Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 99

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 95

←

Archive 97

→

Gus Poyet

Unsourced additions of a new club which I have reverted. I'm told by User:Leaky caldron that this does not need sourcing. This must be the new way forward?--Egghead06 (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Egghead06: The club made the announcement today. I will add the reference to the article. I must also remind you of WP:3RR, which both you and @Leaky caldron: came close to violating. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jkudlick:Thanks. BTW, I came no where near, in practice or in spirit, no reminder needed. Leaky Caldron 20:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jkudlick:Thanks for adding and FWIW I shall continue to ignore any and all editors who tell me references are not needed. That way lies anarchy.--Egghead06 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Soriano - Part 2

User:BigShow continues to: 1 - remove FC Barcelona from the infobox even though player played once for them in the Copa del Rey; 2 - correct good English and turn it into broken one ("2-1 home WINS" to describe ONE match); 3 - remove RCD Espanyol B from the chart below even though all his appearances are sourced by BDFUTBOL, which he also removes (!). In said chart, he continuously and erroneously inserts that Spanish Cup game in the FC Barcelona B team!

I have already notified this person about this situation, received no reply as expected (writes no summaries, does not engage in conversation with anyone). Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverted for the last time, lest I break the 3RR. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

After my last reversion he did break word in the form of a summary, saying his idea of a chart (with the Cup game inserted in the Barcelona B field amongst other charmers!) was more "real and tidy" (verbatim, check edit history), reverting me again. He has already been re-reverted, not by me mind you.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Reversions continue regardless of obvious evidence being provided to Mr. Show. I cease all attempts at interaction with this person. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Pablo Paz

Any Everton fans out there? Can any light be shed regarding his (possible) spell with the club? Back in the day, I remember browsing BBC Sport and coming out completely empty.

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This and this say he had a trial at Goodison, which is not the same as a loan. I can't find any evidence that he ever actually signed for the Toffees......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dude (capital intended), will now work on the article in the next hour! Have a happy one --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, if anyone else wants to contribute, I have "set it free"... --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Aitor Cantalapiedra: To create or to not create

The subject mentioned above made his first team debut for FC Barcelona as a second-half substitute in a 0–0 Copa del Rey draw against CF Villanovense. Of course, according to our guidelines, the guy does not pass WP:NFOOTY, but aren't these types of players notable enough through WP:GNG? I mean, if a Manchester United player makes his debut in a FA Cup against Halifax Town, for an example, he would be all over the news in the following days anyway, and it would also raise an extremely big discussion about this. MYS 77 ^✉ 23:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If sufficient coverage can be found to satisfy WP:GNG, then the article can be created. However, we're looking for more than being named in match reports to meet GNG, we're looking for significant coverage. I could play in a hypothetical Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup match between D.C. United and Fredericksburg FC (thus still failing WP:NFOOTY as F'burg FC is not in a FPL) and be mentioned in the match reports on ESPN and in several newspapers, but until something is written about me as a person/player and not merely about my participation in the match, I still fail GNG. I must hold the same standards here, that is to say that there must be coverage of Cantalapiedra as a person/player and not just about his participation in a match. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus over whether playing in a cup for a club in a FPL (regardless of opposition) results in a pass or fail of WP:NFOOTY – certainly in the past we have had many articles kept at AfD on this basis, but there have also been articles deleted. Number 5 7 10:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What Number 57 said. It tends to depend on who he's playing for and when it was: if it was a team in what's perceived as a not very important FPL, and particularly if it was some time ago, then it quite possibly would be deleted. But I'm pretty sure that if a Man Utd player makes his debut in the third round (last 64) of the FA Cup against a non-FPL team next January, his article would be created within minutes of his taking the field, and I'd be surprised if deletion were even considered. I see no reason why a Barcelona player making his debut in the last 32 of the Spanish Cup should be any different. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Somebody created him, but I think he passes through GNG now, after some improvements were made. MYS 77 ^✉ 17:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Belgium national football team: peer review before FAC

The good article Belgium national football team is under peer review; mainly textual improvement seems the last step before FAC.

Other suggestions to improve the article can be posted at the peer review page. Thanks, Kareldorado (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Willie O'Neill

I've just seen this stub Willie O'Neill (Irish footballer) and feel there should be more out there about this man. Does anybody have books/sites that mention him to flesh the article out a bit? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added two refs, from online sources. Will try to find more. Murry1975 (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Football League Tonight

Do you feel Football League Tonight is worthy of its own article or should it go to AfD? JMHamo (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably notable, given it's a primetime Saturday night TV show. Giant Snowman 16:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Definitely notable as per GiantSnowman. Number 5 7 13:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should "FC"/"SC" be used less often in Major League Soccer articles?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that "Fc" and "SC" should not be used as much in Major League Soccer articles. AlbinoFerret 14:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Should "FC"/"SC" be used less often in MLS-related articles?

Background: Here is the relevant discussion above, and further discussion on my talk page. These discussions specifically talk about Vancouver Whitecaps FC, but FC/SC is used quite a bit in articles about other MLS teams in as well (Seattle Sounders FC, for instance), compared to other football/soccer clubs (see Arsenal F.C. or the previous incarnation of Vancouver Whitecaps FC, for comparison). This question also pertains to articles referencing these clubs - 2015–16 CONCACAF Champions League for example. Bmf 051 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There is an unnecessarily high number of references to "FC" or "SC" in these articles. It makes for awkward prose. It is common to truncate team names, leaving off the FC or SC. Even the league and teams in question do this, on their websites for example. In the specific case of the Vancouver Whitecaps, the current practice of using FC to differentiate between the current team, the NASL team, and the USL team doesn't make sense because the USL team also used "FC" in their name. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Counting the number of times FC is used in various articles. "FC" is used ~21 times in Vancouver Whitecaps FC and ~44 times in Seattle Sounders FC, excluding links (which have "FC" by necessity) and references to other clubs. "F.C." or "FC" is used once in Arsenal F.C., 4 times in Liverpool F.C., once in Brisbane Roar FC, and twice in Auckland City FC, again not counting links or references to other clubs. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, No, Asking the wrong question - I agree that you can over-include FC / SC and we shouldn't. I think that is commonly understood. However I don't think that is the actual issue so the question is wrong. We should instead be asking what is the correct protocol for Phoenix clubs vs Franchise renaming vs changing leagues and whether the original consensus actually made much sense. If we establish the original consensus was poor - then we can revisit what the correct interpretation should be at which point the FC / SC issue should go away on its own. Koncorde (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

But that wasn't the question I wanted answered in the first place - the conversation was just taken in that direction. If you would like to raise that question, then go for it, but this is the question I wanted to ask. I'm not really sure that the FC/SC problem will go away if we determine that the original consensus about the naming protocol was poor. What about Columbus Crew, a team that doesn't share its name with another team? Bmf 051 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes: If they're playing a football/soccer league they are a soccer/football club, right? Even if they aren't, only the name is enough. MYS 77 ^✉ 02:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes: Just like with a person's proper name, I'd suggest the full name (including FC/SC be used on first reference in an article's prose, then the common name thereafter... i.e. Vancouver Whitecaps FC on first reference then Whitecaps thereafter. Within a table, I'd include it only if it's necessary for disambiguation, i.e. CA Madrid v. Real Madrid CF (since CA Madrid is commonly known as Atletico Madrid, that's probably a bad example, but it clarifies my point). --John, AF4JM (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No and that I and other MLS editors were not notified is a sign of bad faith. It is clear that question is poorly worded. What does "less often" mean? Where should it be used less often? How many times is too often? In maps? The first time they're mentioned in an article of any kind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of acting in bad faith, you better have evidence to back it up. You're not assuming good faith. "Less often" means much less than what it is now. It means that using it in every instance, as you've suggested, is too much. It means all relevant articles (those pertaining to the teams in question) should conform to other WP:FOOTY articles, which don't use FC/SC as much. That's stated below the question. Bmf 051 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's my understanding that "There is consensus that "Fc" and "SC" should not be used as much in Major League Soccer articles." yet the editor is removing almost every mention and is telling me I don't understand the decision. Once again, acting in bad faith. Take a look at his recent edits and feel free to comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As usual, the footy project has not bothered to work. They pontificated" the way we do it in Europe makes perfect sense, and even though the majority of North American sources (which of course we didn't look at) don't follow our rule we'l go against WP:COMMONNAME and make up our own. Oh and you former colonies should drink more tea" but don't actually bother to get involved in edit wars started by the editor asking the leading question. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles. This discussion is not about article titles. It's about the content of the article itself. I agree that FC and SC should be included in the title, as do most WP:FOOTY editors, I'm sure. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian Cup help

Do we have a Bulgarian around who can help to tidy up the mess that is the Bulgarian Cup and associated articles? When looking through several sources there's an overlap and some serious question as to who "owns" the 1982 / 1983 Bulgarian Cup winner title? The common source used (RSSSF) indicates that "NB: from 1981 until 1991 there were two Cup tournaments. In 1981 the Cup of Bulgaria was not a serious tournament because only 4 teams took part: CSKA Sofia , Slavia Sofia, Levski Sofia and Botev Plovdiv; it was part of the commemorations for 1300 years of Bulgaria. From 1983 onwards the Cup of Bulgaria was the major Cup tournament; in 1982 the winner of the Soviet Army Cup still qualified for the CWC." which doesn't help clear things up as it appears certain teams want to claim the '82 final of the non-official Bulgarian Cup (secondary to the Soviet Army Cup) as "official". The article table itself needs tidying, but we could do with someone that can decipher the content of some of the sourced books / FA / non-translatable sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe try Dfotev (talk · contribs)? Giant Snowman 13:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

From 1946 to 1982 the tournament for the cup of Bulgaria was named Cup of the Soviet Army. This is the only official tournament for the period. In 1982 was created Bulgarian Cup, which becomes the major tournament in the country. From 1982 to 1990 Cup of the Soviet Army has been conduct as a minor tournament. The holder of the national cup in 1982 is also the winner of the Cup of the Soviet Army - Lokomotiv Sofia, and in 1983 is a winner for the Bulgarian Cup - CSKA Sofia. Dfotev 17:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have changed a bit Bulgarian Cup, the only problem left is the problem Koncorde mentioned. I suggest to move those editions in a separate page with Football in Bulgaria : Defunct competitions.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dfotev "The holder of the national cup in 1982 is also the winner of the Cup of the Soviet Army - Lokomotiv Sofia" the winners are different, is not same winner in 1982 and 1983 edition.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

PFC Sofia are claiming the 1982 edition of the official tournament on their own website, but the RSSSF link says that the "official" winners was the Army Cup winners until '83. It makes a difference of whether PFC Sofia have won 25 or 26 "Bulgarian Cups" depending on the interpretation.

I also don't think it needs splitting into sub-pages. The current one is fine - but I think it should be 1 long table, with notes indenting when the cup changed names. Koncorde (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It needs references then, can you add the references you have find ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Cup of the Soviet Army (1946–1982) - Official tournament. In 1981 they also created "Bulgarian Cup" - to be the country name in the name of the cup, for 2 unofficial editions. In 1983 Cup of the Soviet Army changed the name in "Bulgarian Cup" - Official tournament, and Cup of the Soviet Army (1983–1990) become unofficial till the end of the communist era, in 1990.

So, Bulgarian Cup (1981–1982) and Cup of the Soviet Army (1983–1990) - UNOFFICIAL as you see teams from lower leagues played instead of a few main teams. Did you understand now ? Can you write there this in correct English ? Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Carles Puyol

Can someone take a look at the "Club statistics" on this article - the footnotes are a complete mess. Thanks. 92.26.166.26 (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

EMF miniEURO

Someone who has time to create a few seasons in the new football competition : EMF miniEURO Thanks !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: More likely to go to AfD, I wouldn't bother wasting my time. It doesn't seem notable. JMHamo (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Mini football, are national teams/associations worth an article yet?

Just are they? Murry1975 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to say not yet, at least not until the format receives much wider recognition. To me, this appears to be a version of futsal, which is already governed by FIFA. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No its separate from FIFA, and not futsal. Murry1975 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Balkans Cup

Someone who wants to improve editions of Balkans Cup, there are not so many games per edition, just QF - SF and Final. It should have each edition a separate page no ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Then, do it. You can't expect others to do "your" work... Not interesting for many people around here. This counts for all your requests. Kante4 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don t have time, I have to improve other hundreds of articles, one day Wikipedia will be the biggest data base of football, and maybe they will split from main wikipedia and be: Wikipedia Football with the motto: All about football :) And all the football related articles to be notable ! as long as it have correct references !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Greatest comeback?

What are the greatest comebacks in the history of association football? I am asking for an article (Comeback (sports)). Cheers! bd2412 T 14:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Man Utd - European Cup Final 1999

Liverpool - European Cup Final 2005

Man City - Premier League 2012 Davefelmer (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of fishing expedition google is made for. See links: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Koncorde (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sweden fightback against huge favourites Germany in 2014 World Cup qualifier (a time when Germany was great team) as the "perfect winning record" was broken? 4–0 with 30 minutes left became 4–4, which was huge comeback for a underdog. The equaliser coming in 93rd minute, did not make it less interesting.bbc article, the guardian. Qed237 (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In 1998, Day 3 of 1998–99 French Division 1, Marseille was losing at home against Montpellier, the score being 0-4 at halftime. In the second half, Marseille scored 5 times in the last half-hour of the game, with an extra-time victory goal scored by Laurent Blanc from the penalty spot. Probably the biggest come-back in French football history. You can see the official report here and the match video is available on Youtube and other media sites. Hope this can help. Tuttiseme (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Charlton Athletic F.C. 7–6 Huddersfield Town A.F.C., 21 December 1957. With 27 minutes left, Charlton were losing 5–1 and down to ten men. However, they scored six more goals to win 7–6. Number 5 7 10:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to decide if you want the 'greatest' to refer to 'most notable' (ie, best known, most reported), or the biggest in terms of goals. Timing makes a difference too - the 1954 FIFA World Cup Final is the only World Cup final to date in which a team cameback from 2 goals behind, but that was after 8 minutes and it was 2-2 at 18 minutes: it doesn't quite have the same 'comeback' feeling to it. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a lot to work with. The most notable example or two would probably be best, in terms of what has been described in sources as a "comeback". bd2412 T 18:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Jacinto Elá

Maybe here the user I will mention below will post, I tried his talkpage and was met with utter silence, another person messaged him after me and he replied, fine:

User:MonFrontieres (previously known as User:Kolins) is somewhat of an expert on Equatoguinean football. I contacted him about the senior international caps of this player after finding no evidence at NFT.com, received zilch in reply. Does anybody know anything on the subject (or better, message him instead, maybe you folks will be luckier)?

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the issue, MonFrontieres has never edited the article in question? Also there is no evidence that MonFrontieres and Kolins are the same editor; even if they are it's irrelevant. Giant Snowman 18:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I can also find nothing to support the claim that he has any senior international caps. What's stopping you from being WP:BOLD? — Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

GS, they are the same, Mr. Frontieres acknowledged it to me on my page when I had an account (cannot procure a diff for you because my account is "no more" as you know), so he has edited in Elá's article OK? But sorry for straying out of subject if you think it's irrelevant. Now, can someone lead the way technically and suggest what can we do with the box please? Mr. Frontieres, who is much more skilled on Equatoguinean football than I am, has been notified of this thread as his name was highlighted, if he does not reply until the end of this week I will be WP:BOLD as Jkudlick suggests. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 Coupe de France

This article needs some work. It doesn't look much like other high profile national cup pages or even previous Coupe de France articles. I don't normally work on these articles so I don't know what is standard. I thought I would mention it here in hopes someone with knowledge would want to address it. Equineducklings (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Glossop North End

Could some third parties review the situation at Glossop North End A.F.C.. I recently attempted to cut down on what I saw as some WP:RECENTISM problems in the article (e.g. having one of the three sections in History dedicated to the current season). This has twice been reverted by the article's main editor on the basis that they were not around 100 years ago and that no-one has previously complained that the article has been like that for the past six months. There is also an issue with the editor insisting on using a squad number for the goalkeeper (in a league that does not have squad numbers). Some outside input would be appreciated. Number 5 7 10:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at tightening it up a bit. Given that the last couple of seasons seem to have been particularly successful for the club relatively speaking I don't think it unfair that they get relatively prominent coverage. It was a bit verbose and I have trimmed a couple of bits and removed a paragraph that was unreferenced about manager changes which, given that the club did not win anything during that time seemed a touch excessive. Would be good to see more on second half of the twentieth century to balance it out rather than removing anything further. @GNEbandit: thoughts? Fenix down (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for keeping the recent history. Like you said the last couple of years have been incredable for GNE, maybe compared with Man United its nothing, but for a little mill town in the hills its big User:GNEbandit

can someone have a word with Number 57.... he has an extraordinary interest in Glossop North End, deleting things that have been on there for a long time, notable info... which is what Wiki is for.. even deleting thing you yourself have added to neaten up the info box (you added a

to neaten it up)

since he didn't get his way with the issue above he seems to have it in for the page, to the point where i will just delete it all because its getting beyond a joke. i add things to the GNE page which are copies from other teams pages, to make sure that they are acceptable, but apparently according to Number 57 they aren't for GNE.... this guy needs reigning in. User:GNEbandit 21:38, 03 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to note (in case anyone else was thinking of doing it), I have referred the editor to WP:OWN and pointed out that they cannot delete the article. Number 5 7 21:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

OCEANIA: A NEW TASK FORCE?

