Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55

Jack Wilshere

I recently done some summarization to arrest section in this article and requested that some of information in his section be moved to a separate article however The Infoboxer (talk) disagrees that the edits are disruptive. Can anyone give a definative answer on summarisation in general and suitability of "The woman suffered a broken and dislocated elbow and the man was left with a depressed fracture of the cheekbone for which they were both treated in hospital." for this article or whether it is better put into a new article covering the assault case. Supergunner08 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't create a new article about the assault case, it would violate WP:NOTNEWS and most likely be deleted very quickly. Leave some information about the incident in Wilshere's article but don't go into too much detail; we don't want to be portraying BLPs in an unduly negative light and in all fairness it's a very minor part of his life. Let's concentrate on the football, folks. BigDom 15:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
They are a result of the event for which he was arrested. The line is both informative and concise. It sums up the indviduals injuries and does not state whether there was provocation on either side. It is a neutral statement, and does not indicate guilt or innocence. I have appeased you (the Supergunner08) by adding information reported by his spokesman about him purportedly being a peacemaker. I do not believe the event deserves its own article.The Infoboxer (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think pretty much everyone would agree that there is definitely no call for a separate article on this very minor incident -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thats fine by me for the assault case quote, but the case of summarization is unaddressed, i stated previously on The Infoboxer (talk talk page that why was the word "Wilshere was arrested" used twice in the paragraph when one will suffice? which helps summarize that section of the article. Any answers Supergunner08 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Having just re-read the reference used from The Sun (!) can only see Wilshere having been arrested for GBH - no mention of him being responsible for the attack on the girl, her arm or her boyfriend. As I understand it he was peacemaking (referenced) not attacking the girl (unreferenced)--Egghead06 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The Sun lists it as GBH, the others list it under assault. Would it be best to group all of the references at the end, or move some to cover the first sentence.The Infoboxer (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems The Sun in its own wonderful way was trying to link 'Woman assaulted' with 'Wilshere arrested' and it seems to have worked because now it is on Wikipedia. Nowhere does it say Wilshere was arrested on suspicion of attacking the woman. Still why let the truth get in the way?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I've changed it now. Its funny, the Sun says the woman's injuries were sustained from an attack, but the Daily Mail says "It is thought the dispute flared over the woman in the group, although it is understood she broke her arm from a fall rather than in an attack." No that can't be right, she was viciously attacked by a footballer surely?... Its highly unlikely that the couple did nothing at all to provoke a fight, but thats not the issue here. Stating that Wilshere was responsible for attacking the women, as it did before I changed it, is wrong. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This serves as a very useful reminder that sources should always be thoroughly parsed when checking exactly what they're being used to reference. What a secondary source infers is irrelevant if it's being used as a secondary source: it's what it reports that's important. This goes doubly (trebly, quadruply) for the red tops. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

New squad rules

Now that the Premier League has announced the official 25 player squads for the season, I thought it would be useful to introduce symbols into the squad lists for the season articles. On Fulham's page for this season I have written some prose here outlining the new rules with references to the official list. Could we introduce symbols into the squad lists for each team, indicating which players have been included until January, and then add another symbol next to those selected in January. Any thoughts? 03md 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How would you go about it. It could be misled to mean regulars in the team which isn't necessarily true. For example David Ngog isn't in the 25 man squad but has played more games this season than other squad members (and may continue to do so). So you then introduce another set of symbols for U21s etc. You see where I'm going with this. I think it could become rather unwieldy. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Since the Premier League does not re-invent the wheel (La Liga has a similar system since a couple of seasons), it might be useful to ask a couple of editors with experience on Spanish team articles how they deal with the matter. However, I would not mess around with any kind of symbols as these would easily lead to confusion. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: the Fulham season article, it seems like overkill to have a squad number column in each table. They aren't that important, and don't have anything to do with goals scored, bookings, etc. - Dudesleeper talk 22:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
To deal with this matter, I would suggest adding a symbol such as the dagger symbol (†) to the players who are not eligible for Premier League matches, since there will likely be fewer players who are ineligible than those who are eligible. Fortunately, we at Manchester United have no ineligible players, so we don't have to worry about that sort of thing. – PeeJay 23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd just add a footnote for those (hopefully few) players who have played already this season but who didn't make the cut. Even better would be to just put it in the prose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its better to just add ONLY first players has depicted on each clubs website and leave the new 25 man rule squad alone. Also this new rules only applies to league matches only and not the national cups or cup matches in Europe, it just complicates things. Supergunner08 (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

UEFA squads

Personally, I agree with PeeJay's proposal and I was wondering if we should apply the same method for European competitions. Since UEFA has a 25-man squad rule too, plus other rules about player eligibility (see here), clubs taking part in the Champions League or in the Europa League often needs to cut players — sometimes even notable ones — from their "European squad". So, it might be worth to point it out in the season articles. Luxic (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing something like that for my favorite South American team's season articles for the past three season. CONMEBOL also has a 25-man squad rule for each of their competitions, but they also require the club to number their 25-man squad from 1-25. Often times because of that last part, some players may wear different numbers for South American competition. And if your team participates in three South American competitions in one season, like mine did last year, you'll have three different squad lists for each comp. So I've been adding a list of those 25-man squads, mainly because of the different numbering and different lists, to my team's season article. I don't think you have to go that far for UEFA clubs, but you should really find a simple way to mention who is part of the European squad, go for it. Digirami (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistency for footy clubs

Suggestion: In order to archive greater consistency across football articles, all football team articles using an abbreviation, should have it dotted. i.e. FC Barcelona -> F.C. Barcelona. etc. This preliminary suggestion only involves the abbreviations CF and FC.

Alternative

In order to archive greater consistency across football articles, all football team articles using an abbreviation, should have it undotted. i.e. Real Madrid C.F. -> Real Madrid CF etc. This preliminary suggestion only involves the abbreviations CF and FC.

Some nations have teams that use dotted abbreviations, some nations do not. Trying to standardise it across the world is a foolish endeavour; it is a much better use of time to ensure it is standardised across country by country. GiantSnowman 11:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah going through 195 nations individually seems a good idea. Sandman888 (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice sarcasm, Sandman! So what you're saying is that you can't be bothered to take a look at all the countries separately, so everyone else should just decide an arbitrary standard of abbreviation that may or may not conform to the norms in a particular country. But that's alright because at least it will have saved you some time. BigDom 11:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Was he being sarcastic? I mean ensuring we have standardization by country would take a whole lot less time than standardizing worldwide seen as most nations are already standardized anyway. Removing all the dots or adding all the dots would take months of tedious moving work.--EchetusXe 13:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I take EchetuseXe's point. But the argument against worldwide consistency would make a lot more sense if there were a predominant style in particular countries, and we followed those. Taking England as an example, I can't off the top of my head think of a Football League club that uses dotted abbreviations. Even if 100% of Premier League and Conference teams do, and a significant minority of Football League clubs do, that's still a massive proportion of professional and semi-professional clubs that don't. I'm sure it's a similar scenario in a large number of other countries. --WFC-- 13:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Consistency with the dots (and naming convention, in general, I guess) by country is a better idea. British clubs already have a set "naming convention" and the dots are included all around. Why can't other countries do the same (besides WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)? Digirami (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
If this doesn't have any mileage in it, can we at least rename PAOK F.C.? --WFC-- 03:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC On Football Code Nomenclature

Hello, i'm looking for input from the Wikiprojects on all the Football codes so we can get a standardized wording for each brand of the sport. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark Duffy's phantom game and goal

Morecambe player Mark Duffy is given 51 games and 6 goals by the official site, but only 50 games and 5 goals by Soccerbase. Can anyone locate the phantom game and goal? Cheers, GiantSnowman 00:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

2009/10: official site has 2 extra games, 1 extra goal because they count the playoffs as league games
2010/11: official site has 1 fewer game because they haven't updated that page for yesterday's game yet
making 1 extra game and goal in total. You might do better using the official site's club stats page for up-to-date figures. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks Struway, as ever! GiantSnowman 11:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been expanding cricket articles on some players who also played football. They probably played before 1930 and I wondered if there was any way of getting reliable info on their appearances. They were Roy Kilner who played for Preston NE before 1920 and Abe Waddington who apparently played as a goalkeeper for Bradford and Halifax sometime around the 1920s. Also, Wally Hammond played for Bristol Rovers in the early 1920s. Any help would be appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Waddington never appeared in the Football League for Bradford City; maybe he played for Bradford Park Avenue instead? GiantSnowman 13:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Michael Joyce's Pre-WW2 Football League records book shows Waddington as being with Bradford City in 1920-21 but not playing a Football League match for them, and in 1921-22 he was with Halifax Town A.F.C. and made 7 League appearances for them. Eldumpo (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Roy Kilner - Joyce has no Preston player of that surname. Regarding his alter-ego Smith, the only Joyce entry for a Preston player called Smith reasonably close to the war, and without a known birth year, is Richard Smith, who played for Preston in the League in 1908-09, which is presumably too early? Eldumpo (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Information on wartime appearances is available in the Watford Football Club Illustrated Who's Who, so maybe the Preston equivalent has them? Richard Smith is a far too common name to assume that it's the same person, but given that he would have been 18-19 it's plausible- the Preston book might also be able to help there. Not sure if anyone has it though; I can't think of any Preston supporting wikipedians. --WFC-- 18:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that so far. Much appreciated. Any chance of a reference for Waddington which shows this info? Re Kilner, 1908-09 is too early. Info for him is less important than for Waddington, as at least we have rough times for the appearances, and I imagine wartime stuff is a bit vague anyway. The sources for Waddington say nothing, not even a year! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Source for the Waddington info above is Joyce, Michael (2004). Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. Soccerdata. ISBN 1-8994-6867-6. Eldumpo (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but does this have a page number? Thank again!! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Page 267 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Footballers in Turkey by club

I was just combing through and I found some outdated club names. Would there be anyway to re-title the categories, and have a script run to change the cat names on player pages?

Also, is there consensus on category titles, as in, should it be Club X footballers or Club Y players? Thanks. Invisibletr (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All now listed for discussion here.
As most of the articles in Category:Footballers in Turkey by club are in the form "Club X footballers", that appears to be the convention. For British clubs, whose article names generally end with F.C., "Club F.C. footballers" looks rather strange, with "football" effectively appearing twice. (Have I made myself clear?) Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Crystal! Thank you. Invisibletr (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All now sorted. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack Hall date of birth

Does anyone have a date of birth for Jack Hall, an English football manager active in the Netherlands in the 1920s and 30s? Existing players born in 1905 and 1912 are slightly too young, while the player born in 1883 is the right age but became a pub landlord after retiring, not a coach. Thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 20:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry.. best I can do [1] TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, what a great site! The only thing is, he could have been born 'John Hall' as well, and there were over 4,000 of those born in England between 1860 and 1890...your guess is as good as mine! GiantSnowman 00:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
John Hall born 6-5-1885 in Southfields Source: gezinskaarten 1913-1939 's Gravenhage [2] On the backside of his card you can read he trained VUC when he moved from Rijswijk to The Hague in 1937. Cattivi (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks Cattivi, article is now located at Jack Hall (footballer born 1885). Thanks again, GiantSnowman 00:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Bit of a moot point, but is he strictly a footballer? Brad78 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Chances are that he did play football at some level, but as it stands the article's title is fairly misleading. BigDom More tea, vicar? 21:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, I'd say "{football manager)" for someone of this common name is more misleading than a date of birth, as I'm sure more than one Jack/John Hall would have been a football manager. Plus, if we don't use date of birth, do we have "football manager" or "football coach", both of which I have seen in use...? GiantSnowman 23:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Welsh Cup final 1962

Delving into the realms of history, I came across the 1962 Welsh Cup Final (see here and here). Can anyone explain why the match went to a play-off if Wrexham won the first leg 3-0 and Bangor won the second 2-0? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Answer seems to be that for a while the Welsh Cup Final, over two legs, operated as '2 points for a win' regardless of aggregate score. If both teams won one each they had 2 points and a play-off was required. See [3]. HTH. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that - perfect. One of the things I love about Wikipedia is that, no matter how obscure the query, someone can find the answer. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This is confirmed here. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Graphs

Does anyone have an idiots guide to making historical graphs based on football clubs, such as this and this? I'd like to do some but am struggling a bit. I haven't made any for a number of years because there has been no need. I've had a look at the creators page but it doesn't explain an awful lot to a complete novice like me. I'm using OpenOffice. If anyone has a step-by-step guide or a template that they can point me to then I would appreciate it. Cheers. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 03:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked the creator a year ago and he appeared to have lost interest and gone away. So I made my own the best I could and came up with this.--EchetusXe 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I'll message his page and see what happens since he was active in August. Your graph is better than my effort, I'm a noob! Argyle 4 Lifetalk 06:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
In the past I've just made them in Excel then saved the resultant graph as a JPEG. I'm sure there are better ways to do it, but I don't know of any..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I used Excel too, the 'Graph man' had some kind of advanced technology that allowed him to compensate for massive changes in league structure. I had to input the data as reverse league position (i.e. how many places from bottom), and then add the league division lines afterwards.--EchetusXe 11:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I've also used Excel and exported graphs as PNGs. However, as EchetusXe has noted, probably the most difficult part of this is "plotting" the league structure, knowing exactly how many teams were in what divisions in a given season. Get that data, and I'd be more than happy to help with a graph not too dissimilar to this one (for which I've stupidly lost the background data...) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, that is the most difficult part. I've had a go at something more straight forward and created this. I'm going to have a stab at league positions now because I think I've got the hang of how to plot the leagues. I'm going to go through each season here and then add the club's performance afterward. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 06:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I've got it! I plotted the divisions and it looked fine. Now I've added the club's performance up to 1970. Not going to get ahead of myself but it looks good so far. The pattern of us going up and down quite often is very evident! Argyle 4 Lifetalk 08:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Years Tier One Tier Two Tier Three Tier Four
1893 16 12
1894 16 15
1895-1898 16 16
1899-1905 18 18
1905-1919 20 20
1920 22 22
1921-1931 22 22 22
1932 22 22 21
1933-1951 22 22 22
1951-1958 22 22 24
1959-1961 22 22 24 24
1962 22 22 24 23
1963-1987 22 22 24 24
1988 21 23 24 24
1989-1991 20 24 24 24
1992-1995 22 24 24 22
1996-2010 20 24 24 24

--EchetusXe 13:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, ain't that handy? What's your reference for that EchetusXe, out of interest? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you overlooked the Third Division North which existed from 1921 to 1958? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Presumably that it what he has down as tier three between those dates........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What I meant was that the third tier covered both Third Division North and Third Division South between those dates, although how you'd put that in this sort of graph, damned if I know. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well as any given team was only eligible to play in one of the two divisions at any one time, I'd say that whichever one that was represented "their" third tier and the fact that another parallel division existed isn't really relevant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah - on reflction, I think you're right. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Bradford Park Avenue played in the Third Division South, despite being a Northern team. GiantSnowman 16:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I believe Coventry were shuttled back and forth between the divisions several times. But my point was that each team was only eligible to play in one of the two divisions at any one time, hence "their" Football League pyramid simply comprised three divisions, namely Div 1 > Div 2 > Whichever Div 3 they were in at the time. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
What about the Third Division that existed in 1920-21 before the formation of North and South divisions in 1921-22? BigDom More tea, vicar? 15:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
My reference is Wikipedia, going through the season articles. There seems to be some confusion about the North/South thing. As Chris said they are parallel, this data is for the purpose of making a graph so the team that finished 10th in Third North will have the same graph spot and overall league place the same as the team that finished 10th in Third South. They would technically share an overall place of joint 54th. So for the purposes of the graph there is no difference between 1920-21 and 1921-22, despite the fact that there were an extra 22 teams. I suppose you could argue that the rankings should go joint 45th, joint 47th, joint 49th and so on; and that the teams that finished 10th in North/South would be ranked as joint 63rd. Is there any official decision on this?--EchetusXe 22:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Womens World Cup formatting

Hello, can other please help solve the actions of user:Jlsa.

He is insisting on retaining both the forename and surname of players in the football boxes found here. Users have tried to correct this which flies in the face of every other footballbox on WP, but he only immediately reverts them under the argument that he has (wrongly) formatted every other qualification page likeso. Every single previous Womens World Cup page also adheres to the standard practice of the surname only being displayed.

I have begun a cleanup of the other qualification pages, spending ages on this group in particular, correcting wrongly credited goals, accenting foreign names correctly, fixing wrong links, formatting the goalscorers section a la the 2010 World Cup pages etc, and of course correcting the name format, only for him to simply revert it under "pointless busywork". Is improving WP pages and trying to maintain a consensus formatting on football qualification page "pointless busywork"?

To me it seems the user is simply unwilling to admit they have incorrectly formatted the pages and now wants to insist all future pages also are wrongly formatted merely to prove himself right!

