Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 87

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 85

Penalty shoot-outs

In statistical terms, matches that end as ties and are then decided with a penalty shoot-out are widely regarded to be draws and not victories/defeats, including on Wikipedia. However, in an article, a user has challenged this, asking why this is so - and indeed that's a plausible question unless you're into footballing statistics. How can we clarify why such instances count as draws? I'd also like to know if anyone has any comments or criticism of the article as a whole. --Theurgist (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Is that article even notable? I'm inclined to say not - and if it is it needs moving to a better (i.e. shorter) title. Giant Snowman 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This is explained in the article Penalty shoot-out (association football)#Win or draw?, with three references. The most appropriate is probably the one taken directly from the Laws of the Game (see top of p137: "The kicks from the penalty mark are not part of the match"). Further evidence is from UEFA (Penalty kicks to determine which club qualifies or to determine the winner of a tie do not affect the actual result of the match.). Number 5 7 16:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: Thank you for the links. @GiantSnowman: I don't know, either, whether the article is notable enough, or whether it doesn't fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SYNTHESIS. It was initially created by another user and had an ad hoc counter-intuitive scope, and a shorter title. I expanded its scope (which required the title to be more specific) and added some more detail. You can see all this in the page's history. For the time being, I'm taking care to keep the article accurate and up-to-date, even though I'm not sure if it should stay. --Theurgist (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

PRODded. Giant Snowman 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Now at AFD. Giant Snowman 11:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Two articles for same player

There are currently two articles for one same player (Carlos Alberto Gutiérrez and Carlos Gutiérrez Armas) and both have been around for some time. FkpCascais (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 11:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Many many thanks GS! FkpCascais (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct birthplaces in infoboxes of footballers

May I please ask some input on this discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Living_people.2C_and_territories_that_don.27t_exist_any_more. FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Final report

User:Ovinod and myself have been at loggerheads regarding several Portuguese footballers' introductions/leads. He removes everything concerning international career because he says it's repetitive and already in storyline, and accuses me of repeating the same wording in different players (i admit it, but it's MY WORDS, no copyvio there), did not know that was a wiki-crime. I asked him if, for coherence purposes, we should not remove the club career sumup from the lead as well (after all, it's repeated in the body of article too), he did not utter a word of reply.

I asked for an admin to explain it to him, he kindly did so, telling Mr.Ovinod it's customary for club and international careers to be summarized in intros. Result? I was reverted again after reinstating the intros, i give up and have already presented my wiki-resignation. But, so someone can provide the due guidelines to this user (Matty suggested this), i bring this discussion forth.

Attentively, goodbye all after eight years --AL (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I kindly answered your question few minutes ago regarding club career after I bypassed it by accident. You also suggested there shouldn't be any additional reverts and wait for the admin's (User:Mattythewhite) input on this matter but you kept reverting my edits. Again, as I've mentioned before this isn't about winning an edit war, but to improve every article with every single contribution. Also, every since you mentioned respect other user's hard work I knew you'd started those intros, and any changes done to them in the future would result in constant reverts from you just because you thought it was correct English and your own hard work (even though I never mentioned any grammatical errors just repetitiveness and lack of originality among more than 15 players).I have also mentioned to Mattythewhite my point of view regarding this matter, and don't feel this introductions/leads should be copied and pasted to every player's intros.

Sincerely, --Ovinod (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

NIFG

Hello all. I'm curious to know what the community's opinion of this website is. It's hosted on a blog site, but as far as I'm aware, it's the best resource out there for Northern Irish footballers, past and present, senior and youth. I understand the issues we have with WP:SPS, but surely if a site is reliable, it shouldn't be penalised for being hosted on Blogspot or Wordpress or Blogger or whatever? – Pee Jay 11:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sure this has been raised before, and the conclusion was that it was a RS, the guy who runs it is a well-known football historian I understand. It used to be on its own dedicated website, but for whatever reason he now prefers to use Blogspot. Giant Snowman 11:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS plainly advises never to use self-published sources to source facts on living people, so I'm not sure. If the writer is a distinguished expert then it can be used in other cases. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 45#Various football biographies are using this as a primary source, where it was ruled to be RS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenated nationalities again

This time at Talk:John Anthony Brooks‎‎. Two discussions, one is an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We need a few editors who can explain the guideline for nationality involved in the RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And for some reason, only one other editor is supporting the removal of "German-American" which has normally been against consensus in the group. We need a few additional editors to comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is verging on canvassing. Number 5 7 21:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is but consensus here is clear. Check the archives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(a) that doesn't make it acceptable and (b) I still don't believe you're right about consensus. I've scanned the archives, and looked at several debates. There was never a clear outcome, and some editors have given different answers at different times (including in the same debate). One of the last people whose nationality was discussed was Robbie Russell, whose intro still reads "is a former Ghanaian American soccer player." Number 5 7 22:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, I'm not canvasing. I don't inform people who I know will comment one way to engage in discussion, I state the issue in a neutral way and allow those who are interested in discussing do so. So in the same way that you clearly don't understand CANVASS you don't understand CONSENSUS. In this case, the majority of editors do not believe that a footballer should have a hyphenated nationality and instead the nation for which they play for should be displayed. I'll fix Robbie Russell when this discussion is over. Feel free to list others you want me to fix. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand WP:CANVASS very well. Your comments above are not neutrally worded, as there is a clear leading edge to it (i.e. only one person has commented in the way I want, so please come and back me up). I also understand consensus, as I frequently close debates in my role as an admin. However, your comments (i.e. using the phrase "the majority of editors") shows that you do not. Consensus is not about how many editors are on each side, it is about who has the strongest argument - I have closed several discussions in favour of the minority view because they made the best case. Number 5 7 22:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Interpret it this way instead: I know how most editors in the project think on the subject and right now there are editors who don't think that way, please support the consensus. You, on the other hand, may take your opinion for a long walk. And stop direct linking: throw a colon in. And to equate consensus with notavote is a joke. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I recently came across Carmelina Moscato, who, accoring to the lede, "is an Italian-Canadian soccer player". She's definitely Italian-Canadian, so is that really so bad? Other people can be Italian-Canadians (and German-Americans), so why not football/soccer players? There is obviously no such thing as an Italian-Canadian national team – nor is there a German-American one – and if they play in a national team of either country, that's probably mentioned in the lede, so there can't really be a confusion. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA - "Ethnicity [...] should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Italian-Canadian is an ethnicity, is it not? Her nationality is Canadian, and that nationality is relevant to her notability (as a national team player). Ergo, we should say that she is Canadian. Where her parents or grandparents are from is wholly irrelevant in the lede. Giant Snowman 19:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Allright then. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Player join dates

While transfer windows for different leagues open at different times, the Premier League clearly states that The first (transfer window) commences at midnight on the last day of the season.... I understand that the old rules meant the (PL) window opens only on 1 July but considering the current rules, wouldn't the transfers of say, Luke Shaw and Ander Herrera indicated as joining only on 1 July 2014 be factually incorrect? LRD NO (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I may be guilty of having misinterpreted the regulations, but I'm pretty sure the international transfer window is still 1 July, but that domestic transfers can occur from the last day of the season. That would mean Luke Shaw is a Manchester United player now, but Ander Herrera won't be for another two days. – Pee Jay 10:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

My belief is that any club can sign a player at any time, but can only register them when the transfer window opens and that varies according to the different leagues. For the Premier League, any incoming players from the domestic or foreign leagues can be registered with the opening of the window on the last day of the season, while outgoing transfers are subjected to the regulations of the other leagues e.g. if Liverpool sells Suarez to Barcelona, the latter can only register him on 1 July or whatever the Spanish window is. LRD NO (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, there is no strict restrictions on the opening/close of an 'international transfer window'. Leagues determine their own transfer window and you have different windows depending on leagues with yearly or split-year (most European) seasons. Case in point - the Russian window closes later than any of the European leagues. LRD NO (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@PJ It does seem that domestic transfers are allowed to go through from the last day of the season for the English leagues, while international transfers go through on 10 June, according to the BBC. As such, both the Shaw and Herrera transfers should have been concluded. LRD NO (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah good, a source! I stand corrected. – Pee Jay 11:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

First team / reserves / youth player lists

There is needed clarification regarding Newcastle United F.C. squad but this equally applies to any other club so I figure I might as well raise it here.

A user has recently added three players (Ľubomír Šatka (18 years old), Jak Alnwick (18), Remie Streete (19)) to the first team list, citing the Premier League website. My counter is that neither of these three players have played a single match for the club (which might carry some mileage considering a previous discussion on James Wilson), and that the official NUFC website listed them under their reserves team. The names appear under the Premier League website more of a need by the club to fill the 25-man squad list and state all eligible players under player registration rules rather than indication of actual first-team status.

Any input is appreciated. LRD NO (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If they form part of the official Premier League 25-man first-team squad then we should include them listed in the 'first team' list on our article, even if the club still considers primarily reserves. Giant Snowman 09:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no indication that the 25-man squad list is solely a 'first-team' squad, and players are registered in different categories for administrative purposes[1]. What the club considers should take precedence over a convenient 'first team squad' under the PL website, which also lists players with regular PL games as U-21 players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRD NO (talk • contribs)

But a 25-man 'first team' is required under PL regulations. We can list more than 25 (i.e. reserve/youth players who break into the first XI during the season), but if a player is part of the PL's 25 we should still list them as first-team on Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 10:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Premier League has in no way indicated that it is specifically a 'first-team' squad. Rather, it is a list of player eligible for league games. By league regulations, the club would have to submit reserves/youth names even if they may not count towards the 25-man quota. Furthermore, the clubs list them under their reserve/youth teams, said U-21 players have not made any appearances for the club. Being listed in the 25-man list should not qualify them as first-teamers. LRD NO (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If a player has a squad number, they should be listed in the first team squad. Number 5 7 11:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Squad numbers are not restricted to the first team. Reserve/youth players have them too. LRD NO (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone has a squad number, it means they are available to play for the first team. TBH, the division into first/reserve/academy is completely pointless (and in many cases OR) as player flit around between the three. Personally I think only players with squad numbers should be listed at all. If someone really wants to list other, non-notable players then I suppose they can, but that is where the dividing line should be. Number 5 7 11:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Countries at the FIFA World Cup

Most of the pages from this category have inconsistent layouts compared to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minomelo (talk • contribs) 01:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this as well some time ago. I attempted to create a model at Peru at the FIFA World Cup, but I only managed to form a structure and work in one section. This is what other articles should also be like (just focus on history & records; leave line-ups and specific matches to other more-specific articles). The only part I am unsure about is whether to separate the finals from the qualifiers in the history section.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Help needed with a review at Articles for Creation

Please would one or more of you answer this request over at AFC? Fiddle Faddle 08:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Number 5 7 09:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Move inter-confederation articles?

Hello.

I'm contemplating requesting a move of the pages in Category:FIFA World Cup qualification inter-confederation play-offs, such as 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC – CONMEBOL play-off) and 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF – OFC play-off) to variants without spaces around the endash.

Do you agree, or what's the general view here?

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have now created a requested move. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess one per year would be enough. -Koppapa (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Rizky Iconia and logos on kits

Rizky Iconia (talk · contribs) seems to like adding kits. However, he doesn't seem to like adding them without logos. I've mentioned that we can't allow the logos. Other editors have mentioned it to him as well. Any suggestions on how to approach this?

On a separate note, I was thinking that the best way to approach it would be to change the way kits are displayed on all Wiki projects. If we only allow the base shirt without logos on it them and then add the logos and crests as sprites over the kit, those projects that allow such could easily add them without having to create new images every season. Where could I raise that idea or where's a wall against which I can hit my head as it would be a more useful endeavour than trying to change everything? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If an editor continues to ignore polite warnings about their good-faith copyright violations (which is the reason we don't have logos, as I understand it) then you should report them; I'd suggest seeking guidance at WP:AN. Giant Snowman 17:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

IPvandal

Resolved

194.25.31.242 (talk · contribs) with current persistent vandalism of football stadia pages. Reported at WP:AIV but would be helpful if any WP:FOOTY admin can intervene. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Greek players birth year

2.85.80.209 (talk · contribs) has changed birth year for several Greek world cup players both in individual articles and in squad list. Don't know if he/she has a basis for the changes, but would be nice if someone could look into it and revert if necessary. --Wikijens (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a standard vandal - revert, warn, and then report at WP:AIV. Giant Snowman 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest changes

Hi, how do you check latest changes in WikiProject Football?--Yacatisma (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If you mean changes to this page, then you can just watchlist it. if you're referring to checking all the pages which are covered by WP:FOOTY then I don't think there's any way apart from individually watchlisting them. - 97rob (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You could set-up a list of the articles covered by the project and use Special:RecentChangesLinked to show changes to all the articles on the list. Keith D (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hull City help

Hi, can somebody give me a hand at Hull City A.F.C.? Two sections stick out like a sore thumb for the disproportionate length - the most recent history, and name change saga. There are calls for the name change saga to have its own article, with which I agree. I'd like the main article be like Liverpool F.C., which sums up the history - of a much more successful club - in a single section. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

long and convoluted disambiguation

I came across the article Sebastián Fernández (footballer born 1989) and was told at Wikipedia talk:Article titles‎‎#Long and convoluted disambiguation that this wikiproject does very well on article naming. I feel that if this can be disambiguated more tersely that it probably should, so I was hoping to get the project's input. Much thanks in advance. Van Isaac_WS^cont 04:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest an alternative. They're both Uruguayan, both footballers, and both play in the same position. Not much left really other than date of birth...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If I had an alternative to suggest, I would have been WP:Bold. Van Isaac_WS^cont 08:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Move to Sebastián Fernández (footballer, born 1985) and Sebastián Fernández (footballer, born 1989) per current naming conventions and standard practice. Year of birth is always the preferred disambiguator. Giant Snowman 12:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

essay on F.I.F.A

I want essay on f.i.f.a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.226.97 (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The article can be found at FIFA. Giant Snowman 12:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS:CONSECUTIVE#Consecutive_punctuation_marks

Hi, does this apply to football articles: if you have Team F.C. at the end of a sentence, is it Team F.C..

Thanks, Mat ty.007 16:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It does apply: one full stop is plenty. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Mat ty.007 16:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Height

If you were not aware, {{Height}} now displays in 'cm' as well as 'm'. I think we need to decide how we are going to display heights across all footballer articles. Both formats seem to be used, which means sources can be found to support 'cm' or 'm', so we need to agree on a standard. I think that because 'm' has been used to date it should be maintained. Related RFC can be found here. Giant Snowman 08:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree and support of using "m". Common around here and also i never heard someone said to me that he is 175cm tall, always it's 1.75m. Kante4 (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with what's used in WP:SOURCES being reflected in articles, as is the Wikipedia way. For a lot of people (e.g. doctors, anthropologists, Australians) expressing human height in metres is an oddity.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about footballers and footballers only. Giant Snowman 10:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I know. Your point...?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That we don't care how articles on doctors or anthropologists or hairdressers or actors or animals etc. express height. Giant Snowman 10:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nor was I implying you should. But presumably anthropologists and Australians edit football articles as well as university students and Britons.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't change the content/format of the article based on who is going to read/edit it. Giant Snowman 11:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course. We follow norms as established by WP:SOURCES. I'm the last person to whom that needs explaining.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we follow the MOS. Giant Snowman 11:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And the MOS is silent on this question. What is your point? Or shall we go around in more circles?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have started this discussion so we can try and tidy up that element of the MOS. Giant Snowman 11:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Well this is a real interesting choice of location for that. Personally I would have gone with the MOS talk page itself.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, this relates to footballers only and so the football WikiProject is the best place to have it. Giant Snowman 12:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that m is the better option when talking about metric units. Number 5 7 11:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The field of anthropometry itself uses cm. That should be enough. But perhaps you're more interested to know that FIFA¹ and Manchester United² use cm too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibson Flying V (talk • contribs)

