Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91

Archive 85

←

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

→

Archive 95

Implementation of Lua-module for table building

As many of you know we have been working on creating a Lua-module to generate both the league and group tables throughout the football project. After previous feedback rounds, involving several users including @Reckless182, Struway2, Jkudlick, Qed237, Equineducklings, Keith D, Number 57, and Koppapa: and probably some people I'm forgetting, Module:Sports table is ready to go live! Example of it's use can be seen at Template:2014–15 Eredivisie table, 2014–15 Eerste Divisie, 2014–15 BeNe League, 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup and 2015 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualifying round. The new module format is fully MOS-compliant, whereas the old template formats are not. Because the Module is ready to be implemented, I would like to form consensus to do this. CRwikiCA talk 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Implementation proposal

Both league and group tables should be created with Module:Sports table. The old template structure will stay in existence (because of it's use on old articles), but is depreciated and can be labelled as such.

• Support as proposer. CRwikiCA talk 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Commonality and consistency throughout the project are a must, and this module achieves that. -- Jkudlick (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support It is now ready and should be implemented across wikipedia. Old tables may stay in old format but current tables should be changed and new tables should be module format. QED237 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Easy to implement and edit. Equineducklings (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to add that if I was comparing this new format with the fb cl format, I would have to think more about it before deciding. I always found that format much easier than fb cl2. Since fb cl2 has become the standard, it's an easy choice for me to support this module. I feel like I can edit it much faster than fb cl2, especially with larger tables (for example, league seasons). That being said, I am much more interested in uniformity across WP:FOOTY than I am in any particular format or style. Equineducklings (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Easy for everyone to both implement and use, more understandable for new or inexperienced users.--Reckless182 (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Smartskaft (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

If head-to-head results are included in the table in case of tiebreakers, they should be included using the |hth_TTT= parameter(s).

• Support as proposer. CRwikiCA talk 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I will have to read the documentation and play with it in my sandbox before giving a !vote. -- Jkudlick (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Having seen the implementation and played with it in my sandbox, I feel this is a good idea. It reduces the clutter in the table while still noting why two teams with otherwise identical stats are ranked the way they are. -- Jkudlick (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support I was thinking about this and we have had separate coplumn before but then table gets to wide (especially when group stage table should be displayed together with fixtures) so I am happy with current solution to use hth parameter and showing it as footnote. Perhaps it should be a separate footnote and not together with the other notes though. QED237 (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Using footnotes is a much better system than disrupting the table itself.--Reckless182 (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Question - Should that note be in position column or points column? Currently I believe it is in points column but head-to-head does not affect the points of the team but it affects the team position. Not sure what is best myself, but it might be worth thinking about. I ping those who already answered this section @CRwikiCA:, @Jkudlick:, @Reckless182:. QED237 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, technically it doesn't matter which column it would be in, switching it to the position column would be easy. I am a bit torn which position would be "better" for it. CRwikiCA talk 17:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Right now, because the font in the points column is bold, the eyes are more drawn there. I think it's fine where it is, but I'm also not opposed to moving it to the Place column. -- JKudlick ^tc_s 19:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer it to be in the points column, simply because that would be the first place I would look as a reader.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Smartskaft (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Status letters

Status letters (the bold letters indicating, qualification, relegation) should not be removed once the season is over. CRwikiCA talk 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. CRwikiCA talk 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support with suggestion Agreed the status should not be removed, suggest either adding a status letter for tournament hosts or amending (H) to include tournament hosts. -- Jkudlick (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What about just changing it to "host" rather than either tournament or group host? CRwikiCA talk 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with that. -- Jkudlick (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I made that change. CRwikiCA talk 18:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why we need to list host at all to be honest, it has not been done in tournaments before (only in some qualification stages for younger "junior" teams where thay played all matches on one place). If it should be used I guess it chould be only "Hosts" but I am not sure if it is really needed. QED237 (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In which cases the label host is needed is a bit of a different discussion. I am fine with merely using it when every group has a different host, although using it in general wouldn't hurt either. CRwikiCA talk 15:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support I see no good reason to remove them, they are informative so I believe they can stay. QED237 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral I have a question about using E. Should elimination be indicated in league tables, or only in tournaments? Equineducklings (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: I would say only tournaments, when teams will not advance to further rounds. In league tables it is relegated instead. In some tournaments (at least in other sports), teams can be relegated from tournaments as well and then it should be R for relegated in those tournaments (for example in icehockey last two teams in world cup is relegated to World cup B for next season). QED237 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a few leagues where there is only promotion or advancement to the next stage with no relegation. However, the number of leagues with no relegation is small, so I agree it's probably best to be consistent across all leagues and not indicate elimination. Equineducklings (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The football leagues in North America (MLS, NASL, etc.) are amongst those without promotion/relegation - the very concept is perceived as "un-American" by many sports enthusiasts here. The E in this case would be used to indicate elimination from postseason/championship contention. I do agree with other comments that after the season or group rounds, some status letters (such as E and A) can be removed, as the final status is clearly shown by the background colors. -- Jkudlick (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral Sometimes decisions about Relegation, Promotion, Championship are reverted through disqualification or by decisions by local administration. Flexibility is must IMO. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course the table should always indicate the latest status, i.e. if #15 is disqualified and relegated and #16 is saved from relegation that way, then that should be indicated in the table. CRwikiCA talk 15:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed for tournaments It looks ugly and unnecessary. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Vicodine: How about using the letters only during the group stage, then removing them once the group stage is complete since the results are made clear by the background colors being used? See {{2015 FIFA Women's World Cup Group A table}} as an example of the colors. -- Jkudlick (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be OK. Because, this on 2015 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualifying round looks ridiculous. It's pretty clear who advances (where) and who is eliminated. Before, there was a legend explaining that on top of every article. Now these tables also go too much in width. If you ask me, I would also throw out this Qualification column. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Vicodine:You make sense, I changed it if you want to look. I thought about removing the H's too. I decided to wait for more consensus, because some still think it's helpful to have that when each group is hosted by a different country (it's obviously not needed when the entire tournament is hosted by the same country). Equineducklings (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm in support of keeping C for champion, O for play-off winner, P for promoted and R for relegated at the end of a league season. But I see no reason to display statuses such as Q for when teams are qualified for European competition or likewise, it just makes the table more messy and harder to read. I'm opposed to keeping any statuses (both Q for qualified and H for hosts) when it comes to tournaments and smaller group tables. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Reckless182: Do you support the status during the season/group play? CRwikiCA talk 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes! --Reckless182 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Don't see the point of them when what happened is explained in the final column. Number 57 16:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Partial tables

When a template is used for a table, partial tables should be used on team season articles when the table includes more than eight teams. The partial table should in principle include 5 teams.

• Support as proposer. CRwikiCA talk 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Helps reduce clutter. -- Jkudlick (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support We have discussed this before and for a team placed on 17th place there is no need to show who is 5th on the article for the 17th place, five teams with two above, main team, and two below (in general) is the best. In group stages with few teams like 6 or seven all teams can be shown. QED237 (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm torn on this one. I suppose it helps reducing clutter when it comes to league tables with 20 teams and more. But when it comes to leagues with 16 teams or less I see no point as there isn't clutter to reduce anyway. I would definitely not want to reduce group tables or league tables with anything less than 14 teams.--Reckless182 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the biggest purpose of reducing the size of the tables would be for the purpose of individual team pages. For example, does Man U or Man City really need to have the whole BPL table in their article, or just the portion immediately surrounding themselves? Obviously, the whole table will appear on the league season article. -- Jkudlick (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes I'm aware of that. I still think it is a bit unnecessary to reduce the league table even on club season articles when the number of teams in the league aren't that many. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Smartskaft (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Just one comment re the wording for relegation - for example on the {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}} - I'd rather see "Relegated to the Eerste Divisie" rather than just "2015–16 Eerste Divisie." By itself, I think the latter is not entirely comprehensible for someone unfamiliar with league tables. This doesn't require any coding changes (anything can be input), but it's more getting agreement on the form of wording used on that line Number 57 17:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This makes sense. -- Jkudlick (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Also for promotion make it "Promoted to the xxx". CRwikiCA talk 17:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC) QED makes some good points, I withdraw my support pending the discussion. CRwikiCA talk 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, promoted and relegated are rather final wordings and i wouldn't expect that in a ongoing table. Promotion and relegation are better, not? -Koppapa (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point there, we should probably use promotion and relegation instead of promoted and relegated. CRwikiCA talk 20:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jkudlick:, @CRwikiCA:, @Number 57:, @Koppapa: See earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#League table, qualification and relegation were this was discussed. The table gets very wide with "Qualification to 2015-16 UEFA Champions League second qualifying round" in that column which is one of the possibilities. QED237 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And in my opinion we should have the same for qualification and relegation. Also the letters say "(R) relegated" in information (after someone is relegated but not during season) so is the text in the column needed? QED237 (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think in the case of relegation it is. Qualifying for Europe and being promoted or relegated are quite separate issues. Number 57 08:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

All of us have been editing these articles for a long enough time to not know what would be clearest to someone seeing them for the first time. What level of prior knowledge and/or common sense should we assume? The header already states promotion/qualification/relegation, does this need to be repeated or is a link to the relevant article sufficient. After the season is over the letters P, Q and R indicate this status, so at that point the additional text is not needed. That leaves us with the question what happens during the season. WP:EASTEREGG discourages piping promotion/relegation as text pointing to the league (season), so that's not a viable alternative. In my logic this leaves two options:

1. Don't use "relegated/promoted to (the)" text at all.
2. Use the text during the season and remove it after the season is over because of duplication.

I personally tend to think now that adding the text would not make things a lot clearer, especially because at the end of the season, once promotion/relegation is final it is indicated already. What clarity would including "promotion/relegation to (the)" exactly add? CRwikiCA talk 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It adds meaning to an otherwise context-less link – it is not explained anywhere what the red colour refers to (and I would strongly discourage having a key in favour of this simple addition). I think the words "Promoted" and "Relegated" should be there both during and after the season, and I also disagree with the easter egg comment – it's hiding a disambiguator, so not a problem. Number 57 16:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: With your comment about the piping, would you mean for example in the eredivisie table to use "Relegation" rather than the full "Relegated to the 2015–16 Eerste Divisie"? CRwikiCA talk 17:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I meant "Relegated to the Eerste Divisie" as I stated in my original comment above (the season article is piped). Number 57 17:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay I was reading to quick then... That would clarify the relegation/promotion while not being too much wider, because the year is suppressed. Come to think of it, we don't need the years for the qualification either as per the previous discussion, we could just pipe it while omitting the years. Then again, based on the previous discussion, why would we not include qualification to XX as well. We can omit the confederation and have that "hidden" in the pipe as well, because that is kind of a given too. So have "Relegated to the Eerste Divisie" and "Qualification to Champions League group stage", etc.. I implemented this for {{2014–15 Eredivisie table/sandbox}}, which has the exact same width (coincidentally) as {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}}. CRwikiCA talk 17:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that's an ideal solution - well done! Although it should be "Qualification for" not "Qualification to". Number 57 18:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: @Number 57: I do not agree that we should not show the years, they should definately be shown. As someone said in earlier discussions we have had, for some leagues for exampl 2014 Allsvenskan it is not obvious if it is qualification to 2014/15 CL or 2015/16 CL, could be first alternative and that should definately not be hidden. QED237 (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

From the point of view of the national league, does it really matter for which year's edition of the tournament the team qualifies? The Allsvenskan ends in December, whereas the European competitions start in the summer, so I do not really see the ambiguity there. CRwikiCA talk 21:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it is same argument as someone has udes earlier, can we assume reader of the table knows allsvenskan ends in november and CL is in the summer? I think not. Just looking at a table that is not obvious to readers so I believe years should be shown. QED237 (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the year needs to be shown. I think it's quite clear that whatever is being qualified for (promotion/relegation/Europe) would be the following season. Number 57 22:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: It may be obvious if you have a 2014-15 season to join CL in 2015-16 (next season) but not when it is a 2014 season, like allsvenskan, then "next season CL" might as well be a continuation to current season 2014-15. I do not think is is clear. QED237 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

But as CRwikiCA points out, summer seasons like the Allsvenskan end after the European competitions start, so the qualification has to be for the following season. Number 57 22:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And as I said, is that obvious to a reader looking at the table? They dont know when season ends and start by looking at the table. Same as they may not know that last team is relegated just by looking at the table. QED237 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely it's logical to anyone looking at a table that the qualification/relegation/whatever happens at the end of the season? Number 57 22:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Just looking at the table the season could end in September and CL start in October or something, a reader could easily say "after 2014 season we play CL over the winter 2014-15 after our season" if this is not clearly stated. It is as said before by others, we can not judge what other thinks, we have to be clear. A reader looking at the table dont know what month qualification is or when season ends. Is is clear that a team in a 2014 season play CL 1,5 years after their season (2015-16) or can they think it is 0,5 years after (2014-15)? We cant know that. QED237 (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Readers can simply to click on the link. If you insist it's necessary, how about a compromise where the year is included in summer season tables (where you think confusion could arise), but not in winter season ones? Number 57 23:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It might not be clear for the summer leagues, when people don't know the European seasons. But is this relevant? For those people does it really matter which edition of the tournament a team qualifies, because the start date and tournament details would only be available from the tournament season page. In effect, adding the year would indicate the European season would not start in December right after the last game, but it does not in any way mean that it starts the next summer, people could still see it to start in January. I would not object per se as to include the year, but I am not convinced that including the year provides the information about the start date of the tournament. Either people know it's summer to spring, so it will be the edition of the next season; or people don't know and probably don't care about learning the start date from the league table, because they can click through to the actual CL or EL article. CRwikiCA talk 15:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Number57's compromise would work for me as well by the way. CRwikiCA talk 15:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this from the outside as I'm still relatively new to being an active editor, but I agree that is a good compromise. -- Jkudlick (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: Would only including years when it is possible to have ambiguity work for you? CRwikiCA talk 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@CRwikiCA: I do not totally agree but since no other editor has answered and if that is consensus I can live with it. Are we sure we should no show UEFA? Is it "Qualification for Champions League group stage" and "relegetaion to league Z" or what is the consensus?. QED237 (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're correct in assessing what it is. I don't see the need for "UEFA" (it's kind of inferred by the fact that it's a European league). Number 57 22:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions

• For res_col_header= can you also have Comments as per 2014–15 Ukrainian First League ? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: Yes, see example:

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Comments
1	FIFA World Cup Dream Team	5	5	0	0	10	0	+10	15	New

Updated to match(es) played on unknown. Source:

It is fully customizable. CRwikiCA talk 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

In this case you could also indicate that they are new with a footnote though and use the column for promotion/relegation. CRwikiCA talk 15:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The customization is very worth while. Looking forward to this conversion effort. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

How would this look in the new format? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• It would look like this. The fixtures table would be built in the same way it is already built.