Please advise, many thanks 92.11.12.218 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember specifically editing one of the group articles to the consensus approach (it is consensus to use only the surnames of players right?) awhile back, but the user reverting it back hours later without giving reason.
Did someone answer the user's question he/she asked almost a year ago? Joao10Siamun (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It isn't difficult to distinguish people with similar surnames if: 1) you have an article to the player in question, 2) you have a full squad list of the competition in which the player in question took part, 3) if you simply add the initial of the player's name before his surname. Given this, point 3 only seems to be necessary when there's two players with the same name in the same team AND in the same competition (which you can check out in the aforementioned squad list). On the other hand, adding both names and surnames may result in a further and more difficult problem to solve: that the reader misleads name by surname, or the other way. We may think this is a strange confusion when thinking of English or Occidental names, but it's quite frequent in, for instance, Chinese, Korean or Arab names --and even in Spanish surnames that uses two surnames. So, the standard practice largely used by Wikipedians seems to avoid much less confusions than the proposed use of both names and surnames at every single case. This last proposition only seems necessary when, as I said, there's two players in the same team AND the same competition, and even then, you'd only need the initial of their names before their respective surnames. The question regarding the referees' names is another issue. I really don't care on that, but I guess the point here is to identify him rather than not misleading name and surname, and this can be done more easily just by adding both names and surnames. But I'd go with just the surname as well in this cases. Ipsumesse (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary reversion of 2010–11 UEFA Champions League and 2010–11 UEFA Europa League

As many of you are probably aware, an editor using nine different IP's (so far) has been reverting these two articles to edits presumambly in the middle of July. First, can someone please semi-protect these pages to stop vandalism, and second does anyone have any ideas as to more permenant solutions to this problem? Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just SuperSonicx1986 (talk · contribs) as usual. I've fully protected the former for a short period. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Graham Lovett

I am putting together an article about Graham Lovett who looked to have a "glittering career" as a youngster, appearing for West Bromwich Albion in the 1968 FA Cup Final, before his career was ended following a serious car crash. Does anyone know if he is the same Graham Lovett who now broadcasts on Radio Warrington[4] and for Wigan Athletic[5]? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I've answered my own query in the negative. The Graham Lovett in the photograph taken in 2008[6] and the one in the photo on the Wigan website[7] are clearly NOT the same person. He lost rather a lot of hair in two years - must be the amount of time spent heading the ball! Cheers Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Glynn Hurst's nationality

What exactly makes him South African?! GiantSnowman 17:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Played for their Olympic team [8]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Chesterfield official site confirms family moved to SA when he was a child & he won 5 caps for their under-23s. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Cheers guys! GiantSnowman 11:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of his SA caps, "English-born South African" is unnecessary and confusing. Just the facts, folks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Soccerbase stats question

Does anyone know what competitions are included in the 'Other' category for the player stats pages, and also for what seasons those events are included in the stats? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen Football League Trophy and FA Trophy matches included, like here and here. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Play-off appearances also.--EchetusXe 23:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
By comparing players' records on Soccerbase with my book collection, I found that Football League Trophy apps are only included from 1997 onwards........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that they're still inconsistent. Ricky Otto's totals include 5 games and a goal for Birmingham in the 1994/95 Football League Trophy, and "other" apps for other lower-division clubs back to 1990. Steve Finnan's 2(1) "other" apps for Birmingham were in the 1995/96 Anglo-Italian Cup. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Soccerbase needs a "health warning" and ideally should be cross checked against other sources. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What amuses me is the section on their FAQ page:
5. What can I do if I see a mistake?
If you have any comments, especially about any mistakes you may see in our data, please e-mail us at ...
Unfortunately, in practice the sentence should continue "and we will ignore your comments and leave the mistakes in". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
My favourite case of someone taking patently incorrect Soccerbase info as gospel was the editor who, based on this, added to WP the nugget that George Collins was manager of Gillingham for an entire season yet only took charge of one match......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Captain thumb

commons:File:Captain sports.svg I've noticed the image on the right has become more common in 'current squad' sections of club pages (such as Penrith_Panthers#2010_Squad, D.C._United#Current_roster and Olympiacos_F.C.#Current_squad). Is this acceptable? I quite like it personally, but their use might carry some ambiguity. —Half Price 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't like it - I thought it was the copyright symbol. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images says don't do it unless there's a good editorial reason. Even if there is, the meaning of the image should still be included as alt text, caption or nearby key, which rather defeats the object. {{Fs player}} has an other= parameter ideally suited to contain the plain English word captain, which links to a relevant article, is unambiguous, readable and accessible. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Struway (don't think I've ever said that before!), there's no need for an image when the word "captain" is far less ambiguous. BigDom 19:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Those images don't shout captain to me. Given the hoohar (sp?!) about the correct use of flags, I really don't think this symbol is appropriate or the best way to represent who is captain. Brad78 (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Kill with fire, as with any other icons in squad lists. There's strong consensus against them both here and project-wide. Bring it up with the editors responsible and if necessary check they haven't done it elsewhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Captain Arm Band.png

Would something like this be better? -Udeezy (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Stick with using text. Digirami (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Although the symbol itself looks better, it should not be preferred over the use of simple text because of WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images. How about just Capt. as another alternative? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not as if captain is a long word. Besides, it will be wikilinked for the benefit of readers who are not familiar with the position of captain in a football team. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That image looks more like the logo of a telephone company, I sure as heck wouldn't know what it was meant to represent. As people have mentioned, there is no valid reason to use an image for this purpose when a word will suffice just as well and is in fact much better as it is much clearer. I mean, if we are going to use an image to denote the captain, why not replace the abbreviation "GK" with a little picture of a green shirt? Eventually I'm sure we could think of images to replace every word in a club's article ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the blue one being added just recently. Personally i don't like, i thought it suited some articles at first, but then i seen it again and thought it looked totally out of place. I prefer the old way, just (c). Bobbymozza (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Association Football" and WP:COMMONNAME

I'll assume we are all familiar with the geographical issues over preference for football or soccer, and the distaste, particularly (exclusively?) in England for the latter term. But can the phrase "Association Football", for all that it might be an official designation, claim any popular usage? Even at www.thefa.com, the only occurences of "Association Football" seem to be in formulaic phrases like "the laws of association football", in reference to a specific course in sports science, and in quoting a 1991 DES document. On the other hand, the FA's own initiatives have included "Soccer Star", "Mini Soccer", "Soccer Parent" etc. In all areas of the English speaking world where "football" might be ambiguous (US, Canada, Ireland among GAA community, Rugby dominated areas of S Africa, Australia or New Zealand), even if the eleven man game is known simply as "football", the word used when there is a need to be specific is "Soccer", never "Association Football". My Irish nephews play two sports: one of them they call variously football, Gaelic Football or GAA, the other they will call either football or soccer: they would never call the latter "association football", and it would be archaic in the extreme for anyone to do so. I have never heard the words apart from in phrases like "the formal name of the game is Association Football": David Cameron's formal title is "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and First Lord of the Treasury", but that has equally little place in everyday speech. No media outlet of my knowedge heads any section of its sports coverage as association football, Tim Lovejoy never hosted a programme called "Assaociation football a.m.", and the charitable events were not called "association football aid". Even in England, I would contend that a conversation between the most avid avoider of the S-word and an American which needs to be specific about which game is intended would use myriad phrases like "real football", "football with feet", "eleven-a-side" etc rather than "Association football".

The phrase is effectively redundant in everyday speech and media use in all parts of the English speaking world: why is it still used on Wikipedia? Kevin McE (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a compromise. Sandman888 (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This subject has been discussed countless times and no-one is particularly happy with the phrase "Association Football" but it's the best compromise. I suggest that you read the FAQ at Talk:Association football - if you have the time, you can look at the 42 separate archived discussions on the topic. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It's an artefect of our nature as the first truly global and accessible encyclopedia. We have our quirks. "Portmanteau", for example. Where "football" is not likely to be ambiguous, feel free to go with "football" in articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My view is that the term "soccer" should never be used to disambiguate a player from a country where "soccer" has negative connotations, and should exclusively be used for players from countries where soccer is the common usage. Along with the likes of "Australian rules football" ("Aussie rules", "football") and "Rugby League football" ("Rugby", "Rugby League", "football" and less commonly "Rugby football") "Association football" should only be used in a player's name where there are multiple claims to the common usage of "football", or in exeptional circumstances for neutrality reasons. --WFC-- 02:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a country in the (English speaking) world where soccer has "negative connotations" among the populace as a whole: witness the title of TV programmes and magazines in the UK, and use of the word by the FA itself in England. How would this suggestion apply to players from Ireland or USA, but playing in England? (e.g. Shane Duffy (soccer player) currently under pagemove consideration) Kevin McE (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Whichever one of the two is used more often in reliable sources that cover Duffy. Simples. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I think we all know how many sources we will find that use the phrase "association football" in regard to this individual; my reason for raising the discussion here is that the same would be true for any individual involved in, or aspect of, the game. Kevin McE (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
From my own English perspective; referring to Rugby (either code), American Football etc as "football" alone is in itself misleading despite whatever common parlance it may have achieved in their home nations. So unless we're actually discussing a topic on those two subjects the word "football" should not on its own be used to solely to describe them (or else dismabiguation becomes an issue). Gaelic Football is differentiated in the same way, just as is Australian Rules. Football may in fact be the popular name for it amongst the Irish populace, but that wouldn't change much the understanding of the rest of the world who would be more common in their understanding of the word football to refer to association football.
The issue of using Soccer is that it is much like using Grid Iron for American Football. "Association Football" is the completely unambiguous and encyclopedic name for the sport. Soccer would be a usable short form in many circumstances, it's certainly more acceptable than Footie for instance.
The dislike of the word "soccer" is, based on my marriage to an American, due to their prevailing use of the word "Football" to refer to a sport played almost universally with the hands. The word "soccer" is not disliked, rather the claim to the word "Football" by an alien sport jars. At least that would be my opinion :) Koncorde (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I think association football is a cool name, and with the use on wikipedia hopefully it will spread throughout society. Sandman888 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The day that rugby for softies is universally accepted as being called gridiron is the day we can look again at changing the term on the biggest sport in the world to one that does not include the word "football". Until then, I think the status quo is appropriate. --WFC-- 15:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Süper Lig dispute

There's a slight dispute going on over at the Süper Lig page. What's going on is, IPs (most probably BJK fans) have repeatedly changed Besiktas' total titles won from 11 to 13. In 2002, the Turkish Football Federation released a press statement, stating that the two championships the club won before the beginning of the Süper Lig in 1959 would NOT count as national titles. In fact, the statement is already cited in the article, but the IPs have disregarded it.

The second issue is the Süper Lig#Star rating system section. Some users have removed teams and their titles from the list, and FB and GS fans continually switch the two (sort of the one-upmanship that goes on between rival fans). That's not really the problem; what's wrong is that there is no source stating that the TFF utilizes a star system. Granted, it is true, but I haven't found anything to back it up. I'm in favour of removing the entire section, and taking the citation of BJK's Federation Cup titles and moving it into the lead.

The third and final issue is the listing of Fenerbahce and Galatasaray in the infobox. Both clubs are tied on 17 titles, and I wanted to make sure there was some consensus on how they should be listed: should it be alphabetical (Fenerbahce -> Galatasaray) or most recent title (Galatasaray -> Fenerbahce)? Thanks. Invisibletr (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a ref for the stars, with no prejudice to whether the section should remain as-is. --WFC-- 18:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
On point three, I'd alphabetized them to not show any preference, just in case. Digirami (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help mates! Invisibletr (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

George Collins

A bit of a long shot this one, but does anyone know if the guy who was manager of Gillingham and the guy who was manager of Darlington were definitely the same man, as Soccerbase believe? And if so, what he was doing for the intervening 13 years.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed

Can an admin deal with the situation at Adam Johnson? Thanks, --WFC-- 23:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Team shirt sponsors:

I have read discussions on whether or not to include the names of a team and shirt sponsor in the template info box for each football club. I must point out to those who say it is not important - it IS. I often watch a football match where NEITHER team is in anything like the home OR away shirts illustrated, however the team sponsor logo will always be prominent and not change and it is THAT which I use to identify which side is which, especially if like on ESPN they do not bother to give any indication on the scoreline tag of team colours. Moderator please shift this comment to relevant spot? Thanks. Micmar00 (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, especially in regard to the shirt sponsor. Just because you can identify a team that way doesn't mean the majority of people do, which is most likely the opposite of your stance. If you want to know who the sponsor is, check the kits section of that respective team's article. If they don't have one, I suggest you add it if you can. Digirami (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Digirami. GiantSnowman 11:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
So do I -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

you can disagree as strongly as you like with an OPINION but this was not an opinion - it was a FACT. team shirts change in colour and design but the sponsor's logo for that tear will not. The kit section refers to the MAKER of the kits and is entirely differsnt to the sponsor of the team itself. I take it neither of you are bothered if say you watch ESPN and join the match after it has started and having no clue which team is which? Well good luck to you if that be the case, but for my part thankyou to whoever keeps the German Bundesliga page updated as there indeed the list of shirt sponsors has been added in a table headed "Personnel and sponsorships". So question for my replying contributors above: how do YOU identify which team is which on the field if they are not tagged by the broadcaster in the scoreline and neither is playing in their known home or away kit? If its the club logo you gotta have darn good eyesight for that whereas the sponsor's logo is pretty much in-your-face since they are paying for the players to advertize their company.

Only league goals

Why are only league goals recorded for players? Doesn't seem to make any sense. Ta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.221.214 (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In the infobox, we only use League goals because there is a historical, verifiable record for them dating back many years. There is no such record for Cups etc. for anything other than seasons. But even if there were, what Cups would we include and which Cups would we ignore? GiantSnowman 11:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alan Crawford (football)

I was originally planning to move the above page to Alan Crawford (footballer), having just turned this page into a redirect to Alan Crawford (Australian rules footballer), in order to try and disambiguate. The 'soccer' player has a lot more google hits (using 'alan crawford football') but that's a bit recentist perhaps, and there appear to be no pages along the lines of Alan Crawford (Association footballer). Does anyone have records of any other Alan Crawford 'soccer' players as this would affect the eventual page move location i.e. if there were the page could move to Alan Crawford (footballer born 1953). Obviously, hatnotes and the text at the overall Alan Crawford dab page would need to be changed once the rest was sorted. Would appreciate any thoughts on the best way to clear this up. Eldumpo (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alan Crawford (English footballer) would be my solution. Alan Crawford (footballer) would be fine and a hatnote to the aussie rules guy. But seen as that is already taken then English footballer/Australian rules footballer is simple solution that leaves no room for confusion.--EchetusXe 14:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response but as he's not represented England at any level (to my knowledge) then use of the 'English' suffix would not seem appropriate, noting that unsourced references to English appear in both the article text and one of the categories. Eldumpo (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The Neil Brown external link states that he was born in Rotherham (South Yorkshire). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
(English footballer) would generally refer to nationality, and (England footballer) would be used for the national team, so it is a suitable qualifier. So I did it. Whenever you do this, ensure that you update both the dab page and the left over redirects, so that they all point to the dab page, and not to the new article names.The-Pope (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FAS Premier League

I just came across the FAS Premier League article (a Singapore League), it says it was founded in 1988 and was replaced by the S-League in 1996. The article has no references and is poor quality. Im just abit sceptical that the league was founded as the "FAS Premier League" in 1988. There isn't any references on the S-League article about the formation of either leagues. So can't even be sure whether it's seperate league or whether S-League is a continuation of it.

I looked on rsssf but it wasn't very helpful, it has the 1994 season and it says 'FAS Premier League', but on the 1992 and 1989 season page, it just says 'Singapore' followed by the year. I tried searching on Google but didn't see anything and don't know where else to look, plus my computer is running too slow at the moment to be able to search properly.

