Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 19

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Notability: fully pro team or league?

I know we've been over it before, but there is still a contradiction between WP:BIO#Athlete and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability, the key issue being whether playing for a fully professional team in a incompletely professional league is grounds for notability (in effect, in the English context, players at many, but not all, Conference teams). I'm not asking that we go over all the arguments again, but how we can do something to prevent all that discussion being rendered a waste of our collective time by the perfectly legitimate response exemplified by Angelo here "WP:FOOTYN is merely an essay and is superseded by WP:ATHLETE, which is instead current guideline." Can FootyN be raised somehow to the same status as other elements of WP:BIO? Kevin McE (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We could propose it with the WP:BIO people, stating that it was determined by consensus by experts on the subject, but they seemed to relish tearing it to shreds last time because people took about a billion footybios on Conference players to deletion review citing it. If they think that deletion review is going to get clogged up with conference footballers again they're sure to torpedo it. E P 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is down to the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability was never adopted as being sound in the wider Wikipedia community. If you think the players concerned are notable, then you need to demonstrate multiple, significant, third-party coverage of them. This will amount to more than just listings in match reports and squad listings. If you can do that, fine. If not, they will fail. I think personally even the current guidelines are too inclusive - why should the fact that someome does something professionally be an automatic "pass"? If professional footballers are notable, why not professional teachers, plumbers or doctors? Find the coverage elsewhere first and not just assume they are notable. - fchd (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We can just try to determine which leagues offer status again, which will give us some flexibility with it. We started that process a while ago, but I think it got archived now. matt91486 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Crewe Alexandra's season template

I was going to take the season links out of Crewe Alexandra's club template, but upon creating the relevant new template, I was greeted with a message that it was deleted (Db-g7) back in February, with a rationale from Bibliomaniac15 of "Page has been superseeded by Template:Crewe Alexandra F.C." I wasn't aware of this policy. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Db-g7 means "The author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith, either explicitly or by blanking the page." Looks like the author of Template:Crewe Alexandra F.C. thinks his way is better. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Struway is right; Glennb28 (talk · contribs) created and eventually nominated for speedy deletion, Template:Crewe Alexandra F.C. seasons. I don't think FOOTY actually has any policy for this. I think the current Crewe setup is better personally, but that is me. Woody (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that template, I see absolutely no point of even having the Crewe Alexandra F.C. season 2008-09 page, until at least August. I think for the time being, that page should be redirected to Crewe Alexandra F.C. D.M.N. (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate template for the season articles. Each season could theoretically be created and it would fill up the Crewe template unnecessarily. As long as they are both standardised then the two would sit alongside each nicely anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Manchester United F.C. has them as separate templates, so why not Crewe. – Pee Jay 14:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Man Utd ones are perfectly done. Exactly what I mean. Peanut4 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

noted players

There is a noted players section in the MoS for national football teams, is there an article in which this section is well referenced and free from original research, so that it can be used to base other articles on? I am at a loss as to how to properly do this section (The FA-class Scotland doesn't use it) Fasach Nua (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Scottish Cup Final

Does anyone know which number final this is, is says in the intro that it is the 123rd Scottish Cup final which you may think is sensible because it is the 123rd Scottish cup but there was no final in 1909 because of a riot, in 1874 and 1879 teams failed to appear, are these counted? the 1909 riot occurred at a replay, if that makes any diffrence. should the non-appearances be counted as finals, I don't know if they kicked-off and the referee immediately blew his whistle or if the cup was simply awarded? Darryl.matheson (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You could always phrase it as "the final of the 123rd staging of the Scottish Cup" (if that's what it is). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with Struway's wording to be on the safe side. Giant Snowman 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So would I, but I would avoid the word "staging". I would just go for "the final of the 123rd Scottish Cup". – Pee Jay 13:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions, I would doubt I would be able to find information on the 1874 and 1879 finals anyway. I would also prefer to avoid the word staging so will use User:PeeJay2K3's suggested wording.

Some help please

Does anyone know the name of Oxford United's caretaker manager between November 1958 and January 1959. They replaced Harry Thompson and preceded Arthur Turner. I can't find it anywhere and i would really like to find out. Thanks. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think they had one? Fasach Nua (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

True, in such a short period of time - and especially in the 50s - they may have simply had a Selection Committe or some such. If you think they did then maybe try the official site. Giant Snowman 02:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar problem with the gap between Storer and Brocklebank on this list, and haven't yet managed to fill it, other than with Not known. Imagine it'd be even more difficult with a non-league club, my lot were top flight at the time and there's still no mention in the "Complete Record" book or anywhere. I'd guess the only possibilities you have are 1) contacting the club and asking them, or 2) local newspaper archives. If it helps, it didn't stop my list becoming a featured list, if that's where you're headed with yours, though the matter was raised at the FLC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Match Attax Cards

The user has apparently created Category:Match Attax Cards as a sort of trading card checklist. I've put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_25#Category:Match_Attax_Cards. Have a good weekend all. --Jameboy (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

SPFA or PFA Scotland?