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Denmark	10	8	2	0	37	9	+28	26	Play-offs
2	Russia	10	7	1	2	22	12	+10	22
3	Slovenia	10	5	2	3	29	11	+18	17
4	Bulgaria	10	2	3	5	18	26	−8	9
5	Estonia	10	2	3	5	9	23	−14	9
6	Andorra	10	0	1	9	1	35	−34	1

Source: UEFA
Rules for classification: 1) Head-to-head points; 2) Head-to-head goal differential; 3) Head-to-head total goals; 4) Away goals rule; 5) Reapply 1-4 to teams still tied; 6) Reapply 1-4 using all group matches; 7) Position in group draw
Notes:

-- Jkudlick (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I meant the entire template. Is the second part fully MOS compliant? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixtures should go in a separate template. Gets too complicated else i think. -Koppapa (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They are presently built separately, but a single template to include both may be possible. It would, however, be very complicated. -- JKudlick ^tc_s 11:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be relatively straightforward to include both the table and the fixtures list as is done now already. The fixtures list, as implemented now, is not MOS compliant. It would be possible to extend the Module to include fixtures as well. I would be willing to give implementation a try if people think it would be worthwhile to include. (My idea would be to have it ordered in order of the standings and not repeat the team names on the left of the fixture table. Or do you guys think it should be repeated there?) CRwikiCA talk 15:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea of adding fixtures tables to the module, but I suggest adding a positive |fixtures=yes, y, true, t, 1 parameter to the template call like we did for |only_pld_pts=. It could become unwieldy for large groups or leagues (e.g. Premier League), and in some cases is not feasible to demonstrate (e.g. Major League Soccer). -- JKudlick ^tc_s 19:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Vicodine, Jkudlick, Qed237, and Koppapa: I gave the matter some though and I implemented Module:Sports results as a MOS-compliant module to easily build a results table (sorry I haven't had time yet to write the documentation). I wrote it in such a way that it would be easy to call from other modules, so I extended Module:Sports table to be able to align this match table with the actual table (again documentation will follow later). I was able to do this in such a way that it automatically sorts the teams based on the standings (so it is easier to look up) for group A of the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifications as

See Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group A/sandbox for a complete list of how the various parts can be displayed/hidden. All this functionality follows automatically from the Module, so it would be easy for novice users to set up. Of course the design of the fixture overview can be changed a bit if you guys see any improvements. CRwikiCA talk 19:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Have I ever told you that you rock? That is amazingly fast turn-around, and excellent work. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is there an implementation date set for this? Or do we just start moving forward? I know there are a varied amount of competitions and styles to encompass but a strategy of implementation should be presented as well. Will there be selected articles that are selected for trial or test ? I'm looking for direction for a project wide plans. In my case I have to modify software that creates the current tables so I'm looking for a timeline. Of course I can play in the sandbox and thats where I'll start. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

One could probably test the waters with a few highly visited articles. Like the current Champions League . -Koppapa (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: @Brudder Andrusha: I has already been tested and implemented at several pages for testing to see if other editors (not the one who greated table) was able to update it correctly. For example at (and more pages)

1. 2014–15 Gibraltar Premier Division
2. 2014–15 Gibraltar Second Division
3. 2014–15 Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio
4. 2015 UEFA European Under-17 Championship qualifying round
5. 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup (templates on page)
6. 2015 FIFA U-20 World Cup (ranking of third placed teams)
7. Template:2014–15 Eredivisie table
8. 2014–15 BeNe League
9. 2014–15 Serie B

This has worked well on the pages I watched (did not watch all) and a few even implemented it on other articles they edited. I was planning to do english league tables soon (this week perhaps) as there seems to be consensus above and i was told to go ahead with implementation at my talkpage. Maybe english leagues and Champions league is a good next step before implementing on other places but it is almost time to do it everywhere. QED237 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

meant to respond to @Koppapa: the second ping. QED237 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I like it. No problems updating it, although in leagues a basically never do during season. -Koppapa (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good news. I will start with 2014–15 Ukrainian Second League since that is on winter recess now. First league has also just begun its recess. The Premier League will be in a couple of weeks and when editing will settle down. I'll provide feedback as I go along. Well done! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Implementation would obviously take some time as there are many tables to be converted (there are hundreds if not thousands for the current season). Obviously having some more high profile tables switched over would help get the word out so to say. If you encounter any issues with conversions, then let me know as well. CRwikiCA talk 15:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Qed237 typed his response as I was adding the tables to the rest of the 2015 FIFA U-20 World Cup group stage section. If tables for current seasons can be converted to the module without being overly disruptive, I think we should change them. Tables for all future seasons and tournaments should use the module going forward. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I tried to use the table here, but somehow it still doesnt sort properly. Can anyone take a look and see what I did wrong? Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@MbahGondrong: Sorted it for you and left a note in the edit summary. Hope it helps. --SuperJew (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• @CRwikiCA: Would it be possible to make classification rules (and possibly the source reference if there's a consensus for that) truncate-able? Tie-breaking conditions go together with the points expansion at the moment, but on the main page of UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Groups we'd want to see the full main table, but showing the tiebreaker conditions (and source, but that is more important) after each group gets repetitive. -- Lejman (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You could create a subsection with classification rules or tiebreaker procedures, then wikilink to it. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I just woke up and initially misunderstood the question. You're asking if there can be a |show_source=false and |show_class=false. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lejman, Jkudlick, and Qed237:, it would be possible to hide specific parts of the footer yes. Parts that go into the footer are the update date, source, classification rules, status letters and notes. I think update date and source are highly important and should be kept for sure, notes are of interest there as well. The status letters might be useful as well under the individual tables. The qualification rules don't need to be repeated on the page that lists them. Do more people agree with the need to include an option to hide the classification rules? (I would just create an option to set |only_pld_pts=no_hide_class_rules or something if this is the only item that should be hidden individually.) CRwikiCA talk 15:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur that the source and update dates are important, and that various notes, e.g. |hth_XXX=, are also important to keep. I presume that |only_pld_pts=no_hide_class_rules would show the whole table but hide class rules, correct? If so, then I have no issues with that being an option. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The source are different for different tables (group A have different UEFA link than group B) so source should in my opinion stay, as well as the date that can also differ from table to table. I dont have any problem with keeping the classification rules either, but if people dont want it then they can be removed. However that should only be removed were multiple tables are showed and not on the articles for the individual teams where only one table is shown. I quess this solution when you call template from qualifying article that is when you set the parameter just on that page? Then it is fine by me. QED237 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

But after thinking some more I think a new parameter would almost be better. QED237 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As you've stated the source varies from group to group, which was why I was less keen to remove it. Evidently there's not a consensus to truncate that. For the classification rules I too only suggest we truncate them on pages where there are multiple groups shown. In the case of UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying, the link to that page's classification rules could be shown just after the legend at the beginning of the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Groups section. -- Lejman (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Although the update date and the source should be used I think the date wording is awkward. I prefer to use {{updated|xx November 20xx}} at the top of the section while the season is in progress. The italics and size of font is more appropriate than the small font. Also the positioning at the top is important at least for League Season article which are edited over a longer period and also more frequently during the course of a season. To avoid having the date displayed I have used |update=complete and it works well. I agree that source is an important parameter and without the {{cite needed}} is appropriate. The only possible issue with "Source:" is the size of the leading font which is different from the original templates. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: One of the comments during development was that the footer was too small for people with non-perfect vision. So the footer is now the same size as reference lists, which can be customized by every user in their settings and defaults to 90%. The module allows enough customization for people to adjust the use on individual articles as needed. I will work on an option to suppress the classification rules for pages which list all groups. CRwikiCA talk 15:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lejman, Jkudlick, and Qed237: The option to hide classification rules on an overview page has been implemented. CRwikiCA talk 21:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd also hide update date and source too, optional of course. The uefa cl, el and euro articles are update too the minute the matches finish anyway, thus the date is not needed to be used x times per page. And also for uefa cl and el, the source actually differs from the tables here in wikipedia, as wikipedia uses head to head in the group stage, while uefa doesn't. -Koppapa (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Koppapa: I don't think hiding the source is a good idea; having it ranked differently on Wikipedia is a different thing and a bit of a different discussion. Not all group tables would necessarily be updated at the same time, even if the matches themselves are played at the same time. For that reason I would not suggest suppressing the update date. CRwikiCA talk 16:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary

The discussion has been open for two weeks and I think that all points have been made and I think we can conclude the following.

1. Module:Sports table can be implemented and is preferred for football tables, the old template structure is depreciated but will remain in existance for past season articles.
2. Module:Sports table can be implemented as is, including the head-to-head notes in the points column.
3. Status letters should be used during the season when applicable. Once the season is over " (A) Advances to a further round; (E) Eliminated; (Q) Qualified to the phase indicated; and (T) Qualified, but not yet to the particular phase indicated " status letters should be removed.
4. When a template is used for a table, partial tables should be used on team season articles when the table includes more than eight teams. The partial table should in principle include 5 teams.
5. When the season results (qualification/promotion/relegation) have more than one option, it should include "Qualification/Promotion/Relegation to (the)" in the rows. The season text can omit year, (con)federation, age group and gender in the text, unless doing so would create ambiguity; the wikilink should however point to the right season to which the team is qualified/promoted/relegated.

CRwikiCA talk 17:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Implementation

The question of implementing the Module has been brought up by several people. I will start with converting the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying. Should we create an overview page somewhere, where we can keep track of what is converted? CRwikiCA talk 17:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think an overview page to keep track of progress is a good idea. At the very least, it doesn't hurt. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably the Project page for League seasons would be a start, although I some folks might want to go to the talk page of Module itself. I think we are in need so you can get feedback on how the conversion process is going and what deployers would like in the future. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I added an overview at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season/Table conversion for people that want to contribute. I don't know what the best way is to recruit deployers, but that page would be a good start I think. I will ping some people, that indicated they wanted to do some conversion on that talk page. CRwikiCA talk 20:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I've implemented the module in New Zealand's current season since it was in a hardcoded table and extremely annoying to update. Thanks! --SuperJew (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Where should I post these PDF's

Argentina is in the process of changing their football system. I found a couple of Spanish-language PDF's (1 & 2) that explain what they are doing next year and over the the next couple of years. Normally I would post the information on the appropriate talk page, but these PDF's will be relevant to many articles. My questions is should I : 1) post it on all the talk pages; 2) post somewhere else I don't know about; 3) wait until it's closer to the next season to see if the information is in use and the PDF's are not needed; 4) something else? thanks. Equineducklings (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I would imagine Talk:Argentine football league system is probably the best place? Number 57 12:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I will try there. The first place I looked was the Argentine football task force until I saw that the talk page had not been used in years. I didn't think I could reach many editors there. Equineducklings (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We used to have an excellent editor who wrote about Argentine football (King of the North East), but sadly he stopped editing last year. You might want to leave a note on his talk page in case he still looks at it when he receives a notification e-mail. Number 57 18:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Football League championship trophy image

Following a business visit to Leicester City's ground, I've uploaded Image:FootballLeagueChampionshiptrophy.jpg, if anyone wants to add it to appropriate articles. Out of instance, does anyone know if the trophy has been used since the league began in 1888, or was it introduced later? I can't find anything online to tell me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Mršić

Can some admin please see this article. I cant see any valid source for him passing notability. With Partizan he only played 2 friendly games, and I cant see his games at NASL. Not sure who (I think its his son/grand-son) is playing smartass by adding a bunch of old newspaper articles impossible to check in order to add so much data. Each time I fix him zero league appearances with Partizan, he goes and reverts. Clear IDONTHEARYOU case. I am fed up, maybe deletion is the best. FkpCascais (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Are you sure that you've got the right article? No one other than you has edited that article since July, and if [1] is reliable, then he has verifiably played in the NASL, and he also appears to have played games for teams in the Yugoslav top flight other than Partizan. Really can't see what your complaint is, nor how he isn't notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You cant see? Really? Then add a source for him which confirm even one appearance either in Yugoslav First League or NASL. FkpCascais (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, see edit history. Yes, I reverted in July his fake 2 league appearances for Partizan, a revert I already had to do a couple of times because some IP user plays he doesn't understand that we add only league appearances at infobox. Now, the entire list of newspaper articles he listed give me all the reasons to mistrust as he already cheats stats with Partizan, why wouldn't he do the same with other clubs by adding old newspaper articles not able for us to confirm it.
  • So, we have only 2 sources: Partizan stats from Partizan official website (link), which say he played zero games in league and just 2 friendly matches, and NASL site which doesn't say any appearances (link). FkpCascais (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I can see the edit history. Obviously, otherwise I wouldn't know that you were the only one who had edited it since July. I don't care about the Partizan appearances at all; they're frankly irrelevant. I will apologize for the NASL bit; I got the squad number and number of appearances mixed up, which was a pretty stupid error. However, there IS a source in the article that appears to point to him having played for Olimpija Ljubljana, and, although I obviously do not speak the language, and it is an offline source, that would probably help him pass NFOOTBALL straight off the bat. It isn't going to be easy to find any online sources for a Cold War-era player who spent most of his professional career in Yugoslavia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yugoslavia was not "cold-war" country -_- ...
• Now that I went deeper, I found a Mršić player (with uncertain name) who played for Spartak Subotica and Pelister in those seasons, both in Yugoslav Second League and with numer of matches/goals far lower that he claimed in the article (link). The season he allegedly played for Borac Banja Luka, Borac was playing in Second League, and there is no mention of him in that season ([2]). Proleter Teslić and Sloga Doboj never in their history played in the First League. Slavija Osijek only played in First League before WWII way earlier Mrsic claims to have played there. Jedinstvo Bihać also didn't played in the First League those seasons. Radnički Kragujevac was indeed playing in first League in the season he claims he played there, but there is no mention of him among apperances (see here). So we are only left with one possibility, Olimpija Ljubljana, which actually played in the first League in 1969/70, let me confirm if he has any appearance for them in that season. FkpCascais (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• I guess he also thought just like you, that the stats would be impossible to find and confirm, and he cheated his career :) FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I said Cold War ERA, not Cold War country. Unlike you, I am following the principle of WP:AGF, and I am also restricted to English-language sources, or looking at what is in the article - and there is indeed a source present that would appear to indicate that this player did play for Olimpija Ljubljana. Also, it seems like a lot of sources simply don't have appearance data, rather than explicitly saying that he didn't play at all (notably that NASL source), which is part of the reason why AGF is still valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is nice to AGF, but unfortunately this player has no appearances in the Yugoslav First League neither at NASL that can be confirmed. I looked at many of the match reports of Olimpija Ljubljana from that season and none mentions him. We are only left with a slim chance he made a few appearances in less important games for Olimpija that season, but even that is doubtfull. You claim that there is indeed a source for Olimpija Ljubljana, can you tell me please which one? This one? "Sovic, Miodrag ."Kk Ljubljana Igra Protiv Sibenik do a I Pobidju 3–1 List a Strelac Mrsic" Its about basketball!!! This guy is a clear cheater. I allways assume good fate and try to improve articles, but this one is impossible because there seems to be no sources, and because someone often puts fake sources and stats which are proliferated further in the web. We have stardards here on en.wiki which simply serve to prevent fake promotional biographies such as this one to exist, and this is a good case where we should apply them. FkpCascais (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• If the source is about basketball, then fine, you do have a case; you can't expect me to know that source was about basketball, as I don't speak that language! I wouldn't claim this guy is a "clear cheater", and you are toeing the line of BLP with some of your comments; it does appear that the article does have misinformation though, based on what you've found. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I allways do my best specially with less known players and I really enjoy completing their careers. However I do have a problem with people using Wikipedia in order to promote fake stats. Someone wanted to make this article look like if Mrsic was a standard Yugoslav First League player however, after digging a bit, seems that he was not even a second league standard player. Unfortunately that is not unusual when people move to some other country and then start talking how they were big shots back in their own country hoping no one will confirm and bother cheking it out. The newspaper article many have titles which leave doubts they are real, and the one about KK Ljubljana, well, KK Ljubljana is a basket team o.O Jugoslovenski Sportski Jurnal never existed, maybe he was thinking about Sportski žurnal which was founded in 1990, 24 years later lol! Not to mention that the Serbo-Croatian titles of alleged articles are grammatically deeply incorrect (even worste than Tarzan talking English). So those article titles are fake, the stats were fake, and all you can help is trying to see if he had any appearances at NASL. Otherwise don't come disturbing my post here by defending a promotional BLP if you are not getting the point here. I don't intend to be rude, but this is the trouth. Assume good faith towards senior editors first ;) FkpCascais (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I find the latter part of that comment to be deeply inappropriate. You initially made a comment without any supporting evidence whatsoever, and that on the face of it, seemed to be totally invalid. Accusing people who try to get to the bottom of what is actually going on to be "disturbing your post" is out of line, and particularly when you have made some comments that, due to the lack of evidence you had presented at that point, were borderline BLP violations. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• You were on the moon asking me if I was on the right article, and than you claimed the article had valid sources without even understanding them and not even bothering to see that the NASL link had no apearances for him. You precipitated yourself into this. But anyway, lets go to the point here, the article has no sources confirming any appearance for him which would make him pass notability, so it should be nominated for deletion. Agree? FkpCascais (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I said the article appeared to have valid sources, and made a mistake with one of them. You were heavily implying that you were involved in an edit war or a regular battle on this article in your initial comment, which you clearly weren't. And yes, it should go to AfD. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is that kind of slow edit-wars where one goes to the article, fixes it, and then after a few months returns there and finds out that some IP (that only edits that article and the related ones) restored the wrong info. So it happened already 3 or 4 times, and now my AGF ended. They clearly take advantage of the fact that the article is not patrolled by many editors. I am really all in for helping and I am not even near as strict as some here on our project are, but this article left me with no options. Either I give up and allow them to have the fake stats, or take action by asking help here. Sorry if we misunderstood Luke :) Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

I came here to complain about how overcluttered and ugly the new tables at 2015 Copa América and UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying are, and ask who the heck decided to spoil them this way. However, after skimming through the discussions above and taking a look at the new tables' wikicodes, I realized that, though still not perfect, the new tables actually are a highly convenient and pretty functional thing. Nice work! --Theurgist (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please restore correct green/red colours for advanced/relegated teams in 2014–15 UEFA Europa League. Now two lines in each group in green, but really not each club advanced yet. 37.52.6.71 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The use of status parameters, e.g. |status_XXX=R, will indicate during the season whether a team will be promoted or relegated. Please review the module's documentation for more information. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree that this is a kind of a drawback. I liked it better when the background colouring was indicating the individual team's status (if secured), rather than the status the position grants to whichever team eventually occupies it. Can the status parameters now manage to cover as many as four and even five statuses? --Theurgist (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes. Take a look at the Module:Sports table documentation. There are 20 different standard colors defined in the module's code (four each of green, blue, yellow, red, and black), and other colors can be defined using HTML or RBG notation if necessary (though not recommended). The status letters are predefined, though additional information can be included via various notes or in the results column text. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations. If you have any suggestions to improve these tables, feel free to share them. There used to be two different standards, one for league tables and one for group tables. The group tables set-up actually violated the Manual of Style (MOS:ACCESS), because colour alone should not be used to indicate status. The coloured lines and the rainbow of colours in the tables would not be clear for colour-impaired readers and was hard to understand for novice readers of these articles. For this reason a previous discussion led to the notion that all football tables should have a uniform appearance, with the basic format being the old league table structure and the colour scheme being the old group table standard. This means final position result is always highlighted with the relevant colour and status letters indicating the scenario for specific teams (eliminated/advance or qualified to specific stage/qualified but not for specific stage). CRwikiCA talk 15:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

