Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 85

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

Archive 80

←

Archive 83

→

Football records in Spain

I brought this up before but the article has managed to get list trivial "records" such as "Most Hat Tricks". My initial concern was that there were many trivial categories and my second concern, which I addressed on the article's talk page, was that many of the records were unreferenced. I finally removed them when after six months no references had been added and more trivia had been added. An anon from Madrid (88.3.146.134) removed more two additional sections. Edamian (talk · contribs) then reverted the material twice The first time he stated undo impolite activity of WalterGorlic and the second time without comment. It may need some eyes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Trivial" according who? According guy who alone decided to destroy lots of hard work of many people. Work that has been created since many years. If you noticed that sth is unref then mark the fact. Your policy to remove over 40.000 letters is wrong because stats in football is dynamic and is changing every week. Returning to "trivial" statistic. What does it mean? What of ctiterion decides to consider that sth is trivial or not? Firstly, this stat comes from official site - ^[1] Secondly, Lots of statts wiki pages describe hat trick, f.e. even champions league, how many sb strike during the season, etc thirdly stat of hat trick is original and easy to calculate, fourthly There is a difference between stat of number goals and number of hat trick. Prima facie you see that looking at both. Hat tricks refers to the most prolific goalscorer more than generally stat of number of goals, because only some of best goalscorers were/are able to score three or more goals lots of times. fiftly, issue of hat trick is the subject of bookmaker, spending money isnt trivial Finally, have to repeat. What does it mean, number of hat tricks is trivial more or less than other one. What of criterion decide? I think the only criterion is ambition of WalterGorlitz. Edamian (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Trivial by standards of other articles.

Unreferenced = removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, there's an anon in Madrid and one in Sydney (Australia) who feel the same way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, define these standards

If unref=removed then most of wiki' matters should be removed, the adequate solution is to signalize this fact not destroy big work of :: many people. Stats are very dynamic issue and difficult to continous ref Edamian (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Much of the material on Wikipedia could be removed if it's unreferenced and it is challenged. See WP:RS and WP:V. Stats are dynamic and that's why we only list those that have reliable sources so that we're not adding trivial material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed your earlier request. Football records in England is a good benchmark of referenced, non-trivial statistics. In some cases, the articles act as references. In other cases, there are actual references.

talk Explain us when sth is trivial or not. Define what is the criterion of trivial. What does it mean or what standards mean? Prove that you gives that words deeper meaning. Edamian (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather discuss references since most of the "records" are trivial in my mind. Why not list highest number of dives per season or minutes played? Why not list most penalized team? Why not discuss most number of offsides per season? Why not list the most bribes per team? The reason they're not listed is that most reliable sources won't list them either (and they're rather negative statistics). So if we focus on what reliable sources list as statistics rather than what we think is interesting then at least we'll avoid trivia. In fact, if two sources list it, then we know it's not trivial. So most goals per season is likely going to make that list. As will undefeated, winning streaks, winless and losing streaks. Attendance figures are usually reported, but that's also a function of the ground. I'm not sure if the consecutive number of at-capacity matches is reported, but that's interesting. And most articles restrict to the top ten in any category so a category such as "Most effective team in a La Liga season (at least 3 goals per game)" that list 14 club seasons is a bit over-the-top as is "Top 30 highest goalscorers, all-time" just below it. And when "Top ten goalscorers, still active (Primera División only)" lists eleven players that tells me that the Spanish can't count. Some obvious pruning is required in other areas as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Görlitz on this issue, there is much unsourced trivia in this article. At the very least the unsourced content should be removed & the remaining content pruned. NB offering input after seeing this discussion flagged at wp:AN. regards 94.195.46.224 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult to agree with somebody who doest't even explain what he say. I agree with this point that there should be the rules which allow to decide that sth is trivia and needless. Walter cannot justify his thinking. The historical records are always interesting like most goals, matches, effective team, team with 3 goals per game. You cannot caompare that to speculative cathegory like dives per season, bribes. But most offsides and most penalized could by also interesting. WalterGorlitz distinguishes that sth is interesting and sth is not, but he forgot that this is his point of view. Other one can say "under me interesting are hattricks offsides per season and not interesting are Most effective team in a La Liga season, Top 30 highest goalscorers. Everyone has hisown opinion. 85.221.143.112 (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless I agree with Walter that unsourced cruft should be removed and have done so again. Edamian it is obvious that you are also editing as 85.221.143.112 - the 'tells' are clear. You are editwaring and run the risk of being reported & perhaps blocked at WP:AN/EW, note that logging out to editwar is functional socking which is also subject to sanctions. rgds 94.195.46.224 (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Walter, unreferenced trivia / stats should be removed, per WP:V, a fundamental principal. Nothing is gone for ever and can always be added back if references to significant, reliable sources can be provided. The only counter arguments seem solely to be along these lines, which is not really relevant. Fenix down (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a similar concern about trivia creeping into records in Lionel Messi#Records. I think most of it's fine, but then there's what I see as trivia like "Only player to score in 21 different cities in the European Cup" and "Most international goals in a year (club and national team)" (!?!?).

Here's what I see as non-trivial record: benchmarks recognized by a sanctioning body or a widely recognized record keeper like the Guinness Book of Records. So the record entries should mention which entity recognizes the record, or link back to La Liga/UEFA stats articles. What do you all think? 13:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

László Szőke

László Szőke is dead recently.--79.21.34.75 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC) In the page there's this error: Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{" Can someone see the page?

Fixed Giant Snowman 16:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Champions League goalscorers

This list of Top Champions League scorers appears to be missing Wayne Rooney. I would change it myself but am unsure of how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.200.220 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Looks like someone accidentally took him out while trying to fix vandalism. Mosmof (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:ClubFootballFan1

This user appears to be yet another sockpuppet of User:Newestcastleman who has been blocked multiple times. At present, his edits seems rather trivial and somewhat pointless, but perhaps we should keep an eye on him. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have re-opened the SPI for this new sock - Newestcastleman SPI. Feel free to add to it. JMHamo (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

CAF U17 Championship

Someone has nominated the following articles for deletion:

Obviously I'd rather keep them on Wikipedia, but I'm not entirely sure of the rules about whether they meet the criteria for articles. The European equivalents have articles. TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I nominated them, as there is a growing consensus that lists of non-notable players participating in junior competition is a WP:NOTSTATS failure, especially with the number of redlinks contained. JMHamo (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

José Vásquez (Peruvian footballer)

Could some help me verify if José Vásquez (Peruvian footballer) is notable? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Name appears to be José Luis Vásquez, nicknamed "Camote" (which should aid finding sources), refs include this and this and this. Seems to have had a decent career in the Peruvian top-flight, so I would say he is notable. Giant Snowman 23:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Article should be renamed to Jose Luis Vasquez, to reflect its common name.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Premier League Golden Boot FLC

The Golden Boot FLC page has now been opened for about a month now. This is my first football FLC nomination, so feel free to comment on it, especially on any "football-specific" aspects I might've missed. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

AFC needing some help!

Hi folks. Please take a look at this article rotting away in Articles for Creation. Perhaps someone here can review it. Thanks :) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erik Palmer Brown -- SarahStierch (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi @SarahStierch: - the article is about a non-notable player, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

2014_Latvian_Higher_League

Could someone help me fix the map at 2014_Latvian_Higher_League#Stadiums_and_locations. Two teams were originally excluded but readmitted on appeal. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks ok now, 10 teams on map. -Koppapa (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Honda, Error?

When Keisuke Honda has scored a goal for AC Milan?((SERIE A))--Lglukgl (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

15th Jan against Spezia in the Coppa Italia. --Connelly90 09:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Coppa Italia is not Serie A though, Connelly. – Pee Jay 10:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Czech league system

I've just noticed that the articles Czech Republic football league system and Football in the Czech Republic are essentially the same, but the former is more up-to-date and detailed. Any ideas what should be done here? I know it's standard practice to have a "football in X" article for each country, so if we just have one article it should probably be at that title, though I'd imagine it should contain more information than just the structure of the league system. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The "Football in Fooland" articles should be more of a history of the sport in that country, rather than just a description of the current state of the sport there. – Pee Jay 19:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Player representation by club"

Further opinions on the addition of sections like this in FIFA World Cup squads, by Barryjjoyce (talk · contribs), would be welcome. Giant Snowman 15:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is already added to the 2011 AFC Asian Cup squads page. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The flag icons hurt my eyes and probably falls afoul of some sort of accessibility guideline. It's interesting but not especially necessary to understanding the topic. Hack (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: your comments would be appreciated, otherwise I intend to remove the content again based on this discussion. Giant Snowman 12:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Do other sources typically break down the squads in this way? If not, neither should we. – Pee Jay 12:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

IF this is to be included we should definately not use all those flags in "Player representation by club"-section. It is just confusing for the eye to look at that mess. QED237 (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks for raising this issue for discussion, and for pinging me. These "player representation" sections appear in squad articles for several tournaments — World Cup, AFC Asian Cup, the Euro, and others. And it's not just a Footy thing — international tournaments from other sports, such as the Rugby World Cup, also have them. These sections serve a useful function in that they provide some summary statistics regarding the players, leagues, and clubs. Various media articles such as this one discuss the same topic — how many players from which leagues are playing on World Cup squads. I don't detect any persuasive arguments and certainly nothing approaching consensus in support of your proposal to erase these sections from the World Cup squads and possibly other various football tournament squads articles. I think this discussion is headed for a no consensus close.

One issue where there does appear to be a consensus is on the overuse of flags. I have no objection to an editor toning down the use of flags, at least from the "player representation by club" part of the section. I'll even volunteer to do that myself, although I will wait a day or two before doing that to see if anyone objects. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Would the following table be an improvement over the current version of the table? There are fewer flags, less visual clutter, and easier to quickly identify the clubs and leagues that are supplying the most players. I'll wait for feedback from other editors before making the change in the article itself. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Players	England	Spain	Italy	Germany	France	Holland	Other UEFA	Other Regions
13		Barcelona
12	Chelsea Liverpool
11				Bayern Munich
10	Arsenal Tottenham Hotspur	Real Madrid C.F.	Internazionale				Panathinaikos
9			Juventus	Wolfsburg		Ajax
8	Portsmouth		Udinese
7	Everton Manchester City	Valencia	Milan	Hamburg Stuttgart			Benfica	April 25
6				Bayer Leverkusen Werder Bremen	Lyon	Twente	Porto	Olimpia
5	Fulham West Ham United Wigan Athletic Manchester United	Sevilla	Napoli Roma		AS Monaco Marseille Valenciennes	AZ	Galatasaray Basel	Guadalajara Motagua Wellington Phoenix Amrokgang

I don't think we need the old format, and I don't think we need the new format. It smacks of WP:OR and WP:NOTSTATS. If there is a reliable source which says "8 of the France squad play at Y club" or "7 of the Germany squad play club football in Y country" then we should have prose that reflects that, but nothing else. Giant Snowman 10:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Several articles discuss the makeup of the national squads. For example, this article discusses the makeup of the U.S. squad: ("Seventeen players are based in Europe, with just four from Major League Soccer and two from Mexican clubs. Of the European group, eight play in England, three in Germany, two in Scotland, and one each in Denmark, France, Italy and Norway.") and this article discusses which English teams contribute how many players to the various World Cup squads.

As for your suggestion that the information be in prose and not tables, I am not aware of any such requirement on wikipedia. Indeed, the WP:NOTSTATS policy suggests that summary tables are encouraged ("consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists."). Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem I have with this table is that it is incomplete, both in the current article version and the revised version above. It does not contain all of the clubs supplying players to the North Korean squad. Such a table needs to be complete or not there at all. There is no note to indicate that 5 players is a minimum requirement, nor do I think such a note is desirable as essentially a random cut off point falling foul of OR. Essentially, I am not sure what the table is meant to be doing in it's current incomplete state, it is confusing and fundamentally misleading for people who look at the page at a glance. It would be useful I think if Barryjjoyce (talk · contribs) could redo the table so that it includes a list of all clubs, even if they only supply one player. I think this would then show a far too cumbersome list. My preference is along the lines of GS's view. For clubs such as Barcelona, they probably warrant sourced prose comment as they are providing a significant number of players, for many of the others, I do not think it is a point that has received a great deal of coverage. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this table was ever intended to be a complete listing, nor do I think that would be desirable. I think the original intent of the section was to identify the clubs that contribute the most players to World Cup squads. A number of articles on major tournaments — such as this one and this one include tables that measure the top ten something or other. Perhaps if we re-name the section "clubs with most world cup players" and limit the table to the top ten or something like that, you may find that clarifies things. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It would clarify things, but "most" is subjective and would be down to a decision by an individual editor. Personally, if there is sufficient discussion around, say, Barca supplying the most players, that that should be mentioned in sourced prose in the article. I can see how that would be achievable. What I am not sure about is the notability of, say, Fulham, providing 5 players. I don'tthink that has been discusseed in depth anywhere and is therefore not required for the article. Essentially any cut off point is arbitrary if the clubs in question have not received significant reliable coverage about the number of players and therefore undesirable. Fenix down (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source for player information (i.e. height)

Hi, I have had a minor dispute at Cristiano Ronaldo with an editor that started when he said Dont change when he suddenly changed source and height of the player. That got me going a bit because you should not telll others what to do or not to do(he has a habbit of doing so even if someone told him to stop a few months ago). I reverted him asking what was wrong with the current source (a bit since he told everyone not to edit, which reacted on, I admit to that) and then he changed height again without even changing source this time. Myself I reverted twice and asked him to discuss, but now I have stopped not interested in reaching 3RR.

Now I am asking WT:FOOTY for help what source to use and why (what is most reliable), and have in mind WP:PRIMARY should be avoided. The source in the article was previously UEFA and now the editor wants RealMadrid as source. Perhaps the source the editor wants to impose is best but he should not do it without disussion, when he has been reverted, and it is considered a primary source to avoid? QED237 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

More information is needed, such as do both state the same height. Primary sources do not always need to be avoided and where information between sources is doubted I would tend to find the primary to be more accurate. Height of a player is one of those situations as a player will have all this information taken when they join the club. However if both the sources agree then I would use the secondary source. Blethering Scot 00:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The height of individuals may vary by as much as one inch during the 24 hours cycle, so at best it can be said that someone is "about" six feet etc. Also, growth can still occur in adulthood (up to 20-21 years old), which may potentially affect many players (and the majority of new Wikipedia entries are for young footballers). 46.238.126.143 (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, both are probably rigth although different. Doesn't matter to me which is used. -Koppapa (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The height between the two soures differs by 1cm and I have not had the time to look up other soures as to what they say. With a little distance to it perhaps the primary one could be used, I just lost my head a bit when a non-regular editor came and changed a source with the edit summary "Dont change" and he has a habbit of doing this when looking at his talk (told to stop before) and he continues according to his contribs. He should not just change source without explanation or discussion and definately not tell others not to edit. QED237 (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This should be a matter for the article talk page; list all the possible heights as per relevant RS and then come to an agreement about which is correct. Giant Snowman 12:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

To space or not to space

Let me start by saying that this is the dumbest thing to edit war over. A user, who has been adding archived URLs to several football articles, has also been removing spaces used for visual cues and to make selection of words in tables easier. This has happened on articles such as Mehmet Ekici (which is where I first noticed it), Michael Ballack, Oliver Bierhoff and Oliver Kahn. The editor has been asked by several editors not to, but it doesn't seem as though that has helped sway the editor. Should we care? Should we just leave it as the archives are helpful and the players are for the most part no longer active? In a project that has very few formatting guidelines, should we create such a guideline to help editors? Asking for feedback. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This WikiProject might not have many formatting guidelines, but Wikipedia as a whole certainly does and that is what we should follow. WP:MOS. Giant Snowman 12:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Input requested on Talk:Expansion of Major League Soccer

I got caught in an edit war with user Clematis1378 at Expansion of Major League Soccer - my general issue with the user is that the edits tend to be overly Cosmos-centric, but that could just be my point of view. I'm already at two reverts so I'm going to stop editing and I've been involved in a few too many disputes with Clematis, so a fresh perspective would be appreciated. Mosmof (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

FIFA Club World Championship 2000 - edit player hyperlink

Hi guys,

I was wondering if someone could guide in editing a player hyperlink at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_FIFA_Club_World_Championship_squads

My name is Mustafa Mustafa and I was a player for the South Melbourne Soccer Club during the FIFA Club World Championships in 2000. I have checked each of the player profiles created on Wiki however there is one error I would like to rectify. When clicking on "Mustafa Mustafa" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Mustafa), users are redirected to a Greek Politician which is the incorrect person. I am now looking to update this page and redirect wiki users to a newly created profile.

