' and some other club season articles, you will find these details. If these details are there on those pages, there is nothing wrong in adding these details on Liverpool page either. Plus, all these details are relevant and pretty much summarize every player in first team. I am trying to develop a consensus that these details should be there on the page. Ahkk88 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I responded to the liverpool article talkpage. In general it is that so muxh detailed info about the player can be read on the player article itself and has no reason to be on the liverpool season article. Why is it important/notable to list where a player came from 7 years ago on a article about this season. Signings related to this season of cource have a section for that. QED237 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The players are playing this season. It is perfectly fine to have some information about them. Just like where a player was born 30 years ago, where a player came from 7 years ago is also important information about that player. Similarly, their total appearances and goals for club are not irrelevant either. Anyways, you are the one reverting the edits, so I am looking for replies from other people. Ahkk88 (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that on Talk:2014–15 Liverpool F.C. season I provided link to prevoius discussion were several editors agreed. QED237 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That discussion started with informations like 'contract length','town of birth' etc, which I agree, are irrelevant and excessive. The details I am adding are not irrelevant or extra. And I repeat, they do exist on many other pages. So, I would like to see everybody's views on it once again. Ahkk88 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.45.212.134 (talk)

A player's place of birth is not relevant to an article on their current team's current season and should not be included -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see what the discussion is about. It's not about place of birth. It's about 'signed from', 'signed in', 'appearances' and 'goals'. Waiting for more sensible replies. Ahkk88 (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The player's place of birth is not relevant, as Chris has said, and neither is the club they signed from, when they signed, or the number of appearances made or goals scored. It doesn't relate to the current season at all, so why include it. The only relevant info is the number of appearances and goals scored in each competition that season, along with the player's position, squad number and nationality. – PeeJay 11:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There should be consistency in all articles of this type. These stats were there in Chelsea's page and as I said, they give all the necessary information about the first team players that are a part of the squad. As a Liverpool fan, I'd like to see that in Liverpool's page too. If that is irrelevant, then get it removed from all pages or otherwise, let me add it to LFC page too. There is no harm in having all this info. (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"There is no harm" is a very dangerous phrase here. When it comes down to it, there's no harm in adding all sorts of info to an article, but we have to be in the business of editing, not just adding content, and that means cutting out the crap. If we simply allow all info that "does no harm" to be added to articles, they will be full of info that is only of interest to a very niche group of people. – PeeJay 17:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no harm in having caps and goals in there. The world cup squad lists have those too. Also how long a players is at the club is at least as interesting (to the media) as his squad number. -Koppapa (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding appearances and goals, not only does it violate WP:NOTSTATS, it is very likely the info would be out-of-date and/or incorrect. Do you include cup and European games or just league? How does it relate to the current season? Wholly irrelevant. GiantSnowman 16:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is of interest to a lot of people. And it is not irrelevant. It is giving you information about those who are playing this season. It's a brief intro to every player. And it includes all appearances and goals. It can be kept updated. It used to be on season articles a couple of seasons back and I always kept it updated. And as I said, while looking at Chelsea's page, it gave me a good, relevant and interesting information about those who ARE playing this season. So I would like to see this information added on Liverpool page. And I myself will keep it updated. Ahkk88(talk) 18:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Interesting" and "encyclopedic" do not always go hand-in-hand. This is not a fan site; if you want one, head to Wikia. GiantSnowman 18:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is encyclopedic. As many others would agree. As I said, it is there on Chelsea's page. If it should not exist, get it removed from there. If it is there, let me add it to LFC page, And I repeat, it is informative and relevant. You seemed to have ignored these words before.Ahkk88(talk) 19:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahkk88 you are not seeing the point, where the players came from and how many times they have scored or played in total is not relevant to this season. It has no bearing on the current season, it may be informative but it is cruft in relation to the article. Murry1975 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because other articles are wrong does not mean every article should be wrong. GiantSnowman 20:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, even player's nationality and date of birth are not relevant to this season. Just as nationality and date of birth tell us briefly about the players, so do the appearances and goals. Also your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant here. It says nothing about not maintaining consistency. Also, you are considering these stats wrong, when in fact, they aren't. Ahkk88(talk) 21:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying "in fact", but who decides that it is a fact that those stats are right? Sounds like you are in a minority of people who think that. And no, date of birth is not relevant. – PeeJay 21:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So if date of birth is not relevant, then why is it there? Ahkk88(talk) 07:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

F.C. or A.F.C. in team names

Is there a consensus, that someone can point to, on using F.C. or A.F.C. in team names for British teams? I was looking for something to quote for the Leeds United A.F.C. move request that wants to move the article to just Leeds United. Keith D (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Go above to the "WP:CommonName" section. It is being discussed there. Kingjeff (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) makes it clear that official names should be used. Number 57 08:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the page. I was mentioning the section above where there is a discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding to Keith's original question. Number 57 09:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I completely missed the talk of this above. Looks like the move discussion may have come from there. Keith D (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)