Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Dutch Qualification for Champions League berth 2008-09

I have today added a note about the different way FC Twente qualified for the UEFA Champions League 2008-09 but it was reverted almost immediately. I have now put it back in a different format, but am sure it will get reverted again pretty sharpish. What is the general view out there on having a footnote in the article about this? The article before implied that the runners-up of the Eredivisie are the second placed team, which would be Ajax, and therefore incorrect. - fchd (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A footnote seems OK. D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Layout

I was just looking at this. The colours seem OK, but then if you click "Show" the colours look "messy" as such, and don't exactly look professional. I notice, by clicking [edit] that each match is in it's own seperate box. I'm no good at templates, but maybe making a change to Template:Fb cm3 match would solve this problem. D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Anyone who can lend a hand at this discussion? It will be much appreciated, as you may well know more about this person than we do, but at the moment, the article completely fails WP:BIO. Many thanks, Lra drama 19:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article, about a rather dubious "player" Zlatko Kartal has now been deleted. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Bradford City Peer Review

The History of Bradford City A.F.C. has been at peer review for a couple of weeks now. Jameboy has helped to improve the article. I'm trying to get it towards FAC, and wondered if there's any more editors who can help out with the review. Thanks. Peanut4 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Ramsey

Could someone please explain to User:Minkythecat how Aaron Ramsey is now an Arsenal player, which has been confirmed by several major sources? [1] [2] [3] Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also had a polite word...Giant Snowman 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

His response, let's say is pretty straightforward. <sigh> D.M.N. (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, can the move be completed outside the transfer window? I don't know if youth players are exempt or something. Beve (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the window opened on 1 June? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the window opens on 1 July. However, Cardiff may have released Ramsey from his contract so he could sign for Arsenal early. – Pee Jay 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Really?! I always thought it was 1 June... but, I've seen it be stated that it opens when the season ends, on 1 June and 1 July... can't find any clear source for its opening date. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this link, transfer window is from the last playing day of the season. This link, however, implies it opens beginning of June (based on article date and "With the transfer window having reopened at the start of this month"--ClubOranje^Talk 01:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure players aren't allowed to register with a new club before 1 July. The transfer may be complete before then, but the player isn't officially a player for his new club until 1 July. – Pee Jay 08:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Stipe Pletikosa

There is a slow edit war there - Croatian users removing all mentions of Yugoslavia, others reverting them. Please share your thoughts on which variant for his country of birth is more accurate. My opinion is that there were no such country as Croatia in 1979, so we should write Yugoslavia. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Same problems in Darijo Srna and likely on numerous other footybios. People are pretty active now due to Euro. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is quite clearly Yugoslavia. Croatia was not a country in the 1970s or 80s. I have blocked one IP for clearly disruptive editing and warned another user. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You're the 1000th user to ask this! You win an original 1971 Cuda. --necronudist (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

SFR Yugoslavia (now Croatia) is what I revert to, which can't be too far wrong as it has lasted more than a week without reverts on (xxxx) page (name withheld to prevent immediate revert!) - although I must research the official change date to Croatia - it won't be long before there are notable players born after Croatia became an independent state--ClubOranje^Talk 08:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatia declared independence on June 25, 1991. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot category to project population

A couple months ago someone (I can't remember who) compiled an index of all the football related categories together to show how many articles we had amassed, and also how many of these weren't marked with the project page. As I edit articles, I still very frequently encounter articles, and major ones about leagues and federations, that aren't marked with the WP Tag. I was just wondering if anyone had a bot that we could get to just go and auto-tag all of the articles in football related categories; it'd be the easiest and most efficient method of tagging them all. matt91486 (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion; there is actually a page somewhere where you can put in requests for bots, but I can't remember where...Sorry. Giant Snowman 01:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is at WP:BOTREQ. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, cool - does anyone have that list handy? I can try to dig it up if no one does. matt91486 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, Elissonbot was created specifically for this purpose. Johan Elisson isn't quite so active these days, but it'd be worth asking him. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ShepBot was also created for this task and just finished up a WikiProject Composers run; so I'm free. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've hopefully delivered all of the pertinent information to Shep, so this should get all of the articles tagged for the project matt91486 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit of F.C. Copenhagen

F.C. Copenhagen has needed a copy-edit since January. Last time the article was GA-nomineed, which it failed, a copy-edit was required in the review. Since the article has been listed, but nothing have happend. ka la ha 09:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to let people know.........

The Miracle of Geneva has gone to deletion review..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Same person twice

Johannes Gandil and Johannes Gandil (athlete) are the same person. --necronudist (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect into Johannes Gandil? Giant Snowman 16:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the redirect is useless... nobody will ever search Johannes Gandil (athlete) instead of the simple Johannes Gandil... --necronudist (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't delete it as the article history needs to be kept to comply with GFDL. I wouldn't worry about it, redirects are cheap. Qwghlm (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I just added {{R from merge}} to it as a reminder. Also, there are incoming links. Woody (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF Club Teams Task Force

I was noticing the sad state of the Central American and Carribean leagues and seasons. I thought that a task force for the purpose of updating CONCACAF Club pages would be good. Bornagain4 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Third-party ownership

Following the whole Tevez/Mascherano debacle, it was revealed today that Jo of CSKA Moscow cannot yet sign for Man City because of third-party ownership; as this is an increasingly common phenomenon in football should we have an article on it - Third-party ownership in association football or similar - or is it not worth it? Giant Snowman 17:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that would be a good idea for an article. There's probably plenty of info about the topic out there, so you should be able to source it adequately. Go for it! – Pee Jay 17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks PeeJay, I'm going to have a crack at creating the article then, I'll let you all know when written something. Cheers, Giant Snowman 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been bold and created the article, it's pretty basic at the moment and so any help in improving the article would be greatly appreciated! Giant Snowman 17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a controverse and quite foggy argument, a sandbox preview would have been a better thing. --necronudist (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Spanish league question

Quick question on the Spanish leagues - am I correct in assuming that Segunda División is the lowest level of individual player notability and Tercera División is the level that much be attained at some point historically for club notability? Looking at the leagues, that's where I'd logically set it, anyway, I just wanted to see if that was a general consensus or if I was crazy. matt91486 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Primera and Segunda are notable for players, and Primera, Segunda, Segunda B and Tercera are notable for clubs. – Pee Jay 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion help

Hello all; those that follow AfDs will see that I've been a fool and created two articles which fail WP:ATHLETE (although clearly at the time I thought they would scrape through) which can be found here and here, while the AfDs can be found here here and here. Now, to save everyone's time and effort, is there anyway that I, as article creator, can get the articles speedily deleted? Cheers in advance! Giant Snowman 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are the sole contributor you can tag them {{db-author}} and they will be speedied..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, speedy deletion criterion G7 ({{db-g7}}) will suffice here. – Pee Jay 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted them both and closed the AfDs per your request. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, just thought I'd save everyone another four days of debate! Giant Snowman 21:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot tagging help

Hey WikiProject Football, when I tag articles for projects I give them a list of categories that are under the main category and have them filter it to just the categories they want. It might not seem possible but Category:World War II is a subcategory of Category:Thailand, and a bot will find it! There were a little 375,000 articles under Category:Football (soccer). Please filter the category list here and here for ones that don't belong. Dial-up users each page is 200 KB and will take a long time to load for you; be careful. Thank you very much! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I scanned the first list, and didn't notice anything that didn't belong. I may have missed something. It might be worth having a couple people go through each one. I'll let someone else do the second and/or check the first. matt91486 (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Custom kits

_fmgtest

Ok, I know this might not be totally allowed, but wouldn't it be a bit nice to be able to have higher detailed kits. I play fm quite a lot and there are very many different version of fan-made kits, now most of these are shirts only, but recently some guys over at FMGLive created a kit with shorts and socks, now they release the templates in .psd form free to the masses (but I'm not sure of the copyright, but could ask). To avoid some problems I striped the corporate/club logos of this one, if that does it any good. You could probably also create such standard templates as Image:Kit_body.png so you fill in the colour yourself. Now I know it would be too hard to try and update every club... but if it would be allowed at least, it would be great. Though these might all be under copyright from like nike, adidas etc who own (probably) the designs for the kits, even though these templates here have been made by internet folks. Just thought I'd throw the idea out, even if it wont get through ← chan dler 05:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See the relevant section above. - Dudesleeper / Talk 08:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with copyright from Nike/Adidas etc. - the representations are very low resolution and we can claim fair use. There is definitely a problem with the copyright of their representations as made by the users of FMGLive, unless they all licence them under GFDL/CC-by-sa. So I think - a nice idea as it is - it's not workable. Qwghlm (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I've asked he creators of the kit and they were all fine with us using it. Now we don't have to switch all clubs completely but you could at least be allowed to use them, couldnt you? — chan dler — 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Blimey!

I've just discovered that the WP College American Football project considers any match between two notable teams to be worthy of its own individual article. Can you imagine if that was applied to "our" football? You'd have things like Category:Matches between Rochdale and Bury...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Really?! That's insane, surely! And it's not even senior football. If that was applied to association football, you'd get "Matches between Cardiff University and the University of the West of England"! – Pee Jay 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, those aren't notable teams. You can't really compare US college football, with its 50,000+ crowds and live TV coverage, to uni sports in the UK...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus there are only 120 teams in the top division of American College football, while there are thousands of soccer (football) all over the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.167.0 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the various bowls, e.g. Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton (the rest I don't know or have forgotten), or are there some other general game articles? Peanut4 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Their guidelines say that any regular season, post season or bowl game is notable enough to potentially have its own article..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Any regular season game. I don't even think NFL teams have this. I.e. see 2007 Miami Dolphins season and specifically the game-by-game scores from 2007 Miami Dolphins season#Week 1: at Washington Redskins. Peanut4 (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The explanation I got was "Wikipedia College Football is a project on American football at the college/university level that has guidelines that considers all regular season games, conference championship games, and bowl games deserving of an article. The logic is that when two notable teams play each other, the result is a noteworthy event." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"when two notable teams play each other, the result is a noteworthy event" Wow!! So if notable Alex Ferguson and notable Arsene Wenger have a phone call, is that a notable phone call? I think their logic is flawed. Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

They also have a guideline for articles on well known individual "plays". The soccer equivalent for that would be to have an article on something like Gordon Banks' save from Pelé. The only one I can think of that we have got is Hand of God goal...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Even so, it seems a bit ridiculous! Giant Snowman 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Worryingly, they're notable college teams include ones that play in the NIAA, which held last years final at a 5,000 capacity stadium. Time to include conference games me thinks. ;-)josh (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I create an article on the 2008 South Wales Varsity rugby union match? – Pee Jay 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If these are notable, then I would suggest on the same lines any cup final of a notable competition, or maybe even play-off final is a notable match. 2008 FA Trophy Final anyone? Peanut4 (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we even have any set notability criteria for association football matches? Personally, I think that only finals of competitions open to notable clubs should be considered notable, perhaps with exceptions for matches of exceptional historical significance. – Pee Jay 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have a good point there. Maybe time to set some criteria if we don't already have some. Peanut4 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the matches of historical significance area is where we'll have the hardest time deciding. I know that I personally think the Battle of Nuremberg article applies in that situation, but there are some other editors on the project who feel equally strongly the other direction. So we might have trouble explicitly undertaking what historical significance means. matt91486 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Very true. See Bayern Munich v Norwich City and its related AFD. Peanut4 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been to quite a few Hull City games that definitely weren't notable. Beve (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Two colours

Every article on teams have two different coloured uniforms shown, but no link explaining why. Is Germany wearing the white one or the red one in the Europe soccer cup this year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.155.231 (talk • contribs)

Why would a link explain something so trivial as first and second kits... Is there team sport in which teams don't have a reserve kit in the case of facing a team with the same home colours? — chan dler — 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds silly, but he might have a point, after all we are meant to write articles for people who know nothing about the subject, so at least some sort of description might be needed. John Hayes^talk 09:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems daft to have to insert a block of text into every article about a team, or even into the infobox, though. Maybe we could put a heading of "colours" or something above the kit diagrams and wikilink it to Kit (association football), where the concept of colour clashes/kit changes is mentioned......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Added links to first,second and third "colours" in {{infobox football club}} — chan dler — 10:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone who knows nothing about the subject might be confused when teams wear 'away' strips in a home match. Should we have first, second and third instead? Home and away strips don't really mean what they did twenty years ago. It's more marketing-orientated now so perhaps distinguishing between most commonly worn, i.e., first(-choice), second(-choice) and home/away. •Oranje•·Talk 10:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think that's a good solution. John Hayes^talk 10:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are able to use the parameter pattern_name1/2/3 (I added it some days ago on a similar request from here) though the default still is Home/Away/Third this could easily be changed to First/Second/Third... Though I still think most clubs refer to them as Hom and Away — chan dler — 10:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also the issue of when a third kit is an alternative away kit, or when it is a primary European kit. For example in recent years Bayern Munich have had European kits which they played in even at home, instead of their normal kit. This addition seems to allow for that. John Hayes^talk 10:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you can do the pattern_name3 = Alternative away or pattern_name3 = European etc, but as you can see here it might wrap for some ppl (Alternative away and European Away wraps for me) — chan dler — 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Chandler. Could you please make the same change to {{Infobox National football team}}?

FIFA Altitude Ban section/article Redundancy.

I am posting this as I am having an issue with some redundant article and subsection. The part I am talking about is FIFA altitude ban is almost completely redundant to FIFA#FIFA_altitude_ban. As mentioned here at Talk:FIFA#FIFA_Altitude_Ban_section.2Farticle_Redundancy. that this is a violation of WP:Fork. I have opened the discussion at Talk:FIFA#FIFA_Altitude_Ban_section.2Farticle_Redundancy. to discuss what shall we do about this problem and I would like to see comments directed there. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 10:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bots again

In case anyone had missed it, DyceBot is going through any article which has years in its title, and replacing dashes with endashes - e.g. moving European Cup 1955-56 to European Cup 1955–56. However, it is not doing anything helpful like fixing all the broken links on templates that it leaves, e.g. all but ones of the links on {{Fußball-Bundesliga seasons}}. Argh! пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldnt be that hard to go through templates with notepad and "replace - with – or –"... though might be some easier way than doing it all by hand if some ppl have tools or bots for that — chan dler — 11:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the seasons template, to endashes, though the latest 4 seasons had not been moved so i left them to link with -'s — chan dler — 11:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it actually breaking links in templates, or just leaving them pointing to a redirect at the old hyphenated name? I had a look at its contributions, and it seems to be fixing double redirects. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is just leaving the templates with redirects. Still annoying (to me anyway). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Whilst not actually breaking the links, it does stop the current season appear in bold in the template. If you compare 1890-91 in English football with 2005–06 in English football for example, you will see that in the former, the current season is in bold in the "Seasons in English football" template at the foot, whereas the latter is not. Also, it seems to be fixing a problem that didn't exist and causing unnecessary re-directs. If I type 2005-06 in English football into an article that link will now redirect to the new title. I can't see what was wrong with the original title. As someone else said recently, there seems to be too much obsession with trivial details about dashes rather than adding meaningful content to WP. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Beve (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has raised the template problem on the bot operator's talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone outside Wikipedia use these pesky en-dashes these days? The BBC certainly don't, Sky don't appear to, and the (limited) print sources I have on my desk at the moment don't either. - fchd (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Former Toronto FC Players

Can someone take a look at Former Toronto FC Players? The standard for hockey teams is to make full lists of players (eg, List of Washington Capitals players), but I don't know what to do with this one.-Wafulz (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Toronto FC players already exists for players past and present; however, most clubs do have seperate articles detailing the playing career of players who meet certain standards (won a competition, internationals, certain number of appearances etc.), which should be located at List of Toronto FC players. Giant Snowman 16:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:G-14 clubs

I noticed this category in amongst the list of football sub-cats. Should it be put up for Cfd given that the group no longer exists. josh (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we could move it to Clubs of the former G-14 or something; it's still a valid historical grouping and it might be presentism to delete it outright. matt91486 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed criteria for football biography navboxes

Following the recent no-consensus but with a drift towards keep at the end closure of the mass TfD of continental tournamnet navboxes, I would like to make a few proposals for what navboxes should be supported by the project, and how we can go about reducing the visual clutter at the bottom of player/manager articles.