Can you tell me: 1. How can we remove the hyperlink from "Mustafa Mustafa" in the South Melbourne player squad? 2. How do I create a new article to detail my football career before applying this correct hyperlink?

Thanking you all in advance, Mustafa. Musti mus (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Musti mus: - the National Soccer League was not fully-professional, si it is unlikely you meet notability requirements for an article about you sorry. Giant Snowman 13:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi @GiantSnowman: - Thanks for your response. Agree the National Soccer League was semi-pro at the time however I think that is irrelevant. It was the National Association football league, a member of the Oceania Football Confederation and subsequently a recognised full member of FIFA. I think the notability requirements may need to be updated to reflect such scenarios as there are many around the world. Any Top level league that is a member governed by FIFA should qualify for notability requirements.

That aside, are you able to help with removing the hyperlink? Cheers again. Musti mus (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The link has already been removed. Giant Snowman 08:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

John Marquis career stats

John Marquis has just begun a second loan spell with Northampton Town, both in the same season, and broken up by a game at parent club Millwall. Should the stats be amalgamated in one row in the stats table, or as two separate? Giant Snowman 18:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Same row in the stats table, separate spells in the infobox, IMO. See Jack Butland at Cheltenham. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Same situation with Tom Thorpe, whose loan from Manchester United to Birmingham City was cut short at the start of the month due to injury before he returned to Birmingham today. I feel like since this is effectively a loan extension (he would have remained on loan to Birmingham had he not been injured), the loan should be on the same line in both the infobox and the stats table. – Pee Jay 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not quite the same. Marquis played for his parent club between the loan spells, Butland was on the bench for his parent club between the loans, so they're unarguably separate spells. After Thorpe returned to MUFC for treatment, they ended the loan on 3 March, so formally, it's two separate spells for him as well. However, I agree that the loan would have been continuous had he not got injured, so it might as well be just the one entry in the infobox. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I presume players return to parent clubs (unofficially / without it being reported) if they pick up a knock. That does not mean they are separate spells - whereas with Butland/Marquis, as they were squad members at the parent club in the intervening time then that is where their registration lay. I would presume that Thorpe remained registered to Birmingham the entire time he was back with Man Utd. Giant Snowman 21:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

FIFA Eligibility Rules (Club template)

I know this is going to sound silly, but can we get confirmation that "FIFA eligibility rules" means what nation the team is eligible to play for under FIFA first and foremost, and not "the last national team the player has played for, even if he is not eligible?" There are certain people here who seem to believe that "FIFA eligibility rules" means the latter, so that players who are no longer eligible to play for a country (because, in that case, he had relinquished eligibility in favor of another country) still have their previous country's flag. What if that player has lost or denounced citizenship? What if the country no longer exists or is recognized by FIFA? If the rule is "last country played for," it should so state. If it says "FIFA eligibility," then it is not hard for that to mean precisely that, at least for people who are eligible for selection for only one country at present time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I should add this is regarding footballer Julian Green at FC Bayern Munich (discussion at Talk:FC Bayern Munich) who is about to change national team from Germany to US so there has been some editors wanting to change flag of the player in "current squad"-section. The same issue that has been before with for example Diego Costa. QED237 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The flag shouldn't be changed until the player has begun playing for another country. Hack (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if text says eligibility, i'd go with USA for Green now. -Koppapa (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Other than "that's what we do," what's the basis for this? He is not eligible for Germany. Did we keep Yugoslavian flags on all players who were capped at the youth levels of Yugoslavia until they were capped by another team, once Yugoslavia was broken up? Green is as eligible for Germany as those players were eligible for a nonexistent Yugoslavia. There's no logic for leaving a German flag along with a statement that the flag is based on FIFA eligibility rules. If you leave the German flag up, you need to amend the template note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.240.14 (talk • contribs)

The text is unclear. It says "defined under FIFA eligibility rules". According to FIFA Green is only eligible to play for the US. The flag should be changed or the text should reflect the arbitrary standards.--24.253.243.188 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor trophies, international goals and notability questions

Hello. I would like to see community opinions on a few topics that I'm frequently dealing with while editing articles.

1. In titles/honors section of articles for players and clubs, is it okay or not okay to mention titles for a) low division leagues, b) minor international tournaments (like the ones from this article and other domestic competitions that fall into friendly or amateur category? (My own opinion is that we shouldn't add any of these, but they're sometimes added by other users to my watched pages and this frustrates me).

2. International goals tables in players articles. They're sometimes added to the players with only a few (even one) international goal. I think it would make more sense to mention it in prose, a table with one or two rows (and even expandable at times) is just ugly. Is there any consensus on this?

3. Is it okay to redlink players from top-division teams that don't meet FOOTY at the moment? For example young players who sometimes sit on the bench but are yet to make an debut appearance?

4. If a player made appearance in official international club match (say, Europa League) between two clubs from fully-pro leagues, but didn't actually play any league games, is he notable enough for his own article? Same question for national cup match. -BlameRuiner (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned:

1. Definitely not in terms of minor international tournaments, and to be honest most of the articles on that list are not notable in my opinion anyway. However, I see no reason why a lower league title should not be mentioned.

2. I know some editors don't like them, but the tables can be collapsable and as long as they are I don't have any issue with them.

3. If a player is part of the first team squad (i.e. not reserves or academy), I see no reason why not.

4. My understanding is continental matches (not qualifiers) between two FPL teams is sufficient for WP:NFOOTY. The same for cup competitions. NFOOTY is not specific on this but AfD consensus exists. Fenix down (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

On 3 I would say definitely no, as it encourages editors to create articles on players who may well never pass NFOOTY (it does happen.......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

On 2, tables shouldn't be collapsible: see MOS:COLLAPSE. On 3, agree with Chris: we shouldn't be linking non-notable people. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers stats

Hello all, I'm trying to expand the Ernie Thompson (footballer) article, but I don't seem to be able to find season-by-season stats for his time at Blackburn Rovers. Does anyone know of a website that might be able to help? We don't seem to have a Blackburn Rovers site listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links. – Pee Jay 16:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I can create an infobox based on his overall career details per Joyce, if that's any help. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's cool, I've already done an infobox in an edit I'm waiting to save. I really just need season-by-season stats for each of his clubs, mainly Blackburn. Thanks anyway. – Pee Jay 18:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NexLions Cup

Dear football experts: This submission is currently waiting for a review at Afc. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be a non-notable youth tournament. At most we should have a redirect to Football in Singapore or similar. Giant Snowman 19:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a note to the submission to the effect that it doesn't pass notability as a sports club and shouldn't be accepted unless it passes WP:GNG. —Anne Delong (talk)

Monitoring Jamesson123

Hello everyone,

I was hoping the project could do me a favour. I'm about to go on holiday, and while perfectly happy putting most of my Wikipedia activities on hold for a week, there is one thing that may need attention before I get back. I suspect Jamesson123 (talk · contribs) may be a sockpuppet of 089baby (talk · contribs). His five edits so far are innocuous enough, but we are talking about an account interested in Cambodian football, the sole subject of interest to 089baby, that was registered on the same day as a rangeblock of IP's used by 089baby comes out of effect.

What I was hoping the project could do is monitor his edits in my absence and take appropriate action if it turns out that he is a sockpuppet. There are two good indicators of sockpuppetry in this case. First the recreation of articles, in particular on any of the following subjects: Albirex Niigata Phnom Penh FC, Asia Europe University, National Police Commissary, Western University FC, Um Vichet, Boris Kok, Samreth Seiha, Thierry Chantha Bin, Sar Sophea, Sok Sovan, Dani Kouch, or Nen Sothearath. Watch out for alternate spellings or unnecessary disambiguation. The second is a significant number of edits to articles created by 089baby. If either of these things does happen, either start a new WP:SPI or inform any of the admins already involved in the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/089baby/Archive. Your help is much appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've created a new addition to the SPI. Giant Snowman 19:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Keith Costigan

Another editor has tagged Keith Costigan for proposed deletion with the concern "Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Apears to meet NFOOTBALL, I'll do some digging for sources later. Giant Snowman 13:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: There's a lack of reliable sources about his playing career. He may meet GNG for being a TV Analyst but there are not many reliable sources about that either. Have a look at this web article - "His wikipedia page indicates that he is a native of Ireland, and played at a series of clubs in Ireland, but no dates are given, and frankly the entry reads like a plagiarized official bio." Not good really. JMHamo (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mikemor92: What's your source for Costigan playing in the A-League (1995–2004)? Have you a link? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I found this, which should be enough to prove he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. I'll clean-up the article. JMHamo (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC on naming

Please see the further RfC here. --John (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This has now closed in favour of using "soccer" on Australian articles, with certain exceptions. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and its talk page for details. --John (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:TwoLegResult

Brought up in the champions league article. Should team 1 and team 2 be changed to home team in leg 1 and home team in leg 2? Or are there instances where that doesn't apply? -Koppapa (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first thing to my mind is when the order of ties is reversed, which seems to be a fairly commonplace situation. C 679 22:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In those cases we have previously changed place of "team 1" and "team 2" with a note saying they switched places. QED237 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I changed it for now. We'll see if problems pop up. -Koppapa (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't see a reason for doing this. A note if it changes like mentioned and good. Kante4 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't about reversal of legs, it's just that a reader currently doesn't know if team 1 or team 2 hosts the 1st leg. -Koppapa (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In Europe the first named team ALWAYS is the supposed home team. I don't know a single person that would think otherwise. Not a reason to change it. Kante4 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a two legged tie. The first team can't always be the home team. It's only your football know-how, that you know team 2 hosts the second leg. -Koppapa (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that the team which is listed first, has the home advantage first. If not, we write down a note, whcih has been done for years. Don't see a valid point/reason to change it. Kante4 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Goran Popov

Can someone please sort out the career stats table for Goran Popov? I've tried, but I can't seem to sort it out properly. It's a rate mess! Cheers IJA (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! IJA (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Gabon d1 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues

Fr.wikipedia.org says that the Championnat du Gabon de football is f. professional:

Le premier championnat professionnel du Gabon débute le vendredi 19 octobre 2012 à Libreville avec 14 équipes en lice. Certains clubs ont sollicité l’appui des techniciens de niveau très relevé. C’est Raymond Ndong Sima, Premier ministre gabonais qui a donné le coup d’envoi de ce championnat. L’Union Sportive de Bitam (USB) empoche les 3 premiers points de ce championnat d’élite en battant le champion en titre, le CF Mounana par une courte victoire d’1 but à 0. Le but des Bitamois est marqué à la 39e minute par Avébé, à la suite d’un corner mal négocié par la défense adverse. Le CF Mounana, malgré de nombreuses tentatives d’incursions dans le camp de l’USB, ne parvient pas à rééquilibrer le score. Le champion en titre perd son premier match du National-Foot 2012. Le gouvernement, pour soutenir les équipes engagées dans ce premier championnat professionnel, dégage au cours de cette saison sportive une enveloppe de près de 10 milliards de francs CFA (soit 15 244 900 millions d’euros). Cela permet aux clubs de s’attacher les services des joueurs de niveau international. Le Missile FC par exemple recrute le meneur de jeu des diables Rouges du Congo, Harris Tchilimbou et l’ex capitaine d’Africa Sport d’Abidjan, Dalla Coulibaly, tandis que le FC Sapins, où évolue le capitaine des Panthères Daniel Cousin, s’attache les services de l’attaquant français Laurent Gagnier. L'Athletic Club de Bongoville, dans la province du Haut-Ogooué, pour sa part, récupére une bonne partie d’anciens internationaux, entre autres Rodrigue Moundounga, Boris Nguéma, Cédric Moubamba et Do Marcolino. Ce club ambitionne un meilleur positionnement en fin de championnat, voire de gagner la Coupe du Gabon 2013. Des coachs de niveau élevé sont appelés par les équipes. C’est le cas d’Ivica Todorov, ancien entraîneur du Congo-Brazzaville qui se trouve à la tête de Mangasport de Mounana ou de Yves Brecheteau, ex adjoint de Robert Nouzzaret à Saint-Étienne (1998-2000) à la tête du FC Sapins. L’ancien coach du Togo, Tchanilé Banna est recruté par Nguen’Asuku de Franceville.

+Source →http://www.africatopsports.com/2013/12/01/foot-gabon-top-depart-du-championnat-de-d1-le-22-decembre/--Lglukgl (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So, what should we do about this top league?

That doesn't say fully professional. And i doubt any player having made his first cap meet GNG criteria. -Koppapa (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. "Professional" does not equal "fully professional", players from this league would need to demonstrate the level of coverage required by GNG from the off. Fenix down (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion at WT:FPL please? Giant Snowman 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

C.F. Estrela da Amadora

In the page there are some errors in the infobox--Lglukgl (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Giant Snowman 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

National military association football teams

Are these 15 Military football teams notable in your opinion? National military association football teams.. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No; I would suggest redirecting to the relevant articles on each country's armed forces or International Military Sports Council. Giant Snowman 19:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirected all 15 articles to International Military Sports Council. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Monaco

The article on AS Monaco FC has them founded in 1919 and 1924, with a date to the day for both. I've tagged for contradiction and await a correction '''tAD''' (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Mo Shariff's place of birth

There has been a query on QPR player Mo Shariff's place of birth. Cg29692 has included some sources on the article Talk page but the official QPR site says Burundi, which it is now but could be completely wrong and very unlikely. Can we try to get consensus on the Talk page to stop a future edit war happening. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you check a player for me?

It looks as though Timoty Castagne hsa not played any pro games yet (despite the claim in the infobox), but the editors here now better where to check than I do. Fram (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Soccerway, his only involvement with the KRC Genk first team has been as an unused substitute. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks (and to Daemonic Kangaroo for the Prod!) Fram (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martyn Tyler

Hello again, football experts! Here's an old Afc draft that was never submitted. Is this a notable subject? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes. The "Commentator of the Decade" swings it for me, as does the fact the article's in good nick and we have others, such as Richard Keys to set the trend. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We already have an article at Martin Tyler. Hack (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the article at Martin Tyler, with the spelling changed to Martyn with a y and then copied over to AfC. Whatever turns them on... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) Well it seems that "Martin" is the correct spelling, so I am sorry that I was taken in by this and wasted everyone's time. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOOTYN and the FFA Cup

According to this essay, participation in a national cup is sufficient to prove notability of a club. The FFA Cup in Australia includes all clubs affiliated to Football Federation Australia or an FFA affiliate. This means that the vast majority of clubs in Australia are presumed notable despite most never having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Given the myriad previous discussions on the inadequacies of this essay, could we have a note added to top of this page to the effect that it should not be used in deletion discussions? Hack (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, FOOTYN is just an essay and GNG is the most important guideline. For most clubs that would be eligible for that competition, there would be clear GNG issues. FOOTYN still serves a useful purpose as an initial step in the notability process, namely, if a club has never participated in a national competition then it is highly unlikely that they will pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, given that the qualifying rounds in this comeptition are done on a regional basis, the competition is not truly a national competition until it gets to the round of 32, so I would say only teams who get past the qualifying stage would count per FOOTYN in terms of notability. Fenix down (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

FOOTYN needs re-writing/updating to reflect current Wiki-wide guidelines and current WikiProject consensus on every aspect of notability. (categories, templates etc. as well as articles). Giant Snowman 17:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Results templates and tables

It was brought to my attention that {{footballbox_collapsible}} may violate MOS:COLLAPSE. Does it? If so, is there some other way of presenting match information for club seasons as {{footballbox}} takes up too much space, but is ideal for tournament results. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The phrase is question is, "collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text," so is this template violating that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It does. It only shows the opponents, match number, date, score, and the host city. Everything else in the template isn't visible because the template collapsed and hid the other information. Kingjeff (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It pretty clearly fails because you can't put that information elsewhere in the article. I would suggest that the collapsibility function be disabled. Hack (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Just use a wikitable. There also is Template:OneLegResult-plain -Koppapa (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If it clearly fails, then we should tag the template as well and arrange to have the template fixed. The main issue with that template is that it clearly marks win-loss-draw results which otehr templates don't do and wikitables don't make easy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

{{OneLegResult-plain}} offers less information than the collapsed version of footballbox_collapsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The colouring functionality should be transferred across to {{football box}} and the current {{footballbox_collapsible}} should be redirected. Hack (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't just redirect though since there are other parameters present in footballbox_collapsible not present. But that would become obvious as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: just use the tabular format in place at 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season (and other MUFC season articles). You can colour each row, and it includes all relevant information to a club season article – you really don't need to know who the opposition scorers were. – Pee Jay 13:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that tables are a higher hurdle for new editors. Let's look at that paragon held-up by both Kingjeff and PeeJay2K3.