I have been looking at the WIkiProject Football pages and I think I would like to start a Oceania task force that is focused around the top leagues of each OFC nation and any nation/confederation-wide competitions (e.g. OFC Champions League). Wikipedia currently lacks a lot of information that is available on the internet about OFC association football at a domestic level especially. If this task force were to gain approval by a few users, enough to have proper support to create a task force, I would want to be a part of it because I have experience with creating most of the pages that now exist regarding the Vanuatu football league at a domestic and national level. Please voice your support and please tell me if you would be interested in participating. If you known anyone that may potentially be interested on Wikipedia, please tell them because I really enjoying creating these articles and it would be quite beneficial to have a group of Wikipedians with the same motivations.

Lawrencedepe (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely be interested in this, it would be good to get a bit more organisation around a neglected area of the project and coordinate content creation better. I wonder whether @Chanheigeorge:, @Alanten19:, @Klant01:, @J man708: would be interested too? Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. I'm in. I reckon you might be able to drum up a bit of support for an Oceanian Task Force from some of the other Aussie editors here aswell. - J man708 (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And then we can have a sixth-month long edit war / argument over whether it should be called the Oceanian Football Taskforce or the Oceanian Soccer Taskforce. :P Fenix down (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to join, because I want to learn more and more about editing Wikipedia, cause I have never worked in a task force yet. Although I was wondering if it might be more easy if we can contact each others on other ways. Like mail or something. I guess than it would be more easy to actually work on it. Alanten19 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Not a fan of succession boxes in football articles generally, but one that particularly annoys me is the "European Treble winning coach" which appears on the articles of Stein, Ferguson, Mourinho, Guardiola etc. These boxes, if used at all, are supposed to be for office holders and award winners where one succeeds the other... definitely not for a contrived combination of achievements which may or may not happen in any given year. Can we get rid of them, PLEASE? Jellyman (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that succession boxes should go for all articles - if it's notable then create a navigation template, if it's not then why have it? Giant Snowman 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. They should go, I see no use for them. Qed237 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Another in agreement – they seem to be a relic of the very early days on Wikipedia, and have persisted in a few cases. Number 5 7 21:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

~~Right. I'm going to go ahead and remove them. I don't foresee many fans of them turning up.~~ Ah, already done! Jellyman (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC) While we're at it, any objections to removing the captain succession boxes that exist for an apparently random selection of teams (Celtic, Man United, Liverpool, England)? Jellyman (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Get rid. Being captain simply isn't notable or a defining characteristic for a player -- 09:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently someone objects, because my edit a couple days ago removing the captain succession box from the Carles Puyol page was reverted fairly quickly.--John, AF4JM (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Football coaches category

Hi, struggling to find Football coaches in Category:Coaches by sport any ideas ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrahamHardy: Category:Association football managers is under Category:Sports managers, which is in that category. I guess the rationale is that "coach" has a rather different meaning in football than for other sports. Number 5 7 12:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Dejan Lovren

Can someone take a look at the comments I have made at his talk page. Thanks. 92.26.166.26 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding club name in the opening paragraph

The question refers to clubs from countries that dont have English as their offcial language. NK Inter Zaprešić for exemple. See the opening paragraph saying:

Nogometni Klub Inter Zaprešić (English: Football Club Inter Zaprešić) is a Croatian football club based in Zaprešić, a town northwest of the capital Zagreb originally founded in 1929.

My question is regarding MOS about the use of "(English: xxx)". Lets see. I believe that uninformed readers would easily consider that to be an indication that the club is named that way in English. However, my observation is that NK Inter Zaprešić is NK Inter Zaprešić in English. Similarly, FK Partizan (Fudbalski klub Partizan) is FK Partizan in English, and not FC Partizan. I also believe that one doesnt have to be a linguist or polyglot to know that Fudbalski klub in Serbo-Crotian is football club in English. I removed that, in my view misleading, indication from most Serbian club articles, but I find there are other articles of clubs from other countries using that. I think that it is usefull to have a sentence saying what club name means, as at FK Radnički Niš, but I propose removing this English translations from the very start of the opening paragraphs. Any thoughts? FkpCascais (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The club's name must not be changed. As well your name, does it change when you move away from your native country? I say we should maintain the original names, and fix others too (i.e. Inter Milan when the club's name is FC Internazionale Milano). To me, these English translations can stay, but only at the club's article, not in other places, like players articles or so. MYS 77 ^✉ 23:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with FkpCascais that there's no need for that translation at the beginning. NK Inter Zaprešić is indeed NK Inter Zaprešić in English. People know that football clubs of all countries generally have something sports-club-related in their name that's abbreviated to initials and omitted in prose (unless needed for distinguishing between similarly-named clubs), so we don't usually bother translating it. I'd also agree that where the club name actually means something, as opposed to place name and something football-club-related, it's informative to explain it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny how USER:MYS77 says that your name shouldn't change when you move away from your native country but then he says the exact opposite thing on my talk page about Rachid Aït-Atmane's name and argues that he should be known only as Rachid while he's in Spain and that "When he leaves Spain (and only WHEN), then you can call him whatever they'll call him in other countries." --TonyStarks (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny is how User:TonyStarks fails to respect sources (I showed him a lot of references which call the player "Rachid", not "Aït-Atmane"), and it's funny how he didn't bring me a single source to prove his "theory". I'm talking about clubs here, not players. Clearly a lack of interpretation from the user. But who am I to argue, right? If you want to WP:OWN the page, it's all yours mate. MYS 77 ^✉ 03:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Confusion about Honours

As I only began editing on wikipedia very recently, I am trying to learn the accepted norms of the site better so as to comply by wiki policy better and clash with other editors less. An issue I want clarity in is how to cite honours for football clubs; do you

A) only source honours to a full list of trophies as provided by a credible source

Or

B) source individual competitions independently as long as any source states the trophy was won by said club

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Davefelmer (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As you like. -Koppapa (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Either, so long as the source is reliable and properly interpreted, and so long as sources aren't being cherrypicked depending on what club we're talking. You'll be lucky to find a definitive full list of trophies as provided by a credible source. Most clubs tend to list everything they've won, as a proper historical record, apart from a relatively few "big" clubs who only list what they consider important; Rothman's and successor lists pretty well everything, apart from Charity Shields, yet some editors think sharing the Charity Shield is an "honour"; UEFA only list competitions they organised, which means it's selected as a source by editors whose favourite club has more trophies than another so long as the Fairs Cup doesn't count, whereas FIFA does include the Fairs Cup as a major honour... And on and on and on. Use common sense, reliable sources, and most importantly, a neutral point of view: we're here to record history, not to make a particular club look good or bad. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I am curious as to what you mean though by cherry picking information depending on the club. Could you give an example so I understand it more clearly? Is this what you mean by the UEFA and FIFA thing you mentioned later in your reply? Davefelmer (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The FIFA/UEFA thing is an example of cherrypicking, yes. A different but illustrative example was when an editor pushed for the Premier League website to be the source of choice for players' heights rather than club websites on grounds of officialness, reliability, stability (because players allegedly changed club more often than league, ignoring the fact that when a player did move out of the PL, the PL website dropped his height from his profile) when – purely coincidentally – the PL measured heights in metric, which was that editor's preferred system of measurement, while most English club sites used feet and inches. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, should regional and local tournaments classify as honours or should it just be national trophies? Davefelmer (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Most clubs can only ever win regional and local tournaments, because very few clubs indeed win anything national... If you're talking "big" clubs, it depends on the historical context. Many editors aren't aware that in the early days of English football, the only national competition was the FA Cup, and even when the Football League started, the county senior cup was a more important competition: the early Football League was a convenient way of organising fixtures rather than something all that important in its own right. It soon changed, but in other countries, local/regional competitions retained their significance for much longer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification mate. All the best. Davefelmer (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

American club notability

Sorry if this has been asked before, but what are the notability standards for US soccer teams? I assume it's WP:FOOTYN but just wanted to make sure before I tag AFC Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids FC, Oakland United FC, Spartans Futbol Club, Real San Jose, San Francisco Stompers FC for deletion because I've been told they never played in the US Open Cup. Please let me know! JMHamo (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would say clubs playing at the fourth level in the US are notable, particularly when they are playing in a nationally-organised league. Number 5 7 16:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that a fully professional league at WP:FPL? I am still unconvinced. JMHamo (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The fourth tier in US association football is not fully professional, but as long as the clubs can be shown to meet WP:GNG the articles can be kept. I haven't researched those clubs myself, but I can do some checking later. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

They are notable, in time one of this club can advance and reach a superior league, is no point to delete them, we have unlimited space on internet, you better concentrate to create more articles or improve the existing ones then to delete. (my opinion)--86.125.170.69 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I would say of the clubs listed above that all bar Oakland and Ann Arbor are notable per WP:FOOTYN as they compete in a nationally organised competition. Oakland and Ann Arbor are not notable at the moment, but would be notable once they join the same league as the others next season. I would encourage the original author to move those two to draftspace for now and merge any relevant prose with Great Lakes Premier League. Fenix down (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick research suggests the National Premier Soccer League (which some of the listed teams haven't even played in yet)is an amateur (or possible semi-professional league) run by the United States Adult Soccer Association, which the sanctioning body for amateur US soccer. I would reinforce the statement made by Jkudlick. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor's assessment amounts to WP:CRYSTAL. I found very little outside of club and league pages about these clubs. All have been nominated. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo and Jkudlick: - regarding your comments here and the AFD nominations, WP:FPL is used for player notability, not club notability, and we have plenty of notable amateur teams. Furthermore WP:FOOTYN is just an essay which has not been updated substantially since April 2009 and is thus a) massively out-of-date and b) subsequently not fit-for-purpose. Giant Snowman 18:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks for correcting me about WP:FPL, my mistake but until we have something better than WP:NFOOTY it's the best guideline we have to work from, isn't it.. JMHamo (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We have plenty of AFD consensus that playing in the national cup competition is sufficient for notability, I'd be inclined to just stick with that personally. Giant Snowman 20:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as an American editor who works a lot with American professional and college sports articles, I do believe the correct notability guideline for all sports teams -- American, European, or otherwise -- is WP:ORG, which covers all organizations including sports teams. That said, the substantive criteria of WP:ORG are almost identical to those of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and a sports team must have received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to be considered notable and suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. As a practical matter, this excludes most post-game coverage of a team per WP:ROUTINE. The multiple source criterion is interpreted as counting all articles from a single media outlet as a single source, and the independent source criterion is usually interpreted as publications of the team, league, national governing body, etc., as well any affiliated organizations such as the players association, or the NCAA, conference, university, or student media for college sports teams, may not be used to establish notability even if they are reliable sources for information in the article. Most established American professional teams will satisfy WP:ORG and WP:GNG unless they play at a very low level of their particular sport, where media coverage may be limited only to local outlets, and truly significant coverage may be lacking. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Do you think the teams listed in this template {{National Premier Soccer League}} are generally non-notable? JMHamo (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

JMHamo: Good question. I don't follow lower tier football/soccer, and in fact, I'm more likely to follow my university's women's soccer team (Florida Gators women's soccer) than I am the local NPSL affiliate "Atlanta Silverbacks Reserves" here in Atlanta. I've been to a couple games of the NASL affiliate Atlanta Silverbacks (2nd tier), but I didn't even know that the NPSL franchise "Silverbacks Reserves" (4th tier) even existed until I started looking at the NPSL navbox you linked above. In the United States, soccer/football is the 6th or 7th sport in terms of popularity, after NFL football, college football, MLB baseball, NBA basketball, college basketball, and NHL hockey. Keep in mind that American college football and college basketball are more popular here than professional soccer/football, and you only need to compare the coverage those sports receive on ESPN.com to that for MLS (1st tier) professional soccer/football to get some sense of where most American sports fans' loyalties are. Minor league soccer like the NPSL is a blip on the radar screen of American sports media. That said, it is not that hard for a sports team to satisfy WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG; three major articles about a given team (as distinct from WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage) in three different independent medai sources will generally satisfy an AfD analysis. I started randomly googling several of the NPSL teams listed in the NPSL navbox, and I found some decent coverage for some of the mid-market teams like the Cincinnati Saints (see, e.g., [7]). Without doing a full ORG/GNG analysis for all 65 NPSL teams, I am going to surmise that most, if not all, of them would satisfy the ORG/GNG notability criteria. The only way to know for sure, of course, is to pick four or five NPSL teams, and go through the WP:BEFORE process with someone who really knows the American soccer/football leagues and is willing to do the homework. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have started a new discussion regarding club notability at FOOTYN since the current recommendations are possibly outdated and can be ambiguous to some. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Rachid Aït-Atmane

Rachid Aït-Atmane is a French-born Algerian footballer who signed for Gijon in Spain 2013 and he's referred to as Rachid in the Spanish press (using Spanish naming conventions). A certain user insists on referring to him as Rachid instead of Aït-Atmane (which he would referred to if we used French-Algerian naming conventions) while he plays in Spain and said the following on my talk page: "When he leaves Spain (and only WHEN), then you can call him whatever they'll call him in other countries. Until that, he's known as RACHID and will stay that way." Now, I'm pretty sure that where a player plays does not determine his name. If a player is French-Algerian, we use those naming conventions. Karim Benzema and Gareth Bale aren't all of a sudden referred to as Karim and Gareth just because they play in Spain so I don't see why we're referring to him as Rachid, the player did not start existing when he moved to France. He started his career at Lens and here's an article from 2012 from RC Lens' official website referring to him as Aït-Atmane. Other articles from DZfoot, Foot-National, FootMercato, La Gazette du Fennec, etc. I've already reverted the page three times (other user has reverted 4 times), so I don't want to risk a ban. TonyStarks (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@TonyStarks: You have to notify users when talking about them. Another WP rule breached. I provided you recent sources, which prove that he's known as Rachid, not Aït-Atmane. He's known by Aït-Atmane in France and Algeria, while still being known as Rachid (his shirt name and his common name in the club he actually plays for) in Spain and almost the rest of the world. I will add the sources here, so everybody can see them: Sporting's official web, BDFutbol, Marca, Mundo Deportivo, La Nueva España and an enormous variety of other websites call him as "Rachid", nothing more (here's a chronicle in Portuguese and look! Known as Rachid, what a surprise!). Also, if you Google "Rachid Sporting" it will produce nearly 10x more results than "Rachid Aït-Atmane". MYS 77 ^✉ 21:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And yes, of course Benzema, Bale and a lot of other foreign players aren't called by their first name in Spain. But if you look at their shirt names, you'll see: Benzema, Bale and so on. That's not the case of Rachid. If he wanted to be known as Aït-Atmane, I'm pretty sure his shirt name would be the first thing that would change. MYS 77 ^✉ 21:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Managed to reach some consensus about this (even though I'm not agreeing 100% with that), for the good of WP as a whole. Managed to maintain my intro, backed up with a reference, but the whole rest of the page is as TonyStarks wanted to, after seeing another story of a footballer who didn't want to be known for his last name, even though still being called by it (Memphis Depay). Cheers, MYS 77 ^✉ 02:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Nicolas Nkoulou

Hi to all! Can someone take a look on the above-mentionned page and put some kind of protection on it ? The page has been the target of constant vandalism, mainly (as it appears) by one person under different IPs and User Names, who publicly make it an achievement on his Twitter account. Thanks ! Tuttiseme (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Giant Snowman 09:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

European Railways Cup

European Railways Cup : Someone who know Russian language, to can update the table, references are in Russian. Thanks !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal about football templates

For many years we had the light blue in all templates of squads of the national teams. Now (2015), many national teams has different colors in their squads. In the clubs (Manchester United F.C.#Players) we have the default light blue and that is distinct from the other tables. Is a default color like the lightsteelblue in the army units and war templates. This makes it easy to find and discern the current squad from the other (historic and same) squads and informations. But the fans (of each national team) wants the colors like fan pages of the national teams. Fans do not care about the simple readers of Wikipedia. But that's not the only problem. Everyone gives his version of the colors. For example, in Moldova national football team#Current squad we have colors with problem in contrast.