Does anyone know anything about Singapore Football or know of any websites which might clear this up? Bobbymozza (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've took a look around but there doesn't seem to be a great deal going on. The FAS history[9] appears to neglect almost entirely that period, but kind of covers some similar subjects to the wikipedia article (but with less detail). There's reference in this online scrawl for the appointment of Salim Moin [10] who according to the site;
During his stint Geylang International, he won the Premier League title in 1988, 1989, 1990, Pools Cup in 1988, National Players' Shield in 1988, 1990 and President's Cup in 1990.
It appears the information may be accurate.
From what I can tell, the M-League teams were semi pro, with the Singapore league an amateur affair until 1994 when they created a new league. Koncorde (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alex Kacaniklic

Can an admin delete this page please. This is the second deletion request today! Player fails Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Association_football and I believe has already gone through AfD. —Half Price 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kacaniklic. —Half Price 20:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Done it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Cheers! —Half Price 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Football articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Football articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Leonardo González

I just started an RM Discussion here. – Michael (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Loans and the career section of player articles

An issue that I've come across at many player articles is that, when a player has gone on loan and then returned to his home team, there doesn't seem to be a good way to deal with this in the article. Take Alan Hutton, for example. His Spurs career is discussed under one heading, and his Sunderland loan under the next. The problem is that this breaks up the chronology because the final sentence of the Spurs section relates to something that happened after he returned from Sunderland. Any suggestions on how to deal with this issue? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The most sensible solution to me would be to simply combine them into one section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Three solutions: 1) Don't divide player's careers into sub-sections. 2) Don't give sub-sections for loan spells. 3) ===Main club===<br>====Loan club====<br>====Return to parent club====

I don't see the point in dividing up a player's career into sections, especially today where players tend to have several clubs in their career.--EchetusXe 11:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's a lot of info on a page then it should be split up for easy navigation. Otherwise I agree with EchetusXe. —Half Price 11:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with option 2; don't give sub-sections for loan spells. Brad78 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I've gone with combining the Spurs and Sunderland sections for now. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Player names at Template:A.C. Milan squad

User:ArtVandelay13 changed "Boateng" to just "Prince", on the basis that the latter is the player's shirt name (see diff1 and diff2). This doesn't make much sense to me though, as it looks like a case of WP:EASTEREGG. Any opinion on the matter? Luxic (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning is that footballers go by a variety of names - usually surnames, but often first names, nicknames, or a combination of the three. There's always going to be an element of "easteregg" with using piped links, and the most consistent way of deciding which name to use is what's on the player's shirt. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the most consistent way is to go with WP:COMMONNAME. The shirt name is a choice of the player himself and it is not always the most common name. The purpose of the navboxes is to make navigation easier, so that even a "casual reader" that knows little about football will have a clue of whom we are talking about. And I think it's quite clear to anyone that KPB is way far from being universally known as just "Prince". Luxic (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Equally, "Boateng" on its own is not the common name - there are loads of footballers with that surname, so it wouldn't be clear to someone without in-depth football knowledge that it was KPB. I'm not saying we should list fullnames, but it's accepted we're going to use piped links, so it's just a case of deciding what. Shirt names are officially registered with competitions and federations as the player's identification (along with number, which we use), and it's what commentators refer to, so it's s likely entry point for someone looking up a player on Wikipedia. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not true that commentators refer to players only by shirt name. In Italy, for instance, both Boateng and Papastathopouls are mostly called by surname, despite their shirt names being "Prince" and "Sokratis" respectively. As you said, we cannot use fullnames and we have to decide what to show in the piped link. Well, I'd still go for the most common forms, i.e. Boateng and Papastathopoulos in this case. Anyway, I think it's better to wait for someone else's opinion at this point, as it seems we are not going to persuade each other. Luxic (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd also disagree that commentators slavishly follow what the players have on their shirts - I don't remember ever hearing Christian Benítez referred to by commentators on Match of the Day as "Chucho", they always called him Benitez..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Should we be reminded that the template serves to help the reader move quickly to an article, not to demonstrate the discipline of editors in following a series of rules. What serves the reader is therefore what should be in the template: Prince Boateng would be helpful to anyone: omitting either of those words would be unhelpful to some people. It is not as easy in the case of the Greek player, but other than the possibility that the template runs to three lines rather than two, what is wrong with Papastathopoulos (Sokratis)? We should not assume that the reader shares the knowledge of the editor: if they did, they wouldn't need an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
"Prince Boateng" isn't his name, though - he is sometimes referred to by that, but only mistakenly. I don't think that we're assuimg much in the way of prior knowledge from the reader - all the links on these navboxes have piped links away from their full names, the tooltips and the links themselves prpvide additional context. It's just deciding on what that abbrevation will be, and KPB seems to prefer Prince to Boateng these days. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin McE is right when saying that the template serves to help the reader move quickly to an article, but I don't think either "Prince Boateng" or the use the use of parentheses are good solutions. As ArtVandeley pointed out, the tooltips and the links themeselvs provide additional context, so we just need to decide what abbreviation is the best. And the best one, in that respect, should be the most common, regardless of what the player himself preferes. For instance, Pelé has stated that he don't like his nickname that much, but that's the name he became famous with and no one would ever dream of referring to him as "Edson". Likewise, KPB may be fond of the name "Prince" so much to even use it on his shirt (this has not always been the case, by the way), but as long as the media and most of the people keep referring to him as "Boateng", it's the latter that has to be considered the more common form. Luxic (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Templates of templates, etc.

I recently started a TfD for Template:Super League Greece, which is an amalgam of two templates - Template:Super League Greece teamlist and Template:Super League Greece seasons. See here. This seems to have caused some upset. I may well be wrong, but I don't understand the point of this - and this kind of thing is repeated in Template:Ligue 1, Template:Serie A, Template:Fußball-Bundesliga. Templates should surely be used on an article contained in the template. So, for example, in an article for a club currently in Super League Greece there should be a template for all of the clubs in Super League Greece, but not a template of articles on all Super League Greece seasons, since the club is not a football season. Merging two partly related templates into another template seems not that useful here. On a similar theme, Template:Premier League seems somewhat bloated. Maybe I'm missing something. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Premier League template used to look a lot like the Super League Greece template, except it had three templates in there! So, I merged all Premier League templates into just one template. Frankly, I think having just one template for the league (at least teams + seasons) works much better than having two (or one template with two+ templates in it). MLS has done theirs like that for quite some time and I think it works quite nice. So nice, I thought, that, in an attempt at being bold, I did the same in every South American league I could. Digirami (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think people would mind the two templates being merged. Heracletus (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Darius Dhlomo

You may have seen the notification type thingy that appeared telling us this. Looks like a lot of athletics based copyright infringement and subsequent article blanking have/will be taking place. This will also be affecting our project, mostly Olympic footballers I think, but there are also articles such as 1995–96 in Dutch football which he created. I just put this message out so that if anyone finds dozens of articles of articles in their watchlist affected they can ask for assistance here in cleaning up as quickly as possible.--EchetusXe 16:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, that should put most of the year-in-review articles (like the one mentioned above) or "xxxx national football team in 19xx" articles in jeopardy. God knows how many of those he created. You wouldn't think the admins that started that investigation would give the respective projects a list of related article so they can be cleaned up. Digirami (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (undent) Does anyone fancy a bit of manual checking and tagging of football articles at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo? There are ten pages of articles he has created. Basically, most are simple stubs with not enough originality or creativity to be categorised as copyright violations. Tables, data and results are pretty much safe in all the football articles I've seen. However, things to look for are any bits of creative/original sounding prose beyond the basic facts of "X and X played at the X stadium on X of Xember 200X". If it can be traced back to an edit by Darius Dhlomo and not another editor, then the offending text should be deleted and you should place {{subst:cclean}} on the talk page to indicate there is a violation in the history.
  • Use {{y}} to mark an article as a violation and {{n}} to mark it as safe. I'm working through athletics articles now but there are plenty of football ones too. I'd really appreciate the help because quite a few people are suggesting a whole sale deletion due to the size of the problem! SFB/talk 11:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be ridiculous, I can't see more than 3% of the articles created being obvious copyvios. —Half Price 11:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Given that he edited 23,000 articles, even 5% (as informed a guess as 3%) would take us to over 1,000 copyvios. And given that anyone that unblanks one of these articles is deemed responsible if they restore copyvios without demonstrating that they have taken adequate care in every instance, you can see why the idea is being taken seriously. --WFC-- 17:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Darius Dhlomo

On this point, I have just given you Darius Dhlomo, to redirect Wikipedia's WWW search engine presence for this somewhere more appropriate. Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunlop at Sunderland

On Billy Dunlop's bio, it says he played for Liverpool from 1895-1909,and never played for Sunderland (despite dying there). However, Billy is listed as having played for Sunderland on this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sunderland_A.F.C._players. Also, I have a cigarette card, circa 1899, of a W. Dunlop of Sunderland.

Mark McCleary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.42.79 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a case of two players by the same name; the dates don't match. The list of Sunderland players gives dates of 1893 to 1898, while this site confirms Dunlop was playing at Liverpool by 1895. GiantSnowman 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the link in the Sunderland list to point to the as yet non-existent Billy Dunlop (Sunderland footballer), might write a stub later. Neither Joyce's book nor his Statcat page give a year of birth. Thanks for pointing it out. (Also, I've edited out your email addy, might not really want it on permanent display on a very public webpage, hope that's OK.) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Flags against manager and chairman names in club infobox

Is there a consensus about this? There is a recalcitrant editor at Newport County A.F.C. who insists on retaining the flag icons in the infobox despite the views of a majority of editors there that they are unnecessary, unhelpful, and probably infringe various aspects of WP:MOS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP and so on. Is there any workable guidance on this, or do we just leave him to it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume thats me you are insulting. A number of contributors objected to the deletion of the flags and you referred them to the Newport County discussion page - where I contributed - and where you then added your unnecessarily rude comments. If you propose discussion don't insult people just because you don't like their contribution. You have also misled by saying I insist on retaining the flags in the infobox.... as you know, my point is that flags are equally valid or invalid for players/managers/chairmen and you believe invalid for players/managers/chairmen so I've said you should go ahead and propose deleting them for players/managers/chairmen. You have also misled stating "the majority of editors" [on the Newport County talk page]' as hardly anyone has entered the discussion on that page in the 4 days the topic has been raised. I've also pointed out far more extensive use of flags on World champion boxers, England national rugby union team etc. You say they are unnecessary and unhelpful - again, nothing is necessary in wiki and some readers would find it helpful - thats just opinion. You say it 'probably' infringes policy - again your opinion, you don't know because the use of flags across wiki is a complete muddle.Pwimageglow (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:FLAG: they should not be there. Kevin McE (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOSFLAG I think - yes, we've tried that approach with no luck. Feel free to raise it again, if you like, or have experience in dealing with WP:OWN problems on other articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. They should be removed and I do so regularly, but they have a tendency to sneak in again. Maybe it would be easier if we asked a bot operator to remove them all once and for all so that newbies does not copy it everywhere, thinking it should be there? Rettetast (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Support removal through bot. A mass-cancelation of a mass-violation of MOSFLAGS. Sandman888 (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not just limited to club infoboxes. See also 2010–11 UEFA Champions League, 2010–11 UEFA Europa League, 2010–11 La Liga or 2010–11 Serie A, just to name a few. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I also support the removal flags in infoboxes, by bot if necessary, simply becaues space in these boxes is at a premium. While we're on the topic, can someone point out the exact part of WP:MOSFLAG that says flags shouldn't go in infoboxes? Having just read it myself, it looks to me like it only says no flags in sportspeople BLP infoboxes. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Not me. I was checking that exact issue while you posted this question, and it does only say they should be discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes--ClubOranjeT 21:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the clause headed "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" is the most relevant here. How is emphasising that the manager is English important? Answer: it isn't. Bettia (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
If it was we should accompany flags with country names. Flags also comes with a lot of problems. This is why the MOS say to never use it in BLP infoboxes. However it does not say that it should be used everywhere else. Many of the same problems that is explained in #Biographical use exist anywhere a flag is used in connection to a person. 22:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a case by case need (for lack of a better word). In the majority of the press, a manager's nationality is constantly stated and reinforced as if it is important (it probably is for all we know). I see it all the time, especially in South America. I personally see no big problem with having the flags in the infobox. Digirami (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Club World Champions

Several players who have won the famous Intercontinental Cup have no page in Wikipedia.

José Hugo Medina world champion in 1968 with Estudiantes de la Plata
Walter Aguerre world champion in 1961 with Peñarol
Carlos Horacio Salinas world champion in 1977 with Boca Juniors
Luis Alberto Varela world champion in 1966 with Peñarol
Juan Carlos Mamelli world champion in 1971 with Nacional de Montevideo

and many others... I think that they all deserve a page in Wiki, because they have been club world champions at all. Many thanks to anyone who will take care this project. --VAN ZANT (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Listing them at WP:Requested articles could be an option, as this page is archived automatically every few days. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Saxton

user:Saxton has been reverting an IP who's been updating player-stats following tonights game, for no apparent reason. Could anyone with the expertise undo his undoes. Sandman888 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Atli Gregersen

I'm having conflict over this player's League stats with FaroeIslands (talk · contribs). Discussion started at Talk:Atli Gregersen#Danish League stats, please feel free to join in. GiantSnowman 15:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The image doesn't bother you then? [11] ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Removed. GiantSnowman 00:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Still having problems with this editor, can an admin step in please? GiantSnowman 01:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
According to BK Frem club website, Gregersen's total first-team career consisted of about 20 minutes, divided among 2 league games and 1 cup, all in the 2005/6 season, and he left the club in the winter 2006/7 break for pastures unknown. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

FA Cup winners template

This template (and its messed-up formatting) has been floating around in the ether for two years. In a functioning guise, is it a useful thing to have? - Dudesleeper talk 00:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all - it would be very large, and I can't see it adding anything to club articles on which it would be placed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed most of the formatting so that at least people can see what it's meant to be displaying...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No scope to transclude it, so no point in having it IMO. --WFC-- 09:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MorrisSar

Just wondering if any of the project-related admins are willing to step in to assist in the restraint of MorrisSar (also more widely known as Sarumio). This kind of edit is one of several that demonstrate he's still on his campaign to mislead the reader. If not, I'll file a request for a sock puppet investigation, per this recommendation from an admin. - Dudesleeper talk 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, bit harsh to say that that edit was designed to "mislead the reader"......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Some of the other edits he made was to add the correct article in front of nouns (a instead of an or visa versa). Hardly misleading... Sandman888 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Moroccan footballers

Hi. Its been borught to my attention that the articles created on Moroccan footballers by this user are mostly orphaned and are not listed on the team club sheets when the articles claim that the footballers currently play for them Either they are all mostly dated or the information is false/they are hoaxes. Please can somebody assess them and reference if possible or take to AFD. Thanks.Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Adolfo Valencia

Hi there teammates,

i bring this to discussion here rather than to the page of the user who made the changes because i fear language problems may "arise" (not BAD language, just language plain and simple :))...

About this player on the title, i see that the club he played for in China has been removed, with the summary "never play in China" (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolfo_Valencia&diff=354967780&oldid=354966554). However, several interwikis and, most importantly, the NATIONAL-FOOTBALL-TEAMS.com link, attest to this, although the former may a be a situation stemming from the English wiki.

Does anyone have any reliable info on this guy's full career? He retired in 2003 or 2004, not long ago. Thanks very much in advance, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, NFT confirms he played in China for a number of seasons, and they're pretty spot-on in most cases, so removing his Chinese details is nothing short of vandalism - especially if the editor hasn't provided a source fonfirming he DIDN'T play in China...GiantSnowman 17:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Further proof for his stints in China might be this blog (take a look at the bottom of the page just above the video) and this snippet from a Chinese page (link provided as Google Translate link for convenience). However, I do not know if these sources would actually pass WP:RS without further investigation, so take the information with a grain of salt. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Sohu Sports has good information about the Chinese Super League (going back to 2004), but unfortunately the club Valencia supposedly played for was not in the Super League in 2004. I will do some checking, but I'm afraid it's going to be difficult to find a reliable source confirming he played there. Jogurney (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
SINA Sports published Lucheng's 2004 squad list and Valencia is included (#19). It doesn't say whether he played any matches, but I'd say that's pretty conclusive proof he was with the club. Jogurney (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Even better, SINA published the 2003 second division topscorers list and Valencia was the leader with 15 goals. SINA's certainly a reliable source. Jogurney (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable/Famous former players

What should I do when I encounter lists of notable former players? I'm sure you've discussed this before, but surfing through the 48 archives of debates is not my plan for the night.

Currently, when I found lists with no criteria I just eliminate them per WP:POV. Still, what should I do with the ones that have criteria very easy to meet and very difficult to verify? For example: this one, done by myself some time ago. 50 games for the club is just not enough to be "notable", and it would be impossible to find sources for every player that has played that small number of games for the club throughout its history. The current list misinforms the reader, who is lead to believe those are the only players with 50 games for the club.