Which is easier, remembering which of three bgcolor to add or adding a value of W, L, D or T beside result =?

And while I like linking the score, it's not as obvious as linking next to a result parameter. I would do away with a score parameter altogether since it leads to using a hyphen, just have a goals1 and goals2 parameter instead, but that's a wish list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Instead of treating our editors like morons and assuming they can't handle a simple bit of wikicode, why don't you show a bit of trust in them? You have no empirical evidence that people don't know the difference between "#FFCCCC" and "#CCFFCC", and the only reason a lot of people put a hyphen instead of an endash in scorelines is because most of them don't know how to make the endash or they don't understand the difference; I know I didn't when I first started, but I learned. And besides, the tabular format takes up far less space than the {{footballbox}} template as there is absolutely no unnecessary whitespace. – Pee Jay 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't assume they are morons. I take great offence at your constant badgering PeeJay2K3. It's rude at best, demeaning at worst and an attempt to control in the extreme.

I also didn't write that people don't know the difference between the bgcolor values.

What I wrote is that it's a hurdle for new editors and that using parameters is easier, not just for new editors but for all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of templates on club rosters

I have noticed that a few major club articles do not use the {{updated}} or {{as of}} templates. What is the benefit of using those templates over using plain text? Is there a need to standardize on one or the other, or plain text? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Twofold benefit I'd guess. As the documentation of the "as of" template shows, it categorises dated statements, and furthermore also shows the date in your date format preference (if you have one set). Jared Preston (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So should we use one rather than plain text? If so, which? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest using {{as of}} if one was to go around updating squads and wanting to use a template. Jared Preston (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

FA Cup teams

I have finished creating very basic stubs about every team to have played in the FA Cup proper, full list can be found here - any help in expanding would be much appreciated, seeing as most of these teams have been defunct for a long time and online, reliable sources are few and far between. Giant Snowman 17:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Birmingham Corporation Tramways are featured in depth in one of the Gone But Not Forgotten books, which I have, so I will expand that one at some point -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I recently acquired the Denied F.C. book, so I will see if any of them feature in that.

On a possibly related note, do we have a "resource pool" anywhere? I was thinking it might be useful to have a list of all the various history books that project members have, so we can request info from each other where we may have it. Number 5 7 09:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! Number 5 7 09:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, having seen that list and found it rather difficult to navigate, I've started splitting it up into more manageable chunks. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Booklist/reorg if anyone wants to help (I'm off now). Cheers, Number 5 7 20:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Match fixing in association football

Match fixing in association football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bringing attention to this article, of which I have been the main contributor so far. Consequently I think it is OK, but given the subject matter felt it best to raise it here and ask for further input from both a BLP and a content perspective. Giant Snowman 17:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ray Kelly played for Manchester City?

Can someone please confirm if Ray Kelly (footballer) played a league game for Man City against Huddersfield Town on 7 November 1997? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Soccerbase........ cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, many thanks Struway2

JMHamo (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional sources here and here. Giant Snowman 20:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines and MoSes for football-related articles

For uniformity, it would beneficial to have editing guidelines and a MoS for football projects. There are issues, such as a player's "nationality" that need to be written down. The recent discussions at Julian Green made that clear. Codifying preferred page layout, tables or templates, etc. so that there's one place to which editors may refer and discuss those issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There is already... Player MoS... unless you mean something else? JMHamo (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Good start for players. It doesn't discuss how to define nationality, particularly in the lede/lead. Leagues and teams, both club and national, could use similar treatment. Documentation explaining when to use flags and not to use them would also be good. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Darrell Clarke

Hi, does anyone have any idea where I might find Darrell Clarke's 2010/11 stats for Salisbury City in the Southern League? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Could anyone find and input some stats for Peter Storey? He played for Arsenal and Fulham so I am sure they are out there in a fair few books. Thanks.--Echetus Xe 17:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about Clarke, but Storey's Arsenal stats are available here on Andy Kelly's first team line-ups site. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Echetus Xe 12:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Japan national football team results and fixtures

What do you think about the sub-article titles on Japan national football team results and fixtures for each decade.. I feel it should be renamed to keep it consistent with similar.. so for example Japan national football team results (1950–59) rather than Japan national football team results (1950–1959)? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:DATERANGE applies and would support your change. EddieV2003 (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Quillan Roberts

Could an Admin please restore Quillan Roberts as he now passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz has provided this link for reference. Thanks. JMHamo (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's a better reference [1] Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Done Giant Snowman 08:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

FIFA World Rankings Yearly Top 10

This seems random, doesn't it? -Koppapa (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It should be deleted.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 06:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have PRODded. Giant Snowman 12:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Now at AFD. Giant Snowman 12:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, GiantSnowman.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sam Oji

This image has been removed persistently from Sam Oji by the subject himself, Oji187 (talk · contribs), but hre hasn't explained why he has been removing the image. There doesn't appear to be anything untoward with the image, so I see no problem including it. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Can see nothing wrong with this image. The image contributor has a history on Commons of images taken at Tamworth's ground and appears to have some close access to players. This is just another of those.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Alen Halilovic

Hi friends, you all ready know that FC Barcelona has been banned from two successive transfer windows by the FIFA. At the same time, you know that Alen Halilović as well as Marc-André ter Stegen has joined Barcelona. (The club has confirmed the news in their website, so we cannot call these news as transfer speculations.) But the ban can be withdrawn, about which I am not going to write. All I want to know is, should we include these informations that they have joined the club in the respective pages of the players or remove them for the time being or follow an alternative? Further comments/suggestions are welcomed. RRD13 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, and as far as RS are reporting it, the players will join when the transfer window opens in Spain because the deals were signed before the transfer ban was put in place. Giant Snowman 17:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there's no contract with ter Stegen: there's certainly nothing on Barcelona's website. As to Halilovic, the article shouldn't say he's joined Barcelona, because he hasn't, yet: a deal has been signed for him to join once the transfer window opens. But I think at the moment, the current wording of the article is about right: i.e. that a deal has been signed, blah blah, but the transfer ban has cast doubt on the move. There's a lot of confident bluster from last week with Halilovic's lawyer, Dinamo Zagreb etc saying yeah, course it'll go through, but as far as I can see, there's been nothing substantive since, and certainly no clarification from anyone who might actually know.

This next bit is original research, i.e. my personal opinion: the fact that there hasn't been anything substantive since, rather implies that Barcelona fear the Halilovic transfer would be caught in the ban. But that's purely my interpretation and doesn't count for anything. Thanks for asking. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Alen Halilovic's Barcelona move 'will go through despite transfer ban'. Giant Snowman 19:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that's his lawyer's opinion from a week ago. He may be right, but we don't know. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The contract is not with immediate effect. Players officially transfer teams when the transfer window opens up. What we do know is that there was a contract signed prior to the transfer ban and that Barcelona are banned from the transfer market for the transfer window he is suppose to join them. Kingjeff (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential DYK

I have created Pike's Lane, the ground at which both the first Football League goal and first League hat-trick were scored. I've nominated it for a DYK, but it still hasn't been reviewed. If anyone could have a look, it's at Template:Did you know nominations/Pike's Lane. Shame I didn't do this for the 125 year anniversary though. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Date formatting standards

Hi, just want to check project standards re date formatting following this diff. Which is the standard between 1931–32 and 1931–1932, and between 1933–49 and 1933–1949, bearing in mind that the context here is years and not seasons? I'm assuming that for a season, the standard is ccyy–yy, but am I right? Thanks. GnGn (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 144#Date range redux, the relevant section of the MoS was changed to reflect the de facto consensus, which this project follows, that infobox tenures use full years. Please see WP:DATERANGE (under Other notes):

A range of sports seasons in an infobox may also be written as 2005–2010.

You are indeed right that the standard for a season outside the infobox is ccyy–yy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Struway2. GnGn (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

European Classic

This article needs review and additional verification. It also can contain original research. XXN (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Should be deleted. At AfD now... JMHamo (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't usually list four finalist from a pick list

But https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_UEFA_Champions_League_Final&oldid=603755864&diff=prev And of course it's PeeJay2K3 who will edit war to have his way again so I'll just report it and let the chips fall Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We haven't don it for World Cup Finals. We haven't done it for previous CL finals. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

By all means remove the list of clubs, but don't delete the "Winner of semi-final 1" or "Winner of semi-final 2" bits. – Pee Jay 22:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal

Hello. I want your opinion for 2 new properties in Wikidata. Pls write your comments to d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization for properties league season (en) and league season position (en). Xaris333 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles. Giant Snowman 19:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990)

I seem to have bumped into some opposition to my attempts to eliminate MOS:FLAG violation and a mis-classification of the Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990) article. I've just had these attempts reverted by two different editors. User:VEO15 and User:PeeJay2K3 insist that the flags are somehow relevant, and that the article is about the match when the title seems to clearly indicate that the match is merely supplying the context for the brawl. I feel that some discussion is necessary, especially as I see there are plenty more MOS:FLAG violations in teams and season articles, such as here, where the flags appear to be totally gratuitous. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:MOSFLAG is a pile of crap when it comes to situations like this (referring only to the Man Utd v Arsenal article). The flags are not being used gratuitously, they are exclusively in the section where the team line-ups appear. They do not take up space unnecessarily and they provide extra visual information for the reader, who has no reason to expect that all the players would be from the country where the match took place, hence why we provide these visual indications to the contrary. Such fastidious, literal adherence to the MOS gets us nowhere, and I suggest that the MOS be changed to cover situations such as this; if the MOS is not changed, I intend to ignore this rule for the benefit of the encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 07:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The guideline is a consensual position that is for the greater good. You may choose not to actively apply it because an article is a bit lacking in colour. But it's not up to you to insist that it cannot be applied just because you reckon it's a pile of crap. FYI, MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspersons says:

Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality (and it is not an exception to #Avoid flag icons in infoboxes). Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise. (emphasis is mine)

In a globalised world, players are pursuing their careers abroad in increasingly large numbers. In the case in question, these flags are used to indicate their legal nationalities. Their use is of no direct relevance to the article. Even if some of these are national squad members, the use of flags to sex up the article against the players' names is gratuitous and a violation of the guideline. If you want to see the guideline changed, please don't edit war against the guideline. Instead, you should be prepared to argue your case at WT:MOS. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with PeeJay's comments about MOS:FLAG. It was dreamt up by a very small number of editors, and is enforced by about three (one of whom seemingly only logs in to remove flags from articles). It does have some useful aspects which have widespread support (such as no flags in infoboxes), but some of its other parts are widely ignored to the benefit of the encyclopedia. As for the IDONTLIKEIT accusation, unfortunately there seem to be several guidelines like this – I have recently seem one "approved" despite there being only four people in favour – and as a result, many deserve to be taken with a pinch of salt, or simply ignored altogether. Number 5 7 11:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with PeeJay too. I would like to see the articles with the flags already removed restored and the script modified to stop this - articles like 2003 Football Conference play-off Final have not been improved by removing the nationality unnecessarily. JMHamo (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: you might be interested in this... Giant Snowman 12:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it a profound disservice to readers that a raft of pretty-coloured postage stamps can be regarded as providing clear, easy-to-understand information. You come up against three issues: (1) readers can't be expected to know which flag goes with which country (certainly the case for me); (2) the use of a flag crowds out the space that should be used to type in the name of each country; (3) often there's an unholy garble of bright colour, which looks dishevelled. Tony (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

1) Our readers are not idiots, and most browsers display the country's name when you hover over the flag; 2) a flag takes us less' space than a country's name; 3) that's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Giant Snowman 15:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the readers are not idiots, but not all browsers have the ability to do hover state (read: mobile and touch devices, screen readers). There's no reason to know the player's FIFA or birth nationality. It's just a pretty picture or superfluous information in a case like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if some browsers can't hover, it's a simple matter to click the flag to check the nation and then click 'Back' to return to the article. It would take a maximum of 15 seconds. – Pee Jay 21:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove the flags per MOS:FLAGS. This guideline is well established. 2620:0:1000:5E01:19B0:C37A:DB07:CBE7 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the above discussion that the articles (not just this one) on which flags have been removed by the script should be reverted and the script modified to stop removing this information. At the very least if the script is removing flags then it should put in place text to cover the situation so that information is not lost. Keith D (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What really needs to happen here is a) editors stop using a script to mass remove flags when there is clear opposition to it (I'll throw my hat into that ring while I'm at it and b) someone needs to start a new RFC about flags on sports articles. I'm away all weekend so cannot. 17:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ohconfucius. What's relevant in this particular article is that players were from club A or club B. Why stop at countries of birth? Why not add all of their dates of birth too? In fact I think it'd be more pertinent to know the ages of the two sides' players in the context of a brawl. Does the article hint at the brawl being nationally/racially motived? If not, why are readers supposed to care where the players were from? There needs to be a serious reason put forth for going against the established MOS.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is primarily about the brawl, yes, but it has been expanded to cover the match as a whole and the consequences of the brawl. As a result, the article should be treated just the same as any other about an individual football match between clubs, and that includes maintaining a level of consistency between such articles – as such, we should include the flags as an indication that the players are not all of the same nationality, nor are they of the same nationality as the club they were representing. – Pee Jay 23:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point. If it is in fact acceptable according to the MOS for football match articles to contain the flagicons, then this article (which is essentially in the same category despite its title) should probably be allowed to follow suit.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeing the articles (It has continued spreading to 2013–14 Premier League article and many more) my opinion is clear. The flags should be used. In this case I dont give much orf MOS:FLAG, everytime in todays football readers and supporters are interested in nationality of the players. Following the players from their country and so on. I like the flags! QED237 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What was "I dont give much orf MOS:FLAG, everytime in todays football" supposed to mean? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Replace icons with plain text nationality links (unless/until consensus at that article says the nationality of the players isn't useful in the article). It is unnecessary, and against MOS:FLAGS in most cases (should arguably be all cases), to use cutesy flag pics as stand-ins for readable nationality information that doesn't present accessibility and other problems. Agree the script should not be removing stuff without replacing the flags with text links. Do not revert to flag-bearing versions of articles, just fix them to use text links. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename article as Manchester United 0–1 Arsenal (20 October 1990) and keep flags in teamsheets. The article is about the match and the current title sensationalises one incident, though that incident has made the match notable. As a general point, I agree no flags should be in infoboxes unless exceptional circumstances prevail. This is a rookie viewpoint, of course, so forgive me if I have overlooked anything pertinent. GnGn (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Support rename. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Will this need a new topic for the mass-removal of flags from the football related articles? From the discussion above it seems that some people aren't familiar with the FIFA eligibility rules at all. Klõps (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment the other antagonists have been invited to discuss this at the proper location but have yet to do so for reasons that only they can elaborate on. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As yet no discussion has been opened at WT:MOS. If you wish to raise the matter there, please do so and let participants here know. I have added two notes to the team details section, one confirming that flagicons indicate represenative nationalities, the other linking to a key for the card, goal, sub icons. GnGn (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - responding to various comments above:

"Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" - the articles in question are about sporting events and the individuals are sports people - they are specifically about an individual in a sporting sense, therefore they don't contravene this guideline.
"I find it a profound disservice to readers thata raft of pretty-coloured postage stamps can be regarded as providing clear, easy-to-understand information." - what do you think flags were originally invented for? They are not a creation of Wikipedia editors - they were created hundreds of years ago (in many cases) specifically to provide clear and easy to understand information about nationality or a sense of belonging of the thing to which they were attached - particularly at at time when most people couldn't read. That is their whole point - each flag is a visual representation of a country not requiring textual explanation, globally recognised as such, and used the world over; online, offline in print and as actual objects. To argue that they are irrelevant decoration is ridiculous.
"readers can't be expected to know which flag goes with which country" - why assume that all readers are ignorant? People may not immediately recognise all flags immediately - I don't - but the point of wikipedia is to impart knowledge, if a person doesn't recognise the flag of a country then they can investigate it and discover what country it is from - that's the point of wikipedia or have we forgotten that? By that argument we should never use any words that people might not immediately recognise either - would you propose that the use of the name The Beatles should be universally replaced with with John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr in case people didn't know who was in the group and maybe thought David Bowie, George Best, Winston Churchill and Thora Hird were the members? No you wouldn't, so why assume that people are too stupid to recognise flags and need to be patronised?
"to use cutesy flag pics as stand-ins for readable nationality information that doesn't present accessibility and other problems." - as above about the whole purpose of flags. As for 'cutesy'? Do you find your national flag cutesy and irrelevant? As for accessibility problems - the icons in question do not pose accessibility problems, they meet W3C guidelines perfectly well so that is a non-argument.
The bottom line is that the nationality of a footballer is relevant because the very nature of the game is that the best players represent their nations, so an understanding of a players nationality is often fundamental. Flags are a worldwide shorthand for showing nationality and I find all the arguments that they are simply gratuitous decoration ridiculous and the idea that nothing that is universally and immediately recognised should be included on wikipedia hugely insulting. It should also be noted that the initiator of this discussion has subsequently unilaterally removed acceptable flag icons from hundreds of match and season articles - all of which should be reverted.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION is a part of MoS. Is there any actual argument for diverging from MoS guidance in this area? I am not seeing it, just a few football fans saying they "like" the flags. We are (or aspire to be) an encyclopaedia, not Top Trumps. If anyone has an actual argument for keeping the flags, please let's see it. Otherwise I support their removal. --John (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why flags should be considered unencyclopedic? There is nothing in WP:ICONDECORATION that says flags should not be used to identify nationality. In this case flags are not being used for decoration, they are indicating nationality as they regularly are in the world outside Wikipedia - to claim flags are nothing but multi-coloured boxes places randomly is a nonsense argument. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Bladeboy1889 has raised some highly significant points especially the problem of Ohconfucius continuing to apply his script across hundereds of other articles while this discussion is ongoing. I've raised an issue at WP:ANI about his activity, which I believe breaches WP:BRD, but I don't seem to be making much progress there as an anti-flag consensus seems to be forming. GnGn (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. No idea where to put this within the discussion thus far, so I'll just stick it here on the end.