According to the above, I propose to be unable the possibility of color addition in the following templates

{{Football squad player}}
{{National football squad player}}

I propose that for uniformity and responsible presentation of data. --IM-yb (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the choice of colors on that article are very difficult to read, however you have linked to the wrong templates. {{Football squad start}} (over 12,000 transclusions) and {{National football squad start}} (almost 500 translusions) actually have the colors hardcoded without the option of passing parameters to change them. However, {{National football squad start (goals)}} (over 1200 transclusions) and {{National football squad start (recent)}} (almost 300 transclusions) allow for |background= and |color= to be passed in the template call to allow for customization. Personally, I see no purpose in allowing customization which can violate MOS:COLOR when the default colors do not, but I will await consensus before changing the code in the templates. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what, I'll take my own advice to other editors to be bold and make the changes. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. If we have consensus it will be good to proceed in changes. --IM-yb (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Manual of style for coaches?

Is there a manual of style for professional football coaches? If not, it might not be a bad idea to make one. Thanks. --Ashkaan232 (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. The only difference is that you'll add the managerial experiences in their due fields (| manageryears(no.) and managerclubs(no.)). MYS 77 ^✉ 00:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Ashkaan232 (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Man Utd - Liverpool Rivalry

The trophy haul comparisons between these two clubs in the "football rivalry" part of the "roots" section of the page is absolutely ridiculous; it is biased and unfactual and despite trying to bring it to the editors' attention who watch that page, they refuse to change it, either out of personal allegiance or other factors. Aside from the lack of grammar in the section, it is nothing more than a jumbled mess of incoherent information pasted together where sources don't corroborate what is being said or there is a lack of neutrality and credibility in sources. For instance, it claims several media sources advocate for a trophy count where liverpool lead United 41-39, but of the three sources used to justify it, one lists lower division titles as major trophies, thus making its criteria for a trophy unclear and in any case not corroborating the count while another is dated all the way from 2004 (is that even relevant now?) that does show a count that if added up now would make it 41-39 to liverpool but it also shows a different count that favors United by 62-59 in trophues (which is mentioned later in the section but this source isn't used to back that claim up). So how can this source be presented as defending one trophy count to put one club ahead when it also presents another trophy count that puts another club in front? How can it justify one claim but not the other when it presents both?

Furthermore, the section quite clearly lies about the information presented on the club websites in order to make liverpool seem more successful. It says man utd's website separates some honours as major and minor when the website clearly links all its trophies as "major" (http://www.manutd.com/en/Club.aspx - note the "all major honours" part in the description of the trophy room) and instead lists United's successes as "trophies" and "others" despite a difference never being identified by the club. It then says liverpool's website lists 41 major trophies and "49 others" despite liverpool's website in no place making a differentiation between major and "other" honours on the linked page, with literally those words non existent on the site (http://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours). It is clearly set up to make a direct comparison that isn't there as both clubs view major honours differently (not mentioned), one that in any case includes liverpool's youth and reserve honours listed on their website to bolster their count against United's website which only lists senior honours (this conveniently isn't mentioned either).

Finally, the principle source of FIFA's website is completely unreliable. Despite being the governing body of football, FIFA is rife with corruption as is well known but in terms of analysis of the actual source, it is very poorly up to date, with the information clearly not updated for several years (saying liverpool's last trophy was in 2005 when it was in 2012, listing United as english champions 8 times in the last 13 years when that isn't true currently or recently even and not including recent club honours for teams like wigan with their FA Cup win in 2013 etc). How can this be relied on to accurately publish up-to-date trophy hauls? The site also never defines what is views as a major honour, with english clubs not having the community shield listed as major but most other clubs from other countries having their equivalents of the trophy listed as major titles (https://web.archive.org/web/20150329230027/http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=31073/index.html - French Super Cup and https://web.archive.org/web/20131128162637/http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=31089/index.html - Dutch Super Cup) while other clubs have even regional honours listed as major (https://web.archive.org/web/20131105174622/http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=1897032/index.html - Cairo League)!

UEFA, while more reliable than FIFA, clearly show bias to their competitions and eliminate the Club World Cup and Fairs Cups from club trophy hauls purely because those competitions aren't in their jurisdiction. Thus, none of the "sources" presented to back up these trophy hauls (all conveniently favouring liverpool) are reliable, accurate and credible through neutrality. All other wikipedia rivalry pages count total honours, something this page always did for years until recently when conveniently man Utd overtook liverpool by that honours system. Surely in the name of article consistency and consensus across wikipedia (as there is no dispute on the trophy counts on other congruent articles) this should be reverted back to purely showing total honours and not all this unfactual rubbish, but if that can't be done then why not remove the trophy counts altogether and just mention that they've are two of the most successful teams in the world in the intro and leave it at that? I am just trying to come to the most reasonable and neutral outcome here to an article section that has just become a complete farce. If someone could help, that would be great. Davefelmer (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to understand that a reference for a sentence does not need to corroborate every single word within a sentence. The references throughout that section are being used to refer to the fact that the "count" mechanism between FIFA, UEFA, FA, Club and Fans is often based upon their own prejudices about specific competitions. The persistent reference to specific counts of 41-39 etc are irrelevant. The only important factor to that section is that there is in fact an argument being undertaken, and these are some of the notable viewpoints presented.

I previously informed you of the unreliability of the FIFA, UEFA, Club websites - which didn't stop you arguing that they were the only ones that should be used for Arsenal (and something Struway previously explained above) - but that does not change that they can be used for certain purposes such as to show that different organisations refer to different totals.

In short the Rivalry article section is a section discussing the arguments about what qualifies as success, and presents over a dozen opinions on the matter - none of whom agree with each other. This is because there is no right number, because nobody can actually say what defines a "major" or "minor" honour, or what isn't even an honour. So long as the opinion is sourced then that is fine. If there are newer sources and reference to be included then they can replace / update etc, but then the opinion could be discusses historically instead (moving commentary to past tense).

However, lets be clear, we do not typically go about removing sources or citations, or removing honours etc just because someone hasn't added a specific reference - and several of your updates to Gary Bailey or Darren Fletcher could be challenged on the same grounds that you have been going around removing content. Also the convention is to places citations and references at the end of sentences / paragraphs rather than in-line.

If the article is poorly written then it can be fixed, but simply removing stuff you don't like because of your own opinion of what honours count, or what sources can be used, is blatant breach of NPOV and why you are being reverted (and why you were banned). Koncorde (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the problem here? If a debate was actually being presented that highlighted noteworthy viewpoints in a neutral fashion, that would be fine. But it ISNT, and that's the point. As explained and as surely anyone can see, the sources are misused and the information often unfactual throughout to present a clear bias towards liverpool. Sure there is no problem noting that some people believe in a trophy haul where liverpool lead 41-39, but the sources used to justify it must actually reflect the information, and two of the three do not! Thus they can't be used! The information on the websites is a complete fallacy where stuff is said that just does not exist in the sources as I've mentioned. Why is that not being changed? It's not anyone's opinion of what an honour is, and I am being reverted by you as you seem to have an issue accepting the reality, but it's about presenting credible and reliable sources to do the job, which these are not! There is a reason that NO OTHER WIKI ARTICLE of a club rivalry has all this tripe inserted, because the sources are not credible enough to be used as evidence. They are not neutral or reliable, especially the FIFA website as I describe above. It would be one thing if the governing bodies actually defined what a major honour of honour was on their websites and you used that to create your count, but you are just going off of what someone on the website wrote, which is clearly his/her personal opinion rather than fact as all the information between clubs is inconsistent. You yourself pointed out the unreliability of these sites in the arsenal debate, as you yourself mention, and how did that debate work out? I was wrong and you were right because those sources were indeed unreliable, hence they weren't used on the arsenal page. So if you understood that and enforced it on one article, why are you not doing it on this one?

You say you don't remove citations, but when they blatantly don't corroborate the information then you can't keep them surely! And these aren't long standing changes. They were made in August, following years upon years of the article reflecting the wikipedia consensus for club rivalry pages. It is this consensus that the article should go back to as the new "information" is unfactual and the sources are unreliable, hence they aren't used on other similar pages. it is also the same consensus that was used in adding honours to the players you mentioned; there is no fixed standard for what is an honour so I adhered to the Wikipedia consensus of what is listed for everyone. Having a debate with credible sources presenting a neutral view is one thing, but these sources aren't credible and are definitely not neutrally presented. Davefelmer (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: please see WP:TLDR. Giant Snowman 01:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason the FIFA articles are used in this "rivalry" is exactly because this article is bogged down in trying to negotiate the significance of those victories. The similarity in success, relative similarity in periods of success (i.e. last 50 years) etc. means people feel the need to quantify those periods in terms of biggest and best. Now I am not saying it is right, but the sources are being used correctly. Unlike at Arsenal where you were attempting to diminish one team by using incomplete lists, here two similarly incomplete lists are being used to compare and contrast. I'm all for improving the article and have made some additional edits today to achieve that end. Koncorde (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

While I understand the use of outside sources to highlight a dispute in views on trophies, using an unreliable source doesn't accomplish this. It would be one thing if FIFA listed what a major honour was and had consistency in their lists of them for all clubs, but they do not. The "major trophy" hauls and the trophies included are inconsistent on a club-by-club basis, meaning there is no common denominator for what they actually view as a major trophy. Likewise with UEFA, who don't include any competition they don't or didn't have jurisdiction of. There is a reason these sources are never quoted and that is it. I don't know what you mean when you say for the arsenal one, I was trying to diminish a team. Surely that is what is being done here; using unreliable and inconsistent sources to make one club look better! I've seen your edits, and thanks for doing them as you've presented a much better, more neutral stance on the debate but there are still inconsistencies and factual faults. FIFA and UEFA should be removed for the very same reasons they weren't used for arsenal and aren't on any other club rivalry page; and the stuff about the club websites has to be amended because that's just a blatant lie. I still say the intro should just say that these are two of the most decorated clubs in the world but there is debate about which is more successful, and then in the club rivalry page we should group the sources; those that are for the 62-59 count and those for the 41-39. The 44-42 one from FIFA can't be used as it isn't corroborated by any of the clubs or media and as mentioned, the FIFA site is ridiculously inconsistent and poorly updated. Davefelmer (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is motivated people have tried to make arguments about what qualifies, and how to compare the two, the FIFA and UEFA sources are at least internally consistent which is what has prompted an editor to try and mitigate the arguments by using them as a source. They are not factually inaccurate (far from it, they agree with all other sources with regards to the competitions that they discuss) they are just limited in scope. My edits have been only to re-format; the underlying numbers remain the same and how the governing bodies approach the trophies is up to them.

One, I don't think that the section discussing the count is all that interesting or relevant.
Two, the objective valuation of one trophy over another is pure opinion and should be treated as such (i.e. kept distinct from the actual trophy list where possible).
Three, by tackling the articles actual root issue (the fact that it's a dick waving competition) we can ultimately get rid of the disproportionately untidy content by replacing it with more reasoned, balanced and well sourced.

What we don't do is remove sources and citations or blank content, we find superior sources and / or change the content in such a way that we avoid the problem in the first place. Koncorde (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This really is quite tiresome. How's this for a suggestion: Instead of specifying a certain number of overall trophies, mention of this is either removed from the article, or the number of each trophy (league titles, FA Cups, League Cups etc) is detailed properly. Number 5 7 21:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Miles ahead of you, currently rebuilding the entire article. Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

just seen the edit; it is much better structured and balanced with a more neutral point of view so that is brilliant and very well done. There are still a few issues though; although FIFA and UEFA are somewhat internally consistent, they are both still very inconsistent within themselves in terms of what they seemingly view as trophies and both show clear bias towards their own competitions. UEFA exclude cups purely because they aren't theirs while FIFA lists certain trophies as major titles for one club and then doesn't list the same trophy or equivalent for another. UEFA does a similar thing where they'll refer to competitions like the community shield as the first trophy of the season (http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=eng/news/newsid=1980593.html) but then don't list it as an honour. The websites are clearly edited subjectively by a series of opinionated writers and with neither body officially claiming what constitutes a trophy and their conflicting counts unable to establish a norm either, they can't be used at all as they are poor sources. Every reference to them should be removed; there is obviously a reason they are not mentioned on any other rivalry page and their counts are not utilised by either club on their websites or the media.

Secondly, speaking of the club websites, that information seriously must be amended. It is clear that the previous edit revolved around making a comparison that wasn't there as both clubs distinguish trophies differently. United view all national honours as "major" while liverpool only see season-long trophies as such; thus they both claim to be more successful as they lead each other in their respective counts. This can then nicely tie into the two sides in the media, with some favouring liverpool's 41-39 count and others favouring United by 62-59 count. That rubbish about 49 "others" just has to go because they are literally youth and reserve honours that United simply display on a different page away from senior honours (and if you added United's equivalents, they'd still be ahead). So a restructuring of that where it is acknowledged both clubs go off of different counts that leads into how media back both counts, thus solidifying each one's claim as more successful should be in order as it would be factual, logically structured and interesting. Davefelmer (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Vedad Ibišević‎

Could anyone have a look at Vedad Ibišević‎'s article? An edit war is going on there. I don't know what to do since both sides have good arguments. --Jaellee (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither has a good argument, when arguing over 1cm difference between several sources. 1.88 appears to be the "current" height in most obvious sources I checked in any case. Koncorde (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've warned both participants in the edit war. If the issue persists, a block may be in order. I have to agree, a one centimetre difference is not worth making a fuss about. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the history, both editors should be blocked. Kante4 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That edit history is shameful, I've blocked both of them. Equally reliable sources conflicting is ripe for talk page discussion. Giant Snowman 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, they tried to discuss this issue. But as there is no clear rule whether a FIFA (or UEFA etc.) or club website is to be preferred, I was unsure what to say in order to settle this dispute. --Jaellee (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Any, none, all. Straw poll the 10 first hits on google, or go with the most recent, anything was better than perpetual revert cycle (particularly while making only the minimum effort at discussing the core issue). Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the solution here is why not both? If there's no agreement among reliable sources, our content should reflect that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ideally not. You would typically side with his medical records if they were available, then any legal documents (passport, drivers license), and then with the Club site (or documents that cite that), then International competition sites (or documents that cite that). Any other source (such as ESPN, Soccerstats etc) should be viewed as relatively unofficial. In the end if the difference is due to rounding then we're arguing between 6'2 and 6'2 2/5ths. I shrink that in a day due to compression. Koncorde (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You'd need to take care to follow WP:BLPPRIMARY when looking at legal records. Hack (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that's what I meant to intimate. Thank you Hack. Koncorde (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so for future cases I will look first at the club website, then at FIFA/UEFA etc., then other sources. --Jaellee (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Could any admins about have another look at the article. One of the two participants in the edit war immediately resumed the behaviour when their block ended, and I suspect the other has edited while logged out to evade their block. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

2016 CONCACAF Women's Olympic Qualifying Championship qualification#Group_2

Just saw some CONCACAF Women's Olympic qualifying matches show up on Futbol24, so Bing'ed around and found these at Soccerway: [[8]] and [[9]]. I attempted to edit the page as best I could to reflect what little information is available, since the CFU's own page has been mute on the subject from day 1. The comment about Antigua and Cayman Islands withdrawing is pure supposition on my part, based on lack of evidence to the contrary. Anyway, if someone could have a look it might need a bit of cleanup.--John, AF4JM (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Done I found a reference and have added it to the article. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Czech Republic & Slovakia

The Czech Republic is described as having competed as Czechoslovakia, whereas Slovakia is described as competing for the first time in 2016. This cannot be right, especially as, when Czechoslovakia won the European Championship, the team contained both Slovaks and Czechs. I believe there were more Slovaks, but I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmarsden (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It is right. The Czech Republic are the successor to Czechoslovakia's record. See their respective UEFA profiles (Czech Rep affiliated since 1954, Slovakia since 1993). Number 5 7 22:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As said by User:Number 57 it is completely right. As a side note it is the same as FIFA U-20 World Cup where some editors has been warring the past couple of days to separate Yugoslavia and Serbia. Qed237 (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Does "reached semi-final" (without 3rd / 4th place) get a bronze background?

It's pretty universally agreed that in overviews, reaching Champions or Runners-up position gives that row a gold or silver background. Equally common is that a third place, if any, gets a bronze background. Some championships however do not have a 3rd-place-match, such as the UEFA European Championship (since 1984) and the UEFA U-17 championship (since 2007). They also do not recognize or publicly announce who ended up third place through any other way (points, goals,..). So my question is: does a "Semi-final" result warrant a bronze background?

It feels wrong to me, because that way you're giving two teams the "bronze achievement". For example, both Sweden's and Slovakia's Wikipedia pages claim that their U-17 team ended "Third" in 2013. Perhaps you could call it a shared third place, but still, I don't feel like it warrants a bronze background. It's not used on the Results page of the global championship articles, either (see links above).