Thanks for your answer. Regards. Fache (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A few possibilities: tag the section as incomplete, and if no-one bothers to research further, then it could be deleted as recentist and misleading; change the section heading, so that it more accurately describes the contents (===Players with 50 or more appearances===); raise the threshhold (100 appearances +, maybe more); have separate sections for separate criteria (internationals, top ten appearances, top ten scorers, etc). On another point, you are aware of the search option for the archives? Kevin McE (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I always remove them unless there is specific criteria mentioned at the top (i.e. played internationally, went on to play professionally (for non-League clubs)). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, remove the section if it is unreferenced or without criteria, and replace it with a link to the appropiate player's category instead. GiantSnowman 15:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. Fache (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This has been gone over but it needs to be tracked down in the archives (anyone recall where?). If I recall correctly, the conversation stalled on what actually constitutes "notable" and it was really annoying. Remove any unreferenced items )maybe even the whole section) for now to make it easy but if we do want to reopen past discussions then it might be fun to write up something similar to a Manual of Style for such sections.Cptnono (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Resolved

Quick inquiry from an IP that looks like it might have been a good catch. Talk:2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final#"Extra time" It is TFA and Skotywa might be in bed so any quick thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks for any input. Side notes: Win today, Skotywa is awesome, and hooray fun. Cptnono (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Struway2!Cptnono (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Player Career Statistics chart

Hi, i was wondering if anyone could help fix this. Nameless User has been making changes to some of the player statistics, but on some of the articles the person has changed the competition names, on the Ian Harte article [Football League Championship|League Championship], [English Premier League|Premier League] and where it previously said 'League Cup'. I wasn't going to change it back but for some reason i couldn't find Football League Cup on the bar. Im not saying he's doing anything wrong, but i can't see why the competetion names are being changed as well. All of the changes that were made on the Shevchenko article seem to have been manually undone by someone. Bobbymozza (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing [[Premier League]] to [[English Premier League|Premier League]] is a particularly pointless change, as the article is located at Premier League, so he's changed a direct wikilink to point to a redirect :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I realised why i couldn't see League Cup on there and changed it. Bobbymozza (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it all to proper formatting and left the user a note. The League Cup thing was because the user seems to have created a new set of templates, {{Football player club statistics 2}} etc as opposed to {{Football player statistics 2}}, and Football League Cup was piped in the one but not in the other (it is now). I've asked them if there's a difference... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think those templates are very user-unfriendly, limiting to use and nigh-on impossible to work out properly. Brad78 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Inline citations

Anyone familiar with the Fb templates, like {{Template:Fb cl footer}}, knows there is a parameter for a source to the data. The common usage is just placing the link (sources) within brackets, I was thinking: wouldn't it just be better, and more inline with Wikipedia:Citing sources, to place an inline citation there? Digirami (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

New Brighton

Should this article be split into two; one article for the original club and another for the revival? TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a little tricky. They have different names, so I would say yes. You could argue just for New Brighton F.C. to redirect, but it's a disambig page. —Half Price 11:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I would assume yes from the prose. Without sources it is a little hard to tell, though. Cptnono (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely sure that the new club is notable at all? other than by being named after a town which once had a couple of Football League clubs. It's never played above level 11, is currently at level 12, and has AFAICT never entered the FA Vase. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Good call. I'd say move the page to New Brighton F.C. (1921) or similar and make the old team the focus of the page, with the modern team having a section. Or move page to New Brighton F.C. and have a rather long {{for}} hatnote to replace the disambiguation. —Half Price 12:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Or even New Brighton F.C. (football). —Half Price 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Why does the page need moving? The team was called New Brighton A.F.C., and that is where the article is located, so it's not an issue. GiantSnowman 12:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The current club is A.F.C., but the article says the original was just F.C. —Half Price 13:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh yep, my apologies. In that case I'd move it to New Brighton F.C. (1921) personally. GiantSnowman 13:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The match programme image on this programmes-for-sale page would indicate it actually was New Brighton A.F.C. In which case don't move the page :-) But if we're sure that the current club isn't independently notable, the article should change its focus to the old team. Or if the new one does have independent notability, I'd argue the old club, with 30 years in the Football League and many more at lower levels, should keep the undisambiguated name and the new-club article should go to New Brighton A.F.C. (1993). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, the official history page of the current club says F.C., but that programme photo seems quite conclusive. —Half Price 14:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That page also uses F.C. in the heading of the 1993-onwards history section, so I wouldn't read too much into that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Your right, so we needn't move the page, just focus it a bit more on the old club. Agreed? —Half Price 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. GiantSnowman 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, anyone who has the time to do it please do. :D —Half Price 16:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Barcelona Sporting Club

Hi,

I came by with the article on Barcelona Sporting Club and I was surprised that they have the same logo and nearly the same name as the FC Barcelona, so I did some research to clear out who copied. Now, this clarification (supported by due references) has been removed. I'm not familiar with the football articles, so I wonder if you could check this edit that deleted my input, just in case you consider that the input I did was needed there. Cheers, Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to your version - it's referenced and well-written, and there's no reason for removal. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That web page is not a reliable reference because on their home page it states its edited fans, also Barcelona Sporting Club was named by a spanish immigrant from Barcelona and he named it after his hometown, but it was not named after FC Barcelona. Here's a reliable web page http://www.bsc.ec/historia.php, Barcelona Sporting club Official site.Dante mad666 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mick Lyons

Could anyone tell me if Mick Lyons (English footballer) had more than one spell at Brunei? TheBigJagielka (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it. New Straits Times has him recently joined in August 1993, and in this interview on OzFootball he said he was there 2½ years. Then the Liverpool Echo has him back there in Jan 2001, confirmed by the BBC with picture. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernandes Dias Luz

Hello project members. I don't want to canvass !votes, but I am a little worried that this AfD contained a lot of misinformation and many project members voted based on what had earlier been claimed (e.g., that the player had never played in a fully-pro league). If you !voted already, you might want to check the updated article and comments at the AfD in case you'd want to reconsider. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Camp Nou/archive1

Hi all, I have listed Camp Nou for Peer Review as I want to help Sandman888 get FC Barcelona up to featured topic standard. Please leave suggestions. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 16:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Football or association football

Are you aware of the request for comments at Talk:Football#Naming_Standardization_In_Different_Codes? Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.15.105 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to miss! —Half Price 20:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Hsmg20

Good afternoon mates. Can somebody point me in the right direction for reporting a user? I've read Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but I'm not sure if he would apply (I'm the only one who has warned him recently, and I've done so only three times (despite the fact that he has vandalized more frequently than that)). He continually edits the Süper Lig page to move Galatasaray over Fenerbahce in both the infobox and title total. There was a small discussion on how to go about listing the two, and it was decided to have them listed alphabetically to show no preference. After three warnings, he continues to vandalize the page, as well as the Fenerbahce page (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fenerbah%C3%A7e_S.K.&diff=prev&oldid=387116417), without engaging in any conversation. If there's an admin here who could intervene that would be great, or if there is somewhere I need to report this problem. Thanks. Invisibletr (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

English names for Indonesian football clubs

There have been a long debate about English names for football clubs in Indonesia, as you can see in my user talk page. This issue is actually interesting and might be important for the sake of consistency. As you know, there have been common improper acronym-ization of Indonesian football clubs, for instance: the full name of Jakarta-based club is Persatuan Sepakbola Indonesia Jakarta, which is often acronym-ized as Persija. Both names are fine, however, media and even the Football Association of Indonesia often carelessly transform the name into Persija Jakarta, which is improper considering that the city name "Jakarta" is used twice.

An alternative proper abbreviation is suggested for Persatuan Sepak Bola Indonesia Jakarta, such as: PSI Jakarta, PS Jakarta or even Jakarta FC (using the term football club (FC) as English-translation of persatuan sepakbola). However, the last altnerative (Jakarta FC) seems to be unnecessary, as name prefix for sport clubs may use the original language, as in AS Roma (Italian club) or TSV 1860 Muenchen (German club).

Please let me know if you have suggestion or proper references about this, since now many articles related to Indoensian football are inconsistent in names. There are hundreds similar mistakes like this. Thanks! Guybrush1979 (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at some English language sources and three of them show Persija Jakarta and one just Persija, so purely based on that small sample the suggestion is that the current page name of Persija Jakarta is correct. [12] [13] [14] [15] Eldumpo (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
But then FIFA just lists it as Persija [16] and I take your point about the PJ version meaning Jakarta is effectively included twice. Eldumpo (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Pre-professional era footballers

I remember there being a part of the old ATHLETE notability guideline that said that amateur footballers from before the pro-league era were considered notable, but it appears to have been removed in the transition to NSPORT. What's the consensus, if any, on the notability pre-professional era footballers? Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

NSPORT was promoted so that baseball, basketball, gridiron and tennis had a guideline ASAP, without much attention being paid to other sports. It was therefore probably removed by someone who didn't have the slightest understanding of what they were removing, but good luck in restoring it. In theory, as long as an amateur passes the GNG he's worthy of an article. In practise, expect any article that defies scripture to be taken to AfD, deleted and salted. —WFC— 07:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe it ever said that all amateur footballers from before the league era were notable, but for the life of me I can't remember exactly what it did say.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it was along the lines of top-level amateurs from that era. —WFC— 07:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Which presumably would mean those who played in the FA Cup Final or represented their country. I don't imagine that even the names of many other players from that era are recorded.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There was a version of WP:ATHLETE that read just "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.", which became "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships."
The non-guideline developed at this project, WP:FOOTYN, says "Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability)." Which is odd, because the discussion referenced the idea of players in pre-league cup finals, but it didn't carry over into the agreed wording. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Tiverton Town F.C.

Could someone else keep an eye on this article. An IP is repeatedly reverting to this version or something similar with season-by-season lists of "of the year" awards, whilst removing the history and honours sections that have since been added. Attempts to communicate via its talk page have only resulted in blanking. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

What do you think of this new article - Atatürk and Fenerbahçe? Does it deserve a separate article? - Darwinek (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's ridiculous! —Half Price 15:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Also it's a blatant POV. In Turkey, fans of all three big teams (Fener, Galatasaray and Beşiktaş) claim Atatürk supported just and only them. - Darwinek (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I also think we could do without another article created by the same author, Fenerbahçe (football) past rosters..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. —Half Price 17:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Added extra-time" vs. "After sudden death extra-time"

I started working on the article UAE President's Cup and encountered an abbreviation—"asdet"—with which I am unfamiliar (see here, prior to my changes). According to AcronymFinder.com, "asdet" stands for "after sudden death extra-time".

What is the difference between "a.e.t" and "asdet"? Also, which article is the most appropriate to link to when adding a piped link which displays the text "asdet"? I've checked Overtime (sports), Golden goal and Sudden death (sport), but none seems to explicitly mention the term. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard that before either, but i think "asdet" would be the same as the Golden goal rule. Bobbymozza (talk) 11.09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Given that its a football related article, Golden goal would be the appropriate place to link it to. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both! I'll make the change now and keep watching this page in case there are other suggetsions. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sudden death was, as you point out, the same that golden goal. Ipsumesse (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Squad maintenance

I made Template:Squad maintenance that is intended to facilitate the updating of football squad templates (including removing squad templates in former player articles). I transcluded it to a few templates, e.g. Template:Manchester United F.C. squad or Template:BSC Young Boys squad. I hope you will find it useful. --Leyo 09:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to report a bug in the template. I just updated Template:Borussia Mönchengladbach squad, and added the maintenance template to it. However, when I check the transclusion, it still says that all the players I removed are still there, and the players I added aren't. I'm not really sure what's going on there. It may also just be a problem on my end. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If a player left the team, you also have to remove the squad template from its article. Example: You removed Paul Stalteri from the squad template, but this template is still transcluded in Paul Stalteri. Was I clear enough? --Leyo 17:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it was just a delay. I had removed the player from the template, and the template from the player's article, but the maintenance template was saying I hadn't. When I checked again a few minutes later, it had worked itself out. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You did it after posting here. But anyway, are there any more comments or suggestions? I would like to mention the parameter update source, where an external link to a website containing an up-to-date squad can be provided. --Leyo 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I just want to say this is a terrific creation. I've been trying to update Turkish footballer articles and this helps immensely. Thanks! Invisibletr (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to hear that, thanks. :-) --Leyo 21:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Just added it here. Good work. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What about adding the squad maintenance to all squad templates in Category:Football squad templates by a bot? There are a bit too many to do this task manually. --Leyo 10:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A possible problem with that might be the "update source" parameter. How is a bot going to know where to get the updates from? That said, it might still be worth adding it by bot without that parameter filled to get users who would know what the source is to add it. Great creation by the way. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
A bot can of course not know this parameter. That's why I thought about adding either {{Squad maintenance|update source= }} or {{Squad maintenance|update source=<!--provide URL here-->}} to the squad templates. --Leyo 12:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The baseball guys suggest renaming the template to Roster maintenance. Please state your opinions there. --Leyo 18:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It should stay where it is per WP:ENGVAR. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

→ Wikipedia:Bot requests#Template:Squad maintenance --Leyo 14:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Festus Agu

Hi there! Seriously, i don't know how to "stem this tide", in this footballer's article...Help please!!

First, it started out with User:Rockystriker, who left the article like this (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Festus_Agu&diff=327928434&oldid=327927993). After i cleaned it up, they (they? It has to be THE SAME person! Even if it's not, it's irrelevant) struck again, now as User:Gangling, leaving piece like this (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Festus_Agu&diff=385764088&oldid=385763953).

The information added is quite unuseful without refs, the language is very poor. Furthermore, both users (the same?) added NO summaries whatsoever for their changes, and the first one wrote really suspect stuff (please read the end of Rocky's text carefully. What on earth is that?!?!?)

About the player Agu himself, he gained somewhat of an iconic status in this site in Spain (please check it here http://www.renaldinhos.com/), but nothing to do with his talent on the pitch, very much the opposite my friends. The last info, really, i don't know what can be done about it, and to block the page would no nothing if the users who want to "contribute" after creating an account. Is there anyway to verify if the info added to article is true? I think not, since i browsed the web and found nothing.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFP if the article is continually being attacked? GiantSnowman 20:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No man, it does not work if the users are registered i believe. Also, i wanted some input as to whether the info in the versions put forth by the user(s) in article is reliable or not, more than reporting (possible) vandalism. Thank you - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's certainly not vandalism, it's just incredibly unhelpful. Have you had a word with the editor(s) in question? GiantSnowman 23:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, but check this out: an account is created, spending several hours in this article, then nothing more edited, in almost one year (strange!). The second account, although much more recent, has the same modus operandi - in both, as habitual here at WP, controversial stuff is added to articles, with ZERO words in edit summaries. I feel an attempt at conversation would be nothing than a waste of (everybody's) time, but thanks for your suggestion mate.

What i really wanted to know is if someone could check if the info is accurate, although i think it has to be removed because it cannot be ref'd (i browsed the web like crazy, and nothing came out, and i think my internet is the same as yours and everybody else's :) ...) -- -Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A long-shot here...

Resolved

But does anybody have any record of a Charlie Vaughan having played league football? I'm almost certain he played for Charlton Athletic in the 1950s. Thanks. —Half Price 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed he's listed as Charles Vaughan on List of Charlton Athletic F.C. players, with some stats but no citation. —Half Price 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Neil Brown's your man for post-war league footballers. Try googling site:www.neilbrown.newcastlefans.com "vaughan charlie" . cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Neil Brown confirms he made 227 apps, scoring 91 goals, between 1946 and 1953. GiantSnowman 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Blimey, this is a treasure trove I never knew existed. How wonderful. —Half Price 16:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Article created. Cheers guys. —Half Price 18:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Thompson (2nd nomination)

Although the subject of this AfD is himself not particularly noteworthy (even though I "voted" "keep" in the first AfD), the re-listing needs input from the WP Football community in view of the desire to clarify the interpretation of WP:NFOOTBALL and the WP:GNG. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

and related to that is this discussion--ClubOranjeT 19:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguating Russian names

We have three Sergei Ivanovs, who have been at Sergei Ivanov (footballer born 1980), Sergei Ivanov (footballer born 1984), and Sergei Ivanov (footballer born 1993), but they have today been moved, without discussion, to Sergei Nikolayevich Ivanov, Sergei Yuryevich Ivanov and Sergei Andreyevich Ivanov. I would argue that patronymic middle names as disambiguators, for all that they are important among Russian speakers, are not useful in Anglophone circles, nor are they in anyway part of COMMONNAME. Other opinions? Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I can't think of any English media that use the patronymics to identify footballers. The occupation and year of birth method is much better. Jogurney (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I also agree, they should probably be moved back. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 14:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree also. Come to think of it, I don't know the patronymic names of even the most prominent russian footballers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The two articles that have existed for a while have previously been moved by User:Russavia in an identical way. The appropriate guideline is here. —WFC— 17:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A category for association football captains

I`d like to add category Category:Clube de Regatas do Flamengo captains to the articles from this list. Am I authorized to do that?--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

German football names

I am a bit scared to make another approach - see Festus Agu above, another discussion, asking for info about player, it was more than a report on vandalism, much more, all the people at the forum say "talk to the hand", next two queries, IMMEDIATELY answered - but here it goes:

I have a great difficulty understanding the concept of WP:COMMONNAME, in this case about German clubs. I feel that boxes should be compressed as much as they can, allowing for quick info on clubs that X or Y player appeared for. The full name (the article name i believe) should then appear in storyline.

Really, why should stuff like "1. FC St. Pauli" appear in box? Isn't "St. Pauli" enough, or "Kaiserslautern", or "Köln". I really need a quick input on that, for all the reasons and another: i have been SERIOUSLY insulted precisely in Festus Agu's article for compressing clubs in box.