Including a nationality column comes down to a judgment call as to its relevance to the list in question. I agree with SMcCandlish above that if the flags were to be removed, they should have been replaced by the country name rather than prejudging that issue by removing entirely. This would allow a consensus to be reached on the pertinence of nationality in match squad lists at all, separate from and independent of the very different matter of including flagicons.

Some relevant bits of MoS are:

MOS:ICON#Appropriate use says that "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags";
MOS:ICON#Use of flags for sportspersons requires RS for representative nationality where alternatives exist;
MOS:ICON#Accompany flags with country names says "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon", and reminds us that using flagicons without the country name can be an accessibility issue;
MOS:ACCESS#Text, while specifically addressing text formatting, says "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other 'hover' text". What that means is, if the information's relevant, then we shouldn't have to go elsewhere to find it; and,
MOS:#Avoid entering textual information as images is self-explanatory, and people here were happy to use it as justification for deleting the "captain symbol", which I believe to be no more nor less accessible than a flagicon.

Incidentally, there are five featured articles about football matches; ~~none of them~~ only one of them lists nationality in the match details, whether illustrated by a flag or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

One of them does, the 1923 FA Cup Final article, but I suppose that's still only one out of five. However, although you may be technically right that the flags should be removed per the MOS:ICON guidelines you posted, I personally think that forcing information about countries to be given textually when we have flags that were designed for this exact purpose (immediate recognition of a nation by its colours, not its name) is wrong and that the MOS should be changed with regard to flags. – Pee Jay 09:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, must have looked at 1956 twice, will edit my comment. And I don't think I've said that flags should be removed, just that they should only be there if nationality is relevant to the context in which they're being used. And if nationality is relevant enough to include, it should be readily accessible to all of us, regardless of our knowledge of flags of all nations, our colour vision, eyesight, quality of internet connection, computer hardware and software available, or need for assistive technology. And that means having words as well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the flagicons would hinder the chances of match articles reaching or keeping featured status; the 1956 Cup Final uses a different layout to most the other matches and looking at the revision histories of the three US Open Cup Finals, they never had the player nationalities in the first place. Of all the Open Cup finals that have an article (six), only four include the team line-ups (1998, 2009, 2010, 2011), three of those are featured and the other includes flags of the players' nationalities but that's not why it isn't featured. Guess it's a case of different strokes for different folks. VEO^onefive 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles. Giant Snowman 19:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Zsolt Pölöskei

The article at Zsolt Pölöskei was deleted and salted in 2011. A new article was created at Zsolt Pölöskei (footballer) in 2012. From what I can tell it does pass WP:NFOOTY guidelines, and therefore should be moved to Zsolt Pölöskei, but I'd like a second opinion. Tassedethe (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

48 appearances in the Nemzeti Bajnokság I, as confirmed by soccerway, means he meets WP:NFOOTBALL and is notable. Giant Snowman 20:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei football-related articles

Which flag should be used to denote the nationality of clubs/players, such as at Chinese Taipei national football team#current squad; the country's official flag (Republic of China) or the footballing one used by FIFA, AFC etc (Chinese Taipei).

I'm inclined to go with the Chinese Taipei flag on the basis of that is the country's nationality as defined by the footballing governing bodies. VEO^onefive 19:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In my experience I have almost always seen the Chinese Taipei flag in use within a sporting context. Giant Snowman 19:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not stats

please take a look at the stats at Yves Zahnd, I removed them per NOTSTATS but the author has re-added them. I think they are overkill. Thoughts? C 679 18:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the two tables are overkill. The standard table (i.e. Wayne Rooney#Career statistics) should be used instead. Number 5 7 18:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Season-by-season apps and goals would be OK but everything else (minutes per goal??) is not needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Article overhauled - not just the stats table but the rest of it as well. Horrendously out-of-date as well as massively unreferenced. Giant Snowman 19:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a bit of background. The author had originally included this screenshot of the statistics table from Zahnd's transfermarkt profile. The image is now up for speedy deletion over copyright concerns, so creating free version of the table presumably seemed the normal course of action for the author. That being said I agree that including the table in its entirety is excessive. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Landskrona BoIS - Need help

Hi! I need support to deal with an editor (User:Boeing720) over at Landskrona BoIS. In advance I apologize for any times I might have crossed a line in terms of temperament and being unfair here. This editor has harassed me in the past and has continue to wage what I feel is a conflict that feels more and more personal. I placed a POV tag at the top of the Landskrona BoIS article to warn readers, there was and still are several examples in the prose where the language is leaning in a certain direction. Since I didn't have the time personally (currently writing my master thesis) to correct the problems I placed the tag, unfortunately I didn't leave a larger description of the POV issue at the talk page like I should have done in the first place. Boeing720 has then proceeded to delete the tag after making very minor changes and declaring for himself that the issue is resolved. He has done this several times despite me trying to explain the issue to him.

It is clearly stated that the tag should remain until the issue is properly solved. I believe that the tag is justified and I am assured that the majority of editors engaged at WP:FOOTBALL will think the same. Despite not having the time, after re-inserting the tag, I did some very minor copy editing and resolved some of the POV issues to show him what the problem was. The response I got was: "And plase stop editing, or in your case, destoy parts" as well as "But You are disturbing my and others paece to get on with the article.". I feel like I have done everything I could do.

I would really appreciate if I could get another editors view on this. And if you agree with me I would appreciate if someone more experienced than me could explain the problem to him. I am aware that I am partly to blame for irritating the editor in question, I should have spoken to him differently at times but I lost some patience after constantly being attacked.

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed a duplicate "Prehistory" section that @Boeing720: added. It seemed pretty nonsensical in parts, had many spelling errors and very strange refs (which quoted swedish parts of the sources which made the section seem suspiciously close to WP:COPYVIO. At any rate, we don't need two identical sections, so I removed the least clear one. What other sections do you have issue with, I notice that there have been a fair few bits edited by the both of you. I don't really see any massive problems with any of the rest of it following a skim read, although some of the tone is a bit "fan-like" it is no worse than hundreds of other club articles. Fenix down (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The worst examples have been removed by now, there are still many minor ones though. The main problem is that User:Boeing720 usually reverts any changes to the article that he doesn't like so I would keep an eye on the article and make sure that he doesn't revert your edits. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've given Reckless a suggestion at the administrational board. To user Fenix, my prehistory part was based entirely on sources, that also non-Swedish users can read by translators. Did You also remove the picture ? Boeing720 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again @Fenix down:, as you may have noticed, Boeing720 has now restored much of the content you deleted, albeit with some changes. Would you agree that the current version has the same problems as the version you edited earlier today? For me it seems like it. I see WP:COPYVIO, and WP:POV issues in the "Roots of football in Landskrona" section. Speaking Swedish myself I can see that Boeing720 has made some direct translations from the references, this surely violates COPYVIO? --Reckless182 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Gérard Jones

Is this individual notable? There's a lot of content and references but I don't think there's much to suggest he passes WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope - well written but lacking in notability. Written as a promotional tool by someone, no doubt an agent, who has also produced similar articles on Ian Burchnall (also looks to be non-notable), Sam Wilkinson (same), and Roger Wilkinson (same), as well as The Football Conference Youth Alliance (unsure on that one, although it is unreferenced). I suggest you PROD all the BLPs. Giant Snowman 18:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

LDU Quito

The LDU / LDU Quito naming edit war between @Digirami: and a number of IPs seems to still be going on, despite the RM in favour of this name. Perhaps this should be locked for non autoconfirmed for a little while? Fenix down (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, it would be useful if others could do the same. Giant Snowman 09:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Diego Trotta POB

He was born in Médanos, but that could be any number of places in Argentina - anybody got any ideas please? Giant Snowman 09:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your favourite website transfermarkt has him down as Buenos Aires, so one could argue it would be Médanos, Buenos Aires. On the other hand, the Spanish Wikipedia has Bahía Blanca as place of birth, just like goal.com. Someone out there has thrown a spanner in the works. Jared Preston (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's more likely to be Buenos Aires, but I can't find any reliable sources to confirm my assumption... Giant Snowman 09:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, unfortunately only a blog, but it does say Médanos, Buenos Aires. Jared Preston (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Marca (a reliable source) says he was born in Bahía Blanca. Jogurney (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, Médanos, BA is located very close to Bahía Blanca so it's quite possible that Marca is reporting the larger city that its readers probably know rather than the small town of Médanos. Jogurney (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hagiology Publishing

About six weeks ago, I posted on the Southampton F.C. talk page to propose that a section in that article about "Hagiology Publishing" be removed. Hagiology is a publishing house that works exclusively on Southampton F.C. history books, and its two principle contributors are fairly well respected in their field. However, they have never been the subject of any reliable, third-party coverage, and the only third-party source used in that section of the article was a BBC story that only mentioned them as the publishers of a new book – the publishing house itself was not the subject of the article, the book was. Six weeks having passed with no reply to my post on the talk page, I deleted the section two days ago, only to finally be met with some opposition from User:Daemonic Kangaroo, who reverted a couple of hours later with no explanation. His actions might have indicated the contrary to my next thought, but I was always led to believe that silence implied consensus, and since no one had replied to my talk page proposal for six weeks, I figured it was a kosher deletion. Bearing in mind that Daemonic Kangaroo is a Southampton fan and the speed with which he reverted me, I have to assume that he has the article on his watchlist (including the talk page), so he must have seen my proposal and chose to ignore it, further enhancing my belief that consensus had been achieved. Unfortunately, what happened next was a sad edit war that should have been called to a halt a lot sooner and has now resulted in Daemonic Kangaroo's retirement from Wikipedia. So first, I want to apologise to the community for inadvertently causing the loss of one of our best editors; and second, I would like to know if my deletion of the content from the Southampton F.C. article was indeed kosher. Thanks, and sorry again. – Pee Jay 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never understood the lack of response to a proposal as consensus to move ahead, but I don't know if that is the commonly held view here. Jogurney (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Stay away from Port Vale articles or I'll have you killed, haha. Oh well, it saddens me to read this but these things happen. Let us hope he sleeps on it and decides to come back to the project. I always thought it was odd that the Southampton article had that Hagiology section.--Echetus Xe 16:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Silence does not imply consensus - but it also indicates there is no opposition, so you were right to remove it. After DK reverted you, it should have gone back to the talk page per WP:BRD. Giant Snowman 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Griffiths‎

User:Truth, reality and justice appears to want to use this page to attack the subject, in clear violation of WP:BLP. Griffiths has been involved in controversial incidents recently, and these have been added to the article in the context of the effects they have had in his career. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I totally deny this accusation made by Jmorrison230582 I have using reliable sources I have attempted to present a far more balanced perspective on this article, Given the multiple incidents of alleged racist behaviour and the way that previously this had been cleverly hidden in the article it would be best to know bring these continuing alleged acts of racism and violence which most often than not bring about police investigation and action against the subject matter. I'd go as far as to accuse (talk) of attempting to protect this individual due to personal reasons. I regard his reverting my previously accepted edits as vandalism. Truth, reality and justice (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Record and the Daily Express are not reliable sources. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed at multiple forums, here and the reliable sources noticeboard is overkill. The latter is most appropriate for this type of discussion. As for the Daily Record and the Daily Express to say they are not reliable sources at all is wrong, they are reliable depending on what they are being used to verify. Also I'm sure JM is more than aware that there are plenty of broadsheets and internet news sites such as BBC & Sky News that have also covered this.Blethering Scot 23:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

1977–78 Nottingham Forest F.C. season

There appears to be two articles on this subject; 1977–78 Nottingham Forest F.C. season and Nottingham Forest F.C. season 1977–78. Barring the season summary, the one with the incorrect title layout — Nottingham Forest F.C. season 1977–78 — seems to be more in-depth. VEO^onefive 19:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Done - histories merged. Giant Snowman 09:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Cal South

Is it notable? CSD A7 used, but I have found news items from secondary sources, a decent amount. @GiantSnowman: and @Number 57: is this a more referenced article than the original deleted in 2008? Murry1975 (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the CSD tag, I don't think it's eligible - but that's not to say it's not still non-notable. It needs to be taken to WP:AFD. Giant Snowman 09:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If you take this one to AfD why not consider the other US state youth soccer association pages (from Template:US_Youth_Soccer_State_Associations)? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Spanish football club articles

User talk:Gringoladomenega has been showing ownership on several prominent football club articles. Examples have been unexplained removal of {{updated}} templates in rosters and changing positions of players against the club roster because a player has occasionally played in a different position. The editor is presently blocked for edit warring, but it would be good to either have a few extra eyes on those articles or have someone watch the editor's actions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Laurent Blanc

I went to Laurent Blanc's page after updating articles following the recent French League Cup Final. On it, I found that the section on an incident in which a secret recorder found a potentially xenophobic proposal which Blanc seemed like supporting (despite later being cleared) had coverage far exceeding that of Blanc's management of PSG and Bordeaux combined - even after I expanded on it. Is this WP:UNDUE or other WP:BLP breach or is there just simply more to say about a controversy than Blanc's club management? I did go to the article talk, but it's been dormant for years. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:A-League team shortcut templates

Aren't we doing away with templates like these? I've just removed a bunch of them at Tom Rogić. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure these have been mentioned before here - but yes, I don't see what purpose they serve. Giant Snowman 21:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

They should be substituted and deleted in my opinion. Serve no purpose. QED237 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Can they be forced to automatically substitute? Hack (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hack - yes, we could run a bot task to subst them all. Giant Snowman 08:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

While we are at it, can we get rid of those little color streams the Aussie clubs have. Look dreadful! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Tusker F.C.

The page Tusker F.C. has problems in the section Squad

Done Giant Snowman 08:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And by done we mean removed! :) --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chad Stuecher

Dear football experts: Well, it's been a while, but here is another old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable player? If so, I can add this. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No; he has not played in a fully-pro league (failing [[WP:NFOOTBALL) and he has not received significant coverage (failing WP:GNG). Giant Snowman 14:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the list of fully professional leagues. That will be helpful. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Team captains

An IP (86.131.155.48) earlier today added a lot of succession boxes of Aberdeen FC captains, but this was subsequently reverted by Giant Snowman. GS suggested to the IP that templates could be created instead. I wonder if there is a more general consensus about this. There are a few Scottish clubs that have captain categories set up (e.g. Category:Rangers F.C. captains), while I have also created an article listing Scotland national football team captains. I am a little uneasy about doing this for clubs, as I am not sure if captaincies are that well recorded at club level. They are usually quite well recorded at international level and it is usually a big deal if the international captaincy changes (e.g. when the FA removed the England captaincy from John Terry). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Succession boxes for notable topics have largely been replaced with template navboxes, so if the topic of 'Aberdeen F.C. captains' is worth listing on an article then a template is what is required. However is the topic even notable? Probably not. Same goes for the Rangers captain category, not a defining characteristic. Giant Snowman 16:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Anon would have a better case if there was a section listing the former captains. At least would show that the topic is of some importance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Even then (see here) that does not mean it justifies a navbox. Giant Snowman 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to nominate the captaincy categories for deletion at WP:CFD? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. Giant Snowman 11:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Was Barca "all conquering"?