I would either give it another background (is there even an official one for "fourth"?) or none at all, while leaving the text bold (because it is still an important achievement, of course). What do you guys think? —Sygmoral (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In judo at the Summer Olympics, it is even usual to award two bronze medals next to one gold and one silver... So, if the third place is undecided, the bronze colour seems fine to me. Kareldorado (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree that awarding two bronzes does happen in quite a few sports. However I don't think that backgrounds in Gold/Silver/Bronzeare particularly useful in most to football in tables, except where the competitions form part of a multi-sport contest where medals are awarded (Eg Olympic Games, Asian Games, Small Island Games, etc). The G-S-B is not usually associated with placings in team tournaments and it's fairly rare for a 3rd/4th place match to occur. Sometimes its useful but I'd generally leave it. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It used to be that UEFA would award two sets of bronze medals to the semi-finalists at the European Championships (see the Euro 2012 regulations), but that appears not to be the case any more (see the Euro 2016 regulations). – Pee Jay 16:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for those interesting references. I guess that concludes that it's not wrong to use bronze for both losing semi-finalists (as it would get way too complicated to determine on a year-by-year basis whether bronze medals were actually awarded). —Sygmoral (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem we have with all these different colours is accessibility. Is it easy to read text on a gold/silver/bronze background? Gold and silver, I'd argue it is, but bronze less so. – Pee Jay 11:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's another thing I've been thinking about: synchronizing all the "bronze" colors across these pages. Unfortunately they don't look very bronze, more like brown, and they are also not always the same color. The most widespread (by far) is use this color (#c96) , and then there's Spain , UEFA Euro U17 , ...

For gold and silver , it's easy to find a standard: browsers have those colors built-in. But there is no "bronze" in the HTML colors. This website as well as this one suggest this color as "bronze", which is what the Spain article uses, and which does in fact look more lively, less "just brown". But its contrast with black is in fact slightly worse than the more prevalent #c96. Of course that can be solved simply: make the color lighter for this background purpose (introducing: #eca359). It's not as dark as real bronze of course, but I think it's a big improvement over the ones that are currently used, both for contrast and for "isn't that just brown?". Its lightness also fits better in the set gold , silver , bronze . What do you think? Shall I go introduce this color everywhere? —Sygmoral (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Rather than changing the background colour to a colour that isn't quite bronze, an alternative would be to change the colour of the text in those rows to white (or some other legible colour). That's not to say a lighter colour isn't a viable route, but changing the colour of the text is also valid. – Pee Jay 18:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I also considered that, but I think it is less 'workable' because it is more complicated to keep consistent by everyone. Editors will have to always set both the background and the color, while changing only the background doesn't change anything about the editing process: editors already need to set the background, it's just a different one. I'm afraid that if we decide to make the text white, it will often revert to black text on some articles because editors forget about it (or think black is better).

Using a 'lighter bronze', perhaps this modified one (which is simplified (#e90) and looks closer to actual bronze again), is I believe the easiest to implement: a one-time change on all articles, and then all editors will just copy it from the existing articles. It may not be a perfect match to real bronze, but then again, the gold and silver don't exactly look like gold and silver either... we're "stylizing" them, after all, and seeking a compromise to keep it readable, stylish and workable. Summarizing: gold , silver , bronze . If that's too light, then bronze (but that's almost too dark again). —Sygmoral (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll second Sygmoral's 2nd set of colors ( gold , silver , bronze )--John, AF4JM (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-EU players

If we will read that article, we will see that the number of non-EU players is important and sometimes determinant for the clubs. I ask if there is a way to be notified to the reader the double passports, the non-EU players and the allowable limit of us in a football club article. I find that. Is it acceptable? There is a better way? --IM-yb (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Generally, I think we should only include this when we have references to confirm the information. I don't think this isn't acceptable, but I also don't see it very "encyclopedical". MYS 77 ^✉ 00:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In many championships there is a limit of non-EU players that may have a club. An example is Serie_A#Non-EU_players. In this context, the explosion of the other passports of players, the non-EU players and the limit of non-EU players that may have, gives important information about the squad. In what way it is not very "encyclopedical"? --IM-yb (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source for "double passports" it should not be included, but as the proper squad template states

"Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality."

This covers that, I agree with MYS77, it is, IMO, non-encyclopdedic. Murry1975 (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Football kit: bad proportions for detailed kits

The Football kit template works fine for simple or simplified kit designs, but you quickly get in trouble when trying to fit a horizontally designed shirt. That's because the arm sleeves are not realistic at all: the 'armpits' are located at exactly 50% of the height of the shirt.
Now, check the new Belgian away-shirts. They have a horizontal three-color band taking up 25% of the height, between the half of the height and the armpits. This is impossible to fit in the current design. You can see on the right that the band is too high for the arpits, and at the same time too low for its real location on the shirt. The only 'solution' for this positional issue is reducing the band to zero height, which is not exactly great either.

My conclusion is that this template simply does not suffice for detailed kits, especially ones with horizontal bands. Does an alternative template exist already with more realistic proportions? Shall I make one? —Sygmoral (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the shirt in the picture isn't tucked into shorts. If it were tucked in, the bottom 25% would disappear, the coloured band would take up about a third of what remains visible, and its position relative to the armpits wouldn't be particularly different from that pictured. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Also we're also meant to just give rough displays of kit design/colours, not a 100% accurate rendering. Giant Snowman 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - I guess if they were too accurate we'd have copyright issues coming in? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Football match line-up templates

What do you guys think of the new football match line-up templates?

I believe they're much more flexible than previous attempts to "templatise" football match line-up tables (just as flexible as the tables themselves in fact), and they take up less capacity on articles as well. I applied them to the 2015 FA Cup Final, 2015 FA Community Shield and 2014 FIFA World Cup Final articles but PeeJay2K3 reverted them all (saying "these templates SUCK" on one edit summary). I'm not here to complain or report anyone, but rather to find out other editors' opinions on the templates and what consensus could be reached on them. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 12:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@DavyK17: Could you point us to a sandbox where these have been tested? I'm not clear on their use just by reading the documentation. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi: I just realized I pinged your alter ego, so now I'm pinging your main account to make sure you see this. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I dont see why we could not use regular wikitables instead of having to use several templates. Those wikitables are simple do edit and I dont see the templates as very useful. Qed237 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jkudlick and Qed237: See Template:Football match line-up header/testcases for the templates' testing. I genuinely find them quite flexible and don't see why they can't replace wikitables. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 08:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Because they're not as flexible as wikitables. – Pee Jay 11:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how these templates make it easier for inexperienced editors to create similar content. Seems to me like we are complicating something with a load of mark up where no real problem existed in the first place. Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with the other editors that this is a solution to a problem which doesn't exist. Not everything needs a template. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said above. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I would channel your efforts into something else. NapHit (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Italian Third Level

Should Lega Pro Prima Divisione be merged into Lega Pro, as they are both 3rd level, but the latter is the current name, and noting that Serie C1 redirects into the former. This RSSSF source suggests they should be merged but any thoughts? Eldumpo (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so; Lega Pro is a league used to have two divisions; Prima Divisione and Seconda Divisione. The two divisions were abolished and the league now runs a single division named Lega Pro. The Prima Divisione was a separate division that no longer exists, so I think it's valid to have a separate article (certainly it would be odd if there was one for the Seconda Divisione but not one for the Prima). Number 5 7 16:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Number 57, they are different competitions and have different regulations. MYS 77 ^✉ 20:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Trepca

There seems to a bit of ambiguity with FK Trepča and KF Trepça and the various redirect pointing to them. I'd appreciate it if someone from this project, hopefully with more knowledge than me about the topic, could look into it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Albanian (again...)

Hey, it seems some Albaian editors like Pilapeil78 (talk · contribs) are back adding stuff that player(s) are albanian (like Sergio Ramos). This gets frustrating... Sock? Kante4 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Kante4 see here as well. No disrespect to Albanians, of whom the majority are well-adjusted individuals, but at least one of them seems to be obsessed with very pithy claims of ancestry for footballers. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This is frustrating. There is no evidence at all for any info he/they add. Kante4 (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you not realise that everyone in the world has Albanian ancestry? Reminds me of these sketches from the "Goodness Gracious Me" TV show of the 90s ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biar122. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

They've got Skenderbeg, Mother Theresa, Rita Ora, King Zog, John Belushi, Valon Behrami and Shkodran Mustafi. Why would anybody want to ask for anything more? '''tAD''' (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that I have encountered the next sock of that kind: Cataldi67 (talk · contribs). --Jaellee (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jaellee: - Blocked and tagged. Giant Snowman 20:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jaellee (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure but we might have a new one in Popoy3i1 (talk · contribs) claiming Arda Turan is Albanian. Qed237 (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: - blocked. Giant Snowman 11:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Dragan Skočić

I have recently been attempting to expand the biography article on Dragan Skočić, and noticed that the entire section on his coaching career is copy-pasted from his official website. Is this characteristic of plagiarism? How should I proceed? Thanks. --Ashkaan232 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, since our article has had that wording since July 2013 at least, I rather suspect that the official website is actually a copy-paste of the Wikipedia article rather than the other way around. BigDom (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That could be likely. Thanks for your help. Ashkaan232 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Football League to be renamed/rebranded "English Football League"

Oh FFS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just surprised League One wasn't renamed in a way that facilitated the old Division Four somehow being named Division One... Number 5 7 15:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the divisional names are staying. Scotland at fault, I think. [10] "We will be retaining the three existing divisional titles - the Championship, League One and League Two. They have proven popular with fans since their introduction in 2004 and have since been used by leagues in other countries and in other sports". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"Oh FFS" sums it up. What a load of tosh. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the 2016–17 Football League will be the 2016–17 English Football League and The Football League will be the English Football League. Can't see much else changing?--Echetus Xe 15:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess the divisional articles will also have to change, plus a load of categories (e.g. Category:The Football League players). Number 5 7 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Walters

Could any Admin reading this please semi-protect Jonathan Walters. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Giant Snowman 21:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 Coupe de France

This morning I was adding results and scorers etc. to this season's Coupe de France article, and while I was at it I decided to tidy up the page by piping many of the club names; this was both to make them easier to read and to use the common names that these clubs are usually known by. I also red-linked quite a few clubs that could be notable per our participation in a national cup criteria. At the same time, I changed the division numbering system used to that employed by all previous seasons of the Coupe de France, i.e. (2) for Ligue 2, (3) for National, (4) for CFA and so on. Again this is much easier to read IMO and looks far less cluttered.

Since then, Gricehead (talk · contribs) has reverted all my changes so rather than potentially starting an edit war, I thought I would see what you folks here made of it. Here's a couple of diffs to save you having to look through the history:

My version [11]
Current version [12]

Cheers, BigDom (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Gricehead here. Firstly, I'm fairly new to wiki editing, so fully take on board that I others with more experience may have the final say on such a disagreement.

Secondly, I believe there is much more consistency in using team names from the FFF directory, certainly in the case where no current wikipage exists for a club, to prevent ambiguity with similar named clubs from mergers/phoenix clubs etc. The FFF directory has, I believe, unique names for clubs. Similarly, I believe that using a full description for division identification is much richer, especially so in the regional leagues. For example, DH Atlantique is much more informative than (6).

Thirdly, I strongly disagree that just because things have always been done a certain way, they can't be improved on. I would request that this forum hold that in the forefront of their mind when ruling on this. Another user and I have spent hours on this set of information (see the prelimary rounds page subbed off from the page in question) and to have someone come along cold and redefine this unilaterally rankles a lot with me.

I look forward to the forums comments.

Thanks Gricehead (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and respond point by point:

Consistency in club names: Admittedly, using the "full names" (even though these names still have arbitrary/random abbreviations) could increase consistency. However, this is an encyclopedia article, not a directory of club names. We have a duty to make our articles readable and understandable and piping club names to their more commonly-used alternatives allows us to do this.
Division information: DH Atlantique is undoubtedly more informative than (6) but it involves a level of preciseness that just isn't required here. In a cup article, the main purpose of having the divisions included is so the reader can see at a glance what level of the league system each club plays at. In order for (Ligue 2), (Nat), etc. to convey this information to the reader, the reader must have prior knowledge of the French football league system. Using (2), (3), etc. on the other hand portrays this information quickly and concisely. There's nothing to stop you including a key to what the numbers mean somewhere in the article.
Things could be improved on: True, there are always ways in which we could improve, I just don't think that using full club names and division names are improvements.

I never intended to "rankle" you, let's see what people here say. BigDom (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

My 2p: Piping should be done where the club has a common name that doesn't include the initials (this is usually the case). The article looks much clearer (and legible) with the piping done. Secondly, I agree with the redlinking, as if done properly, it will encourage article creation. Thirdly, the level numbering also makes the article more legible than having the division name attached to every club (I think this is also how we do it elsewhere); one potential way to improve/compromise on this would be to retain the numbering, but to have the number as a link to the relevant division, e.g. (4). Number 5 7 21:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Going on from #57's above comment, we also use a similar set-up on the Australian FFA Cup page, wherein the club's level on the footballing pyramid is shown in brackets, with a hyperlink shown directing the reader to the exact competition's page. I'm sure nobody would be too concerned if something similar to this were to happen on the Coupe de France page. - J man708 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I like that idea, improves readability and the information is still there at the click of a button. BigDom (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The current format (numbers (1) and not league names (Ligue 1)), is significantly less cluttered and seemingly the way to go. I would add that the Draw section is not needed in addition to the results section as it is essentially redundant information. Equineducklings (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree with Equine. It's just useless filler information that can be found in the relevant round anyway. - J man708 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Fabrice Som

Excuse me if I write in Italian but I haven't time to translate in english my speech :((..

There is a problem with his citizenship, he can't be cameroonian because parente gave him Italian citizenship.. Lo so perché all'epoca creai la voce su it.wiki della sorella, la judoka Edwige Gwend e le fonti dicevano che 1) in Camerun i genitori possono dare ai figli i cognomi che vogliono e 2) il Camerun non permette la doppia cittadinanza, per cui quando i genitori presero la cittadinanza italiana persero quella camerunese.. Poi magari le mie fonti sono sbagliate, può capitare, però mi sembra strano.. Anche se è effettivamente strano che il sito dell'AIC sbagli.. --79.49.9.101 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Buongiorno! Come stai? Straight out, my Italian isn't quite what it used to be (plus with this being the English Wiki, I'll answer in English)! Are you able to find any sources for the citizenship issue and also his relation to his sister? I'm not doubting that you're right, it's just that we need something to go off of in order to include it into the article. Of course, you could also ask people in the WikiProject Olympics group for assistance on maybe finding this information via her and not him? The issue with different surnames isn't one confined to Cameroon. Tennis player Marat Safin has a sister who goes by the name of Dinara Safina. Perhaps they could also be half-siblings? Just a few ideas. As I said, my Italian is poor at best these days, so I'd be limited to solely English sources, should I attempt to help! Buona fortuna! - J man708 (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't direct sources, there is this link where there is written they have the same parents: of course Thomas Fabrice Som could have the cameroonian citizenship if journalist is wrong but if he is right, I doubt the player isn't italian.. Thomas came here where he was a kid (you see him in the photos) and he faced italian bureaucracy (I must call it bureau-crazy) too often and Italian bureaucracy is horrible if you aren't E.U. citizen, you need permits also if you want breathe.. --79.49.9.101 (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

England v France friendly

I've started a draft on last night's game at User:Optimist on the run/November 2015 England v France football match. Although a normal friendly wouldn't be notable enough for an article, the unusual and tragic circumstances of this match make it worth having its own article. I'd welcome help in developing it and bringing up to normal football match style before moving it into main space. Thanks. Optimist on the run (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

TBH I personally don't think the match merits its own article, I think a paragraph about the pre-match tributes in November 2015 Paris attacks would suffice.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the article would be written about the match itself, which was largely uneventful. - J man708 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A section in the November 2015 Paris attacks, or perhaps part of a new wider Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks or something, would be appropriate. A new article just on the match is not required. Giant Snowman 16:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with GS, Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks seems the most logical place for a small paragraph, its not like the match was specificaly arranged as a response or anything. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm very surprised and disappointed with the attitude of this project. The fact that it dominated the headlines in yesterday's papers, possibly the first time this has happened since Hillsborough, surely makes it notable. On a personal level, even I watched the match on TV, and I normally avoid football like the plague. I found it very moving. However if no-one is prepared to help, I shall carry on by myself. Sorry if I've disturbed you. Optimist on the run (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Optimist on the run: I think you need to understand WP:NOTNEWS. I was at the game, and agree with all the above comments. If you do attempt to create the article in the mainspace, it will probably be taken to AfD immediately. Number 5 7 08:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As all other comments. Game in and of itself is not notable. The pre-match events were notable. The pre-match events were tributes to a specific event, so they should go with that specific event. Same with any dedications to any other event, unless the event itself was set up in honour of that specific event. So for instance if a tournament or one off game is held relating to the France attacks then that could meet notability. Koncorde (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Jordan Obita

On my screen at least (using Chrome) there is a massive whitespace between the TOC and the start of the first paragraph, but I can't see why. Can anyone else.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a system issue, I could replicate it but not any more... JMHamo (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm on Chrome and it's fine for me? Giant Snowman 21:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Particular screen resolution? Viewing through an active app extension? I'm not seeing any issues, also on Chrome. Also checked with Explorer and Firefox and no issue. Tested in 1028, 1440 resolution, and tried zooming in and out. Koncorde (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

When Chris reported it initially it was broken. I suspect it was someone messing with templates. It's not happening now. JMHamo (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Honours section and seasons

I noticed that in most club articles the single honours are depicted with two figures for the respective season, e.g. winning a league with 2014–15 instead of just 2015. In my eyes this first factual questionable, as the title is usually assigned to the year of the last match of a competition, and also is terrible to read. Therefore I would like to propose to change this accordingly to the single year depiction. As references I can quote the following, a FC Barcelona profile at uefa.com and a picture of the German football championship trophy. What's your opinion? DrunkenGerman (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea. A championship is won for a season, not a year, and the season is 2014–15. Number 5 7 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well but in fact you are as a winner designed as champion of the year 20XX. When you would consequently carry on the idea of winning championship a of certain time period, you would have to include also a lot pre- or qualification matches, just think of the FIFA World cup, which competition actually starts three to two years before the final. DrunkenGerman (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a very bad comparison as leagues do not have qualifying periods (unless you count the previous season). Number 5 7 22:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Of course one can argue to only use the year figure(s) of the "final tournament", because there is actually ever some sort of qualification round for any competition. But still I say, I would go for a single figure. First because you are usually assigned as champion of the year the competition ends (no one is ever saying you are champion of 2006–07, that's just "bulky") and also because it's far more reader-friendly. DrunkenGerman (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Taking the two clubs I support, Ipswich and Sudbury, the clubs websites of both use the hyphenated version of the season in talking about their history and listing their honours. So your claim that no-one ever uses this is just wrong. I also disagree that a single year is "more user friendly" – if anything it's more confusing to readers, as they know the season spans two years (and all our season articles are titled in that way). Number 5 7 22:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well still that doesn't convince me. I read the Ipswich article and even there, mostly they use just the one year format ("In 1973 and '75 Ipswich won the FA Youth Cup before winning the FA Cup in 1978....win the UEFA Cup in 1981"). I only would admit that this form of depicting season-titles is maybe something what could be a bit common in Britain. The Sundbury link I wouldn't take so serious, yet alone because it's only an amateur side and the professionalism of the writing could be disputed. I think this is a further good example: ManU site, also there they usually use the two-year approach when they actually talk about seasons and the one year figure when it's about titles. That would also justify the divergence from season articles to titles here in Wikipedia.