1. General rule The super-collapse function should be used when there are more than 3 managerial or 3 international navboxes using the layout discussed above: International top, Managerial mid, and current squad at the bottom.

2. Current squads - should only be used for teams playing in fully professional leagues (subject to deletion if displaying badly out of date information due to lack of updates)

3. International squads - Should only be permitted for the FIFA World Cup and the highest level of continental tournamnet (European Championship, Copa América, African Cup of Nations, Asian Cup and Gold Cup).

4. Managerial templates - (I'm not sure about the minimum standard for this one perhaps something like) Managerial templates should only be created for clubs that have played at least one season at the highest level of the national league structure, or at least 10(?) years in fully professional leagues.

5. Awards - Award navboxes should be strongly discoraged, the information and a wikilink to the award should be made available in the honours and awards section of the player/manager article.

6. Clearing succession boxes In cases where the succession box can be replaced by a managerial navbox, this should be done. In cases where the succession box does not refer to a managerial position the information (club captain, player of the year, etc) should be transcribed into the text of the article or into the honours and awards section as part of the succession box deletion process.

I hope people can bring themselves to support this proposal so that we can begin super-collapsing the big piles of navboxes and deleting all of the succession boxes and vanity award templates with some comprehensive consensus based guidelines to fall back on. Feel free to add your views below, thank you. E P 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

No arguments from me. Those criteria seem perfectly worded. – Pee Jay 19:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here. We really really need to get rid of squad templates for teams not in fully pro leagues - they just encourage the creation of articles on NN footballers. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not if they're done properly - i.e. with non-notable players de-linked (and they usually are). A lot of Conference clubs have maybe two-thirds of players notable, so the navbox is a useful tool. And these players are less likely to have international navboxes, so there's less danger of clutter. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what would you have as a cutoff point for squad templates? I've seen some with only two links on - surely these are pointless? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think ArtVandelay13 may make a good point. I'd perhaps add squad templates for teams one level below pro level, or at least for those countries where there is promotion/relegation between the bottom level and the one below. Peanut4 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be taken on a team-by-team basis: i.e. a minimum number of notable players. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Was just thinking something along those lines. It makes perfect sense. But rather than team-by-team I'd say we set a mark now. Either a percentage of the squad (half maybe) or at least a teamworth of notable players. Peanut4 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I could live with a teamworth (i.e. 11). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why this is necessary, just to protect a few English non-league sides. This could also lead to the absurd situation where player x leaves club y necessitating the deletion of the current squad navbox because less than half/only 10 of the players have played for other unrelated clubs. A less complicated alternative could be should only be used for teams playing at the national level of the league structure, which would allow navboxes down to Conference National level. I really think its better to keep it simple rather than come up with some convoluted definition aimed at preserving some pre-determined templates in English non-league football. E P 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In complete agreement with that and the complete removal of succession boxes. And it seems everything above looks good. Peanut4 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Establishing a consensus in the light of recent non conclusive TFD is quite needed. Personally I think the proposed points by English peasant are short and good formulated and I will support them if there will be some straw poll or voting. Just one note to the international navboxes - we should keep them consistent as FIFA World Cup templates are. Consistent in design, colours and naming. We should start from recently created Euro ones which almost all use different names. It's not "European Championship" but UEFA Euro etc. European Championship can be also in darts, UEFA Euro is only one. :) - Darwinek (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of leaving it a few days for discussion before opening a straw poll, so as to not get slammed for starting the !voting process too quickly. If anyone else feels it is appropriate to start a straw poll now I would not object if they set it up. E P 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I still think that officially sanctioned awards have a place in templates. Certainly not magazine awards, etc. though. matt91486 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposals, but suggest that clubs which are fully professional but are playing in the top-flight national league (e.g., Standard Liege in Belgium or Saprissa in Costa Rica) which contains some semi-pro clubs may be allowed a squad template. These types of clubs typically play in continental championships are have notable squads, so I would hope a template is acceptable. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Any team in the Champions League certainly needs a squad template. But I think there needs to be a sensible approach to overlook any rules in certain cases for clubs that don't fit the criteria but where a template would help navigation. Peanut4 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposals

1. General rule The super-collapse function should be used when there are more than 3 managerial or 3 international navboxes using the layout discussed above: International top, Managerial mid, and current squad at the bottom.

2. Current squads - should only be used for teams playing in fully professional leagues or professional teams that are playing in leagues that are mainly professional (at least 80% 0f the teams have clearly sourced professional status). These templates are subject to deletion if they are displaying out of date and misleading information due to lack of maintenance .

3. International squads - Should only be permitted for the FIFA World Cup and the highest level of continental tournament (European Championship, Copa América, African Cup of Nations, Asian Cup and Gold Cup).

4. Managerial templates - Managerial templates should only be created for clubs that have played at least one season at the highest level of the national league structure, or at least 10 years in fully professional leagues.

5. Awards - Award navboxes should be strongly discoraged, the information and a wikilink to the award should be made available in the honours and awards section of the player/manager article.

6. Clearing succession boxes In cases where the succession box can be replaced by a managerial navbox, this should be done. In cases where the succession box does not refer to a managerial position the information (club captain, player of the year, etc) should be transcribed into the text of the article or into the honours and awards section as part of the succession box deletion process.

Straw poll

Following the discussion above, I have made a small amendment to point 2. please feel free to support or oppose the criteria as stated above. Cheers E P 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Support all but 2. I'm not sure the best way to re-word or change 2, but I'd like to see this expanded for certain countries, i.e. expand for one to Conference National in England. Peanut4 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made another change to criteria 2 here which would allow Conference templates to be kept, for the demonstrably professional teams in the league. I hope this is satisfactory. E P 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I like Peanut4's expansion for number 2, and I disagree on #5. I think official awards should maintain templates. matt91486 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please define what you mean by official award? Player of the month as officially honoured by the BBC, some magazine award?, National FA award? FIFA approved award?--ClubOranje^Talk 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why awards shouldn't be linked to in the Honours and Awards section of player/manager articles it is the natural place to look for them. In my opinion there is no need to duplicate the information in a navbox. E P 14:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I mean awards issued or recognized by national or international federations or leagues. Like the MVP of Major League Soccer, FIFA World Player of the Year, or any of the World Cup awards. I know the World Cup awards are currently succession boxes, but I think they should be turned into templates and covered by this proposal. The only non-officially organized award I'd make an exception for is the Ballon d'Or, because it's so prestigious. It's not a matter of duplication, it's a matter of navigation. Their managerial positions are also all listed in their infobox, but we keep them so we can see continuity between leaders of the club and navigate amongst them. matt91486 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support revised proposal. Jogurney (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Support the revised proposal. Salt (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Support the revised proposal. Note: Only a few people participate in this vote, is there any possibility to advertise it? More people = stronger consensus. - Darwinek (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Support revised proposal. – Pee Jay 09:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Support revised proposal Paul Bradbury 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support revised proposal. Bigmike (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support everything except "more than 3", I think it's a too low number. If a retired player who's not managed have played for example 3 World Cups and 2 Euro's I think they don't have to be collapsed. So for me the collapse would come when a player has 6 or higher (including all cups, manager and current), not 4 or higher. ← chan dler 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support revised proposal. Giant Snowman 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support except #3 Mostly suppport, but some concern regarding expansion of international squad templates to highest level of federation. Relaxing the criteria only encourages more relaxation of criteria. Federation cup will be next, with the argument that it must be more notable than the individual federation tournaments as it takes the best from each and puts them together. Then it will be qualifying for above qualifying is part of the process toward winning the world cup. and so it goes.--ClubOranje^Talk 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is ever enough support for these proposals to become accepted by the community, I would guess that any modifications to allow world cup qualifier squads (if there is such a thing), U-20 World Cup squads etc would have to be done by consensus, which I could never see happening. Unfortunately most of the people that helped to keep the Euro Cup templates at TfD seem to be unaware of this discussion. We can never claim these criteria as consensus based with only 11 supports. E P 09:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lineup template

Hi. I have created a template for football lineups. The template is located at User:Kalaha/sandbox2 and an example is made at User:Kalaha/sandbox3. Will somebody please take a look at it, and please comment it. Thank you. ka la ha 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to devalue your work, but I cannot see any advantage of your example over the format already in use at, to use the same match example, this article. There is a minor glitch on yours with positioning of the third substitutes' names. But I must confess I don't like any match article that gives a representation of players' positions, as these are far more fluid than such a diagram implies. Kevin McE (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it's the point that it doesnt look any different, only put into a template... Kevin, about number and position, they are in there under home1pos, home1no. The only problem I see is the last sub. ← chan dler 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards the templateness (sic), I hadn't realised that the others did not follow a template. If it makes it easier for the building of pages to have it as a template, then I'm not going to argue against it.

As regards the players' names on the pitch "map", I appreciate that it is determined by the text: my issue is that it does not show the fluidity and flexibility that exists in reality, with wingers switching sides, or midfielders having flexibility for playing flat or as a diamond. It may well be that I'm in a small minority on this one, and I made it clear that is is my dislike, not a fault in the template, but Kalaha asked for opinions... Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, most of the matches that we add lineup images to are organised by UEFA, who provide a convenient "Lineups" press release an hour before the match. This press release includes a diagram of the players' positions on the pitch at the start of the game, making it easier to tell who is playing where. – Pee Jay 17:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In defence of lineup diagrams, my practice is to display lineups as they were at the start of the game, rather than to show where the players actually played throughout the duration of the match. This negates any fluidity of the actual lineup and is also infinitely more citable.

In relation to the actual lineup template, I don't like the way all the icons next to the name default to the left-most column. I like it so that all the yellow cards line up, and all the substitutions line up. It makes it easier to read, for one thing. Also, do you think you could increase the number of substitutes to 12, just in case we feel the need to list every substitute in a World Cup or European Championship team? – Pee Jay 17:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the pitch diagram in the middle, it is way too big in relation to the size of a normal match article. In fact, I think even over-categorising players into DM, etc is too much as one of the best things about the sport of football is that everyone but the keeper doesn't stick to a single position through the game. - fchd (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't like pitches on Wikipedia - playing positions are fluid, constantly changing throughout the game. Giant Snowman 19:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well these are the starting lineups ← chan dler 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really like the pitch images. They provide a free image that fills up what would otherwise be whitespace. Most people visiting these articles would probably realise that football positions are not strictly defined and that players don't have to stick to the positions shown. The image is only meant to show the starting lineup, as defined by the official squad lists given to the organisers before the game. – Pee Jay 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If the text was at 100% size (as it should be for accessibility reasons), there would not be very much white space to fill! - fchd (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true. But from a stylistic point of view, the smaller text looks a lot better. Text can always be increased in size using the "increase text size" function of one's internet browser. – Pee Jay 21:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Disagree 100%. The small text looks horrible, and why when I've set my default text size within my browser should I have to enlarge it to read important information on a web page? No content less than 100% size please. - fchd (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Starting lineups are not necessarily the same as starting positions. Giant Snowman 20:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but where we have press releases like this one it seems appropriate to me to copy the lineup shown. By the way, surely the definition of a lineup is the way the teams "line up" on the field, and hence it would be their starting positions. – Pee Jay 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The way teams "line up" is determined by where the ball is, and at kick off are not as shown on these charts (what if a team with one striker takes kick off?) You are well aware from this discussion that the perception of those watching can be very different from the press release. Do we include that which is verifiable, even when empirical evidence shows it to be wrong? Kevin McE (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't want a discussion about the table, as I have not made it. I just wanted some ideas to fix the smaller errors there is. ka la ha 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the only evident issue is that third sub. What's your opinion on the pitch map? Kevin McE (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Three points on User:Kalaha/sandbox2.

It would only work for international games. But it either needs to be modified or a fresh template, for domestic or continental games, e.g. FA Cup Finals, Champions League Finals.
The starting positions look on first appearance to be pre-defined to GK, RB, LB, CB, CB, RM, LM, CM, CM, CF, CF. This isn't always the case.
I think subs and cards could do with separate columns. Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not care about that pitch map. I think it is too hard to make for every user, as it demands .svg-knowledge. That is why I made it optional.

I know the issue with the third sub, but I don't know how to fix it.

To make it fit club matches, the big flag must be optional, and optional player flags can be added.

I just chose the 4-4-2-formation as default tactic, as it is the most common.

I'm not sure, what you mean on the separate columns for the subs and cards. The template is made from the already used ones, so after the player name column, there is a column for cards and thereafter a column for subs.

Hope you understand my terrible English. ka la ha 08:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a few points to try clarify things. PS No worries about the English.

This link has optional positions for subs. Can you do the same for the starting line-up so that modifications can be made when it isn't 4-4-2?
Your current sandbox has the yellow cards and substitutes aligned in one column. But if you look at UEFA Euro 2008 Group A#Switzerland vs Czech Republic and other such matches, yellow cards and substitutes, etc. have their own separate columns to ease alignment. Peanut4 (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the things should be fixed. I have also made an example with a club match here: User:Kalaha/sandbox4. ka la ha 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Now, using this match as an example, what functionality does your template provide for players who are substituted off after being substituted on themselves? – Pee Jay 17:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, a simple space could do it:

|away12pos = MF | away12no = 23 | away12player = [[Vladimir Bystrov]] | away12sub = {{subon|46}} {{suboff|70}}
ka la ha 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What about if I wanted to get the subon to line up with the suboff, like in the amendment I just made to the example match (which I should have done before)? – Pee Jay 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Sorry. ka la ha 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, you see how Bystrov was subbed off after being subbed on? His suboff icon is further to the right than his subon icon because it's in a separate column in the table. I have now made it so that Adamov's subon icon is in the same column as Bystrov's suboff icon in order to make it obvious that Adamov was coming on for another substitute. Is there a way that this could be implemented in the template? – Pee Jay 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no referee in the User:Kalaha/sandbox4 example. He'd be on United's side too, naturally, along with his assistants. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

*quashes joke* There's no need for the referee to be included in the template, as he's already listed in the {{footballbox}} template =P – Pee Jay 20:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd either move the referee out of the footballbox template, or move the assistant and third official into it. Not sure there needs to be a separation, since (as I demonstrated) it might lead editors to assume a mistake has been made. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should make the lineups an optional extra for the footballbox template, and move the referee to the bottom with the assistants and fourth official. Obviously this would be prone to overuse, but we can't just not do something because we fear it might be abused. – Pee Jay 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary? Further it is so rare, that I don't think it matters. ka la ha 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you think, then I'm afraid I can't support this template just yet. If it can't provide the functionality of a simple table like the ones we use now, then what purpose does it serve? – Pee Jay 17:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It can be (easily) fixed, but I personally don't think it is necessary. ka la ha 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If it can be done easily, then you should do it, regardless of whether you think it is necessary or not. – Pee Jay 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have also created 5 more subs for each team. ka la ha 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, cheers. – Pee Jay 19:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I will move the template to ~~Template:Football lineup~~ and slightly start use it. ka la ha 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about anyone else, but I think it will need some instructions how to use it? Peanut4 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't have experience with making "/doc"-pages. I would prefer somebody experienced user would help with that. ka la ha 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that template is in use, so the title is: Template:Football line-up. ka la ha 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, having seen the new template put to practical use in the UEFA Euro 2008 Group A article, I have to say I don't see what benefit it has over the original table. They both perform exactly the same function and, although it shouldn't matter as Wikipedia is not short on webspace, the table takes up less bytes. Also, there can often be confusion over how to use templates such as this one. For example, people may assume that the numbers in the parameters (e.g. "home1player") may refer to their squad numbers and fill in the template as such. Therefore, although the template was a good idea to start with, the table is probably simpler to use. – Pee Jay 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would ease up the process and would be easier to edit for the not-so-advanced-user. ka la ha 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fair dos. Like I said, it was a good idea, but I have to say it hardly takes an "advanced user" to copy a table from one match and replace the names and numbers for a new match. Of course, if anyone feels like using the template themselves, it's not up to me to say they shouldn't. It's just an alternative to the table, and perhaps both will end up being used in equal measure. – Pee Jay 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FIFA U-15 World Cup