I notice that what the media calls PFA Scotland awards are shown as SPFA awards on wikipedia. I presume this must be the case because the organisation used to be called SPFA but have changed to PFA Scotland and this has gone unnoticed. User:Hamiltonvalcea though seems to have decided that the two are completely separate organisations, so instead of just adding the 2007–08 manager of the year to this article; SPFA Manager of the Year‎ they have created; PFA Scotland Manager of the Year‎, I think it is essentially the same award, just renamed. Darryl.matheson (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

From this news story: "Fraser Wishart is spearheading the establishment of a new footballers' union in Scotland which it is hoped will revolutionise key aspects of the professional game north of the border. The new association is to be known as PFA Scotland and will effectively replace the Scottish Professional Footballers' Association (SPFA), which is now likely to be dissolved following the resignation of all its office bearers." So it would appear that it is officially a new organisation, although the awards are clearly a continuation of the old SPFA awards. Mind you, even the media can't seem to decide - Sky's story on the 2008 awards says "The Scottish Professional Footballers' Association awards took place in Glasgow on Sunday evening and McGeady took both honours" and also uses the acronym SPFA at least once............ ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly appear to be a new organisation, so I would say that all the award articles should be renamed PFA Scotland rather than creating new articles which would only serve to confuse. Darryl.matheson (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait and see how the awards are treated in, say, next season's Playfair/News of the World annuals before renaming/splitting the lists.........? Just a thought........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but in the mean time the PFA Scotland Manager of the Year‎ article should be changed to a redirect to SPFA Manager of the Year‎ with the most recent reciepent added to that. Darryl.matheson (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added some sourced quotes to the Player of the Year article to confirm that the PFAS awards are considered to be a direct continuation of the SPFA awards (unfortunately the PFAS's own website is still "under construction" so we can't get their official word). Before I lodge a move request for SPFA Players' Player of the Year, though, I'd like to get some sort of official confirmation of the award's current exact official title. All the news reports simply call it the "PFA Scotland Player of the Year", but that might just be sloppy reporting........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you mean and I noticed their website is under construction, so I don't know where you are going to find such a confirmation. Darryl.matheson (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait until they finish constructing it I guess............. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured topics

Just wanted to pop by to thank the project in helping me get List of UEFA club competition winning managers to featured topic. Wikipedia currently has 40 featured topics, 10% of which have come from this project - great stuff. Keep up the good work, I did hear rumours of other FTs in the pipeline...! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish league playoffs

Do these playoff's count as league games? Should appearances and goals for players in these games be added to their infobox totals? Ck12 (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe play-off games count as league games. Certainly Soccerbase puts them in the "other" column.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot request

I have requested a bot to move all of the French Ligue 1 season articles so that the years in their titles are in the format "YYYY-YY". Anyone who has an objection to this (and there shouldn't be many of you) should raise it here. – Pee Jay 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Trafford

Hey guys. I've just nominated the Old Trafford article for GA status. Anyone who hasn't significantly contributed to it, could you please give it a review? Cheers. – Pee Jay 14:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the nomination page? Raymond Giggs 07:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Go to the article's talk page. There should be a link there. – Pee Jay 11:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Women's 7-aside soccer leagues

Anyone got any idea what this article is all about? It looks like a legitimate article, but on closer inspection, it seems to be all about a non-notable over-30 women's football league. What course of action should be taken with this article? – Pee Jay 11:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well as you said it looks legitemate, and probably is, but I don't think it's really that notable for its own article; why not merge with Women's association football? Giant Snowman 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I don't think it's even worthy of merging. I think it should probably be deleted, I just can't think of a reasonable, well-founded reason for deletion. – Pee Jay 13:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just WP:PROD it. Some of the parts of that article look like an original research and the tournament itself is definitely not notable (clearly fails WP:N). --Angelo (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really see why this article should exist. It was entirely created by one editor who was trying to promote a rec soccer league in Canada. If nothing else most of the article is original research. -- Grant .Alpaugh 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lutonbestxi.jpg

Not permitted because the little individual images aren't free use, am I right..........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, the picture'll need new, free images. Giant Snowman 15:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sent it to WP:IfD..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Hagan

According to the infobox on Jim Hagan's article, he never scored a professional league goal - surely incoorect, as he was a striker! Anyone shed any light? Cheers, Giant Snowman 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Allfootballers.com he never scored in the Football League, can't speak for his spells in other leagues..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Northern Ireland's Footballing Greats he was a defender (descibed as "a bone-cruching centre-back"), so I guess that's the answer! --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield United's Jimmy Hagan was a forward, perhaps that is where the confusion arose. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers guys...if there's confusion then maybe we should disambig them, to Jim Hagan (footballer born 1951) and Jimmy Hagan (footballer born 1918)? Giant Snowman 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Or at least have {{dablink}} on both pages ← chan dler 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added dab notes to each. If anyone can improve the wording please do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed Jim Hagan's position in the infobox to defender as well. Giant Snowman 16:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, I hadn't noticed that had been vandalised - probably explains the confusion :) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Team and competition logos