Talk:FC Barcelona#Tone issues in lead is discussing a set of two reverts to keep the term in-place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Tagoe

Please see Prince Tagoe infobox.--Lglukgl (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

+Francis Doe +Onyekachi Nwoha infobox.

You're going to have to give us a clue as to what the problem is.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There was some vandalism to the infoboxes which I believe has been fixed. Lglukgl, thank you for the note, but please feel free to be bold and revert vandalism when you spot it. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

UEFA U17/U19 qualifying titles

I would like to rename these articles because each category uses a different format (or even two). Does anyone have any suggestions for a common style?

Men's Under-19 Qualification – Round 1

Men's Under-19 Qualification – Round 2

Men's Under-17 Qualification – Round 1

Men's Under-17 Qualification – Round 2

2006 UEFA European Under-17 Championship elite round
2007 UEFA European Under-17 Championship elite round
2008 UEFA European Under-17 Championship elite round
2009 UEFA European Under-17 Championship elite round
2010 UEFA European Under-17 Championship elite round
2011 UEFA European Under-17 Championship elite round
2012 UEFA European Under-17 Championship elite round
2013 UEFA European Under-17 Championship elite round
2014 UEFA European Under-17 Championship elite round

Women's Under-19 Qualification – Round 1

2010 UEFA Women's U-19 Championship First qualifying round
2011 UEFA Women's U-19 Championship First qualifying round
2012 UEFA Women's U-19 Championship First qualifying round
2013 UEFA Women's U-19 Championship First qualifying round
2014 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship First qualifying round
2015 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship First qualifying round

Women's Under-19 Qualification – Round 2

2010 UEFA Women's U-19 Championship Second qualifying round
2011 UEFA Women's U-19 Championship Second qualifying round
2012 UEFA Women's U-19 Championship Second qualifying round
2013 UEFA Women's U-19 Championship Second qualifying round
2014 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship Second qualifying round

Women's Under-17 Qualification (rounds 1 & 2)

2012 UEFA Women's U-17 Championship qualifying
2013 UEFA Women's U-17 Championship qualifying
2014 UEFA Women's U-17 Championship qualifying
2015 UEFA Women's U-17 Championship qualifying

I think the "year UEFA ... ... Under-NN Championship qualification – First/Elite Round" style could be okay. Maiō T. (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the above post from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 125#"Naming" where it didn't belong. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename? We should probably merge/delete! Giant Snowman 17:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If those are the names UEFA uses for the rounds of their competitions, who are we to argue? It's not up to us to change how these things are titled just because it makes things inconsistent for us. – Pee Jay 19:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the form that Maiō T. suggested is pretty good. MYS 77 ^{talk with me ☺} 01:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to use UEFA's naming. There are several other sources. I'd start by merging the Women's U19, per the 17s discussion, don't know if qualifying or qualification is better suited. -Koppapa (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Koppapa:Let's merge two qual. rounds into one & use the word "qualification" such as 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification and don't forget to the trademark "Under" – click this image. Maiō T. (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Aren't the articles too big to be merged? – Pee Jay 11:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The articles for senior teams use qualifying (see UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying), while the World Cup articles use qualification. EddieV2003 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Africa & Asia articles use qualification – 2015 Africa Cup of Nations qualification, 2015 AFC Asian Cup qualification. Let's move the senior-Euro articles, too. Maiō T. (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Whitehawk FC

Can someone with locking power have a look at Whitehawk FC's page, there appears to be a revision war taking place. The phrase "16 year old Lucas Santos Rodrigues was promoted to the first team squad due to his 3 inch penis" is being constantly inserted/reverted. SAFCJaguars (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. As it was only one editor and one session, it's not worth locking the page, but I've removed the offending material and left the editor a warning. There's a lot of silly vandalism on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you've noticed. Another time, might be quicker to try and remove it yourself. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

British Pathe / Youtube

I'm not sure on Wikipedia's policy on Youtube videos, so I thought to ask here first:

Given that British Pathe have shifted 85,000 videos from britishpathe.com to their Youtube Channel. Can we now 'link to' or 'embed' any of their Football/Soccer videos on Wikipedia, since it's now a open and official public source?

For example, there's a nice little video of a Welsh Cup final, titled: 'Welsh Cup Special (1961)', which I think would be great to add somewhere. There's lots of videos like it - some games even go back to the early 1900's.Roguesoul (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You could use {{Cite episode}} when using it as a reference. Hack (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:YOUTUBE for more information, as well as {{YouTube}} if you want to add it as an external link. Giant Snowman 18:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Paweł Abbott

Could someone give advice as to whether his first name should be spelt Paweł or Pawel? This comment at the talk page by PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) suggests Pawel is correct. I don't know if it counts for much but the subject refers to himself as Pawel on his Twitter account. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't use accents and the like in British English (some exceptions, such as Zoë Wanamaker) and his name is never spent as Paweł instead of Pawel in RS. Giant Snowman 11:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that Abbott has double nationality, see [2] (incidentally the first profile ever added to 90minut.pl). As a Pole, I don't see why he should not be spelt with diacritics. If he wanted to emphasize his British ancestry, he would have called himself Paul. 46.238.126.76 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Because his WP:COMMONNAME is spelt as 'Pawel' and not 'Paweł'... Giant Snowman 19:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Could someone in England have been registered at birth with that accent? Hack (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In Poland he is and always has been known as Paweł, as he rightly should have. Because he is a Polish citizen living (currently) in Poland, Polish media should be consulted to determine WP:COMMONNAME. Why not follow the convention at Jan Banaś, for example (another footballer who was born abroad and not even a Pole in his early years). I'm aware that my objection changes nothing but felt compelled to protest. 46.238.126.191 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As this is the English-language Wikipedia, COMMONNAME relies upon English-language sources - Polish media is irrelevant. Giant Snowman 18:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Hugman book apparently supports the spelling with diacritics. Can anyone with the book confirm this? ~~If not, I agree the article title should be moved to "Pavel".~~ C 679 17:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why "Pavel" and not "Pawel"? Giant Snowman 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say Pawel. C 679 18:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither Hugman nor Rollin use the diacritics in the most recent editions of their books that I have in my collection (both 2009/10). – Pee Jay 19:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Good enough for me, page could not be moved though due to one already existing. Perhaps an admin could do the honours? C 679 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Burgos CF articles merging?

In January 2013 it has been suggested to merge articles Burgos CF and Burgos CF (I). I think it's time to take a decision. XXN (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A discussion was never initiated; I have removed the tags on the pages. If a merger is desired, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging. Thanks, C 679 09:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Burgos CF (I) refers to the reserve ream of Burgos CF. The latter was founded in 1922, the former was founded in 1936. Both teams were disbanded in 1983, and a new club called Real Burgos CF was formed. A different new club called 'Burgos CF' was then founded in 1994. By my reckoning, we have 3 articles about 4 different clubs, we ideally need to do the following:

Move Burgos CF to Burgos CF (1994); this article will be about the existing club only.

Move Burgos CF (I) to Burgos CF (1936); this article will be about the reserve club which existed from 1936 to 1983 only.

Create a new article at Burgos CF (1922); this article will be about the senior club which existed from 1922 to 1983 only.

Turn Burgos CF into a disambig page.

Further thoughts welcome. Giant Snowman 10:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That naming would indicate that both the first team and reserve team of the club active until 1983 were simply called "Burgos CF", that can't be right, surely......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure - and the article claims that 'Burgos CF (I)' (i.e. the reserve team) played in La Liga in the 1970s... Giant Snowman 17:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Could it not be that Burgos CF (I) is simply about the old club and Burgos CF about the new, and the foundation date of 1936 on the former article is wrong? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

National team managerial statistics

Should/Do national team managerial statistics such as for France, Germany, England include only competitive matches or both competitives and friendlies? The concern here of course is that the win % could be warped by friendlies. LRD NO (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably both. That's what most sources do. -Koppapa (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Both, although there really isn't such a thing as a true friendly match in international football. The results are used for the FIFA World Rankings which are then used by FIFA for seeding in the World Cup and its qualification (where necessary). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Both, if that is what reliable sources state. Giant Snowman 12:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2020 bids

Referenced content has recently been removed from UEFA Euro 2020 bids article. Can someone look at it? gogo3o 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season article

Can someone take a look and tell me if 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season is anywhere near GA status or worth submitting for peer review.

on a separate note, having spent so much effort on the article myself can I grade it as B or C on the quality scale myself? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Think a peer review would be beneficial. Without going into detail, there are some areas where prose must be tightened and encyclopedic – "This was a game they had gotten themselves back" for instance. "December started with Norwich on the receiving end of a masterclass from Uruguayan Luis Suárez," reads like something from a fanzine, if Suarez's performance was described as a "masterclass" by a football journalist, attribute it. Lead needs to be expanded, it doesn't give a full summary of the article, but then again the season isn't over. Is a goalscorers or earnt penalties table necessary? A MOS for season articles would help clear this up. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd definitely get rid of the penalties table, it's trivial which goals scored/conceded were penalties, and you wouldn't ever see a table like that in a football encyclopedia/stats book -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I never did like that it was one of the many pointless stats included in previous seasons which got carried forward. It's taken me time to remove all of the ones that were not required. in previous seasons there are things like 'Captains' and 'Starting Formations'. totally unsourcable of course. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There is now a peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season/archive1). Thanks for the advice => Spudgfsh (Text Me!)

Career stats tables

Hi, Italia2006 (talk · contribs) insists on contravening Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics and is merging the division cells in the career stats table at Raheem Sterling. Not the crime of the century, I know, but why have a project-wide MoS if it's not going to be enforced? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm on the side of User:Italia2006 here, and that the MOS needs updating. If the club rows can be merged, why not the divisions? – Pee Jay 21:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay on this one. Giant Snowman 21:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the reason the division cells are divided is due to an accessibility concern, but can't remember what. I seem to remember it being mentioned in the past by Struway2 (talk · contribs); can you help us? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I raised this at the MoS talk page some months ago. No-one replied. The relevant bit read:

what we can't do here is override Wikipedia's Manual of Style by recommending a style that fails WP:ACCESS because screen readers don't read rows with rowspanned cells properly, if that's still the case. It might well not be. Perhaps someone who supports this change could get confirmation from the accessibility project as to whether it's OK or not, then if it is, the change could be proposed and discussed

Should say "rows with multiple rowspanned cells", I think. The first column (clubs) is the row header and should have its scope indicated with ! scope="row" | (see MOS:DTAB), and then the screen reader will associate the header with all rows in that rowspan, but (as was once explained at some featured list review that I was involved with, don't remember what) they get confused if there are rowspanned rows other than in the header cell column. As I say, that may well be outdated advice, but if it is still an accessibility problem, we can't recommend it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is conflicting advice on the accessibility or otherwise of merged cells in data tables. The W3C guidelines don't suggest they are inaccessible [3], however other advice errs on the side of caution suggesting that some older screen readers may be confused by complex layouts and advises avoiding them [4]. Note though that it usually a suggestion and as W3C are the standard guidelines then it becomes a moot point. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Player Information & Statistics in Seasonal Articles

Following a discussion over at Talk:2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season it seems that there is no policy about which player information should be contained in seasonal articles. I would like to reach a consensus on this subject as I believe all articles of the same type should be consistent with each other. Kanoch (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons, which simply needs updating and expanding. Giant Snowman 11:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Simply there has only been 2 edits on the template page since 2007 (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons). I don't expect there will be changes in the template... Also you will never get consistency in the seasonal articles because firstly they are hacked and continued on from the previous season and secondly there are editors who have strong feeling that their template which they have been using is thoroughly correct and everyone must abide by it if they are going to contribute. What I have noticed about the season articles is how woefully not update some of the entries are that they are a misnomer and should be deleted. A lot of them start out gung-ho at the beginning of the season but unless its a major profile team they end up very poor and not up to date.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Minimum expected and definite no-no's

Dumb Question. As I see it, if you look at the information on the numerous season articles there are three types of information.

Information which is considered a minimum for a season article.
Information which we, as a community, have decided violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.
Information which can be argued as useful and can be included when sourced.

Assuming the what is included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons is considered a minimum and is there anything else or conversely an agreed list of things we don't want?

=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

FIFA's website

All links to the FIFA website's reports of World Cup matches have gone dead. --Theurgist (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they changed the prefix from http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/ to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/. -Koppapa (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be valid only for 2010 match reports. I replaced "worldcup/archive" with "tournaments/archive/worldcup" for all 35 URLs in this article (without saving the changes), and only the two URLs for 2010 matches did work. --Theurgist (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right, for earlier reports, they changed the edition parameter to a round parameter and added locationyear like http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1013/results/matches/match=8761/report.html to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/france1998/matches/round=1014/match=8761/index.html That seems tough to change automatically by a bot. -Koppapa (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

True, but as a stop gap we might be able to get a bot to retreieve archived links from 'archive.org'. Giant Snowman 12:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Tehran Football Competitions

We have Tehran Football Competitions, and a number of articles on seasons, like Tehran Football League 1977-1978, Tehran Football League 1978-1979, Tehran Football League 1979-1980, ... These pages have no context, no background, and the only source for them give sme an error.[5].

There are no book sources about this[6], and very few other sources[7], most (all?) of them based on Wikipedia.

So my question is: does this league exist, and is it notable? Fram (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it exists, no it is not notable. PROD the lot. We also need to do something about the article creator, they have a history of creating non-notable, or notable-but-unreferenced articles. Perhaps a CIR block is required? Giant Snowman 12:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Who was the coach of South Korea in 1960?

But when i go to korean template, I see Kim Yong-sik. Who was present at the Asian Cup in 1960?Cordially--FCNantes72 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Upton Park F.C. at 1900 olympic games

Do you know who was the trainer of the team during the tournament?--FCNantes72 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC).

It was the goalkeeper, J.H. Jones. TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Where did you find this information? it's to complete the article about Upton Park FC. Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's in the book GB United by Steve Menary. I'll add a few bits to the article, but there isn't much about the club in the book. TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Gibraltar team name

Hi, I need your help at College Europa A.F.C. I noticed the team when they qualified for 2014–15 UEFA Europa League and noticed the weird punctuation, not being one after the C so i started looking in to it. It seems to me as it should be only FC or F.C. after some google search but there is no official webpage to verify. Could someone please look at it and perhaps move the page (it has been moved twice before by unknown user, without any support for AFC). I have opened discussion with some links at article talkpage. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Formalize "not a scoreboard"

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal to add Wikipedia is not a Scoreboard to create a centralized discussion on the the topic. It would be good to hear from editors who have opinions on the topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fin(n)ish line

Teammates,

does anyone have the slightest knowledge of Finnish to please provide translation to refs #3 through #5 in Rubén Palazuelos' article? Have asked to and fro, no luck still (i.e. the three Scandinavian users i know of, two have "wiki-disappeared", one told me he does not master the language).

Would not like to leave WP (July) without seeing this sorted, to get the job thoroughly done so to speak. Attentively --AL (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

http://translate.google.com/? Giant Snowman 19:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Google Chrome web browser also does automatic web page translation. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, i'll try those! --AL (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTFINISHED. Hope it has the desired effect. Thanks, C 679 09:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

SWA Sharks Football Club (Turks and Caicos)?

Anybody want to weigh in on the notability of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SWA Sharks Football Club? Or find sources for this? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes they're notable, source is here, article needs to be moved to SWA Sharks FC. Giant Snowman 11:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I apparently have a bias

While that may or may not be true, the discussion is whether "football" piped to "association football" should be used in the lede of a major upcoming tournament or whether it should simply be a linked "association football". See Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup#Association football piped to football or not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. A few project members need to discuss is at the article because the consensus is currently to change the lede to read

The 2014 FIFA World Cup will be the 20th FIFA World Cup, an international men's association football tournament

and I know that will annoy several editors here, but consensus will have been established. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree with this suggestion, or alternatively to use "football (soccer)". After all, a minority of the participating countries (Australia, United States) have an alternative primary use for "football". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't open up the can of worms with Australia's 'football', I've lost count of the number of RFCs and admin reports on the subject...! Giant Snowman 11:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not my suggestion, that's the opinion of two editors at that article.