FIFA U-15 World Cup has got an article half a week ago, but the FIFA website doesn't say anything about it. Is this hoax? SMARTSKAFT | ¿ 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any evidence for a U-15 World Cup yet. The best evidence against is this list of FIFA sponsored events from 2007 to 2014. --Scottmsg (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All I've managed to find is this [4] so far. However, given the lack of any information available, it does beg the question, whether the competition is notable or not. Peanut4 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Or if it even exists... – Pee Jay 19:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. If it doesn't exist, it's a hoax; if it does exist, it doesn't seem notable. Both reasons for deletion. Peanut4 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If it exists, it's notable, 'cause it's a FIFA tournament. But I think it doesn't exist... --necronudist (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the lack of evidence, I'm inclined to agree with you. Delete the sucker. – Pee Jay 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mario Santana

Could an admin protect this page and remove all the pathetic drivel please. Cheers E P 10:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Angelo (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

SJFA articles

I'm a tad over my head in the Scottish Junior Football Association articles. Big Jim Fae Scotland, who laid the foundations of the topic, hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 2007, so it's largely been a one-man show. The main issue is updating the memberships of each division in the relevant articles and templates and also club infoboxes. Any assistance would be appreciated. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Midfield section

Can anybody help with people constantly changing the page above please? i have done it far better in the last couple of days and plenty of others have in the past, as it simply needs it. Yet people keep changing it back to obvious wrong/misleading or even not adequate information. There is far more to consider than whats on that page and whilst Football is the easiest game in the world to know/understand/learn, different tactics/abilitis and even different jobs the same player can do can cause a lot of confusion, which is why it's not the easiest to get right. But when better information keeps getting reversed back or even changed again to sometimes even more obviously wrong/misleading details, something should be done to stop it. Again, i don't care too much about the time it's taken but when somebody does try to help and improves something, at the very least they shouldn't have to read the old, wrong information that was the only reason they changed it in the first place when coming to have a look. Would appreciate any help. Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.114.86 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you use edit summaries to explain your changes, and especially if you provide sources/references, there's less chance of your edits being reverted. Beve (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Standard for group results sections

I've noticed that every article for each notable competition seems to have a different way of displaying results. Some (like UEFA Champions League 07-08) have the table of fixtures next to the standings, which I personally like because it takes up less space. Some have the individual results from each match, including goalscorers, refs, etc. Some just don't show the results, only the standings themselves. Shouldn't there be a standardized way of doing this? I suggest just copying from the UEFA one with the table at the side. What are your thoughts? --iTocapa ^iChat 23:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Also, what about the order of stats in the standings table? I've seen points first or points last, W-D-L or W-L-D, goal differential or no goal differential, points bolded or points not bolded, etc.? I think there should also be a standard for this. --iTocapa ^iChat 23:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Are English Conference National players considered notable?

James Knowles (footballer) for instance...

Apart from the fact that the article needs a complete rewrite, is this a speedy delete or AfD candidate? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not. Head towards AfD, I think...Giant Snowman

There's a whole lot more created by User:Farsleyceltic. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just prodded them all. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 18:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

On the general point, some clubs in the Conference National are fully professional. That would make players notable if they played for one of the fully professional clubs against another (but not if they only played for or against one of the semi-professional clubs). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ATHLETE says that. I'm sure it's for footballers in fully professional leagues, which the Conference isn't. Peanut4 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Peanut's correct, of course - the league must be fully-pro, not just the team. Giant Snowman 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Having read WP:ATHLETE, I agree with you. This would mean players in leagues like the Scottish Football League First Division wouldn't necessarily qualify, because there is usually at least one semi-professional club at that level. Scottish players would have to play at the Scottish Premier League level to achieve notability with that standard. Having said that, it appears all ten clubs next season will be fully professional. Stirling Albion were the only semi-professional club last season and were relegated. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you define if a league is fully professional? I know of two players last season in League One and Two who were part-timers. Does this mean that those two leagues are not longer fully professional? --Jimbo^[online] 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, surely nine professional out of ten clubs in a league would give enough reason to justify inclusion? What happens if there are ten and one is relegated, replaced by a part-time team? Should we delete all player articles? •Oranje•·Talk 13:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because they have still played in a fully professional league, even if it isn't anymore. John Hayes^talk 16:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that consensus had been reached on this issue which, looking at WP:FOOTYN, is as long as the player's club is fully professional in a national level division... Bigmike (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which would make players who have played for a professional club in the Conference National notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was reached on WP:FOOTYN but hasn't been accepted as policy by WP:BIO. I think. So WP:ATHLETE is still in place and still the notability threshold for footballers. Peanut4 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But WP:BIO is unprotected, and we have established a strong consensus at WP:FOOTYN. Who is to say that we shouldn't publish it at BIO? Kevin McE (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. And I think User:English peasant would agree too. Peanut4 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, because consensus should always trump something that was just invented one day by a lone user, but I'm tired of making the same point. If anyone else feels consensus should rule they can try and get the issue fixed and I'll support them all the way, then return to contribute regularly at XfD. If not, there's plenty else for me to be doing. Regards E P 13:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Scorelines

Is there a preferred standard for writing scorelines in articles? I tend to write the winning team's score first (3–1, for example): Stevenage faced Chelsea at Hindlegs Park, losing 3–1 to the Londoners. I've seen both 3–1s and 1–3s, however. - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I write the winning team's score first, but only because that's the style I see most often in the media. – Pee Jay 11:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I was asking because the following doesn't follow suit in an article that lists scores winner-first, but I think it's clearer as-is: Blackpool's most notable achievement is winning the 1953 FA Cup Final, the so-called "Matthews Final", in which they beat Bolton Wanderers 4–3, overturning a 1–3 deficit in the closing stages of the game.. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably correct in that situation. You just have to decide what sounds right in any given situation. – Pee Jay 12:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I wouldn't use Londoners as it assumes that the reader knows which of the two teams is from London, and even that London is a city not a team. I know it seems silly, but we are meant to assume the reader knows nothing about the subject. John Hayes^talk 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How would the reader be confused as to which team is from London from that sentence? It's probably poor grammar on my part. , and lost 3–1 reads better, but it was just an example. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well they would have to know that Chelsea is in London, and Stevenage isn't. John Hayes^talk 12:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If the sentence were Stevenage faced Chelsea and lost 3-1 to the Londoners, it would be quite clear that Chelsea are from London, as Stevenage (the subject of the sentence, to get all grammatical) cannot lose to themselves. Madcynic (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice on season naming

Hello, I am totally clueless when it comes to sport so I need some help. Somebody created a bunch of articles about A Lyga seasons (top soccer league in Lithuania), but named them as [Year] LFF Lyga. I do not think that's correct. LFF is Lithuanian Football Federation and it runs the A Lyga. So what would be the correct naming? [Year] LFF season? Should LFF be spelled out? [Year] A Lyga season? Something else? Renata (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's because some articles cover all the LFF Lygas, not just the A Lyga (an example would be covering three leagues in The Football League 2007-08 rather than having separate ones for each league (e.g. Football League One 2007-08) etc. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying current naming is ok? Renata (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware yes, but the other division's data needs to be added to the articles to make sense of it - 2005 LFF Lyga is one example where it is properly done. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And "lyga" is ok too? Shoudn't it be replaced with "season"? Renata (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Scottish Cup and Tennent-Caledonian Cup

I'm looking at some of the minor competitions played by West Bromwich Albion. Are the Anglo-Scottish Cup and Tennent-Caledonian Cup one and the same? According to my books, Albion played in the Anglo-Scottish Cup in 1975-76 and 1976-77, and in the Tennent-Caledonian Cup in 1977-78 and 1978-79. Both competitions involved English and Scottish clubs, so I wondered if it was the same competition by a different (sponsored) name? --Jameboy (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they are different competitions. The two ran concurrently, Anglo-Scottish Cup from 1975–1981, Tennent-Caledonian from 1976–1979. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Alves

Does anyone know if Daniel Alves' move to Barcelona has been completed? Several Sky Sports articles ([5] and [6]) seem to think he has, but there has been no mention of it from the club itself ([7]). Anyone know...? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first Sky story says he'll actually write his name on the contract when he returns from international duty, which is still ongoing. Also, Sevilla's website mentions him here along with other of their players on int'l duty in S.America as if he were still their player, and again, there's no mention on their site of any transfer. Think that probably comes down to "not yet". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see evidence in both Barcelona and Sevilla articles, so he should be considered as a Sevilla player until an official announcement is provided. Sources provided from websites such as Sky Sports and Goal.com are simply invalid, since a signing is to be considered completed only once one of the parties confirms it. --Angelo (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Futsal articles

There are a number of Futsal competitions around, notably the domestic league of Brazil, Spain and Italy. However, there are no articles about these Futsal competitions, so should we do something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie goh (talk • contribs) 16:09, May 27, 2008

Of course we should. I don't see why you need to ask this question. Be bold and just do it. – Pee Jay 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Manchester City Task Force

I have proposed a task force on Manchester City over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Manchester_City_Football_Club trying to gauge interest. If you are interested please add your name Paul Bradbury 09:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagging images

What tag do I use on an image where the copyright info is incorrect? I'm pretty sure this image hasn't got the proper copyright info as it's been uploaded from Yahoo. --Jimbo^[online] 10:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

{{imagecopyvio|withtheURLhere}} - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 3183 articles assigned to this project, or 10.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Result maps

I've noticed that in this image that Russia does not inherit the USSR's results. However, the results table at the competition article does follow FIFA's/UEFA's habit of assigning Russia those results. Any idea how to resolve this inconsistency? Madcynic (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Change the image. Simple as. – Pee Jay 14:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But if Russia "inherits" the results of the USSR then so should Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia etc. By the same token, the Czech Republic and Slovakia would take on Czechoslovakia's results and all the countries from the former Yugoslavia would gain Yugoslavia's results. With the large number of changes to the political landscape in Eastern Europe over the years I would be kind of dubious about how meaningful such a map would be. You could almost do with two maps, one showing the countries as they were in 1960 when the championships started, and one for 2008. --Jameboy (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. The debate is not which country inherits which honor. Fifa/Uefa decide that and questioning/doing it differently comes close to OR, I think. The debate is whether those inherited honors should be added to this map. Madcynic (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Incorrect. According to UEFA records, only Russia is the rightful successor to the records of the former USSR. Similarly, the Czech Republic retains the records of Czechoslovakia, and Serbia (formerly Serbia & Montenegro) retains the records of Yugoslavia. – Pee Jay 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

American college soccer teams

College teams in articles on American 'soccer' players are listed in the infobox under 'Youth Teams', but should one link to the University itself, or (if applicable) to the University sports team's individual article - for example to University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee or UW-Milwaukee Panthers? Giant Snowman 22:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conversation here might be relevant. I would imagine the link should be to the universities' sporting arm: that is the team. The analogy would be that we link to national football teams, not the national FA. Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, much appreciated. Giant Snowman 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Soccer League

Canadian Soccer League is currently a disambiguation page, with links to the current incarnation of the league - Canadian Soccer League (current) - and a previous one - Canadian Soccer League (1987 — 1992). Do you not think we should have the current league at Canadian Soccer League, with a hatnote pointing towards the defunct league? Giant Snowman 23:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me. matt91486 (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

USA/United States

Not that its a big deal, but I was wondering why {{fb|USA}} produces United States and not United States? Obviously everyone knows USA is United States, but do any other countries use abbreviations? When you type {{fb|UK}} produces United Kingdom, and not UK. Length isn't an issue. After all, we have Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 02:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because, for some reason United States national football team isn't the article for the national football team, but a disambiguation page. And the article lies at United States men's national soccer team from which USA national football team is a redirect... This might have nothing to do with it those... Or it might just be it's never refered to as "United States" in the football world, always USA — chan dler — 04:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered that FIFA always lists it as USA. That's probably the reason. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wartime guest players

Should players who guested for teams during WWII have the relevant team details in the infobox? And if so how, the same as loan (i.e "→ Wikipedia United (guest)"?) Giant Snowman 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's how I've done it in article on Eddie Latheron that I have recently created. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the best way, although remember wartime appearances don't count as official league ones. That said I don't like putting zeroes in the column - perhaps putting dashes: — (—) which implies not applicable may be a better solution in the apps/goals appearances. Qwghlm (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the dashes actually make it look like no appearances were registered, rather than implying "n/a". Maybe the data should be put in italics, with a footnote explaining the unofficial nature of the matches, or something...........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of italics in the infobox. And I think with the number of appearances, it would be very difficult to read or spot. Since the infobox is for league fixtures, I would either put 0 (0), or simply leave the line blank, and explain the number of appearances in the text. Peanut4 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Djln, who has done a fair bit of work on wartime footballers, added appearances to Billy Hughes (footballer born 1918), formatted as seen (except I de-italicised guest and wartime), including appearances for the owning club as well as for guests. Don't know whether their figures are just league games or what they are. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If we can accept appearances in various minor leagues (see e.g. Steve Claridge), then appearances in the wartime leagues must be acceptable, although I think a footnote should be added. I can see there would be problems in verifying these figures as they are not included in most "official" records. My Southampton reference books refer to the wartime leagues with details of appearances and goals on a season by season basis, although they are not summarized, so I've never bothered to include them in infoboxes. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, it just seems obvious that all a players appearances should be cataloged, regardless of who he plays for, as long as the player meets the notability criteria from somewhere in his career. matt91486 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lineups again

There is a bit of a discussion here about the EURO 2008 line-ups. UEFA provide two different line-ups in the press section on their site, one that is given out prior to the match, and one that is created after the match has played. The latter will show what positions the players actually played in, while the former is probably created from some info the respective team give UEFA. The discussion is whether to include the pre-match lineups with the match report or the postmatch lineups. As you can see on the talk page, I prefer the latter version, but my argument has not been rewared with a reply by User:PeeJay2K3. Please note that this is not a personal attack on PeeJay, but rather an attempt to reach a broader consensus. If this has been discussed elsewhere, I am unaware of it and would greatly appreciate if you could show me that discussion. TIA. Madcynic (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to the question you posed at the earlier discussion. I didn't see it at the time, but I have now responded. Anyway, I think this is a fairly new issue, as I only started to see lineup images on here around the time of the 2006 World Cup, so it's unlikely that standards have been officially laid down regarding lineup images. Nevertheless, the standard I have been following, albeit my own, seems to be working OK. – Pee Jay 14:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So you keep saying. Please don't take offense, but I'd like to hear some other opinion other than ours :-) Madcynic (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep the early lineups, as it's always been this way (I mean, not only in Wikipedia...even before it ever exists). --necronudist (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It would seem logical to me to use the actual line-ups rather than what was predicted before the match. Beve (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