About reader-friendliness...maybe compare Real Madrid C.F.#European competitions and uefa.com Real Madrid profile. DrunkenGerman (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that Leagues that span two years should get the hyphenated treatment as this reduces confusion over whether the 2014 champions were the 2013-14, or just games between 1st Jan and 31st December 2014 (I know, we all know the seasons overlap but it's not necessarily understood by all - particularly people from other sports, or different countries - for example Rugby League which is now a summer sport). This sort of thing needs to be as clear as possible, particularly with computer games often being dated for the year later (i.e. PES 2016 and FIFA 16 are the "current" titles, both released in 2015).

However, in contrast, cup competitions I believe can be a lot more flexible. I don't think we need to talk about the 2015-16 FA Cup Final...because it'll just be the 2016 FA Cup Final, and the winners are winners of the 2016 FA Cup Final, and holders of the FA Cup.

Number 57's source in particular matches my understanding of how it is commonly done. Koncorde (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sean Lynch (footballer)

Not sure what to do. An editor is claiming to be Sean Lynch (footballer) and says he wants his bio article deleted, because it's interfering with his efforts to find employment, post-career. Please see User talk:Seanlynchpin. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's really more of a procedural thing, I think, than a FOOTY question. I just don't know how to help this guy and also protect his right to privacy. I've raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sean Lynch (footballer). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why would the existence of the article be hampering his search for a job? Is he attempting to conceal from potential employers that he played pro football? And even if his WP article were deleted it's not like there aren't plenty of other references to his football career on the web........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  - I agree that the user's rationale is curious, but it is definitely something that needs to be taken up at the Admin/Arb/Foundation level and not at the WikiProject. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Refer them to WP:OTRS. Giant Snowman 21:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have done so, thanks. Yes, I don't understand the need for deletion. I see that someone has updated the article. Having never done anything of note myself, I can't see why someone who played professionally and worked so hard to get there would want any mention it deleted. Life is strange. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I did so earlier, but so far they haven't been able to help. Eagleash (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless the person concerned were lying on their CV then the article would not hamper their efforts to find a job. There is nothing negative or controversial in the article.--Echetus Xe 14:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed...it would be necessary for them to demonstrate any adverse effects, in discussion with OTRS. (Which I think is ongoing). Eagleash (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Navbox templates

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Big problem

Can someone help to protect 2 pages against vandalism : El Clásico and List of El Clásico matches. This pages were vandalized several times in last 24 hours ! We need to block anonymous users to edit it ! Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ryan Lau

Dear football experts: Is this a notable player? Or should the draft be allowed to go stale and be deleted?—Anne Delong (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If he did indeed play for Hawaii Tsunami, then he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. However, this suggests he never made a first-team appearance. Number 5 7 20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to verify whether Lau ever did play. The page cited by Number 57 shows no players played any minutes, despite many of them scoring goals and assists, so I will not take that page as gospel. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, I misread the table. Number 5 7 14:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have found no mention of Lau at soccerway or at RSSSF, which is where anything was most likely to appear. None of the references given provide any verifiable proof that Lau actually played. At this point, I have to presume he did not set foot on the pitch. If that one page at soccerstats.us showed even a single goal or assist, that would be some evidence that he played, even if it wasn't a WP:RS. Alas, I'm tagging under WP:G13. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I wouldn't have known where to look.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

About leagues templates

We have the following templates:

Why we need that {{Top level men's association football leagues around the world}} ? --IM-yb (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

We need it to keep all the leagues together. (my opinion)--Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Strangely, the individual confederation templates seem to be much more complete than the overall template. For example, the overall template includes no leagues from UNCAF and only two from CFU while the CONCACAF template includes pretty much all CONCACAF members. I'll play in my sandbox to see how easily all the confederation templates could be combined into a single navbox. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean we need both templates, the overall template is summary, but is also good to keep it.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If the summary is incomplete, then it either needs to be updated or replaced. I used {{Navboxes}} to consolidate all the confederation navboxes at my sandbox, but I can see a drawback in them due to the nations all being listed alphabetically instead of by sub-confederation. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The overall one is not needed. Where would you put that monster. Also no real connection between leagues. The continental ones at least have a champions league that connects them. -Koppapa (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is, if that template change their content from recognized to not recognized leagues, will be useful. --IM-yb (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We have a same template {{National football teams}}, but that has links for more information than the other separately (for each confederation) templates. --IM-yb (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of Categories: FC United of Manchester

Should F.C. United of Manchester be ordered under "F" or "M"? Should AFC Telford United be ordered under "A" or "T"? I haven't found anything from the manual of style to state which one. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

They should be listed under "M" and "T", respectively. For example, A.F.C. Bournemouth is listed under "B" in its categories. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree about Telford, but not about FC United; unlike most football clubs where the FC/AFC is not used in normal speech, they are primarily known as "FC United", and I think people would expect to find them listed under F rather than M. Number 5 7 11:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed the default sort on FC United some years back (although I changed it to sort under "United") and was reverted for that exact same reason -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with sorting under F. It's always referred to as FC United, not as anything Manchester-related. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll concede sorting FC United under F as the other editors have more experience with English football than I do. And it makes sense. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Navboxes

Does Template:Navboxes' list1 param has a limit? I mean, I was editing Dorival Júnior and, when the page has 14 templates under Navboxes, it appears normally. However, after adding a 15th to it, it simply gives me (at least) a wikilink to the template itself. MYS 77 ^✉ 18:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

...and page was automatically included in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. --XXN, 18:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, and strangely, Vanderlei Luxemburgo has more templates than Dorival, and it's working just fine. MYS 77 ^✉ 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

See my comments at Template_talk:Navboxes#Limit of templates? Basically, all these Brazilian football managers navboxes need to be ditched. --NSH002 (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FLC: List of FC Porto records and statistics

I nominated List of FC Porto records and statistics for featured list. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, you can do it here. Appreciate your feedback! Parutakupiu (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Regional competitions shouldn't be included in a list "encompassing the club's major honours" and you acknowledge they don't count as official above the honours section so there's no reason to have them as they are misleading. Davefelmer (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

They are official titles, but only at regional not national level. But you're right: considering how the section is presented, they should not be listed. Perhaps in a more specific and all-encompassing List of FC Porto honours. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't really see a point in making a whole new section just to add all the same info plus some regional awards. Keep it as is, without the regionals. Davefelmer (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Dave, this is where you are going wrong repeatedly. The club won that silverware, and while it is not considered significant in the roll-call of honours that are compared between divisions they are nonetheless significant for Porto historically. We do not blank reliably sourced information, and should not be seeking to remove it particularly from what is a "List of records and statistics" which should be as comprehensive as possible. Koncorde (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Koncorde, thanks for your input. I actually agree with your view, but Dave had a point considering how the section intro was kind of snubbing those regional titles. Parutakupiu (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Per previous discussion with Dave, if there is a problem then we should look at the context. In this case the issue is that the article mentioned "official" honours. Well they're all official honours, so that's the problem. Remove the contextual problem and hey presto the article makes sense. So all we need to clarify is what the 74 competition count is referring to so we move the in-line note further up the sentence. There are better solutions to most things than just removing content. Koncorde (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Simple solution and we keep relevant info. Thank you so much, Koncorde. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Final Edits on Man Utd-Liverpool Rivalry

Despite some very good editing being done on the article by other users recently, a few issues remain that hurts the factual nature and reliability of the article. First the information about what the club websites count as trophies seriously must be amended. It is clear that the previous edit revolved around making a comparison that wasn't there as both clubs distinguish trophies differently. United view all national honours as "major" ^[1] while liverpool only see season-long trophies as such ^[2]; thus they both claim to be more successful as they lead each other in their respective counts ^[3] ^[4]. This is the reality and a far cry from what the prior editor did of comparing the honour counts when liverpool add youth and reserve trophies and United don't and conveniently not mentioning it. This version will nicely tie into the two sides in the media as is reported, with some favouring liverpool's 41-39 count and others favouring United by 62-59 count. That rubbish about 49 "others" just has to go because they are literally youth and reserve honours that United simply display on a different page away from senior honours (and if you added United's equivalents, they'd still be ahead). So a restructuring of that where it is acknowledged both clubs go off of different counts that leads into how media back both counts, thus solidifying each one's claim as more successful should be in order as it would be factual, logically structured and interesting.

Also, the use of FIFA and UEFA as primarily sources has to be removed. Despite being governing bodies, they are rife with corruption and even more importantly, their websites are inconsistent and display great bias. FIFA don't list the community shield as a major trophy for english clubs but lists other countries' exact equivalents as major ^[5] ^[6] While also including regional titles as major trophies for other clubs ^[7] (Note the Cairo league). UEFA meanwhile refer to competitions like the community shield as the first trophy of the season and as silverware in match reports but then don't count it as even a club honour on their website club histories ^[8]. They also exclude competitions like the club World Cup and Fairs Cup from club histories because they weren't competitions run by them. Since neither organisation ever explicitly states what constitutes a trophy, major or otherwise, it is likely that the club histories are composed by a series of random, opinionated writers who all publish based on their personal opinion of what is a trophy. This is not the kind of reliable info needed for an encyclopaedia. there is a clear reason that no other article of this nature or anywhere else on wikipedia cites the FIFA website or UEFA website as a source and that's because it is totally unreliable. Changes must be made to remove it and stick to the only credible sources which are the clubs and mainstream media. Davefelmer (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not this nonsense again. Two comments; firstly, the statements about FIFA and UEFA not being reliable sources are ridiculous and you will get nowhere making nonsense claims like that. Secondly, I thought the previous discussion had ended in agreement that the best thing to do was to remove the total trophy count from the introduction, as otherwise it just ends up in rival supporters endlessly willy waving. Number 5 7 16:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I just tidied the body up, standardised the table and added citations, figured to let other people decide what content went in the lede. Agree with the changes by 57. Koncorde (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it nonesense? Look at the sources, they are totally internally inconsistent! How can that be reliable. Neither specifies what they deem a trophy let alone a "major" trophy so how can that be used?

In any case, surely we can reach an agreement that the website information is totally false. We did have agreement on almost everything last time but the website stuff is a major issue and should be amended. Davefelmer (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FIFA and UEFA websites are perfectly acceptable to use, even though they are themselves quite flawed because they are organising bodies. Not all competitions are covered by these organisations, but for this reason we can (and probably should) use multiple sources. Only if there are inconsistencies along the lines of different sources claiming different winners of the same competition in a given year is there a problem. There is no good source for what is a "major" honour, so let's not use that term. I agree with Number 57 that removing a total trophy count is the best course of action. Such a count assumes that all trophies are equal (whatever that means) and is typically used to try and push a point of view. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

While not providing the type of confusion where two teams are claimed to have won the same troohy, there are blatant inaccuracies that mean they shouldnt be used. FIFA do list trophies as "major honours" yet give no information of what constitutes a "major" achievement. This is shown where by some trophies count for some clubs as major but their exact equivalents in other countries do not. It also inserts regional trophies as major for some clubs but not others. UEFA meanwhile have a clear vested interest in their competitions, and don't include any trophies like the old UEFA Cup because it wasn't on their jurisdiction, despite being on FIFA's. Furthermore, they don't corroborate any counts by either the club or media. They are inconsistent stand-alones so have no merit of inclusion. The media stuff and club website information directly corresponds so i accept to include all that, although there is some poor wording and info there that should be rearranged. Davefelmer (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This goes back to our discussion over 2 months ago regarding Arsenal and the most successful clubs list. Their websites are not reliable enough for us to claim that are 100% of all the available data, but they are reliable enough for the data that they do hold in the same way that we can use a club page for what it does contain, but it doesn't mean we remove content because their webpage doesn't match (as websites are often incomplete records).

What this means is we can use 2, 3, 4 or dozens of sources to back up simple things such as tables, or lists, or corroborate facts. When it comes to meta-analysis we need to be very careful not to stray into the territory of synthesising articles - which is why, typically, the articles only speak in general terms and / or provide as many alternative views as possible in order to try and stay neutral. That FIFA and UEFA are not themselves neutral about their own competitions is really by-the-by.

My original edits to this article tidied up the obvious stuff with the table (which was a blatant synthesis) but what meta-analysis we source / use from third parties is really up to the editors of the article to make the most sense.

Do we even need to go into debates of who is the most successful team? Well there are several sourced articles debating the matter, so it is clearly something notable about the rivalry. Are FIFA and UEFA part of that debate? Probably not, but they do provide two equivalent measures of titles. It's a bit synthesis, but more like meta analysis as far as I'm concerned.

Could the article be written better? Yes, probably. If you would like to practice / test some of your changes or ideas without fear of 1RR or similar then please use my user sandbox and I will be happy to help / discuss. Koncorde (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You say it yourself, the websites are not reliable to present all the information. They both use the subjective "major" honour count which cannot be backed nor accurately stated and used. They are internally inconsistent and exclude competitions. It is patently written by random writers with their opinions of what is a trophy. Furthermore, the FIFA site is poorly updated, saying liverpool's last trophy was in 2005 and not the 2012 league cup while saying United have been champions 8 times in 13 years which isn't true anymore. Clubs like wigan etc are missing their recent trophy wins like the FA cup of 2013. Add to this the internal inconsistencies and there is no way it can be used as reliable evidence. Not to mention that neither club nor any media use either the count provided by FIFA or UEFA, most likely because of the recognisation at their inaccuracies and unreliability.