As already stated, football-related sources can be found to support both 'm' and 'cm', so that's a non-starter. Giant Snowman 11:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to 'we need to standardise on metres because I'm personally used to seeing it'. Brilliant. You don't even try to not embarrass yourself.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to try and be a bit more WP:CIVIL please? Giant Snowman 11:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh of course. It's such a relief that you're here to maintain standards of behaviour. Who knows what would happen if you weren't!--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Gibson just with his usual behaviour, nothing to see... I have yet to see someone who supports your point or a good reason why we should change it on the articles. There are enough sources for m and cm so? On the Marcelo article you changed the realmadrid.com (Official website who uses "m") to the FIFA one (who uses cm). Cherrypicking... Kante4 (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

realmadrid.com uses a comma in place of a decimal point, as is common practice in countries such as Spain. The manual of style states A period/full stop (never a comma) is used as the decimal point. This illustrates quite nicely the fact that what's common practice in European sources has absolutely no influence on the English Wikipedia's MOS. European editors coming here and pushing for metres is exactly like me going to the German Wikipedia and demanding they use cm "because I'm more used to it".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just go with whatever the primary source says. If the source is listed in centimetres (and sometimes they even include half-centimetres in their measurements), let's go with that. If it's metres, that's okay too. Let's not forget, centimetres and metres are just a different scale of the same unit of measurement. 1.79 metres is exactly equivalent to 179 centimetres (assuming that no rounding took place). – Pee Jay 12:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes but sources can be found which support both 'cm' and 'm' - as the Marcelo example above shows. We have one source which shows 1.79m and one source which shows 179cm - which do we use/display? Giant Snowman 12:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Whichever one is more authoritative on the subject. But if they're both effectively showing the same height, it really doesn't matter. – Pee Jay 13:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to depend on league

England: metres
Spain: metres
Germany: metres
Italy: state meters but use centimetres
France: metres

and in some instances club pages will use a different measure. One of the things that an encyclopedia affords is consistency of display and since WP:CALC allows for multiplying or dividing by 100 without effecting the actual information, we should standardize on a format. I don't care what we end up using, but it seems that most leagues (and sources) use metres, so should we. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree about the consistency bit – whatever is agreed should be blanket across the whole of Wikipedia, otherwise we'll just end up with editors cherrypicking sources that use their preferred method (which appears to be why this whole thing has come about anyway). Number 5 7 15:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Standardizing on m and excluding cm is like standardizing on 'June 23, 2014' and excluding '23 June 2014' for the sake of "consistency". I don't understand what possible criticism of centimetres is driving this campaign for their removal. Are centimetres considered "too formal-looking"? This is an encyclopedia, it is supposed to be written formally. That's why we take our cues from the highest quality sources. And if they use cm, why should we use m? I'm still really confused by this. Can someone provide a reason for it? Even a bad one?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

But we don't get editors disruptively editing to add their own preference for date format, as you have done for height format. That is why we need a standard format for heights for all footballers. I see more displays of 'm' than 'cm' in RS and so that is why I have suggested that we keep that as the format, a view that has been largely echoed by my colleagues here. In fact, the only one pushing for 'cm' is you, which says it all really. Giant Snowman 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have to push for anything if WP:SOURCES and (thus consensus) were not being disregarded. I'm not pushing for cm, I'm pushing for a source-based approach, which is fully supported by Wikipedia policy. You and your "colleagues'" WP:IDONTLIKEITs are not. Which is why Wikipedia goes to the trouble of explaining that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Quality is what's needed in your arguments, not quantity.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And yet WP:CALC and (thus consensus) is being disregarded by you. The source indicates a measurement. The measurement is convertible via a simple calculation. I'm not pushing for m, but for consistency. It's also known as uniformity. In the publishing world it's known as a manual of style. In Wikipedia it's known as the consensus of "pick a scale and stick to it". It already annoys me that we have a mix of metric and imperial. What if a Greek league started displaying height in cubits? What if a traditionalist Irish team started displaying height in barleycorn? We have every right to convert the height based on calc and display it in meters or feet & inches, but your argument would be not to because that's what the sources say.

To hopefully put a nail in this coffin, there are a great many sources prior to 1852 that show dates in old style and yet because we consistently use the new style Gregorian date we convert it without blinking an eye. That's no different than using metres rather than centimetres because that's what readers expect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_143#Human_height is the closest thing we have to Wikipedia-wide consensus that an inconsistent, source-based approach should be used. At Template talk:Height there was a clear consensus for both cm and m to be permitted, and the closer of the RfC there even went to the trouble of highlighting the fact that we do not need perfect consistency when it comes to these units. At Talk:Human height there was clear consensus for cm to be used on that article. I think all this counts as a general acceptance of both cm and m. Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus states that "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." I can also convert effortlessly between 'centimetre' and 'centimeter', 'color' and 'colour, so do you think we should just pick one of these and enforce it across Wikipedia as well? WP:ENGVAR says that we should not. But even if it was decided we should have perfect consistency in the Manual of Style, it seems to me that the unit chosen by English-languge encyclopedias, textbooks, scientific journals, national governments, international organisations, etc. should be given the most weight as stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. This makes a call for going back to enforcing metres totally nonsensical. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've just managed to read through all this debate and this is what I would do. To me, a source-based approach seems like the only sensible way; trying to force one particular style won't work. BUT, we should just use whichever source was consulted first. If someone creates an article and the source they used has the height in metres, then in that article the height should be recorded in metres and that's the end of it. Likewise if the source the editor creates the article with uses centimetres, or feet and inches, or whatever. Going out of your way to find sources to fit your agenda (looking at you here, Gibson) and then making utterly pointless edits to articles should lead to a block, at least. BigDom (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

More disappointing failure to assume good faith aside (Really? I went out of my way to find FIFA.com and Oxford University Press?), {{Infobox football biography}}, which editors will simply cut & paste from, is presently biased towards metres. This means the current artificial prevalence of metres on Wikipedia will continue (and even expand), in spite of real-world norms. And for what? Because certain editors got to the template's style guide first? Why should reliable sources be disregarded? It is Wikipedia's role to simply reflect real-world norms as evinced in reliable sources. Is anyone here disputing this? PeeJay's suggested approach of assessing the quality of the sources (something done routinely on Wikipedia and covered within its guidelines) is far better, and something no editor who understands the way this encyclopedia is meant to work should be afraid of.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I meant about going out of your way and you know it. I meant that on several players' articles the heights were already there, but you didn't like the fact they were in metres so you went to find a source that displayed it in cm when you could have spent your time far more productively. And why have you gone off on a tangent about disregarding reliable sources? That's not what I said. BigDom (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You say, "but you didn't like the fact they were in metres". Just how do you know that? You'll notice I only ever did it to reflect the source for the height that was being disregarded because of the template's shortcoming (more often than not correcting erroneous heights in WP:BLPs and adding further references. You're welcome). Your first-come-first-serve suggestion and PeeJay's source-based suggestion appear to be mutually exclusive to me, are they not? Your approach seems to disregard what's in sources, as it makes mere sequence of events paramount (complete with authority to block editors who don't respect it). And what of the infobox's style guide? This should already be unbiased and give instructions on how to produce both units. It doesn't.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mine and PeeJay's suggestions are almost identical; pick a good reliable source and stick with what it says. You say my approach disregards what's in sources. How, exactly? My proposal is to use exactly what's in the source and not to change it whatsoever. If the creator of the article uses a reliable source, then what's your problem? If they don't, then they shouldn't have created the article in the first place. As for blocking, people who cause disruption (whether by changing height formats for no reason, or otherwise) should be blocked - that's already Wikipedia policy. BigDom (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You see it is precisely because of this bickering that I suggested having one format in the first place - in that way there is no argument, no claims of "my source is better than your source." Giant Snowman 11:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, BigDom. If a source has already been selected, it shouldn't be replaced just because it doesn't list the height in a unit that a particular editor prefers. However, if the original source was from a site like Soccerway or Transfermarkt, it should definitely be replaced once a more reliable one could be found, such as the player's profile on his club website, or the site of a competition he has played in (e.g. UEFA.com, FIFA.com or PremierLeague.com); once the more reliable source is in place, the units should be altered (or not, as the case may be) to reflect the new source. – Pee Jay 12:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And what of the biography infobox template's usage guide?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, what of it? Giant Snowman 12:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and guess that you've somehow missed my previous comments instead of assuming that you're just trying to be cute. Please see my posts just above at 10:04 and 10:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC). To clarify my concerns further: no editor going to {{Infobox football biography}} could ever know that using centimetres is an option, as it is written for metre usage only. So even if they created an article using FIFA.com, which states the height as 180 cm, they will produce 1.80 m in the infobox. This renders all our talk of an approach where usage in sources can be reflected organically on Wikipedia completely meaningless.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a bit of a stretch to come to that conclusion to be honest. But in any case how cam we change the style guide until we all come to some kind of consensus here? BigDom (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

What's a bit of a stretch? I figured that if we all come to consensus at WikiProject Football that source-based unit flexibility is the best approach, that could easily be incorporated into {{Infobox football biography}}.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear there. I was referring to "no editor going to {{Infobox football biography}} could ever know that using centimetres is an option". To me, it's quite clear that the example there is just that, an example, and nowhere that I can see does it say that metres must be used. For the second part of your comment, that's exactly what I'm saying. If we come to an agreement here, then we can work on the wording to be used in the template documentation. But at the moment it doesn't look like we're close to a consensus so there's little point worrying about that yet, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. BigDom (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ok then. Personally, I simply cut & paste from these examples when I create new biography articles. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Therefore I think that if consensus is reached here to allow both m and cm, the template documentation should display examples of how to get both, or simply refer to the sub-template's page which does. But I understand if it's too early to be discussing the nuts & bolts of that here and now. As far as consensus goes, I think the arguments for source-based flexibility are far stronger than those for single-unit rigidity. I agree with what PeeJay says above about choosing between sources based on quality, as it is something we already face whenever two sources give different heights. This is simply extended to situations where two sources give different units.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox football biography}} does not say "use m instead of cm"; there is no {{height}} template present, and the useage guide mentions m, cm and inches! Giant Snowman 11:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Like User:BigDom said, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no bridge to cross. You claim that the current template favours 'm' over 'cm', I'm telling you it does no such thing. Giant Snowman 11:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Umm, thanks for sharing that, User:GiantSnowman. Now why do you keep ruining the sequence of posts here? Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout states: To avoid confusion, the latest comment in a thread should be posted in chronological order and not placed above earlier comments. And you accuse me of being disruptive. And you're an administrator. Remarkable.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Because SFB's comment below is not part of this particular thread...? If every post on any discussion was in precise, exact chronological order it'd be carnage. Giant Snowman 12:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Aren't there more pressing problems to discuss than this? It's problematic that "m vs cm" generates this much interest while my suggestion to address the fact that all the football squads list the flag of a player without any column header or any reference as to what it means got no response. We never got a conclusion on what positions should be listed under staff sections either. Priorities are a bit out of synch here. SFB 07:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with metres and a decimal point. It's the same measurement but dividing up the number makes it easier to see, particularly in smaller text. 1.532 is easier to read than 1532. This is the reason why we have a comma in 1000 making it 1,000: the numbers don't run into each other if you have less than optimal eyesight. Britmax (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the above statement. So, we can say that we use "m"? Kante4 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should. While some have said use whatever the 'best' (whatever that means) source says and/or what was there first, more people support a 'm'. Nobody other than Gibson is supporting exclusive use of 'cm'. Giant Snowman 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, he is the only one in favour of "cm". So, the changes at the Marcelo article can be undone and changed to "m" again? Kante4 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The current consensus is both formats (cm and m) are acceptable. I don't think that has been changed here. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The current consensus is that metres is all that should be used and that you should stop pushing your opinion that centimetres should be an option. But I admit that I could be wrong. Consensus may be that you should be have a topic ban on changing biographic information. What do I know? But if you look above, you’ll see that there is no consensus to use centimetres. Do you mean consensus some place other than this talk page? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

See my post above at 07:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC). It's good that you admit that you could be wrong.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see that you still only pay attention to items that support your POV. Try looking at CONSENSUS and if that doesn't appeal to you, try gaining support at the town pump because you're not going to get it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. This isn't my project though. This is User:GiantSnowman]]'s attempt to change the current consensus of both units being acceptable to only one being acceptable.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The only one trying to change consensus is you Gibson Flying V. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Prior to this discussion there was no "current consensus" which stated both units were acceptable on football-related articles. As this discussion shows, the consensus seems to be in favour of using 'm' as a standard. So why does Gibson continue to add heights in cm? Giant Snowman 12:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably because he thinks he's right and we don't have a process to deal with editors in situations like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We do, we take him back to ANI if he continues. Consensus here is pretty clear, even though I am INVOLVED. Giant Snowman 17:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A topic ban might be relevant when a user consistently ignores consensus. The RfC that the user previously initiated to allow cm in Template:Height stated in the closing that "The addition of this parameter is in no way an endorsement of the use of cm rather than m in any particular field of endeavor." A topic ban on editing heights of sportspeople might be needed if this persists.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Which he is - I will escalate the matter to WP:AN and seek a topic ban. Input from all involved would be appreciated. Giant Snowman 20:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally absurd. But go for it. Should be as successful as the previous one. Correcting and referencing heights in WP:BLPs complete with referencing of WP:SOURCES is the opposite of what one does to get a topic ban (this was proven last time you tried, remember?). The number of times it has bothered anyone (as if it would!) is miniscule, and all those bothered editors are involved in this discussion. The current WP:CONSENSUS is that either unit is fine and common sense says reliable sources should be followed. Here User:GiantSnowman replaces the height with reference to goal.com (178cm) with "1.78m" and a reference to national-football-teams.com which lists his height (probably erroneously) as 1.80m.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the height of 1.80m that is also verified by China Daily here and Eurosport here? Giant Snowman 21:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Yeah. Either way this proves you're obsessed solely with the unit (only as long as I've edited the article, that is!) and not with actual height or the source quality as you claimed in your edit summary.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Gibson Flying V is obsessed solely with the unit rather than being concerned with consistency. As for a topic ban, please post it here and I'll offer my piece to it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Topic ban proposal for Gibson Flying V. Giant Snowman 06:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

International Federation of Football History & Statistics‎

Am I correct in thinking the multiple tables in this article could potentially violate copyright? Giant Snowman 07:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Deportivo Santamarina RM

Hi. Would be great if we could a few comments at Talk:Deportivo Santamarina#Requested move. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

1999 Champions League final venue announcement

Does anyone know where I can find an official press release or even a news report about the announcement of the Camp Nou as the venue for the 1999 Champions League Final? I've managed to get hold of materials that state when the announcement was due to take place, and I have materials indicating that the announcement must have been taken at some point, but I have nothing about the announcement itself. If anyone has access to a news archive like LexisNexis, I would really appreciate some help. – Pee Jay 09:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Best to peruse through native sources (Spanish, Barcelona media) for stuff like this, because the announcement didn't concern the British press and the Champions League wasn't as big/globalised as it is now. El Mundo Deportivo should have been your first port of call – it's Barcelona based, nothing gets past them and its archive is free. In May 1998 they reported that Barcelona ratified the Nou Camp as venue host because it fell on their centenary. By 6 October 1998, it looked to be a two-way fight between Wembley and the Nou Camp. Two days later, UEFA chose the Nou Camp and confirmed date and time. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those, mate. I had a feeling you might be able to help! – Pee Jay 10:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If you need it precise, Lemonade51's Mundo Deportivo report of 8 October says UEFA announced the decision "ayer por la mañana", i.e. "yesterday morning", the 7th, having actually taken it the night before. The Birmingham Mail, an evening paper, ran the decision as a snippet in its edition of 7 October (though they were more interested in the Cup-winners Cup final going to V*lla Park). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've added the info to the 1999 UEFA Champions League Final article now. – Pee Jay 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Football clubs in Fooland" categories

What are other editors thoughts on these? Personally I find it quite useful to have all clubs from a country listed in one place (particularly for the English ones, as it's an easy way to spot joke entries on 5-a-side teams etc), as the lists themselves are rarely complete. However, there have been sporadic outbursts of some editors removing some to put into state/county-level categories (some country-level categories have been completely emptied). I don't see why they can't be in both. A further issue is that some second-level categories also contain defunct clubs, which means trying to get a clear set of extant clubs is even more difficult.