League name changes

Am I right in thinking that when a league sells its sponsorship rights to a company, the league's actual/official/legal name doesn't actually change as such, but rather the company buys the right to have its name "displayed" as part of the league's title? So, for example, to say "in 19xx the Isthmian League changed its name to the Ryman League" is not technically correct, as the league is still officially/legally the Isthmian League but merely operating under a "trading name"......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We were wondering the same thing over at WP:RU a couple of months ago with regard to the proper names of the Magners League, Guinness Premiership and Heineken Cup. Would be interesting to find out what the answer is, since everyone over at WP:RU was adamant that we should use the current (sponsored) names regardless of what the league's legal/official/actual name is. – Pee Jay 14:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was searching to see if there was a policy on this recently, and the nearest I could find was an essay for pool fans. I have always taken the line of avoiding the names of commercial sponsors unless those names are intrinsic to understanding a reasonable concise reference, as they would be in, for example, cycling teams, or reference to the Watney's Cup, but are not in talking about leagues. My reasoning, however, is not as technical as CtD's: it's simply that the sponsors are not giving me, or Wikipedia, any money, so why should we advertise them. Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The ephemeral nature of sponsored names means the unsponsored name is the only sensible choice in most cases, unless perhaps a competition has never had another name. Otherwise you'd have to work out which of Milk Cup, Rumbelows Cup, Littlewoods Cup, Coca-Cola Cup, Worthington Cup or Carling Cup to use every time you mentioned the League Cup. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to the original query, wording such as "rebranded as" or "became known as" or something would sidestep the problem. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The most recent Isthmian League Handbook I have to hand is 2002-03 (still in the Ryman sponorship era though) Under the Companies Act 1985 Rules & Regulations, rule 1 is "The name of the Company is "THE ISTHMIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED" (their caps). Later, in the "Rules of the Isthmian League" section, rule 1(b) under Nomenclature & Constitution includes "The name of this Combination of Clubs is The Isthmian Football League and shall be known by such name as required by any sponsor and approved by the Management Committee". On my website, I always refer to the leagues by their unsponsored names, but am collating sponsor details to show on league summary pages to give the sponsors the credit for putting their money into football. - fchd (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the rugby competitions it definitely seemed to fit there, however unless there is a need for disambiguation purposes it would seem to be wrong in football. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Turkish question

Hello. As we all know we use the "players" form in category names for football club players if the name of the club is not shared by other sports, i.e. "PSV Eindhoven players", not "PSV Eindhoven footballers". However, Cat:Footballers in Turkey by club shows that most of its subcategories still use "footballers" form. Should it be changed or the club names in Turkey are generic, referring to many other sport teams? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite a lot of Turkish football clubs are actually sports clubs with a variety of different teams across different sports - Galatasaray S.K. being a good example. Just using the term "players" could be confusing. Dancarney (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed something similar with Category:Spartak Moscow footballers. Although there is an Ice Hockey team called HC Spartak Moscow, the category for their players is named Category:HC Spartak Moscow players. Should the football club related one be moved to include the full name, FC Spartak Moscow and change footballers to players, i.e. Category:FC Spartak Moscow players? --Jimbo^[online] 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed to Category:FC Spartak Moscow players. That would also tie in with previous discussions on this subject. Peanut4 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This move was originally proposed in March 2006 and was turned down - see the discussion, such as it was, here. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anyone even bothered to present an alternative argument to the "Oppose" voters in that discussion. The move makes perfect sense, and should be proposed again forthwith. – Pee Jay 09:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey lads! I took the initiative and nominated Spartak category for renaming. Vote and comment --> HERE. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wartime games

Sorry if this has already been covered, but should wartime league appearances be included in infoboxes etc? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion further up this page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Wartime guest players. Cheers, Giant Snowman 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for that! Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Title question

Why is United States men's national soccer team‎ so called when all other such articles are "X national football team"? Buc (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Because, like with pretty much every other walk of life, the Americans play by different rules to the rest of us. – Pee Jay 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be moved into the right place imo. — chan dler — 18:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, along with Canada men's national soccer team and Canada U-20 men's national soccer team. Giant Snowman 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course they'll have to be moved to "X national soccer team" unless you want to start another massive argument... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No reason why they shouldnt be at x national football team — chan dler — 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that they refer to it as "soccer" over there, but that's your can of worms, not mine :D – Pee Jay 20:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly, PeeJay. I'm all for renaming them "football" and never referring to "soccer" ever again, but our American cousins don't agree :-) Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the use of "soccer" in North America rather than "football", but I don't like the use of "men's" (sexist as that sounds!) and I don't like the use of "U-20" instead of "under-20". Giant Snowman 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've left a note on the talk page. Buc (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely naming conventions and varieties of English conventions would require it to be called "national soccer team"? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Struway2 is correct. Even though the proper name for the sport is, of course, football, because it is for the US team we have to use American English and hence it is their soccer team. Interestingly, there is a US national American Football team. Dancarney (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should definitely be under "soccer team" per WP:ENGVAR. The only question is why "men's" is in there..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The only explanation I can think of is that some bright spark thinks that women's football is more popular than men's football in the US, and so they might think that the women's national team predominates over the men's team. – Pee Jay 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, by WP:COMMONNAME. In the US, the women's team is/was at least as important as the men's team, so people wouldn't automatically assume that "national team" means "men's national team", as they would in most other countries. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "National Association football team"?

All relevant policies say that we should use the common local term, though, which is indisputably "soccer". Some of this debate smacks of "let's get the word soccer out of the title because we don't like it"......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rightly so I think, I would never have called them a "soccer" team. Buc (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please fell free to go and vote on the articles talk page. Buc (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

US soccer team manager templates

As is such with franchises, many defunct American sides only existed for a few years, and only had a few managers, but should they be given manager templates as most other teams have? I only ask because Eddie Firmani's page has both manager templates (for his time at Charlton and NY Metrostars) and succession boxes (for his time at defunct teams), and I think it looks ugly. Cheers, Giant Snowman 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your query but I like the entry in one of the succession boxes that he was "Preceded by Creation". Allelujah!!!! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. I don't mean to offend anyone.

Eddie Firmani is God? I'm sure a few Charlton fans would agree with you there ;) Giant Snowman 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But didn't we agree that succession boxes should not be used for coaching positions, and instead be replaced by navigation templates such as Template:Manchester United F.C. managers? --Angelo (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did, but would there be a point in having a manager template with potentially only a few (one, two, three) managers in it? Giant Snowman 12:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to remove a popularly believed urban myth

Hi I've come across a discussion on the Tottenham Hotspur page where an image link has been placed showing Notts County with the FA cup, with ribbons tied on it. Its placed there to prove that Spurs were not the first team to do this, despite the claim being made in the article. The claim was removed but keeps being replaced by a user named Govvy, who refuses to believe the evidence despite seeing it in print. He says its a scarve but the concept of the football scarfe hadn't been invnted in 1894. It's also documented in the Guiness record of the FA cup that County adorned the cup with ribbons but I can't find the info at the minute. Norniron (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Normiron, before we go any further I hope you will not mind me just checking something out with you. I noticed your user name cropping up before in relation to postings by User: CaptainBeecher in relation to his use of his own football history site as a citation for his contribution to football pages discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#User:Captainbeecher on this occasion you popped up a few days with a posting in support of his use of this site, fair enough. I then see that CaptainBeecher originally raised this issue about the ribbons on Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Ribbons on the cup 1901 myth back in May and again after a gap of several weeks this time again supporting his comments. I then notice that both of you have created independently a sequence of several identically designed articles on the Grand National but have never exchanged comments on these articles on the talk pages. Perhaps this is just a coincidence but it would be appreciated to know if you are in any way connected with CaptainBeecher? Tmol42 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a claim on the page that Spurs were the first to do this, then there should be a reference attached that says they were the first. It's not a matter of arguing/proving it on the discussion page, remember verifiability not truth. Tag it with ^{[citation needed]}, and if no evidence can be produced to support the claim then it can justifiably be removed. Beve (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Club career stats charts

Hello everyone. I'm quite new in WikiProject Football but I would like to make a proposal for the re-arrangement of the All-time club performance charts that provide some great info about some players (i.e Lukas Podolski, Philipp Lahm, Bastian Schweinsteiger). I have seen that this chart is usually located at the bottom of the article. If it is a CLUB performance chart, shouldn't be better if this chart was a part of the sub-section CLUB Career? I mean, you have the international career and goals but, suddenly, you end up reading club info again. Check Lahm or Schweinsteiger's articles for example: I re-arranged the club charts and the page looks more coherent, and respects a logical order. Now compare them with Podolski's article: note any difference? I know that this is not a huge problem but I fear that whenever anyone re-arranges the chart's location someone other is going to revert the edit because there is not a concrete policy about the topic: it seems that the usual thing is to place the chart at the bottom but I think that it is about time to make it right. What do you think?

I just reviewed another alternative that was suggested by Hubschrauber729 and that is already applied in articles like Michael Ballack and Ruud van Nistelrooy: an exclusive "Statistics" section that would encompass all the quantitative info available on x or y player. (apps, goals with club or national team, etc.)

Duncan Edwards, a Featured Article, has it all in one section which I think works fine...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The table in Duncan Edwards also sources the information, which many such tables do not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. An only stats section should work fine. But it would be better if it turned out to be a stablished policy on player articles. Mannschaftskapitän (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can people have a look at Template_talk:Football_box_end and indicate your support or otherwise so we can proceed with this update? Gnevin (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Iranian Football Club In Asian Tournaments

Is this encyclopedia-worthy? I prodded it, but it was removed with "try an AfD". Would people support its deletion? There was a series of similar articles on Thai clubs' performances, but those went after prods. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean these articles on Thai clubs' performances:

– Pee Jay 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No - actually looking through my deleted contributions it was slightly different - Thai Clubs V SAFF Leagues, Thai Clubs V Asian Leagues etc. Thanks for bringing them up though - could put them through one AfD is people agree they are not particularly useful. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial claims about World Cup match fixing

Former FIFA President João Havelange have claimed that England's and Germany's World Cup wins in 66 and 74 were fixed Goal.com. Just to let everyone know that this will start popping up. Don't know what to make of them though. — chan dler — 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about 1974, but 1966 was obviously fixed. Not that I'm biased or anything. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well from what a gather he's not saying the final was fixed, more that Brazil was fixed out of winning both 66 and 74, and ofc Havelange is Brazilian... ;) — chan dler — 00:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not wrong there. Looks like sour grapes, just 40 years down the line. Peanut4 (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He could have an argument as far as 66 goes. The kicking that Pelé got without refereeing protection has been widely noted in the past.[8][9][10] It led to him saying that he wouldn't play in the World Cup again. As for 74, he's having a laugh. Scotland should have beaten them in the group stage and knocked them out a round earlier, as it was they scraped through on goal difference by beating Zaire by one more goal.[11] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Match templates

Can someone edit the templates used for the matches in the 2008 Canadian Championship article so that we can reverse the order of teams for the North American competitions? Just like we did for the infobox at the top of club articles can we add something like "North American = yes" that will change the order from Home-Away to Away-Home? Thanks. -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the lineup templates, can you not just use the tables like in the UEFA Euro 2008 knockout stage article? – Pee Jay 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Right but what I'm talking about is the Home and Away designations. In North American articles the Home team is listed last, as opposed to everywhere else. I know it's minor, but otherwise I'm going to have to reedit the code for a bunch of stuff in order to get it right. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Goal.com as valid source

Is goal.com a valid source for information. I am asking this because of the 66 and 74 world cup controversy but also because some players (Michael Ballack and Lukas Podolski) have goal.com player profiles in the external links. I never really viewed it as a valid source. Also that article about the 66 and 74 World Cups being fixed doesn't have an author??? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't consider it a valid source, For me there are just too many rumours, exaggerations and articles with extreme bias, on a daily basis, for it be a trusted source Prem4eva (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Goal.com as any journalistic source is absolutely valid. --190.25.174.86 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should gather a list of acceptable, reputable, internet links for use in WP:FOOTBALL articles (e.g. PlayerHistory, NationalFootballTeams, Neil Brown, Soccerbase etc.) Giant Snowman 20:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If the story about the 1966 and 1974 controversies have any truth in them, then we won't be short of any sources on them, since they will be all the papers and all over other internet sites. If no-one else reports on it, then a) it's rubbish, b) it shows goal.com is a rubbish source. Peanut4 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The World Cup controversy above was caused by some declarations by Joao Havelange (former president of the FIFA), which were reported by several media and Internet websites, including Goal.com, so I don't understand what's wrong with this website. Rumours and biased articles are definitely diffuse all around, from SKY Sports to La Gazzetta dello Sport and Marca, and even the BBC who announced Donadoni's sacking when it was not made official yet (and we might keep on citing lots and lots of other sports newspapers and websites, so I am stopping here). --Angelo (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This page would worry me as regards to passing WP:RS. Secondly I cannot find a single "About us" page or any explanation of who they are / where they get their stories from. It might be reliable but I don't think it would pass WP:RS without some more info. Peanut4 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I haven't come across this website before, but after a quick look, it appears to be very similar in style and quality to Vital Football, and I certainly wouldn't class that as a reliable source - they always seem to be publishing unsubstantiated rumours and copying stories from other sites. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If we're going to get our football news from anywhere, we should get it from the BBC, Sky Sports, ESPNsoccernet or some other reputable source. Goal.com just seems to be the sort of place you might go to catch up on the gossip from down the pub, rather than a serious news outlet. – Pee Jay 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

TV Blackouts from last night

I was planning to develop an article in my sandbox regarding the blackouts from last nights Euro 2008 match, but didn't want to do it in case you guys were against it, meaning a highly likely trip to AFD. Does anyone think that an article on this is not warranted? D.M.N. (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I severely doubt that a power cut is worthy of its own article. – Pee Jay 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The power outage hardly is notable enough for a own article, I don't know which Storms get articles but If there wasnt much fatalities or material damage I hardly see this storm getting a article, it's best just to have the section at the Euro 2008 article — chan dler — 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Even as an inclusionist, I can't see this being worth a separate article. But you could expand the section in the UEFA Euro 2008 article? Beve (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Will do later/tomorrow. D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth a line, along with the BBC iPlayer including the power cut in their internet coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Come on the Mothers (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You do know that the iPlayer uses the same footage as the TV, right? So it would have been affected exactly the same as the telly systems. – Pee Jay 21:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Romani footballers

Does somebody have evidences about those players? I can't find any (reliable) source confirming Andrea Pirlo is Romani...and I think it's very unlikely! --necronudist (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[12], [13] (both in Italian). By the way, Pirlo is apparently a somewhat common Italian Sinti name. --Angelo (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They aren't realiable sources to me. --necronudist (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslav First League

Hello, I recently updated the article on the defunct Yugoslav First League with statistics, tables, a chart showing the somewhat complicated football situation after the breakup of Yugoslavia and tried to explained the context of events that were going on there since the 1990s. I would like members of the project to assess the article and see what else could be done to clarify/improve the article. Any input would be appreciated. Thank you. Timbouctou (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I, I appreciate your work since I am a big fan of former Yugoslavia football. The article is far better now. What would be fine to do in that article:

The section "notable clubs" should be changed with an all-time table showing clubs statistics. Quite difficult I know, but ideally...
adding an infobox would be fine, too.
adding a history section.