Sorry for the trouble i am causing with my questions (it seems so very much), keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You should pipe like that (i.e. 1. FC St. Pauli to just St. Pauli) in both infobox AND the main body of the article. GiantSnowman 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
No, in my opinion Köln isn't enough, this conceals information from the reader (there are for example 1. FC Köln and Fortuna Köln). Neither Real Madrid nor Manchester United are usually shortened to Madrid or Manchester, so why the names of the German clubs? In most cases there is no additional compression to gain by shortening for example 1. FC Köln to Köln, this only applies cases like Borussia Mönchengladbach which are not so common. I have also come across edits which removed the FC, Spvgg etc. from non-linked teams which makes it impossible to find out for which team the footballer really played. I would prefer to use compression only in cases of over-long names and the full name (or nearly full name) in order to have more clarity. --Jaellee (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jaellee on this. Far too often, the names of German clubs are shortened to the point of ambiguity. For reference, User:ArtVandelay13 has written a guide that outlines appropriate naming of German clubs. It can be found here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I do not think that "1. FC" is required. There is a clear enough difference between Fortuna Kölm and Köln. The British equivalent would be insisting that Dundee F.C. be used instead of Dundee to disambiguate it from Dundee United. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jaellee and Sir Sputnik. Köln isn't the best example in the world, for the reason Number 57 has given. But Hertha, Frankfurt (and ironically Fortuna) are examples of why extended names are often needed. —WFC— 09:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It's frequent that the local references to some clubs differ from the way those same clubs are called in other countries, particularly if the local references are not in English, which is the most universal language nowadays. That's why these differences take even more place when the local reference is not in English, so maybe the way in which Germans call their own clubs is not the most popular and easy reference to certain clubs, since there's not enough German-speakers in the world as there's people who understand English. On the other hand, although, the way in which Germans call their own clubs should be the correct path to follow. For instance, and regarding the Karlsruher point of the aforementioned ArtVandelay13's essay, it's frequent in Spain to call Atlético de Madrid just Atlético, and not a single Spanish would confuse that with, for instance, Athletic de Bilbao, which is simply Athletic (and they're both adjectives also). We should decide if we follow the universal-English criteria or the local-German criteria in this and all similar cases. If not, maybe tomorrow we have the same issue with Norwegian and Chinese clubs. Ipsumesse (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to clarify that the Karlsruher point is not a matter of confusion or ambiguity, but a matter of grammar. To use Ipsumesse's example, abbreviating Karlsruher SC as Karlsruher, would be equivalent to abbreviating Athletic de Bilbao as Athletic de. Also, I have never come across any source, english, german or otherwise, except wikipedia that uses this type of abbreviation, precisely because it is grammatically incorrect. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Some great points you're making there, congratulations to you all! But yes, a consensus should be reached, and WP rules are there to be bent too if needed (without bloodshed :)) I think the "1. FC" stuff is really a German approach, really metrical with all due respect, and i doubt even the vast majority of commentators in the country use that in their commentaries and reports. And, for instance, the full name of SpVgg Unterhaching? Why (keep in mind i am only referring to boxes), when there is only ONE club in the world named liked that, and the club is referred to, EVEN in Germany, as Unterhaching? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the only (football) club in Unterhaching is SpVgg Unterhaching. But the one peculiar thing about German clubs is that they aren't all simply "FCs". Unterhaching is a "Spielvereinigung", and thus it is known for what it is. The other sports club here, TSV Unterhaching, fortunately doesn't play football. German clubs known for their football departments can't all be treated the same, because they aren't all the same. As for "Köln", if you are talking to someone about the Fußball-Bundesliga, they will know for sure you're talking about 1. FC Köln, but if talking about football in general in Cologne, there is nothing which disambiguates the 1. FC Köln from Fortuna or Viktoria Köln. It is frustrating sometimes, because even the Germans call Manchester United F.C. simply "Manchester" at times. And yes, in German commentaries or newspaper reports, the full name (including 1. FC) is used – for those reasons given above. It may simply be "a German approach", but these are German clubs and using WP guidelines such as COMMONNAME don't help so much in this instance when English-language sources can't agree on a "common (disambiguous) English name" for these German clubs. Jared Preston (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth - there is another football club in Unterhaching, called Fortuna Unterhaching. Not notable, but existing.
The question is - what are we talking about? The infobox or the article name? In the infobox, there should be the common name (in other words the article name) AND the full name, as we have a field for it. When it comes to piping links in competition articles, one should pay attention to being unambiguous. It would be impossible to refer to Borussia Mönchengladbach as just Borussia in a Bundesliga article, for example, as this would invite confusion with Borussia Dortmund. Referring to them as Mönchengladbach would be fine inside a football-related article - unless the article also happens to talk about the city. In the DFB-Pokal articles, you would have to use the full name, as they list the venue of the matches as well, and you would get two links "Mönchengladbach" pointing to different locations.
As for the difficulties in how to pipe, User:ArtVandelay13 has written an excellent essay about it here that should answer questions such as how to pipe "Hamburger SV" etc. Madcynic (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Football Club History Database

The link at www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk is broken. Can anyone point me to where the database can now be found? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Working fine for me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I've tried from 2 different computers - both come up with an error message. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right, I think I was only able to open it because it was in my cache or something. Here's hoping it's an intermittent fault, because if it's gone for good then a lot of football articles are going to be well screwed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, just checked and all the pages seem to be available via archive.org, so it's not the end of the world..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Phew! I've actually wondered if this would happen before. Thank goodness it's been archived. I guess we have to change all the fchd links now. Fun. —Half Price 10:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, could Template:Fchd be changed? I'm not sure how to do it. —Half Price 10:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Being loaned while on loan

The Canadian player Kyle Porter was on loan to Energie Cottbus from Vancouver Whitecaps FC from 2008-2010, but never played for Cottbus in the Bundesliga; instead, he was loaned by Cottbus to their own junior side, Energie Cottbus II, and played for them in the Regionalliga Nord for 2 seasons. As the loan was from the senior Cottbus side to the junior Cottbus side, rather than from Vancouver to the junior Cottbus side, and as he was already on loan to Cottbus from Vancouver, how should this be show in his infobox? A double arrow, perhaps? --JonBroxton (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that really a loan? He was loaned from one club (Whitecaps) to another (Cottbus): if the borrowing club have more than one team, they have the right (unless the loan agreement or competition rules restrict it) to send him out for any of those teams. The legal person for registration of contracts (unless German football is very different from English in this regard) is the club, not the team. He played games for Cottbus II while on loan from Vancouver, no need to confuse the issue with double arrows. Kevin McE (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply; I think I maybe phrased my initial question wrongly. He was loaned to Energie Cottbus. He didn't play for Energie Cottbus, but did play many times for Energie Cottbus II, which plays in a league in the German league hierarchy despite essentially being a reserve team. Do I show him playing 16 times for Energie Cottbus, or do I show him playing 0 times for Energie Cottbus and 16 times for Energie Cottbus II? And, if its the latter, how do I show that in the infobox? --JonBroxton (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Show that he played 16 times, scoring twice, for Cotbuss II on loan from Vancouver, thus. Infoboxes are meant to be simple statistics, not explanations of convoluted club squad systems. FC Energie Cottbus is a club, not a team: he did represent Energie Cottbus, to whom he was on loan: he did not represent them in their first XI. Kevin McE (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew there would be a simply way around it - brain not functioning properly at 1:46am. --JonBroxton (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

NSPORTS anomaly

The policy for notability criteria states, "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league or fully-professional (both teams) domestic cup competition (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable." This would give notability to members of two fully pro Conference sides if they are drawn together in the FA Cup, but not if the two teams play each other the preceding week in the league, and yet the league is a higher priority for such sides. If Luton play AFC Wimbledon (I hope my examples are accurate) on 23rd October, their players reach the threshold: if they meet on the preceding or following Saturdays, they do not. Anyone fancy defending that one? Kevin McE (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what is meant by this is that when teams from a fully professional league play each other in the cup, then players who make their debut in that the game would generally be regarded as notable. However, when teams from a fully professional league play teams which which do NOT play in a fully professional league, or when teams which do NOT play in a fully professional league play each other, that game would NOT generally be regarded as notable. So if Luton play AFC Wimbledon, that game would not meet the notability guidelines, because even though they are both fully professional teams, they do not play in a fullty professional league (Conference National). Similarly, Macclesfield vs Luton would not pass, because Luton is in the Conference. However, Macclesfield vs Torquay WOULD pass, because both those teams are in League 2, which is fully pro. I accept this is quite confusing; somehow we need to come up with a concise way of saying this to make it clearer. --JonBroxton (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You describe the position as it has been understood, but that is not what the text of the policy says. I'm not convinced that the sentence I have copied and pasted above has any semantic integrity at all, to be honest, but if it means anything at all at present, it would seem to disbar any FA Cup match, even Chelsea v Man Utd, from conferring notability, as the FA Cup is not a "fully-professional domestic cup competition". Nor doea it distinguish between the league status of teams meeting in a cup competition. Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this being made all too complex? How about for English domestic football...if you play for a fully-pro team in a league game, an FA Cup game, a League Cup game or a Football Trophy game you are notable. If you have not played, your team is not fully pro or you are have not played in one of these trophies you are not?--Egghead06 (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it needs to apply for all countries. I don't see why it has to be as concise as the current, more ambiguous version though. Maybe, or in a domestic cup competition (where both teams are from a fully-professional league). I guess you would have to add the appropriate domestic cup competitions to the list or find a way of wording it that excludes County cups and suchlike. Perhaps or in a national level domestic cup competition (where both teams are from a fully-professional league)?--EchetusXe 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a clearer statement would be "Players who have made a competitive appearance for a club playing in a fully-professional league and managers who have overseen such matches." Otherwise, someone who makes his Liverpool debut against a club from Ireland or Finland in the Europa league would not meet the current requirement. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR for Premier League needs some input

Hello all, the current FAR for Premier League could do with some more input from editors here. It currently seems to be revolving around whether it is comprehensive in its coverage. Woody (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed at 2010 League of Ireland

Said article is currently the place of an on-going content dispute centering on the naming and the founding year of the entity currently known as "Cork City FORAS Co-op" and other clubs. Since the two combattants seem not to be able to ressolve the dispute on their own, assistance on the matter would be welcome. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

More on Mesut Özil‎

There have been several people who are trying to emphasize Mesut Özil‎'s Turkish heritage in the lede of the article which is against WP:MOSBIO and this project's policy. Could I please have some additional input on the article's talk page to dissuade this practice? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for one month due to this action and others. I can't imagine that this is the end of the matter. Thanks to those who stepped in to assist and who commented. Additional comments are still welcome. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Flagicon usage

I'm not starting a debate on flags (we beat that dead horse into oblivion). I just want to check that my flagicon usage is correct. I edited most of 2010 Campeonato Ecuatoriano de Fútbol Serie A‎ to conform with MOS:FLAG, but I want to make sure I did some parts correctly, mainly in the goalscorer table. I know MOS:FLAG says to state the country when a flag is first used. Essentially, is a demonym an acceptable substitute for the name of the country? Thanks. Digirami (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Any one...? Digirami (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You're probably asking about the teams section. use either the name or the flag, but not both. Also, it's not necessary to indicate the nationality of the manager if they are from Ecuador. That's my understanding anyhow. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The version of Luton Town F.C. that passed FAC used demonyms in the Managers section, so I'd say you're fine doing the same. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apollon Limassol

This article keeps being changed back to the same, almost unintelligible, mess which appears to be either a computer translation, or written by a fan with a limited grasp of English. The edit page includes a header lifted from Chelsea FC, which is irrelevant.
I only came across the article as a WikiGnome, I correct mis-spellings including rhythm, which I have corrected at Apollon Limassol several times, including leaving a hidden comment <!--it is NOT spelt rythms-->, but my note is removed and the same wrong spelling reinstated.
Football is not my game, I do not know enough to attempt a re-write - is someone on this project willing look at this article?
Arjayay (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've certainly never seen Junior Agogo described as a harbour before..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That article made me laugh. It's definitely gone through at least one online translation! —Half Price 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The translation is right up there with English As She Is Spoke.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've attacked it ruthlessly. Kevin McE (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As well as possibly knocking the confidence of the user who made the machine-translated edits — I think your comment on his talk page was worded a little harshly and didn't explain to him what the crux of the problem is. Incidentally, what qualifications does one need to edit Wikipedia? As far as I can remember, exam certificates are optional but civility isn't. Brammers (talk/c) 12:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
If an editor is that far from being able to communicate in proper English, and that unaware of the appropriate tone of an encyclopaedic article (has he/she never reads a decent wiki article?), I don't particularly want to encourage them to add prose. Basic ability to communicate in the language of the encyclopaedia would be a decent starting qualification. As to explaining the crux of the problem, did you see the previous state of the article? Where to start? Kevin McE (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I did see the article after their last edit, and yes, the quality of English was undoubtedly subpar. But that prose, albeit below standards, stemmed from a sustained desire to improve the article. A few polite words might have been a better welcome than a bitey comment that was blunt to the point of rudeness. Brammers (talk/c) 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The mis-spelling of rhythm has re-appeared in my search, and I see the old unintelligible mess has been re-instated yet again. As stated before, I do not know enough about football to attempt a re-write - over to you.
Arjayay (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC Talk:Football#RFC:_Association_football

The question being ask is Should football be WP:DAB'd for all codes when the code is first mentioned in the intro? Gnevin (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Igor Akinfeev's career statistics

The career statistics on the Igor Akinfeev article state that he has been scoring negative goals (e.g. -11, -15, -17 etc). I think what is meant is goals against him; but that shouldn't be in the table? ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's OK for the career stats table for a goalkeeper to show goals conceded rather than scored. It's done like that at Joe Hart#Career statistics, with the columns headed GC (for goals conceded), and then there's no need for the minus signs. Probably would be clearer with a little note above (or below) the table to clarify GC = Goals conceded. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Having read this I have now done so at Stuart Tomlinson#Statistics. Though for the bio infobox then that should remain as goals scored, right?--EchetusXe 11:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth pointing out here that those "goals conceded" totals for Hart are completely unsourced.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably not :-) If it was up to me, I'd delete on sight any stats table without individual sourcing for each row. And for that matter, any that use the {{Football player statistics 1}} family of templates whether sourced or not, but that's by the by. You could try pointing it out at that article's talk page, might do some good. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the infobox should only show goals scored by the goalkeeper, rather than goals conceded (or some mix of goals conceded and goals scored). Jogurney (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Definitely. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Doble

No doubt this is a reflection on the state of Welsh football, but the 19 year old Southampton youth player Ryan Doble has been called up to the full Wales international squad. As he has never played for the Southampton first team, nor been loaned out an any time, he does not pass the notability guidelines (however defined). Presumably, in the event that he actually plays for Wales in an international match, this would be sufficient to enable an article to be created, despite his lack of a first-team club appearance. (The same situation applies to Watford's third choice goalkeeper, Jonathan Bond.) Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't a Man Utd player get capped by Northern Ireland a few years back, in a similar situation? GiantSnowman 13:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Gillingham player Rimmel Daniel has been capped, and he hasn't even turned professional yet, let alone been in the first team...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Aaron Moses-Garvey played a World Cup qualifier for St Kitts Nevis while a Birmingham reserve a couple of years ago, but has never played club football above Conference regional level, and not much of that. Corry Evans is the Man Utd player, 5 caps and a goal for Northern Ireland but still hasn't played first-team club football. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ciaran Clark

This is similar to the Mesut Özil one above.