In summary my question is should all clubs in a country be kept in the top level "Football clubs in Fooland" category and also put in second-level categories where they exist, or is it acceptable for country-level categories to be emptied into second-level categories? Cheers, Number 5 7 10:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

While WP:SUBCAT is important, so is WP:COMMONSENSE. I agree that it is extremely useful for navigation / research for clubs to remain in the Category:Football clubs in England, as readers might not necessarily know which region a club is from; there is no harm in adding a secondary, regional category (e.g. Category:Football clubs in Yorkshire) to complement the first, national category. Giant Snowman 12:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability question

Does anyone here know if a player is notable if he have played in the qualification for UEFA Europa League (or another contintal tournament), but never in a fully professional league? Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Have they played in a competitive game between two clubs; both of those clubs being members of fully-professional leagues? If so then I'd say yes. Giant Snowman 20:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Does UEFA Europe League qualify as a fully professional league? A third tire team from Estonia played in the qualification, where they met a second tire Norwegian team. Are all the players on those teams who entered the field notable, because of playing in UEFA Europe League's qualification stage? Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In your example, the player is not notable. The Estonian 3rd division is not FPL, so that was not a match between two teams from FPLs. Giant Snowman 20:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised that playing a competitive game in a continental torunament does not qualify for notability. Thank you anyway. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The qualifying is a very minor tournament, regardless of it being continental in scope. However the player might still be notable if they meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought the qualifying was per se a part of the tournament. The qualifying rounds is included for articles about UEFA Europe Leage by year/season. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is part of the tournamment, but European club tournaments are not fully-professional leagues, so appearances do not confer notability (there is some debate about whether games between two clubs both from fully-professional leagues count). You have to consider that such tournaments often have games between clubs from Andorra and San Marino, so clearly these matches should not confer notability on players. Number 5 7 12:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

FC Dinamo Occupied Sukhumi

Hello, I'm asking for some attention for this page with such interesting name. In my opinion it is incorrect; but that's related to the big conflict (see Abkhazia, War in Abkhazia (1992–93) and more) and maybe the club history should be ended in 1991 with a separate page for 2000s team – shouldn't it? Your opinions? -- With best regards, Postoronniy-13 (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the page was moved by a Georgian editor, possibly with some kind of nationalist motive following the Abkhazian conflict - I can't find any sources saying that this is the club's name. I have moved it back. Number 5 7 10:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dbl redirects fixed, this redirect deleted as implausible. Giant Snowman 12:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Fb cl2 header navbar again

Hi, sorry to bother people here again, but how do I format this template if a team withdrew (such as at the 2003 CECAFA Cup)? Thanks, Mat ty.007 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't it work as it is? -Koppapa (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I think I looks better if it says Withdrew across all the rows, rather than just a whole load of 0s. Thanks, Mat ty.007 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you reason #4381 why tables are better than templates. – Pee Jay 21:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A table makes more sense here, but your hyperbole is unnecessary and typical. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't even include them in the table. Just add a sentence above it saying they withdrew. Or else use |align=left|{{fb|TAN}}||colspan=8|''withdrew'' -Koppapa (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't work, it isn't aligned on the left. Seems nothing can be done as it is a template. Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it worked, 2003_CECAFA_Cup#Group_A. -Koppapa (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! There is no issue with me returning the colour to what it was, is there? Thanks, Mat ty.007 15:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Offside definition

I consider myself fairly well-informed on football, but I raised my eyebrows at part of the definition of the offside position. This is what is said in the article on Offside (association football), section "Offside position":

A player who does not possess the ball or is not the most recent player on his team to play the ball is in an offside position if three conditions are met:

The player is in the opposing team's half of the field.
The player is in front of the ball, which means that the ball is between the player and the mid-field line.
There is only one or fewer opposing players between the player and the opposing goal line, with the goalkeeper counting as an opposing player for these purposes; it is not necessary that the last opponent is the goalkeeper.

Do you spot it? I'm referring to the second part of bullet point 2; "which means that the ball is between the player and the mid-field line". As far as I'm concerned, a forward who is 1) in front of the ball, 2) in the opposing team's half of the field, and 3) in front of all the opposing team's players but one (most often the goalkeeper), is in an offside position, regardless of whether the ball is behind the mid-field line, or in front of it.

This means that the ball is not necessarily between the player and the mid-field line.

Right?

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. By that definition there you wouldn't be offside if the ball came from inside your own half, which would be ridiculous. Also I've never heard the term "mid-field line"; surely it's the "halfway line"? BigDom (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I was beginning to think that I wasn't thinking straight. I was thinking exactly the same: if you're well in front of the defenders, and the ball comes from deep down your own half, you're not offside? Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

FIFA's official rule book states (p35):

"Offside position

It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:

• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

A player is not in an offside position if:

• he is in his own half of the field of play or

• he is level with the second-last opponent or

• he is level with the last two opponents"

Nothing about which half of the pitch the ball is in there. The section 'Offence' states:

"A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or

• interfering with an opponent or

• gaining an advantage by being in that position"

However:

"There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:

• a goal kick

• a throw-in

• a corner kick"

So the goal kick exception may be where the confusion comes from here. If in normal play a player passes a ball from his own half over the half-way line to a player in an offside position that player is offside. Source: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/log2013en_neutral.pdf Wilmot1 (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The error was added 27 june in [2] by an editor who clearly misunderstood something. I have restored [3] the original formulation which clarified "in front". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Career statistics for goalies

The player manual of style makes no sense for goalies. The career statistics track only goals, which would almost always be zero for a goalie. It provides no helpful information about the player's accomplishments. A better statistic for a goalie would be saves. Can we change this? CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No; mainly because reliable sources don't track that information, and also partly because of WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 20:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What about goals against? Or at the very least, an exception should be made so that goalies don't have to have the career stats table at all. I mean, it does look awkward when every goalie ever has a giant table of nothing but zeros in a mandatory career statistics section that's of no benefit to the reader. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, no. Not goals conceded, not saves made, not clean sheets made etc. Giant Snowman 20:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? If goals is the only statistic we're allowed to cite, then that's the only one of value to the reader. If goals conceded are not, then the entire career statistics table should be removed per WP:NOTSTATS policy. Either way, the career stats table should be changed for goalies. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, because reliable sources don't track that information. Giant Snowman 20:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've stated before, if reliable sources cannot provide a meaningful statistic, than the goals statistic should simply be removed for goalies. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Some goalkeepers actually scores goals, like Rogério Ceni. William Tölöberg (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

True, but that's not really of value to the user. It's not a goalie's job to score goals and is more of an anomaly than the norm. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it makes no sense to remove the career stats table completely, because then appearances data would be lost. But , as noted above, none of saves/goals against/clean sheets are recorded for all but a (modern) tiny majority of goalies. Where would you suggest finding "saves" data for Gordon Banks or Lev Yashin or Fatty Foulk.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In two of the three articles you have cited, the talk pages have this exact discussion going on. As do many other goalie articles. Why is it project policy to display a table of zeros to the user? Surely we should change that. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

They aren't always zeroes though. Plenty of keepers score at some point in their career. Number 5 7 21:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That point has already been made and addressed above. As I said above, it's rare and not of value to the user. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it of value. Number 5 7 21:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If things like saves or goals conceded cannot be cited from reliable sources than the career stats table should be either modified to not show the goals statistic, or removed entirely for goalies per WP:NOTSTATS. It makes no sense to display a table of zeros to the reader. So if there's a desire to keep appearances, then remove goals only. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the above, traditionally goalie stats like saves or clean sheets are not recorded (I don't ever recall seeing it in a Rothmans or the like - only appearances and goals). Number 5 7 20:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What's your opinion on Costel Pantilimon club stats? Should it be removed? JMHamo (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but apparently, yes. Although I disagree with the policy, that's the one this project has chosen to adopt. It should be changed to show appearances and goals only. No clean sheets, saves, goals conceded, etc. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Costel Pantilimon has been fixed. Giant Snowman 19:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

For mine, the issue with using saves/clean sheets is the inconsistencies it would cause. Only a minority of 'keepers would have this information available from reliable sources and so if changed, the rows of zeros would often be replaced by rows of blanks. It is also interesting/relevant to note the occasions on which 'keepers do score. WP:FOOTBALL seems to have a general goal of creating consistency between footballers articles and in my opinion it wouldn't be ideal if 'keepers randomly had goals or clean sheets listed. That said I can see the pros of using clean sheets, being often more informative and remaining objective (unlike assists) so maybe a good debate to have. Macosal (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can see where the consensus is and it is clearly not with me. Thanks to all for your contributions and explanations. I'll start enforcing this policy, and I'd advise other users to do the same. There's a lot of goalie articles out there that simply skip the career stats table from the player template. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Lazar Marković

Resolved

Could an Admin please semi-protect Lazar Marković due to media reports on him being in advanced talks to sign for Liverpool from Benfica. Loads of non-constructive IP edits Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Brought this up at WP:RPP and the page has been semi-protected by an administrator. LRD NO (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!. RFPP usually takes two days for your request to even be reviewed (why I came here) and don't get me started on SPI backlogs... JMHamo (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Guess we go lucky that another admin at RPP has seen and resolved this early. Unfortunately it's silly season right now, and many users tend to take any transfer rumors as confirmation of players signing for a club. LRD NO (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Vandalism

Hey I would like to know how to report/block an IP from editing articles. This IP: 79.117.199.40 is just vandalising some articles on Wikipedia, just adding random,fictive data on some pages like https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liga_I_2014-2015 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_Cupa_Ligii. Thank you ! Am descălecat și aici . SHV 19:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladShev (talk • contribs)

WP:AIV is your best bet for reporting vandalism. Number 5 7 10:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Carlton Cole

Anyone know his full name? This ref here says he has Okirie as part of his name. Some editors dispute this and remove it. I don't know and only go on the BBC ref so rather than revert again, does anyone know a source for a definitive answer as to his full name? Cheers.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

At least 3 reliable sources - the BBC article you linked, the Telegraph and Soccerway - have the Okirie in his name. LRD NO (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the most recent PFA Footballers' Who's Who (2010-11), his full name is Carlton Michael Cole. I have no idea where the 'Okirie' came from, but it is possible that it was made up and is now simply doing the rounds as people copy and re-copy each other. Does anyone have access to a Premier League player registration PDF that might include his full name? – Pee Jay 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This must be one of the most blatant cases of WP:SYNTH I have ever seen; the three references given in the infobox all contain different full names and not one of them is the same as that given in the article! BigDom (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it actually possible for a British-born individual to have two surnames? I can't think of any instances off the top of my head. And the BDM Index at Findmypast.co.uk gives his full name as being 'Carlton Michael G. Cole' (note no Okirie). Mattythewhite (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Two unhyphenated names? Hack (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

His brother is Jeff Okirie.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. Until someone can find a source that says his full name is "Carlton Michael George Cole Okirie" (tip: you can't, because it's not) that name shouldn't be anywhere near his article. It's pure guesswork and synthesis. It would do far less harm to admit we don't know his proper full name and just leave it as Carlton Cole than to speculate as the article does at present. BigDom (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Also the source above re: his brother just seems to be a posting in the "readers' comments" section on a news article i.e. 100% unreliable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Now we KNOW that is not his name but offer no reliable source to verify just what it is! Square one then.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Frank Lampard

Various editors seem to believe his move to New York and Melbourne have been completed based on two tabloid refs taking a punt that these moves will go ahead. I am up to my 3 reverts but nothing shown confirms these moves.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the claims again. I don't believe I've seen any reliable source saying that he has actually signed, nor do either club seem to have confirmed it. Number 5 7 17:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Melbourne City CEO is on the record as suggesting he hasn't signed for them.[4] Hack (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Parting question

Rest in peace Alfredo Di Stéfano, really looked in pain in the last appearances as an honorary chairman of Madrid, may he score aplenty in his new abode!

As a parting gift for your friend of eight years (not Mr. Di Stéfano, myself, am leaving after eight years and try something else with my life, it was a pleasure overall, my apologies to whomever i offended or similar with my stubbornness of not wanting to follow (most of) the guidelines), trivia question: does anyone know of a player who has, like the Argentinian, played for THREE national teams?

All the best to all my teammates of several seasons or just one matchday (will stop editing on 13 JULY, feel free to ask for my assistance or vent anything until that day), get a life vandals if you can. Sincerely, from Portugal --AL (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I had my doubts that this guy had also done it, wikibrowsed and...voilà. Are there any more? --AL (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really answering your question but Dejan Stanković played for three different country names at World Cups - Yugoslavia; Serbia and Montenegro; and Serbia. Hack (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite an interesting turn to my question, thanks for your input, happy wikistay! --AL (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Belgium national team statistics

There seems to be some mistakes in the youth team statistics of Belgian players. For example Daniel Van Buyten is according to the article supposed to have played a U-18 match in 2000 when he was 23 years old. I think the source must be the site http://static.belgianfootball.be. Van Buyten's match is this one against France, which has 30 years old Karembeu in the team. Also this match against Norway features way too old players in both teams. Does anyone know what has happened? --Wikijens (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems those games are actually between Belgium B team and - at least for France - the France A'. There was probably a Belgium B team that was misconfused for a U18 team. Source for France A' - Belgium B. Tuttiseme (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess in Van Buyten's case we should remove U18-match from his infobox (and replace it with Belgium B). It seems the other match might have been Belgium B - Norway U23 according to [5] --Wikijens (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the Belgium FA lists him with 1 cap that is a pretty good source. Maybe it was a Under-18 match with some players allowed older. -Koppapa (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good source, but I find it difficult to accept it as an Under-18 match, when not a single player in the Belgian team was under 18 years at the time. I went through the whole line-up of Belgium against France and no player is born later then 1978. But in fact surprisingly many are born exactly in 1978 like Van Buyten, so maybe it was some sort of expanded U-23-team as would have represented Belgium if they had qualified for the 2000 Summer-Olympics? --Wikijens (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Europa League template

What is the point of {{UEFA Europa League}}? I don't think it gives much information, especially on club articles. Whenever a new season starts it isn't deleted most of the time too, see here. There also is {{UEFA Champions League}}. Maybe they are a bit more useful for the {{2014 FIFA World Cup finalists}}, i don't know. -Koppapa (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've always thought those templates (Champions League one too) are pointless - shall we have one for the FA Cup too and include all the teams playing in it :s If someone wants to TfD this, I'd fully support it. Number 5 7 10:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's see. Template for deletion. -Koppapa (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Netherlands v Argentina (2014 FIFA World Cup)

Does this merit its own article? Please comment: Talk:Netherlands v Argentina (2014 FIFA World Cup) – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, unless something of historical significance happens (like last night). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not even bloody kicked off yet! Giant Snowman 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless something utterly amazing happens in the second half, absolutely not. Valenciano (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. Kante4 (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly less so than any other match. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, This was a semifinal game which was scoreless throughout all 120 minutes and it went to shootout which Argentina won 4-2, if the Brazil vs. Germany semifinal match gets it's own article, why can't this one? Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 6:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How is the Netherlands vs. Argentina match notable? Kingjeff (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Brazil–Germany semifinal got a lot of press coverage, broke numerous records, was Brazil's worst defeat in 94 years, and (I know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but) will likely not be forgotten quickly. That snorefest that happened last night will be forgotten in a week. I know it was the first semifinal that finished 0–0 after extra time, but that's the kind of "record" commentators decide to fill dead space with and not something the press have gone ballistic over, like Brazil losing 7–1. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree - there was nothing notable about last night's game other than how crap it was. The first semi will be talked about for decades. On the other hand in a few years' time, people will probably struggle to remember which team Argentina even played in their semi...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I live in Australia, a country where soccer is not the major footballing code, and where it is fighting hard for a bigger market share. I've already heard a couple of people say today that "boring as batshit" (I'm only quoting here) games like the Netherlands v Argentina one is precisely what's NOT needed to promote the game. If someone wants to create an article with that perspective.... HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Maldini Pali previously deleted at AfD

Please will an expert check this re-creation? Fiddle Faddle 11:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the poorly written and entirely unreferenced wall of text (should be removed per WP:BLP) the article is sufficiently similar to the old one to justify speedy deletion per G4, which I have done. I have also SALTed to prevent further re-creation. Giant Snowman 11:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was ignoring that until I had a verdict. Fiddle Faddle 13:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding colours to football kit

Hi. I've just added kit detail to the 1973 Football League Cup Final and would like to add yellow trim to the Norwich City socks. Help required please. Cheers (Northmetpit (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)).

Done (added "_yellowtop" for the "pattern_so" parameter) (assuming that was what you were looking for). Macosal (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Macosal for quick reply. Most helpful.(Northmetpit (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)).

Stadio Flaminio

Hello, it's Blackcat from Rome, Italy. The new operator of the Stadio Flaminio is now the Italian Football Federation since 27 February 2014 (see articles here, here and here; here the official act of the Municipality of Rome). Of course the owner of the Stadium is still the Municipality of Rome. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 22:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we add an article for the slaughtering Brazil is facing right now?