I've made a proposed edit on your sandbox as you suggested (thanks for offering). There, I've provided the right information as to the club websites and linked it to the media divide to create a neutral informative debate on how there are two sides to who is more successful. I've removed the mentions of FIFA and UEFA for the above reasons, however, FIFA is still used in the bottom of the honour section and maybe throw UEFA in there too if you really want to keep them somewhere. I know you keep saying it isn't the idea to remove sources, but if they are blatantly inaccurate, unreliable and don't belong, there is good reason to do so. Davefelmer (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Marquinhos (footballer, born 1994)

See requested move discussion on talk page and comment please. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanchez is apperently albanian

Same editor as before? Now after this edit Arsenal and Chilean player Alexis Sánchez he is apperently of partial [[Arbëreshë people|Italian-Albanian]] origin. Qed237 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biar122. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Should the editor doing this also be included, the edit summary seems like a response to my edit [13] removing content added by the Sanchez editor. Qed237 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2: Sorry forgot to ping. Qed237 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Added, thank you. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Oceania taskforce

If anyone is interested in beginning an Oceania taskforce, I would be committed to setting up it and organising the group in general. This is my second time asking, with last time receiving no respondents (sadly)... I am very passionate about football and the Oceanic Football Confederation is the most lacking confederation (in terms of information on Wikipedia) in the world. I may already have one or two other people who will readily join the taskforce. To submit your interest, sign your name on my talk page (talk). Thanks heaps! Lawrencedepe (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What is your next plan? Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to set up a page for the taskforce that clearly outlines all the Oceanic countries, leagues, their completion status and some outcomes for the taskforce I would like to be worked upon. The group of editors part of the taskforce could then easily see where editing is necessary, resulting in better quality OFC articles. Lawrencedepe (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ya sure, why not. I do like the ASB Premiership and have a liking for countries like Fiji and Soloman Islands (hardest challenge in FIFA World Cup 2006!). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, you don't need to set up a task force to be able to orchestrate editing. – Pee Jay 15:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexiulian25

User:Alexiulian25 has been doing a number of unconstructive edits recently, in particular on Ballon d'Or (1956–2009), where he has changed the table format to one that is worse and does not meet guidelines. Despite repeatedly telling him that flags cannot be used to identify nationality by themself as per MOS:FLAGS, he has ignored this and cited examples in other lists as justification for his edits. He has also removed sortablility from the table, which is extremely helpful for users. I'm approaching 3RR on this page so I cannot revert his edits, much more, if someone could revert his changes and restore the old table that would be great. NapHit (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks better, and other articles are same : FIFA Ballon d'Or !!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers

UEFA Best Player in Europe Award

World Soccer (magazine) - Here you have the flag in front of the player !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that Naphit's version is better than the alternative. Having clubs in a separate column makes the table more legible. Number 5 7 13:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The table in format you talk is to long, you have to scroll down double to can reach the bottom and is harder to read not being one line for a player ! Look now how tidy it looks, you can see better the players in table (not having spaces and multiple lines for one edition) : Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) and is same like FIFA Ballon d'Or.

None of those lists are featured and you still completely miss the point. MOS:FLAGS states "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details." That is why we have the name of the country as well as the flag! NapHit (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I know that the readers are not familiar with the flag but in this format

"Name of the player" if you go with the arrow on the flag it will appear the name of the country !!! Thats why I say is repeating in format you explain to me.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've broken the 3RR rule now, and you refuse to accept my point even though other editors agree on the table. Wikipedia is consensus based, please adher to this and the guidelines. NapHit (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that no one respect or care about the rules. Check other thousand of articles and you will see nothing of this rules, I was unlucky to get in this trouble because this articles is on the featured list otherwise no one will say nothing !!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

And why no one says about this articles : FIFA Ballon d'Or ? Because is not on the featured list, it is unjust to sort articles how you want guys. Why FIFA Ballon d'Or should be less important?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If I would change the format of FIFA Ballon d'Or no one would say something, because is not on featured list. Lets be honest and leave the page how I modified it, and you better focus to create the missing editions without a page of Ballon d'Or.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"if you go with the arrow on the flag it will appear the name of the country" - people looking at Wikipedia on a phone or tablet cannot do that, hence why the name has to appear too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What you said is true, but this rule is only applied for this article, how I showed you above, the rest of articles do not have implement this. Can you show me another article with this format apart of FIFA World Player of the Year on whole Wikipedia football ? and I will revert my edit. I promise!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's an idea, how about you change the other articles to meet the guidelines that these two pages meet? It's not that these articles are more important it's that the guidelines have simply been applied to them. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, but lets make somehow to be more compact, the lines more compact, instead of Points to use "Pts" (and an explanation for it) for a smaller column, the name of the team to be between (ex:

Blackpool), because the player should be in the main outline. And maybe it will fit better and to not make the table so long, imaging you have to scroll it down if you use a tablet, it should be compact.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC) It is there an option to shrunk a bit the team flag also ?

Or to shrunk the (ENG) ? from |

Stanley Matthews (ENG)

The fact that you keep chopping and changing your table only highlights why the previous table was better. It's been the table for a very long time, it meets all of our guidelines (again reducing the size of the tem names is great for people with accessibility issues and poor eyesight). Three users have expressed their preference for the other table, I think this issue is clear cut. NapHit (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is beyond a joke now, you continue to change the table to a format that is outdated and not useful to the reader, based on your personal preference. We have multiple editors here stating why the name of the country needs to be included with the flag, so as to meet our guidelines. Wikipedia is not your own personal fiefdom, where you get your own way, it's based on consensus. You seem unable to grasp this concept. There was a reason the table was this way, because it met our guidelines, you're edits mean it now does not, so seeing as you're fond of logic, where is the logic in that? NapHit (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Not surprised by the benahviour of Alexiulian25. Revert your edits, because it looked much cleaner before. Kante4 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Football vs soccer

It doesn't appear that these are the same Argentine player, is this way of distinguishing them okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: The usual way would be Pablo Hernán Gómez (born XXXX), but it appears we don't know the birthdate of one of them. The next option is to differentiate based on position (e.g. Pablo Hernán Gómez (midfielder). Number 5 7 17:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Number 57 thanks, I have had a brief look to guesstimate the d.o.b. of the second one, with no luck. Moved as suggested. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57 and In ictu oculi: the correct naming style would actually be Pablo Hernán Gómez (footballer, born 19XX). Giant Snowman

I believe that's only when one of the people is not a footballer; here both of them are, so using "footballer" is unnecessary. Number 5 7 17:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's used even when they are all footballers. Giant Snowman 16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bradford Park Avenue A.F.C.

@Mooretwin: has been making a number of changes relating to the categories of players involved with this club. Could somebody take a look at these, because I don't understand it at all. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems they have decided to split the BPA article into old and modern clubs. The problem is that they have not created an article for the modern club, so the whole thing is a mess. I would advise that all their changes be reverted and they have to gain consensus for the split. It's certainly controversial. Number 5 7 12:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the article back and restored it to the previous text. However, there are also issues with the player and manager categorisation... Number 5 7 12:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I've just found out that they did create an article on the modern club (Bradford Park Avenue A.F.C. (1987)) but didn't bother linking it from anywhere apart from Horsfall Stadium (the original title was left redirected to the old club and none of the major incoming links (e.g. from {{Football Conference}} were changed)... I've redirected to the single article for now, but this is a mess. Number 5 7 12:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's because I didn't have time to do it all in one go. I hadn't finished. Mooretwin (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mooretwin: You are engaged in mass controversial edits and you have made a real mess of pages/histories. Please stop ASAP or you will be blocked to prevent further disruption. Giant Snowman 12:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think between us GiantSnowman and I have rolled back all the category changes. Number 5 7 12:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've also fixed the redirects and deleted the 1863/1987 pages as they don't link anywhere (now) and don't serve any purpose. These kind of changes need wide, detailed discussion, not just one rogue editor being overly-BOLD. Giant Snowman 12:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the talk page? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Mooretwin (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Divock Origi

Could an Admin please semi-protect Divock Origi, beginning to get out of hand. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Number 5 7 22:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Better disambiguation

Hi all. I noticed John O'Hara (footballer) and John O'Hara (soccer) - neither of which have a hatnote to the other, both of which could be described with either disambiguator, so I propose at least one of them is renamed, but to what? Input (and action) appreciated. Thanks, C 679 20:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving both to (soccer, born 19XX)? Giant Snowman 21:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I checked the links and there was some misplaced O'Haras, now taken care of. Thanks, C 679 07:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

By that standard, we should using "football" rather than "footballer" for the majority of our disambiguation? Hack (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope, the traditional way of disambiguating has been '(soccer)' or '(footballer)', never '(soccer player)' or '(football)' or '(football player)'. Giant Snowman 12:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Macedonian First Football League

Further eyes welcome at Macedonian First Football League, myself and @Eldumpo: are having trouble with @Alexiulian25: - I feel he in engaged in WP:OR by adding a table of 'title winners by city' which is not supported by any RS but is instead gleamed by himself from other material (hey, original research!) - he also has been adding unsourced content. Furthermore his ownership, lack of edit summaries, and personal attacks are concerning and I feel his editing is becoming increasingly disruptive. Raising the matter here to see if it can be resolved before I report him at one of the Admin noticeboards. Giant Snowman 12:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I report this users being rasist ! They just have a war against me deleting just from that article the "performance by city" Look how many articles with "performance by city" (without other page reference) are:

Even the sister page : List of Macedonian football champions

And I can give you another 10 another pages !!!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not my own research - you should think and read all the informaion - not expected to be copy pasted exactly from other pages ! Please wake up guys - do not be narrow minded ! and use your time improving Wikipedia not deleting relevant information !!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, accusing me of racism shows how ridiculous and hysterical you are. Two, other articles having incorrect information is no justification for it remaining - especially when you have added it to the Liga I article yourself! Thirdly, you are re-jigging information presented elsewhere to make new information. That is precisely what OR is. Giant Snowman 12:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I did found it now. I added just for you to prove you. Look at the references.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Are you happy?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

List of football clubs in the Republic of Macedonia - other article from wikipedia with same information. Please inform yourself about other articles before to delete people work. Why you did not help finding the reference and just delete it fast ? It is not normal behavior. We are here a team, not just to delete, I am not here to delete, or to add wrong information.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for getting so angry - but from now at least write to people before to delete what they add !! You can not act like this - just delete without talking and research about it ! Wake up !!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you just not bother reading what people say? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Giant Snowman 13:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this content even notable enough? I have also questioned this editors behaviour in the past, but thats an other thing. To me this should not be included in the article. Qed237 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's another thing for me as well - even if it was strictly cited, it still wouldn't merit inclusion. Giant Snowman 13:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: By the way, if you report this editor also please take a look at this edit where he deleted content from an other users talkpage after removing copy notices on those articles. Qed237 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You are corrupt here on WIkipedia - Shame of you guys !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Thats why less and less people edit here ...--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: Please stop with your battleground behaviour and listen. Qed237 (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I stopped ... I calm down... lets talk now, what is wrong ??--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We have explained multiple times, just read everything. You are all over the place right now, writing on every possible location. Qed237 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Given Alexiulian25's continued personal attacks and inability to discuss calmly, I feel no option but to refer this matter to WP:ANI. Giant Snowman 14:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Qed237: Thank you for your patience today with Alexiulian25, I'm attempting to work with them to help them understand not only the issue with the listing by city, but also their conduct towards other editors. I'd like to apologise on Alexiulian25's behalf. As for the 'by city' issue, I understand that it could be considered not notable and a needless addition to the page - is there any way the information could be added? -- samtar ^whisper 15:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The information could potentially be added if there were reliable sources reporting the information in that way. Eldumpo (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Egypt Cup

This article was a disaster, and even rsssf.com was completely full with mistakes, as I said rsssf.com has many many mistakes. I have found a correct and more detailed source and I post it on the article page. Is someone here who wants to help to improve the page, and correct the information even on pages like : Al Ahly SC and Zamalek SC?

Egypt football database: [14] - for reference, not rsssf.com ! There are lots of mistakes !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

How do you know it is more correct? Hack (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I can help you in things related to Zamalek SC. Also, as far as I know, the creator of [15] (Tarek Said) works in rsssf. ATMA22 (talk 07:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Peter Jackson, Newcastle, and Giulio Cremonini, USA

I need two miracles, they were two football pioneers and I need know where and when they were born and where and when they were died. Jackson played for First Union in Newcastle and Cremonini was american, they left Naples were they played in 1907: somebody can help me, please? --79.49.9.75 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of a club called First Union in Newcastle (I assume you refer to Newcastle in England), they must have been an incredibly minor team........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I only could find that Cremonini was Italian, not American, and played for Naples FBC in the 1902-03 season. Nothing about Jackson. MYS 77 ^✉ 11:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

the source is this page, I know it sounds incredible but now I have little problems.. Newcastle must be the english Newcastle, but First Union had to be a little famous if it was famous in Italy 108 years ago.. Thanks anyway :).. --95.231.113.215 (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no record of a club called First Union ever competing in any significant league or national cup in England -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Could it be a problem of repeated translation, and "campione della First Union di Newcastle" really means "champion of the First Division with Newcastle", or "from First Division champions Newcastle"? Which they were in 1904/05 and 06/07, although no Peter Jackson played first-team football for them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a Jimmy Jackson (footballer, born 1875), who had played for Newcastle in the late 19th Century? Could it be a relative of his, if not him perhaps? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Naples was founded probably in 1904 (it's possibile also it's still older, nobody knows really the real year!!) and the article says Peter Jackson was one of the team's first players, so it's impossible he was Jimmy, Naples (as city) was very difficult to reach for a "professional" player, more probably they were related, so know I must ask local census office to know if they have the dates I need, and this can be difficult.. About the first Union thing, it's very probable it's so, only if he was Champion in 1904/1905 Naples was founded after 1905.. England had in those years a reserve championship? A pro player was too much expensive for the south italian team and a player like Jimmy was "illegal" in Italy.. Thanks everybody!! --79.49.9.85 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

English football leagues and new names

Hi, I just spotted User:Santiago Claudio renaming links to next season (diff) from "2016–17 Football League Two" to "2016–17 English League Two" (change in bold), and I was wondering if this was correct?

Then I saw Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 99#The Football League to be renamed/rebranded "English Football League", where it was discussed shortly between User:Jmorrison230582, User:Number 57, User:Cliftonian and User:EchetusXe how this renaming should be.

To me it sound like The Football League would like to use EFL (for English Football League) just like we have NHL (National Hockey League), KHL (Kontinental Hockey League) and so on in hockey. So either it should be "2016–17 English Football League Two" or "2016–17 EFL League Two" or something but not removing the word football and just English League? Qed237 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait and see how the League renders it before we change our format. I had come to the same conclusion as Qed237—that they were going to talk about the "EFL Championship" and "EFL League One"—but let's wait and see what they do. Changing the links now violates WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. — Cliftonian (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

IMO the better title would be "2016–17 English Football League Two" etc. "English League Two" is wrong, but agree with Cliftonian that we should probably wait and see. Number 5 7 14:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay I reverted the changes, calling it "English League Two" and "English Championship" seems wrong. Qed237 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above, definitely not "English League Two" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course if they call it EFL League Two, that's "English Football League League Two". But of course when marketing people get involved, anything's possible..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That had occurred to me, but people still refer to "PIN numbers" and such. It's called PNS syndrome (that's pin number syndrome syndrome). — Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

What about the Football League Cup? Will it become either English League Cup or English Football League Cup? Let's wait and see! Santiago Claudio (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hey, so Real has been punished and disqualified. Does the game/caps/goals still count or will/should they be removed? Kante4 (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I don't understand the question........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Real Madrid played a cup game where Cheryshev was not allowed to play but did. So, they are disqualified from the cup tournament. What happens to the caps of that game? Do they stay as the game was ended normally? Kante4 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What I was told HERE, when I asked the same question, albeit about a match in 1890, was that if the match was awarded to the opposition, it was normal practice for apps/goals to count, but if it was ordered to be replayed, they don't. Do the RFEF keep appearance statistics? if they do, then follow whatever they do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The match was not replayed, Cadiz got a walkover - individual stats still count. 213.156.113.58 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Jerzy Karasiński notable?

I know NFOOTY, but I have trouble figuring out if that player passes or not, and therefore should it be deleted or not. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It would help if a Polish speaker would confirm the quality of the sources, but if they are decent sources then he seems to meet WP:GNG. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Google Translate is not perfect, but it was good enough for me to agree that he seems to meet GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Karasiński played just two matches in the top division for Lech, which may not make him notable on that account (don't know the general guidelines, but on the Polish wiki it was something like 5 matches at least). 213.156.113.58 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If he played at least a minute in the top level, he is notable per WP:FPL and WP:GNG. MYS 77 ^✉ 17:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger and defunct clubs and others

I notice strange statements about cases merged (Olympiacos Volou 1937 F.C., PAE Kerkyra) and defunct (ACF Fiorentina, Rangers F.C., NK Olimpija Ljubljana (defunct) - Merger proposal) clubs. In MLS teams, we have distinct articles for the same teams, like Montreal Impact.