Today there was a news article about Ciaran Clark pledging his future to Ireland. When i went to add this in the article, i see someone had already changed his nationality from English to Irish. I added the info with reference and changed it back to 'English'. He came back and changed it again, but undid his own edit (probably because he spotted the message i wrote). I've noticed someone else has now added "English-born professional footballer of Irish descent". Before i would have thought that 'English-born Irish footballer' would be correct, but after viewing the discussion about the Ozil article earlier im not so sure now. The thing is he hasn't played for Ireland yet and isn't included in the current squad either. Anyway i've left it as it is for now, for someone to take a look at, because im not sure. Bobbymozza (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

He is a footballer: there are myriad adjectives that could be added to that fact, but none that must be. State that he was born in Harrow, represented England at under age level, cite that he has declared an ambition to play for Ireland, and omit use of adjectives that will be argumentative. Present clear facts, let the reader reach conclusions. Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Abelardo Fernández

Sorry guys, which is his "real" date of birth? Uefa says 19-03-1970, while Fifa declares 19-04-1970. Which is the truth? --VAN ZANT (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Think the UEFA one must be a typo, every other source including Sportec, BDFutbol, this Spanish Football Federation magazine, gives 19-04. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Davies and other England fringe players

Now that Kevin Davies has received a call-up to the England squad, his infobox has been edited to include England in his international career. In my opinion, this should only happen if he actually makes an appearance for the team. If he fails to make the pitch, and is never selected again, we would have him recorded with an international career of Nil matches played. A similar situation arose with Scott Loach (but not with the other emergency 'keeper, Frank Fielding). I reverted the change on Loach, but this was reverted back by User:WFCforLife with the edit summary "In the absense of a policy or guideline banning the mention of national team, I'm restoring it for consistency with the way we deal with clubs a player was at but didn't play for". I'm sure that other editors will have their own thoughts - can we agree on a consistent policy? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a similar happens (and I'm guilty of it) with players who move to clubs on loan, they gain the category as a player of their loanee club without making an appearance. I would suggest that to fit either as a player for a national club or a player for a professional club, you should have at least one appearance. But that's bound to be controversial...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well don't forget you can be a full member of a club team without actually playing for it - you can play in friendlies, train with the team every day, and be a named substitute and sit on the bench, but never actually set foot on the field, and this can happen for years: Kyle Reynish in the United States, for example, was with RSL for 2 years as their sub keeper, and sat on the bench for over 60 games before he actually made his debut. If he had never played for RSL, and then left and played for another team, we would still have shown him with 0 appearances in 2 years for the team. International caps are probably slightly different, but I really don't know how best to do it. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I've always understood that call-ups don't go in the infobox, just actual appearances. Call-ups should be mentioned in the article text of course. Jogurney (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thing is, the infobox is for the basic facts of a player's career. As the template documentation says, the club section is for the years a player is contracted to each of their clubs, which is a basic fact of his career. If we left out clubs to which the player was contracted because he never appeared for them in the League, we'd be grossly misleading the reader about the player's career progression. But putting Fooland 0 appearances doesn't mean anything definitive to the reader. The editor who adds it might mean the player was called up once to a squad but not picked for the matchday squad. They might mean he sat on the bench through 3 World Cups but never got on to the field. They might just mean he's Fooland-qualified. Obviously, the player's relationship with their national team should appear in the prose. But the only basic fact about an international career, is if the player actually appeared for their national team. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far - I see that the infobox template page says under "Parameters" for {{{nationalyears1}}}: A list of years that the player has been a participant in each national team and for {{{nationalteam1}}}: A list of international teams that the player has been a member of. In my view, being a squad member is not the same as being a member (or participant) of the team. So, the infobox should never have Nil appearances for a National team, regardless of the different rules that may apply for the club parameters. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Club membership, even if it resulted in no appearances, should be mentioned as it provides a chronology of the player's career, and his history of registration/contracts. National squad call ups with no appearances have no such significance, and do not even "set" a player's national qualification (I don't know whether Davies has alternative eligibility), so there is not the same importance that it should be included in an infobox. In the interests of consistency, I would have to query how we would be confident of identifying those who were called up, but not called upon, internationally, in earlier generations, and so maybe the international section should be left empty, although I don't have a very strong feeling on that. However, I would agree with TRM that inclusion in a category should be dependent on making an appearance. Kevin McE (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree as far as categories go. But taking Loach as an example, his England call-up was probably the biggest moment of his career, the ghost goal included. How on earth is that not "basic information"? Also, Struway's argument doesn't hold for amateur and (to a certain extent) loan players. —WFC— 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, not bright today, as proved earlier. What argument doesn't hold for amateur/loan players? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That amateurs aren't contracted to a club, and loan players aren't contracted directly to the loan club. Let's say Ryan Noble gets called up for the senior team in three years, but doesn't play. His non-playing loan at a club he never played for would be covered, yet his call-up to the senior squad—which in the case of England attracts significant coverage on its own—wouldn't. —WFC— 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That's the documentation and therefore me using "contracted" when technically we mean "registered". A loan is a temporary transfer of registration. Since registration with a club became more formalised, amateurs had to register if they played for a league club the same as anybody else. And for the nomadic amateur in days of yore, I imagine we wouldn't attempt to include their several teams/clubs a season in the infobox because it'd only confuse the reader, where explaining their career in prose hopefully wouldn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
So, before a certain point amateurs didn't have to be registered, but after that point any amateur club the player was at but didn't play for is more basic information than the country he was called up to but didn't play for? I'm not trying to be facetious or disruptive here- I'm just strugging to understand the distinction between club and country in this instance. —WFC— 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Edit: DIDN'T have to be registered! —WFC— 18:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Afraid I'm not exactly sure of the precise rules of registration for league clubs for either amateurs or professionals back in the day. But many amateurs played for four or five teams/clubs (amateur clubs/teams, I'm talking, not League clubs) a season on an occasional basis. Listing that many teams in an infobox would be silly. Not entirely sure either what you're getting at; where amateurs and professionals are subject to the same registration rules where League clubs are concerned, then why would they treated differently from each other in the infobox? I'm not being awkward either, but I have to go out now, so if I've misunderstood something in the rush, sorry. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure we've been through this before, and we concluded that we shouldn't have mere international call-ups in the infobox - only actual caps. This is different to club football, for obvious reasons. GiantSnowman 16:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
See above. (I'm not saying that conclusion was necessarily wrong, but it doesn't appear "obvious") —WFC— 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Infoboxes are primarily statistical: spending time at a club is a statistical measure, training one long weekend with a national team is not. That doesn't mean it is noit important, so of course it should be in the prose. Kevin McE (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Yet training one long weekend with Rochdale on an emergency loan is? —WFC— 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Difference is that the player in that example is contracted (via loan) to Rochdale. No player is contracted to a national team, who can choose as and when to pick him for their squad. The difference is in the character of the team - club sides are employers, whereas national teams are representative sides (like the Barbarians rugby team, for example). Listing the clubs in the infobox is like giving an employment history (x player was employed by y club from a-d, but was loaned to z club during c). Listing x country 0 appearances, as commented above, is not useful because it can be misleading. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Going back to international players, I think it's worth noting that a player is cap-tied to a national team only when he sets foot on the pitch, not when he's called up and not when he sits on the bench. Bojan Krkić was called up by Serbia and Amauri could have conceivably sat on either bench for an Italy vs Brazil friendly, but we're not going to add countries they didn't and won't play for just because they were called up. --Mosmof (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Eric Lichaj was called up by both sides for the USA v Poland match this weekend. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that is a watertight reason! I'm sold. —WFC— 09:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Penalty shootout counts a draw?

In managerial stats, i.e. Micky Adams#Managerial statistics. Just checking?--EchetusXe 20:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the result of a match is always the result as at the conclusion of open play -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
So if Liverpool had had a caretaker manager whose only match was the 2005 Champions League Final, he'd appear in their managers list on here with no wins in the stats columns and one win in the honours column? Must admit I'm not sure I knew that... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
On second thoughts, perhaps I did know that, not functioning too brightly this morning... Though it does seem daft in the above (extreme hypothetical) situation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Strange as it sounds, yes that would be the case. The result of the actual match itself was a draw, the PSO was then required to determine who won the tournament as a whole, if that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If a manager was appointed in time for the last game of the season, and his team lost, but still won the league, then he left the club in the summer then there would be a similar situation.--EchetusXe 16:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The George Smith brothers

Please could someone with access to a copy of Joyce (mine's in storage awaiting a house move) check if George Smith (footballer born 1901) and George Smith (footballer born 1902) are really both listed as having been on the books of Gillingham during 1923–24? Ta! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

They are. Infoboxes for both correspond to Joyce's details. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Cheers Stru, guess it's just one of those crazy coincidences. Good job the slightly older one never played for the first team :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source

I wouldn't normally ask about something that at first glance so obviously appears to be a Wikipedia mirror, but could this possibly be a reliable source? There doesn't appear to ever have been a Wikipedia article with that name, and it appears to have been written by this guy. Regards, —WFC— 09:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that "Spartacus" is a reliable source (I'm not sure why you think it's a Wiki-mirror). But the article itself doesn't actually say much, once you strip out the 2 paragraphs about the 1933 FA cup match. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Been discussed (briefly!) before at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_59#Spartacus, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Spartacus_Schoolnet and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_29#spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk with different opinions. Has been questioned a number of times at FAC, but as far as I can tell never been outright rejected as garbage (or a mirror), although frequently easy course was taken and offending comment and link removed. Linked to from literally hundreds of articles.--ClubOranjeT 10:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
For football, I'd say it wasn't a reliable source. It's basically a personal website, so would fall under WP:SPS, and there's no evidence of Mr Simkin being a published expert in the field of football. But it does provide a good starting point to know what to look for in real RS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I didn't think it was a mirror, but it undeniably looks like one. There are a few snippets in there that I couldn't glean from anywhere else, but I've written a passible article without it. —WFC— 11:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I used it for points of reference when doing West Hams history as he consistently includes verifiable data, pictures etc. Not an encyclopaedia, but does often provide detail and background that can help flesh out articles. I would consider it reliable, at least where you can find some further documentation that mirrors it. However I wouldn't rely upon it solely as a source because it is a single historical opinion.Koncorde (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a staple website for many schools teaching History GCSE. It's somewhat renowned. —Half Price 17:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

FA Premier League court case

I believe it warrants a place under this WikiProject. It's a landmark case regarding broadcasting football in the UK. What do others think?

I given that one of the key participants in the case was the Premier League, it definitely should be part of this project, provided the case meets notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Started one here: FA Premier League satellite decoder case TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't help but feel that this comes under WP:NOT#NEWS. —Half Price 16:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, it will have far reaching consequences. If FAPL wins, foreign satelite will be outlawed in UK meaning many pubs will not be able to show Premier League games. If they lose it means that people can watch foreign satellite legally in the UK which will substantially decrease PL revenue. TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, there has been ongoing coverage of this case dating back to 2006 / 2007. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Iranian football clubs

Could someone have a look at the Iranian football clubs that Koorosh1234 (talk · contribs) had added to Category:Current association football seasons, remove this category (as it is for current football seasons and not for current football teams) and maybe have a word? Cheers. Jared Preston (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Done that. Didn't you fancy de-catting ~100 Iranian football clubs yourself, then? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on successive loans within the same transfer period

J Mo 101 (talk · contribs) came up with a question regarding Macedonian player Dragan Georgiev over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject German football. Georgiev was loaned by Mainz 05 from FK Turnovo prior to the begin of this season, but was then transferred by Mainz on another loan to 2. Bundesliga club Paderborn. Does anybody know a) why this is a legal move within the transfer rules of FIFA and b) if there are similar occurrances of this transfer pattern in other countries (apart from England and its rather free-flowing loan system)? Thanks in advance, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Was it actually a loan-within-a-loan? I'm not sure you can have such things...GiantSnowman 18:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. Wouldn't this simply be a case of Mainz recalling the player from his loan at Turnovo, and then immediately re-loaning him to Paderborn? I don't think there's any reason the parent club can't do that if they want to. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wait, it's the other way around. Turnovo loaned the player TO Mainz, and Mainz then loaned the player to Paderborn to give him some match experiece. Hmmm... that's different. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I also tried to find the relevant passages within the FIFA paperwork, but with no luck. Perhaps one of you is more successfull in sorting things out... *rushes off to the TV set, Germany v Turkey* --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 18:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I think what probably happened is that Mainz 05 renegotiated their agreement with Turnovo with Georgiev being loaned directly from Turnovo to Paderborn (since the duration of the loan to Paderborn is the same as the one to Mainz 05 was), and Mainz 05 retains rights to purchase the player at the end of the season. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I initially thought an explanation might be that Mainz were impressed enough to sign him permanently, and then loaned him out to Paderborn to get some first-team experience, but I can't find any news to verify it. Sir Sputnik's explanlation seems possible, but either way, it's a very strange deal! J Mo 101 (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Just for reference, here is the official announcement from Mainz 05 that Georgiev was to be loaned out, and here is the announcement that they signed the player. Both are in German. The first says more or less that Georgiev is being loaned to SC Paderborn until the end of the season, but that Mainz 05 will retain the option to sign the player permanently. It says nothing about how the loan within a loan works. The second simply outlines the details of the original loan. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It or they?

This guy has made his mark. Is he right or should I revert it?--EchetusXe 18:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would go with the singular; the club is an entity in its own right. Of the premiership articles, roughly a third go for the plural and the rest for the singular. The first two featured articles differ – Arsenal goes for the singular while Chelsea are plural. Hey ho! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Football teams tend to take the English plural. Brad78 (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
When talking about the club itself (as opposed to the players on the pitch in a given match), I always use singular. To me at any rate, "Gillingham are a football club, they were formed in 1893" sounds completely ridiculous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Chris. Some of their changes are right: Port Vale is a football club which is based in Burslem. But in general, they're wrong, because they've gone for the singular regardless of what the subject actually means: you can't say "It came up the following season as champions". In British English, we say Port Vale were promoted, because it's the team, which as a collective takes the plural, that are being promoted. Best way to reduce the problem is to use "club" to mean "team" only when the verb form is the same for singular and plural. I'd revert, apart from the opening bit. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That's the way we write and speak about these things in England. People would never say, 'it won the cup', they would say 'they won the cup'. Bobbymozza (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Use "are" since that's how British English just is. Digirami (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That's debatable. I'm a native British English speaker and I would never say "the club were formed in 1893" because it sound ridiculous. I would, however, say "the team were cup winners" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. When referring to the club as an entity (for example, the year of formation), use the singular. When referring to on-field activities (for example, promotion or winning the FA Cup), use the plural as anything that happens on the field is a collective effort. Bettia (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

William McGregor

The article on the Football League's founder is going to be Today's Featured Article on Monday, which means it'll probably be subject to a deluge of childish vandalism. Could people help keep an eye on it for the day....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ollie Morah

WikiProject Football/Archive 48
Senior career*
Years Team Apps (Gls)
Some time prior to 1994 Possibly Tottenham Hotspur ? (0)
1991–1992 → Hereford United (loan) 2 (0)
Some time between 1992 and 1994 Possibly Swindon Town ? (?)
Some time between 1992 and 1994 Sutton United ? (?)
1994–1996 Cambridge United 14 (2)
1994–1995 →Torquay United (loan) 2 (0)
1996–? Welling United ? (?)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

Hi guys. I'm wondering if anyone can fill in the gaps here. Olisa 'Ollie' Morah played for Hereford United in 1991–92 on loan from Tottenham Hotspur (says Neil Brown). But he does not feature on the Spurs page of Brown's site. Elsewhere, it shows he played for Sutton United before signing for Cambridge United in 1994 (says Neil Brown). That page says he was ex Swindon Town (yet his name is not on the Swindon page). Soccerbase says he then left for Welling United. With so many gaps, I'm unwilling to start the article yet.

To recap, it's the times prior to 1994 that are sketchy, with the only certainties being that he played on loan for Hereford and that he played for Sutton United. Thanks. —Half Price 11:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If a player doesn't appear on a club page on Neil Brown's site, it means he didn't play for that club in the Football/Scottish League, it doesn't mean he never played for them. And the dates are explained on the site front page: "Seasons - e.g. 97-98 denotes the player appeared during the 1997-1998 season. 94-denotes appearances made between the 1994-95 season and the 1996-97 season (inclusive)". So if a player is listed as 94-95, it means he appeared in the League during that season (in 94, 95, or both), it has no bearing on when he joined or left the club. Per this, which is accurate for Swindon and mostly accurate for anything else, he joined Swindon on loan from Spurs in July 1992, made permanent in Nov 92, never played for the first team (or he'd have a player page), and was released in May 93, to join Sutton United. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for clearing that up, I didn't know that. —Half Price 13:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Logo usage

Any policy on use the generic logo for a tournament in the infobox of a specific season article? Noticed the 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup article is using the same logo as the main article. Always thought that is a tournament/league season was going to use a logo, it would be tournament specific. Any thoughts/comments? Digirami (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Football terminology

I was trying to wikilink the expression "shoulder charge", but this goes to List of rugby league terms. It seems that there is no equivalent List of association football terms. The Category:Glossaries on sports includes glossaries for most other sports; does anyone fancy creating an article? There are a whole host of articles in Category:Association football terminology which could have a precis in such a list. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've always known it to called a "shoulder barge". Bobbymozza (Bobbymozza) 08:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Since I started watching football in the 1950's it has been a 'shoulder charge' as in Nat Lofthouse on Harry Gregg in the 1958 FA Cup Final - [17] --Egghead06 (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Also known as a shoulder barge [18] [19] [20] [21] Bobbymozza (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see this proposal came up 18 months ago (see here) but it died a death. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is still a great idea.--EchetusXe 11:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC - footballer notability

You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of association footballers. Eldumpo (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Categories named after Brazilian football clubs

I`m going to add Category:Categories named after Brazilian football clubs for the categories from Category:Brazilian football clubs because it contains articles and categories with the same name. To my mind it should contain articles only. Here is the example Categories named after Brazilian football clubs.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest against that. It's very unnecessary. Thanks. —Half Price 16:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no duplication whatever. Category:Clube 15 de Novembro is not a subcat of anything except various possible 'Category:Categories named after xxx' (the article Clube 15 de Novembro is in various categories; the category is not a subcat of these). They are of use to any reader who is browsing categories.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is the discussion for a similar case Wikipedia:Categories for discussion — Eponymous categories.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Wharton

Can someone confirm what appears to be a confusion between to completely unrelated places. Are references to GRENADA in Arthur Wharton's wiki entry a mere typo. GHANA and GRENADA are in separate continents? 94.193.165.93 (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)D Gift.