Don't know if this is the right place, but anyway....As the score stands, it's the worst loss in Brazilian history, their first loss in a competitive home match since 1975, and all of this on the backdrop of a World Cup they were widely expected to walk through. I think it's notable enough match to get an article when it's over in ten minutes. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment it's a case of WP:ONEEVENT, depends if there is any significant, lasting coverage/significance. Giant Snowman 21:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm certain there will be...after all the Maracanazo has stayed in the Brazilian consciousness for half a century, and Brazil were actually competitive in that match. What defines "lasting significance" anyway? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Erm, no. But by all means add info to the team's main article. Jared Preston (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No way. It's one game of soccer. Classic recentism. Not the final. Grow some perspective people. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

We have Australia 31–0 American Samoa, so why not? This one is definitely more significant, as it involves the two arguably best nations over time, at least so far (and that's not going to change anywhere in the near future). The lasting impact however remains to be seen. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. In historical terms this is comparable with the England defeats against Hungary in 1953/54 (6–3 at Wembley, 7–1 in Hungary). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we have articles on those games? HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Links added. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This will easily warrant its own article, but wait for a while for decent sources and enough time for an in-depth reaction. I'm pretty sure this will prove to be one of the most important games in Brazilian history, and it may well have a far-reaching effect on Brazilian society, but let's make sure before starting an article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please wait until you're all no longer so excited about this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It already exists. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There should be sources for the match report ready. So, the article is ready to be started. Even if it's only under someone's user space. Kingjeff (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, two articles exist now: 2014 Brazil v Germany football match and Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup). HandsomeFella (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Here it is, in all its glory. Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup). Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, with the best will in the world, we don't need two. Or seven. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected one to the other, and prodded the remainder. I'm sure someone will take it to AfD, but let's see how the PROD goes. – Pee Jay 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I added prod-2, but it was removed within a minute... Number 5 7 09:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

and rightly so in both cases. WP:PROD: "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected....PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for articles PRODed before or previously discussed on AfD."

In the first case, is it really likely that no one would contest that deletion of such a high-profile game which broke so many records? A prod like that is pointless. A second prod is not allowed by the rules. Valenciano (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood - see {{Prod-2}}. Number 5 7 10:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sorry my mistake about the prod-2, but I still think the prod was ill-judged. Prod is only for uncontroversial cases where no opposition is expected. In this case, if this goes to AFD, opposition is about as certain as Brazil failing to score six second-half goals last night, so there's no point messing around with prods which will inevitably be contested. Valenciano (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

v or vs?

This page has just been moved to Brazil vs Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup). Note the use of "vs" now instead of "v". Other World Cup games have used "v" before (Italy v West Germany (1970 FIFA World Cup), West Germany v Austria (1982 FIFA World Cup) etc.). Is there any consensus on which is correct. It would be good to be consistent. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Both are fine imo, but usually you leave trivial things like this as they are to avoid adding a new entry to WP:LAME. Since ~~all~~ most other articles have "v" I don't see why this one shouldn't. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ALL other articles? Really? You've checked? HiLo48 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not all (see Austria vs Switzerland (1954 FIFA World Cup)), but it does appear to be most. I agree some consistency would be good though. (and no need for bold/caps in discussions please - it doesn't really contribute to a positive exchange of views) Number 5 7 12:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And that's a more serious offence than nonsensically and impossibly claiming "ALL"? Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My point was that there are more pleasant ways of pointing out that someone is wrong. IMO Wikipedia is becoming increasingly combative (as it seems only the more persistent editors are willing to stick around), and anything that can be done to make it a nicer place should be followed. Number 5 7 12:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I note you've still said nothing about the "all" claim. We won't make this a great encyclopaedia by making your arbitrary definition of niceness more important that rational thought. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

There, fixed. Sorry for my mistake. I didn't mean to cause such drama over one stupid letter. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Luis Suárez

Has Luis Suárez completed his move to Barcelona now? The official press release states he "will be travelling to Barcelona next week for a medical, to sign his five-year contract and to be officially presented", meaning no. Whereas this piece about his squad number says he "has joined FC Barcelona". Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes. Giant Snowman 12:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

this newer article from the FCB site says he will be signing the contract next week, so I would say "officially" not yet, but basically yes. I thought our practice was to put players as playing for a club once under contract – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Does his dentures move along with him? ;-) -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 15:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

J. League Best XI

What do people think about the notability of this unreferenced article? If suitable refs are out there would it be better covered at the individual season pages? Eldumpo (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is something you would only put on the seasons wiki page, not make a separate page for. You can also make a template for this sort of thing and put it on the players page with a category indicating which XI it is. No need for this page. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; take to PROD or AFD. Giant Snowman 11:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have PROD'ed the article now... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Erlind Koreshi

Could someone please advise me on what should be done about this? Is the subject notable? Push it to the mainspace? Delete it as a fake article? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He appears to be notable according to Soccerway.. Playing for KF Tirana in the Albanian Superliga, which is a fully professional league. JMHamo (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you know if he has actually played? I remember that being the thing that makes him pass notability. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thirteen appearances last season according to Soccerway. JMHamo (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. I'll move it in good faith to the mainspace. I'm sure that will agree with him. Many thanks for the guidance. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Graziano Pellè squad number

Hello, I'm having a disagreement with Bikeroo (talk · contribs), which I would like opinion on... Graziano Pellè has just signed for Southampton and on his Verified Twitter account bio he has the following - "Official twitteraccount, Southampton FC, Centre Forward, #19". Can this be used as a Reliable Source for the squad number, bearing in mind the account is verified? Thanks? JMHamo (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Southampton_F.C._squad.. forgot to say, the disagreement is over this template. JMHamo (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the squad number has not been officially announced yet. Giant Snowman 08:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.–Stoke City F.C. rivalry

Well written but I'm unsure about notability...? Giant Snowman 09:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous now, pretty soon we will have a page for the "rivalry" between every combination of clubs in professional football! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Other obviously non-notable "rivalry" or "derby" (I use the terms very loosely) articles include Bristol Rovers F.C.–Swindon Town F.C. rivalry, Ashington-West Auckland Derby, Rushmoor derby, Thanet derby, Essex derby, Lincolnshire derby and (IMO) Tees–Wear derby. BigDom (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete them all, for goodness' sake! – Pee Jay 23:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Every article contained within Category:England football derbies should be reviewed IMO.. JMHamo (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A derby is not necessarily a rivalry. Two clubs in some proximity make a derby. To make a rivalry there has to be some level of documented antagonism and history between the clubs and supporters. The antagonism is demonstrated in the Stoke Arsenal article but surely all clubs are rivals and there is often booing of players and comments on opposition style of play. In this case there seems to be some evidence of naming it a rivalry simply because of the clash of footballing and management styles.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone, I have taken this first article to AFD, we should probably look to take some/all of the others as well. Giant Snowman 08:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Tenuously linked RM

This may only be a very tenuous link, but I feel I ought to let members of this project know that the New Zealand national rugby union team article is currently the subject of an RM discussion over a move to All Blacks. I know that we don't normally concern ourselves with other sports, but I feel that the result of that RM could have consequences for the titles of national football team articles. For example, we could end up with Italy national football team moving to Azzurri or Brazil national football team moving to Seleção. If that's what the community wants, then fine, but I wouldn't want such a discussion to happen in isolation when it could have such far-reaching consequences for the rest of the encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 23:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: - WP:CANVASSING mate. Giant Snowman 08:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Salford City F.C. team template

Given the purchase of Salford City F.C. by the Class of '92 - there's been significant investment and as such many of the first team squad for 2014/15 have previous notability. I've created a squad template at Template:Salford City F.C. squad, but I can't seem to edit it - you can see it at the bottom of this player's article - Chris_Williams_(English_footballer).

What am I doing wrong? I've been away from active editing for a while, and seem to be having brain freeze around this issue.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanoni (talk • contribs) 09:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Also - not sure it's in my expertise around colours etc - but club kits need updating to the new colours this season - [6] Can anyone help out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanoni (talk • contribs) 09:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Giant Snowman 09:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! 09:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a wet blanket, but is Salford City FC sufficiently prominent to need a squad template? Regardless of their players' previous notability, the other players are not, and I worry that a navbox is going to encourage other editors to create articles about non-notable players. – Pee Jay 13:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That was my initial thought, but there are 7 blue-linked players, so it fulfills its primary duty as a navbox. Feel free to take to WP:TFD. Giant Snowman 13:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Transfermarkt as a source

I appreciate that TM is a user-edited site and thus there are issues over reliability. However, given that it is a useful source that provides a pretty comprehensive set of information - more so than many other sources considered as credible on here - should we really continue to refuse to recognise it as a valid source, especially when it contains a lot of information condensed into one URL that isn't available in the same format elsewhere? Cg29692 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There have been numerous discussions about this at WP:RSN, it is not reliable and should not be used. Giant Snowman 12:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

TM is not freely editable by users. As for reliability, it's more reliable than Weltfussball on the Bundesliga. And good luck finding detailed info on the German, Austrian, Swiss etc. third and fourth level elsewhere (for seasons more than 10 years ago). 46.238.126.226 (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that IP making your 'first' edit here... Giant Snowman 17:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan Potts

What to do? Daniel Potts (footballer) is almost never Daniel. His West Ham profile has him as Dan as does Soccerbase. There is already a Dan Potts as a redirection for a 19th century American sportsman, Doc Potts. Should any move of article name be done to Dan Potts given that he is a current player and not an historical sportsman with a very limited career or to Dan Potts (footballer)?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Be bold - move the footballer to Dan Potts (footballer) and turn Dan Potts into a redirect to Daniel Potts (already a disambiguation page), seeing as the article on the baseball player is currently at Doc Potts (baseball). Giant Snowman 17:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, done.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bato Radoncic

Dear football experts: I know you're all preoccupied this week, but this old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable player? Should the page be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to tell. Article says he played for a USL A-League club, which did play in a fully-professional league. However, it's unclear whether he made any appearances for them. It also claims he played for a national Futsal team, but I don't know whether that confers notability? Number 5 7 15:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What's a Futsal? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Futsal - and no, I don't think playing international futsal is enough. I don't think this guy is notable, does not appear to meet WP:GNG and no evidence he passes WP:NFOOTBALL either. Giant Snowman 17:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it's gone. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Individual season articles

Hi Y'all, I have a question. At what level do you typically draw the line for teams to have articles on individual seasons (or is there one). I received a question regarding a recent CSD where someone tried to justify having an article on the current season for a team in the North West Counties Football League because a team in Premier League had an an article about their season. Personally I think that is like comparing apples to architecture, but I do admit I am not one who particularly follows the Beautiful Game, and certainly don't know the hierarchy (hence I typically try to stay away from casting judgement on such articles). Said user is currently working on a draft at Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say there are two ways that a football season would be presumed to satisfy WP:GNG: 1) it is the season of a professional team in the top league of a country, a national team's season, or a season after which a team was promoted to the top league in that country. 2) the season of a lower division team was otherwise notable for some reason, e.g. one of the players later became a star of the game. Anything else is likely to fail at an AfD. But remember that just because it is unlikely to survive AfD doesn't mean that it is necessarily eligible for CSD. Almost any club season is going to make some claim on notability, so it doesn't qualify for A7. Van Isaac_WS^cont 22:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it wasn't under A7, I would not presume it A7able as a professional season, it was deleted under A10. A10 may have been a stretch (mea culpa), but really all the article intended to present was the season results for one team, which would available at 2014–15 North West Counties Football League. There were some other (fixable) issues as well (for example, the original name was Matches Season 2014-2015). I just was not sure if you folks drew the line for inherently notable season articles.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If the team plays in a WP:FPL then their season should be considered notable, alternatively a lower league season article is fine if it meets GNG. Giant Snowman 11:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, thank you, that makes sense. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"I would not presume it A7able as a professional season" - for info, the NWCFL is not a professional league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you Chris. Thank you, I will make a comment at the AfC draft in this regard. I am sure some of the reviewers there are not familiar with the relevant standards. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

2023 FIFA Women's World Cup?

2023 FIFA Women's World Cup is unsourced and I don't think that any bidding has happened since 2019 is still undetermined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's made up. -Koppapa (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with Indian Super League

Currently the team names and rosters are slowly starting to be revealed in the Indian press, however, nothing has been released officially. This has lead to some edits being made on pages like Delhi ISL team where an editor has changed the name of the page and someone else the squads based on some random report in a Danish newspaper. The team will officially not release anything till Thursday and the name Delhi Dynamos is already being used by a kabbadi team so I doubt that will be the name of the football team. So if someone has the ability, could they revert the name change back to Delhi ISL team and perhaps page protect it and all the other pages. I just don't want anything happening till it if officially announced. Thanks. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the only sources for this name is a Danish paper and 2 blogs in India. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you hadn't created an article about a city's franchise with zero information other than "this is a city's franchise" it wouldn't be an issue 3 months later...? Giant Snowman 19:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

To be fair mate I did not know that this was not a popular thing to do... till now actually. I made the pages because this is what I see with MLS... I mean look at the current Atlanta MLS team page. And I do believe I added them to the new articles page so if you had a problem with them then you could have PRODed them. And lets be honest, if it was not me it would have been someone else. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all very good points, sorry. As for your original comment - revert the move(s) per BRD, leave a message, and invite the user(s) to take it to WP:RM if they are so inclined. Giant Snowman 20:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Dynamos is fine for now. I've added the Danish source. -Koppapa (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see how. Fine, add the players but the name is still up in the air. There is already a team known as the Delhi Dynamos in the Pro Kabaddi League so I seriously doubt it is that name, especially since the owners are different. The name will not be officially announced till Thursday. I will take it to RM for now. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care. Move it back then, we'll see Thursday anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Opinion about a Draft at AFC

Please give an opinion about Draft:UEFA B Licence as an acceptable article - particularly examine the sourcing and notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The B licence is a fairly minor qualification and IMO not independently notable. A sentence at UEFA Pro Licence (which itself could do with a cleanup) would be enough.

As to content/sourcing, that draft is a massive copyvio of sources #2 and #3: #2 is a post by the owner of an online football kit shop on his non-RS blog, which contains a very close paraphrase of #3, the relevant section of the English Football Association's coaching qualifications guide. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Flag usage on 2014–15 Football League Championship and other league season articles

I am not sure if this has been asked yet but why is it that almost every league season articles include country flags on things like "Personnel and sponsoring" or "Managerial changes" but not the 2014-15 Championship page? It just seems weird to me. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Flags for players in squad lists is fine, this article is overkill - feel free to remove OTT flagging citing WP:MOSFLAG. Giant Snowman 09:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So you don't approve of flags being used in articles like this but they are okay on team squad sections? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Random, almost certainly incorrect kits being added

Has anyone else noticed a series of I.P.s adding seemingly random, chaotic kits to club articles recently? I have seen the following IPs in the last week or so:

Their only edits are to kits and they seem to be almost certainly nonsense. For example, this just looks wrong, plus I doubt a team playing in Samoa has a need for a third kit in the first place. The edits seem only to occur to very minor clubs in small countries, but it seems a bit like a concerted attempt at vandalism. Has anyone else seen this recently? Fenix down (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert, warn, report to WP:AIV. 189.71.9.170 has moved on to MLS clubs now... Giant Snowman 11:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional IPs have also been following the same pattern and I have reverted and warned where the IP is active, although several a day are being used at the moment. I have logged the issue, and all the IPs I have noticed at AIV. I would appreciate anyone else who has noticed similar activity based on the criteria I noted at AIV adding any other IPs to the list and reverting accordingly. Whilst it is great for my edit count it is getting a bit irritating now! Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oversight at Tomer Chencinski

Tomer Chencinski. I have no reason to doubt that the subject was born in Israel, but there's no reference so it's against WP:V and WP:RS. The subject has been capped by Canada but two editors have decided to add "Israeli-born" to the lede, which is against WP:OPENPARA and WP:MOSBIO and the link is probably against WP:OVERLINK. It would be best to have uninvolved editors continue there.