Well, I think it's largely enough for now! --Latouffedisco (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed AfDs

Please could someone who has the inclination archive the closed AfDs on the project page? There's quite a backlog. I would do it myself, but I've just finished a 60-hour week and really can't be bothered at the moment. :-) Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt Murphy (English Footballer)

Is this the Matt Murphy who made over 250 appearances for Oxford in the 1990s and also played for Scunthorpe, Bury and Swansea, or someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.188.103 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it, but the dob is inconsistent with Soccerbase [14]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no references cited on the article at the moment. And as ArtVandelay points out the date of birth, and the place of birth, are different to Soccerbase. Peanut4 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is the same man. See [15] Peanut4 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Brazilian National Champioship controversy

Hi! I am currently discussing with an anonymous user regarding the champions of the 1987 Brazilian Championship in Campeonato Brasileiro Série A's talk page. I want to request the opinion of the members of this Wikiproject, as most of you are not Brazilians, and thus can give an unbiased opinion. The question is that while I support that both sides of that controversy should be equally listed as per Wikipedia:Controversial articles and as because several reliable Brazilian magazines lists both Flamengo and Sport as 1987 champions, the anoymous user disagrees with me. You can check the current discussion in this section. So, please, can you give your opinions there, be it supporting or opposing my understanding? Regards, --Carioca (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class introduced

Hi guys. Just a quick note to say C-Class has been introduced between Start and B Classes. However, it is not yet in Template:Football. Would anyone object to it being added as part of the template? D.M.N. (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing about it here. Buc (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It exists here at least, under <noinclude></noinclude> — chan dler — 08:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, and discussions on that page. D.M.N. (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

An admin needs to add " |C|c=[[Category:C-Class football articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]" to {{football}} in order to support the new class. Please can someone do it? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the new C-class is up and running. I guess over time, the lowest B-class and highest Start-class articles will get re-rated and moved in to the new C-class. It would be good if we could give some point-in-time examples to help with assessments, maybe a player article, club article and one other for each class? The assessment section here is good, but there is only one example per class and only two are football articles. --Jameboy (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

I'm getting quite concerned about the amount of editors ignoring WP:ATHLETE at recent AfDs, or trying to weasel their way around it by using the old "amateur sports" line. There seem to be a lot of editors ignoring or being ignorant of past consensus on things like youth caps or club notability. I think it would be helpful if regular WP:FOOTY contributors would take a more active role in commenting on the open AfDs so that the debates are led by the better-informed. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to sound mean, maybe we need an overhaul of WP:FOOTBALL. Category:WikiProject Football members lists 275 members, but I would say there was only a core of about a dozen or two who regularly contribute to AfDs and other discussions. Giant Snowman 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could set up a list of people who regularly visit the project page or something? I contribute to AfDs etc whenever I'm around, but it's not very often these days because I'm so busy in the real world. I'm sure a lot of other project members are probably the same. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but how would we go about it? Giant Snowman 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's sufficient to count and see who are the more frequent contributors in the talk page's history, I think. By the way, I think it's a good idea in any case, even regardless of the AfD issue, as established users usually know policy and guidelines more thoroughly than newbies. I also think a list of administrators who contribute actively to our WikiProject would be a good idea as well. --Angelo (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that a list of Admins is especially important. Giant Snowman 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Some other project I was looking at the other day (I forget what) had a rule that people who hadn't edited for a certain length of time be removed from the participants' list, so it only showed active editors..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I used to do that for the list here, but keeping it up to date is a really dull task, so I haven't done it for months. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we are getting ridiculous - one editor has started taking cases of clearly failing WP:ATHLETE to DRV - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 26#Jason Naidovski... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Had you discussed the facts in the AFD, rather than simply blowing off the objections, we wouldn't be at the deletion review. Meanwhile everyone seems to be ignoring that many of the AFDs are trying to delete players who are notable according to WP:FOOTYN which as far as I understand is the consensus of this community, though perhaps not the entire Wikipedia community. Nfitz (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN is a draft and has no value at all; WP:ATHLETE is a guidelines, so it has some sort of effective value. And the subject is not notable even for as he has not played at the Olympics, since they are yet to begin. If he actually plays a few minutes in Beijing next August, WP:FOOTYN could maybe apply there, but not now. --Angelo (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the subject is notable under WP:FOOTYN. That isn't an issue that's been raised by anyone for that deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So, which AfDs are you referring at? Just out of curiosity. --Angelo (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)\

Primarily [16] where a professional player signed to a long-term contract to a fully professional English Tier 2 team, was in the past loaned to a fully professional Tier 5 team, who played in a professional league (Conference National) where the majority of the teams were fully profession. It get's into the debate above about wherever professional Conference National players are notable or not. It's also come up in AFD debates on MLS reserve players, who play in a fully professional reserve league. Nfitz (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the Conference National isn't a fully professional league and it has been determined in numerous discussions that players in that league are not notable unless they've played at a notable level in the past. As for MLS Reserve League players, they should be considered to be of equivalent notability to players in the Premier Reserve League, who are not notable. – Pee Jay 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I question the statement that WP:FOOTYN is a draft and has no value at all. If so why are people directed to follow it on WP:FOOTY? Nfitz (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason that is still a draft and not a policy/guideline is (if I remember rightly) that there was no consensus to support it.... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If WP:FOOTY directly links to WP:FOOTYN on questions of notability without any disclaimer, then surely WP:FOOTYN IS the consensus of the WP:FOOTY community? Nfitz (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, there was consensus in the WP:FOOTY community, but it wasn't accepted outside WP:FOOTY as superseding WP:ATHLETE for football players. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could point me to that discussion. I haven't come across it (which is more likely evidence of my searching skills than anything else). Nfitz (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so much a specific discussion as the results of several deletion reviews, some examples on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 14 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 15. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 15 seems to be the key. Not so much that community consensus hasn't been reached, but advice was that project move to change WP:BIO rather than simply imposing own standards. And I don't see that ever happened. Any reason that those who put together WP:FOOTYN didn't follow through? Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnoldswick Town F.C. - it's outcome could affect future AfDs on Step 7 clubs. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Successor nations

On statistics tables, compiling for example the history of a national side's participation in a tournament, I believe that we should feel obliged to follow the decision of FIFA and the continental confederations where one country is attributed with the historical achievements of a country with different borders and name. Thus I believe that, for example, the Czech Republic should be marked as having one Euro win (1976) and one second place (1996), with footnote indicating that any result before 1992 was achieved as [[nft|Czechoslovakia}}. BanRay is insistent that the two historical records be kept separate, on the grounds that there was no such state as Czech Republic in 1976. I would see this as effectively OR, generating records that are not those reported by the authorities. It is clear that there are different articles across Wikipedia following different policies on this matter. Is there any historical decision or consensus that should direct us? Or if not, what would the opinion of the community here be? Kevin McE (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm for either pushing them all together or splitting them apart, I just don't like the inconsistency about it, both at the Euro Champ. and at World Cup stats. — chan dler — 16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR says follow the source. If he has a source for his way, the issue is then if one source is more reputable/reliable than the other. If FIFA is the governing body, it's hard to argue against that being the best source. Beve (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

FIFA isn't the best source for a lot of things, however this is pretty a bureaucratic issue. I think that Czech Republic should comprise Czechoslovakian achievements (maybe with an explaining footnote). UEFA say Czech Republic played 54 matches at the Euro... --necronudist (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you Kevin; Czechslovakia > Czech Republic, USSR > Russia, West Germany > Germany etc. Giant Snowman 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that with a footnote, then listing an ancestor nation's achievements are fine. Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that Snowman, and not to forget Yugoslavia > * > Serbia. But if this is gonna be a change, it has to be done ALL over, at the world cup as well. — chan dler — 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's about time we finally decide on this once and for all. Most wikipedia articles differentiate between former and current states in cases where the country has split into more than one state (like separate records for USSR and Russia, Yugoslavia and Serbia, Czechoslovakia and the Czech Rep. teams). User:Kevin McE has recently merged Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic stats (UEFA European Championship article), suggesting we should also merge all the rest, since that's what FIFA have done on their website and we have to follow their decisions. I disagree since, for instance, the USSR team had plenty of Ukrainian, Georgian and other key players (the Euro 1988 Soviet team had only four Russian footballers), so why should their work and achievements be attributed to the team they are not anyhow related to? The other point is that unlike FIFA, we have separate pages for all the former teams, that don't exist anymore. So what kind of sense will it make to keep those pages, with the Euro page saying that Russia are the 1960 European Chapions, whereas the team's page says that the Russia's best achievement was the 2008 semi-final. Thoughts? BanRay 22:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just have to say, if it is to split, because of something like "they didnt use Russian players" we have to split Germany and West Germany, for the same reason, "they didnt use East German players", or If you go back before the split and lets say there were almost only East German players in the 30's, and why should West Germany get their records when E and W split (this is how the situation could have been if Germany was stil split). Split all or split none, the Ice-hockey articles have the teams split (Don't think IIHF gives Russia and Czechia, USSR and CZK's records like FIFA gives them though.) — chan dler — 23:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've checked the IIHF World Championship article earlier todays and it gives Russia only two titles (the ones they won as an independent state). With Germany it's easier though, as two nations became one, with the USSR and Yugoslavia it's more complicated. My biggest concern, however, is teams' individual pages. The reason FIFA merge all the Soviet and Russian records is, probably, because they don't keep separate pages for states that no longer exist, so if we decide to merge the records, pages like CIS national football team and Yugoslavia national football team should, logically, also be merged into Russia national football team and Serbia national football team respectively, so that different articles don't contradict each other. BanRay 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that they "probably, because they don't keep separate pages for states that no longer exist", I'm at least under the impression this was done when the states split, before the internets, so to speak. — chan dler — 23:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't know. Have they ever formally named Russia as the USSR successor? I think it's just their website. BanRay 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Their website is their (only?) outlet for official information, Don't see why it wouldn't be official. You could at least point and reference the FIFA page for Russia to show that they have 9 World Cup Appearances. — chan dler — 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To go back to the Page merging thing, I feel that if all records should be merged, it might be time to merge the pages (perhaps include infoboxes with the historical records for the separate periods in their time under the "normal infobox") — chan dler — 00:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally I'd like to keep all the pages, but since everyone thinks we should merge the records, then it makes no sense to keep the pages. BanRay 00:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That suggestion reeks of WP:POINT to me. – Pee Jay 06:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Pages must be kept, with USSR/Yugoslavia/etc records. Just, those records must be added to nowadays national teams, as per FIFA/UEFA/worldwide standard. --necronudist (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say. The articles for the defunct teams should remain, with their own records intact, but the articles for the nations they evolved into should have records for all ancestor nations per FIFA/UEFA/etc. – Pee Jay 15:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And what about the all-time goal scoring and appearance records? Do we merge them too? Because all the Russian sources indicate that Vladimir Beschastnykh is the Russia all-time leading top scorer and isn't it a bit odd that Blokhin (Ukrainian footballer) will be the Russia all-time appearance leader (again, contrary to what all the Russian sources say)? BanRay 11:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We should go by whatever the most reliable sources say. If that means that Oleg Blokhin is listed as Russia's all-time appearance maker, then so be it. I really don't see the problem here. – Pee Jay 15:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should at least mention both BanRay 17:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that most people are in favour of merging the records, so, what articles will be affected? Should maps be updated from their current status? Pictures like this or this and their European Championship counterparts. If merging should be done on these pictures we at least need to include East Germany and other FA's who have become defunct since 1930 for the World Cup and 1960 for the European Championship if there are others. — chan dler — 17:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well now after the Euro 2008 is over, and the support for suggestion 2 in favour I'll go ahead and update the Euro maps, leaving East Germany out of them as they have never made any appearance and thus would only be grey — chan dler — 21:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There, best results, hosts, winners and appearances... I think they are all right now — chan dler — 22:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup article, everything except for the notes section and the maps. I'll update the maps later today. BanRay 16:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion 1

(Separate stats)

Support, see above BanRay 22:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - It just doesn't make sense to give USSR's record to Russia, Yugoslavia's to Serbia, etc. - MTC (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support, they are seperate nations. USSR consisted of more than just Russia. --Jimbo^[online] 12:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

(Yugoslavia becomes Serbia, Russia inherits Soviet records and so on)

Support, see my arguments above. "Most Wikipedia articles" are irrelevant, we rely on external sources and authorities. Kevin McE (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - It's not up to us to decide who inherits what records. UEFA, FIFA, etc. have already decided for us. Germany inherits West Germany and Saarland's records, Russia inherits the records of the USSR, Serbia inherits the records of Yugoslavia. Period. – Pee Jay 23:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - per discussion above. If FIFA & other governing boards determine that one nation has replaced another, then Wikipedia should follow suit. Giant Snowman 00:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - if it's how it works in the real world, it's how it should work on Wikipedia. matt91486 (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support - I don't think it's right, but if that's what FIFA say. It does at least need to be heavily noted that Russia had a major advantage pre-1992 (or that Germany had a significant disadvantage between 1945 and 1990). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - it's the most logical thing to do. necronudist (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - FIFA say it is so, so we should follow the source. Agree about the footnote though. Paul Bradbury 08:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - per FIFA/UEFA standard. Though what should be done with the images? If they are all grouped together we at least need a side picture of East Germany (the only team without a successor FA) — chan dler — 13:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - per FIFA/UEFA, even though I don't agree with the way that they've done it, they are the most reliable source we have on the subject... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - per FIFA/UEFA and WP:NOR. Madcynic (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak support per FIFA. But the footnote must be provided to explain the relevant history. Peanut4 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - per FIFA/UEFA and above with footnote --ClubOranje^Talk 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - following FIFA/UEFA is the best solution as Wikipedia should reflect actual practice, rather than what we think is correct. – Elisson • T • C • 13:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - This is logical: would be fine however to clarify it in relevant articles.--Latouffedisco (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Chance reference request

Does anyone happen to have a copy of the book Passovotchka, about the Dynamo Moscow tour of Britain in 1945? Oldelpaso (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I do; what can I help with? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been expanding Roy Clarke (footballer), and am trying to find out whether or not he played in the Cardiff-Dynamo match. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He did. {{cite book |title=Passovotchka |last=Downing |first=David |year=2000 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |location=London |isbn=978-0-7475-4813-3 |pages=134 }} gives the teamsheet. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Spain

Hello. A new template from the series, {{Spain national football team managers}} has been started. Unfortunately it is quite inaccurate and incomplete. Volunteers are encouraged to rework it, from the list available here. - Darwinek (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Pee Jay 11:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, shouldn't Cat:Sevilla FC footballers be renamed to "Sevilla FC players"? I noticed many other categories for Spanish clubs use "footballers" form. - Darwinek (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to set up a multiple CfD for the affected categories. – Pee Jay 15:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of "footballers" form there is so widespread that I am concerned if the Spanish case isn't similar to the Turkish one, when club with one name operates several sport branches. Is here any expert on Spanish football? - Darwinek (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about Spain, but it's certainly the case in Portugal, Sporting CP for instance. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Multi-sport clubs are very common in Spain. For instance, Real Madrid and Barcelona both have successful basketball teams. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Although as has been mentioned before somewhere (sorry, can't remember where or I'd provide a link), the use of "FC" implies that they are footballers, so "players" will suffice. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that with some clubs, such as Barcelona's basketball team, the team hangs onto the "FC" part of the club name despite not being a football club. – Pee Jay 22:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming of "Premier League"

Why is the English Premier League page just called Premier League and not English Premier League , in the same way that the top football divisions in Europe are done.

Examples of the proper naming convention are the Scottish Premier League (SPL), the Irish Premier League & the Welsh Premier League. The consensus that just because it is known as the Premier League in England, that it shows proper use is wrong - the SPL is also called the Premier League in Scotland!!