Also there are cases where merged articles without prior discussion:

[16]
[17]

I would like to ask if there is a relevant directive about mergers, defunts - reestablishments and similar situations. Also what about the mergers without prior discussion? --IM-yb (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Football / soccer (as with other sports) is organised differently in North America from Europe. A team is added to the MLS by granting a franchise, which creates a new club. This model applies even where the new club has exactly the same name, colours, fans and stadium as the predecessor club. This process arises because the league controls (and forms) the clubs. In European leagues, the clubs form the league. Therefore clubs can be promoted / relegated between different structures while continuing their existence. If it looks inconsistent it's because it's supposed to. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand that and I know many of them. I ask if WikiProject Football or guideline of enwiki, defines how will be mergers and separations of football (and other) clubs articles, because I see similar situations with different actions in enwiki. In some cases the article in the team absorbed continues to exist, while in other similar cases two articles merged. --IM-yb (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know any guidelines which speak about merging club articles. I also think that it would be useful to have one, mainly to avoid confusion and/or misunderstandings, aside from having a lot of unnecessary RMs (see one discussion without consensus as an example). MYS 77 ^✉ 16:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a guideline will be useful. --IM-yb (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no guideline and because of this there have been huge edit wars. One example is the resurrection in Ukraine of FC Obolon Kyiv as FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv and FC Arsenal Kyiv as FC Arsenal-Kyiv. Both teams have historical linkage to the former team but there are folks out there that continue to have their heads in the sand and ignore the point of having on article for continuum. Why is it that S.S. Robur Siena makes sense to have a redirect for Siena Calcio yet for some folk two articles are a must? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

East Timor - Sockpuppets in the news

I think this might be of interest to editors here who endeavour to keep football related topics accurate http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/sock-puppets-attacking-football-data-in-south-east-asia/ Gnan garra 08:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I occasionally contribute to the East Timor national football team article and there doesn't seem to be too much wrong although some of the articles are indeed strange. What would be a solution, auto-protecting the page? thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

considering the problem involves a sockmaster that goes back 5 years all the easy intervention methods, semi protection, pending revisions etc cant be used, many of the pages related are corrupted in some form mostly in minor details its going to need alot of eyes, some very harsh solutions including deleting and starting again especially where substantive content is source solely to regional or local sources. Also its probably in want of an arbcom decision about topic bans for the editors mentioned in the article and then a watch for the inevitable. What ever the processes its not going to be an easy fix unless the community decides to delete all East Timor football articles and start fresh, then challenge the original editors when they show up.Gnan garra 00:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That sort of measure seems a bit harsh though considering many of the articles are sourced by soccerway.com & FIFA.com. More input is need in my opinion over what is and isn't true. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

agree its harsh and not fair to those editors who acted in good, the question is how to repair the damage done and ensure that its not being propogated any further. Gnan garra 05:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The best way is to cut the articles down to what is referenced. Wholesale deletion of viable articles is not the way forward. Number 5 7 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I find that article confusing to the point that it is essentially meaningless. I can take from it that there was a small sock farm creating hoax articles on a very niche area of football-related articles, but this was some years ago. The article disingenuously makes little reference to timescale and when it does it states that events such as this are recent when they happened a year ago. If you don't follow all the links you could easily be forgiven for thinking that this is something that is ongoing in a major way; in fact this is an aggregation of minor incidents over a period of five years or more.

Aside from that and some low level vandalism, I am not sure what the article is trying to suggest is wrong. None of the articles noted seem now to contain any significant unreferenced elements, they are all of obviously notable individuals and the references given appear reliable. The lengthy comments about the origins of editors is entirely irrelevant. I just don't see any issue here that hasn't already been dealt with other than the perennial WP issue of people needing to check what is written and ensure unreferenced material is challenged and removed. Fenix down (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

On second reading yeah I agree with you verdict Fenix down but articles pertaining to East Timor Football should be more closely scrutinized in the future. Also we should try to include more Timorese editors if possible. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A solution could be to create a list of East Timorese articles and check off each article as they are scrutinised. Hack (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability of club's seasons articles for level 10 clubs?

What's the deal with those? Earlier today I tagged 2015–16_Bromsgrove_Sporting_F.C._season as a copy of the Coventry City 2015-16 article. The creator removed the CSD and made a few changes to make it more relevant to Bromsgrove, even though half of it still refers to Coventry City. There's nothing on the notability page, but I'd strongly doubt that we have consensus for seasons articles on such lowly placed clubs otherwise we'd have millions of them. Valenciano (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not notable. The cut-off point is generally accepted to be fully-professional leagues only. See e.g. this or this (these were clubs playing at a much higher level than Bromsgrove). The article also contains some blatant untruths (the club will not compete in the League Cup or Football League trophy, as they are not Football League members). Number 5 7 17:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, just what I thought. In terms of the untruths, it's because they've used the Coventry City 2015-16 article as a starting point but don't seem to be bothered to even put in the work to make it more Bromsgrove-relevant. Valenciano (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Media coverage of tournaments

Is the section DFB-Pokal#Media coverage relevant for the article? If yes, are all those flag icons really needed (especially in this section: DFB-Pokal#Notes)? --Jaellee (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The section could be. But not at current state, the flags are crazy,especially in the notes section. :D Also it's sourced by just one game, and should be reverted. It should be more prose in general. -Koppapa (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Flags should go. Other than, that it's ok (more refs)... Kante4 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed the flags in the Notes section... Kante4 (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from Alexiulian25

Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs) is back and wondering if User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers and User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season are worthy of being moved to the Main space when he's finished working on them? Thoughts? JMHamo (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Already deleted once after AfD (this AfD and this AfD). Seeing that all voters voted for "Delete" as it is not notable I can not see it passing again. Qed237 (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Thanks for that. @Alexiulian25: I would stop working on these drafts and request they are deleted. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Clean up Infobox national football team

The Infobox national football team is quite long. A few random examples: France, Germany, Brazil, Argentina. I believe there is an excessive amount of information in there. I already reordered a few things in September to improve the overview, but I think we should cut some of it. The most important candidates in my opinion are the Elo ranking and the Biggest win/loss.

Elo rating
I really like the Elo rating system - I even talked with the site owner to give its website a more modern look. But the question is, no matter how nice or interesting it is,... is it notable? Have any of you actually ever seen this rating used in any article from a good source, let alone on a regular basis? I am afraid that, no matter how interesting it is, we need to cut it, at least from this infobox. The FIFA ranking makes sense because FIFA is the official international association after all; but there's nothing official about Elo.

Biggest win/loss
A lot of space in the infobox is taken up by the biggest win/loss, especially when there are multiple of them that had the same result. It looks quite chaotic too (if you can manage to imagine it without, and compare it with that). My question is: is this information really so important that it must be in the infobox? Sure, it's a nice statistic, so put it in a Records section or something, but why the infobox? This might be personal opinion, but it feels wrong to include it there. Especially because it doesn't really say anything about the team; those matches are often flukes from decades or even a century ago.

Without these two sections, the infobox would more logically flow from the FIFA rank to appearances at the World Cup, regional cup, and other honours. —Sygmoral (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur that the Elo rankings are unnecessary since they are not used in any official capacity. I'm also leaning towards removing the biggest win/defeat parts of the infobox if there is consensus on how that information would otherwise be included in the article. As Sygmoral suggested, perhaps some sort of Records section? — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both suggestions. We don't record biggest win/loss in a club's infobox and I see no compelling reason why this would be of so much more significance for a national team that it belonged in the infobox.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The Elo ranking is useful for teams that aren't registered with FIFA (such as Gibraltar). Also some of the biggest wins/loses matches are notable too, such as Germany vs Brazil 2014. While the infoboxs are a bit long the text is smaller than that of the general article so I don't see it being a major issue. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't suggest that the Elo ranking is not useful, but do we as the Wikipedia community get to decide which metrics and standards are useful? Or should we report on what external sources say is useful? The latter is certainly what you would expect from an encyclopedia. Teams that are not FIFA recognized could still mention the Elo ranking somewhere in the article, if that is desired. I'm only saying it doesn't have a place in the infobox (and therefore every NFT article) due to its low notability. As for the highest win/defeat, it's indeed an interesting record to keep (so I'd still keep it somewhere in the article), but an infobox is meant to be concise, so it... just doesn't fit there. I'm just trying to bring this infobox closer to Wikipedia's standards: What should an infobox (not) contain? —Sygmoral (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand your argument about the ELO ranking (maybe it should only be included in the infobox of non-FIFA members) but biggest loses/defeat still fits the Comparable, Concise, Relevant, and Cited elsewhere requirements you brought up in notability. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with removing biggest win/loss; weakly in favour of retaining ELO. Could we tighten it up though in the box and get the ELO/FIFA rankings onto 1 row each? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It is possible, but I guess we'd need to put a lot of information in notes then.

FIFA ranking	1 (3 December 2015) Highest: 1^[a] Lowest: 71^[b]

Something like what I put on the right here. Not bad I think, but it will require every NFT article to be updated with those notes and include a Footnotes section, if it doesn't have it already. Unless the notelist is put into the infobox itself, but then we're limiting what the article can do (since we're using up 1 note numbering). In short: good idea, but I'm not sure it's practical :s

As for the Elo rank: could you share your argument to keep that one, taking into account what has been said before? (i.e. "it's lovely, but not notable") —Sygmoral (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions so far: Jkudlick, ChrisTheDude and myself agree that Elo ratings and biggest win/loss should not appear in the infobox (though we agree the biggest win/loss does have a place somewhere else in the article); Super Nintendo Chalmers agrees to remove biggest win/loss but is not convinced about the Elo rating; while Inter&anthro would like to keep both (he is, after all, a self-declared inclusionist :) ).

I would at this point also like to link to previous discussions on this topic:

Barryjjoyce raised the biggest win/loss issue here about two years ago (the discussion seemed to lean in favour of removing them, but it did not happen because too few people were interested in the discussion).
A discussion on the infobox talk page 9 years ago agreed to remove the historical Elo ratings (highest/lowest), but this either never happened, or they were re-added later. Many people in the discussion did make the point that the Elo rating should probably not even be there at all (let alone their highest/lowest).
Another discussion about the highest/lowest ratings in 2010 again brought up the removal of the Elo ratings.

The constant I see about Elo is that proponents say it is interesting and/or useful, but I haven't really read any arguments about it being sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. That is a core value of Wikipedia though... Elo is interesting indeed, but interested people can still check it on its own Wikipedia page. It doesn't mean anything to non-interested people visiting a NFT article however, because they've probably never heard about it outside of Wikipedia. Just keep it for the occasional mention in a history section (e.g. Germany also topped the unofficial long-term Elo rankings in this period, ...) —Sygmoral (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with being an inclusionists, and I'm not going to lose any sleep from seeing the ELO rankings and biggest win/loss removed. However pertaining to the latter issue if you want to include the biggest win/loss informaiton you would probably move it to the history section of the national team's history in that article. But not all national teams articles have that section - in my opinion it would just be simpler and easier to keep it in the infobox. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest something is wrong with being an inclusionist; in fact, I would have considered myself one until a year ago. I just mean that the desire to keep these items fit with that phylosophy :) My own stance actually changed as I was (modestly) helping to bring the Belgian NFT to Good Article status (currently for review as Featured). I was first resisting all the trimming, but then saw the benefit of keeping things to the point, quickly accessible, digestible, ... just as they would be in a traditional enclopedia. A lot of 'extra information' was moved to extra pages in this process (history of, lists of matches, players, captains, managers, records,... all on their own page). This infobox obviously appears on that page as well, and that's how I ended up creating this thread. —Sygmoral (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not interpret you statement as an insult but its not that I am in favor of keeping everything for the sake of keeping it, if you happen to be a talk page stalker you will notice that I have made as many delete votes as I have keep votes. All I'm saying is that if the general concurrences is to remove the biggest win/stats from the infobox and to other parts of the article, the sections of the articles the stats are moved to will have to be better maintained and sourced etc. Personally I think it would be easier to just keep them in the infobox but since the general consensus as you stated was to remove them and I'm fine with that. Cheers. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I-League 2nd Division

Hey guys, a couple days ago I added a section on here about the I-League 2nd Division and how it might be considered fully-pro. No responses yet. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is going to read a 97-page document to tell you what it says; why don't you find the relevant information from the external link and point users to that, so that a discussion may take place. Thanks, C 679 22:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I can't point out a specific part of it as a lot of his is relevant in my view. I would guess that if every team manages to pass the criteria and earn a license then the league, at least in Asia, is fully-pro. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't mean to be rude ArsenalFan700 but weren't you the one who was most fervent that the I-League second division was not notable such on Talk:Jackichand Singh? Not that I'm opposing the claim that it is or isn't but will that mean that we should include 2nd division stats in the player articles? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, that was last season. This season there seems to be more stricter measures on the licensing criteria. We also now have squads for majority of the games known from the official website... no stats yet though. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay I misunderstood you ArsenalFan700, so the 2nd division from now on is professional if the source is correct right? Would that would mean that articles pertaining to footballers who have played in that division are notable? Inter&anthro (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would hope so. Everything I have seen says so but then again there could be exemptions from licensing so I will actually do some more research into this before going forward with the proposal. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Without citations as to what the AFC-licensing requirements are full-professionalism remains unverified, and I'm skeptical that the requirements are actually sufficient considering the top flight leagues of other AFC members (Philippines, Nepal, Afghanistan, Guam) which are presumably subject to the same criteria are confirmed as not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ya, I tried to look into it more. Until I find more, solid proof, that these teams are fully-pro I will drop this. Plus I talked to an official for one of the teams and the usual sketchiness appeared... brilliant. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Felix Magath

I'm getting inappropriate content in the article Felix Magath. Is it just my browser/PC or has anyone else the same problem? --Jaellee (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Same here. Qed237 (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

wtf? How is that even done?Davefelmer (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

so...erm....how do we fix it....?Davefelmer (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with it. What's the issue? Number 5 7 23:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #vandalism I can't seem to fix it seems that another article was also affected. --Jaellee (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The page was totally vandalised seconds ago, guess the user was forced to remove it or did so anyway. Davefelmer (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It was not something done with a normal edit, the page was hacked. Qed237 (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I investigated some more and it seems like someone edited some templates and not a hack, but it has been fixed. Qed237 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Caused by Gravitys reading rainbow (talk · contribs) vandalising two templates that have since been protected. JMHamo (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Vasas

Can somebody with more knowledge than me please look into this - we have an article on Vasas SC but related categories/templates have been recently moved to e.g. Category:Vasas FC players by @..::11soccero11::..:. Has there been a name change? Well I don't know, and the official website is no help, given that we now appear to have two of them, see SC and FC... Giant Snowman 19:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me that Vasas Futball Club is the football division within Vasas Sport Club (Vasas SC). TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Belmont

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Belmont Joeykai (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

CBF player and CBF profile

Both templates are deprecated, as the website changed its address and doesn't have player profiles anymore. MYS 77 ^✉ 23:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Runners Up places?

Should runner-up places be listed as club honours for players and clubs? Generally across wiki they are not listed but for a select few, they are. Seeking some clarity on this. Davefelmer (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO this should not listed as an honour for a club. Players I'm open to persuasion. Number 5 7 23:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to persuade or not persuade. I actually dont think they should be for either player or club as no official source lists them for anyone. But I was interested to hear what others thought. Davefelmer (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I dont have time to look at the archives, but I believe this has been discussed many times before. I think most editors are against runners-up as being an honour unless it is World Cup or something where you get a physical medal (silver) for second place and third place (bronze). One old discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 97#Club honours but I am pretty sure there are more in the archives. Qed237 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over the debate, the issue doesnt appear to toucb on players' runner up places being listed, which is the primary issue I believe. There's no credible sourcing (or even uncredible sourcing that I can find) that lists runner up places for players as honours. wiki generally doesnt as well but a select few players have them listed. Curious as to opinions on whether they should stay and these honours be added throughout or if they should be deleted. Davefelmer (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If the player got a medal, and runners up typically do in Cup Competitions, then it is an honour (even if we don't think much of it). In contrast coming second in the Championship or something that doesn't otherwise grant an award would not be an honour (although it would be notable to mention successful promotions). A non-football comparison would be nominations for Oscars and Golden Globes - sometimes just being in the running amongst peers is in itself an honour (so for instance the Golden Boot, or runner up in some Players Writers awards etc might be considered an "honour").