So we'll have to have special letters indicating, for example, situations like that of the World Cup qualification as of mid-2013, or the current UEFA Champions League situation, where, probably due to the lack of a suitable letter, Ludogorets Razgrad's status is indicated with a footnote instead. Not to mention that some of the clues of the existing letters, ibid., might be unclear or confusing to novice readers in their current form. Also, how about borrowing UEFA's practice of explicitly making it known that "Standings are provisional until all group matches have been played"? --Theurgist (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you suggest a change in the use of these letter or additional options? There currently is no customization in the use of status letters. For your WC examples it would use the following letters: Q or A for team has qualified/advances to world cup, T for for at least play-off spot, T for at least second place, E for team is eliminated. Some inference can be made from the existence of other letters. That five-tier suggestion on that talk page did not seem to cause for people participating in the discussion though. CRwikiCA talk 18:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not fully aware of the whole mechanism, but browsing the Champions League templates, I certainly don't fancy keys like "Advances to a further round", "Qualified, but not yet to the particular phase indicated", "Qualified to the phase indicated", nor am I happy with footnotes replacing keys. Does the module allow different, more specific keys to be assigned depending on the particular article's requirements, like, for example, these keys (plus an extra key for teams that will definitely finish third)? --Theurgist (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

place secured	current key	what used to be
top 2	"(A) Advances to a further round"	green background, explained by the legend thus: "Group winners and runners-up advance to the round of 16"
top 3	"(T) Qualified, but not yet to the particular phase indicated"	blue background, explained by the legend thus: "Team will finish third or better (third-placed teams enter the Europa League round of 32)"
definitely 3rd	"(Q) Qualified to the phase indicated"	N/A (no such cases existed at the time)
3rd or 4th	(a footnote, not generated by the module itself)	yellow background, explained by the legend thus: "Team will finish third or worse (cannot qualify for round of 16 but may enter the Europa League)"
definitely 4th	"(E) Eliminated"	red background, explained by the legend thus: "Team will finish last (eliminated from European competitions)"

--Theurgist (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, what shall we do if a team is currently inside a certain zone of the ranking table but is guaranteed to finish outside it (or, from another perspective, outside a certain zone but guaranteed to finish inside it)? Obviously wordings like "Qualified to the phase indicated" won't do. --Theurgist (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples

Hmm, one could go with the following, thinking of dropping to europa league as a further round, top2: Q (if currently in top2, else: A), top3: A, def 3rd: Q (if currently 3rd, else A), 3rd or 4th: nothing, def 4th: E. That'd be dropping the cannot finish top 2 key, but no anything needs a key. Some useres might like a key for group win secured, thus seeding in the last 16, but there always is the posibility to add one or two sentences above the tabel to explain things. -Koppapa (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the footnote for 3rd or 4th place is generated by the module. The status letters (current key) were taken from the old league structure. Overhauling what is used might be useful, but I want to make two notes 1) building these tables should remain easy; and 2) uniformity across all articles will greatly enhance clarity. The current list of options is: "(A) Advances to a further round; (C) Champion; (D) Disqualified; (E) Eliminated; (H) Host; (O) Play-off winner; (P) Promoted; (Q) Qualified to the phase indicated; (R) Relegated; (T) Qualified, but not yet to the particular phase indicated." The basketball example is interesting, because loosing leads to a point is there a tiebreaker rule there though why Belgium would definitely be placed over the other two? CRwikiCA talk 15:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Belgium had already won against both Germany and Great Britain, and so won the eventual three-way tie with them after losing to France. My point is that the key shouldn't be saying for example that the team advances to a further round when the precise identity of that round is known, but rather, should be saying something like that:

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Bayern (A)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Advance to knockout phase
2	Juventus (B)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	Barcelona (C)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to Europa League
4	Chelsea (D)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

(A) Secured advancement to the Champions League knockout stage; (B) Will at least enter Europa League; (C) Will definitely enter Europa League; (D) Eliminated from European competitions.

Much clearer and less confusing. --Theurgist (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Theurgist, Qed237, Jkudlick, and Koppapa: Okay, I think the solution to this could be to keep the current letters, but to allow a module call to overwrite the default texts for these status letters, while using the same letters throughout different leagues such that we can get the following for the UEFA Champions league: (A) Advances to the Champions League knockout stage; (T) Qualified for at least the Europa League; (Q) Qualified for the Europa League; (E) Eliminated from European competitions. CRwikiCA talk 17:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you also "overwrite the default" background colours "for these status letters"? My proposition: (A) - green background, (T)/(B) - blue background, (Q)/(C) - yellow background, (E)/(D) - red background. As shown below.

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Bayern (A)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Advance to knockout phase
2	Juventus (T)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	Barcelona (Q)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to Europa League
4	Chelsea (E)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

92.113.154.209 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no current option for multiple colours in a row. Your example also looks quite messy with colours breaking. It also seems to violate MOS:COLOR. CRwikiCA talk 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Then please create an option for multiple colours. Table must reflect current situation in rows, not finish situation only. I didn't find any violation of MOS:COLOR. Left part of the table (without "Qualification" column) was used before "improvement". "Quite messy"? Football is not a plain thing. 92.113.154.209 (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Another variant for using during tournament (when competition will be finished it will transfer to current variant)

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Bayern (A)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Advance to knockout phase
2	Juventus (T)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	Barcelona (Q)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Qualification to Europa League
4	Chelsea (E)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

92.113.154.209 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The current situation is indicated by the status letters. For league tables with five (or more) different qualification options, it would be very unclear having this kind of colour scheme. Having a full rainbow like that violates "Even for readers with unimpaired color vision, excessive background shading of table entries impedes readability". In addition, the yellow and red colours are not explained. In your second example the colours are not explained at all (and just adding a key above, solely based on colour, is again in violation of MOS:COLOR). It is normal to not like change, but use the opportunity to bring harmonization to the football tables, instead of desperately wanting to have a different standard for each table. You might be used to one thing, but having a rainbow table is not clear to casual readers, especially if they need to look elsewhere on the page to try to figure out what colours might mean. CRwikiCA talk 18:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh my god! I didn't say about removing of status letters! They are present in my variants. My proposition is concordance of that letters with background colours. Only leave these colours for teams' current teams position that were used before "improvement" (green-blue-yellow-red). Colour-impaired readers can see letters here, but most readers can see background colours also. No problems here. Using of bg colours is more comfortable for usual reader than list of letters. 92.113.154.209 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. Key to colours was defined here many years ago: {{2014–15 UEFA Champions League group stage key}} 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

So how would your example work in this case? CRwikiCA talk 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I did say about European competitions. Colours in this version is more informative and readable than in new version. 92.113.154.209 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

So you propose to introduce confusion and have completely different styles for group tables and league tables? CRwikiCA talk 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know technical details about modules etc. My proposition is to restore colours for teams' current positions as shown above. Maybe not different styles, but different parameters only. Can we use an old colours with new module? Is it very hard? 92.113.154.209 (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point in the discussion the technical complexity does not have to come into play, although every additional feature makes the code harder to understand. You did not answer the basic question though, why do you want different formats for league and group tables? CRwikiCA talk 19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Main argument is easy navigation for article about 2014–15 UEFA Champions League. We have 8 standings for groups in one place. Before improvements, readers easy can find (and count) 11 teams who advanced to the KO stage, using background colours (they were in green colour). And 2 teams who eliminated from European competition (they were in red colour): Benfica and Galatasaray. Try to do it now! Impossible, because 16 teams in green now.
We can read: (A), (A), (E), (Q), notes, (A), (E), (T), (T), (Q), (A), notes, (A), (T), (Q), (Q), (A), notes, (A), (A), (T), (T), (Q), (A), notes, notes, notes etc. Not so easy! Many years that colours were used in articles about European competitions, but not now. What's happened? New unified module! Throw out the baby with the bath water! 92.113.154.209 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it harder to count the amounts of (A) than count green rows? Cant really see the difference, also in next section all teams that has gone through is listed and in the group stage articles all teams with the four colors can be seen in the seedings table. We can not have explosion of colors, the current coloring with the status letters is the way to go. I understand it may take a while to get used to, but it is better to have this consistency between tables. QED237 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Module footnotes

@CRwikiCA: I'll refrain from commenting which usage of the colours is better, and I don't care which letter of the alphabet will be indicating which status, but I'm interested in the following: If we can "allow a module call to overwrite the default texts for these status letters", then can we add one or more extra letters to the module to indicate instances like:

• (X) Team can at most qualify for Europa League
• (Y) Team cannot qualify directly but can still enter play-offs
• (Z) Team can still finish second, but even then will be eliminated as the worst second-placed team

and reserve the module-generated footnotes for other purposes (the purposes footnotes are generally used for)? --Theurgist (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Theurgist: I hope it is okay if I try and answer and voice my opinion. I thought about this alternative to adding new letters. However, since this is a module that will be used everywhere on all football articles (and actually there is a style=hockey now to so it can be used for more sports and may spread to other projects and sports, hence the module name "sports table" instead of originally "football table") it is to specific to use those extra parameters. In that case every tournament wants their own letters to explain things. However the possibility to customise these letters in special occasions when needed is (at least to me) much better. The footnotes are for general notes that can occur in a table (and has happened in the past), for example "Team X has been deducted 3 points due to...." or "Team Y qualifies for EL since Z Cup winner already qualified for CL" or something like that. Also head-to-head notes goes to the footnotes "Team A is ahead of Team B on head-to-head matches" or however the editor chooses to write the text. QED237 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Theurgist and Qed237: It would definitely be possible to add those three letters as "wildcard" letters to use for the non-standard scenario's. Note, however, that in your example, scenario Z can simply use E, because the team is eliminated (a long explanation should in my opinion be used in a footnote in such cases). CRwikiCA talk 15:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Theurgist and Qed237: I added the option to add custom status X, Y and Z and I used X for the current CL campaign for the positions that used yellow before. CRwikiCA talk 19:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Colour scheme for team's current status

• My proposition is to restore previous colour scheme (green-blue-red) instead of addition of unknown letters. I think, background colour must indicate (maybe along with related letters) the individual team's current status (as was used in the past scheme), not status of that finish position (not two green lines only, as now). 92.113.154.209 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The colors still exist. In fact, the default color schemes within the module are hard-coded and were discussed and defined here, and specific language and other syntax regarding tables were discussed here and here, amongst other places within the project's talk archives. The letters are also not "unknown," as you say; they are defined in Module:Sports table/doc and also appear in legend at the bottom of the table. I hate to be someone to say, "This is the way it is," but this is the way it is. If you wish to propose a change, you are welcome to do so within a new section on this talk page. However, you must provide very convincing arguments, as the module was designed through consensus to bring various football tables more inline with MOS:COLOR and WP:ACCESS. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Most readers are normal, without "colour-impaired" problems. Please show, where was the consensus to remove green-blue-red scheme for team's current status (and replace it with colours for finish position)? 92.113.154.209 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I am absolutely agree with colours table suggested by Theurgist in previous section. Thank you, Theurgist, for detail explanation. 92.113.154.209 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not "suggest" the colours, I just pointed out that the colours used to be used in a different manner prior to the change, and I said (at 13:57, 27 November 2014) that I liked that previous manner better. --Theurgist (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose There is no reason to split the display of group and league tables, unless your proposal incorporates both in a unified matter it will continue to confuse people. Also the current scheme, formed through consensus is fully Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliant. Any change should remain compliant with the MOS. Arguing that access is not necessary, because you see things fine does not help your case either. I will not support any proposal that purposefully goes against the Manual of Style and rejects handicapped people as abnormals that don't matter. CRwikiCA talk 15:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose what??? You don't understand. Repeteadly, there was no any consensus to remove green-blue-red scheme for team's current status and replace it with colours for finish position. As it was did incorrectly. You replaced current status colour scheme with (new) finish status scheme. Absolutely fucking solution. It was not discussed anywhere. 92.113.154.209 (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus for that, please read the links that were posted in this thread and the various discussion threads over the last few months which led to the general adaptation of the module. Everything along the way has been achieved through consensus, including using colours consistently as implemented for the module, and as implemented for the current UEFA Champions and Europa League groups. The old group table format violated the Manual of Style in several different ways, all of them have been resolved with the new Module:Sports table. If you propose any changes to this current module standard, then you are more than welcome to propose a fully worked out MOS-compliant alternative. CRwikiCA talk 17:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the reply, before I read your revised and ruder version. The fact that you don't agree with the several times that this discussion was concluded with consensus does not make it untrue. You might also want to revisit WP:CIVIL. CRwikiCA talk 17:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please link to consensus: "we will remove current status colour scheme with finish position colour scheme!" Before "improvement": GREEN for advanced teams only, BLUE for Europa Legue teams, RED for already relegated teams only. Now: GREEN for two lines in all groups, BLUE for third rows in all groups. Is it an improvement??? 92.113.154.209 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Jkudlick linked to that above already. It is an improvement, because there now is one standard across all football tables, which is also MOS-compliant. CRwikiCA talk 18:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Changing of colour scheme for "current position" to scheme for "finish position" was not discussed in that threads. 92.113.154.209 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed explicitly in the harmonization discussion and the module format was directly accepted as is for group and league tables alike. CRwikiCA talk 19:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically, the colors do indicate the "current" position, because if that were the final table, then the "current" positions would be the "final" positions. I must also concur with CRwikiCA when suggesting you review WP:CIVIL. Please also review the talk archives (links to which are located at the top of this page and of all archive pages), especially the links I already provided, before continuing your diatribe. Thank you. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Outfield players who have played as goalkeeper

At the recent discussion for Category:Association football outfield players who have played as goalkeeper, it was suggested that the topic might be suitable for a stand-alone list. If that is indeed the case, please see the following list of the category's contents prior to deletion:

• Peter Beardsley
• Dexter Blackstock
• Alex Dawson
• Julian Dicks
• Rio Ferdinand
• Jamie Harnwell
• Makoto Hasebe
• Chris Hedworth
• Glenn Hoddle
• Anthony Howell (footballer)
• Tom Huddlestone
• Phil Jagielka

• Glen Johnson (English footballer)
• Harry Kane (footballer)
• Jan Koller
• Bill Lacey (footballer)
• Henri Lansbury
• Nat Lofthouse
• Con Martin
• Lee McEvilly
• Felipe Melo
• Bobby Moore
• Cosmin Moți
• John O'Shea

• Agustín Pelletieri
• Mladen Petrić
• Niall Quinn
• Lucas Radebe
• Robbie Savage
• Michael Tarnat
• John Terry
• Marius Trésor
• David Webb (footballer)
• Dean Windass

Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd say this is trivia and not worthy of a list. Before clubs would name a silly number of subs, this was a fairly common occurrence. Number 57 12:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Me too, I am not even sure what "Association football outfield players who have played as goalkeeper" really even means. Do you intend to include players who were formerly GKs and became outfield players or vice versa or players who went in goal after someone was sent off? At what level in a league structure does such an action no longer become notable? Additionally, prior to changes allowing five subs on a bench in the EPL, outfield players going in goal was not really that uncommon as clubs would rarely include a goalkeeper as one of their three substitutes. If an individual outfield player has gone in goal in a notable match (e.g. the Ludogorets GK in the CL), or has made a "habit" of it throughout their career, then this can be noted with sourced prose in the in their article. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts are more or less summed up above by Number 57 and Fenix down. No need for this. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't worthy of a category or a list. 90% of outfield players who get put in goal do absolutely nothing notable whilst in goal, and indeed them being in goal isn't that notable either. There are a few exceptions of when them going in goal is notable (Terry, after both Chelsea goalkeepers were injured in the same match; Cosmin Moti for saving two penalties and winning a penalty shootout for Ludogorets, which is arguably the highlight of his entire career), but any inclusion criteria would have to be incredibly arbitrary. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• "prior to changes allowing five subs on a bench in the EPL, outfield players going in goal was not really that uncommon as clubs would rarely include a goalkeeper as one of their three substitutes" - younger editors may well not remember a time when clubs could only name one sub, but that was the case until relatively recently (and of course right up until the 1960s subs were not allowed at all). Understandably, back then it was quite common for outfield players to have to go in goal. There were at least two matches in the late 80s/early 90s (I'd have to look up the details, but one definitely involved Chris Pike scoring a hat-trick) in which a team put two different outfield players in goal in the same game. If a player did something truly memorable during a stint in goal then it should be mentioned in their article, but neither a category nor a list article is justified IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wasn't aware of the one-sub-only rule, but I was definitely aware of the time when there were no subs at all. And even today, it isn't totally unheard of for a team not to name a substitute goalkeeper (although it is rare). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it was one sub only from the introduction of subs until the late 80s. Anecdotal discussion on my club's message board suggests that at least five outfield players went in goal just for that one team and just in the late 80s/early 90s. If this isn't a disproportionately high number (and there's no reason to assume it is) then that would suggest that across 90+ clubs and 100+ years of league football, several hundred outfield players must have gone in goal, and that's just in England......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• To provide an analogy, I will compare this [now deleted] category to baseball. Before pitching became a highly specialized position, there were hundreds of baseball players who played in the field (infield or outfield) and have also pitched in games. This has happened even after pitching became specialized because all available relief pitchers were used in a game. Should we have a category specifically for fielders who have also pitched? Merely playing in a specialized position that is not your normal position does not inherently provide enough notability to warrant its own category, regardless of how specialized wither position may be. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• As I think someone else pointed out elsewhere, a lot of goalkeepers started out as outfield players (myself included), and I would imagine that the inverse is true, to some extent. In fact, I know it is; Kevin Keegan started out as a goalkeeper in his school days (as hilarious as it seems for someone who was never that tall, even as a kid). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Park

The usage of Stanley Park is under discussion, see Talk:Stanley Park (disambiguation) ツStacey (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspect banned user Zombie

Addition of fake unsourced stats, this is only one exemple, see his editing history. FkpCascais (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You would have to raise at WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 10:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Bristol Rovers F.C.