This site confirms that Wharton's father was from the West Indies, and that Arthur spent time in Grenada as a child. Regards, GiantSnowman 23:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Jari Litmanen

The article on Jari Litmanen said that he is thought to be "the first international footballer to have played in four different decades" (1989-2010). I have removed this as speculative, but it did make me curious. Is there any other footballer whose international career spanned four decades? 83.84.195.88 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Some will argue as to whether a decade started on 1 Jan 2010, or 1 Jan 2011. Kevin McE (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Billy Meredith is one, no doubt there are others. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Stanley Matthews played in five decades (1932 to 1970) so he would trump all of them. Bettia (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Um, scratch that. Stan's international career was "only" three decades. Bettia (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles

Anyone know how this will affect player nationalities/the national team etc.? GiantSnowman 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

While I have absolutely no idea, I think our best bet would be to assume that it will have no affect until there is an announcement by FIFA, the Nederlands Antilliaanse Voetbal Unie, or the KNVB that states otherwise. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
They have three matches this week in Caribbean Cup qualification which, according to FIFA.com, they play under the now obsolete name. The odd thing is that only 2 of the five islands that made up the Neth Ant were represented on the NAVU, and looking up the players of Neth Ant on nl.Wiki reveals that all players seem to be either from Curaçao or born in European Netherlands. Sint Maarten already has a CONCACAF affiliated team independent of the NA side. My expectation is that Sint Maarten will upgrade to FIFA membership, a new Curaçao team will be not much more than a rename of the NA outfit, and any players from the remaining three islands (total population <26,000, so don't expect many) will technically come under the auspices of the KNVB and be eligible for the Netherlands team, but will probably find some family link to gain qualification for either Sint Maarten or Curaçao. My wiki contribution, of course, will be to wait and see, as per Sir Sputnik. Kevin McE (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll be looking forward to how this turns out. It's not every day we get new members of FIFA. Openskye (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. It's certainly an interesting situation. The last time it happened on such a scale was the dissolution of Yugoslavia back in the early 90s, but I am too young to remember that...I presume that international players from the Netherlands Antilles team will be eligible for Sint Maarten OR Curaçao, although the vast majority will go for Curaçao (as happened when Serbia & Montenegro dissolved just a few years back...) GiantSnowman 13:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The NA team was basically an umbrella for those Dutch Antillian players with little to no hope to play for the Netherlands, so I don't really think things would change. At the moment, NA is composed by Curaçao (150,000 inhabitants) and Bonaire (15,000): also, do not forget to include a few hundred thousands more Dutch people of Antillian ancestry living in Europe into the count. It is also quite unlikely to see Sint Maarten (quite curious for a former Dutch colony, since most of the population don't speak Dutch at all) really competing on FIFA tournament, since the team is quite inactive at the moment, and the federation's website has been down since a year. --Angelo (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I would guess the result might be similar to Aruba, with Curaçao and Sint Maarten becoming full FIFA members (or at least eligible to do so). As mentioned above, most of the existing Netherlands Antilles squad are from Curaçao, so most of them would probably play for the Curaçao side. Jogurney (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

National-football-teams.com

Is this site regarded as being reliable when it comes to international caps/years, and also when it lists the club years and appearances of players. Are the club stats for league games only? Thanks Eldumpo (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've generally found it to be pretty reliable. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The club stats, from what I've been able to discern, are strictly league stats; I've combed through their pages and double checked a few Turkish player stats with the TFF website to make sure their stats matched up and they did. Invisibletr (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, the statistics for a specific season are usually accurate, but fairly often a player's "career history" is missing specific clubs or seasons (at least for less well-known or before-modern-era players). Also, they use "0/0" for unknown statistics so you have to be careful. Finally, the international stats suffer from the same issues (usually more often for nations in South America, Africa and Asia). Jogurney (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Henderson salted

Resolved

Can an admin please unsalt the Jack Henderson page please, so I can create an article on an Irish international player of the 1880s? Thanks, GiantSnowman 00:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much! GiantSnowman 12:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Moore

There is an article at Cecil Moore (soccer) about a player who represented both Ireland and the United States at international level. However it is unreferenced, and his profile at NIFG doesn't mention his time in the States...are they two seperate players perhaps? GiantSnowman 00:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Same bloke. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks! GiantSnowman 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ben Watson (footballer)

Should this article move to Ben Watson (footballer born July 1985) (currently a redirect) to differentiate from the already existing player article at Ben Watson (footballer born December 1985). Whilst the Wigan footballer would currently get primary usage, given that it's already dismbiguated by 'footballer' (Ben Watson being the overall dab page) would that apply? Eldumpo (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver supporter's group

The Vancouver Southsiders article was created some time ago but was not inline with our standards. I recently tried to recreate it with sourcing and the language toned down. An editor continues to disagree with its creation saying that the info is trivial. I disagree but wanted to get some outside input since I could of course be wrong. My reasoning is detailed at Talk:Vancouver Southsiders#Recreation (September, 2010). To summarize:

  • Meets the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
  • There is a navigational issue since the page currently redirects to Vancouver Whitecaps FC when it could also redirect to Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS).
  • It may met the primary criteria of WP:GROUP. Although some of the coverage is just a single line or a couple of paragraphs, there has been in depth coverage of the group. It has been featured in regional press. However, the coverage at the national scale is typically brief mentions.
  • All self published sources were removed to tone down fan cruft. There is still some information that might appear trivial to some (such as mentions of songs) that have some precedent in other supporter group articles. See some other articles here. Many of them need some improvement but a few are shaping up OK. The notability guideline does not impact article content anyway (WP:NNC).

The most recent version is here. It needs some improvement (including a copy edit, oops) but more sources continue to come up that are not included there. There are also a couple dead links but I saw them at one time and can verify that they were certainly in depth (see: Wikipedia:Offline sources) More sources are listed on the talk page. I saved the previous version (not created by me) in a sandbox for comparison. And just a disclaimer: I am not a Vancouver fan or affiliated with the group.Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ligue de Football Professionnel

I posted this at the WP Football France task force, but for anyone who doesn't frequently visit the section, I'll post it here:

The Ligue de Football Professionnel has recently updated it's website. The update has made all the links from the old site dead, which sucks because I have used the LFP's match reports as references for mostly all of the player articles I have either contributed to or created (the refs can be viewed when cached. Would posting the cached version be good for Wiki? because I have used the LFP as a reference for A LOT of player articles). I am just posting it here to let you guys know that if you have used a link from lfp.fr than you most likely have to change it to coincide with the site's update. The site must of been created prematurely because the archives are currently unavailable meaning, for my situation, I won't be able to replace the match reports with the match report links the updated site uses. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have modified template:lfpfr. However, former numbers should be changed to a new format : lastname-firstname. Unfortunately, it should be done manually I think.--Latouffedisco (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Luka Modrić

Would anyone mind taking a look at Luka Modrić regarding the status of the full name parameter? I am in disagreement with a user over whether the full name parameter in the infobox should be in use, with my arguments being it should despite the player's full name being the same as their common name and that not displaying it would be misleading to the reader by giving them the impression their full name is unknown. Also, not to forget the removal of the full name parameter in this instance is resulting in the removal of the source that confirms the full name of the player. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to concur with Timbouctou; the full name field is only useful where it adds info to the header over the box, and a link to confirm his name would be just as valid attached to another occurence of the name. Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that the "full name" field should show the player's complete name, whether or not it is the same as the name at the top of the infobox. I can't see how denying that his full name is Luka Modric is really going to help anybody. BigDom More tea, vicar? 12:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Matty and Dom. The full name field is the only place in the article specifically for the player's full name. If absent, the reader can't tell whether the full name is the same as the player name or whether Wikipedia just doesn't know what it is. A link to confirm his name anywhere else in the article would imply only that his name is Luka Modrić, not that his full name is Luka Modrić. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Can I third (or fourth!) the above - 'player name' and 'full name' are rarely identical, but when they are, it is worth letting the reader know 100%. GiantSnowman 12:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I've always included the full name parameter since I believe it provides clarity. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 11:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems like just another one of those completely and utterly useless policies which seems to assume that the average reader is an imbecile. Luka's full name is a) in the article's title, b) in the opening sentence, and c) on top of the infobox. But hey, let's make absolutely certain that the reader doesn't miss it by adding it the fourth time in the infobox. Isn't the whole point of not showing the full name parameter (if left blank in the player infobox template) so that the reader does not assume that Wikipedia is unaware of his full name? Otherwise let's change the template and make it so that the full name parameter is always shown and that if left blank it displays something like "Full name = ?". Besides, unless you can provide a link to his christening certificate, there is virtually no source reliable enough to claim that he does not have a christian name, and that his full name isn't actually something along the lines of "Luka Zvonimir Modrić", as the FA (whose source is currently used for his "full name") seems to take "full name" to mean what the player's passport says, and the two are not always the same (according to Croatian law a person can only have up to two given names and two surnames in official documents, and it's one's choice which ones to include if there are multiple possibilities). If you really want to nitpick, he might have 17 Christian names and 6 other surnames for all we know (at least not until he dies and his full name gets publicly published in obituaries). So not only are you people arguing for something which adds little or no encylopedic value to the article, but you're also arguing that Wikipedia should insist on a claim which is practically unverifiable. There's my 2 lipas. Timbouctou 13:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
But the fact is players' full names are not displayed in the article's title, the opening sentence (not necessarily anyway unless it has been explicitly stated elsewhere, e.g. the relevant infobox field) or the line above the infobox; these contain the player's most commonly used name, rather than the full name. One instance of a player with a full name containing middle names is David Beckham. His full name is "David Robert Joseph Beckham" but his article title and the line above the infobox display his most commonly used name of "David Beckham"; as such, it is not correct to say these fields contain the full name of a player as they simply don't (or very rarely, at least). In response to your point regarding sourcing, the only real primary source on a subject's full name is indeed their birth certificate or a similar sort of document; however, I don't see why that means other reliable sources can't be used to establish this info if they explicitly list the full names of players (like the currently used Football Association list does). However, if another reliable source comes along and states his full name is something different then it would obviously be right to change it. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Without checking, I'm pretty sure WP:MOSBIO says the opening paragraph should start with the individuals full name.--ClubOranjeT 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

First, and obviously, if the source used doesn't imply that Luka Modrić is his full name, then we shouldn't be using it to verify that piece of information; that's just basic WP:V. Those FA lists don't always give middle names even where these do exist and have been published elsewhere, e.g. compare Jordon Mutch at the August 2010 FA registrations list and at the Premier League 25-man squad list.

But taking the general case, where we do have a reliable source: If the name just appears in the opening sentence, the reader won't know for sure whether Wikipedia thinks that's their full name or not. If it appears in a box against a label "fullname", they'll know that Wikipedia does think it's their full name. I see that as conveying information clearly to the reader, which is probably what an encyclopedia's there for. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I simply think that to the reader, we look pedantic in the extreme to publish the exact same name both above and within the box: that is probably the reaction that most readers will have, rather than their making assumptions as to whether or not we have the full information. It is not as though middle names that are not in wide circulation are an important piece of information that readers are seeking. Englishmen for 44 years have been equally proud of their one success in international competition regardless of whether they have been aware that Geoff Hurst's middle name is Charles. When I hear that a player is rumoured to be joining my team, I would be interested in his age, club history, achievements, position, possibly where he was from originally, and whether he has any international ambitions: a desire to know his middle name is unspeakably unimportant to me, and, I would suggest, to 99% of readers. If the field is empty (and therefore missing), I do not miss it at all: if it contains no new information, it seems even more utterly redundant. Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's not the most captivating piece of information. All I'm saying, is that if we have a fact that we're going to present, and a person's name is a pretty basic fact, we should do so explicitly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Infobox is supposed to summarise the important information. That sometimes means repetition, and to argue the name appears other places doesn't wash. Given that the player's current club also appears (usually at least) 4 times - current club, last line of club history, opening paragraph and the relevant section of the prose, taking exception to the most important info about a person appearing an extra time seems extreme. I think consistency is good, and since the full name is most often different from the playing name it should be shown. With WP being about verifiability not truth the full name is verifiable per standards in most player profile articles. eg Soccerbase which titles pages with player name and a field for real name. I am not convinced most readers of soccerbase think they "look pedantic in the extreme"--ClubOranjeT 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Footballer trapped in mine

Just in case you weren't aware, Franklin Lobos, one of the miners in the 2010 Copiapó mining accident, was a reasonably good footballer and was active in the 1980s and 1990s. Just thought some of the footballing timelines and statistics in the article might need some checking. Hack (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that!--EchetusXe 01:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly the first rescuer, Manuel Gonzalez was apparently a former "professional" footballer with O'Higgins (obviously a very typical Chilean name). [22] Hack (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

FC Barcelona seasons 1899-1900 to 1910-1911

I came across one of these seasons through random article clicking, but there are twelve pages in total for the seasons between 1899 and 1911, all of which have very little information on and are in very poor English... I don't actually understand half of what they're trying to say. They're not linked in to the season history page at all!

I don't know the history of the team myself to tidy it up, I was thinking perhaps either merge them into a period section (as the Manchester United ones are) or just delete them... I thought it'd be easier to get attention/answers here!

Like I say, the first one is season 1899 to 1900.

BulbaThor (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't merge them as per your (bad) Manchester United sample. Even early MUFC seasons have their own season articles (like their first season). If you feel the quality of those Barce season articles are lacking and have poor grammar, improve them by expanding on what's there or correcting errors. Digirami (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what the standard way of having seasons was, I only checked the United one because they were a team of comparable standing, my bad. And like I said, I don't know what the articles are even trying to say, so I'm not even going to try to sort them out. I'll leave it for someone who knows the history. BulbaThor (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Combination team notability

Does anyone with a knowledge of early football know if teams playing in The Combination in the 1890s were eligible for the FA Cup i.e. are they notable? GiantSnowman 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

From the FA Cup results archive we can see that Denton, Gorton Villa and Witton all played in the competition in 1890-91. Leek entered the cup the following season. I can't find evidence of the other two teams, but I only had a cursory look. BigDom More tea, vicar? 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

According to "The Complete Record of the FA Cup" by Mike Collett, their FA Cup record was as follows:

I have added the appropriate links to the FA Cup season articles. I hope this helps. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Woah, thanks for that, much appreciated! GiantSnowman 14:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Notable or not, some of them could be very difficult to write more than a one line stub about. In the case of Gorton Villa and Denton, they are mentioned in passing in a couple of books I have, mostly in the context of matches against Ardwick/Manchester City and the development of football in Manchester. Certain points in the affairs of Ardwick and Newton Heath in that era are unclear, with books often contradicting one another, so as you can imagine, the chances of obtaining good quality information about less prominent 19th Century clubs from the area are slim. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Bohane

Resolved

Having across the article on Nicholas Bohane which appears to be a spoof or one that has be hijacked by vandals I would suggest it is deleted speedily. Does anyone have a contra view on this?Tmol42 (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Camw (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ashington A.F.C.

Anyone out there care to take a look at this team article and suggest how I might improve it further? I've gotten it up to C-class, but I'm not sure what it needs to get up to B or Good Article. - Wmcduff (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tomáš Černý cut and paste

Resolved

Cernyto3 (talk · contribs) has attempted to move Tomáš Černý to Tomáš Černý(football) for some reason - I have reverted and warned, but can an admin please delete the new page. Cheers, GiantSnowman 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. GiantSnowman 19:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC that will affect 99% of this projects articles

Talk:Football#RFC:_Association_football is currently in favour of requiring a WP:DAB on soccer articles. If you if you've any thoughts on this issue you should make them known Gnevin (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We're in favour of a what? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That could have been clearer. Let me try: consensus at the discussion so far has tended to be in favor of disambiguating the term "football" in the first instance in articles, so as not to be ambiguous with other sports called football. For instance, calling it association football in the first instance rather than pipelinking football (and then calling it just "football" in the rest of the articles). Nearly all articles on all the other types of football do it this way already.--Cúchullain t/c 14:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Unai Emery - bits and pieces

Teammates: i think some mediation is needed, please (after expert analysis from "the members of the commission"), before this escalates.

In this former player and current coach (please see title)'s article, i have thoroughly improved article in: language, seasons wikilinks, avoiding caps where due and doing the same with dashes (replacing small dashes with big ones per WP guidelines). Incredibly, i have been hit from all sides by anon users, who claim my edits are poor when it's precisely them (or one user with various IP) who are engaging in such edits.

I have also removed blatant POV (taking side) which reads "Emery was sent off in this game for protesting what seemed to be a blatant penalty not called for Valencia in the last five minutes.", twice, and it has been reinstated. I correct player stats in box, it gets reverted.