This again goes toward defining nationality of players. We need to formally state it rather than force editors to wander through our archives looking for statements of support or otherwise. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A source has since been added to support the birth information. It also appears that the cap in the infobox was added incorrectly as the match he played for Canada was a friendly, and likely not FIFA-sanctioned. The source indicates that he may be called-up by Israel, Canada or Poland (the nationality of his parents). So here's a really good case for how to open. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The match that Canada played Belarus in Qatar on 25 March 2013 is listed on the FIFA website. Reports of the game show Chencinski playing in goal.[7][8] Hack (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, but he's not on FIFA.com so I don't think it was a recognized match. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Players generally only get listed at FIFA.com if they play in a FIFA tournament. Hack (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The friendly wasn't FIFA-sanctioned and so it doesn't seem as though his cap is recognized by FIFA. Granted, the player is now in his late 20s and will likely not be capped internationally again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Hack was saying. Friendlies are almost always FIFA-sanctioned, but players only get listed on the FIFA website if they play in an actual tournament. Just because this player isn't listed on the FIFA website, that doesn't mean the match he played in wasn't FIFA-sanctioned. – Pee Jay 14:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. But if it was FIFA-sanctioned, how could he still have the option of being capped by two other national teams? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that definitely still an option for him? When was the source published that claims he can play for other teams? – Pee Jay 14:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Answering the question in general and not specifically to this case. As long as a player did not turn out for a national team in a competitive international match, he is not tied to that nation and may represent say, his country of birth, inherited nationality from parents and grandparents, as well as after 5 years after naturalisation in a country. There are certain exceptions when a player played for another country after being 'tied' through a competitive match but those are subject to FIFA's approval. LRD NO (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is covered comprehensively at FIFA eligibility rules btw. LRD NO (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. As long as the player hasn't been capped for a senior national team in a competitive match (c.f. Diego Costa), he can still play for another senior national team. I don't know how far this goes, though; could a player play for three or more different nations in friendlies before settling on one for the Euros or the World Cup? – Pee Jay 14:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If the player wants to switch national team/football association, he has to go through FIFA paperwork and the inevitable delay in the process. Technically you could do so but I'd imagine the various FAs wouldn't be too happy with the changes in mind. LRD NO (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pee Jay, only one switch is allowed under the FIFA statutes and the player would need to hold the citizenship of the second country at the point that they played for their first country. Hack (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's an official game. Giant Snowman 17:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata queries

Here are a couple of interesting queries showing how Wikidata can be used to identify new topics for articles on football players and clubs: (Be aware: links may take a while to load, particularly the first one)

41,780 Football players – Can list every item Wikidata has with the property "Occupation = Football player" yet does not contain a link from en.wikipedia in Category:Association football players. (currently limited to show first 100)
6,043 Football clubs – Can list every item Wikidata has with the property "Instance of = Association football club" yet does not contain a link from en.wikipedia in Category:Association football clubs. (currently limited to show first 100)

Of course, there will be some mistaken items that have the wrong "occupation" or "instance of", and there will be some players and clubs on other Wikipedias that en.wikipedia does not consider notable. But it is good start to see what potentially notable players and clubs other Wikipedias have which we don't.

I'm sure more queries could be made with the tool, but these are the first I thought of. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lindon Meikle

Hello, I nominated Lindon Meikle for DYK on 4 July 2014 and it hasn't been reviewed yet. Would some be kind enough to review it? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fluminense - performance table

Would the table at Fluminense FC#Performance count as original research? Hack (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe it does. It violates WP:CALC. WP:CALC allows for "routine calculations" provided "there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." Kingjeff (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

National football team rankings

There's a big issue when it comes to updating this stuff. Most articles contain outdated FIFA or Elo rankings, so one team's rankings could be the same on another one. Dates at which those rankings were updated should be added to avoid this confusion, and {{nft rank}} is a useful timesaver when updating these rankings. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 22:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to create some kind of masterlist that all the main articles read from? I know on the Hebrew Wikipedia that there is a master list of populations for each town/village in the country, and this information automatically appears in the infoboxes of the relevant places. Number 5 7 23:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Something like that would be easy to implement, I myself created a similar scheme for population and area numbers of Dutch municipalities. It will be a bit of work to place the template properly everywhere, but after that updating it would be a lot less time-consuming. CRwikiCA talk 23:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57: What do you mean by a "masterlist"? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 03:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Individual pages would pull data from a single list of rankings. Hack (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hack: If we can do that then that's the best way to go. How exactly would that work? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Helmut Schön

See here and here. Should Helmut Schön's nationality as of 1972 and 1974 be listed as West German or as East German? --Theurgist (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view there is no reason to list him as an East German. Schön fled from East to West Germany and according to West German law, each East German citizen was also considered a West German citizen and was entitled to a West German passport. An East German Bundestrainer, i.e. one who insisted on his East German citizenship and claimed allegiance to East Germany would have been unbearable. The uproar in the media would have put him out of his job very quickly. --Jaellee (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

History of Ligi Ndogo S.C.

Does Ligi Ndogo S.C. really require a separate article for its history at History of Ligi Ndogo S.C.? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In its current state all text can go in the main article. -Koppapa (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected; the content has not been merged as it is unreferenced. Giant Snowman 14:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Pl (s)

Hi, what do the abbreviations Pl (s) mean? [9] Am I correct in thinking Gls (p) is Goals (points)? Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought Pl (s) means Played (substitute) and Gls (p) means Goals (penalties). Mattythewhite (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I wondered about substitute. Thanks for the help, Mat ty.007 19:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Charity Shield FA

Hi all, I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could perform a source review and spotcheck → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1998 FA Charity Shield/archive1? The review's been dormant for nearly a month now. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Stats

Hi again, in stats, is someone gets 2 yellow cards and sent off, is it represented as 2 yellows or two yellows and a red card? Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I would use

... JMHamo (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

End of season stats (matches started, # of times used as sub, # of yellows and reds...). Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your source counts it as (unhelpful, sorry). Kyle Bartley was sent off for two yellow cards for Birmingham against Huddersfield last season, and received four yellows in other matches. Both Soccerbase and the Football League give him 5 yellows and 1 red in total, which means they count it as one yellow and one red. So, following the sources, that's what I gave him at 2013–14 Birmingham City F.C. season#Appearances and goals. Which seems wrong to me, because it feels like there ought to be a difference between that case and what they presumably do with a player who gets booked and then gets a straight red in the same game, which really is one yellow and one red... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically the two yellow cards that lead up to the indirect red card are rescinded. Hack (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Best, Mat ty.007 14:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Foreign players

In Asian leagues, there are reservations for foreign players, like only four foreigners in one squad. For this purpose we make a foreign players table like in 2013-14 A-League, 2013-14 I-League, 2014-15 I-League. Can anyone tell me whether these tables are required or not. Thanks! RRD13 (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as it is properly sourced, I don't see an issue. Hack (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, we're edging into NOTSTATS territory slightly here. Giant Snowman 14:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I used to work for a bet tipping website and I found the data helpful to justify the computer's tips in write-ups. As in, "team a have a Brazilian strike force of Fred and Bob who should be able to break down team b's defence". But thats just me.--Echetus Xe 15:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this query stem from the edit war at 2013–14 Iran Pro League over inclusion of a (completely unsourced) table, which resumed once protection was lifted, despite the discussion, such as it was, coming down 2–1 against such a table being needed at that page? I certainly wouldn't attempt to impose it on a page where those editors who appear to know something about the league in question seem to think it isn't needed.

Personally, I don't see the need for having such information in a great big table, but if it is particularly relevant to a specific league/season, it needs a sourced piece of prose in the section to help the ignorant reader understand why the it's there, and all the entries need to be sourced for verifiability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism

What is the course of action concerning very blatant plagiarism as evidenced by article Asraf Rashid and the ref provided? Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just delete it immediately as it's a copyright violation. – Pee Jay 09:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting one this. I've had a couple of non-league team biographies I've deleted in the past - only to see them reverted when people have claimed they wrote them for offline sources about the club, and then they have used online. No way to prove this is the case, of course. Zanoni (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

India national football team

When I search indian matches and I compare with India national football team#Competitive record (All-time team record), I don't find the same results. For example, France (olympic) had beaten India but India said it's a A match, for France it isn't the case (fr:Liste des matchs de l'équipe de France de football par adversaire). With England, it's the same thing. Idem for Brasil, the Netherlands and Romania. Where can I find informations about indian matches? Thank you so much. And who can correct the mistakes on the article?Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Was it an Olympic match before 1992? Hack (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For the India vs France game, yes, it was before 1992... it was in 1948. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The rule about olympic games is : olympic matches from 1960 OG aren't international matches, before yes. About France, I know it was in 1948, but I don't understand why there are mistakes on the articles about India. --FCNantes72 (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

International matches aren't always recognized as A matches by both countries. An example: 4-6-1929 Netherlands- Scotland, this match meets all the criteria to be an official A match for both countries, but it's only recognized as such by Scotland, because at that time the Netherlands didn't recognize matches against professional teams. Cattivi (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What does FIFA class it as? Giant Snowman 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For India-France the game is listed on the FIFA website. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

They list all Olympic matches back to 1908. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're recognising all of the matches as full internationals. Hack (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a full international for France (football in France was professional in 1948), but it was for India. 178.85.79.148 (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Biggest win/Biggest defeat

For national football teams, how are biggest wins and biggest defeats determined? How would two different scorelines with equal margins (e.g. 7-1 and 6-0) compare? For example, the Czech Republic page lists both 3-0 and 4-1 scores in biggest defeats. However the Argentina page only lists 6-1 scores in their biggest defeat, even though they have lost 5-0 in the past. Gazzawhite (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Most pages I looked at only had the biggest wins/defeats with the highest margin and the highest number of goals scored, while wins/defeats with the same margin but a lower number of scored goals are usually omitted (Argentina being only one example). If we were to include all results by the same margin, dozens of articles would have to be reevaluated and possibly amended by a myriad of additional results. Wackelkopp (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't be making that judgment. 7-1 is as big a defeat as 6-0 in terms of margin. Hack (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, any other approach is simply mathematically wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, most leagues and all FIFA tournaments use goals scored as a tie-breaker. Thus losing 1-6 is better than losing 0-5. So 0-5 should infact be a higher loss as 1-6. One could probably argue the other way too. -Koppapa (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that documented somewhere? In their statistical analysis of the Mineirazo, FIFA mention that the margin equalled Brazil's worst defeat (6-0).[10] Hack (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Of cause the margin is the same, but have two teams play 1-6 and 0-5 on matchday 1. Who is last in the table? It's the 0-5 team. -Koppapa (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So what? That's not what this discussion is about. See title. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Koppapa, the margin is the same, you can't selectively exclude equivalent results. Hack (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. No matter how long the lists of biggest wins and defeats may become, the goal margin is the only mathematically right approach. Kareldorado (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What do WP:RS say? Giant Snowman 11:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What about sending an enquiry to the relevant FIFA regulatory body/bodies regarding this topic? They should know best, after all. Wackelkopp (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Subtract the smaller number from the larger one. In every case. Then compare the results. FIFA cannot change the rules of Mathematics. HiLo48 (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Rules in sports are not a question of sheer mathematics, and the FIFA as the highest authority in this sport is indeed competent enough to decide whether a 7-1 or a 6-0 is a higher win/defeat. It's quite presumptuous of you to assume that only the rules of mathematics would apply here, while this is actually a question of subjective, football-related distinction between two same-margin results. Wackelkopp (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, unless you're changing the meaning of the word "biggest", that's just bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a question of representing what reliable sources say. Giant Snowman 12:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither FIFA nor any "reliable" source can change the meaning of "biggest". Did you guys ever study English or Mathematics? Or logic? HiLo48 (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You are taking this to a personal level now, really? How incredibly mature of you. Wackelkopp (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal? LOL. Discuss how FIFA can overrule mathematics please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And just to make that clear: If FIFA -as the highest regulatory authority in this sport- said that a 7-1 is a bigger win/defeat than a 6-0, then it indeed IS a higher win/defeat. Mathematics simply has no say in this, it's about subjective evaluation of sports results. Wackelkopp (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is your proof? Hack (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I made an if-statement, not an is-statement. Wackelkopp (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The link I provided seemed to show FIFA regarded 7-1 and 6-0 as the same. Hack (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a logic example to show that the dependence of biggest win/defeat on height of the score does not hold. Imagine two teams, A and B, who played two matches against eachother. Team A won both games, once with 4-0 and once with 6-2. If you claim that a "higher" score with the same margin is "better" (e.g. 2-1 win > 1-0 win) then the biggest win for team A is the 6-2, while team B's biggest loss would be 0-4 (since 2-6 is assumed to be "better"). But, is against all logic that the biggest win for the one team with respect to the other would not be the biggest loss for the other to the first. Kareldorado (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be one way to argue. I too would list both results though to avoid confusion. -Koppapa (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Under some circumstances, one could also argue that a 4-0 would be a better result for the winning team than a 6-2 - in the knockout stage of the UEFA CL/EL, for example: A team that lost the first leg with 1-5 away would certainly prefer a 4-0 over a 6-2 in the second leg at home. See? There are quite a few discrepancies and inconsistencies between tournaments and football associations. But anyway, I would like to hear a few more opinions regarding this topic before agreeing to a consensus. If the majority was then preferring to keep all results by the same margin, I'll happily prepare lists with all same-margin results for all national teams. Wackelkopp (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You have changed the subject, which is about the biggest win or loss, not which one is better. (Or is that what some of you thought this topic was all along?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The original purpose of this to reduce clutter and try and try to keep one result for each parameter, rather than getting all mathematically pedantic and opening a can of worms for all national teams? Leave it as it is, by goal margin and not goals scored/conceded. If it gets too cluttered, implement a dropdown box like with Olympic medals perhaps? VEO^onefive 13:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but we need to make abstraction of additional tournament rules like goals scored or away goals made. Think of it as if all games are played on neutral ground, from which someone has to report which were the greatest wins and losses. Another option in my example of team A winning with 4-0 and 6-2 against B would be assigning low-scoring results as the better. In that case, team A's greatest win would be 4-0 while B's greatest loss is 2-6. We end up with the same problem against logic then. And like VEO 15 says, indeed we will need to tackle the long lists of same-margin wins somehow, like with a collapsible box. Kareldorado (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to the question of whether or not the FIFA -as the regulatory body of international matches- has a specific rule regarding the assorting/evaluating of results. Hack's link from above seem to suggest that they do not have such rule, therefore -under the premise that I don't find anything indicating otherwise on the FIFA website- I tend to agree now to keep all same-margin results in the list. However, a drop-down menu is probably unnecessary, as there usually are only very few results the higher the margin gets. Wackelkopp (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I say again, FIFA cannot change the meaning of "biggest". Please see the thread title. If you want to discuss something else, such as which is the "better" or "best" result, you probably need to start a new thread. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And I say it again, this is not a question of sheer mathematics, but of subjective, football-related distinction between two same-margin results. If you're -for whatever reason- unable to grasp this fairly simple concept, you're obviously incapable of following this discussion and should therefore leave it. Wackelkopp (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

How sad. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have nothing of value to add, just stay quiet and say nothing. Wackelkopp (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's... ROFLMAO. I love it when old folk try to 'be in' with the lingo - ROFPMSL. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, check here. Both forms are defined. And BTW, while I AM of mature years, that simply means I've been using that lingo for probably 25 years. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there an example where space is legitimately a problem? Hack (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I understood that this was a matter of consensus rather than based on what reliable sources state. I don't recall Richard Henshaw's notable World Encyclopedia of Soccer ever making a big deal about biggest wins or losses. The standard has always been to present all biggest wins/losses based on mathematical goal margin. The only few times I have seen this get disputed is with some hurt fan angry that his team has so many "biggest losses" relative to other teams ("biggest wins" is apparently never an issue); this is the first time where the mathematics and reliability of it are getting disputed. I hope the consensus remains what it has always been: goal margins. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't know how many times I need to say this but this is what reliable sources state, just as everything else is on Wikipedia! Giant Snowman 11:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not everything in Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Consensus plays a big part.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As does WP:BLUE. "Biggest" is an obvious, unarguable concept that even kids in kindergarten understand. No sourcing is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But here we have neither RS nor consensus...! Giant Snowman 12:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No need. We have WP:BLUE. HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Every need, seeing as that is an essay and not policy. Giant Snowman 12:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. "Biggest" is a mathematically unambiguous concept. You don't have a source saying anything else. You have presented no evidence that any other approach should be taken. There can be no argument. HiLo48 (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering football articles have been under the goal margin rule for a long time, I think it is fair to consider it as the consensus. Having this in consideration, someone has yet to present a logical argument for a change to the standard. The "home-away" rule used in certain leagues/tournaments is inconsistent and, therefore, not an appropriate reason to change the current style. Considering reliable sources do not pay much attention to biggest win/loss, I consider its total removal to have a stronger case...but do we want that?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously not as straightforward as you think, seeing as you can't even agree on a definition for "biggest" here! Giant Snowman 12:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand that response. MarshalN20 didn't use the word "biggest". I suspect you are confusing the concept of "biggest" win, which is a simple, unarguable thing, with "best" win. All the arguments you have presented would work for the latter, but it's not the name of this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The original discussion ([11]) seems to have started out of the idea that using mathematical margin difference would create long lists. Since it has been agreed that this is not an issue, the discussion is a bit without direction. Should we take this time to create an official norm so that this discussion does not happen again?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should. But only under the premise that the sheer mathematical aspect of this topic will not be equated with the definition of 'biggest' in the context of assorting results. Especially HiLo48 seems to be extremely obsessive about this, even though he's obviously unable to grasp the concept. And no, it is NOT a 'simple, unarguable thing' - one could very well argue that in the case of same-margin results, the number of total goals scored is an additional indicator on how big a win/defeat actually is. If you want to have an absolutely clear, unambiguous header for these categories, you would have to rename them Biggest win by margin of goals and Biggest defeat by margin of goals respectively. Wackelkopp (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Show me proof that "biggest" is ambiguous. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed nothing ambiguous about "big", in my humble opinion. I am glad that in Wikipedia we don't use the less neutral word "greatest" instead of "biggest" for the wins and defeats. If you want to calculate how big a mountain is, you need to find the difference between top and sea level. The same accounts for scores. The only reason that we replace a 5-1 as biggest victory/defeat by a new result 7-2 is that the absolute difference is larger - something that has always been done up to now. Kareldorado (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Terrible example. 'Big' in the context of mountains could also refer to mass, or circumference. When refering to mountains, you would naturally use 'highest', not 'biggest'. There you have it, 'big' can indeed be very ambiguous. Wackelkopp (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Show us an example of the ambiguity of "biggest" in the size of a soccer/football victory. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wackelkopp, it seems that most users interpret "biggest" the same as HiLo. I also don't understand why now the discussion is turning into the meaning of the word "big"...--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Biggest defeat (or win)" should be the gap in goals scored to goals conceded - there is no difference in a 5-0, 6-1, 7-2, 8-3 etc scoreline. 86.186.85.154 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