Any Rovers fan out there? I'm looking for a reliable website that contains data on goal milestones (who scored the goal 1,000, 3,000, etc). From what I have seen, even the official club web does not make reference to that (please see here http://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/club/history/).

Attentively, thank you very much in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2007 Football League Cup Final/GA1

Hi. I reviewed this article and only had a few minor problems, but I noticed that User:Lemonade51 is gone. Any chance someone here could pop in and make the fixes? Wizardman 17:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Indonesia task force

Hallo everybody!! I have made a nomination to make an Indonesian task force for football. The reason for it is to gather some active wikipedia users to improve the articles related to Indonesian football such as competitions, clubs, players and other related articles, so that the work could be done collectively using the standards of WikiProject Football. The other reason is that in Indonesia, most of the football articles are either written or translated poorly or does not have proper citations required. This is quite common I suppose in football related articles in Asia, but I want to focus with Indonesia as the amount of work is quite big alreasy.

The link for the nomination is here. Your comments will be much appreciated. Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability of clubs in Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man

Hi. Are there any notability guidelines for clubs in these three Crown Dependencies? All three come under the jurisdiction of the English FA, and so really notability should be down to whether they have competed in the FA Cup, FA Amateur Cup, FA Trophy, FA Vase or any level 10 league (there are a few who have done so) - but a quick glance at the article for the Isle of Man Football League shows EVERY club on the Isle of Man has an article. Are these notable? Kivo (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

They should have the same notability requirements as the rest of the clubs under the English FA, IMO. GiantSnowman 09:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So those that haven't played in an FA cup comp should be deleted? I would agree. Have placed an AfD on St. Ouen F.C. from Guernsey as a pre-cursor to deleting most clubs from Isle of Man. Kivo (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be worth creating articles on Association football in Jersey, Association football in Guernsey, and Association football in the Isle of Man and simply redirecting these club articles to a 'list of teams' section/table there. GiantSnowman 12:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Isle of Man Football Association#Members -Koppapa (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I commented on the AfD.

While not generally notable in an international setting, the club does participate at the highest level of the Jersey Football Association, and has previously participated in the Le Riche Cup, which is Jersey's equivalent of the FA Cup; this makes the club notable to Jersey. League Octopus wrote an essay a couple years ago advocating for a more accurate definition of club notability. While I understand it is not the official position of WP:FOOTY regarding club notability, there are a number of valid points brought up. Were we to write articles only on clubs that are notable in an international setting, then developing football programs would largely be ignored. Should the consensus be to delete this article, I propose that it be replaced with a redirect to Jersey Football Association#Affiliated Clubs and that the article could be replaced once the club meets WP:GNG or such standards as may be set at WP:FOOTY. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Also, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability: "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." (emphasis in article) Since Jersey has its own FA, it does not fall under the English FA, despite being a crown dependency – similarly Martinique has its own FA despite being an overseas territory of France. St. Ouen plays at the highest level in the Jersey FA, and they have participated in the national cup; therefore, St. Ouen meets both requirements laid out and should be assumed to meet WP:N. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• You are incorrect when you state "Since Jersey has its own FA, it does not fall under the English FA" - the Jersey FA does fall under the jurisdiction of the English FA - as does the Isle of Man FA and Guernsey FA - see List of County FA's. Therefore the Jersey FA Cup is NOT a national competition. Clubs from Crown Dependencies should have the same rules regarding notability as any other team in England - if they haven't played in the FA Cup, Amateur Cup, Trophy or Vase, they are NOT notable. Kivo (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Overcategorisation of Cristiano Ronaldo–Lionel Messi rivalry

I've started a discussion at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo–Lionel Messi rivalry#Overcategorisation about whether the article should be included in Category:Association football, Category:Sports rivalries, Category:Manchester United F.C., Category:Real Madrid C.F., Category:FC Barcelona and Category:FIFA Ballon d'Or. As you will read, I'm not convinced that the subject of the article is sufficiently germane to those topics to put it in their categories, but I'd like to hear some other perspectives on the matter. – PeeJay 16:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is an obvious edit war. I have placed warnings on the user talk pages of all editors involved. Should the edit warring continue, I will not hesitate to forward the editors to the necessary administrators. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Jkudlick, I'd advise reading WP:Don't template the regulars, if you weren't familiar with it. Yes, there was a dispute and a bit of an edit war, but giving experienced editors template warnings will only serve to fan the flames. There are far better ways to try and calm the situation down. Number 57 01:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Dwight Gayle

Someone has buggered up the career stats table for Dwight Gayle. I've tried fixing it myself but I wasn't successful. Could someone who is better with tables have a go at fixing it please? Regards IJA (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Done - the table wasn't wrong, it was an un-closed ref just above it that caused the error. GiantSnowman 11:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I obviously missed that when I clicked edit on a sub-section, cheers for sorting it out. IJA (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Steaua Bucharest

It seems that Steaua Bucharest have been stripped of their name, badge and colours, by a Romanian court.[3] How to deal with this on Wikipedia could be problematic, but it is probably worth keeping an eye on the page. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sites

I understand that TRANSFERMARKT.com is highly unreliable due to the fact it is user-generated, no grey area there (who does not remember good ole User:Zombie433?). My question is the following: even though ZEROZERO.pt is also user-generated, certainly it can be used as a mere link for Portuguese or Portuguese-based players (for many many years). I have seen thousands of cases where the data is mixed (if you compare with the more reliable FORADEJOGO.net), but as many with the correct seasonal/personal info, only keeping in mind the two examples provided three lines above.

Or can it not be used at all? Is it completely off-limits? Attentively, happy weekend --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If a website provides user-generated content then it should be avoided. SLBedit (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please wait... IMDb is user-generated, so should it be avoided too? I've started discussion here: ru:Википедия:К оценке источников#transfermarkt.com в качестве АИ по футболистам, please join if you are interested. --Fastboy (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fastboy: I believe the point is that user-generated websites border on WP:OR, so either official sites or sites with references to secondary and tertiary material are preferable. If the information on the user-generated websites is factual, then there is a high likelihood that the information is also available from more acceptable sources. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fastboy:, use of IMDB as a reference is strongly discouraged per here and here. Hack (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I see, thank you.--Fastboy (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is still an issue. SLBedit (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sites with user-generated information are not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference in Wikipedia. Of course, like IMDb is on thousands of Wikipedia pages, they are perfectly acceptable as external links. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Step 5 team pages with Season Statistics

As i understand it at the moment the 'rules' regarding lower league teams is that is that any team considered non-professional are not allowed at season stats page as seen on the 'big boys' pages.

I'm not quite sure why this is? is it because back when the criteria was written these non-league teams were not seen as important in the grand scheme of things, or that the lower teams just didn't need as season stats page because they were not needed/used/updated.

In the current climate of football, teams down in step 5 (level 9) are growing in importance, not only to the growing number of fans, but players are now being spotted and taken to much higher levels in the game.

I would like to start a debate here to allow the 'rules' to be changed on the allowance of season stats pages for those teams down to and including level 9 / step 5 teams.

--User:GNEbandit (talk) 11:04 8 December 2014 (UTC)~~

As a supporter of a step 4 club, I disagree with the proposal. You need to accept that football at this level is not sufficiently notable to have as much detail as professional football. The reasons provided are not a justification – attendances at this level were far higher in the 1950s and 1960s than they are today, and players have always made their way up the leagues. Number 57 11:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced Historical kits section too, but got reverted, could someone else please delete this section for WP:NOTGALLERY... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

NO NO NO.Hang on. Now you're having a go at historical kits too. Ok season stats might only be for the big boys but what have you got against historical kits? every football team on wikipedia who have people updating them and actually care about their team have historical kits. i thought wikipedia was information relevant to the team, why cant we not have historical kits that have been thoroughly researched, have links to where the information has been sourced and are valid to our football team. i will leave season stats alone but don't take away historical kits. this is much a piece of information about a team as is historical honours or previous player..... next you'll be deleting the players or previous managers where does it stop?????? why not just have a page that says this is glossop north end they are a football team and no other information!!! User:GNEbandit 10 December 2014 11:29 UTC

@GNEbandit: The section on kits does not have any link to where it was sourced from (at least as far as I can see). Number 57 11:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

it did have.....I'll put that back on in a sec. But what's he got against the kits? Are smaller teams not allowed to have this as well...I'm sure this isn't in the 'not allowed criteria'.....and as for just removing it without speaking to me first....this is totally unreasonable.....one would say almost bullying......if you'd all like I can remove everything from the page that I have added and so all that would be there would be just a name and badge.....please don't see this as petty...just massive frustration as everything I do to this page to improve the "facts" about GNE get blocked, adjusted or removed. User:GNEbandit 11:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth should someone have to speak to you first before removing something from the page? You really need to read WP:OWN. And whilst I can understand your frustration, not everything you do to the page is removed. I think the problem is that you seem to have a preference for statistics and recent events – what the article really needs is an expansion of the history section – the details on the club's early years is rather inadequate, particularly as this is when the club was at its most notable. The fact that over a quarter of the text in the history section is on stuff post-2000 (during which the only really notable event was reaching the FA Vase final) suggests that WP:RECENTISM is a particular problem. Number 57 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I just thought that if some thing was to be deleted...the person wanting to delete it might just send a message to the creator (unless its done by an unknown source) to explain why....just as you have just done....then it wouldn't seem quite as 'big brother'.....it would feel more like a team of people editing Wiki. It might also give them chance to change it to be more suitable...just like you and I did regarding the picture and the line gaps....I'm now happy with the layout, and I hope you are too. You are right....there does seem to be more info on recent history...but that's because more is known about the now.....a lot of old stuff was destroyed by a previous owner who nearly tried to get rid of the club completely....but as I dig more....the more I find out....like historical manager...I think we've done quite well getting back to the 70's, but sadly again that's when the club was in decline, and not much info was saved. I have added the references to the kits....or as many as I can get right now.....I can find more pictures as references if needed, but a lot are pictures in the Glossop club house. As for preference for stats....surely football is all about stats? :) just also been reading up on recentism, own, gallery etc and you (or someone) once stated that reason for an item to be deleted was that the info was somewhere else on the internet....as far as I'm aware no other website contains all of this kit/sponsor info....as you can see from the sources they are from pictures, different websites and also from factual sources at the GNE clubhouse...just thought I'd mention that :) User:GNEbandit 12:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cook Islands

Guess changing the 1993 Cook Islands Round Cup champion from Tupapu to Avatiu is justiefied? RSSSF has the first but also mentions there are conflicting sources. The FA has Avatiu. I also prodded the season article, it basically has no information. Well, almost all other early season articles don't but anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say the FA is probably the more reliable source (you'd hope anyway). Number 57 09:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On a closer look, 1997 and 1999 champions also differ. Also the FA was founded in 1971, i'm unsure who came up with that 1950 championship. -Koppapa (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say a change to Avatiu would be appropriate if the fa says so. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Question at NFOOTY

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#FIFA and soccer international games - should 'FIFA' be part of the criteria. What about before FIFA? What about teams that aren't in FIFA? What about non-FIFA sanctioned games? Enjoy. Nanonic (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Lukeno94 suggested changing the wording of WP:NFOOTY from "FIFA sanctioned senior international match" to "tier 1 international match, as defined by FIFA," and Ravenswing and I concur. This issue arises from a point of contention central to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alban Bunjaku (2nd nomination). The player in question has 10 semi-pro matches and 1 cap for the Kosovo national football team in his senior career. The point being brought up by those who wish to keep the article is that Bunjaku has a cap for his national team, therefore he meets NFOOTY. There is a small minority (myself included) which is trying to point out that while FIFA allows matches against Kosovar teams, those matches are not sanctioned by FIFA because Kosovo is not a member. I even pointed out that matches against the Martinique women's team during WWC qualifying are not recorded in FIFA's records because the matches weren't officially sanctioned, but we're just beating our heads against the wall. Additional voices in both discussions are more than welcome. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sporting Clube de Portugal

Hello all. Just a heads up, I cut 60% from the fairly commonly-viewed Sporting Clube de Portugal page, as it was all unreferenced. There may be editors seeking to restore the data, but of course this should not be done without the provision of reliable sources to support the material. Some of it was far from encyclopaedic. Thanks, C679 21:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits at World Cup qualification articles

Please check the histories of the 1934, 1938, 1950, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1966 and 1970 World Cup qualification articles (and probably later as well), and particularly the edits by various IP addresses geolocating to Peru (201.230.228.149, 190.238.216.27, 190.239.100.174, 190.233.92.8, 190.239.100.72, 190.234.37.120, 201.230.68.249, 181.64.116.229, 201.230.75.8, 201.230.90.222, 190.233.92.80 and some others). They have made significant and unsourced changes, including reports of withdrawals of certain teams of which there was no mention previously, and claims that the South American championships (the predecessor of what is now known as Copa América) also served as South American qualifications for the early World Cups.

On a related note, I'm not happy with titles like 1938 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA – Group 1) and 1954 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA – Group 1), because, while the qualifying groups were indeed formed on a geographical principle back then, it was not until 15 June 1954 that UEFA itself came into existence. --Theurgist (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, should be renamed to Europe. Also i don't get the strange grouping, e.g. 1938 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA – Group 2/Group 3/Group 5). -Koppapa (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "Europe" even necessary? There were twelve groups (labelled "Group 1" to "Group 12"), and some of them were European (like "Group 1" was), some were American and some were Asian. Since we don't have to disambiguate a European "Group 1" from a non-European "Group 1", I think just 1938 FIFA World Cup qualification (Group 1) is fine. And what about the edits? They're unsupported by either FIFA or RSSSF. --Theurgist (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. v Budapest Honvéd FC

Is this match notable enough to have its own article in your opinion? Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. v Budapest Honvéd FC.. Unsure myself, so thought I would get input. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes – it is a famous match – certainly one I had previous read about. Number 57 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking through all the sources etc, looks like it sails past WP:GNG quite easily. Nanonic (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree about GNG. Not sure about the article name, though. According to the club article, they were called Budapest Honvéd SE in the 1950s, not Budapest Honvéd FC. So if that's accurate (and if it's right to use full names rather than common names in the title), it should use the historically correct SE suffix. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

1921–22 Football League

Has been left in a mess by some experimenting with maps. I cannot rollback as there are more than 50 edits in a row by the same editor. Maybe someone who knows a way around this could revert/fix. Thanks.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done JMHamo (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 Guernsey F.C. season

What is the cut-off point for club season notability for English football? Would have thought it would be higher than level 8, e.g. 2014–15 Guernsey F.C. season. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Same as players - fully pro leagues only. Number 57 19:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

...unless it meets GNG. GiantSnowman 09:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Prod removed and now at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Guernsey F.C. season. Number 57 19:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup, a "friendly"?

Why in this article the Intercontinental Cup is called a "friendly" if this is false?--190.43.62.97 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Football in the Crown Dependencies

We really do need to reach a consensus regarding notability of clubs in the Crown Dependencies of Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. Although these territories do not form a part of the UK, in footballing terms they fall under the jurisdiction of the English FA as County FA's. Therefore clubs should only be allowed to have an article if they have played in one of the four FA competitions - the FA Cup, the FA Amateur Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase - as per previous discussion on the matter.