Please can other users debate which is the official Wikipedia viewpoint on this topic & can the final result be posted onto my usertalk page, thanks - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The SPL is not known merely as the "Premier League" - see their website here. The league in England is just known as the "Premier League" both officially and colloquially, hence the article is at that name. - fchd (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The name Premier League is the name used by the Scottish television sports reporters on news bulletins such as Scotland Today & Reporting Scotland when talking about top-flight football in Scotland!! - e.g. "Premier League team Gretna have gone into administration..." to describe when that club went into administration in March 2008. - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely - just like The Football League, the FA Cup and The Football Association, English football competitions/organisations do not include the term "English" in their title as in general they were the first to be created and therefore did not need to be disambiguated. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, the Welsh Premier League and Irish Premier League's websites (at http://www.welsh-premier.com/ and http://irishpremierleague.com/ respectively) refer to those leagues as such too. – Pee Jay 18:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do none of the english football division pages have the word English before them, as England is not the centre of the universe - every other football division is equally inportant in their own country - and every other league needs to have the name of it's nation included in the title of their article page. Also the English Premier League was officially known as the English Premiership - Premier League#Sponsorship - until the end of season 2006-07. Dreamweaverjack (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"English" has never been part of the official title. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, when the English football competitions/institutions were created, there were no others in the world - they didn't need to say which country they were from. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it might be worth pointing out this proposed policy: Wikipedia:Official names. I would still argue that Premier League is the common name of the league though... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a debate about "Top level football leagues of Europe - Naming Conventions", it's just about the Premier League article. I propose the section header is amended. - fchd (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Renamed. Woody (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

At least here it's more common to call it "Premier League" than "Engelska ligan" which translates "The English league", though leagues like the Scottish Premier League and the Russian Premier League are called "the Scottish League" and "the Russian league"... This might be a similar case in other countries as well it might support the fact that its just the common name rather than the "English Premier League" — chan dler — 19:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They tend to shorten it the EPL (English Premier League) or BPL (Barclays Premier League) here in the States, where acronyms are king; I agree that its not standardized, and that to some it may smack of a misplaced sense of superiority, but the original posters were right - when the league was first created, there were *no* other leagues anywhere else, so it didn't needed to be differentiated from other countries. The fact that the word 'English' is not in the official name should be enough to leave it as it is. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Scottish Premier any different from the English one in Sweden, as both are not connected (other than through promotion or relegation) to the rest of the respective football leagues Scottish Football League (SFL) or the English Football League (EFL). Both are independantly managed and therefore should be treated the same way when talked about, the SFL holds no authority over any of the SPL clubs in any way, so why is it known as "the Scottish League"?? - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's known as the Scottish League because most leagues are called "Country league" with some exceptions, Premier League, Serie A, La Liga (though this is called the Spanish League sometimes), Allsvenskan and the Championship... The tv-broadcasters might have had something to do with it, Promoting Premier League, and in later days "La Liga". — chan dler — 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not called the English Football League. It's official title is The Football League. Why not call the Eiffel Tower, the French Eiffel Tower? Peanut4 (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, why is the Spanish league at "La Liga" and not "Primera División"? I'm at least under the impression "La Liga" in Spain is used similar to "The Football League" in England (this is somewhat confirmed with the es: link on La Liga going to es:Liga española de fútbol and not es:Primera División de España) — chan dler — 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

At last, someone who can see where I am coming from on the original topic of this debate. Surely every football league on Wikipedia should have the main article on a page with the title of the format "Country Division", eg Danish Superliga, Scottish Premier League, etc. - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Because it's not called the English Football League. It's the Football League. Why not move White House to American White House to distinguish it from the Russian White House? Peanut4 (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does user Peanut4 feel the need to lower the tone of this argument by posting stupid comments, when the rest of us are taking this discussion on Wikipedia sporting naming conventions seriously!! - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. Peanut4 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

White House, Moscow v. White House is a perfect similar naming conventions.— chan dler — 22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I was also referring to user Peanut4's stupid comment about renaming the Eiffel Tower, which is only there to show how childishly they are taking this discussion. - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. So maybe Eiffel Tower wasn't quite the right example. But White House is there and not at American White House to distinguish it from Russian White House because it's not called that. Same as the Football League and Premier League aren't at English Football and English Premier League, because they're called the former and not the latter. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be degenerating towards personal attacks; maybe a straw poll would be a good idea at this point before things get out of hand? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for anything of the sort. This is clearly nothing other than a non-English user picking a fight (or at the very least a nit) about an English topic (note: I'm not English). As I said on the talk page of the article in question, Ligue 1 is not at French Ligue 1, which is the single example needed to prove that this is not a case of English exceptionalism. We use the proper name unless there is significant chance of confusion. No one is going to confuse the SPL with the Premier League, let alone the Irish Premier League or the Welsh Premier League. Even if there was, those organizations proved this by calling their leagues the Scottish, Irish, or Welsh Premier Leagues, while the English one has opted simply to be called the Premier League. Also, Dreamweaverjack should take note of the fact that the breakaway league was always known as the Premier League, it just had the "F.A." prefix for the first 15 seasons. The SPL got their inspiration for both their name and their breaking away from their English colleagues. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the first 15 years of it's existance it was known as the FA Premiership and only changed it's name to Premier League in the summer of 2007!!! - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the SPL was previously known as the Scottish Premier Division for 23 years as the top division of the Scottish Football League from 1975 until it broke away in 1998 - So who was inspired by who? - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To be pedantic it was the "FA Premier League". It's never been officially called the "Premiership", that's just a name used by sponsors..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So where's the word "English" in "FA Premiership"? Besides it was commonly known as the Premier League in this period. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get pedantic then it should be called the FA Premier League then, the FA part of the name showing that it is based in England. - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because the "FA" was removed from the league's name at the end of the 2006-07 season. This league is by far the most common usage of the term "Premier League", so, per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should stay where it is. – Pee Jay 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, the fact that you are arguing that it was called the FA Premiership but not the Premier League shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. There were also English minor leagues (i.e. below the Football League) that have been using "Premier" as a name since the 70s. You are wrong in your logic and on your facts. You simply don't know what you're talking about. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were to be moved to anything (and I don't believe it should) then it should be Premier League (England) i.e. using "(England)" as a disambiguator. Moving it to English Premier League would make it look like that was its actual name, which is not the case..... - ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of bringing an old chestnut to the fore again, I would direct User:Dreamweaverjack to this document published by The Premier League. On page 89, under Section B, Article 1, the document states that "the League shall be called “The Premier League” and the League's first team competition may

include the name of the Title Sponsor." This indicates that the league's official name is "The Premier League", with the only modification to that title being the addition of the name of the sponsoring organisation; in this case, "Barclays" would be added, to create "The Barclays Premier League". – Pee Jay 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming of "Premier League" - Final Decision

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move --Oldelpaso (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The simple point which I was trying to make in the first place was that surely the name Premier League should be a disambigation page to allow all users (irrespective of their nationality) to be able to find all football divisions easily and have links coming from this page. To stop all of the arguments by English-based wikipedia users, the title suggested above - Premier League (England) - could be used as it would i)Show the official name of the division & ii)Show the nation that it is in.

To gather full consensus as Vote could be done to decide whether to stick as it currently is, or to change the title to Premier League (England) & have Premier League as a disambigation page which was why I was suggesting adding the country name to the current EPL page. - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Premier League is the common name and official name of the league, so there's no need to change it. a Premier League (disambiguation) should though be created. — chan dler — 23:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The common use name for this particular football division in Scotland is still the Premiership or English Premiership - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we use the name commonly used in Scotland (so you say) rather than the name used by the majority of the rest of the English speaking world? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No I am just using the name that even the English media called it until the start of last season (2007-08)! - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you back that up with sources? I haven't heard it referred to as the English Premier League in the English media! Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The English media referred to it as the Premiership until last summer!!! - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Premiership redirects to Premier League, because it's no longer called The Premiership. Peanut4 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're both wrong. The league has been officially known by only two unsponsored names: The F.A. Premier League (until the start of last season) and the Premier League (starting with this season). The league made the conscious effort to remove the "F.A." from their name, mostly to emphasize their view that they are the Premier League in the world. It has never been known as the "EPL" officially, and that abbreviation is severely frowned upon. As a replacement there are a lot of people (Sky Sports and Fox Soccer Channel in the States) have tried to popularize "BPL," as that is at least one of the officially sponsored names. So in conclusion, there is absolutely no reason to move/rename/disambig the page as the page is at the league's proper name (Premier League). -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the site's history page, it was called the FA Carling Premiership in 1993 for four years. Peanut4 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice the "unsponsored" caveat? I'm only talking about the official name of the league, of which there have only been 2 thusfar. I'm well aware that there have been multiple permutations due to sponsorship reasons. Please endeavor to read more closely in the future. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Premier League has definitely been known as The Premiership in the past as this story suggests. However, that is now besides the point, since we're voting on the present name. Peanut4 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Premier League has only been known by 2 unsponsored names: The F.A. Premier League and the Premier League. Sponsored names, informal names, etc. is not what I'm talking about. Not coincidentally, the article about the competition has only been located at 2 places: F.A. Premier League and Premier League. I just think you're misunderstanding my point. No biggie. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As the article you linked to shows, you regard the sponsored names (i.e. Barclay(card/s) Premiership, etc.) as official names of the competition, whereas I view them as something else entirely. I think that the "real" name of the organization (not just the competition) has only been the F.A. Premier League or Premier League because the whole reason for calling them "leagues" in the first place 125 years ago was because they were groups (i.e. leagues) of clubs. The competition might well be described as being a competition to determine the Premiers of England, but the actual organization can only be called the Premier League. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose move Keep it where it is, as per WP:COMMONNAME and the official website. Peanut4 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME and what the league calls itself. – Pee Jay 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME — chan dler — 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME Prem4eva (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME, as "names of articles should be the most commonly used name". --Carioca (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME and because that is the name of the organisation. It should retain Premier League and not be disambiguated, as it is the primary topic. The hatnote should continue to direct users to other Premier Leagues. --Jameboy (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Another for Oppose. The Premier League is the official and most accepted name. Vickser (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Support rename, either to FA Premier League (as it was before), or Barclays Premier League (why not mention the sponsor, as is done on Turkcell Super League, for example, and on the official website). Both of these names are more complete and more clear, thus they should be used per WP:DISAM#Specific topic. AR TYOM 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- First, "FA Premier League" is no longer the official name of the league and would therefore be a misnomer. Second, are you suggesting that we rename the article every time the league gets a new sponsor? The chaos that would cause with linking articles to the Premier League article would be phenomenal. Every link would also have to be piped to make sure that readers were aware of which incarnation of the league we were talking about. For example, you couldn't use Barclays Premier League when referring to the period when the league was known as the "F.A. Carling Premier League". "Premier League" is by far the best naming option and I can't believe we're even having this discussion. – PeeJay 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually, if you look at the Terms and Conditions page of the website, they refer to themselves as "the Football Association Premier League". And I wouldn't believe that the reason for this was that the page hadn't been updated for over a year. AR TYOM 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    - If anything it is Turkcell Super League that should be moved, as the standard procedure is to use the unsponsored name. It's Serie A not Serie A TIM, Scottish Premier League not Clydesdale Bank Premier League (which is a redirect), Ligue 1 not Ligue 1 Orange, Portuguese Liga not BWINLIGA (which is a redirect), Welsh Premier League not Principality Building Society Welsh Premier League, Swiss Super League not Axpo Super League (which is a redirect), etc etc etc - ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Change to FA Premier League as it is the name that they officially are known as according to their own website - Terms and Conditions - as mentioned by the last message listed above this one. Also I didn't start this discussion as an anti-English campaign, just one about keeping all "Top level football leagues of Europe" divisions uing the same (or similar) naming convention!! - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Commonname is pretty definitive on this. A hat note to a Premier League (disambiguation) page is a good solution. matt91486 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the reason no one's made a Premier League dab yet... there are so many :D... Made a list of those I found by Searching Premier League and looking through the top 200 maybe User:Chandler/Premier League and I'm sure to have missed some or many — chan dler — 01:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just created Premier League (disambiguation) from the top league list article, before I saw this. It would appear that list was missing one or two entries. MickMacNee (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Support -The question is why isn't Premier League called FA Premier League or English Premier League? There is also the Scottish Premier League, Russian Premier League and probably many more I can't think of right now. As far as calling it the Premier League, I would tend to call any league named premier league the premier league. Kingjeff (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

90.216.173.231 (Dreamweaverjack? [17]) Have started moving and changing names, when there's a clear consensus for no move. — chan dler — 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, Chandler; that's a bit naughty. That is obviously Dreamweaverjack's IP, as pointed out in the edit that you have highlighted; I had spotted that myself earlier. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. For the same reasons that World Cup should be about the football World Cup, and not be hosted at FIFA World Cup. It's just a no-brainer. MickMacNee (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I see, World Cup is a disambiguation page. AR TYOM 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's different. There is no such thing as the "World Cup" (i.e. everything is the Rugby World Cup or the Football World Cup), whereas there is such a thing as the "Premier League." -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Except the fact that there are quite a few such things as the Premier League. AR TYOM 02:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No. There is only one organization known as the "Premier League." Every other Premier League has a qualifier before it like Scottish Premier League, Welsh Premier League, Irish Premier League, etc. in their official name. The Premier League doesn't have "English" in its official name. Other than that, though, you're absolutely right. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why we wrote should — chan dler — 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That was my whole point. The same arguments being made here to name this article the 'FA Premier League' or the 'Barclays Premier League' are no better than the arguments made to use 'FIFA World Cup' as opposed to 'World Cup'. Common name is common name, despite the fact a Scottish Premier League, Indian Premier League or Rugby World Cup exists. They both even own their respective common use URLs: www.worldcup.com and www.premierleague.com. If FIFA World Cup is the accepted standard for one when other unofficial usages exist depending on where you live, then FA Premier League should be the standard for the other, and vice versa (which is how it should be): World Cup and Premier League. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The URL that an organisation uses for their website is a very tenuous reference for their official name. Regardless, "FIFA World Cup" and "Premier League" are the official names for those tournaments. The football World Cup is even referred to as the FIFA World Cup on FIFA's own website, while the Premier League is referred to as the Premier League at the Premier League's website. – Pee Jay 15:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name... Therefore, WP:DISAM#Specific topic, which advises to use a clearer term, should certainly be followed instead of WP:COMMONNAME. AR TYOM 02:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what's not clear about having the Premier League at Premier League as it's both the common name and most used world wide... You'd never hear someone just say "Which team will win the Premier League this year" and mean the Scottish or Russian, unless you are in Scotland or Russia. There has been created a dab page Premier League (disambiguation) which will link you to other leagues. That's when "x (disambiguation)" pages come in handy. Most people who will search "Premier League" on wikipedia will be after the Premier League and not the Russian/Scottish/Norwegian or Northen Irish Premier League — chan dler — 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - the name of the company that runs the competition is "The Football Association Premier League Limited", but the name of the league is the "Premier League". - fchd (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Premier League is the official name of the competition, and we should avoid using sponsor names wherever possible. Also, User:Dreamweaverjack should be given a hefty dose of WP:TROUT for ignoring the fact that "English" does not appear in its title despite being told the reasons multiple times. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME. A dab page now exists, linked by hatnote from the Premier League page. If it ain't broke... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, the user proposing this is clearly fishing. The Scottish media don't refer to the Scottish Premier League as the "Premier League", they say "SPL" if anything at all. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - per everyone else. Suggest that we concentrate on improving articles rather than trying to change established article names. Bigmike (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, as per WP:COMMONNAME. The name of the league is the Premier League. --Jimbo^[online] 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per all the above arguments. Beve (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

El Ahly

The El Ahly article is a total state, and probably needs the input of lots of editors. I think it's a pretty important article as they're the most successful club team in Africa and for the project to have a well-rounded world view articles like this should be up to a much higher standard than it currently is. Dancarney (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related issue, why are the club names in {{Egyptian Premier League}} in such a totally random order.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it might be the order in which they appear in the Arabic alphabet - the template might have been copied across from ar.wiki and just transliterated (I've seen this several times with templates copied from he.wiki). Also, isn't Al-Ahly the more common name for the club? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always seen it as Al-Ahly before, but I don't know anything about Arabic. Would we include "Al" when considering alphabetical order? Dancarney (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, "al-" is not considered when alphabetising. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've re-ordered the EPL template taking that info on board. Dancarney (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Euro 1988 Final line-ups

Can someone with a bit more knowledge of that era decipher the positions in the UEFA Euro 1988 Final line-ups [18]. Perhaps it's before my time, but it looks like about 17 midfielders started the game. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well wasn't it Total football the dutch played? or that was maybe 10 years prior... This is before my time as well, seeing as the final was played just a month after my birth :P — chan dler — 13:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

When into the dutch wp and found this nl:Nederlands_voetbalelftal#Opstelling_finale maybe that's the right one? — chan dler — 13:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And the french one lists a possible list for the Soviet side. They also place Rijkaard in the attack and van Basten as a midfielder, but hey, if it is in Wikipedia, it must be true... Kaizeler (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And Jan Wouters up front... ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say that editors referring to 1988 as "before their time" makes me feel very old indeed :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Us kids have come to take over mister! — chan dler — 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We old-timers can still give you a run for your money - Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (Just about to get my bus pass and now able to claim Seniors' rates at my favourite football club!)