Now whether you would have it in a table at the bottom of their profile or included within the context of the article is a better question. Koncorde (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just wondering for the sake of wiki article consistency and consensus. It seems silly to have 90% adhere to one policy and 5-10% to another. Davefelmer (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If the content is notable, then there's no reason to remove it - even if it means x% of articles don't match (almost no article conforms to the next article and it's the wrong measuring stick to use really). If it lacks citations / references, then they should be found. If none are to be found then it should be flagged with a citation needed template. If it's grossly inaccurate, and lacking citations, then it should be considered for removal. Per some of our other discussions - sometimes it's about changing the context in order to better present the information rather than worrying about the fact that the header says "Honours" and you're not sure if they count. Koncorde (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

what do you mean by notable? For example, paulo maldini won 25 trophies. Does he really need a huge runner up cabinet in his honours section? Grobellar won something like 13 trophies. Does he need a massive one? Have you checked the sandbox by the way? Davefelmer (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Leagues should have champions only, and Cups 1st or runner-up, whether that's player or club. Countries can have 3rd or 4th place in e.g. World Cup as that is a thing. Also please remember (as ever) that honours should only be listed when directly and explicitly attributed to a RS. Giant Snowman 17:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, and there's never yet been a consensus. There's nothing wrong with including a player's or a club's achievements in that section; the club article suggested layout would have us include them. If including runners-ups will bloat the section, then leave them out. If it doesn't, then include them if you want to; many people do. But as GS and others say, so long as they're reliably sourced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing categories for players

I've noticed quite a few footballers who are missing the categories for clubs they have played for or managed (a recent one I came across was Alan Vest, who didn't have any club player categories at all). Is there a way of getting a bot to run off a list of players who do not have matching infoboxes and categories for us to then work on? Obviously it will find a few false positives (for instance, cases where clubs have changed names, so may be listed as the former name in the infobox but current name in the category), but hopefully these could be quickly discarded. There are also a few clubs (non-league ones mostly) who do not have categories at present, but who probably could easily have one with several players in it – this would also help identify which ones need to be created. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why a bot couldn't do that for the most part, but we do have a problem in that not all clubs follow the same category naming structure, i.e. some use "[CLUB X] players" and other use "[CLUB Y] footballers". I'm sure it's workable, but that's a limitation I spotted right off the bat. Certainly would be a useful thing to know anyway. – Pee Jay 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess the bot could be set up to look for players/footballers as alternatives and highlight if it doesn't find either. Number 5 7 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You could use WP:CATSCAN and WP:WHATLINKSHERE and see how many articles are not in the relevant categories? Giant Snowman 17:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Juan Carlos Valeron

Hi,

Related to file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JuanCarlosValeronUDLP1.png It was captured while watching live match on tv which was broadcasted by BeinSports and I had put remark as copyrighted by BeinSports, but it was insufficient and still deleted. Could you please advise if I put the same picture again, what kind of tags that I could put on and perhaps did I miss something?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrealblancos21 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty obvious copyright violation. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:NFCC#Policy, which explains that we're not allowed to use copyright images except under very strict criteria. In particular, #1 in the criteria says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." A free image of a current footballer always could be created, if someone takes their camera to a match... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Futsal and minifootball teams

What are the criteria of notability for futsal and minifootball teams/clubs?
Category:Futsal clubs needs attention. --XXN, 12:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Do they meet WP:ORG/WP:GNG? Giant Snowman 13:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I dunno... But, for example I'm tempted to propose for deletion articles like this > Aktobe BTA.

Other types of articles, like Bimeh Hadis Qazvin FSC, looks better, but again, they must meet some [specific] notability criteria to be kept. I see there are few refs, but, by 2-3 refs we can find for other thousands of futsal teams, however they are not notable all.

At least Category:Iranian futsal clubs, with up to 60 articles needs to be verified. --XXN, 14:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor(s)

I am having a problem with a user called Wit Ronni (talk). While the majority of this editors contributions are helpful for some reason this editor believes that references shouldn't be used and only uses external links, in clear violation of WP:PROVEIT and WP:SOURCE. This can be seen on these edits 1, 2, 3, 4 where s/he just randomly removes references. I didn't want to report this user for vandalism as most edits are constructive, but this tendency s/he has is really annoying. I left as message on his/her talk page but they never responded and haven't changed their behavior. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

To a lesser I have had the same problem with Ashhab1323, who once again the majority of their edits are constructive but from time to time s/he remove sourced information. Not only that but this editor is a bit of a jerk in the manner that s/he just deletes other editors comments on their talk page without ever responding. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:2014–15 Serie A Team of the Year

Is Template:2014–15 Serie A Team of the Year notable? Qed237 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Seems to be the same concept as PFA Team of the Year - players being voted the best in their position by their fellow professionals. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

ASA Tel Aviv University

Just figured (after almost two years working on the subject of women's football in Israel...) that the club's article name is wrong: ASA stands (in Hebrew) for University Sport Association, which means that the article's name falls into RAS syndrome. However, this is the club's name in UEFA.com and soccerway, while in the club is called "Tel Aviv University Sport Club" in the IFA. I believe that the article's name should be corrected (as well as its links), but I'm not sure.--Eranrabl (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the current name is correct per WP:UE as that is how the club is almost always referred to in English sources. Number 5 7 23:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Zimbabwe national football team managers

Resolved

Can someone please work out why the latest entry is not displaying? Giant Snowman 13:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that's it fixed now. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! Giant Snowman 16:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Career statistics articles

I know that these are a common feature in Wikipedia articles for other sports, most notably in tennis. I've noticed that only two currently exist in football and these are Islam Slimani career statistics and Yacine Brahimi career statistics. Are they notable? Spiderone 08:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Clear WP:NOTSTATS, they need to be PRODded/AFDing. Giant Snowman 10:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion closure

Talk:Girona FC B#Proposed merge with CF Riudellots was opened in August and there has been no comments since September - please can somebody review and close? Giant Snowman 09:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Consider it done. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! Giant Snowman 10:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No honour coming second - edits from 92.40.248.85

Hello Footie Project. I wondered if you might have a view on the edits from this user such as this to Middlesbrough, and Newcastle, and Derby.

The editor 92.40.248.85 seems to believe that there is "no honour in coming second" and has removed second-place results from the team articles mentioned above. I notice that in your MOS it does say to list second places. It mentions omitting them if space is a problem but this is not the issue raised by this editor.

I don't have a very strong view on this but I was just a bit surprised that the editor doesn't want to discuss it, won't engage with me on their Talk page about it, and just reverts me, without comment, if I change it back. It feels a bit pointy or something. I'm not going to get into an edit war with an IP over this but I did wonder if you had a view? Alternatively I can just stfu, as I understand people say, and let nature take its course - I don't need to engage with this editor and I don't mind all that much about the content going - it's more the (assumed) attitude that gets me. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The runners up honours there aren't notable, so shouldn't be included. Davefelmer (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(Corrected indent level.)"Not notable" defined how? Did you read the link I gave to this project's MOS? It doesn't discuss notability as such, let alone define it - it just seems to assume they should be in. DBaK (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::It's almost certainly the same editor that got at least one of their IP addresses blocked for doing it a couple of years ago. See Talk:Bradford City A.F.C.#Honour ?, where they did speak, albeit their "discussion" was restricted to announcing that "only WINNERS matter" and "As a fan of one would only be concerned with ACTUAL Silverware". As to notability: DBaK correctly points out that the club article style guide explicitly tells us to include second places unless there are "a large number of major trophies". I've put them back in, per the style guide, per the consensus established when it was going on in 2013, and per their edit-warring at Middlesbrough F.C. and refusal to discuss. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah right - I didn't realise there was that history to it! Thanks for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops - sorry everyone, I leapt before I looked and hadn't seen the "Runners Up places?" topic above. Duh. I do apologise for the duplication. Thanks, all. DBaK (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Alex most decorated manager?

A made a point on a talk page that several sources should that sir Alex Ferguson was the most decorated manager of all time. However, the editor I was discussing this with claimed these were not good enough to make the claim in text. I was wondering whether someone could look and clarify to me whether I do indeed have a case for the claim as I feel that I do and want to seek a consensus on the matter rather than just one other person's opinion:

The fact that such well publicised and neutral sources like the guardian and international news describe him as such I believe is a fair argument, and for some lists to illustrate the point, I have these:

Take a look lads and let me know if this is well-supporting the claim. Davefelmer (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no real interest in this, but Dave, I would advise that you work on editing properly – you've been editing eight months and I really think you should have learnt some of the basics by now. In this edit you have made several mistakes, including putting the references before the punctuation (they should be afterwards), leaving the references as bare urls and leaving spaces between the references. Also, instead of making lists by typing out the numbers and returning the line, you need to use # (I have converted your effort above). I would also advise that you don't post bare urls in discussions either, and perhaps put in the article titles instead. Number 5 7 20:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Plus this is the same old boosting Man United rubbish that got DF blocked multiple times in the past. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally I am tired of the obvious intent to make United look as good as possible from this editor. Qed237 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to remind you of (WP:CIVIL). Instead of accusing me of bias or "rubbish", why don't you answer the point? It's a perfectly reasonable point to make, and it's nothing to do with so-called bias. the way you say it is like I try and lie and write deluded crap everywhere to favor man united. That's never the case. If a sourced and reasonable argument has to do with United and I make it, that is nothing other than an attempt to improve wiki. And as an aside, I have never, ever been blocked for "boosting Man United". Davefelmer (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF says that users should assume good faith "unless there is strong evidence to the contrary". With you, the evidence is overwhelming. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well the sources support the claim. I guess one could say he has won the most titles in the article. Also bare urls are better than no sources at all. No big thing. Bots also cover some of the rest. -Koppapa (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There are also sources that say Bill Struth is the "most decorated football manager in British history" [18]. Claiming that one manager or another is the most decorated is inherently POV because it depends on which trophies you count (or not) towards a total. DF edit warred while continually pushed the POV that "Ferguson is the greatest" and was (rightly) blocked for doing so. DF was unblocked because it promised not to behave like this in future, did it again and was blocked again. Then it was unblocked again for promising better behaviour. Now it is doing the same thing all over again. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that we should avoid claims which are overly vague. List all that Ferguson has won, and let that speak for itself. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Guys, can you all cut Dave a break - I have been working with him to try and teach him how to do things correctly. Also you're all being demonstrably un-supportive based upon prior experience. If you look at his recent edit history there is no edit warring and he is making a concerted effort to actually discuss this stuff with people - and getting individuals shitting down his neck. If you can't be civil with him then you are not helping.

With regards to the claim of "most decorated" - there is absolutely no harm with AF's article saying "He has been described by the Guardian and Slate as the most decorated manager in the history of the sport" and then provide citations. That is not a violation of POV. However it should be in context and should not be forced into the lede if it doesn't flow (or is contentious). the same thing could be said of Billy Struth if there are articles to support it. Koncorde (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with this. As I said on the talkpage, the problem isn't so much the lead, when you consider the body of the article needs to be polished up. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup (football)

Intercontinental Cup (football) - Can you help me please with something, with the refs, how to add in the last column the refs for each edition from RSSSF.com ? If you scroll down in "references" there are many errors.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The references in the table are using different ref names to the owns allocated earlier in the article to the individual refs. Match them up.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how to do it, if you have time please to add them I will be very happy ! Thank you very much !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I edit other pages related to this : for example 1966 Intercontinental Cup has no information !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: You can try reading some of the information guidelines, and look at other articles. For example Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates and Wikipedia:Citation templates. Then we have to clean this page up a bit, for example "Lossing years" is not that great English. Qed237 (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: Also two references can not have same name. You have two references called "Reference 20". Qed237 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Thank you for advice! I did change it to "Runners-up years". I do not know how to fix the "reference 20".--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexiulian25: It would be a good idea to renmane your references to names that are easier to understand what they are and dont give two references the same name. Qed237 (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I will do it after I get a bit of rest, I am editing from 6 hours already, my eyes got tired, but it looks much better now with references and details!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone who has time, and can help to add the line-ups for each edition of Intercontinental Cup (football) - just the first 10-15 editions are with no line-ups !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Thiha Htet Aung

Hi please take a look at the above which looks like it was created in the talk namespace to circumvent the creation protected Thiha Htet Aung. While it likely qualifies for speedy deletion under G4, I just wanted to bring it up here first since the conditions of the original deletion might have changed. (Note the added information about playing as a substitute in October 2015) Opencooper (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Opencooper: I've nominated it for CSD G8 JMHamo (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Giant Snowman 22:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Thank you, just wanted to make sure. I appreciate the look-over from the WikiProject. Opencooper (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPS in talk namespace

See the following unreferenced Moldovan player articles created by a single IP editor this week, can't BLPPROD for some reason

Thoughts? Thanks, C 679 23:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've sourced and moved the ones that meet WP:NFOOTY to the article namespace and flagged the ones that don't for deletion per WP:G8. I've also had a word with the IP about WP:AFC. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Another IP recreated the ones which were deleted, including the incorrect spelling of Artiom Razgoniuc. I have tagged those under WP:G8 as well. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex Neil (football)

Why isn't he called Alex Neil (footballer)?--Echetus Xe 20:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: Good question. Maybe because he only gained some notoriety when becoming a manager? I'd recommend starting a RM to the suggested namespace. MYS 77 ^✉ 21:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

He should be, definitely worth a RM. Giant Snowman 09:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears he was Alex Neil (footballer) but after a RM to (football manager) earlier in the year resulted ina compromise of (football). I'll start another RM.--Echetus Xe 14:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Racing Club de Bruxelles/K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek

We have one article about this club, and its different names throughout history. The article is located at K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek - @Akadunzio: says they are separate clubs, without providing any sources, and has been changing articles and moving categories accordingly. Can somebody please look at it? I've reverted and warned, I'd block him for disruption but I'm probably INVOLVED. Giant Snowman 12:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This are two different clubs. On the website of KFC Rhodienne-De Hoek they say the club started in 1927. They also don't claim any title of Racing Club de Bruxelles. I think @GiantSnowman: is disrupting and misusing his position threatening to block me. Akadunzio (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek article says they are the successor club, with the same matricule, per their own website as well. Giant Snowman 12:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If the French WP page is anything to go by, they are indeed two different clubs, albeit with a historical link. When Racing Club merged with R. White Star in 1963, the merged club, which later became R. White Daring Molenbeek, had to take over White Star's matricule #47 to keep that club's second-tier status (Racing Bruxelles were third tier) so to avoid having to retire the hstoric #6 they donated it to Rhodienne, who had a director in common with White Star. The club history link quoted above confirms (most of) that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case then we of course need to have two articles - but we already do, at R. White Daring Molenbeek and K.F.C. Rhodienne-De Hoek, all we need to do it retarget the Racing Club de Bruxelles redirects to R. White Daring Molenbeek and change the player's categories to Category:R. White Daring Molenbeek players instead? Giant Snowman 13:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In terms of categories and redirects, probably. I'd guess we need to update both articles, with sources, to reflect reality as well. What does @Akadunzio: think? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No the easiest thing is to have one article for one club. Racing Club de Bruxelles is another club as Racing White, and another club as Racing White Daring Molenbeek and another club as the successors of RWDM, KFC Strombeek and later FC Brussels. This Racing-players never played for KFC Rhodienne-De Hoek and is not understandable to have a category of KFC Rhodienne-De Hoek players. At mergers or when clubs stop they sell the free matricule to clubs who can start in an higher division thanks to this matricule. Akadunzio (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Akadunzio but this would have been a whole lot quicker/less messy to resolve if you had just explained the situation from the start, I was going off the article content and the websites. If we are to have a separate article on Racing Club de Bruxelles then we also need a separate article on whatever club RCdeB merged with in 1963 (White Star Club de Bruxelles? to form R. White Daring Molenbeek. Giant Snowman 13:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

And why not? Racing Club de Bruxelles merged in 1963 with White Star AC to Racing White. Racing White merged in 1973 with R. Daring Club Molenbeek, successor of Daring Club de Bruxelles, (also an old and famous club with matricule 2) to Racing White Daring Molenbeek. All this clubs have a different history. It is very confusing because there is a new Racing White Daring Molenbeek and also a new White Star de Bruxelles, successor of another White Star Woluwe, sucessor of Woluwe FC, which obtained in 1963 the name and the logo (the white star) when the other White Star merged with Racing Club de Bruxelles. They took also the Fallon-stadium of Racing White, when they moved to Molenbeek. Akadunzio (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against it - but we should have separate articles on separate clubs (i.e. every time there was a merge) - this needs to be done slowly and carefully, and only following further discussion. Giant Snowman 15:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me know when you made your decision. You know that this are separate clubs. So undo your reverts so that I can go further with the correction of the other articles. Akadunzio (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not my decision to make - it's ours. Giant Snowman 16:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Flags or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_World_Football_Challenge&curid=32397250&diff=696797762&oldid=672540448 Is this, and subsequent years, an international competition where the teams represent the nations, or is it a pre-season friendly for the European club teams and a chance to fill seats and generate interest in the sport for the local sides? Should the flags be placed in the matches or not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it's not about representing a nation in terms of country coefficients, etc. In my opinion, the flags should be allowed as a reflection of the international nature of the tournament. – Pee Jay 12:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The teams were selected simply based on popularity, as an effort to promote the game in the markets where it's played. You will see that some years there are multiple English sides involved. Clearly MOS:FLAG is not reflected correctly in FOOTY and other sports. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If we, as members of WP:FOOTY, come up with a solution that benefits the encyclopaedia but differs from the guidelines at MOS:FLAG, clearly those guidelines are wrong. – Pee Jay 14:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

José Mourinho

Input needed at José Mourinho and Talk:José Mourinho, an editor insist on putting José Mourinho as "sacked" but the official statement is "mutual consent". Qed237 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sent my opinion there, people tend to fight for so little here! MYS 77 ^✉ 17:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.manutd.com/en/Club.aspx

[2] ttp://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours

[3] ttp://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Club-News/2014/March/Manchester-United-Museum-free-access-in-March-2014.aspx

[4] ttp://www.thisisanfield.com/2013/12/infographic-liverpools-roll-honour-history-timeline/

[5] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20150329230027/http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=31073/index.html

[6] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20131128162637/http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=31089/index.html

[7] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20131105174622/http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=1897032/index.html

[8] ttp://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=eng/news/newsid=1980593.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]