Because of this, I placed an AfD on St. Ouen F.C., a club from Jersey who had an article but had never played in an FA competition. The result was to keep the article on WP:GNG grounds.

I accept this outcome, but I think we need broader rules concerning other clubs from the Crown Dependencies. I personally think we should go with one of two options and stick to them -

• Treat them like all English clubs and accept only clubs that have competed in FA Competitions, i.e. -
  • Douglas High School Old Boys A.F.C. - Isle of Man - FA Vase
  • First Tower United F.C. - Jersey - FA Vase
  • Guernsey F.C. - Guernsey - FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Vase
  • St. Martins A.C. - Guernsey - FA Vase
  • Vale Recreation F.C. - Guernsey - FA Vase
• Allow articles for ALL senior clubs in the Crown Dependencies, i.e. -
  • The 26 clubs in the Isle of Man Football League (all 26 already done)
  • The 7 clubs in the Priaulx League (all 7 already done) and 2 non-reserve teams from the Jackson League (Centrals and Bavaria Nomads)
  • The 17 clubs in the Jersey Football Combination (St. Ouen and First Tower United already done)

I re-created a page today for Guernsey Rovers A.C. but it has had an AfD placed on it almost immediately. We need some consistency - why should St. Ouen and the Isle of Man clubs remain but Guernsey Rovers be removed? I want to create pages for the rest of the Jersey clubs but don't want to waste my time. Kivo (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have also contested the deletion referencing this particular discussion, and I removed the tag as an editor who did not create the page. More germane to this discussion, I argued in the St. Ouen AfD that because they have participated in Jersey's "national cup", that they meet WP:FOOTYN. I will argue that the same is true with all of the Crown Dependencies, given their relationship with the United Kingdom being similar to that of Puerto Rico, United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands to the United States; they are reliant upon the "mother country" for a level of governance and military protection without being fully part of the "mother country." If we can recognize top-tier clubs from areas which constitutionally and legally remain fully part of the "mother country," e.g. the Faroe Islands and Denmark, then surely we should recognize clubs from semi-independent regions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

While you make good points, I think we need to ignore the political/constitutional status of the Crown Dependencies and focus on the footballing status of these territories. In footballing terms they are no different to any other County FA, such as the Derbyshire FA or Northumberland FA, but I am proposing that clubs within the Jersey, Isle of Man and Guernsey FA's should be given special dispensation from the normal notability parameters for other English clubs, and that all senior clubs in from those three FA's should be allowed to have an article, regardless of whether they have competed in an FA cup competition. Kivo (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary entries

I've noticed the creation of a couple of articles in the last couple of days (see Fergie Time and United Trinity) that seem to be nothing more than an dictionary definitions of those terms. Surely "Fergie Time" belongs as no more than a section/sub-section in the Alex Ferguson article, and "United Trinity" should simply be a nickname used in the articles about George Best, Bobby Charlton and Denis Law? – PeeJay 10:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest redirecting both to Glossary of association football terms. GiantSnowman 10:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected Fergie Time to Alex Ferguson, since it used to redirect there anyway. I think United Trinity is perhaps too specific to Manchester United to be redirected to Glossary of association football terms; what would you think about just redirecting to Manchester United F.C.? – PeeJay 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - if you are reverted (which you might well be knowing the creator of those articles) then I suggest we take the matter to AFD. GiantSnowman 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I liked the part where you tried to get the article creator involved. I also liked the part where you gave the opportunity for more editing to occur. Good one lads RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If one reviews the history of Fergie Time, one can very quickly determine that it was previously redirected twice (here and here), with the article being recreated both times; the first recreation was more than 3.5 years later, with the second redirect coming within five days, then that redirection being reverted within five hours. Contacting the original author could also be somewhat problematic; @Rbs7878:, the original author, has made no edits to the page while logged in since the day the article was created, and has only made three edits while logged in in the past year. I've pinged the editor in a good faith attempt to alert him/her to this discussion.

In my opinion, a stand-alone article about a concept named for a person in which a manager or coach berating an official can lead to longer amounts of stoppage time is not appropriate unless one can find widespread use of the term outside of the region in which the term was invented with sufficient supporting references; even then, an entry in the dictionary with a redirect to Sir Alex Ferguson's article is more appropriate than an article which will likely never be able to progress beyond stub-class. I'll be honest—until this discussion started I had never heard of the term "Fergie Time," and I suspect it's a fairly recent invention of British media. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the vague concept of Fergie time, rather the United Trinity, an large portion of time in three people lives entwined in life and death. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies - I had focused on "Fergie Time." I haven't really had time to review the Trinity and the history involved amongst them to make an informed statement. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

By the by, while Fergie is a construct of the overblown media, there's probably enough to create an article about. Not everything needs to be a superlong article, but there's definitely enough there that it would be far more than a dictionary entry. It's a controversial thing that has been discussed for well over a decade, it's not just something with temporary notoriety, and it has still been discussed well into 2014. If it needs to be a subsection of the Ferguson article then so be it, but I don't think it should be dismissed as just an entry in a dictionary. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Matthew hk

After composing the storyline on Mário Rui, I partially reverted this user. Why? Because he adds, to several articles on Italian football(ers), invisible references - he says that they are available on the internet to be bought, and I believe him of course, but here at WP they are invisible for 99,9999999999999% of the readers, that is what it is - references which "source" sentences about financial details of transfers to excruciating detail.

He does so in broken English, so it is very hard to try and arrange something without altering the meaning. Here is how I found Luigi Sartor's page years ago before I stepped in (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luigi_Sartor&diff=369509081&oldid=369509054), and if anyone can make anything of the note found at the bottom of Stefano Sorrentino's article we'd all appreciate it I am sure, I could not. I think I talked about this with Matthew in the past, I cannot remember, nor can I recall his reaction if I did.

Question of importance is: do we really need to transform articles on footballers on Financial Times articles? I understand the specifications of Italian football, with the co-ownership deals playing a major part on deals and transfers, but is this not a bit too much? Can't we find a middle term?

Note: even though the aforementioned user will be notified automatically of the discussion due to his name being highlighted here, I did the same in his page. If I have incurred in any significant wrongdoings with my actions, apologies to all parties concerned, especially Matthew of course.

Attentively, thank you for your time --84.90.219.128 (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see six months ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 85#What is the use of this?. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

some of the pirated copy are available here. http://www.tifosobilanciato.it/ as well as google it, but most of them, just like books in real library, you have to purchase the "e-book" Matthew_hk tc 15:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

David Parada

Last year or so I heard that, according to WP guidelines, in some countries, even the second tier was not notable, and apparently the Austrian Football First League fell into that category. Am I in the right? If so, this article must be deleted, other than current club has not played in higher than Segunda División B.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you're incorrect - the Austrian First League is part of the WP:FPL list, which means that it does convey notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem solved then, for Parada and his WP fate and all of us mere servants of the project :) Thanks for the (quick) reply --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• No problem :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Luis Manuel Blanco

Can we consider him as former manager of Indonesia? As his tenure was very brief. He never manage Indonesia nft in any football match, even he never make the selection and call up the players for national selection. IMO, I said no. @NnAs (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Did the Indonesian FA ever give him a contract to do that job? If so, then he must be considered a manager of the Indonesia national team. – PeeJay 01:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I was saying sure, no matter if he ever coached a match or did call-up. But apparently it s more difficult in Indonesia. There seem to have been two national coaches in charge? He was the one of BTN and that is/wasn't recognized?. I don't know. -Koppapa (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

At that time, Indonesian FA was in internal conflict (dualism era, with both side claim as the legal FA). Blanco signed contract with BTN, and BTN only recognized by one side of Indonesian FA. @NnAs (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NFOOTY, Blanco must have managed at least one Tier 1 match to be considered generally notable. Otherwise, he must meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what is at issue here, Jkudlick. The issue is whether we can actually consider him to have been the manager of the Indonesia national team when he was appointed by an organisation whose official status is questionable at best, and he never picked a side, organised a training session or led the team into a match. – PeeJay 16:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd see if FIFA ever considered him to have been the manager of the Indonesia national team. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

2015 FFA Cup Final

Since David Gallop has stated that the FFA Cup (Australia) will take place over one calendar year, the 2015 FFA Cup Final and 2016 FFA Cup Final pages need to be fixed. I'm not sure how to go about changing the redirects that exist on these pages, so would appreicate it if someone could fix it up. Cheers. Datasmack (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Redirected the 2015 final article to the 2015 cup, and deleted the 2016 final article for now. -- Chuq (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories for individual matches

I was just wondering what the consensus on here was regarding categories like Category:Arsenal F.C. matches? I have an anon on the 2014 Indian Super League Final page who keeps adding that type of category for the two teams but I do not believe they should be there as that would only leave those categories with 1 match and who knows for how long because this is only a short league and none of the teams play in any other competition... I feel it would just make sense to have the match be included in their main club categories (Category:Kerala Blasters FC). So ya, what is the opinion here? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SEA OF BLUE

Is there any problem if we write two wikilinks regarding a competition in the same sentence (with the due separation of course), that is to say a wikilink with the competition (i.e. Copa del Rey) and another with the season of the competition (1995–96 Copa del Rey)? An example? "Víctor Torres Mestre played for RCD Espanyol and they nearly qualified to the UEFA Cup". User:Struway2 thinks there is a problem and reverts me everytime (in this case he'd left something like "X player played for Y team and they nearly qualified to the UEFA Europa League", leaving exactly the same amount of info (in both cases, the season of competition is hidden), with one wikilink less. My reasoning is this: two links – instead of one – is hardly a sea of blue, and it provides more info, it provides info on the competition and this or that season of said competition.

Struway's reasoning is that it is still a sea of blue, but yet he contradicts himself in the articles intros, when he writes "X player is a Portuguese international footballer who plays for..." instead of "...is a Portuguese (no linking of country, per WP:OVERLINK) footballer who plays for...". That is even more of a sea of blue, because there is NOTHING separating the two links.

Attentively, happy holidays everyone --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: this user, which I greatly respect as an editor and I hope does not think ill of me just because of our (great) differences in manner of editing, has been personally notified of this discussion. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the tl;dr to come... Please see WP:Piped link#Intuitiveness, otherwise known as WP:EASTEREGG. It's supposed to be clear to the reader what we're linking to, without them having to hover, click, or otherwise interact with the text. The specific sentence read, in wikitext,

In the 1993 summer Torres Mestre moved to [[RCD Espanyol]], being an instant first-choice as the [[Catalonia|Catalans]] went [[1993–94 Segunda División|straight]] from [[Segunda División]] into [[1994–95 La Liga|narrowly missing]] on [[1995–96 UEFA Cup|qualification]] to the [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]] after a sixth-place finish.

which comes out as,

In the 1993 summer Torres Mestre moved to RCD Espanyol, being an instant first-choice as the Catalans went straight from Segunda División into narrowly missing on qualification to the UEFA Cup after a sixth-place finish.

Now, if I were the reader, I don't think I could guess that clicking on "straight" would take me to 1993–94 Segunda División, "narrowly missing" to 1994–95 La Liga, or "qualification" to 1995–96 UEFA Cup... I changed it to

In the 1993 summer Torres Mestre moved to [[RCD Espanyol|Espanyol]], being an instant first-choice as the [[Catalonia|Catalans]] won the [[1993–94 Segunda División|Segunda División title]] and finished sixth in [[1994–95 La Liga|La Liga the following season]], narrowly missing out on qualification for the [[1995–96 UEFA Cup|UEFA Cup]].

which comes out as

In the 1993 summer Torres Mestre moved to Espanyol, being an instant first-choice as the Catalans won the Segunda División title and finished sixth in La Liga the following season, narrowly missing out on qualification for the UEFA Cup.

Which, in my biased opinion, both gives the reader more idea of what to click on if they want extra information about the competitions involved, and actually supplies more readable information without needing to click anywhere, i.e. that the team actually won the Div 2 title.

On the point of having links both to the competition itself and to the season article, if both are relevant I do tend to link to the season. If the reader clicks there but really wanted the competition itself, that will be linked in the first paragraph of the season article, and will also be visible to a reader with the technology to see the start of the article when they hover over the link without having to click.

As to Portuguese international footballer, we are advised to put what makes the subject notable fairly near the beginning of the lead section. I don't like having two links next to each other either, but the Portuguese international bit does link specifically to Portugal national football team, not to the country. I do come across plenty of footballer pages where the lead section just says John Doe is a Portuguese footballer who plays for <some non-notable team>, without any indication that ten years ago they played for big clubs and for their country, which is what made them notable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

2014-15 Football Conference

Three points need deducting from Forest Green Rovers in the 2014-15 Football Conference but I don't know how to do this in the new table format. (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason, and can you provide a reference? The parameters would be |startpoints_FGR=-3 and |note_FGR=Forest Green Rovers were docked 3 points for ... <ref>reference tag</ref>. You can read the documentation at Module:Sports table. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Google is your friend: Forest Green deducted three points for fielding ineligible player. Number 57 22:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the table to reflect the three points deduction, along with a note and reference.[4] As Jkudlick mentioned, the paramaters can be found at the listed link for the module. You just have to be a bit creative and think out of the box when looking for the needed parameters since the parameters could not be named to reflect every possible scenario they are used for. The hth parameter was used as it is more appropriate to place the note beside the total points tally. cheers. LRD 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for failing to amend the new standings in the original edit. LRD 22:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I ping @CRwikiCA: to this discussion as it shows the way note parameters are used is not ideal, we should not use head to head note for this (but I agree it is best to have a deduction note in points column). We should discuss how to use these notes, it might be better to display hth-notes in position column as it effects position and not points (as I have said before) and have either regular team note in point column or have a new note called pointnote_FGR for a note in point column (but then I dont see when regular note should be used at all)

I have listed some points at my talk page but will include it here since it concerns the WP:FOOTY community. Maybe it is time to change the startpoints parameter to deductpoints since it is not the first time an editor has trouble looking for the correct parameter to use. A note_startpoints or note_deductpoints should be included in the same total points cell to explain the discrepancy. cheers. LRD 22:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What if a team is awarded bonus points? |deductpoints= would then be just as counterintuitive. There are already several tables which use the |startpoints= parameter to record bonus or penalty points, so changing it now would be somewhat disruptive as it would "break" those tables, and since the module is presently transcluded in over 700 pages (including several documentation and sandbox pages), it would be a chore trying to find each instance of that parameter being used so it could be changed. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Then pointschange or whatever we could most unambiguously use to better reflect the parameter accurately. I'm sure CR could do it in such a way that the startpoints parameter could still be used in the updated templates, just like pc-update and club-update are equally useable in the player infobox. LRD 13:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have read through this discussion and the discussion on LRD NO's talk page. It would be possible to add position notes and point notes instead of hth-notes (while grandfathering in the hth-note syntax as well), so more flexibility would be achieved. That would in my opinion counter most of the current criticism and give editors the needed flexibility. Jkudlick also indicates that bonus points can be given out as well, parameter names cannot always be perfect, so I think keeping the startpoints is fine (a name like bonus_or_deduct_or_fairy_tale_point would not be right, I don't see a one-word alternative that incorporates both the + and - points in one). I can make some of the changes, but I have a busy time ahead with the holidays and January, so I cannot promise quick work. If someone can come up with a alternative for "start" with limited length that is more logical, then no one would oppose using that instead. (The option of having a separate bonus and malus parameter would be a step back in my opinion.) CRwikiCA talk 21:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

LRD NO did suggest something like |pointschange_XXX=. I do think that could work to minimize confusion, but until |startpoints_XXX= is changed wherever it is used, it must not be removed from the code. I realize it is only used in a few places, but let's nip this relatively early while we "only" have a few hundred transclusions to review. Yes, it's a chore, but not impossible. Perhaps using |adj_pts_XXX= for "adjust points for Team XXX" would make sense? I ping @LRD NO: to see if there is agreement. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Like CR said, any changes will not affect any existing templates using |startpoints_XXX= so it will not be removed from the code nor is there any need to go back to redo hundreds of templates. I'm fine with either |pointschange_XXX= along with |note_pointschange_XXX=, or any suitable name change that we can agree on, but the new name should be spelled out in full to eliminate any confusion eg |adjustpoints_XXX= (which I am fine with) instead of |adj_pts_XXX=. LRD 22:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that seems all reasonable. I'll get to it when I have time (which might take a few weeks). CRwikiCA talk 17:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone up for a search?

I just updated with the 2014 edition, the table isn't correct, see Talk:Historical_table_of_the_FIFA_Club_World_Cup#Errors. Error was in there before my upgrade. -Koppapa (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Found the errors. Well that's the problem with this original reseaerch :-). Linked source rsssf doesn't match at all. They differ at Barcelona already, and are wrong, or take no extra time into account. -Koppapa (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know of this guy?