That's the same for me, I was only one at that time! But maybe these links could be useful: [19] [20]. --Latouffedisco (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User: 77.100.95.207

Is going through the entire football league deleting squad players from club pages. He's had several requests to stop but seems intent on deleting half the football league. User_talk:77.100.95.207 Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They have had four warnings and have not edited since their final warning. If it happens again in the near future then they can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and blocked. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, I think I'm going blind...... :-P

Slight visual overload.......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty! - see also the previous season - rather large. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We can all thank User:ClaudioMB for those lovely tables. Personally, I think there's a buttload of useless info in there, but he seems to have convinced the majority of the contributors to clubs' season articles into using his templates. In fact, there's not many that don't use them these days. – Pee Jay 12:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

These "season" articles are utterly ridiculous, in my opinion and almost always contain reams of non-noteworthy information about very, very recent seasons only. They belong in an almanac, not an encyclopaedia. Dancarney (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Try telling that to the guys over at WP:NFL :D – Pee Jay 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

2007 Chicago Bears season - wow! Details on their pre-season training, scoring breakdown for every game, even listing the TV announcers for every game. What a total waste of internet. Dancarney (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - complete and utter overkill. - fchd (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, but compare it to a page like Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08 (forgive my regular reference to Man Utd pages, but those are the ones I know best). Personally, I think the Man Utd article has just the right amount of info, even if the prose is a little OTT. – Pee Jay 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need the full details of Man U's pre-season games? There's plenty of POV stuff there and a real shortage of references. No mention of player arrests either. Regardless, there's far too much in there, in my opinion. Dancarney (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

An unfathomable sport has unfathomable articles ;) "The Bears’ special team’s unit, who lost Hester to an injury in the first quarter, was plagued with fumbles, missed-snaps, inaccurate field goals, and a Go Johnny Go Go Go Go.*" I don't like season articles, but then I've always been more mergist than the norm and these days consensus seems to be in favour of having them. On the whole they are horrifically recentist, 90-odd% of them are about the most recent season. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

*may not be a real gridiron term

Guys, we discussed this issue one year ago, and I even tried to formulate with other editors a Manual of Style for football club season articles. If you want to reuse it, you know what to do: just build a strong consensus and, in case you manage to build such a consensus, implement it anywhere. You already know I really hate those layouts, they are a blatant and evident violation of WP:RECENTISM and especially WP:ACCESSIBLE. --Angelo (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see why people would think that these season articles are in violation of WP:RECENT, but I know of several clubs for which editors have made an effort to create articles about early seasons in their history. I'm sure editors are perfectly capable of doing this for all clubs, but we shouldn't charge them with violating WP:RECENT just because they choose not to do so. – Pee Jay 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't get too hung up on WP:RECENT: "This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of its authors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." So it's not really correct to talk of 'violating' it. It would be nice if we could have equally detailed articles for historical seasons, but it's only natural that recent/current ones dominate, as they are far easier to source (information tends to be added as-it-happens). Beve (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As I already tried to say, I am much more concerned with WP:ACCESSIBLE than WP:RECENTISM. Actually, I think accessibility is the real issue with our current season articles. --Angelo (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Overuse of colours to indicate wins, draws and losses does appear to be an accessibility problem. Would a key help? – Pee Jay 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah. I think the word "almanac" has to be added to WP:NOT#STATS. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Journalists/Analysts opinions on players from Euro 2008

Is this really notable in a players article? On Marcos Senna's page the references below keep getting added because the journalists rated him as the player of the tournament

They also use the wording Some analysts named Senna as the best player of the tournament. I thought an analyst is someone who gets to a decision based on facts and figures, not based on personal opinions. --Jimbo^[online] 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this shouldn't be included; the term journalist would be much better than analyst though. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see no problem, although the sentence could look at first glance like weasel words, if it is indeed sourced to several highly reliable journals, then as far as I can see it's absolutely fine -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Playing devils advocate here, I don't think it should get a mention unless he is 'officially' voted player of the tournament by representatives of the organising body. If you look around you'll probably find several players who have journos calling them their 'player of the tournament'. Some will say Arshavin, some Sneijder, some Modrić, some possibly Podolski or others. Jensen's little hometown rag may even give their local boy the honour. If I find a reference should we include it?--ClubOranje^Talk 08:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Martin O'Neill nominating Senna as his player of the tournament is notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it? Does that mean if anyone of a similar status to O'Neill (maybe a top-flight manager, former international, European Cup winner, etc) is on the record as saying that so-and-so was their player of the tournament then that is worth noting? I think that it opens up the same problem that ClubOranje highlighted. Dancarney (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Case in point - Slaven Bilić claims Modrić is just that.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pat Carroll

Can an admin please restore Pat Carroll (soccer) - it was deleted this morning before I had chance to add his first full professional appearance (yesterday!) to his stats. Verification of his appearance is here: [21]. Thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it and replaced the prod with {{update}}. I'll leave it to you to update the article & stats though. Qwghlm (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Squares18

User:Squares18 seems to be going around all of the football manager templates and removing red links. I don't see any reason why this needs to be done; managers are notable and the red links encourage article creation. It seems a bit controversial to be doing this on a large scale without any consensus for the change. They have already been advised of this on their talk page.

They have also been removing ^c and replacing it with (caretaker). I personally hated ^c anyway, but replacing it with (caretaker) is making some already fairly large templates even bigger.

What are everyone else's thoughts on this? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good old unilateral changes. Can't beat 'em. Personally, I think that the redlinks should have been left in unless it could be proved that the individual linked to was not notable. As for replacing ^c with (caretaker), I'm not fussed one way or the other. Obviously the distinction needs to be made between a caretaker manager and a full time manager, so it's just a case of finding a method that is unobtrusive, while also being informative. We could always use asterisks or the dagger symbol and have a key at the bottom. – Pee Jay 09:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex Volosanovs

The Ledbury Town article mentions the fact that, despite being a Step 6 non-league club, they had a player on their books in the last few years with over 25 international caps, in the form of a Latvian with the above name. This is backed up by a newspaper article, but RSSSF appears never to have heard of the guy. Can anyone shed any further light? Is it true, or is he another Ali Dia? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not about truth, its about verifiability!. That said, 25 caps and not one a Fifa qualifier of any sort? Fifa never heard of him, Uefa never heard of him. One would begin to question the Oxford Times under WP:RS--ClubOranje^Talk 10:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it seems that under his full first name he played for Latvia against Malta in 1998, so he clearly is an international. Maybe the figure of 29 caps is an exaggeration? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He appears to exist and to be an international having played against Malta in 1998 - see here, although this would appear to have been his solitary international appearance. He also played at club level for Dinaburg FC in 1999 - see here. Hope this is of some help. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I'm going to change the article to simply state that he had international experience, as given the sheer incongruity of a capped player turning out for Ledbury I don't think the fact that he had 25/27/29 (I've seen them all quoted in various sources) is more noteworthy than his having 1, if that makes any sense..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Eldon Maquemba

Can someone with access to playerhistory.com confirm that the numbers in brackets are substitute appearances and should therefore be added on to the "main" apps number as is the norm in infoboxes..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't got playerhistory, but from Halesowen's site he would appear to have 24 starts + 4 sub apps in all competitions, of which 23 starts + 4 sub apps in the league including end-of-season playoffs, and 1 start (no goals) in the Worcs Senior Cup. Details of all matches are here. From which one could assume the figures in brackets to be subs, but the total isn't necessarily league matches only. hope this helps :-) Struway2 (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Spartan League

Shouldn't Spartan South Midlands Football League Premier Division be redirected to Spartan South Midlands Football League? Seems a few people have been messing around here. But we don't need two pages at this level for this. Govvy (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'm going through the level 5 and 6 divisional articles (slowly) making them into redirects and tidying up the links to them as I go, and just haven't got to that one yet. - fchd (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to deal with Spartan South Midlands Football League Division One when you get there :) – Pee Jay 18:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

k, redirected those pages now. Govvy (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a double redirect, but it's fully protected. Can an admin go fix it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Rettetast (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

CFD

Another footy club category for renaming --> HERE - Darwinek (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Finding new articles

I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/New articles and it seems to me that a lot of new articles are not mentioned on that page. Over on WP:VG/N we use a couple of tools to automatically discover new articles. First of all we have a RSS feed from feedrinse.com that automatically filters out new video game-related articles from the new articles RSS feed. Unfortunately this only works for the last 1000 new articles or so. Secondly we us the CatScan tool from the toolserver, which is not always reliable but works really well (needs at least a minute to do it's thing though, be patient). For new football articles, the link would be: new football articles. If someone is willing to update the page using the data from CatScan every couple of days, you can easily list every new football-related article, like we do at WP:VG. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-4 15:20

There is a section at the foot of the list of new articles here which is generated automatically by a bot. Does not that serve the same purpose? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ohh, wow, I'd never seen that before. I'm not sure how the bot works, but yes that would seem to be the case. JACO PLANE • 2008-07-4 16:08

Yes, I look for new football articles here too. --Carioca (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use images

Please could someone who knows a bit about "fair use" try to educate me a bit? I haven't had the best record with Fair Use images myself; when I first joined Wikipedia I uploaded several photos under fair use, but as I had misunderstood the rules they were all eventually deleted.

I try to stay clear of fair use images now as I still don't fully understand the rules - it seems to be a bit of a grey area to me.

My main question is, can a photo of a person who is deceased by used under fair use terms? Image:Harry-catterick.jpg for example. Obviously the image can't be freely reproduced as the subject is no longer available to be photographed, but could it be argued that these images still don't qualify for fair use as there may be a "free" photograph of the subject available? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The category for football related articles already rated "C" class is here. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists of transfers in clubs' season articles

A discussion has opened up at Talk:Manchester United F.C. season 2008-09 regarding whether or not transfers from the period between the end of the 2007-08 season and 1 July 2008 should be included in the list of transfers on that page. First of all, I would like to confirm that the standard date range for articles on seasons in English football is 1 July to 30 June, and I would appreciate someone linking me to a discussion where this was agreed upon. Second, I would like people's opinion on whether transfers that occurred between the end of the season and 1 July should be included in the article. The arguments raised so far for including the transfers are that even though the transfers occurred before the start of the 2008-09 season, the players were signed after the end of the 2007-08 season and were obviously intended as signings for the 2008-09 season. The argument against inclusion is simply that the transfers did not occur within the recognised time frame used by the article. I would appreciate everyone's contribution to this discussion. Thanks. – Pee Jay 22:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. I would say that the season starts on 1 July when the transfer window opens and that any players who sign before this date should be included on the previous season's article (this would surely only affect signings of unattached players anyway). The argument to include them in the new season is also a good one as they won't actually play any games until then, but I'm leaning towards including them in the previous season. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A third suggestion here would be including such a transfer on both pages. Is the duplication of information a problem? Anyway, I'll reiterate my stance that it should be placed in the season for which the transfer was intended. If you wish to know the changes to a team's squad for a new season, then you would expect to find them in the newer season. Finally, I accept that the date range for such articles should be 1 July to 30 June, however contradictory this may sound. There's no need to go look for the discussion if it is only for my benefit. Thanks. ForeverDevil (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, that is a good point. Why does the off-season have to be included in one season or the other? Why can't it be in both? I'm probably forgetting some glaring reason for this, but unless someone reminds me of that reason, maybe we should start including off-season events in the articles for both the preceding and following seasons. – Pee Jay 00:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A transfer can only happen in one season. The commonly adopted dates are 1 July to 30 June, so any transfer should be between those two dates, otherwise would be included in the next season. Peanut4 (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

On that basis, Avram Grant's listing as being sacked should not be listed in Premier League 2008-09 as it happened well before June 30 2008. If such a rule is set, a greater measure of consistency should be applied. ForeverDevil (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

However Grant was sacked after the UEFA Champions League final, which is usually considered as the final game of the club season, so I'd consider his sacking as a managerial change related to the 2008-09 season. --Angelo (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Grant is listed there in conjunction with Scolari's listing as being hired by Chelsea. Scolari doesn't officially take over as Chelsea manager until 1 July, which makes that particular managerial change part of the 2008-09 season. – Pee Jay 11:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest(!) at the start of the article for last season it reads 'The 2007–08 Premier League season (known as the Barclays Premier League for sponsorship reasons) was the sixteenth since its establishment. The first matches of the season were played on 11 August 2007, and the season ended on 11 May 2008.' Similar is found for the coming season. Surely the last day of the season is the end of the season and after that is pre- the next one?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording of that sentence is quite misleading then. The English league season doesn't technically end until 31 May, if I remember what Richard Rundle said correctly, so to say that the 2007-08 Premier League season "ended on 11 May 2008" is a fallacy. – Pee Jay 11:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Premier League season may end with the last match, but the overall football season in England does not end until 31 May. The whole month of June is the "close season". - fchd (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back over the articles for the last few seasons (back to 2000-01) and they all, except for one, include this fallacy relating to the season ending in May. Hopefully a proper end date can be substituted when it is decided upon?--Egghead06 (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, when a club announces on 10th June that they've signed a player, they haven't – they will sign him on 1st July. I've said as much at Dundee_United_F.C._season_2008-09#Transfers as although Dundee United agreed players to come in as early as 3rd June, nothing will happen until 1st July. Similarly, players who leave clubs at the end of their contracts generally do so on 30th June, so they would be included in the older article but also mentioned in the new one (again, like I've done in the linked page). •Oranje•·Talk 11:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the official end comes after 11 May 2008, just as the official start comes on 1 July 2008. But I think you would still consider it, whatever the official line, to begin on the second or third weekend of August for the purpose of this context. ForeverDevil (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true Oranje. A club can sign a player before 1 July, if they come to an agreement with the selling club, or if the player is out of contract. However, most teams don't start pre-season training until 1 July-ish. It doesn't solve the problem, because go back 10 years to before transfer windows, and players were free to move at any time. We need to add a proper date structure between articles. Peanut4 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The summer transfer window does not begin on 1 July - this is a common misconception. It begins at the close of the season for each country. I believe that date is normally towards the end of May in England, but am not certain of the date this year. ForeverDevil (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The transfer window is still a red herring though. It doesn't help for when to list transfer for 1984-85 or 1985-86 seasons, and doesn't help as when to list other events, such as sackings. Peanut4 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There's always been (as long as I can recall anyway) a transfer deadline in British football, usually near the end of March. This was more like the trade deadline in American sports, a last date for teams to strengthen (or get rid) before the last month or so of the season. I think it is still in force but it isn't relevant now to top division clubs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"The summer transfer window does not begin on 1 July - this is a common misconception. It begins at the close of the season for each country." — But we all know that the transfer window does begin on 1 July,[22] so surely this just backs up the statement that this is when one season ends and the new one starts? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 14:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The exact date that a season ends, or that a transfer is made is a red herring - what matters, surely, is that any transfer made from the (active) end of the season is for the following season, and can have no effect on the previous one. The vast majority of lists of transfers in the media work this way. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that the list of transfers is meant to show how the squad differs from the previous season, and how it changes during the season. That's its only use: any deviation from that makes it misleading and useless. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree ArtVandelay. And Dan, here is an example of the window opening in May. ForeverDevil (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Premier League seem to think the last footballing day is the 'last/final day of the season' http://www.premierleague.com/page/Magazinedettail/0,,12306~1318410,00.html --Egghead06 (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, this is a difficult one, but obviously the last match of the season is going to be the end of the Premier League season; this does not necessarily mean that it is the official end of the English football season as a whole. FD, your link is dated 28/04/04, and the last match of that season was not played until 15/05/04, so this is clearly before the end of the season/start of the transfer window. I would guess that this is another case of a transfer being officially announced by the club before it has been officially completed, as seems to be commonplace. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They are signing the player to play in the 2008-09 season so they sshould be on the 2008-09 season page.ROOSTER (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Name inconsistency - CONCACAF rounds, and probably others

I've noticed that name changes from one cycle to the next make it really hard to follow CONCACAF WCQ pages. E.g.:

I'm sure there are reasons for the particular word order and capitalization and naming and all, but it makes it hard to navigate. I would go in and add redirects except I don't know what the canonical version should be. Also a footer navigational template tying it all together might be good.