My approach would be completely different here. The Manual of Style about infoboxes says: "An infobox ... summarizes key features of the page's subject." For me, "biggest win" and "biggest defeat" are not key features of a national sports team, so I would remove them from the infobox. Just my 2 cents. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ezequiel Garay

There is a discussion at the talk page regarding the transfer fee involved in the transfer of Ezequiel Garay to Zenit which had resulted in edit-warring. Two editors were blocked for an edit war, and at least one has resumed with the editing after his block ended. Would like to get some opinion from here so that we can hopefully find a resolution. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

I think it would be a good idea to start a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus to list an 'A-to-Z' of the outcomes of discussions here, with links to the archives threads, as an easy point of reference. I intend to start that sometime this weekend if I have time. Giant Snowman 13:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GS. Very smart idea.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Much easier than searching through archives for past discussions. Gazzawhite (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? The archives are already searchable with any text string you care to try. Trying to guess what letter of the alphabet someone filed something under would seem harder. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not? I think it's a great idea! JMHamo (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What doesn't work with the current search box? HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Have both! If GiantSnowman is willing to spend his time doing this, then great. I don't see any problems. JMHamo (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's not needed, GiantSnowman should be applying his talents to other, more needy areas of Wikipedia. What doesn't work with the current search box? HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to tell people how they should best spend their time on WP? The Search box works fine but I think an A–Z would be very useful personally and I am sure many other editors would benefit too. JMHamo (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I often tell people when they're wasting their time. I care about all of Wikipedia. Don't you? HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going off topic. The 'A–Z of consensus' is a great idea (as I have said already). The End

JMHamo (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

But why do it? What's inadequate with the current search box? HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the searchbox is that it shows discussions which have run their course without reaching a suitable solution. GiantSnowman's proposal would help in establishing those points which are based on consensus, and preventing future repetitive discussions that (in total) will waste more user time in Wikipedia. Of course, this is not to say that the list will be the "final word" on everything (consensus can change), but it would at least help in knowing the basis of a discussion (instead of assuming what the consensus is). It's a very smart idea.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

HiLo - which is easier, looking through one page for something or looking through pages and pages of archives (going back a decade!) which may have multiple discussions about the same topic? The consensus page would have the current consensus only, and if you can't work out where a topic appears simply press Ctrl+F to find it...jeez. Giant Snowman 09:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now started this, only 3 entires for now as I can't think of anything else recently and I can't be bothered trawling through archives. I suppose it's a work in progress and we can build it up over time... Giant Snowman 08:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"I can't be bothered trawling through archives" - does beg the question why bother then. 194.28.127.55 (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not "trolly" at all (whatever happened toAGF PeeJay?) - just seems a totally pointless exercise is someone is going to call for a new way of doing thing, in which he specifically references the archives, and then turns round and gives a "I can't be bothered trawling through archives" comment - what is the point of an "'A-to-Z' of the outcomes of discussions here, with links to the archives threads" without the archive threads? If the user doesn't want to put the work in then why suggest it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.245.72 (talk • contribs)

Can you be arsed going through a decade of archives (80+ pages)? No, thought not, especially when you can't even be bothered to sign your post... Giant Snowman 15:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I can't be arsed, but then I didn't suggest doing it - why did you suggest it if you can't be bothered to do the work? 194.28.127.54 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And I don't sign in because I had a number of users that used to "stalk" my account and delete/revert all the edits I made, so other than editting locked articles I don't bother anymore. 194.28.127.54 (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK... Giant Snowman 12:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Best player"/"Player of the tournament" for early tournaments

I made this table (initial version), collecting data from the infoboxes of the articles on each edition of the World Cup. A user removed all "best players" from before 1982, pointing out, correctly, that the Golden Ball wasn't awarded until 1982. And indeed, no part of the article 1930 FIFA World Cup apart from the infobox makes any mention of José Nasazzi being named the tournament's "best player", and nor does the article FIFA World Cup awards say anything of the kind. If those individuals (Nasazzi, Meazza, Leônidas, etc) were indeed awarded as "best players", I think the table should still include them even if the award wasn't known as the "Golden Ball" at the time. If they weren't, all infoboxes should be corrected. The problem also exists for the Africa Cup of Nations (the relevant table is here). Was there really an official "most valuable player" for a tournament of 1957 that consisted of only two matches? I was planning to make similar tables for all continental championships, but I first wish the issue to be resolved. --Theurgist (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If you find a good source, they should be included. I didn't find a good one for the 1930 best one (quick search). If there is not one to be found, they should go from the infoboxes. -Koppapa (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Was there a Golden Ball in 1978? RSSSF says there was, FIFA says there wasn't. --Theurgist (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record: the FIFA World Cup awards article did have a list of pre-1982 winners of the golden ball award for a long time, but it was unsourced, and did not agree to other (non-RS) sources found online. I mentioned that in 2010 on the talk page, and nobody added sources. In 2013, another uses made a similar comment, and nobody added sources. A few weeks ago, I finally removed the pre-1982 winners from the article. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Restore the table (once RS have been used to justify the entries - remember that [[WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source|other Wikipedia articles are not good enough) - and simply note that pre-1982 there was no 'Golden Ball.' I would also rename the 'best player' column to 'Golden Ball', as the 'best player' title just reeks of POV and could be confusing. Giant Snowman 10:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, I think {{Infobox football league season}} should be changed so that the infobox at 2012–13 Premier League doesn't indicate Joe Hart as the "Best goalkeeper", but instead as the keeper with most clean sheets or the keeper who conceded the fewest average goals per game or whatever criterion the awarding committee used to determine him as the "best". Directly calling him "the best goalkeeper" is confusing and POV. --Theurgist (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The golden shoe was awrded for top goalscorer prior to the adidas golden ball. Murry1975 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Shoe/Boot is and was for topscorer. Those are easily sourced and a different award. -Koppapa (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In reaction to Giant Snowman: I have tried to look for the pre-1978 entries before, and I believe that it is impossible to find RS for those entries, because they simply do not exist. It looks like in 1978 a list of best players was made, but the name 'golden ball' was not used, but for the tournaments before 1978, I could find nothing that even hinted at such lists in the FIFA technical reports. I believe the problem is not that these entries were unsourced, but that they were 'invented' by someone who wanted to 'complete' the list. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 21:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed all from the infoboxes up to 1978 now. -Koppapa (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Then do "best young players" of 1958 to 2002 chosen retroactively with votes by Internet users merit mentions in the infoboxes? With them, the infoboxes are now saying that there were best young players but no best players overall in 1958-78, which makes little sense. --Theurgist (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@EdgeNavidad: Do you think the 1978 best player (Kempes) should be listed, or not? --Theurgist (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know. It is sourced by RSSSF, which is usuably pretty good, but on the other hand it is not listed on the FIFA website, and I can not find anything on it in 1978 newspapers. (For comparison: I could find newspaper articles for the 1982 result within minutes.) The RSSSF page has the author information, so it is possible to contact him to find out where he got the 1978 information from. However, it seems as his last serious update was in 2008, so he might not be able to reproduce that so easily. To be clear: I have no plan to contact him.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Consistency for Israeli Transfer Articles.

Could someone please take a look at the articles in Category:Lists_of_Israeli_football_transfers and give some consistency to the article names?Naraht (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Should be Lists of Israeli football transfers summer 20xx and Lists of Israeli football transfers winter 20xx–xx. -Koppapa (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've been adding category sorts to make these (and other countries) occur in order. Summer 20xx gets sorted to 20xx and Winter 20xx-20xy gets sorted to 20xx-20xy which makes things occur in order.Naraht (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AFRIFOOT

Despite having already been created, I've been asked by GiantSnowman to discuss the new Africa task force and get some input from editors on this talk page. I had proposed it earlier at WT:FOOTBALL/TFSP and got support from five editors, which is laid out as a good level of interest to start a task force with. There are also 10 or so other potential task force members who haven't commented on the matter. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure discussion here is entirely necessary. Sufficient response was garnered from the original post, and it looks like the project is going to be active enough. I won't get involved myself, but if you require it, you have my support for this task force. – Pee Jay 18:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Davykamanzi is pushing for the creation of an African football task force at WikiProject Football given the recent spike in articles regarding African football competitions and their seasons. Would be great if you went there and signed up given the work you've done on such articles.--Lglukgl (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lglukgl: I don't think the publicity here was necessary. @PeeJay2K3: That's exactly the argument I put out to GiantSnowman, but at his insistence I came here to seek input from other editors who aren't necessarily interested in joining the task force, which is what I've gotten from you. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 10:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, I didn't say you had to post here - I said you should have when the discussion was first started. Giant Snowman 10:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

{@GiantSnowman: Ok thanks for clearing that up. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 11:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Kits

Hi, please can someone give me a basic grounding/link on how to input clubs' kits? Thanks, Mat ty.007 09:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

More info at Template:Football kit, designs at Template:Football kit/pattern list, colour codes at web colors. Giant Snowman 10:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I still have no idea how to input kits into an infobox, I could not find instructions for that. Would someone please be able to help me? Thanks, Mat ty.007 11:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just copy from another team and exchange colors. Also get rid of to small details. It should be kept simple. -Koppapa (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Football kit has pretty clear instructions. If you cannot work it out feel free to send me what team(s) you need updating, with RS showing the new kits, and I'll give it a go. Giant Snowman 12:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a look, but couldn't get it to work I'm afraid. I'm working on Woking's previous season. Home and away shirts are here, and other kits are here. Thanks, Mat ty.007 12:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've given it a go... Giant Snowman 18:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the kits. LRD NO (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Silly me. I thought it was the 2012–13 season and added the kits accordingly. The home kit is still the same for 2013–14 while I will work on the away kit shortly. LRD NO (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed the away kit back, it looks pretty accurate to me. Thanks for the work on the home kit. Best, Mat ty.007 14:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Jean-Marc Nobilo

Can someone with a bit of time please make an attempt at cleaning this up? I don't know where to even start. Looks like it's written by him, with terrible English. TonyStarks (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 10:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured most of that stuff would be removed but didn't know where to start. TonyStarks (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Kelechi Iheanacho

I created an article about the Nigerian player Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996) after he was nominated by the African Confederation for Young player of the year, the article was deleted. Now that the player has played and scored for Man City (in a friendly) and is receiving British national press coverage, perhaps it's time to undelete the article.

[12]
[13]

The lack of an article is causing vandalism at the Kelechi Iheanacho Zeal article. TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion... JMHamo (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to meet either NFOOTBALL or GNG. If you want we can restore the article and the move to your sandbox for you to update and improve, it might give us a better opinion on GNG once the article is complete? Giant Snowman 14:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's do that. TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - User:TheBigJagielka/Kelechi Iheanacho. Giant Snowman 17:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Location Map (Teams in Ukraine)

I'd like to get a opinion from the gallery here about the placing of teams on the Location Map which is used on season articles. Currently in Ukraine due to the war (insurgency in Donbass) teams from that area are playing in different cities. Shakhtar and Metalist Donetsk are playing in Lviv at Arena Lviv. Olimpik Donetsk at Obolon Arena in Kiev, Zorya Luhansk in Slavutych Arena in Zaporizhzhia. I would think that the Location map should reflect that. However one editor has reverted and left the map to where the teams are from. Opinions before we go to an edit war situation. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit misleading to mark a team from Donetsk on the map as being from Lviv, even if they are playing there currently. IMO, they should be marked in Donetsk (or wherever), but a note should be added to the list of teams to say "Due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Team X is playing its home games in City Y". – Pee Jay 17:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

How about the teams in italics with a note as you say that they are not playing their home cities? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe have two maps - one showing usual location and one showing current location? Giant Snowman 17:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The article has a Stadium section which has Notes: with references what is the home ground. Two maps is a consideration but I think that maybe over kill in the article. Thanks for the quick responses!Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark the actual used venues, and make Donetsk and Lugansk a green dot. Explain below then. Two maps are not needed. -Koppapa (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think, we must show only home cities for teams. Shakhtar will live in Kiev, sometimes they will have training camp in Kharkiv, but will play matches in Lviv. Also "temporary" stadiums will be changed during season (as it was at the end of the last season). Clubs represent their own cities, not temporary location. FC Shakhtar Donetsk, not FC Shakhtar Lviv. NickSt (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point but it is not clear due to the conflict how long this issue is to continue. You must also remember that the season articles are in progress and possible for change - meaning that they are not static. Shakhtar and Metalurh Donetsk have indicated that they will be in Lviv. If and when they change - then the map should change as well. It is fluid and not set in concrete for the whole season. There is additional information added by Koppapa and myself to clarify what the map indicates. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What must we do, if team will play 6 home matches in Lviv, 4 home matches in Kiev and 3 home matches in Donetsk? If 12 in Lviv and 1 in Donetsk? If 12 in Donetsk and 1 in Lviv? NickSt (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ideally we know that as of today, and we are not going to speculate per WP:CRYSTAL that teams from the Donbass region have indicated (and we have references WP:V) where they have indicated to play. That is what we have to go on. If some team moves to Cherkassy, for instance for what is expected to be a long period of time then the map should be updated. Really we want them to return to their cities in peace. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move

See the proposed move at Talk:FIFA World Cup records#Requested move. --Theurgist (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Need a revert at Julian Green

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Green&diff=615739471&oldid=615739072

Also, if we could create a page to clearly and simply indicate how to display nationality for players, particularly those who play for nations in which they were not born that would be helpful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable edit IMO, and probably the correct way of presenting the subject. Both of you have violated 3RR though, and I have asked for the article to be protected. However, I do agree that this issue needs to be resolved one way or the other, hopefully in the way that doesn't violate NPOV or UNDUE. Number 5 7 20:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad it's reasonable to you, the general consensus is that hyphenated nationalities are not acceptable.

"German-American" should not be used despite the subject being born in Germany. He is playing for the US Mens National Team and so we display the subject's nationality only as "American".

The real thrust behind the request is to formalize this to avoid opinion like yours from causing edit wars. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying that there is a consensus, but I'm yet to see any evidence for this, despite asking repeatedly. Perhaps other project members could confirm whether this is the case, and point to a discussion where this was agreed?

For other editors, I realised this was a problem when a discussion arose at John Anthony Brooks - a player born and raised in Germany, and who has only ever played for German clubs. He has played for both German and American national teams at various levels, and is now a full US international. His intro currently describes him as just "American". Is this acceptable? My personal opinion is no, as it violates NPOV and UNDUE. I am yet to hear the justification for why only using American is acceptable. The only arguments put forward so far is that "it's consensus". Further input would be appreciated. Number 5 7 13:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Then you'll see the discussions I linked to at John Anthony Brooks. You'll see that other editors carry the removal of hyphenated names on those articles.

What I'd like to see is some other editors assisting in this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did see the discussion you linked to at the Brooks article, and as you yourself said "although that's about the single nationality to display in roster template". I'm not sure why you keep referring to something that you admit is nothing to do with what to put in the introduction. I have seen one other editor removing hyphenated names, but that's no proof of agreement or consensus. What I'd also like (and which in a discussion on your talk page, you admitted you were unable to provide) is some justification behind only using one nationality in the lede in cases where someone has dual nationality, especially in cases where the one nationality being mentioned is the most tenuous one. Number 5 7 11:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you search the archives for FIFA nationality? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes – you already asked this during the Brooks discussion. I found a few debates, but none with an outcome. Number 5 7 14:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

They all had an outcome: list the FIFA nationality only. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to determine if a consensus exists for players who have dual nationality

Based on the request that we have a consensus page below, which is something I was about to suggest, let's see if we can have a unified consensus on this topic.