Hey, I recently declined a speedy for Bernard Stephens because of some of the claims. Offhand it looks like he may have been notable, but I'm not really sure of where to look for sources for this. It's still tagged with a BLP prod, but I figured that it'd be better to ask around here in case any of you are familiar with him and know of any RS for the guy. I couldn't find anything offhand, but then I'm not sure what to look for or where to look. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you should take it to WT:AMF instead. LRD 09:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - wrong type of football......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

League appearances

In a time before professional ere, football teams often played in several leagues in a season. Having just completed an article on Henry Hird which included his appearances in the London League, these were removed by User:Bikeroo as "only his Southern League appearances count". Two queries;

1. This is not mentioned in the Template instructions which states "A list of appearances that the player has been awarded in league competition only for each professional club (note: Playoff matches are not counted as league matches by most statistical sources (e.g. Soccerbase and the Sky Sports (Rothmans) Football Yearbook, so they should not be included in this infobox), one per attribute, earliest to latest". Shouldn't it be?
2. Why is the Southern League deemed to be of note for footballers of this era yet the London League isn't?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If both were first team competitions then I see no reason why they should not both be counted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The London League appearances should definitely be included. Number 57 08:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe add a footnote to clarify the two figures......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The London League games for Thames Ironworks were definitely the first team. It was the only league the side played in in 1897-98.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What you lot said. If the league was played in by the first team, include the stats and clarify in a footnote. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've put the stats back in with a footnote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A query - why does the text (and the previous version of the infobox) say that he only played one Southern League game, when this shows he played 20.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Added Division One which I should have expanded on when the article was created.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sergio Ramos‎

Hey, User:Seriali123 is adding that he has Albanian origin. Any source to confirm this? He added some but those look like newspapers showing his sign he did after scoring a goal couple of days ago. I could be wrong but i never heard he had albanian origin... Kante4 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can give you more sources if you wan't. And you are the only one that has been reverting it. And I also said that here in Albania there was an show about it and numerous news that said the same thing. Only because you have not heard before that he has Albanian origin does not mean that he has not. Seriali123 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Took a google search and no news or something like that popped up (and i mean no albanian but neutral ones). Just odd that it wasn't known if true or in his article. Maybe they overreact because of the sign... Kante4 (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't know. He also has not denied it. Let's live it like this. Seriali123 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh, was he asked? It is added in the article right now after his sign when scoring a goal. That got the thing started in Albania. That's nothing to add if no neutral sources pop up. But i wait for further input here. Kante4 (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

He hasn't denied it also. Seriali123 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How? Is there an interview where he was asked that question? Seems like spinning right now. Kante4 (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We cant edit it, only if Ramos say why he did it. Seriali123 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Then we can't add that he IS of albanian origin. It's not a fact and should not be included. Kante4 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now it's a fact only if Ramos denies it then it's not a fact. Numerous news text says that. I can give you more sources if you want as I said before. Seriali123 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, what doest distant albanian origin even mean? Those sources just say that he did an eagle celebration after a goal, i don't see any useful info. -Koppapa (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily these sources we are discussing all sources. They say Albanian and that Albanian origin players do this thing. Im changing them. Seriali123 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not from albanian origin and can celebrate my next goal like that if i want to. That's not a reason to include it in the article and should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

First we are not talking about you we are talkin about Ramos. Souces say that he is of Albanian origin and it should not be removed. Seriali123 (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As i googletranslate the sources, all they support is basically 'he celebrated a goal as if he was an albanian' -Koppapa (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kante4: @Seriali123: I suggest you both stop editing and go to the talk page to discuss before you both get blocked for edit warring and 3RR. GiantSnowman 20:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Check the last edit of the page and when the discussion here was started... So, i don't know about that comment. Do you have any suggestion for the matter we are discussing, please? Kante4 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I really should stay neutral here seeing as I have my 'admin' hat on - I don't care about the outcome, I justt care that the matter is resolved through discussion and consensus. GiantSnowman 10:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at it tomorrow when I am fresh in my head but it seems like he celebrated in a special way but that does not make him albanian. We need good reliable source. What I can say is that this albanian puching is similar to Betterday123098 if my memory serves me right and that editor was blocked as being sockpuppet on 6 December (four days before this new account started) and this editor seem to have some minor experience. Seems a bit suspect but I will not call anyone a sock until further research has been done (probably a coincidence) but if someone want to dive in to it, feel free. QED237 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If you feel we have a sock then I suggest the matter is raised at WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 10:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Another albanian (or the same user) User:Kimetjaotr adding that "info". Kante4 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Non WP:Football Question

I was just wondering what the site was to use when you want to find an entire list of articles you created. I know there was one but for some reason I can not find nor remember what it was. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Voila. GiantSnowman 20:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure this is the right place? Page takes forever to load for some reason and when it does come up it shows up as a blank page. I do remember that the last time I went here I was redirected to a new site that got me the list in less than a second. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The WMF Labs toolserver is absolutely hopeless. It always has been, and I bet it always will be. If there's another, better, location for XTools-related things, I'd like to see it and replace the links on my userpage with it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it was not exactly a brand new site but it was certainly different from what I was at before and at least before, while taking forever to load, I got something instead of a blank page. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Taylor & Chris Spendlove

Two minor footballers who had a bit of a career in the lower US pro divisions - the latter even has his own article - who have been charged with murdering a police officer in Liverpool. Extra eyes welcome. GiantSnowman 13:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Carlos Diaz

Can somebody take a look at this page because everything looks completely wrong? – Michael (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Even the article name is wrong "Carlos Diaz (American soccer)". Not sure. SLBedit (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Mikemor92 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,889 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Carlos Diaz (American footballer) to Carlos Diaz (American soccer))" SLBedit (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made some changes. SLBedit (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It still doesn't look right. There are clubs listed on there that he was never a part of. Especially the Colorado Rapids. Is there a certain project on Wikipedia for false information? – Michael (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Very poorly sourced. One ref for playing in Trinidad and his Soccerway ref supports only two games and they are both for a team in Trinidad. There is nothing to supports careers in UK (with reserve teams!?), Finland or Germany. Is this player notable? Is this an attempt by someone to overstate a player's career and importance?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've hacked the article to bits, removed all unreferenced content. I don't have time to look for more sources at the moment as I need to go to work. Regarding notability, unsure, Soccerway does not confirm that he played in the TT Pro League, however if he did then he meets WP:NFOOTBALL because that is a WP:FPL. Soccerway does, however, confirm he had 2 games 2 goals in the 2009 CONCACAF Champions League. The page name should also be moved to Carlos Diaz (soccer) (currently a redirect). GiantSnowman 08:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrator intervention required. SLBedit (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it. GiantSnowman 19:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Billy Jones DOB

Billy Jones (footballer, born 1880) - artcle title at 1880 but DOB in the body is 1881 throughout. The sources are offline so I cannot check - anyone know which is correct? GiantSnowman 17:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely 1881. Article was written using a source that gave a date of birth in 1880, but when I came across the alternative source that gave the 1881 date, it was much more convincing so I changed it. Also, his age was given as 66 on his death certificate, which is incompatible with a birth date any earlier than March 1881. Heaven only knows why I didn't move the page at the time. Incompetence, presumably. I'll move him now. Thanks for noticing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Spot on, cheers. GiantSnowman 18:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a question regarding the article bio: Shouldn't there be something that indicates that Small Heath are now Birmingham because I got momentarily confused when I read that he was released from Birmingham and thought "when the hell did he join Birmingham?" before I put two and two together. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The infobox confirms both names, do you mean something in the main body? GiantSnowman 18:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Now clarified in the prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Does say in the lead, but I agree it needed to be in the relevant paragraph as well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, thats perfect. Thanks, --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ricardo Jorge Novo Nunes

Hi there teammates,

can someone add a reference for his signing with Porto to replace the current one? Not only is it not 100% accurate (that ref says he is "on the verge" of signing), but also it hails from an user-generated site (ZEROZERO.PT).

I browsed UEFA.com, Porto's official website, the Portuguese web, found nothing, strange as hell... Happy holidays everyone and thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I found him on Porto's website after going to the club's article and following the reference for their current squad, but I'm having the same difficulty finding any reliable reference to when he signed with the club. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, had noticed that one too, but was looking for something more consistent than a link. Thanks for your work and attention, happy holidays! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Soccerway says he joined on 30 June 2014. There's also this but I'm not sure how reliable it is, appears similar to the existing ZeroZero link. GiantSnowman 18:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Spot-on GS! Yes, indeed it is almost verbatim in content to ZZ ("he MAY have reached an agreement for a four-year contract"), so we'll have to wait for something more worthy. Thank you too. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's greetings

A very merry Christmas to all footy editors, and may your team win on Boxing Day.........unless you support Colchester United ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

...or Derby County... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

...or Fleetwood Town. Have a good one everyone. GiantSnowman 18:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

... or Bournemouth. Happy Christmas to all. JMHamo (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

... or Chelsea at Stamford Bridge (but I have a feeling you will!!). Happy Christmas.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

... I'd chime in with an "or (insert name of nemesis club here)," but we're out of season on this side of The Pond, and there aren't any NHL games until Saturday. Merry Christmas to all! — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

... in that case... or Tottenham or Queens Park Rangers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

or Aston Vile, sorry, Villa. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry X'mas to all! A time to indulge in the football marathon ahead. Pints for everyone (and if you are below legal age, a juice for you). Cheers! LRD 23:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry christmas for everybody!! MbahGondrong (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Too many first-place finishes for inclusion of second-place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona&diff=639604603&oldid=639604366 I seem to recall being told that if there are many first-pace finishes that second-place should not be included. Is that correct? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Honours, which states that "For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." This was also addressed ad nauseam in September (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#Runner up medals in club honours section). As "a large number" has not been given an absolute definition, that number is left up to the decision of the editors. Some may define "a large number" as 100 trophies (which is an insanely high number, in my opinion), while others may be satisfied with only five. In this particular case, I would omit the second-place finishes in La Liga, Copa del Rey, Supercopa de España, and each of the European competitions. I might also combine Copa Eva Duarte and Supercopa de España as the former was the direct forerunner of the latter and eliminate the second place finishes for both. WP:BRD definitely applies, so discussion on the article talk page is necessary to come to agreement. I will also post my assessment as an uninvolved editor there. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Pinging the other two involved editors as courtesy. @Suitcivil133 and Qed237: 19:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping above not working (saw thread anyway). From template:ping "The edit that adds this template must be signed with new signature tildes, or the notification(s) will not work. See Wikipedia:Notifications and mw:Help:Echo#Technical details for more information.". So I ping other editors (and myself) @Suitcivil133, Jkudlick, and Qed237:. Hopefully it works now? QED237 (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

*facepalm* I thought using the ~~~~~ for time stamping would work. Now I know better. Thanks. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. It's useful information. SLBedit (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

When a good amount of trophis have been won, there is no need for second place finishes listed. Kante4 (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Only trophies are important when they have so many wins. Being second in a league is nothing special. However being second in a major tournament where you get medals for being second is an other thing, but not a regular second place. QED237 (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

They (Barça) were 3 times runners-up in Champions League; runners-up in FIFA Club World Cup and in Intercontinental Cup. How is this not relevant? SLBedit (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I think runners-up should always be excluded from the honours section for clubs. However, the guideline makes it clear that it can be excluded, so there's definitely no rationale for keeping them in there. Number 57 12:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Captaining non-league teams

A lot of articles on English non-league teams have sections like Leighton Town F.C.#Former players, with inclusion criteria which include having captained the club. Personally I believe that having captained a club of this sort of standing is in no way a claim to footballing notability - what do others think? If applied properly this criterion would mean that every player who has ever captained the club right back to 1885 should be included and, realistically, who is going to have a list of all the players who have ever captained a club like Leighton Town? I bet even the club themselves don't have that. It would be good to see if other people agree with me that this should be removed as an inclusion criterion..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a ludicrous criterion simply because, as you say, if applied properly it presumably means including everyone who was ever captain, even for a single match (or part of a single match). Such a list would be a huge challenge even if we were talking about Real Madrid or Manchester United. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Had a discussion with originator of this section & agree that captaincy, should not form part of the criteria. Eagleash (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review for 2006 CECAFA Cup

Is anybody willing to be the reviewer for the 2006 CECAFA Cup? Unfortunately, the reviewer has gone into short term retirement and I have no one to be the reviewer. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 18:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad article, but i raised some points. -Koppapa (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a bad article, but I do wonder why the group tables used three colors when there are only two results – either a team advanced to the knockout stage, or it was eliminated (and the standard is to remove the red from eliminated teams after group stage is complete). I'll make those corrections presently. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Shirt numbers in players out on loan

Liverpool F.C.#Out on loan and Manchester United F.C.#First-team squad show the shirt numbers of players that are on loan. Most articles replace the numbers with an 'em dash' (—) or simply blank them.

May I add (unused) shirt numbers to loaned players or is there any rule against it? SLBedit (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What 'most articles' do and what 'all articles' should do are very different, unfortunately. IMO the player should not 'lose' their squad numbers when they go on loan. GiantSnowman 11:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless that number is taken by a new player at the parent club then, in my view, the loaned player still holds his number. I remember at Arsenal when Denilson lost his #15 number to Chamberlain and that is what we did, we blanked Denilson because he was no longer #15, he lost the number to Ox. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup WAS NOT a "friendly"

Why in this article, since the lead, the Intercontinental Cup is stated as "friendly" if that competition have official status for FIFA (cf. p. 60 and also this in pp. 8; 11 and 28-29 and this), UEFA (P. 99) and CONMEBOL (99; 107)? I note that, although the article in question has the status of "good article", its main editor insists on publishing original research (also false) like this written by a user that claims be "the one who wrote that material on wiki. It was simply better to do it this way".--190.117.174.187 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just strike the word friendly/official. It's not needed. -Koppapa (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. All that matters is that it was a competition that existed, official or otherwise. I happen to believe that it was more than a friendly, as it is often listed by third parties as a major honour in clubs' lists of achievements, but the official status of this competition isn't something that can be reduced to a single word in the article lead. – PeeJay 17:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The competition has an official status, that is an uncontested fact (the three references I put at the beginning of this discussion are documents written by the communication/media departments of UEFA, CONMEBOL and FIFA and the three give that status). I agree with you, but someone qualifies it as "friendly" is completely false to the evidence presented. The user insists with his original theories that neither any reliable source has taken into account...--190.117.174.187 (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 Morocco Club World Cup PDF says the Intercontinental Cup "was endorsed by UEFA and CONMEBOL". That can be included instead of this age old fight about it being official or a friendly. It's not like in the FIFA World Cup lead the word "official" appears. --MicroX (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but that user has deleted the phrase and insist in call the European/South American Cup "friendly" and that is not true.--190.236.160.110 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

FK Obilic Zmajevo

A content translation to english, is required. GoodDay (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I found another article in Serbian created by the same user (Ljuba014) with Serbian text added by 109.92.243.38. SLBedit (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

List of football clubs in Serbia seems to contain every football club in Serbia, and the vast majority of them have nearly empty articles, regardless of how far down the pyramid they are. If we go strictly by WP:FOOTYN, then almost every team in the third tier and below should either be tagged with {{db-inc}}, or possibly PRODed. I've done that with a few articles, but it will take a long time, even with Twinkle. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• PROD maybe, A7 no; there is definitely a credible claim of importance there, even if notability isn't available. I also don't see how spam PRODding things would help; each one needs analysing individually, and also at least a cursory look at foreign (preferably Serbian) wiki articles on the same subject for potential expansion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that club mentioned in the title seems unworthy translating as it is about a non-notable club. Jkudlick proded many articles and we saved some that pass notability. I will also like to ask if some admin can see if any of these articles have been created before, because they played second level and I will add that content to them if they can bring the articles back. I am talking about the following clubs: FK Zastava Kragujevac, FK Vrbas, FK Topličanin (or FK Topličanin Prokuplje), FK Solunac Karađorđevo, FK Mačva Bogatić, FK Vučje, FK Napredak Kušiljevo, FK Kabel (or FK Kabel Novi Sad), FK Radnički Svilajnac, FK Trajal Kruševac (or FK Trayal), FK Rudar Aleksinac, FK Mladost Lukićevo (or FK Mladost Luks) and FK PSK Pančevo (or PSK Pančevo). I remember a couple of these existed. FkpCascais (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Assistance needed on Gedion Zelalem

Since RFPP is being useless and I've hit three reverts, we have an issue with a bunch of IPs using a Washington Post blog claim for Zelalem being a US citizen, or other sources citing the WP blog. The issue with this is that even the blog post itself has stated that FIFA haven't recognized him as being eligible for the US yet, and it is all based on the claims of "the Insider". As such, it isn't remotely a reliable source and I have been removing information on it each time as a result; we need an official source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Qed237: please read this, since you've edited the article since the IPs started adding the unreliable info in. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Thanks for the notification, I had missed this thread.QED237 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I can agree, I just read the Washington post and nothing has been confirmed by anyone it is just eye witnesses on the streets who have seen him and that is hardly reliable. QED237 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• The si.com source that some of the IPs have cited is also solely based on this Washington Post piece, which is something else that needs noting. I don't doubt that the IPs are acting in good faith, but the information simply isn't reliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• IPs are still adding the speculation into the article when it still hasn't been confirmed officially, and he still isn't eligible to play for the US... where is User:GiantSnowman when you need them? (Or any RFPP-based admin, but they all seem to have vanished) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Article is now semi-protected, and thanks for everyone who was helping out; we still need to watch it as now a few inexperienced autoconfirmed accounts are adding the information in based on the bad sources (one in there as of right now; can't revert due to 3RR). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix club—claim that MK Dons are one

A discussion has been opened at Talk:Phoenix club (association football) on the claim presently in the article that Milton Keynes Dons F.C. are a "phoenix club" of Wimbledon F.C.. I cannot find any sources making this assertion and therefore think it's original research to include it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah, that's rubbish. AFC Wimbledon is the only phoenix club related to Wimbledon F.C. – PeeJay 17:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. MK Dons most definitely are not a phoenix club, as they are/were Wimbledon F.C. anyway! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Tyrone Mears

Over the past couple days now, ever since Mears signed with the Sounders, I've been getting into a bit of an argument with another user on whether the club should be referenced as "Seattle Sounders" or "Seattle Sounders FC". The argument I have for why the club should be referenced as "Seattle Sounders FC" is because that's really what the club goes by. Just like what we do with teams like FC Dallas, Vancouver Whitecaps FC, Toronto FC, etc. The argument that this other user has is consistency. Now if we're applying consistency here, then it should be listed as "Seattle Sounders FC". I don't know what I'm doing that's deemed inconsistent. And I'm pretty sure you folks remember we've had multiple FC vs F.C. debates on here. But again if consistency is brought up, then I have no clue how referencing the club as "Seattle Sounders FC" is inconsistent. It sounds pretty ridiculous to me. – Michael (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I already started this discussion above but I guess I'll make the points here again since you don't seem to be understanding them elsewhere.