Discussing this here won't change the consensus at the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The current push is to list it as "football (soccer)". Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

In this instance, I can't really see why it can't just be termed "football", the articles are clear that it is about a FIFA competition, so not sure how there could be any confusion. Agree with GS about the whole can of worms but can see where technical confusion might arise when talking about a club however here, there can be no confusion about what sport is being discussed because of the presence of "FIFA". Fenix down (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes the rather large assumption that a reader who is uninformed enough to be confused about what sport is involved would know what "FIFA" is............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems the Americans are winning and it may move all FIFA World Cup articles to "football (soccer)".

No assumptions at all. The links are present. If they don't know what FIFA World Cup means, they are welcome to click it. They may also click football (or hover, if they have the ability as mobile devices do not) and FIFA, which appears later in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I like that you assume everyone pushing for this change is from the U.S. In fact, it's users from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore via the UK, as well as Americans who have suggested this change. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion, stop talking about me and talk about the subject. I fully understand where the term "soccer" is used. If you look at the discussion there, you'll see that. The original editor who suggested the change was an American and that's why I used the term. I am simply reporting back to the project and "Americans" is shorthand for those who favour the inclusion of "soccer" or the expansion to "association football". As a Canadian, I don't have a preference either way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

association football is fine really. -Koppapa (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Got a source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Diego Costa's height

Teammates,

does anyone know what exactly does this mean (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diego_Costa&diff=606818619&oldid=606816534)? What on earth is the "peak height"? Did Costa reach 1,88 then all of a sudden he (and his body!) said "Oh, i liked it better when i was 1,86" and boom! "1,88 is the biggest i'll ever get, and not everyday of my life". And here i was thinking the OFFICIAL club profile sufficed... --AL (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Both UEFA and his club say 1.88; while others do say 1.86 I would go with the official sources. Giant Snowman 18:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Inter-Cities Fairs Cup

There is a current debate over whether the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was a major honours over at Newcastle United F.C.. Despite my suggestion that 31.220.232.0 turn to this place to put across his point, he has continued with edits to the article. Sources in the Fairs Cup article clearly states that the competition is recognised by FIFA and Cup winners like Arsenal F.C. and FC Barcelona have listed the trophy under their honours. I don't see why it shouldn't be considered as a major honour in view of the above points. LRD NO (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The source behind the sentence is dead anyway. Problem is the wording major, who defines that? I'd say the UEFA Intertoto Cup in 2006 is about the same level as the IC Fairs Cup. I'd change the wording to something more neutral or get rid of the sentence completely. -Koppapa (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a perennial debate, recently raised at 1961 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Final, and previously raised all over the place, and unfortunately it often comes up in context of my-club's-better-than-your-club (not saying that applies to the current NUFC discussion).

Personally, I don't think there's much doubt that it is a major honour. FIFA lists it explicitly as such, and UEFA regards it as the same competition as the UEFA Cup/Europa League except that because they didn't organise it, they naturally don't list it in clubs' record in UEFA competition. There's some recent argument at 1961 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Final#"Major" competitions, and plenty more all over Wikipedia, most of it repetitive, if you search for it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Struway. Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was at time one of 3 UEFA sponsored club trophies. FkpCascais (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Newcastle is an informative example. They actually did "win" the Intertoto Cup one year in the mid-2000s [8], but reliable sources (and their own supporters) continue to refer to their Fairs Cup victory in 1969 as their last major honour [9]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the use of this?

Taking Santiago Solari and Stefano Sorrentino as the latest examples, what are the invisible references and the footnotes good for? Isn't it too much economic detail on a SPORTS bio, oh and did i mention the refs are offline?

Note: i have notified the user who engages in this behaviour about this discussion. Attentively --AL (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "invisible"? Giant Snowman 18:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Example: reference #5 does not have anything to click on. --AL (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, those kind of references are usually fine, it just means they are offline, like a book or magazine. However financial records should not be used per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Giant Snowman 19:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't see how citing a football club's published accounts as the source for a player's transfer fee, as at Santiago Solari, violates BLPPRIMARY? If it were his wages, it might be another matter. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Do not use [...] public documents to support assertions about a living person." Giant Snowman 19:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the nature of "public documents". A "public document" is a document produced by a public authority (e.g. government and its agencies), something like a birth certificate, passport, court records, notice of tax coding, medical records...

I imagine you wouldn't suggest that a club's website wasn't allowed as a cited source for the fee it paid for one of its players? There's no difference in kind between a club's published website and its published accounts: both are primary sources. BLPPRIMARY warns against misuse of primary sources, it doesn't forbid their use. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between a club's website, and their accounts which have been released to their country's tax authority. That is what makes it a "public document." Giant Snowman 20:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Published accounts are available to anyone who chooses to buy a copy. If they're published on the club's website, as some clubs do/did, there's not even the intermediate step of having to buy a copy. Further, a transfer fee may (or may not) be sensitive information for the club, but it's just a neutral fact about the player. It isn't the sort of personal information mentioned or implied at BLPPRIMARY. Looks like we're agreeing to disagree again ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the level of English present on Mr.Sorrentino's (and several other Italian footballers, can't remember which exactly) footnote not an issue to anyone? Odd, because how are we suppose to match storyline with the source when the latter may not even be available?

Oh, and i always thought that contract+duration of contract+fee of deal+players involved should be the only interesting things in a transfer situation, not this Wall Street-like approach... --AL (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The standard of English of some editors is an issue, not just on Italian footballers. But it's an inevitable side-effect of the huge benefit we derive from the knowledge and enthusiasm of editors worldwide who want to improve the English Wikipedia. It helps if when an editor with good written English comes across something difficult to understand, they try to copyedit it, but I agree that's not easy without access to the source. However, sources don't have to be online. We generally assume good faith on offline references, certainly where editors in good standing are concerned.

Personally, I think that sometimes the editor concerned does include too much financial detail, but it's always well sourced, he tends to put it in an explanatory footnote rather than the body of the article, and it can be more informative and certainly more encyclopedic than a bare transfer-fee figure apparently plucked from the air or sourced to a random website. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually some bilancio are available by searching bilanciato in the domain site:it. (someone share them vis dropbox, which wikipedia banned it) It just like research papers, which you need an account for ProQuest or some database. Or may be I should open a blog and I cite my blog which claims the figure are from the bilancio, or citing someone else (such as luckmar.blogspot.com) I just hate transfermarkt, which i could claim it is not reliable. Matthew_hk t c 10:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

For citation, I should include as much information as possible, such as page number or from which table in that documents. If i open a blog, and screen capture everything that related, it may or may not be allowed by copyrights law (1/10 of the works?) Matthew_hk t c 10:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The probleem is that Wikipedia discourages the use of blogs for citing. See WP:SPS. So you making a blog wouldn´t help regarding citations on WP. FkpCascais (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for participating. i repeat, i won't be able to do any more on Mr. Sorrentino's footnote because i do not understand what is being conveyed. Cheers all! --AL (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Shahril Ishak international caps

Need someone, probably with admin powers, to intervene in Mas y mas who kept editing Shahril Ishak's international caps. I had obtained Shahril's international caps from the FIFA Century Club fact sheet, which is clearly referenced in the article while Mas had used his RSSSF page as the reference. Seeing as FIFA is the official source/governing body and obtain their information from sources such as the respective national associations, and RSSSF have been known to be lacking in their data before, his international caps should undoubtedly follow FIFA's. LRD NO (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

FIFA are also known for their mistakes, however NFT supports their claim of 117 caps. Giant Snowman 11:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The RSSSF are not wrong on this issue - their stats clearly note that one cap is not recognised by FIFA as too many substitutions took place in the game. The questions is what standards do we use on Wikipedia for assigning caps to people. Number 5 7 11:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As per your question, this would be a good read, whether it answers the question or not. Mas y mas (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The sensible thing to do here is to use a footnote to explain the discrepancy between sources and the reason for it. That's how I resolved similar issues in 1930 FIFA World Cup, anyway. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

FIFA is not the be all and end all of what constitutes as "official". Even if a match involving two senior national teams isn't FIFA recognized, one or both FA's involved may still consider it as "official" and therefore players who appeared in that match would get a cap! FIFA's century club only counts matches which are FIFA recognized which you can find on their fixture list at FIFA.com. For Shahril Ishak, as you'd see on RSSSF, he appeared for Singapore on 26-11-08 which isn't FIFA recognized but it says their on the file that it is official for the Singapore FA therefore he is awarded a cap which brings his total to 118! Et Voila!! Discussion over! Mas y mas (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither is RSSSF be-all-and-end-all, Mas. In this case, we should follow the caps recognised by FIFA or any confederation like AFC or UEFA above the rest, unless there is referenced data pointing to the contrary. And RSSSF clearly states that one match is not officially recognised themselves. I don't see how anyone could disagree in this instance. And no, the discussion is far from dependent on a single voice to be over. LRD NO (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you not read?!? It says that match in 2008 isn't recognized but it is OFFICIAL FOR THE SINGAPORE FA! Unless you're brain dead, believe or not, that settles the issue for Shahril Ishak! Mas y mas (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal abuse, Mas. This is not the first time you have done that. LRD NO (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's not a FIFA-official game then the cap does not count. Giant Snowman 11:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, it is official for the Singapore FA! Therefore a cap is given! I suggest you and everybody else read the link I posted above in response to Number 57. Mas y mas (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The RSSSF link? It was already included in my opening post. Yes, we are aware of that match. But if it is clearly not sanctioned by FIFA to be an official match for the valid reason given, then the cap should not be included. LRD NO (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What the Singapore FA does is irrelevant. If FIFA does not sanction it then it does not count. Giant Snowman 12:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs a footnote I'd say, too. -Koppapa (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the RSSSF page did not mention any endorsement of the statistics from the Football Association of Singapore. LRD NO (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a relevant discussion (whether to go with FIFA or the national association) HERE. Either way, the discrepancy needs footnoting with reference to reliable and competent sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Struway. Suffice to say we should list his international cap at the official 117 (as per Anelka discussion) and put a footnote regarding the non-count of that one single unofficial match? LRD NO (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Or we should take the count of the national association, as we do with Bobby Charlton (also mentioned in the Anelka discussion) who according to the FIFA Century Club fact sheet has 105 caps, but according to the FA and multiple reliable sources, has 106... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear-cut though. In the Anelka and Charlton cases, there are conflicting numbers by FIFA and their respective FAs. In this case, the only official source is FIFA, the Singapore FA doesn't come in with their own official numbers nor is there any dispute, and RSSSF have a disclaimer on the unofficial match too. Proper way to go about it is to list the official numbers (117 caps) with a footnote for now. On a sidenote, RSSSF is not entirely error-free as some people think. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@LRD NO, the link I posted in response to Number 57 is not the same as the one you posted! It's the RSSSF file for another Singaporean, Fandi Ahmad. I'm pretty sure you believe he has over caps, yet he isn't in FIFA's century club! Read the section within that file titled "controversy". Also, funny you keep harping on about FIFA's "official" stats because if you go to the end of the FIFA century club document, it says The Men's Century Club was compiled with the help of Roberto Mamrud (worldwide), Mansur Abdallah (UA Emirates), Husein Mohammed (Kuwait) and RSSSF 1998/2014. All three of these are members of RSSSF with Roberto Mamrud being the author of the Shahril Ishak file!! Therefore, if stats are available that differ from FIFA's, such is the case with some Singpaore players like Shahril Ishak, then that is what should be followed (again read the link I posted above). If not, then it's best to "play it safe" and go with FIFA. Mas y mas (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No one is questioning the accuracy of the RSSSF document on Shahril Ishak. What the issue at hand is the figure that should be listed. In this aspect, FIFA has it at 117 caps which RSSSF supports with a disclaimer. And yes, I am aware of Fandi Ahmad, and I am aware that FIFA pulls its data from the various FAs and rsssf. Still doesn't make Mr Roberto Mamrud less of a human who will err like you or me. Kindly refer to Indra Sahdan (with refs) and fill in the missing goals in his rsssf document, authored by Mr Mamrud of course. Rsssf is not as perfect as you think. Last but not least, glad to see you involved in proper discussion. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the frustrating thing... there is no issue! What should be listed is 118, it's straight forward as can be!!! Sure there might some mistakes with others but specifically for Shahril there are none! If that one match in 2008 is official for Singapore FA then it's official! What do you think Mr. Mamrud did? Pulled it out of his own arse about it being official for the Singapore FA?! The only reason it's 117 in the Century club is because that match in 2008 isn't recognized by FIFA and only FIFA recognized matches that players have appeared will be reflected in the list. If you really understand the stats regarding Fanhdi Ahmad then you should easily understand this but for whatever reason you're making it seem like it's the mystery of the century! Mas y mas (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If there is no issue, the good people who have contributed to this thread must have wasted their time. Fandi's problem arose after FIFA applied a retrospective ruling on international matches in 1999, 2 years after he had played his last match. Hence the dispute by FIFA and the FAS. It should be noted that his caps are recognised by the AFC too. For Shahril, there is no similar issue. Neither do I think Mr Mamrud should be taken as the sole authority on what defines an international cap ahead of FIFA and AFC. Hope that solves your 'mystery of the century', although I wouldn't take full credit for it. LRD NO (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

When dealing with this issue one cannot only focus in a few players of a specific FA, but has to see the global stand. Some FA´s make a number of FIFA non-recognised friendly games which accumulate in time. We have to set a rule which would apply consistency to all national teams world around. I was beleaving that we had already setled this to go with FIFA official record with a disclaimer talking about the extra games. I even had a question in the past if a player who has played a FIFA not recognised game for the national team would have that game counted, or not, for notability, and the answer at time was, no. So because of the complexity world around regarding this issue, the safest way to go is by FIFA official caps, and not FA´s individual counts, those stay mentioned in the article and in the disclaimer. FkpCascais (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is where I yet again have to tell you to read the link I posted above especially the last paragraph. There are FIFA recognized matches which by their own statutes shouldn't be counted as official for them yet they remain on their list and are counted as "official". Because of that, it's basically ironic that you would go only with FIFA stats. And @LRD NO, what does Mr. Mamrud have to do with anything? Who says he's the authority here with regards to RSSSF? He's not! He's the author of the file, meaning he was the one that gathered/compiled the info, therefore he's not the one that made any rulings such as the Singapore FA counting that one match 2008 as official. The fact that you actually think that, just shows that you're just confused and blowing the issue out of proportion. Mas y mas (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read the link and given my take on the matter. For Shahril, FIFA recognises him as having 117 caps, and Rsssf concurs with a disclaimer. Kindly point me to any match played by Shahril that "shouldn't be counted as official for them yet they remain on their list and are counted as official". And I would once again ask you to refrain from needless personal abuse. LRD NO (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability of women players

A possibly contentious subject considering we lost a good editor around this subject, but can someone remind me as to the criteria for inclusion here? E.g., if a woman plays a full international for a country (such as Wales) in a UEFA-accredited qualifying match for Euro 2012 or World Cup 2016, do they meet our notability criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we currently have the same criteria for men as for women, so senior international players are notable. Whether club notability needs to be reviewed for women (probably!) is another matter... Giant Snowman 19:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there many examples of female players who fail WP:NSPORTS but pass WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Football At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at WIkimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Birth place in lead

It is well known that a person's birth place should not be placed in parentheses with their birth date in the lead section, but surely it makes sense to mention their place of birth at some point in the lead. User:Blethering Scot seems to believe that it is not relevant to the lead in the article about James Wilson (footballer born 1995) and has been rather WP:POINTy about removing it; however, I believe that it is perfectly fine to add his place of birth, since it relates directly to Wilson's eligibility for the England youth teams. I would welcome some input here, as it seems to me that BS is being rather vindictive towards me with these edits. – Pee Jay 22:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually what I've said is it shouldn't be included in the lead if not in the main article. I am not the only editor who has advised PJ of this, so he is misleading you. Ive added in as people will see in article history into the main article and i believe there is no need for it to be mentioned in one sentence in lead then the very next in main article, if article grows then lead should be expanded in proportion to the article size. Info should never however be included in the lead if not in the main article especially when it wasn't directly sourced by an inline citation. This is a BLP article and PJ has shown no inclination to discuss with the other editor initially on talk page after being reverted or me. He is displaying serious WP:Own issues on several Manchester united pages at present. Despite his experience he doesn't have any stronger a point of view than multiple editors.Blethering Scot 22:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Also according to PJ i have an have some sort of inferiority complex that you should see a psychiatrist about [10]. PJ needs to learn how to discuss and interact issues with editors on article talk pages rather than edit warring to make sure his preferred version is always on page. I will be compiling a list about his own issues to see if this continues from here in.Blethering Scot 22:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