What I have seen is that the majority of cases are simple: a player's nationality is that of his country of birth.

There are cases where a player elects to play for a different nation than his country of birth, Miroslav Klose is an excellent example of this. In cases like this, we have generally listed the nation of birth, unlinked, in the infobox and attempt to discuss birth are made in a history section or a personal life section. The player's national team is linked in the infobox and again in the lede. The nationality discussed in the lede is that of the national team.

Is that what we should do?

Then there are cases, like Green, where a player is born in one nation, plays for that nation at a junior level, and then plays for a different nation at the senior level. What do we do in cases like this? My opinion is that the player adopts the nationality recognized by FIFA and only mention the birth nation in the lede and in a history or personal life section. The nationality should not be hyphenated.

Are cases where a player is born in one nation, plays at the junior level for a different nation and goes on to represent the birth nation later. I can't recall any cases, but the "FIFA recognized nationality" issue as described above would apply here.

There are cases where a player never plays for the national junior or senior team, relocates, and then is granted citizenship in another country. In leagues such as The US's Major League Soccer, a certain percentage of players must be either American or Canadian. In cases like this, the player legally has two nationalities, but is filling the role of a "local" player. Do we then list both nationalities ("a Fooian-born Barican soccer player"), do we simply list the new citizenship to support the league's guidelines ("a Barican soccer player"), do we hyphenate ("a Fooian-Barican soccer player"), or only list the original nationality while still allowing the ENGVAR use of the sport's name ("a Fooian soccer player"), or do we avoid it completely and leave the discussion for the history or personal life section?

There may be additional issues, but let's come to some agreement. If the discussions should be broken into smaller groups, that would acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the kind of discussion that requires a completely new section (as it applies to all players with multiple nationalities) and is probably best as a RFC. Giant Snowman 15:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there is already a sufficient, relevant guideline in the form of the first section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. Following this logic: Poland not mentioned for Klose (not relevant to his sporting career), but Germany is mentioned for Julian Green (relevant to his sporting career). This seems to be more a dispute over how relevant non-senior international selection is, than anything else. I would argue that a general consensus on the topic would be going too far – a case-by-case basis is much more appropriate because national identify can be a profoundly complex issue at times. SFB 18:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that to have an overarching guideline or even consensus is the starting point though. We can't always point back to Klose or and one of a dozen articles. We need to have a line from which can refer and then take cases one-at-a-time after that. However I've asked for input on specific cases multiple times over the past year, and Green more than once, and no one in this project offered a word of advice, so clearly your solution is not ideal. If we need a new section, I'm fine with that too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So where to move this discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a question here that has yet to be answered: where should we move the discussion on consensus for nationalities in player articles? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there any interest in defining nationality for footballers?

Am I wasting my time asking this question? I don't care where it's discussed but if we are not interested in discussing this, then let me know that as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I'm interested. Number 5 7 23:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC result

For those that are interested, the result of the RfC at Talk:John Anthony Brooks was to note both nationalities in the introduction. Although a majority of commenters opted to have only one nationality displayed, the closer noted the dual nationality argument was stronger, and that several !votes for single nationality were based on claims of a consensus that no-one could prove exists.

Although Walter is disputing the close, I hope this moves us towards a more rational situation where someone's entire life history is not ignored in favour of a recent event. Number 5 7 11:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This was an inappropriate non-admin closure and does not seem to reflect consensus. Giant Snowman 11:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. Consensus is not about numbers on each side; it's about the strength of arguments. As I said above, I'm yet to hear any reasonable justification for someone born and raised in Germany, and who has spent his entire career in the country, not being described as German in the introduction to their article. Number 5 7 11:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with 'is a professional soccer player [...] Born in Germany, he represents the United States at international level'? in the lede? Giant Snowman 11:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that – that was close to the outcome of the RfC (i.e. to include both in the first sentence), but I still don't see the problem with German-American (what is the issue?). I got the impression from your comment above that you were unhappy with the outcome that "German/y" should be mentioned anywhere in the introduction. Number 5 7 12:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. The RFC close is poor because it does not actually give any guidance - seemingly both "German-American professional soccer player" and my proposal are acceptable. "German-American" implies ethnicity/origin, not dual nationality. Giant Snowman 12:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have to say I don't agree with your latter point. I think the RfC close is fine, because the question was whether German should be mentioned in the introduction, not how it should be. The answer given was "yes", and now we just have to decide how. Number 5 7 12:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

See the article on German-American... Giant Snowman 12:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the way to get around that is to have the two linked separately to German people and American people. Number 5 7 12:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Linking violates WP:OVERLINK and the article is at German American, and is about ethnicity rather than dual citizenship and not about FIFA eligibility. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Which part of WP:OVERLINK does it violate? Number 5 7 14:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The part that says that major geographic terms should not be linked. There are other MoSes that state not to link excessively in the lede as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Although they have a stereotype of being somewhat overweight, I don't believe American people (which is what I suggested linking to) are yet classed as a geographic feature ;) Number 5 7 15:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a way around linking to the nation. It's an overlink. The reason that people want the link is to understand the term. Are you somehow suggesting that people reading the English wikipedia do not understand what either "American" and "German" mean?` Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we please keep the dicussion in one place, the WP:AN thread is the best location. Giant Snowman 08:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Templates about Ghana

There's a problem with templates : Why two templates for one thing? the second is correct.

Second thing, with the template, we have interlanguage links, and french (fr:Modèle:Palette Ghana coupe d'Afrique des nations 2002) and polish (pl:Szablon:Ghana 2002 PNA) exist and don't appear in interlanguage links. Could you correct that?Cordially. --FCNantes72 (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The teo 1965 templates have now been merged, content at {{Ghana squad 1965 African Cup of Nations}}. As for the interlanguage links, they should not be present per WP:WIKIDATA. Giant Snowman 12:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, many of the links in the 1965 template need to be changed/corrected, including the one pointing to "Mohammed Gargo", a footballer born in 1975, obviously a namesake born some ten years after the tournament in question. Jared Preston (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sergio Busquets and Míchel Salgado

User:Panhead2014 thinks Busquets' incident with Thiago Motta, even tough covered by several reliable sources, is biased and irrelevant to his article. He removed it and reverts anyone who attempts to reinstate it, per same reasons.

He thinks that Salgado's incident with Juninho, where he broke his fibula and tibia (not saying tackle was deliberate, just saying it happened), is also irrelevant. I tried to work as a team with him and remove it, replacing it with more neutral content in his Celta sub-section. Anybody feel the Juninho incident should be reinstated?

More serious note: per this situation, i have been accused by the aforementioned user of vandalism, stalking and bias. I only wanted to help and have nothing against any of the four players involved, Mr. Panhead does not own the articles does he (as i do not also!)? Teamwork people, please.

Attentively --AL (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The guy also shows a bit of disrespect when someone who isn't English is editing in an English WP. So, according to him, a "non-English" person can't learn English and write it properly only because he/she isn't English? Great.

I think both contents should be reinstated, Salgado took Juninho out of a World Cup, and Busquets' "acting" is widely known (thanks to the Internet, though).

Cheers, MYS 77 ^✉ 16:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I noted your contributions made little, or no sense. I edited them and explained it was understandable that someone who is not a non-native English speaker will make errors. You have pursued a campaign of deliberately editing, deleting and changing, unnecessarily, contributions that I have made, pointlessly rewording comments I have made as so they make no sense and needlessly removed words I have added for clarification. You have pointlessly harassed me in Talk too. Why not do something constructive with your time on WP? Panhead2014 (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought i was, since i believe the stuff in Busquets and Salgado merits to be on their pages, you do not. Moreover you, after being notified of this discussion, instead of writing "This stuff has to go in Salgado and Busquets because..." which is why this discussion was created in the first place, choose instead to focus on a non-existing stalking campaign on my part. And when the fuck (no excuse for the language, i'm absolutely seething!) did i harass you on your page?

Just to soothe your rage, i promise i will never again edit on Busquets, Salgado or write you any message. INCREDIBLE how you never said ONCE "Thanks for understanding my point of view in Salgado and removing that biased content", repeating over and over again "You are stalking me and on an agenda" instead. This discussion will be open to other users, me i quit. --AL (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you calm down, you were offered the chance to explain yourself, but decided instead to stat an edit war. Panhead2014 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I explained every summary i made, i explained on the articles' talkpages. You, on the other hand, commented nothing regarding the contents in this discussion, only resorted to calling me names (stalker, vandal, now saying i harass you on your talk). But let's try it one more time: 1 - Busquets' incident with Motta was covered by several reliable sources; 2 - Juninho's and Salgado's career were connected by that incident.

But rest assured i repeat, i will NEVER AGAIN edit those articles or your page. Edit or, as you call it, vandalize and stalk. More proof i am not a stalker on an agenda and trying to own the articles like you accuse me. --AL (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Again; calm down. There exists already discussions on the relevant Talk pages, yet you have decided to create yet more here as well as contacting other members to get them on your side. Why? Panhead2014 (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am calling further users for them to drop their opinion, not get on my side, stop acting like you know me and/or my train of thought. Yes, the proper talkpages already have a discussion, but a WP:FOOTY discussion is not illegal per WP standards, it's another form of bringing a given topic to a(n) broad(er) audience.

However, if reason is on your side and i am just a stalker and a vandal, if you have nothing to fear, all the users that come here will side with you not me. Last words from me: incredible you keep telling me to calm down when i have been nothing but polite (the "fuck" notwithstanding) and you keep insulting me and belittling me? I repeat, end of discussion for me, you and the other users can go at it i won't bother anyone anymore. --AL (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, and i only contacted two users with specifications on to please get involved with this and drop a line (FlatOut you already know, the other was an admin connected to football whose opinion i value highly), the other cases was me confiding my sadness as to the way i was being treated for trying to help (or "stalk" in your opinion). "The End" for me. --AL (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

AL please don't mention me in a discussion like this without a ping. Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You have purposefully followed me around and revised/edited/deleted contributions I have made to articles and offered little reason (completely rewording paragraphs so they make little sense for example). You then took it upon yourself to constantly harass me on my Talk page, antagonising me and instigating unnecessary arguments. Now, unhappy that you can't get what you want, have taken it upon yourself to involve other people into your issue with me, hawking for support by dragging them into your spat like a typical bully would. Why don't you just stop? Quit it. Do something positive with your time on WP rather than to pursue people and cause quarrels. Panhead2014 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If an event has been covered by reliable sources then our article(s) need to reflect that. Giant Snowman 18:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, i only noticed this now, i still have not apologized for my English mistakes in those articles, you continue to insult me (yes, saying i am stalking you when i'm not and saying i never explained my edits/reversions when i did is an insult!) and wanting me to be the bad guy, OK i am. Incredible that you know i am not a native English speaker and make my harmless changes be something i did on purpose to make you look bad, absolutely disgusting reasoning.

The discussion was also in WP's best interest (i don't want anybody to be blocked or similar), but you had to belittle that too, have not heard one good word from you towards me, one. Keep at it, but now you'll hit a wall because i'm quitting WP (and please, don't act again like you know me, i'm quitting so that everybody can edit in peace and so that (at least) my edits cannot be perceived as biased. Get it through your head, i was trying to HELP and IMPROVE, not STALK you! Since i'm leaving after i ask an admin to salt my page, it will be no surprise i won't reply anymore here or anywhere. --AL (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Busquets' incident had four reliable sources, while Salgado's had three. Don't know why the guy is calling both incidents biased, when WP gives a neutral point of view in both. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I really do not see any need for such a hysterical over-reaction. I am content discussing the merits on edits, I did not join WP to pay compliments to someone who clearly has insecurity issues. Try discussing the articles rather than making it about its contributors. Panhead2014 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Panhead2014: - you say we should talk about the edits, not the editors - while at the same time insinuating another user has "insecurity issues" - please stop. You are removing referenced content - why? Giant Snowman 19:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Panhead2014: Do you have any prejudice with people who aren't English/American (or from any other country which has English as its main language) but know how to speak English? And I don't see any "harassment" from AL related to you in any edit summary, talk page or any place in WP. Sorry, it's just my opinion. And also, you're insulting him right now, as you did it before. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No prejudice, non at all. Panhead2014 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to note now, that after Always Learning has taken it upon himself to contact other members to fight his corner, these same members are now purposefully making wholly unnecessary edits and revisions to the contributions that I have made. How surprising. Panhead2014 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, Panhead2014, please can you link insulting/degrading edits/comments from AL? Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Matty.007: I don't see a single evidence that AL has "harassed" him. In the opposite way, however, in this discussion he offended the guy, and also keeps reverting mine and Gringoladomenega's edits in Míchel Salgado. Cheers, MYS 77 ^✉ 20:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

One last input because i see i was further insulted ("hysterical", "insecurity issues"), and accused (contacting users that i knew would be on my side): for the record Mr. Panhead, MYS77 (one of the parties you say i contacted to come and write stuff here to make me "win") dropped his opinion in this discussion BEFORE i told him it was happening, not AFTER. Of course, you will find a way to make me look bad on this too. Don't bother replying to me at least, i am reading WP:VANISH the second after i press "save page" here. --AL (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Purely encyclopedical comment: Salgado has 343 La Liga games, not 342 as Panhead "corrected" in the intro. Is anybody allowed to revert that, or are we going to be accused of stalking/harassing him as well? --AL (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In Busquets' talk page, this incident was discussed twice: and in the first one the content was reinstated. Why don't restore it again? Also, Panhead it's trying to turn everybody against him, to make himself "victim" while every person who disagrees from his opinion (which is not only me) is the "villain". Also, he claims that I, AL, Gringoladomenega, and every other user who disagree with him has a "vendetta" against him. I'm gonna stop bringing incidents and wait for a resolution. Mattythewhite, Number 57, Jaellee, GiantSnowman and any other users who want to come and help, can you guys sort this problem? Thanks, MYS 77 ^✉ 21:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have created a talk page to discuss the necessary edits you continue to make and to give you the opportunity to explain why you do it. Please use it. Panhead2014 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Panhead2014: We explain our edits in the edit summary, send messages to you in your talk page, what more do you want? A book explaining everything in the world? Again, what's the point in writing "right back" in the storyline if Míchel Salgado played his entire career as right back? It doesn't clarify nothing, if the phrase contains or not the "right back", everybody understand, it's implicit. Also, in Athletic Bilbao, why repeating the club's name AGAIN? Did you see the scheme in the previous paragraphs? It's the club's name and something like "it's" or they" or "their", some clauses. Happy now? And both incidents regarding Busquets and Salgado were referenced (and how much, seven refs in total), WP was just transmitting a neutral point of view, not a biased content. MYS 77 ^✉ 23:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As for the rest of the people involved, Panhead said this: "Why cannot you not understand that I just wish to contribute to WP articles and not argue with other members?" And one more time I didn't get it. He doesn't want to argue, just do what he thinks it's right and that's OK? We have to ACCEPT EVERYTHING he does? That's not the way WP works, a bunch of people found issues in his "contributions" and I don't see a point for them to remain in here. The strangest thing is the omission from the admins in these topics, we could easily solve this problem if they were more active. But that's OK, they were notified about this and I'll wait for their response. MYS 77 ^✉ 23:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it incredibly pathetic that you feel the need to remove all my edits in the Michel Salgado article because you object to the fact I use the words "right back". What justification is there for the additional comments and clearing up of the loan spell item? What is the justification in amending the inaccurate "nearly 10 years" comment, or you continually removing a citation to the amount of appearances he has made? What makes you think that your way is the right way?

Also, explain exactly what your problem is with the edit in the Athletic Bilbao article. Does replacing the word "Its" with "Athletic Bilbao" really offend you, despite the fact it is a more professional and valid start to a new paragraph than "Its"?

Your problem is with me, not my contributions. You are using the contributions I have made as a means to antagonise me, the same goes for "Gringoladomenega". "Always Learning" didn't like the fact that admin had decided my edit to the Sergio Busquets article was fine. Rather than accept it, he made it personal by searching through my contributions making wholly unnecessary edits and revisions to articles that, in one example, made for a sloppy and incoherent reading. He then began to harass me through my Talk page, instigating unnecessary arguments when I began to revert the remarks he made. Then , showing how immature he is, contacted "MYS77" and "Gringoladomenega" requesting support in order to suppress me and my intentions of contributing to WP. "MYS77" and "Gringoladomenega" have aggressively pursued a vendetta against me by sparking an edit war, removing parts of article I had contributed to without justification when having the audacity to reports the issues to admin, hoping they would block me and prevent me from contributing.