I also think that season-by-season sub-sections is a bit too much, especially when Emery's career is a relatively recent one, club sub-sections suffice perfectly for the matter at hand. I also don't think saying "LA LIGA", "LA LIGA", "LA LIGA" until the cows come home is needed, sometimes it's implicit, i duly rephrased storyline overall, it gets reverted. As i have said - and i also have been severely insulted over this (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=324464489&oldid=324303890) - please provide some inputs here before this escalates without need. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the IP user for his insulting behaviour; regarding the content issues on the article in question, you'll need admin intervention - trying at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is probably your best bet. Hope this helps! GiantSnowman 14:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

George Warburton

Fred Warburton had a son named George born c. 1916 who was signed with Chester in the 1930s - can any kind soul confirm the year of birth (so I can disambiguate from the George Warburton born in 1934) and that he actually played in a first-team game for them? Cheers, GiantSnowman 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Joyce has him as born in Holland in 1916, died 1996. He played 11 games (3 goals) for Chester City in 1938-39. He was also on the books of Aston Villa and Preston North End. Hope this helps. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
He is shown on the Aston Villa database[24]. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much! But the Villa database gives him a 1915 date of birth...! GiantSnowman 20:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If it was me, I'd believe a full date & city from the AV database ahead of a bare year & country from Joyce's 6-year-old book. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah good thinking - article created at George Warburton (footballer born 1915). Cheers for everyone's help, GiantSnowman 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

2018/2022 bid articles

There are articles for the 10 of the 11 bids submitted for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups (Mexico's bid was withdrawn very early, and no article was made). All but two of these were originally tabled as bids for both events, so we had 8 articles entitled something like Fooian 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bid. Over the last few months, as most of you are aware, all of the non-European bids for 2018 have been withdrawn, and therefore the European bids for 2022 are effectively disqualified, as the same confederation cannot host successive tournaments.

Without any discussion, a few of the articles had their articles renamed, and now these undiscussed changes have been used to justify moving the rest of them. So despite discussion at Talk:English 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bid , and the fact that the move had already been reverted once and therefore was clearly not uncontroversial, English 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bid was moved to English 2018 FIFA World Cup bid on the grounds that United States 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bid had already been moved (without discussion) to United States 2022 FIFA World Cup bid.

This seems illogical. To focus on one example, Spain and Portugal tabled a joint bid for 2 World Cups. This was one single bid, as part of one single process. If 2022 is removed from the title of the article now, what would remain in the title of the article if the bid is ultimately unsuccessful? If the article includes the fact of a 2022 bid, why should it be denied mention in the title? Thoughts? (This seems as good a place as any for centralising the discussion.) Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think any of the articles should actually exist per NOT#NEWS. I don't see what is notable about tendering for an event. There should be 1 article covering all World Cup bids culminating an a section on the winning bid. I don't see lots of articles on all the failed bidders for construction of the latest tall building or sub-sea highway. All these countries have done in the scheme of things is stuck up their hand and said "pick me".--ClubOranjeT 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with ClubOranje. Further to the point is that all of the bids will be reduced to one paragraph and possibly a table (which will annoy several here) in the respective World Cup articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree. The coverage these bids received goes well beyond the routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities prohibited by NOTNEWS. Whether they meet WP:EVENT's requirement of lasting impact is debatable, but they certainly have lasting coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
There's logic to what ClubOranje has said. Although in the grand scheme of things, is England's World Cup bid less encyclopaedic than an article on someone who makes one Football League Trophy appearance?
I think the shorter titles are preferable. In the case of England the common name was "England 2018" for quite a while before the 2022 bid was officially dropped, and given that there was always a presumption that 2018 was a European event, I suspect this is true for most other bids. Regardless, there are reasonable arguments either way, so the title should be the subject of a proper requested move discussion. While we're on the subject, I think it should be "England (year/years) FIFA World Cup bid", rather than "English". —WFC— 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Half price0/Sutton United v Coventry City 1989

Hi guys, I'm a bit unsure as to what form the title of this prospective article should take. Should it include the score? The date, the year or neither? There are many examples of all sorts. Also, I'd be grateful if anyone could improve the article a little. Thanks. —Half Price 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say add the score, as the result of the match is what made it notable (as opposed to a load of sendings off or whatever).--EchetusXe 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989) - that's the format I've generally used. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, cheers guys. —Half Price 16:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lists of managers

User Türk Süvarisi has been on an editing spree of all lists of managers he could find. I noticed this because he replaced the bulleted list at the List of NK Dinamo Zagreb managers article with a table. He also did this with the List of HNK Hajduk Split managers and probably many others. I reverted the change twice because the table format seems like a waste of space as the played/won/draws/losses historic statistics are unavailable for these clubs and has never been published by any credible source. However, the user insists on using these tables and left me a message on my talk page saying that "While we have standard lists of manager you are doing the ordinary. Please do not intervene in these lists again. If you look at the other pages you will find that standard". So I was wondering if there is such a thing as a formatting guideline for lists of managers and if I was wrong in my reverts after all. Nevertheless, I see no point in making a table with columns which will most likely remain empty for years to come. Timbouctou 13:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK there isn't a MoS for manager lists. I don't understand the point of his template to be honest; what the hell is the point of it if you're just going to have every box filled with "n/a"? I'd understand if the statistics were readily available, but come on. Invisibletr (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I did undo an edit made by this user on the Watford list (although in that list the table was already there). Although in fairness to him there are potential benefits to adding an incomplete table for higher profile clubs. I mean, it's far easier for an editor of any experience to add stats if the table is already in place, and that is after all the nature of a wiki. But a completely empty table shouldn't be added. In my opinion post-2000(ish) stats should be added when a table is created. If they can't be found, the chances are that there is no reliable source for the stats, and therefore that there shouldn't be a table. If they can, it's reasonable to assume that the stats are out there somewhere. —WFC— 03:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Singular or plural verbs

I made this point on Talk:Liverpool_F.C.#Singular_or_plural_verbs, but several team articles appear to use both singular (is/has/was) and plural (are/have/were) when referring to teams. I know that in British English teams and bands generally use the plural form (thus Pink Floyd were a band) but I was wondering what should be the case here. DC T•C 15:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Use British English, which, for the most part, tends to use the plural. I could be wrong about the last part of that statement, but definitely go by the rules of British English in this case. I'm sure someone will post soon to clarify British English ASAP. Digirami (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
British English is unfortunately rather ambiguous here - I don't think there's a 100% right answer. Very generally, the usage seems to favour singular verbs when talking about the club as an organisation overall - ie "Liverpool F.C. is based at..." while favouring plural usage when talking about the team as a group of people ("Liverpool were the winners of...") - particularly when talking about on-pitch performance. Certainly, though, there's no totally reliable pattern here. ~ mazca talk 00:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Templates

An IP has tweaked the set of templates {{Fb rbr header}} etc and they are now giving an error. Can anyone spot what the problem is? Keith D (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Gary Roberts

Resolved

Could anyone with the PFA Who's Who or a similar book check what the date of birth is of Gary Roberts please? He played for Brentford during the 80's, but I can't find a source on the internet with the info I'm looking for. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the information online either. Are we talking about the same Gary Roberts who is now manager of Cambridge City? Jared Preston (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah his profile on the Cambridge City website would suggest that it is the same person. Searching isn't easy because of the other footballers with the same name, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing on the web. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
All I found were some stats on this webpage (ROBERTS Gary F 80-86 Wembley Barnet 187 45) and that he is a local policeman ! Jared Preston (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, for now I created an article called Gary Roberts (Brentford F.C. player). It's not ideal, but it can always be moved once his date of birth is found. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Nice one! Jared Preston (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same player? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his CV, seems like the same bloke. Jared Preston (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Booklist, there are a couple of active editors who own the PFA Who's Who book. Have you tried dropping a note at their talk page? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have ordered my own copy from Amazon which should be with me next week - I'm rather p*ss*d off that www.allfootballers.com sems to have gone for good. When the book arrives, i'll see if I can add anything to The Gary Roberts article. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I now have the book - this lists him as Gary P.M. Roberts, born Rhyl 5 April 1960, signed for Brentford from Wembley Town in October 1980. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Added it to the article. Thanks a lot! J Mo 101 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Topscorer, top-scorer or top scorer?

Which one is correct? Fache (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not "topscorer", there is no such word in English. Out of the other two, I'd favour the one without the hyphen -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Top scorer, please, by all that is holy. It is a simple qualifying adjective: of all the scorers, he/she is the top of the list. Would you really consider tallestplayer, or tallest-player? A top-scorer sounds like one who scores tops: footballers hope to score goals. Kevin McE (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
To be formal top goalscorer, informally it is top scorer.--EchetusXe 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. So many topscorers and top-scorers got me doubting. Fache (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Orlando City S.C. former Austin Aztecs FC, Second Tier or Third Tier?

If they are playing pro division in USL, wouldn't they be in the second tier rather than the third tier of the pyramid? After all, Austin played in the second level of the pyramid, why wouldn't it after moving? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Soccer_Pyramid Frank0051 (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Third tier. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Women's Soccer in Canada and in Quebec

Hey everyone, I wish to work on the English-speaking pages on the women's soccer in my country. I begin with the page of Laval Comets and Quebec City Amiral SC.

au plaisir de vous connaître, Charles --Charlesquebec (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Hey everyone, I wish to work on the pages on the women's soccer. I begin with the page of Laval Comets and Quebec City Amiral SC. I have to end these 2 pages. And I have to modify the page of Amy Walsh a great local player of soccer whom I like very much. It was not easy for me because I am new member on Wikipedia. I wish to continue at the level of the other women's teams of Quebec ( Carabins, Rouge et or, Vert et Or) and maybe also of Canada.

You can read 3 pages and say to me if everything is correct Merci beaucoup --Charlesquebec (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment here since last time I tried to give you advice on your talk page you deleted it. Unfortunately you'll need someone to check over your edits, as your English is sometimes broken. Also, try to write in an unbiased way. Thanks. —Half Price 14:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. Forgive my errors. Furthermore I am a new wikipedia member here: I can make involuntary errors. Thank you for your understanding--Charlesquebec (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

new page for Maroua Chebbi --Charlesquebec (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Montreal Carabins I redid all this page. History of the club and differents rosters for teams (men soccer and women soccer and women hockey) Only verify if everything is correct because I am new member on wikipedia . Thanks --Charlesquebec (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa Fury Women a new page. Only verify if everything is correct Thank--Charlesquebec (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

important update on Hamilton Avalanche,Toronto Lady Lynx and London Gryphons --Charlesquebec (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's quiet.... too quiet....

Nothing much has happened here of late, and being at a bit of a loss for something interesting and worthwhile to do I was wondering if there was any enthusiasm for following through on the resultant of the Template_talk:Football_squad_player#Country_names discussion which more or less culminated (if you read through all the related discussions down to about Template_talk:Football_squad_player#Random_break) in the development of the Template:football squad player2 series templates (thanks largely due to WFC and ChrisC) and a suggestion that the issue should be ratified here. Any ratifiers?--ClubOranjeT 10:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My word that template looks horrendous! And is there any chance of condensing the country names into the three-letter FIFA code? GiantSnowman 11:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Your response suggests you may not have read through all the information as both the discussion and the test cases show that it is quite possible to use FIFA codes by including the appropriate parameter. I must also then ask which template (or version or template) you consider "horrendous" - please provide a permalink so I can be sure we are discussing the same thing.--ClubOranjeT 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Um Template:football squad player2, the template in question...GiantSnowman 22:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ugly template. Best to stick with the current version rather than that. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
There was an alternative and, so far as I have seen, have been in use in Argentine club articles and few other South American teams, like Boca Juniors. It's by no mean finished (for one, I can't seem to figure out why some names are displayed over two lines). But it address the country name issue without using a new squad list format. Digirami (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
And yes, it's a bit quiet in here lately. A bit... too... quiet... It makes me think that we have solved all the big problem is this project... (Ya right). Digirami (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A related long term bug-bear has been the phrasing above the team template: "Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." This is simply untrue: FIFA does not hold an opinion on the nationality of anyone who is not called up to be an international, and the concept of a non-FIFA nationality is odd to say the least. When it has been discussed before, no-one has sought to defend the current phrasing, but no alternative has gained approval. Can I suggest "Note: Flags indicate most recent national team represented, or place of birth for players who have not appeared internationally."? Footnotes would be needed for the occasional case where a non-international's place of birth is clearly due to a temporary displacement of the parents (Terry Butcher if he had never played for England would be an example), but this would be rare. Kevin McE (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The current alternate template shows "Where a player has not declared an international allegiance, nationality is determined by place of birth.", which is almost the same thing, but allows for players that have stated who they wish to play for, but have not made an appearance. I'm sure the actual semantics could be agreed in time.--ClubOranjeT 19:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

When current club is non-notable

Tristan Plummer must have suffered one of the fastest plummets throughthe pyramid ever, having gone from level 3 to below level 21 (the lowest the pyramid goes in the Bristol area) in 9 months. But does his Sunday league team merit a mention in his infobox? Should the lead say that he is "an English footballer who currently plays for Hanham Sunday"? Or is Sunday league footy a hobby rather than a career stage? Kevin McE (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say include it, just for completeness' sake. You never know - he might get picked up by a League 2 or Conference side some time in the future, and it would be useful to know what he was doing between the time he left Gillingham and then. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with that too, just say something like "after leaving Bristol City he was not signed by another professional club and played only amateur Sunday league football for Hanham Sunday of the [whatever league they're in]". Probably better in the body than the lead, though..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Check out his brother as well. Do the Plummer family just like giving us a challenge?--EchetusXe 21:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
We discussed the players fall on a Gillingham message board. One comment on his appearance in that cup game referenced in the article was "Three Plummers scoring 7 times in 90 minutes? Sounds like a German porn film" Kevin McE (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jon is right. If it was at the end of his career; maybe, for example, playing for an Old Boys team, then it might not be worth writing about; but as it stands, he could just be between jobs (or doing the thing that he is notable about for Wikipedia – that is playing football) and if he does play professionally again, then at least there is no curious gap. Jared Preston (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Threat to unilaterally rename the project

Presumably hot air, but I thought it was best to post the diff and let people judge it for themselves. [25] —WFC— 04:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

An argument between WikiProject Football and WikiProject American football over who should be called just 'football'. Well I don't dispute that the gridiron boys have a point, or as their sport is otherwise known: Amerikaanse voetbal, Americanisc fōtball, Amerikan futbolu, Američki nogomet, Американски футбол, Futbol americà, Americký fotbal, Amerikansk fodbold, American Football, Ameerika jalgpall, Fútbol americano, Usona piedpilko, Amerikar futbol, Football américain, Amerikaansk Fuotbal, Ball-coise Aimearaganach, Fútbol americano, Američki nogomet, Sepak bola Amerika, Amerískur fótbolti, Football americano, Amerikāņu futbols, Amerikietiškasis futbolas, Amerikai futball, Bola sepak Amerika, American football, Amerikansk fotball, Amerikansk fotball, Futbol amerykański, Futebol americano, Fotbal american, Американский футбол, American fitbaa, Futtibboll Miricanu, Americký futbal, Ameriški nogomet, Амерички фудбал, Američki fudbal, Amerikkalainen jalkapallo, Amerikansk fotboll, Amerikanong sipaang-bola, Amerikan futbolu, Американський футбол. *cough*--EchetusXe 10:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You forgot كرة القدم الأمريكية. —Half Price 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The whole debate is stupid. Just because WP:American Football went down the avenue of splashing the term 'American Football' over its articles then now this silliness must infect our project and every footballer should have 'Joe Bloggs (the name of said player) is a professional sportsman who plays the sport of association football (soccer)...' We should treat the readers as though they are normal people not as though they are clinically brain-dead. This whole farce demeans us all, as a species. But thats just my opinion...--EchetusXe 10:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Every other football code on wiki DAB's so its not an Soccer v American football issue . Soccer is the only one which doesn't DAB. Even major print encyclopaedias DAB the code. Gnevin (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it is the only code that the term football doesn't need DAB 99.99% of the time. Here in the US, even though we use the term "football" for our code, we also know it's called "American football" (never used/heard the term "gridiron football" ever). The same is true for all the other codes, except this one. I've never heard the term "association football" 'til I got here and I guarantee you the majority of everyday users never heard of the term. Using it this extensively can only cause confusion. Digirami (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that "association football" is a confusing/unknown term to most readers in the US, however, I suspect the "(soccer)" part is supposed to address them. It's a very poor idea, but I am resigned to it being implemented now. Jogurney (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This being discussed at the RFC .No need to discuss it here also Gnevin (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think editors can discuss this where they like. Some users might not want to take part in that particularly mind-boggling & mind-numbing RfC. I know I don't. —Half Price 17:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Putting a football/soccer hat on, anyone with a passing interest, little interest or a young fan, when given the phrase association football would probably have no idea what you're on about. As for rugby football, I'm not sure if you'd know which rugby if either or both, you'd know about, but American football, Australian Rules football, Gaelic football, anyone would know which you'd know about. Looking at the conversation linked above, football has taken ownership of the word football, not WP:FOOTY members. Brad78 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_48&oldid=1258130549"