But it is in the main article. It's the first phrase in the "Career" section, and it is directly sourced. I don't see how you can have missed that unless you were ignoring it on purpose. – Pee Jay 22:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 take a wee look who added that sentence, you've also once again reverted to your preferred version, four times now. Also note in my first sentence of my reply here where i state i added it in, also where i state we are repeating exact same thing sentence after that one in lead. Also look at the fact that where you were born does not always directly correlate with who you play for nationally.Blethering Scot 22:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't notice you were the one to add that content. And no, it doesn't always correlate, but in this case it does. Still, I'm keen to wait for some more replies on the subject. – Pee Jay 22:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe birthplace should be in the lede. The first paragraph of the biography section and the infobox are sufficient. Number 5 7 22:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is that in all articles, #57, or just short ones like this? – Pee Jay 22:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In any article, unless it's a long article with a long lede and it's something exceptional worth mentioning (e.g. being born in Hiroshima on the day the bomb was dropped). Simply naming the town/city that confers their footballing nationality is not in this category. Number 5 7 22:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

PJ You've reverted four times on this article against two editors, and on the Manchester United page six times against three editors in order to have your preferred version of the squad list. Thats seriously showing own issues in relation to Manchester united. Also telling me i may need to see a psychiatric person if i believe something is seriously out of order. Il repeat again your acting like a prat.Blethering Scot 22:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not about my "preferred" version, yours or anyone else's. It's about supporting contributions with sources, policies and precedent. – Pee Jay 22:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It is your preferred version and you reverted a massive amount of times, once directly after the discussion started against you which returned it to your preferred version. This is symptomatically WP:OWN. It should be included in bigger articles, not in that context and not as direct repetition to what is the next sentence in article. Nor should place of birth be directly correlated with nationality the two are not necessarily mutual.Blethering Scot 22:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about, "the discussion started against [me]"? Discussions aren't started against people, they're started in order to find common ground between disparate positions. And I don't understand that last sentence, but I'll respond with what I said before: a player's place of birth is not necessarily linked to the national team they play for, but in the vast majority of cases, it is. In Wilson's case, his place of birth is linked to his nationality, so the phrases are linked semantically. – Pee Jay 22:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this not covered in here?--Egghead06 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Egghead06, the issue is it wasn't even included in article, so that was violation of WP:Lead it wasn't directly sourced inline so that was a WP:BLP violation, to include in that context indication nationality with football nationality which makes it an inappropriate sentence. Also we would have direct repetition from one sentence to the very next. Meaning in a very short stub pob is mentioned three times in a matter of two sentences and a close infobox. Thats not appropriate, article should be allowed to expand and lead then expanded to include but only in a more appropriate sentence. And even then PJ should be discussing not displaying WP:OWN.Blethering Scot 23:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Against your edit BRD was invoked, you cannot then invoke again just to have your preferred version, so yes against you. You made no attempt to discuss and had seen my starting of the discussion before you further reverted. You know fine well that tonight you have tried on two pages to edit war to make sure your preferred version was on page even after discussion were started on said talk pages. You haven't even bothered to reply to the WIlson one and have reverted since it was started there. You also didn't even let the discussion happen here either you just again reverted to the version you wanted. Eithier way you are showing WP:OWN issues in relation to Manchester United, these aren't your pages to dictate what way they must be displayed.Blethering Scot 22:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In what possible way was WP:BRD "invoked" against me? The info was added and I reverted. It's not my responsibility to start a discussion in those circumstances. – Pee Jay 23:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

PJ, you know fine well i started the discussion, you know fine well i had already invited you to discuss per BRD, you cant then revert your preferred version and cite the same. Classic own issues, you didn't want any other version than the one you wanted on that page.Blethering Scot 23:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the example of James Wilson (footballer born 1995) - being born is not part of someone's career so place of birth makes no sense being placed in that section. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bladeboy1889, a personal life section could be included but would need much expanded than simply where they were born. Personally I think in such a small article its not a bad compromise.Blethering Scot 16:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a personal life section in that instance wouldn't serve much purpose - but I still maintain that being born isn't part of someone's career and it make no sense to include it there - the best solution is to include it in the opening para and then not mention it in the rest of the text in an article of that length. It might not satisfy a strict interpretation of MOS but it makes gramattical and readable sense (and as the article has an infobox, the POB can be reffed in that) - which is exactly what I've said in the RFC discussion. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

But then your not strictly supposed to source the lead nor should content be in the lead thats not in the main article.Blethering Scot 17:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see current guidance at WP:OPENPARA and related RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#OPENPARA RfC. Giant Snowman 11:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can accept that. – Pee Jay 12:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The RFC remains open, should you (or anybody else) wish to express an opinion on the matter. Giant Snowman 12:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would support pob being included in openpara which i seem to think you are against.Blethering Scot 16:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Fulham squads (and squads in general)

I notice that the squad section on Fulham's page seems to be sticking without fail to the sections players have been placed in on the club's official website (first-team/under-21/academy). This means that Patrick Roberts and Moussa Dembele do not feature anywhere in that section, despite featuring semi-regularly in Fulham's matchday squad of late, and are only listed on the offshoot Fulham F.C. Academy page. This is wrong in my view, we need to reflect who is being selected for Fulham - players can move up during the course of the season, and club website admins don't necessarily touch those profiles until pre-season.

That said, I am aware that by splitting players between under-21 and first-team squad sections we're making our own judgement call as editors. For instance, I came here about Roberts/Dembele, but Muamer Tankovic made first-team appearances earlier in the season, he's just listed in the under-21 section - I'd never heard of him. But this distinction between under-21s and first-team players probably does need to be made with the larger clubs in order that the page/squad template isn't cluttered and readers get an idea of who is in first-team contention for these clubs and who isn't.

So I thought I'd bring the issue here. Firstly - Fulham, where should Roberts/Dembele go? Secondly - how do we define which young players go in the first-team section, and which go in under-21s? Or should the latter section exist at all? Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's fine to separate into 'First team' and 'Youth/Reserves', but there is no need for more than these two sections. And should a player migrate IRL from the 'Youth/Reserves' or 'First team' (either by playing or being on the bench) then I would argue that they should do so on Wikipedia, at least until the end of the season. Getting a squad number is not enough to be considered 'First team', however. Giant Snowman 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Under Premier League rules, doesn't every club have a 25-man senior squad, and youth players aren't counted towards the 25 no matter how many senior appearances they make? (La Liga has a similar rule, except they go the extra step of requiring numbers 1-25 for senior members, then 26 and higher for youth members) To me, it would make sense to limit the senior team squad to those submitted to the league, and avoiding having to make judgement calls Editing to add The Premier League has a list of 25-man squads for all 20 clubs as of February (i.e. after the close of the transfer window): http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/feb/updated-premier-league-squad-lists-2013-14.html Mosmof (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this is straight forward - We work from reliable sources for verifiability, so if FulhamFC.com says Muamer Tanković is in the U21 squad, then he's in the U21 squad on Wikipedia, same for U18s like Moussa Dembélé. I agree with GiantSnowman, just because a player receives a squad number, doesn't mean he's first-team. JMHamo (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think our readers would find it perverse that players who have appeared for Fulham in the Premier League this season, such as Roberts and Dembelé, don't appear anywhere on the main club article. We do indeed work from RS, and sticking with what section of Fulham's website players were listed on at the start of the season, when reliable independent sources such as the BBC, Soccerway, Soccerbase and Sky Sports all include Roberts and Dembelé in Fulham's squad, doesn't seem particularly helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Could we have a senior squad list, then a subsection under it listing youth players who have made senior appearances and/or been named to matchday squads? 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No; our infobox differentiates between 'youth' and 'senior' only and we should reflect the same in our squad lists. Giant Snowman 16:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Fulham's website has a seemingly arbitrary approach to putting players in the senior squad. For example, Dan Burn and Cauley Woodrow listed as full squad members but not Tankovic or Dembele, even though they're all youth players who came into the fold in the new year. I think Liverpool's squad list is a bit clearer - it lists everyone, but denotes which players are in the Premier League squad (i.e. maximum 25 senior players). Mosmof (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but we (also) use independent reliable sources, as Struway said. Giant Snowman 18:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about this discussion. I'll restate my position that I don't think the article should be beholden to the proclivities of Fulham's website designer/admin, where there's independent sources to show these younger players in the first-team squad. Should we be looking across other teams too? Looking at the BBC team pages, I reckon they include all senior professionals plus any under-21 who has been included in a first-team squad. That seems like a fair parameter even if with League Cup etc. it might see us moving a few fringe players into first-team lists. HornetMike (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good, as long as you can back it up with BBC/Soccerway etc. Giant Snowman 19:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this discussion still going? Apparently we now have to consider the issue of whether Tom Lawrence and James Wilson should be considered part of the Manchester United F.C. first team after making their debuts on Saturday. Similar to Tankovic, Roberts and Dembele at Fulham, neither Lawrence nor Wilson are listed in the first-team section of the Manchester United website, nor has any announcement been made that either player has made a permanent transition to training with the first team. As far as I'm concerned (not that I'm the be-all-and-end-all on MUFC affairs), Lawrence and Wilson are both still youth team players who have made a one-match cameo in the first team; there's no sign that their involvement is anything but temporary, especially since Lawrence has been on loan most of the second half of the season and Wilson spent most of 2013-14 in the MUFC under-18s. It can't even be argued that the website might not have been updated yet, since the website gets updated almost instantly with any squad changes, and this has not happened with Lawrence or Wilson. So anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that one appearance in the first-team does not make a player a first-teamer; after all, "one swallow does not a summer make". – Pee Jay 22:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

By definition what is the first team? Is it the regular players who represent the club or anyone who pulls on a shirt to play for the first team. Even people making one appearance must have trained with the first team surely even if only to warm-up before their debut game? I would mark Wilson and Lawrence as first team players and of the first team squad just as one appearance gets a player past WP:NFOOTBALL. They have crossed the Rubicon.--Egghead06 (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Have they though? There's nothing to say they can't go back to training with the reserves this week even if they did have one or two training sessions with the first team last week. Like I say, just because they played in one match, that doesn't make them first-teamers; it just means Ryan Giggs wanted to try them in a senior game. I don't see what WP:NFOOTBALL has to do with it, BTW. – Pee Jay 22:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Egghead06 would appreciate if you commented at Talk:Manchester United F.C. where this was already being discussed. Or if you don't mind ill copy your comment there.Blethering Scot 16:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to copy. I have little more to say as I think that once you have played in the first team you are a first team player, just as on Wiki once you have appeared a pro game you pass NFOOTBALL. You can't un-play or un-appear.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - although I would say that younger players can be 'relegated' back to the reserves/youth team at the end of the season. Giant Snowman 18:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

OK I do have more to say!....And that would be the same for any player. For example, this season, Emmanuel Adebayor was ignored by AVB and trained with the youth team. Phil Bardsley was completely ignored by Paolo Di Canio and trained with the youth team. Under Tim Sherwood and Gus Poyet these players flourished. Don't think during the earlier regimes anyone would have said they were not in the first team squad or were first team players and listed them with the youth team squad? It all depends on how fluid you want the squad listings to be on Wiki?--Egghead06 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

GS thats exactly what I first said, once season is over and they aren't part of first team at all next season then thats a different story, these players will likely still play a mix of first team and youths for some time.Blethering Scot 19:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Between here and the article talk page and in addition the two ether editors who added the info and were reverted, is there enough consensus to add these players to the first team squad for at least the remainder of the season?Blethering Scot 19:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

UEFA stadium categories (5 stars stadiums)

According to UEFA stadium categories, probably it's necessary to run a robot which will replace all UEFA → UEFA . XXN (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Example: White Hart Lane

Manchester United

Can people also comment here on whether Wilson should be included in first team squad having played for the first team this season.Blethering Scot 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There happens to be a discussion a few sections up (see Fulham squads (and squads in general)). LRD NO (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Was already being discussed on talk man UTD so its more helpful if people post there. Also its the other page where PJ has displayed own issues so its consensus thats needed.Blethering Scot 16:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a wider issue than just Manchester United though, isn't it? That's why I reignited the above discussion. – Pee Jay 17:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but doesn't give the consensus on the page thats actually affected, the one where three editors disagreeing with you wasn't enough. Discussions should be kept together, not spread over multiple pages.Blethering Scot 19:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course the consensus applies to the page you're talking about. It's a project-wide consensus. – Pee Jay 19:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

PJ you didn't even mention the discussion was ongoing on that page when you posted here, you had no intention to do so. Given a discussion is already ongoing its very poor practice to open multiple discussions without linking to the other ones on both pages. Not one bit about everything you have done on these two pages have been optimal.Blethering Scot 20:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd list him per common sense. -Koppapa (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Personally I think anyone with a squad number should be in the squad list. Number 5 7 14:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Between here, the talk page of articles and the editors who added info in before PJ reverted show enough consensus for inclusion. I Have re added in.Blethering Scot 16:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Javier Zanetti

I'm getting tired of undoing IPs and new accounts saying that Zanetti has retired (despite me putting a message in the source code telling them not to!) just because he's played his last HOME match. Can the page be protected? '''tAD''' (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped at the moment, maybe because Inter's coverage has finished and the Premier League games have started... If (when) it starts up again, go to WP:RPP and request semi-protection until after Inter's last game. In the meantime, I'd advise adding a bit to the opening sentence or immediately after to say he's retiring at the end of the season, and then a hidden note to say "i.e AFTER Inter's last Serie A game on 18 May, which is not yet". Explaining why it shouldn't be changed yet does tend to work better than just telling people not to, and vandals don't read edit summaries. Then anyone changes it, issue standard vandalism warnings and WP:AIV if anyone persists. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you '''tAD''' (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Country name in infobox

Can somebody please have a word with Lieutenant of Melkor (talk · contribs), who insists on removing the country name from the infobox, see his edits at Jiang Ning as an example. Giant Snowman 18:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is necessary at {{Persondata}} regardless of places of birth and death and nationality, but, for consistency's sake, it's high time they stop be included from the infobox (unless 1) place of birth and death fall under different borders; 2) place of birth and/or death are different from nationality), and start only from the 1st-level subnational division. The lede alone, not to mention the national teams, is enough mention of the nationality; there is no reason to believe the average reader will look immediately to infoboxes. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 18:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You obviously don't know the large number of players who were born in one country but represented a second. There is no reason to believe the average reader won't look immediately to infoboxes. Also much persondata is automatically pulled from the infobox. Giant Snowman 18:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with Snowman on this. Omitting countries from the infobox is a very bad idea. Number 5 7 18:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I do; I simply forgot to keep that in mind, and an exception can be made for that third case. My concern is that if U.S. and Canadian states and provinces are mentioned all over the project without any qualifications whatsoever, that courtesy should be extended to all other sovereign nations. Also much persondata is automatically pulled from the infobox in which case there is no harm in hardcoding the infoboxes to truncate the country. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 18:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The function of an infobox is to provide a quick overview of the subject's bio details and their career, without having to read through the article. Excluding someone's country of birth from such a structure would be both illogical and completely unhelpful for the reader.

Your specific US/Canada point didn't square with my experience of seeing football biography infoboxes on a daily basis, and having nothing better to do, I thought I'd check it out. Starting at Category:American soccer players, I took a sample of the first 10 names in the middle column for each 200-name page of the category listing, i.e. selecting 5% of the total regardless of living or dead, teams played for, level played at, etc. Most of them had football bio infoboxes, most of those infoboxes included a place of birth, and most of those were for players born in the US. Every single football bio infobox in that sample with a place of birth filled in, included the country, whether it was the United States or not. From that, I conclude that if there is a problem with editors omitting the US when filling in infoboxes, it's not a problem for football/soccer infoboxes.