I'm posting this here because I doubt this inconvenience is specific to CONCACAF, though it might be. - PhilipR (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two name changes I would propose here:

The other two seem fine to me. – Pee Jay 20:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually think this would be a good opportunity to work out some sort of project or task force in order to try to develop stylistic consistency between all 6 of the qualifying tournaments as far as round names (if applicable), scoring leaders, etc. Thoughts? -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the CONCACAF articles, part of the problem is that CONCACAF has been inconsistent with their round names over the years. IIRC, they used to use Semifinal Round (no hyphen because the english used in the region is of the US/Canadian variety), but now they use Third Round, despite the format having not changed between 2006 and 2010. So I think we should use the name they used at the time. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

According to FIFA, the name for the round in question in qualification for the 1998 and 2002 World Cups was "Semi-finals". For the 2006 World Cup, the round's name was changed to "Third stage" (which followed the "First stage" and the "Second stage"), and that name has stuck for the 2010 World Cup. – Pee Jay 22:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the question remains, do we use FIFA's or CONCACAF's terminology, because AFAIK, they can differe from time to time. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A good question. As you may have guessed, I'm going to plump for the FIFA terminology, but let's not let that be the be-all-and-end-all. – Pee Jay 23:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would go for FIFA just because that might bring some consistency, at least for all conferences qualifiers for a certain World Cup — chan dler — 23:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the option, semi-final and third round should not be capitalised because they're not proper nouns. Peanut4 (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what they are. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not according to FIFA's archives, which writes "Third round", not "Third Round". – Pee Jay 07:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do so many article titles have capitals, e.g. 2006 FIFA World Cup Final - should this not be 2006 FIFA World Cup final? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, people usually capitalise "Final" when the term refers to the final match of the tournament in order to distinguish it from "finals" (as in "finals tournament"). – Pee Jay 08:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would treat them as proper nouns as well. - fchd (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rounds are proper nouns. If you don't agree with me, I think you should brush up on the definition of proper nouns. (note: I understand that fchd agrees with me, this is more a comment for the people who disagree with us.) -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AFDs to delete multiple related pages

I've raised my concerns about the recent trend of bundling articles for AFD at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#AFDs to delete multiple related pages. Nfitz (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment?

Is anyone at all doing any assessment work? I can't seem to see anything going on over there....but maybe it's just me. Madcynic (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ShepBot auto-assessed several football articles. --Carioca (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some assessments for WPFOOTY on the talk pages of articles (admittedly this has just been slapping a rating on it rather than adding any comments). I haven't touched the assessment page for a while though. To make it easier to use that page, I think we need to add some commented instructions on what to do, i.e. how to pick up an assessment and what to do when done (it appears that you have to strike it out but this isn't explicitly stated. I think it would be better to mark it "Done" rather than striking it in any case). Should we add a low-level subheader for each entry to make it clearer? How and when do we archive when the page gets full? Just thinking out loud. --Jameboy (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems a good suggestion. Go ahead! Salt (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Managers and their past playing positions

I've noticed that some managers have their past playing positions with (retired) after the position, but some merely have the position. What is the preferred style? I'm inclined to say that retired is implicit, but I couldn't find a definitive source. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 06:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, "retired" is unnecessary as it is usually self-evident from the rest of the infobox, and I will delete it if I see it. Even worse, is adding "retired" where the former player has died. I reverted such changes recently on Walter Winterbottom and Ron Greenwood. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm exactly the same as Daemonic Kangaroo. Peanut4 (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly, it is preferred to leave the current club blank or include it, along with '(manager)' after it? In other words, it is strictly a player infobox? •Oranje•·Talk 10:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably need to add a line to the club information section to allow for the non-players position to fit there.Londo 06 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't strictly a player infobox, that's why they unified various names to {{Infobox Football biography}}. If you look at the documentation, against "current club" it says "The club for which the player currently plays, or is employed by. If the player now works in a non-playing role at the club, add this after the club in brackets. For retired players not employed by any club or federation, leave blank." As to (retired) after the playing position, I'd agree it's unnecessary. A player is a goalkeeper, whether he's current, former or dead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing we could do is to add a "Position" under Current Club which you only use for managers instead of the Number, and it can say Manager, Assistant Manager, or whatever? — chan dler — 15:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea, that I would support. It was discussed only a couple of weeks back but nothing ever happened of it. Peanut4 (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very much in support of that.Londo 06 20:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it would avoid the problem of where to place the current role of a manager in the infobox - should it be in the "currentclub" line in brackets after the club name or in the "clubnumber" line? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - with the caveat that if the role is simply 'Player', it should be left blank. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have a line for manager on its own, looks better aesthetically and fits in with the standards for players and other infoboxes.Londo 06 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe 'Staff position' would be good wording alongside 'playing position'? – moonty (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think brackets make the articles look a little amateurish, take the Sir Alex article for example. I would recommend a separate line for the word manager. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

One downside with that is a manager isnt a permanent manager, if you know what I mean... A striker usually goes through his whole career as a striker (if he plays both as a midfielder and striker it says so in his infobox). So I'd before it instead of the number for the club because that's something that changes. — chan dler — 14:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) - I agree: it should be related to the current club section, rather than the personal details, which are more static. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Maidstone United F.C.

Since Maidstone United F.C. season 2008-2009 was deleted, all the content has been dumped into the main club article. Surely this is a) statistical overkill for the main article b) blatant recentism and c) quite pointless as at the end of the season it wouls just all get taken out again.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of it. The content was deemed not to be notable, so just remove it at sight. --Angelo (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kits

I'm not sure I missed something, but why are kits being allowed to be so detailed now. Last I remember kits that were to detailed were not permitted. Also why are shorts and socks being allowed to be detailed as well. I'm pretty sure I missed these discussions; can any show me where all of this was discussed and approved? Thank you, The Uerba (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Socks and Shorts can't be controversial... There are to many teams wearing two coloured shorts for it not to be "allowed". And I don't see a point in disallowing greater detail (though no one has to take it to the extreme), though ofc, not to include sponsor and club logos — chan dler — 16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a conversation on this a while back... here it is: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 20#Excessive level of detail on kit icons Beve (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Uerba, are there any particular kits that you think need attention? Dancarney (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm involved in a bit of kit action at Club América. Please help me keep an eye out! Dancarney (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Helping out but seems like they are very determined to keep the detail Paul Bradbury 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note, why is it that it seems to be agreed here that detail is a bad thing? I realise that this may reduce the replicability of some of the graphics but that shouldn't be an argument for losing detail, otherwise we wouldn't upload photos etc. as they are obviously specific (and larger in file size). Just want to understand the current reasoning since this appears to not be official policy of wikipedia but a consensus thing on WP:FOOTY. Paul Bradbury 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Style guide?

I'm of the opinion there should be a general style guide for certain style rules -- proper wording, whether to put (retired) next to retired players, etc. -- things that might be discussed and decided upon here, on the talk page, but with no definitive resource to ensure they're easily accessible. Is this something that's needed? – moonty (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the "Manual of style" at the top of the page. Though I'm not sure how often those pages are updated following consensus on here. Peanut4 (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know about the manuals of style, but it seems there should be a section for general concerns -- you know, the type that would cross multiple types of articles. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but: Wikipedia:Manual of Style? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But specific to this project -- that's more what I'm thinking. It may not even be necessary. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think it is then please feel free to start one. That's the real test of whether it's necessary or not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Or use these ones? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Manual_of_style --ClubOranje^Talk 10:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for retired players, I would list their Current Club as Retired.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See above discussion about "retired." Note for players without a club, the current template says to leave that field blank. Peanut4 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for that. On the subject of the template documentation, it includes the "birth date and age" template, but does not include the "height" template. should that be included? if so, should it be documentated in the template documentation Strike that, just read the template talk page... --ClubOranje^Talk 09:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign footballer pages references in English?

I contribute a lot to Croatian football, and there have been minor debates at times whether it is acceptable to use Croatian references on their pages. Since it can become difficult to find references on players from a still small country (compared to the millions of articles you can find of major players from other bigger countries), I think it should be deemed acceptable to include data based on references written in the language/origin of the actual player/manager etc.

If not, then I would go further and propose a translation page for references cited in different languages. First of all, many people who would read foreign article figures are most likely from that country itself. Can I get suggestions or answers on this please? I think its getting a bigger of an issue everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This should prove a good start: Wikipedia:RSUE#Non-English sources – moonty (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem to using foreign sources, especially if there is no English equivalent. matt91486 (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly common to see references in a language that is suitable for an article, such as Japanese references for an anime television series that airs in Japan. Just make sure that the language that the reference is written in is specified. Gary King (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is all very well if you are including stuff about appearances, goals etc but for personal stuff (their children, wives, where they live(!) etc) surely this must be verifiable by most and not just those who speak Croatian? See WP:BLP and again WP:RSUE--Egghead06 (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If two sources are of equal value, but one is in English, then the English source should be used. If (as is almost certainly the case here) the foreign language source is of superior quality, or an equivalent English source does not exist, then there is absolutely no problem with using foreign language sources. Otherwise we could not have wonderful articles like S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. The language of a source does not affect whether or not it is a reliable source. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed if this was an article on ballons or a reference to goal scoring etc. But it isn't. It is a reference to a person's divorce, the ages of his children and where he lives. The key to these 'facts' for living people must be verifiabilty and this is vital as per WP:BLP - 'We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. and An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.'

Writing about someone's divorce, children and residence have little regard for a person's privacy!--Egghead06 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the issue here isn't the extent to which someone's private life should be mentioned in articles on Wikipedia. It's merely whether non-English sources could be used as reference - and I don't see any reason why not, as long as non-English references come from a generally reliable source, such as foreign equivalents of The Times, Guardian, BBC or FourFourTwo. As for the privacy matter - surely you must be aware that including information about divorces, marriages and such can hardly be avoided if both spouses appear notable to some extent, as well as that it can hardly cause harm. (I don't see how David Beckham might have suffered harm from the fact that the whole world knows he's married to Posh.) Timbouctou (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

<- Looking at your respective contribution histories, I see the bone of contention is this edit to Slaven Bilić. The reference is a interview with Bilic in Croatian. If the fact that it is in Croatian causes concern, then it it reasonable to request that the original phrase and a translation be included in a footnote, or have it checked by a third party using Category:Wikipedians by language. As to privacy concerns, if Bilic himself discloses such details in a press interview, then I don't think that is an issue. Disclosing that the manager of the Croatian national team lives in the Croatian capital is not violating privacy. If it said he owned houses at 123 Hrvatska Street and 456 Ivanisevic Avenue then that would be a different matter. Similarly, I don't see stating marital status as an issue, but divulging full details of a divorce settlement would be. As for brief family details, a quick search reveals that he has appeared with his son at public training sessions open to the press, and Bilic mentions him by name in the Observer (the first Google hit for "Slaven Bilic son"). While I appreciate that you are pursuing this from a "do no harm" standpoint, I do not see the disputed sentence as one with potential to do harm. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the key to Wiki and equally to this article is verifiability? I have little issue with the personal details 'disclosed' if only they could be verified by most users and by using an article in Croatian they can't. How can an English speaking reader know that what it says? He might be gay, he might not have ever been married, he might have 9 kids - we can't be sure from the reference given just as to what his personal circumstances are.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, suggestions for verification were given if you have problems with the source. But you'll have to accept that Wikipedia permits sources from other languages, even if you can't read them. matt91486 (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

^^^Yes, what Matt and the others said. To restate my initial argument, sources are allowed to be used in a different language. If it were an article about an already English native player like from Australia or England, then it would be somewhat extreme to put in a foreign language source. But keeping in mind Bilic is a Croatian in Croatia, its completely acceptable. As I said before, Wikipedia (though it aims to do its best), cannot even attempt to cater for every single person's needs and abilities. If that were the case, we would have articles written in very simple words and maybe even extended amounts of images etc etc. Its something out of our control. If somebody cannot understand the source of the reference, sorry to say but its just too bad for them. By reaching a conclusion here (and maybe even including the translation if necessary), people should then realise that even though the source is in another language they cannot understand, it is still a reliable reference as it has been used and maintained.

And on Personal issues and harm etc, I would like to point out that I kept this in mind which is why I did not go into further detail on the personal life issues, while I could have easily done so. Merely stating he is divorced and has a son and lives in Zagreb is as simple and harmless as it gets.

Domiy (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

False infobox stats

Hi, this guy has been spreading false stats on various players' pages (what raised my suspicion was noticing that Arizmendi apparently scored 16 goals for Valencia last season - I don't think he's scored 16 goals in his entire life). Anyway it looks like a static IP, since the guy has been vandalizing for several months now, so if you guys notice him continuing to do so then you can leave a note on my talk page and I'll block him. (He's only made 1 edit in the past week or so, so there's no reason to block him right now). ugen64 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

List of top association football goal scorers

Anyone want to watch this page? Its continually being vandaled by the same ip. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it have any value? Is it comparing like with like? Looks to me like a possible AfD candidate. - fchd (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I must say, the lead is probably the least coherent block of text I've ever seen on WP. Can anyone clarify what this actually means:

“

Due to the numbers bellow are according to one only founded source of information avaiable, the RSSSF, that is not must be consider as a consensus also because it don't give full account, specify and particularize on it’s site the details from Where and When each goal would had scored by each player as well as it's source of the data to make possible the Cross-validation and compare with others statistics institutions well done researches on same basis, furthermore the abusive ( for a statistic institution ) use of the word 'Probably' deserve caution in order to avoid the passive acceptance of what just could be Data snooping before more deeply studies about the matter be completed.

”

I'm stumped, personally..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's the least coherent block of text you've seen at Wikipedia you must not do CSD patrol regularly... ugen64 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

TSV 1860 München

Is there a particular reason why this article uses the German spelling? I was going to move the page to TSV 1860 Munich but then I thought someone would have done that already. Any thoughts or should I go ahead and rename it? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From a precedent for renaming point of view, there is FC Bayern München which redirects to FC Bayern Munich. However, that is one of the few. 1.FC Cologne redirects to 1. FC Köln. Most German clubs are under their German spelling. Similarly the French, FC Lyon is Olympique Lyonnais, Rennes - Stade Rennais F.C. etc. ditto Dutch Spanish and Portuguese clubs. One of the differences with München is there is a recognised alternative name for it in English, where most others perhaps not so obviously. I think if their name is TSV 1860 München, leave it, unless you can make a strong case under WP:COMMONNAME. Personally I'd be more in favour of renaming Bayern Munich (but don't feel strongly enough about it to initiate the change)--ClubOranje^Talk 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never understood why some foreign club articles use the foreign language name. This is the English Wikipedia; surely Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) should come in to force when naming these articles? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NC#Sports teams for the policy. Although the club doesn't seem to have an English section on their website, the Google News hits show that the German name has not been "adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media" (1860 München gets only one hit, on an Ipswich Town fanzine, whilst 1860 Munich gets more than 50). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the common name in English was just 1860, not either 1860 Munich or 1860 München. I would always use the German name, I don't think we should be translating names either personal or organisational. - fchd (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This comes up every once in a while - not just for club names, but player names as well. The application within the range of German club articles is inconsistent. There have been some editors making short marches through the category enforcing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), while others show up occasionally to insert "ß" in place of "ss", add umlauts, or make similar German-language oriented changes. My personal preference is for the club page to appear under its actual German-language name (it is what it is), but to ensure there is a redirect from the common English name (along with an explanation within the context of the article if its required). Sometimes it might even be worth a redirect from a common mis-spelling, but that's a whole other thing, I guess. After having been in a couple of near revert wars (Nuremberg, Cologne) with a couple of the Englishers I basically ignore the thing now as something I'm not too prepared to get bent out of shape over. Wiggy! (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)