1. Other clubs go by their full name as well. Chelsea goes by "Chelsea FC". Barcelona goes by "FC Barcelona". If you go look at official media for those clubs, such as their websites, you will see them using their "goes by" or full name. The Tyrone Mears article, as well as many other football-related articles on Wikipedia, do not use the "goes by" or full names for clubs. Most editors don't use what the club "goes by". They use what is commonly used by the public in reference to the club. Being a Seattleite myself, I can tell you very confidently that almost no one refers to the Seattle Sounders as "Seattle Sounders FC" in casual conversation. Even announcers on match broadcasts will commonly not speak the "FC". Players and coaches commonly do not speak the "FC" in interviews.
2. Yes I'm arguing consistency, because you continue to edit the article to go against it. Every other club mentioned in that article has its short name or widely-spoken name used. When you use "Seattle Sounders FC" it becomes the only club in that article that is using its "goes by" or full name. That is inconsistent with the other club mentions. That's how using "Seattle Sounders FC" is inconsistent.
3. The WikiProject Football/Players template uses short names. While this is to serve as a guide, we should strive to follow it as close we can to further consistency across Wikipedia. TheIndieArmy (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up the other clubs in that article? You're saying it like we use short names for every single club, which is absolutely not the case. We use full names for certain clubs including the Sounders, Whitecaps, FC Dallas, Toronto FC and a few German clubs as well. So I still don't understand how having the fullname for one club and the shorter names for the rest in the article is a problem. Also, the last part of your first point sounds like WP:OR. – Michael (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm bringing up other clubs in that article because that's where the inconsistency lies, in that article. You have many clubs in that articles using their short names and then you want to make it so just one of them uses its full name. It looks inconsistent and is visually-poor writing. It's a problem because it's bad writing. I'm not sure who this "we" you are referring to, but if you are doing this throughout Wikipedia, that's even further bad writing. You really don't see how an inconsistency in the style of writing is a problem?TheIndieArmy (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't agree that there is an inconsistency necessarily. For starters, a lot of the American clubs are often described with FC in the name, just like Mikemor92 stated. Look at how the club described themselves in their own article about Mears' signing; Sounders FC, or Seattle Sounders FC. Now, compare that to Bolton's description for the signing of Emile Heskey - they just call themselves Bolton Wanderers. That's why this isn't an inconsistency; please read WP:COMMONNAME. And no, it isn't bad writing; how else would you refer to FC United? Just as United? United of Manchester? The former would just be dumb, and the latter would fail COMMONNAME. AFC Wimbledon are often known by that title to distinguish them from the older Wimbledon club as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm trying to follow the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines, which state "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Again, "it PREFERS to use the name that is most frequently used." If we are to follow this preference, then "Seattle Sounders" should be used as many English-language reliable sources refer to the club as "Seattle Sounders". Including, but certainly not limited to, ESPN, SI.com, goal.com, etc. etc. Even Major League Soccer themselves have used "Seattle Sounders" in the article about Mears's signing. Feel free to read around elsewhere and I know you'll find that many other credible sources stick to just "Seattle Sounders" and that it is the most frequently used name. So to say that "a lot of the American clubs are often described with FC in the name" is not accurate when it comes to the Seattle Sounders. Yes, that may be the case for Dallas or Toronto, because those clubs do not have a name beyond their city like "Sounders". Therefore it's less common for their "FC" to be dropped by English-language reliable sources. That is not the case for the Seattle Sounders, however. Your example about bad writing doesn't apply here because your example relies on confusion being present if there wasn't clarification. Omitting the "FC" from Seattle Sounders won't cause any confusion with another club like "FC United" would. Therefore it is bad writing.TheIndieArmy (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• I struggle to see how you're following COMMONNAME if you're suggesting that we should be using Bolton Wanderers FC just because other things in the article mention the FC part. I haven't looked in-depth to see which is necessarily "right" in this case, I was just making a general comment as a response to your statement that it would be "bad writing" to have the FC mentioned for some clubs, but not others. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm only suggest that because another user insists on not following COMMONNAME for just one of the clubs. My preference is to follow COMMONNAME, which is how I've been editing the article, but if we insist on not using it for one of the clubs then we shouldn't use it for any for consistency sake. Consistency will make the best writing in this case. Which is why we should consistently use COMMONNAME guidelines. I only suggest not to use it if it's insisted that we don't use it for one club, because it looks bad when there is a mismatch of its use. To clarify my previous point, it's important to note that a club's preferred name is not always its commonly-used name (COMMONNAME). I think even Michael will agree that when it comes to this club, "Seattle Sounders" is the more commonly-used name by reliable sources.TheIndieArmy (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Michael asked me to weigh in on this, I suspect because of my role in formulating the guidelines on this issue with respect to German football clubs (see WP:KARLSRUHER), so here's my two cents worth. Given that the title of the article on Seattle Sounders FC is not in dispute, this is a style and not a common name issue first and foremost. The common name does enter into the equation, but it is secondary concern. In prose, where there is context, any unambiguous formulation should be acceptable. So if removing the "FC" for the first time the club is mentioned makes the prose flow better, then that formulation is perfectly fine, and could be shortened to "Seattle" or "Sounders" after that. In out-of-context situations (infobox, stat tables etc.) we should be using what I'll call the local medium form. As a good rule of thumb, this is the form that is long enough to not be an obvious colloquialism, but not so long that it only ever sees use in formal legal documents. This is where I take issue with the consistency argument, because different countries have different customs as to what the medium is. In England, where every club is either an FC or an AFC, it is near universal practice to leave the extension off. In the US its not nearly so black and white. That being said, I think TheIndieArmy is probably right in suggesting that leaving the extension off is the local medium form. I think what Sounders were going for is to follow the naming conventions for American sports à la Seattle Mariners or Seattle Seahawks, in which case Seattle Sounders, without the "FC", is clearly the way to go. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought we did the FC stuff for the Seattle Sounders because of the USL Sounders?--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Now that sounds like a very good reason for including the FC part, and is extremely similar to the AFC Wimbledon situation. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• This is why we link to the proper club's page. I don't think having the FC there or not is going to help anyone who may be puzzled, as those people probably won't know that one club's name has the FC and the other doesn't. As such, I don't think it's a valid reason to go against COMMONNAME or "local medium form". This is a situation where links will provide the best clarification, not naming conventions.TheIndieArmy (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You say that, and then you have Sébastien Le Toux. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, where his article clearly explains why he would have two "Seattle Sounders" clubs listed in his stats. Any further confusion will be taken care off by the proper linking to the club's article. We shouldn't remove using COMMONNAME because of one player. One could even argue that having "Seattle Sounders" and "Seattle Sounders FC" listed one right after another creates even more confusion to the ignorant. TheIndieArmy (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of club's short name vs full name on player articles.

What is the preferred use of club's names on player bio articles? The template shows short names, so that's what I've been using on Tyrone Mears's page. However, an editor insist on using the Seattle Sounders FC full name on the page. Despite all other club's mentions using the short name. E.g. "Bolton Wanders" instead of "Bolton Wanders FC". Is they any preferred stance on this? At the least, I think it should remain consistent throughout the article with use of full vs short names. At the most, I think it should follow the template as close as possible, which uses short names. TheIndieArmy (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the country, the two examples you have used are from USA (where they tend to use the full name) and England (where they don't). GiantSnowman 10:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why meters first for English player height?

(And Scottish, Welsh and Irish too probably)

I'm an English football fan and I know English fans talk about people heights in feet/inches and not in meters or cm. I have been told that Wikipedia needs players heights to be meter first for England and given a massive threat message for changing them, but when Qed237 changed them all back he didn't get any threat. I read all the websites for all the premier league teams and saw that-

• Villa, Burnley, Crystal Palace, Hull, Leicester, Man City, QPR, Southampton, Stoke, Swansea, WBA put feet/inches first (11 teams)
• Chelsea, Newcastle, Sunderland put cm first (3 teams)
• Everton, Liverpool, Spurs put meters first (3 teams)
• Arsenal, Man U and West Ham dont give heights (3 teams)

The faceless bureaucrats at the premier league put meters first but the teams and fans dont take any notice of that. Why is the Wikipedia rule to defy the English fans and put meters first? That is my question. I would like to change them all to feet/inches first to suit the English way if I am allowed please. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I will ping @Qed237: since he was specifically mentioned above and should have the opportunity to respond. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: Thank you for the notification.QED237 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a few additions to this and then I welcome input from other users. First of all this discussion started at Talk:Richard Wright (footballer)#Height data where an other user @Michael Glass: were asking about the height and what source to use. Speccy4Eyes then wanted to add feet/inches to that player and change all others to feet/inches, no matter what source they had, for consistency and that is when I reverted his edits for going on that mission for editing all other article just to make them the same as he choose on Richard Wright (footballer). He then got notification that changing between feet and meter may upset editors, and I did not recieve any notification since I only restored the pages (according to the editor handing the notification out).QED237 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In this discussion I tried to explain that cm and m are the same measurments, without any luck so the editors keepos separating th two as different measurment units claiming it is three with meters against eleven with feet. Also Manchester City uses both (for example see Martin Demichelis at mcfc.com) and I have not even checked the others so that can be seen as 7 teams with meters. Also the official premier league website with info on all players use only meters as well as many of the other sources used on the player articles all around wikipedia like Wayne Rooney at soccerway. Meters has been used almost everywhere as far as I know and I dont see why we should change that, when many sources uses meter. QED237 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not too long ago there was a massive discussion about footballers heights, you can find it in the archive of Template talk:Height. Basically we use whatever reliable source say, and {{height}} converts for us so it displays both, and I don't really see what the issue is here. What I will say is that height in m is more specific than ft so personally I would say we should use that as the 'main' height. GiantSnowman 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing the issue is that Speccy4Eyes wants to establish consensus for using feet and inches as primary unit for the height of English footballers. They believed that, because feet and inches is normal usage in England for people's height, that's what should be used. The relevant bit of the Manual of Style, MOS:NUM#Unit choice and order, supports that view:

In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that: ... the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds

But when they started to change some over, they got a big warning notice. Because in the past, some editors' "enthusiasm" for changing measuring units in UK-related articles and resultant edit-warring got so bad that "general sanctions" were issued, such that anybody who wanted to change units had to establish clear consensus for doing so, and if they persisted after being told about the sanctions, they'd be in trouble.

There's no consensus for either system based on British published sources. In "official" sources, the Premier League website uses metric, but the FL Interactive sites (most Football League clubs and some outside it) use feet and inches, and some PL clubs with their own websites do as well. Qed237 is right that 184cm and 1.84m are both metric, just different ways of displaying it, and that's roughly what the discussion referred to by GiantSnowman was about.

Historically, there are two main reasons why a lot of English footballers' heights use metric as the primary unit contrary to the MoS. The obvious one is that editors who worked on individual articles used metric as a matter of course or because their source happened to, and no-one questioned that choice. The second is that Premier League players were systematically changed to metric before the general sanctions came into force, and most people either weren't bothered, or were bothered but not enough to drop everything else they do on here to devote themselves to arguing with people on a mission. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think the first thing to note about players' heights is that they should be documented. Undocumented heights are frequently out by 4cm, 6cm, 8cm or even more compared with Premier League.
• The second thing to note is that some teams use metres while others use feet and inches. I don't think most people care too much whether the metres or the feet and inches come first as long as both are provided, but a few people do care a lot. Therefore, uniformity may be impossible to enforce.
• The third thing to note is that the Premier League uses metres, whatever the individual teams use. In the case of Premier League teams it makes sense to follow the Premier League because individual players frequently move from team to team, and it wouldn't make sense to chop and change the height display just because a player moved from one team to another.
• We could of course have a free-for-all, where the first editor to put in the player's height determines whether metric or imperial measures come first. This would have the effect of setting the present mixture of presentation in concrete, something that is less than ideal.
• I believe that it makes sense for teams to be uniform in their display of heights, where this is possible. As changes of the order of units are not supposed to go ahead without prior notice, giving notice of such a proposed change should give interested people a change to comment. If no-one objects, why not make them uniform, provided that the height is documented from a reliable source? Michael Glass (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As this is the season of good will to all men, and I'm not using any more of it than necessary on rehashing height discussions, I'll keep this brief. In order of your points:

• Reliable sourcing is indeed a requirement. Unfortunately, the discrepancy between the PL website and other sources is often because the PL website is wrong, sometimes ridiculously so. I'm sure you wouldn't insist on using an inaccurate source when accurate ones are available.
• I tend to agree that uniformity can't be enforced. It's unfortunate that so many editors are unaware of relevant sections of the Manual of Style, and doubly unfortunate that so many of those who are aware, prefer to ignore certain aspects of it when those aspects run counter to their personal preferences. If the MoS is no longer appropriate, it should be changed through proper process.
• The source, whatever it is, tells us how tall the subject is. It doesn't tell us what order of display to use. Height may change as the subject moves through his teens to full adulthood, but it won't change just because he changes team.
• I'm not sure if the original poster on this thread wanted to change all players in England teams to use ft/in, or just the British ones. Personally, I'm only talking about English/UK, i.e. those who indisputably come under the "non-scientific articles related to the United Kingdom" section of MOS:NUM#Unit order and choice. In those cases, the "first editor to make a choice" determinant couldn't apply as the style isn't optional. For subjects from countries where the metric system is the common or only system, metric measurement should be used. For subjects from the US, US customary measurement should be used.
• As above. The name of the subject's employer can't determine the choice of unit. We can't form a local consensus here for excepting articles about English Premier League footballers from the MoS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I would agree with this.

I'd note that there was objection to the mass-conversion of football articles at MOSNUM at the time, but we had a WP:FAITACCOMPLI because by that stage it affected well over a thousand articles. When the general sanctions proposal came up, it was cited as a textbook example of what we wanted not to happen in future. The mass-conversion was based on the principle source-based units (i.e. using whatever units the specific cited source does), which that particular editor has already proposed - unsuccessfully - more times than I care to count at MOSNUM. It was not accepted by MOSNUM then and isn't now.

Suggest that if there is consensus to move back to MOSNUM standards (which I refer to because the general sanctions allow exceptions with "clear consensus" - and the oddity re: WP:CONLIMITED was noted at the time but nothing was done about it), that it be logged in some way at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom. Kahastok talk 10:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a case of the subject's employer determining unit presentation style. In any case, the subject's employer is not really much more arbitrary than the piece of land they happened to be born on. But there are precedents for certain Wikiprojects using styles which do not conform strictly to the MOS (e.g. Hiking), and for certain exemptions to general MOS provisions (for example, the common names of plant cultivars are to be given in single quotes rather than double – the latter is the MOS norm). On paper, the rather odd balance of metric and imperial/US customary measurements on WP is supposed to represent what is most contextually appropriate and intuitive (to whom, is left implicit) but in practice it's something of a political compromise that doesn't make much sense when taken as a whole and can easily devolve into crazily pedantic angels-on-pinheads arguments. Consistent unit presentation would obviously solve all these problems, but for reasons of WP internal politics it's unlikely to happen. As it stands, the existing muddle is the result of adopting as the consensus position for UK units the style guide of a newspaper from about fifteen years ago. There is a footnote explaining that the real-life situation is complicated and hence some leeway needs to be allowed, but I have never been able to get a straight answer about what this means in practice, and it would appear to be a dead letter.