The behaviour from these people is all very immature and embarrassing and clearly not in interests of WP. I see no issue with the contributions that I have made to the Michel Salgado and Athletic Bilbao articles. It is not inappropriate, libelous, incorrect, vandalism or trolling. It is an attempt to add clarity, professionalism and truth to the pieces. Panhead2014 (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Panhead2014: The articles were pretty much clear before your additions, if they aren't why ANYBODY (besides you, of course) complained about they? And we're not being childish, we're trying to reach a consensus, but you aren't helping and showing why it's better. From the arguments you used, it doesn't change in nothing, and the old way looks clearer and better. MYS 77 ^✉ 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks sloppy and disjointed. Maybe you are not a native English speaker and therefore it matters not how it is presented as long as you grasp what the article says. There is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with my additions. Your problem is with me, which is why you continue this edit war. Perhaps the admin need to be blocking you and your allies as it appears you think you're the authoritative figures on here. Panhead2014 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Calm down, stop this! vandalism stalking, ok AL sometimes uses a strong language but it is not a vandal for sure and do you know what is the real stalking???Not for sure respect the real stalking victim. Can we mediate for WP? This is not the middle school , so can we find a medium point?

This is the distruption calm down guys, a respectable user has been dissolved and there is a edit war here. Stop edit and revert edit for today we are not calm for WIkipedia. WE MUST GO TO SLEEP AND THEN TOMMORROW COME AGAIN HERE FOR A CALM DISCUSSION

Sometimes they exaggerate but they are respectable user with a good curriculum and Pan you are not a vandal so we must MEDIATE

We cannot continue this--Lglukgl (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Panhead2014: Again the prejudice with non-native English people. I will not write a single word, like AL, in these articles. Leave it as you want. And for the 1,000,000th time, I don't have any problems with you, stop acting like a victim. Lglukgl: Yeah, this isn't high school, but we have to find a consensus in here, and in these two articles and in Athletic Bilbao, we can't reach it. MYS 77 ^✉ 00:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Panhead2014: believe me they have not personal problem with you, i think that we can mediate but if we have to find a consensus in here, and in these two articles and in Athletic Bilbao, we can't reach it we have the ADMIN, where are they?

Calm guys this is the distruption--Lglukgl (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Always Learning (anon) here: really classy, you told me to stop contacting/harassing you in your page, i did just that. Yet, you find it acceptable to continue attacking me in this page, "thank you". Stop mentioning me please and resolve this situation without me, there are plenty of other users to discuss this with (or my "buddies" like you say without knowing me from bugger all!).

You say you want to contribute to WP without imposing to anyone, well, so did i! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

He wants to block us all, let's just leave the WP as well and leave this to him only. That's what he want. Panhead2014, Snowman asked something that I'll rephrase here: "you say we should talk about the edits, not the editors - while at the same time insinuating another user has "insecurity issues" - please stop. You are removing referenced content - why?" and I didn't see an answer from you. MYS 77 ^✉ 00:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

AL, I am talking about you, not to you. You did not cease your harassment when I asked, or even when you stated you would and you chose to leave for whatsoever reason. Your behaviour is relevant to explaining myself and to what I believe happening here. If you do not like it then I advise you don't read it. Thanks and enjoy yourself. Panhead2014 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No one looks good here. But Always Learning has left the building, unfortunately, and Panhead is locked out of the building for 72 hours, for edit warring. If everyone could stop yelling and focus on content issues, that would be great. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This entire argument seems childish and unnecessary to me. Instead of discussing content (and its apparent issues) contributors are here talking about each other and "vendettas" and edit wars. @Panhead2014: From what I've seen none of the editors you say are harassing you have actually harassed you in any way, and you have to understand that you've been blocked for violating WP:3RR, not for the content you added/removed/edited on the Sergio Busquets and Michel Salgado articles. Remember that next time before aimlessly reverting other users' edits instead of seeking consensus. If we can divert from personal vendettas and discuss the content of these articles that would be better. That's the whole point of WP anyway. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 10:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As I aready said in Talk:Sergio Busquets, the Motta incident was a major and widely remembered incident in Busquets' career, not talking about it would make the page unbalanced. The sentence is (was) plainly written and supported by sources, it's (was) not blaming nor assolving Busquets. I reinserted it, seeing as there was not any real reason to omit it, but Flat Out reverted my edit [14], because apparently the section needed editing to reflect the sources. Then I asked him if he could fix the sentence, since I didn't understand wwhat changes had to be done [15], but I didn't receive any answer. It seems everybody but Panhead agrees that the Motta incident should be mentioned, so, is there someone willing to make the necessary edits to reinsert it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.158.183 (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is clear consensus here that the two incidents should be covered, the only person opposing it is Panhead2014, who has been blocked for disruption. Giant Snowman 08:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

One thing wrong with the text as repeatedly inserted/removed is that neither cited source verifies "Busquets was subsequently criticised by the media for apparently feigning injury". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.158.183 (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't want to get involved in this, it got stupid enough before. But in my not particularly well-informed opinion, solving the problem by removing rather than sourcing the bit I quoted above is going the wrong way about it. If all our article says is, the ref thought Motta pushed Busquets in the face so gave him a second yellow, the reader's going to say "so what?" I thought the point of the incident, the thing that made it worth including in the article, was the subsequent media coverage of criticism of Busquets' play-acting, which is now not mentioned. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, sorry, I was too hasty. I've found some some sources, tell me if you think they can be included.[16][17]

[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.158.183 (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan Sserunkuma

Regarding this Ugandan footballer's article, different sources give conflicting dates of birth for the player. National-Football-Teams, Eurosport and Soccerway give his DOB as 4 December 1989, but Goal.com and Transfermarkt give 14 December 1993 as his birth date. There is no known player profile on the Federation of Uganda Football Associations' website and his profile on the official website of Gor Mahia (his current club) doesn't give a birth date. What then is the best course of action to take on this matter? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If his U20 caps are correct, he was probably born 1993. -Koppapa (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not reliable and I have my doubts about Goal.com, whereas NFT, ES and SW are all fine. I'd go with 1989. Giant Snowman 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

His FIFA profile has 4 Dec 1989. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah probably better to go with the FIFA profile. Cheers. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Lucas Piazón redirect - Deletion request

Could an Admin please delete this Lucas Piazón redirect, which was recently recreated. There was a RM to change Lucas Piazón to Lucas Piazon Requested Move in January. Thanks. JMHamo (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

tl:fbas

I have an idea: Let's create a new template "fbas" which would produce a flagicon & wikilink to a national football association article, instead of this full code:

{{flagicon|GER}} [[German Football Association|Germany]] – code used in many many articles

{{fbas|GER}} – my idea

Germany – result of both

But how to do it? Maiō T. (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? That what {{fb-rt}} and {{fb}} do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, they don't. These two templates produce only links to national teams, but not to national associations. Maiō T. (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I second this proposal, but I am equally unsure of how to do it, especially since the national association articles don't follow any particular naming formula. – Pee Jay 23:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In what context would we need a flagicon combined with a link to a FA? See WP:MOSFLAG... Giant Snowman 09:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: One example is UEFA ranking#Current ranking; this template could also be used in "match articles" next to the referee's name.
Maiō T. (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend that latter option. – Pee Jay 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Maiō T., GiantSnowman, and PeeJay2K3: {{nfa}} already exists, except it doesn't give the flagicon. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, why would we need a flagicon? Giant Snowman 19:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Check this out!

{{nfa|Belgium}} – produces Belgium
{{nfa|BEL}} – produces Belgium
{{nfa|Belgium|flag}} – produces Belgium
{{nfa|BEL|f}} – produces Belgium

Done, I think. Maiō T. (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need that. A flag next to the referee for example just blows it up in my opinion. Not everything needs a flag/template. Kante4 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I know. The flag parameter is optional. For example here it looks okay: UEFA ranking#Current ranking. Maiō T. (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't really need the flag. There was a big debate over the use of flags just a few months back and we don't need to add to that. In this case, the flag-less template suffices as a clear indication of the nation alone. Adding options would only encourage editors to go for the unnecessary flag overkill. Stand-alone nation minus the flag is enough. The flag serves no purpose other than mere aesthetics. LRD NO (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to use flags in this context, so existing templates which don't have flags are currently sufficient. Giant Snowman 11:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Scotland expert

For Scotland, it should be possible to complete the list of pre-Premier League champions, right? (Wouldn't expect the same for Kazakhstan or Belarus etc.) Scottish Women's Premier League#Previous League Champions. Can't find more online, maybe someone has a book or is good at online-newspaper-archive search. Also can't say when the first edition was played. Thanks. -Koppapa (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, at least found the first season. In 1973 Westthorn Utd were crowned the champions. That's a big hole to fill. -Koppapa (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Finals Goalscorers list

The article List of FIFA World Cup finals goalscorers has been proposed for deletion on the grounds of notability. To here, I'll copy my justification for even creating this article:

Justification for this article's creation

Regarding notability, as far as the FIFA World Cup is concerned, it cannot be more notable than the finals themselves, due to their frequency and the scope. Yes, there is a general list for goal scorers for every World Cup game. As for the top scorers article, that is a good list for the record holders. However, they include every goal; and it is impossible to look up the goal scorers in the finals in a quick, easy, and convenient fashion. If anyone really wants to, they can look at every World Cup finals article, which is exactly how I came up with this table. Out of all the goals in the entire FIFA World Cup history, goals scored in the finals are by far the most rare. For references, I meant to include the game reports, which is included in every finals page. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As an added measure, the same info. can be generated via the report links. Additional articles on the different finals games can be referenced as well. Likewise, all or most of the goal scorers listed has a mention of those particular goals. For example, in the latest goal scorer Mario Götze, the following quote can be found: Götze scored the championship-winning goal for the German national team in the 2014 FIFA World Cup Final. In the career of any soccer player, no goal can be more significant than one scored in the World Cup final. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not about the sources. I know the article would be easy to source. I doubt a pure list of final scorers makes a good article. I'd rather see a footnote added to the goalscorers article, like scored in a aworld cup final. Let's see what others think. -Koppapa (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My complaint about that table. Too large. Includes the "irrelevant teams". The number of finals goals is a mere handful, compared to the 2200+ WC goals scored. To see and note the finals goalscorers, you really have to sift through that page. The compromise would be to either (a) merge with the WC Finals list or (b) re-organize the WC Finals list to use the football box template. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Affiliated clubs.

Over at the Indian Super League we have seen some teams be owned by foreign teams (Atletico de Kolkata for example being owned by Atletico Madrid) or have affiliations (Delhi Dynamos FC has a partnership with ACF Fiorentina). This is not a mandatory thing for clubs and other than Atletico de Kolkata does not seem to be any different to what we see around the world when a club affiliates with another club. Perhaps there will be some collaboration but nothing major. So would this deserve its own column in the teams section of the Indian Super League article. Some people feel it does but I don't. My reasons being that this kind of information can be said at the team articles themselves, an affiliation could mean nothing, some teams are affiliated with more than one team, it is not mandatory to have an affiliated team unlike the other columns (stadium, head coach, and marquee player), and it would make the whole table look cluttered and I want this page to be as clean and readable as possible. Anyway, there you go, I just wanted another outside opinion on this. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Especially when it is not a mandatory thing wouldn't it be a good addition to have a subsection explainiung what this partnerships mean exactly. Prose, not just a column in the table. -Koppapa (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You should also add them to List of feeder teams in football. Giant Snowman 15:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That is why I would rather we add this into the individual team articles. Each affiliation is different. Atletico de Kolkata is literally owned by Madrid. They keep part of the identity, some players are trained directly by Madrid, uniforms the same, permission to use ground, and friendlies etc. Delhi Dynamos and Feyenoord's partnership includes really just to help in the "overall development" of the team and perhaps provide a youth player. Pune City and Fiorentina is also vague as to what their partnership means. Meanwhile the Bangalore and Pune City teams also have I-League teams affiliated with them and both affiliations mean nothing other than players on Bangalore and Pune City will play in the I-League with the I-League teams after the season. Same with Goa and North East United FC, they just provide the players from their I-League teams. These partnerships are so different per team and they are not needed so why have it on the main page? It would be much more better if I could just explain each partnership on each teams individual page. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Goalkeeper stats

Under career statistics, most goalies have the usual appearances + goals scored numbers.

Wouldn't it be more relevant to have appearances + clean sheets?

Ride the Hurricane (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, as has been discussed previously very recently. Giant Snowman 16:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's really no need to be so short. I'm not much of an editor of wikipedia (other than the odd grammatical error), I'm an appreciative user of it and ask questions such as this occasionally.

I'd be very grateful if you could point me in the direction of the discussion you're referring to. I've scrolled upwards on this page and can't spot anything - but as I implied earlier, I'm not particularly au fait with the behind-the-scenes functionality of the site.

Cheers, Ride the Hurricane (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Here you go. LRD NO (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree with the conclusion, but at least the discussion's been had and it's based on proper considerations. Ride the Hurricane (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictures?

I've been working on FIFA World Cup top goalscorers and when I looked for pictures of some of the most prolific players in the WC history, I could barely find any. How come this project has so little access to pictures of game's biggest stars when google shows a plethora out there? Nergaal (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Because most of the pictures you find on Google are non-free. If you find any that are in the public domain or released under a Creative Commons licence, feel free to upload them yourself. Just make sure you know exactly what the licence is first. – Pee Jay 00:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

RM - Multiple 'Australian National Association Football Teams' to 'Soccer Teams'

Note copied from WP:Australia
See talk:Australia national association football team where the usage of "soccer" or "association football" is under discussion.
Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Bladeboy - I suggested back at that other discussion that you didn't properly understand the proposal, and I think you have just proved it. The change proposed is from "Association Football" to "Soccer", with one of the primary issues being that nobody in Australia, and hardly anybody else elsewhere, calls the game "association football". And did you invite editors at the Australian Rules Football and Rugby pages too? HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not all of the pages currently included are named as association football but I've amended the title of this section if that helps. Please stop trying to belittle anyone who does not hold the same opinion as yourself by suggesting ignorance or lack of understanding - it's patronising and incorrect. As for notifications - no I haven't. Talk:Australia national association football team clearly states that it is of interest to two Wikiprojects - Australia and Football - as a notification had been placed on one of them I have copied exactly the same notifcation to this one.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No belittling. Just correction. And nothing to do with opinions. I haven't actually expressed one at that other thread. But I have pointed out a lot of facts. You had repeatedly failed to demonstrate that you actually understood what the proposal really was. Your original title here seemed to be yet another demonstration of a possible misunderstanding. It was important that the correct proposal was clarified here, and it appears that you now do understand. I'm pleased about that. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You haven't expressed an opinion, but you have disagreed with every person who has advocated against the change and none of those who have advocated for it. A bit of a stretch to suggest neutrality... Macosal (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I certainly have an opinion. A stronger opinion now than before. It has been influenced at least in part by the shallow, often quite uninformed arguments of those in favour of using the word "football" in relation to the game in Australia. If better arguments were produced, arguments that demonstrated a real understanding of how things are in Australia, and didn't also ignore how things are in the USA for example, I could be persuaded to take a position against this proposal. But when the existing arguments against it are so poor, I'm actually being pushed towards the support side. It will be interesting to see if bringing the issue here, the home of people obsessed with the round ball game, will bring to the fore anyone with a good enough knowledge of the reality of Football in Australia to actually help with the Oppose case. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yawn - as you cannot respond to anything without making smug or patronising remarks I await your further comments with with a complete lack of interest.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

IP Editing

Some Ip's do not want to stop editing this page → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrolul_Ploie%C5%9Fti incorrectly like for example this two edits → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014%E2%80%9315_FC_Petrolul_Ploie%C8%99ti_season&action=history. I want this page to be protected or semi-protected so that me and one other guy to keep improving this page in peace. Thanks. Am descălecat și aici . SHV 10:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Kit

Could someone help me with this kit? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--Sv86SramzQ/U9czNI3DYII/AAAAAAAABAI/Ej3xY0WEdRs/s1600/opel1.png
I want to export this to Wikipedia but i cannot put the Opel logo on it. Thanks. Am descălecat și aici . SHV 10:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Opel logo is not needed. Colors without it describe the kit just fine. -Koppapa (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

FIFA 2014 Wikidata

Maybe someone wants to be bold and revert and tidy up the vandalism at Wikidata? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)