If it ain't broke, don't break it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Released players

I know this gets raised every year, but still...now that the English FL season has finished, clubs are announcing who they are releasing, and over-enthusiastic editors are jumping the gun and updating articles to say they have left, even though they technically won't until 30 June. However is it worth reverting, or shall we just let the inevitable happen? Giant Snowman 17:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't this kind of stuff (Carlisle release 13 players) be pre season for next season??? Players are told they're gone. Reference is available. So does it matter that the contracts may have been ripped up? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the players will not actually leave the club until 30 June/1 July. That is the issue I am raising. Giant Snowman 19:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would bow to the inevitable. they will play no meaningful part at their old clubs from this point on. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, these players are off the books. (We have a reference) They are free to find other clubs. To me they are clubless. The club is not playing any official games and if they did they would not use the named players. On the other hand if a contracted player has not been released and he's snooping around or unhappy then I would not change anything. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"The following players will be released when their current contracts come to a close" - Carlisle official website, italics my own. Giant Snowman 19:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood where you're coming from - But think of it as such that where you work you have been given the pink slip and told not to show up at work. Even though you collect a paycheck (officially) - You're not around and basically not reachable. As I write before IMO they are clubless, irrelevant of contract. Their club has officially disclosed it. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

But they are still contracted to their current clubs, until the contracts expire on 30 June/1 July. What the lazy BBC journalist, and others like him/her, meant to say was that "the players will not have their contracts renewed and will leave the club when they expire" - if they have left the club early then they would actually say that, such as here where it confirms the contract has been cancelled early. Giant Snowman 19:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you here. The thing with BBC - and I amongst others who use if for references take the factual content. Also I believe these news reports from BBC are very much canned from some template. Journalistic investigation into exactness is left some what up in the air. Nonetheless, for a lot of the clubs its vacation time and the inevitable truth that has been published is that these players are not welcome anymore and their contract is worthless. Such is life! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I shall adopt my standard policy, namely, for players being released by the club I follow, update their pages to say the club has confirmed that they will leave the club when their contract expires at the end of June, and update the squad section on the club page to mark the released players with an asterisk and footnote, as at last year's version. And, until I go on on holiday, enforce it. But once I go on holiday in June, they'll all go to currentclub=Free Agent with capital letters... I do find it dispiriting that there are so many editors now who aren't really bothered about accuracy or verifiability.

On another perennial topic, I've just restored Leicester City F.C. to the division in which all reliable sources report them to be. The lead has for several days read "currently play in the Premier League", but however hard I try, I can't find them in the Premier League table. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A balance between natural enthusiastic editing, encyclopedic accuracy and pragmatism. Of course accuracy should win out but if a club say Joe Foo is being released he will no longer bother the encyclopedia with stats or any other club involvement. He will be paid to the end of his contract but will no longer appear for them. The */footnote, free agent approach is correct. Many choose to miss out the interim stage and go to free agent. Accurate, no, pragmatic, yes. As for promoted/ relegated sides, one thing is for sure they will not be in their most recent league next season as shown in Template:2014–15 in English football. If an editor chooses a more managed and accurate approach to end of contracts and leagues for next season that is great. If they jump the gun from a pragmatic view, I would not revert.--Egghead06 (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For me either remove altogether or use Struway's version. No point fighting the inevitable and arguing over whether they are currently or are not currently a player for club when sources say released.Blethering Scot 23:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Question Could someone point to the verifiable and reliable source that says all football contracts do run until 30 June? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The 2013/14 Premier League handbook (a large PDF) page 187 Rule T.11 Length of contract says:

T.11. Subject to the exceptions set out below, a contract between a Club and a Player may be for any period provided that its expiry date is 30th June. The exceptions to this Rule are:

T.11.1. contracts with Contract Players under the age of 18 years which must not be capable of lasting for more than 3 years;

T.11.2. monthly contracts;

T.11.3. Week by Week Contracts.

Although I can't find anything as clear as that for the FL, Rule 60.2 says that "All contracts between Clubs and Players must be in the prescribed form. With effect from 4th August 2010, the prescribed form is the equivalent of Form 13A of Premier League Rules (the 'Standard Contract')." The PL have changed their numbers now, but in 2011/12, (page 279 of another large PDF) Schedule 2 of Form 13A has pre-printed

2. The date of termination of this contract is 30th June 20...........

Form 13A is now called Form 26, and appears on page 275 of the 2013/14 handbook, but the wording is identical.

And Football League Rule 66, dealing with the retained list, refers only to two categories of player: contract players whose contracts are due to expire on the coming or a subsequent 30 June, and weekly/scholar/non-contract players. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What about, Scotland, Wales exct.Blethering Scot 16:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I did rather assume that Bladeboy's question referred to English clubs. Note to self: don't make Anglocentric assumptions... Personally, I don't know about the regulations under other countries' jurisdictions. Do other leagues publish their rules on their websites? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Scottish rules are here. Couldn't see anything in a quick skim.Blethering Scot 16:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing to consider here is the practicality: officially, a vast number of transfers happen, and players are released on June 30/July 1, and this amounts to more edits than we can feasibly make on that day. The result - as experienced last year - was that leaving transfer edits until that date meant that many didn't get made until significantly afterwards, particularly for regions of football where there are fewer editors working on the pages. It's not just a choice between strict accuracy and following looser convention: even if you do consider releasing players before their contract expiry (I don't), it's surely less so than leaving players listed with clubs they've left. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed non-free copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Denkyu.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 12:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Lewandowski

There is a discussion here and here. Volunteer Marek claims that there is a violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP whereas myself and Walter Görlitz claims that there isn't any violation. Kingjeff (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Several other uninvolved editors over at WP:BLPN [11] and on the talk page have also "claimed" that's it's trivial gossip.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

There is currently only two other editor who came into the discussion today on the Biographies of living persons. User:AndyTheGrump also comment on the talk page of the Robert Lewandowski article. User:Cullen328 left a comment on the talk page of the Robert Lewandowski article. So, there are three other editors that have currently commented on the issue. I hardly call that "several other uninvolved editors." The reason why they're "uninvolved" is because they're not the main editors discussing this topic. The main editors that have discussed this is me, you and Walter Görlitz. Anybody interested in getting involved from WikiProject Football would clearly see that other editors have made comments on the topic. Kingjeff (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I am "uninvolved" because I have never edited this article previously, don't edit football articles, and am interested only in keeping standards high in biographies of living people. It is strange to me that any editor who understands how important our BLP policy is, would try to add such an utter triviality to a biography. Count me now among the editors who will be watching this BLP to keep trivial garbage out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup. There isn't anything of significance to discuss. Trivia is trivia, and doesn't belong in a biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why there is a third discussion going on here. I put links to the discussions here so editors from this WikiProject who want to participate in the discussion could go to one of the other places to discuss the issue. Kingjeff (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please can we keep this discussion in one place, either BLPN or the article talk page? Giant Snowman 11:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. I only put the links to the discussion here to inform the WikiProject of the discussion. It seems that the main discussion is on the article talk page. Kingjeff (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, are players in 7 league football, i.e. the Isthmian League notable enough for articles? Thanks, Mat ty.007 16:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for players who haven't appeared in a fully professional league need to pass WP:GNG as they fail the subject-specific notability guideline WP:NSPORTS. Hack (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspected not. Thanks for the speedy reply! Best, Mat ty.007 16:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 in English football

Hi, after the season finishes, what kind of things will be needed for the article to be a GA? Is a diary of the season required, or should it go on a different page, and if so, should it be a list? Retirements, deaths, English clubs in Europe? Anything else? Sorry for the questions. Thanks, Mat ty.007 18:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Any article that will be undergoing significant change for the foreseeable future is unsuited to GA; the criteria require an article to be stable. As a general comment, an easy trap for this type of article to fall into is to overdo statistical content at the expense of prose. Anything that helps to put events into a wider context tends to be welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Matty, why not take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase to see examples of other football-related GAs, you could use the same format as them. Giant Snowman 19:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any 'season' in 'country' articles there to use, there are articles such as 'season' Arsenal F.C. season, but nothing similar to this. I am aware that the article must be stable, that's why I plan on nominating it after the season. Should the events I queried be included? Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to get an article to GA I'd start by looking at the current season's article (2013–14 in English football) as a viable candidate. There is nothing on the article that shouldn't be there IMO but it is missing a lot of prose that links the sections together and/or provides context for the lists/stats and the like. There's also a lot of text without sources and sections which only link to the main article. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd probably find it easier to write as the season went on. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the issues with 2013–14 in English football should be sourceable from existing articles. I did make the same decision with 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at 2013–14 as a potential template, I'd say the "diary of events" section is largely unnecessary. As a list it seems quite arbitrary as to what is or isn't in it, and most of the events described would be better off going in other sections about each competition. A prime example is the material on the England team. A list of results with no context near the top, then a diary entry about World Cup qualification way later, sandwiched between two league table updates. The difficult part is what to with significant events not directly pertaining to a competition. Things like Coventry playing in Northampton, and Hull's owner trying and failing to change the name of the club belong somewhere, but are a more awkward fit.

Trying to create the first high quality article of a certain type is tough, particularly if the topic is a general one. But it can also be very rewarding. It gives a certain freedom to do things your own way, provided you maintain the quality. Your suggestion of a summary of English clubs in Europe is a good example of that. Its not currently part of those articles, but it sounds like a good idea and if done well could form part of a model for others to follow. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The 2013–14 in German football article has a section on German clubs in Europe. I will soon add the two Women's Champions League participants to it. I think the breakdown by section instead of one large diary is desirable as well. EddieV2003 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies, I have a better idea of what to include. Best, Mat ty.007 17:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ramón Guzmán

We have a dependency on the date of birth for Ramón Guzmán. See Talk:Ramón Guzmán#Date of birth. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone speak Czech?

This addition [12] adds some distasteful things about Marek Štěch. I have put some of it through Google translate but with mixed results. Anyone shed any light on what the reference actually says?--Egghead06 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Cloudz679:? Giant Snowman 21:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I would remove it, it's a minor event and the source is a tabloid newspaper, BLP no likey. The edit is accurate, for the record, the first tweet does say fucking jews (obviously aimed at slavia) and the reference flogs him for being racist and says he later deleted the tweets, then goes on to waffle on about unrelated stuff. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 21:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Literally the only source I can find discussing this incident is Blesk, which makes me think we shouldn't discuss it. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 21:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Blesk being the Czech version of The Daily Star. Also noted that the article is from a year ago (April 2013) but he has just received his first callup to the senior national team and is set to make his debut next week in Finland. Coincidence? I think not. C 679 03:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's just tabloid fodder then I'd remove it per BLP. Giant Snowman 07:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been restored, this time with supporting citations from other sources including Ekonom, a respected source, although this publication seems to give it little more than a passing mention. The case should probably be taken to the BLP noticeboard but I am short on time. If anyone else would do so, it would be appreciated. Thanks, C 679 16:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

done. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 20:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Include league and division in active player bio ledes or not?

I can't seem to find the discussion we had about two years ago related to including the league and division in the lede sentence of player bios. Of the three Ballon d'Or finalists we have

is a Portuguese footballer who plays as a forward for Spanish club Real Madrid and captains the Portugal national team.
who plays as a forward for Spanish club FC Barcelona and the Argentina national team.
who plays for German club Bayern Munich in the Bundesliga and for the France national team.

So two do not mention the league while the third does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We either need to mention the country they play in, or the league, or neither - and never both. I would say the country is fine, the league is not needed. In my experience it is often never updated, and seems to encourage editors to use sponsored league names. Giant Snowman 15:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of mentioning the league, simply because it can change so frequently. In fairness, a player can change his club more often than a team can change their division, but it introduces a level of recentism that I'm not comfortable with. Furthermore, I would say that we only need to mention the country the club is in if it is different from the player's nationality. For example, "David de Gea is a Spanish footballer who plays as a goalkeeper for English club Manchester United" vs. "Wayne Rooney is an English footballer who plays as a forward for Manchester United". – Pee Jay 19:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Really what this comes down to is accuracy, not whether its easy enough for us to update every time a league changes in a summer because of relegation. Personally I would say premier league side Manchester United, not English club Manchester United. Gs there is a lot of things we don't allow but don't do enough to discourage, just because someone could use a sponsored name doesn't mean the official name of a league cant be used, there are plenty of editors who can change to the official name around. Lets not let this discussion be about what is too much work, but what is correct and accurate.Blethering Scot 22:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

worldcuptimemachine.com

Everyone might want to be on the lookout for links to worldcuptimemachine.com. I've noticed a couple of anonymous editors (and one new account) adding them, but since it's a pretty unprofessional and unreliable looking site, I removed them. Just a heads-up. – Pee Jay 19:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe consider adding to WP:BLACKLIST? Giant Snowman 20:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It uses the data and layout from scoreshelf.com, possibly without permission (the original page does not contain any references to it). At any rate, it does not add anything to current World Cup sources. 46.238.126.117 (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Player disambiguation

I see several articles have been moved to show a comma in the disambiguation suffix, between "footballer" and "born". Which style is correct: Joe Bloggs (footballer born 1980) or Joe Bloggs (footballer, born 1980)? 81.14.46.25 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

With the comma: see WP:NCPDAB, last but one paragraph. It's a relatively recent introduction to the MoS (in the last year or so). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, then, every appropriate article should be renamed. Is this something that can be done by a robot? 81.14.46.25 (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Celtic A.F.C. move

Could an Admin please move The Celtic A.F.C. back to Celtic F.C. per WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No need for an admin. I just did it myself. – Pee Jay 01:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Could an Admin move protect the article to stop it happening again in the future is what I should have requested. JMHamo (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this article explains what the move may have been based on. Until 1995, when Celtic floated as a public company, the club used its full corporate name, The Celtic Football & Athletic Coy. Ltd, on its badge. Celtic's corporate name is now simply "Celtic plc" (registered no. SC003487) and the badge used since 1995 states The Celtic Football Club. I don't think there's any need to introduce the definite article in the title, as nobody refers to them as "The Celtic". It's worth noting that the A stands for Athletic, not Association. Celtic Park hosted lots of other sporting activities early in its history, particularly cycling. I don't think there are any clubs in Scotland known as "association football club" as there are in England (Sunderland, Leeds United). There are a few "Athletics" (Dunfermline, Forfar, Alloa). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been moved again. Could an Admin please move protect. Thanks JMHamo (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Move protected now. Thanks all. JMHamo (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Female football managers

Is it worth creating a new category for female football managers ? There are a few that I know of and there are probably more out there.

TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a category for male football managers? HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There isn't one for male but that doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be one for female. See WP:Cat/gender. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No we don't, but we have cats for both male and female athletes.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've now added them to Category:Female football managers. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Football squad template proposal

Building on the back of the sports flag usage guideline proposal, I have mocked up a new version of the Football squad templates. This is designed to make better usage of flags, towards WP:MOSFLAG, remove redundancy, and reduce readability issues around using a flagicon with no text to clarify the nation. A testcase comparison of the new versus current style is available for review here. SFB 17:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 16/05

Draft:A.C. Brickell. I'm not sure if it passes WP:FPL. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As a club they need to pass Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability. I can't determine whether they are actually eligible to play in the US Open Cup but they don't look like it. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong redirect

Hi,

Can someone delete this redirect: Alexander Mesa Travieso Nano? This isn't the player's real name, and he already has his page correctly (Alexander Travieso).

Cheers, MYS 77 ^{talk with me ☺} 20:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ferreira

Hello, footballers.

I've been going through fixing dab links, and there are quite a lot of football-related links to Ferreira. Could you guys go through these and fix these links to point to the proper players?

Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

fb templates

Hi everyone,

As you all may know there is a consensus to remove fb team-template and as a result of this replace {{fb cl team}} with {{fb cl2 team}}. Now I wonder if the functionality is the same in both templates? This since cl2 lacks in documentation and I am not so good at understanding the code behind it. The only difference should be that in cl2 you write the wikilink to the team in the team-parameter, before in cl you wrote just name i.e. Arsenal and it became wikilink via fb team-template.

Could anyone please take a look at it and tell me if they are the same? Can we just copy over the cl documentation to cl2? Thank you. QED237 (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

the functionality should be identical with the exception that the output for the team directly passes through, without trying to use the corresponding fb team template. Frietjes (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that was what I thought but I was not sure and did not understand all code behind it. But then I guess it is safe to copy over the documentation?. QED237 (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, although it looks like both have some undocumented features. I will try to find some time to update the documentation in the next 24 hours or so. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

note that we could make fb cl team function just like fb cl2 team when the corresponding fb team template does not exist, using an ifexist check. Frietjes (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay great thanks. I did not know that I just know that the templates were to be changed so I thought I would do that now inn the summer before next season. I am open to solutions for what is best for wikipedia. Perhaps we should not change to fb cl2 but instead use the other solution? QED237 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be preferable if it could be only one template, forking it for a minor reason doesn't seem quite right. CRwikiCA talk 11:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the situation with two templates is meant to be temporary, until the old one is replaced everywhere with the new one; then, the old one can be redirected to the new one. Fram (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nzuzi Toko

The article was originally at 'Toko Nzuzi', and after recent news reports I have moved it to 'Nzuzi Toko' - but I'm still not 100%. If anyone has a definitive answer… — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

^ http://www.bdfutbol.com/en/c/rankingHT1.html

[1] ttp://www.bdfutbol.com/en/c/rankingHT1.html

[1]