However, as a rule, questions about the MOS should really be discussed there. I don't think there's much prospect of changing anything – fair warning in advance – all the horses that once roamed the plains of MOSNUM have long since died, and the ground where they fell has been beaten beyond recognition. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Although this has undoubtedly been raised previously, I would just like to flag that converting a measurement given in a source can lead to inaccurate information being stated in the article. For example, if a cited source gives a height as 186 cm with no imperial equivalent, an editor could use this as the basis for entering their height in the infobox as 6 ft 1 in. This would result in the height being stated as 6 feet 1 inch (1.85 m) and now the metric value does not match the source – the player's height is one cm shorter – because an element of precision is lost in the conversion back and forth. —sroc 💬 13:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

...yep, hence why we should display what the reliable source displays. GiantSnowman 14:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is always perfectly possible to convert as accurately as is necessary, per the guidelines in MOSNUM. If 6 ft 1 ins is not precise enough for you, you can go as far as 6 ft 1 29⁄127 ins if you want - except insofar as you have to respect the precision of the original measure.

If you want to use templates, this works as well. WP:UNITS specifically points out the |order=flip option in {{convert}}, so you can quite happily write 6 feet 1 inch (1.86 m) as {{convert|1.86|m|order=flip}}. Kahastok talk 19:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. From the above it is very clear, especially from the bit from MOS:NUM#Unit choice and order that we must have feet-inches first and cm second for all players in English teams including premier league. The measure used in sources are not important because 1 foot is exactly 30.48 cm and I can easily do the maths. I'll start making the changes again. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Errrr, no, you will not start making those changes. The displayed height should be the same as is given in the source, with the converted height afterwards. If the sourced height is in centimetres, that is the height that should come first (not converted to metres). – PeeJay 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No: the rule you describe runs - and has always run - directly counter to WP:MOSNUM. An editor has been pushing it for several years, it is true, but it has always been rejected. We do not follow the unit system used in the source any more than we use the spelling used in the source.

If you have been told or understood otherwise then you have been misled. Kahastok talk 19:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Translation: if you have been told or understood that WP editorial culture doesn't doggedly insist on treating British people as if they were scarcely capable of understanding modern units of measurement, willfully ignorant of evidence to the contrary, you have been sorely misled indeed. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you just being deliberately offensive, or was there some point to that message? You are well aware of the rule and the reasons for it. Your continual incivility does not improve the atmosphere of the discussions on this topic when they arise. The fact that you prefer one system of units does not mean that everyone else has to also prefer those units, but that is a discussion we have had (repeatedly) on a different page, and it is inappropriate of you to try to start it on this one. Kahastok talk 23:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Most here will not have been party to our previous exchanges; my comment refers to those. There will be some editors in the position I once was, wondering why an encyclopedia would so aggressively enforce anti-metric rules some way into the 21st century. I am of course aware of the rule in question; whether what have been produced to justify it could be called "reasons" (i.e. the Times Style Guide from several years ago) is a separate matter. You seem to get perplexed by other people finding this argument incredibly unpersuasive, however many times we are reminded of it – is that really so surprising? And I must say that I found your past attempts to patronise people as too stupid to understand the only system of measurements that many of them have been taught, based purely on their nationality, significantly more offensive than my sarcasm.

You also misstate my case by saying that I am arguing on the basis of my own preferences; if I were doing that, I might go into how I believe the SI should be improved, how I might prefer to use it, etc. Perhaps you mistook my argument that you cannot generalise based on nationality (if you want a reductio, it's fundamentally no more sound than generalising based on sex or ethnicity) for an argument based on personal preferences – but in that case my point was simply that I am an example of a British person who does not accept your characterisation of "British" units of measurement. I do not claim that my own preferences are authoritative.

My argument has never been based on my preferences or anyone else's (q.v. NPOV); it has always been that SI is the world's standard system of measurement, the official measurement system of the UK, and the only system of measurements that has been taught in this country for some four decades now (or two score years, if we insist upon the old ways), and people who claim not to understand it have little ground to stand on. You can of course cherry-pick exceptions, as you have ably done in the past; you can even cherry-pick a publication's style guide which is not especially friendly to SI. But that amounts to building an argument on authority, complete with cursory dismissiveness of anyone who disagrees with the arbitrary choice of source.

I do not acknowledge your right to dictate to other editors what is and is not "appropriate" for them to do, or on what terms they may debate, or when a consensus is really a consensus – these are all rights you have assumed in the past. Or is it not equally inappropriate for you to bring your own MOSNUM history here? Patere legem quam ipse tulisti. But I share your trepidation about another nightmare thread about units, so for now, satis. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all I would like to wish everyone a Happy New Year to all. This includes those who want a rigid application of MOSNUM and those who ask for a more flexible approach.

I think the following should be noted:

1. Virtually all player profiles give both imperial and metric measures.
2. The majority of player profiles for the majority of teams are metric first.
3. It has been this way for several years.
4. Even before that time, some player profiles were metric first
5. Efforts to modify MOSNUM rules have been rejected repeatedly, but the last time it came up, the opposition to change came from just two editors.
6. One change to the rules means that no change to units of measure in UK articles can be made without prior consultation.
7. This also means that mass changes (all metric first or all Imperial first) can't take place without prior approval, and I don't think that either proposal would achieve consensus.

More than one editor has argued that this should be discussed at MOSNUM. While questions of units have been discussed there ad nauseum, this project just might be able to come up with a proposal that could be acceptable. What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care strongly either way which measurement comes first, but MOSNUM specifically states that for non-scientific articles relating to the UK, personal details use imperial units as primary. If such measurements are provided in the reliable source using metric units (whether in meters or centimeters), then |order=flip will work just fine.

I think the issue then arises with how we define whether a given player's article is related to the UK. Do we refer to any player with UK nationality as being related to the UK, or is it for any player who plays in the UK? I have a clear position regarding this particular issue; we should use the player's nationality, as the club for which a player plays can change fairly often, so shifting the units back and forth every time the player changes teams would be unproductive. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I rather agree. I think your point on which articles count as a UK-related article makes sense. We could make a case for a different definition, but nationality gives us the least effort to maintain.

I would note that this is a page for football articles, so we should stick to football and how the rules apply to this project, rather than trying to renegotiate the rules overall.

It is worth asking the question whether there is any good topic-specific reason, that may not have been considered at MOSNUM level, that would lead this project to use a unit other than that preferred by MOSNUM? The classic examples would be the weight limits in combat sports or sports like weightlifting, though clearly football doesn't have any such equivalent. I am not aware of any good reason in this case.

I would note in particular the argument that most British footballer articles at present use metric appears to me to be flawed - mostly because the premise is completely inaccurate. There is a predominance of metric units in Premier League articles as a result of the WP:FAITACCOMPLI of a single editor (involved in this discussion) a few years back, who converted a thousand-odd articles to metric because he preferred the metric system. This change was never discussed with this or any other WikiProject, and the end result is a disconnect. Most British players who played in the Premier League at the time of the change are measured in metric units first. Most modern British players who did not play in the Premier League at the time seem (from a brief survey) to be measured in imperial units first. Obviously, there are more footballers in the second category than the first. Kahastok talk 11:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you actually think people look at each article and say "That article's not using the same units of measurement as the other"? Maybe I'm an odd specimen, but if I was reading articles about British footballers and one had the height in metres and the other in feet and inches, I'd just assume those were the most accurate measurements we had, damn the consistency. I very much doubt anyone is ever that fussed about consistency when it comes to heights. – PeeJay 14:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't pretend that this is The Most Important Thing In The World - if I thought that I'd have spent the time to align this project with the MOS. But we have a style guide for a reason and global consensus holds that we should follow it unless there's a good article- or topic-specific reason not to. I haven't seen one yet, but you will note that I asked the question in my last post.

But note that part of the problem here, as was noted before, is that what we actually have in many cases are not the most accurate measurements available. The editor doing the mass-conversion of articles a few years ago based it on the (spurious) justification of source-based units, whereby the units used are the units used by the specific source used to justify the measure. This can lead (and, when applied, has led) to problems when editors have, when choosing sources, prioritised system of measure over accuracy. For these editors, it is more important for the source to be metric than correct. This is one of the many reasons why source-based units are rejected at MOSNUM talk. Kahastok talk 15:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense in cases where multiple sources are available and are as valid (in terms of reliability) as each other. But when one source has been determined to be more reliable than the rest and therefore serves as the primary source, doesn't it make sense to quote the height from that source exactly, units and all, regardless of what the MOS says the primary unit should be? I understand that we can use some code to flip the order that the measurements are presented, but by doing that, we are suggesting to the reader that the first height is the one that was given in the source and that the one in parentheses has been converted from that, when in fact it is the other way round. – PeeJay 15:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

PeeJay - yes, that is complete common sense. We decide the most reliable source, and use exactly what their say - we don't try and convert it ourselves. GiantSnowman 15:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) On what basis could it be said that "one source has been determined to be more reliable than the rest and therefore serves as the primary source"? On the accuracy of the measurement in question or on the system of units it uses? Experience shows that the latter option is preferred by some, and may well have been applied to many articles related to this project.

No, there are many reasons why such a system has been rejected in the past - including the gaming issue but also the issues with inconsistency. If applied in good faith, such a rule may well require that we measure a player's height at 15 in feet in one sentence (per the most accurate source available) and then his height at 18 in metres in the next sentence (per the most accurate source available). And that is something that readers will notice.

Remember that, in general, when we cite a source, we are referencing information as opposed to quoting a specific source. If we cite a source that talks about "soccer" on a UK-related article we don't need to call it "soccer" in the sentence that relies on that cite. If we cite a source that gives today's date as "30-12-2014", we don't write out "30-12-2014" in our article. And if a source gives a player's height as "1.75 metres", there is no reason why we cannot refer to it as "5 feet 9 inches (1.75 m)" in our article. The information is the same. You may say that 5 ft 9 ins is different from 1.75 metres, but in fact it probably isn't meaningfully different given the error inherent in the original measurement. It may well be that the original measurement was 5 ft 9 ins in any case. In a quotation it's different in all three cases (language, date and measurement), but in the vast majority of cases - particularly on this project - it won't be.

And as I say, this is a MOSNUM point, since it is not specific to football. This point (source-based units) has been discussed innumerable times at MOSNUM (all at the initiative of the same editor) and has been consistently rejected for reasons such as these. Kahastok talk 16:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's all very well to go on about the one editor who has done this and that. several years ago. After all, several years ago, another editor who is taking part in this discussion devised, helped enforce and then defended a singular rule of units (more imperial than the UK rules) for the Falkland Islands, until he was finally outvoted on this issue. Even in 2011, Premier League and several of the teams used metric units only and quite a few of the player profiles put metric units first.

It will be 2015 tomorrow, and Premier League still is metric only but 6 of the teams use metric units while 3 more teams don't give the height of players.That is 9 out of the 20 teams. The edits in question have stood the test of time and are even more relevant and appropriate now. On a practical note, is it worthwhile flipping the display of thousands of player profiles just so the infobox reads 5ft 11in (1.80m) and not 1.80m (5ft 11in)?

We now have a rule that says that changes in the order of units for UK articles must have prior notice at least. To achieve the flipping of the displays so that feet and inches always appear first on such a massive scale needs consensus. I don't think that such a consensus is likely to emerge from this discussion. Michael Glass (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I prefer meters. SLBedit (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a dick about this, but this isn't about what you "prefer". – PeeJay 21:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Feet/inches mean nothing to me and probably most of the world. If source uses inches, then use inches and convert to meters, and so on SLBedit (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM always requires a conversion between metres on one hand, and feet and inches on the other - regardless of which goes first.

Michael's objections on practicality and consensus grounds amuse me because he has never let either point stop him from converting articles to metric in the past. The fact that one website uses one unit and others use others (which is what is meant by "Premier League still is metric only but 6 of the teams use metric units while 3 more teams don't give the height of players") is, per WP:MOSNUM, an entirely irrelevant distraction. Kahastok talk 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok is welcome to his amusement, but the rules have now changed. No-one can change the order of units on UK articles without consensus. Anyway, have a Happy New Year.Michael Glass (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr Glass (happy new year) you changed Wayne Hennessey, Zeki Fryers, Jason Puncheon to meters first with no consensus a few days ago. So all I did was change them back like Kahastok showed us. And I think PeeJay2K3 needs to be given the big warning message like I was too or why can he change everything but not me. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Speccy4Eyes or is it DeFacto? The fact that these edits of yours have been reverted more than once and other similar edits have also been reverted demonstrates that you had no consensus for them. The rules now specify that you must ask before changing the order of units on any UK article. I asked before changing, and gave other editors time to respond; you did not ask at all. Please stop edit warring. Michael Glass (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Ask who? You changed them them without consensus and I changed them back. And it wasn't me edit warring it was PeeJay2K3 and Qed237 and you didn't tell them off or get them given the big warning like me. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Speccy, have you forgotten your attempt to reverse the order of units on the Manchester City team? All these edits were almost instantly reversed. Ditto with all your other attempts in this direction. Three separate editors have objected to your edits and you have received a heavy warning about what you are doing. Before attempting to change the order of units in any UK based article, you must give prior notice of this on the talk page and then wait so that others may respond. You are behaving very much like the banned user, DeFacto. Michael Glass (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I did Man City before I knew all the rules. You think you know the rules and still break them. You cannot make changes by giving prior notice you need consensus for changes. You never got consensus so I changed your changes back. Others then broke the rules and put your systematic changes back again! Speccy4Eyes (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael, you really have no right to be so outraged here. Speccy4Eyes has done nothing that you have not done on a much larger scale. Yes, the general sanctions were imposed, but you can't really expect a new user to have heard of general sanctions, let alone know every area in which they have been imposed. Shoot, I've been here for years and I don't know every area in which general sanctions have been imposed. Kahastok talk 11:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Kahastok, are you sure that Speccy4eyes is a newbie? His way of behaving is very like the banned user, DeFacto. Whether or not he is a sockpuppet, Speccy4eyes was duly notified of the general sanctions that apply to editing about units of measure in UK based articles. As for my previous edits that you found so controversial, you know full well that most of them have remained in place since 2011. Your Falklands Units is long gone but most of my edits remain. Now, because of the general sanctions, they can't be touched except by due process. Michael Glass (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is odd that you go on about the change on Falklands articles. Partly because it has nothing to do with football, partly because you go on as though a move from treating the Falklands as UK-related for MOS purposes to treating the Falklands as UK-related for MOS purposes is somehow an extraordinary and fundamental change. The only reason I opposed the change at the time was that I believed it would be Wikilawyered - and that has not happened mostly because the editor who was going to Wikilawyer it got indeffed for persistent Wikilawyering.

But the question here is not about the Falklands. And it's not about your ownership issues with units on the Premier League articles, and only tangentially about your decision to try to implement a WP:FAITACCOMPLI action on these articles and then use the difficulty to reverse the change as a justification for the change. Nor even about your allegations of sockpuppetry, which would meet our definition of a personal attack.

The issue here is that at this time, this project, for no particular reason, is not adequately following the global consensus expressed WP:MOSNUM. Local consensus at this project cannot override the global consensus expressed (such as WP:UNITS), but even if it could, there is no coherent system of units used across this project. You may think we should change WP:UNITS, but even if we did, it is highly unlikely that any future change to WP:UNITS is ever going to recommend the current mixture of units used by this project. This is a failing that should be resolved, and can only be resolved with relatively-wide-scale changes to articles. Your talking about how units "can't be touched" is unconstructive and unhelpful. Kahastok talk 12:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Metric Units prevail over the old dated Imperial Units in the UK. We should stick to Metric Units for British footballers per WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS. IJA (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The MOS recommends metric units for UK-related articles in most instances, but notes a few specific exceptions - among them personal height and weight. Naturally, all measures should have both systems (the question is which should go first). Kahastok talk 12:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course both units should be used as not everyone is used to both systems, for example Americans tend to use Imperial Units and if an American reader on Wikipedia were to read an article on an English footballer, it is only fair to tell them the football's height in Units they understand. As to which should go first, I would say Metric as this is the most common Unit system in the UK and this is a UK related article. IJA (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That would mean a change to the MOS, which isn't something this page can really do anything with. The area of order of units on UK-related articles has been much discussed and discussions tend to be neverending and acrimonious, so if you did choose to go down that road I don't think you'd be thanked for it. Is there good football-specific reason to put aside the MOS and prefer metric in these instances? Kahastok talk 13:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no football related reason to argue either. IJA (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)