Project members might like to look at Wikipedia:Fair use review, notably the sections WP:FUR#Image:UCL2007Final.jpg and WP:FUR#These_Logos, where it is being asserted by editors most opposed to "non-free content" that logos for competitions and national teams do not significantly add to the relevant articles, and should be removed. Jheald (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the editor who nominated the national team logos is now beginning to put forward a position that club badges should not be permitted in articles about football clubs...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to argue against it. Sports logos have always been allowed. Despite the ridiculous nature of their argument that flags can supplant national team logos, it's surprisingly hard to argue against, even though I can see the benefits of having the more accurate image. ~~especially to people who don't care about sports~~. matt91486 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think they dislike sport, or can't really be involved if they think a countries FA's logo can be replaced by the flag. There is also no substitute for club crests, or for that matter that UCL pic... I mean nobody has complained about the 05 and 07 once. From their arguments it seem that no picture enhances the experience for the reader ← chan dler 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea is minimalist nonsense that betrays an utter lack of appreciation or understanding. Idiotic proposals of this sort suck the joy out of being here. I have no use for guys who live in a one-dimensional world and think that they should inflict their austere views on the rest of us. Nitwit. Jeez. Wiggy! (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I may agree with you on some points, there's no need to insult the guy. – Pee Jay 17:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a clueless suggestion and he should get a grip on the notion that being a narrow sighted rules pounder is not always particularly appreciated. Why should a minority technical view be allowed to cause other contributors so much consternation? That kind of nitpicking is its own sort of passive aggressiveness and hardly better than trolling. He failed utterly to describe any sort of benefit to accompany the suggestion outside of fitting some narrow definition of what's "right" according to the rules without giving due consideration to a commonly accepted practise which also takes place within the rules. So, for the record, you can put me down as strongly opposed to the notion and the need for even having made the suggestion. Please. Wiggy! (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, if no one but me is countering him on the other thread, he might get his way. So I'd ask for some more back-up. matt91486 (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's found some other misbegotten mission and has forgotten about this or hasn't bothered to reply to the rebuttals that have been posted. Hasn't scored any other interest either. Looks like a dead issue. Wiggy! (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Question from talk page of England national football team managers

Could get a reply there so I'll try here. Ok if you not willing to change the title can someone at least explain to me why it titled "England national football team managers" and yet begins "The rôle of an England national football team manager" Buc (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because the subject of the article is plural while their 'role' is singular? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been reopened and consensus for a move is building. The article is mainly about the position, rather than simply a list of the people who have held it, and as such should conform to the preference of singular nouns for titles. See the discussion on the article's talk page. -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

While this is all good to get things 100% precisely harmonised, why don't we try to focus on improving articles as well? Some elements of this project have recently become bogged down in minutae which is really disappointing. Not long ago we had stacks of FACs and FLCs, right now we're arguing over FC/F.C. or not and whether a title should have an s in it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Who says we can't do both? Buc (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your point, I disagree that we can't fix this quickly. This case came to my attention, just as the AFC Wimbledon one did and I find it to be worth my time, so I helped get things rolling. If you disagree that's fine, but don't stop people from independently getting things accomplished. This is just as much of an "improvement" as anything else. -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not wishing to put words into others mouths who are big enough to speak for themselves but just in an effort to help try and explain. There has been a long discussion elsewhere on this article's title where the focus was why this should or should not be a List..... This debate was kept going by one or two when all others were quite happy as it was but I sense were also trying hard to be polite by biting their lip. So at the end of an exhausted ( and exhausting!) discussion it was decided resoundedly in favour of the status quo. The debate above is over the same title but raising a point which no one who ad nauseam contributed in the previous debate felt even worthy of even mentioning. So raising it here now when those who had debated before have gone off to pastures new is not exactly productive use of time and suggesting there is blocking or censurship in operation is hardly in good faith. Just to say there are not enough hours in the day or energy to discuss everything all of the time and what there is most people like to try and spend editing or debating how to improve articles rather than digging over well-trodden ground.Tmol42 (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep it as managers personally, just because it's a discussion of them all. It covers the position as well, but the remainder of the article includes the history and statistics.--Koncorde (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please express your opinions at article talk page where a discussion for a requested move is taking place. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, after being requested by User:Grant.Alpaugh, User:Tone has made the move. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, it's been moved back again and the discussion remains open. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's OK that I reverted the move. The Requested Move discussion hasn't been properly closed yet, so I felt it was a bit improper to move the article before such time. – Pee Jay 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First how does a discussion get properly closed? Second, the only reason I was moved to act was that Rambling had been bellyaching for the last day that so much time was being wasted on this, and at that point there had been no opposition to the move (even from Rambling as he withdrew his). It had been several days so I asked for help from Tone, who reviewed the discussion and in his opinion there was consensus to move. Even here the only complaints (again from Rambling) were that we had better things to do, which IMHO had been sufficiently refuted by the several people who felt there was either enough importance to merit the move or no such productivity crunch. I fear the opposition of Rambling is due to his creation of and large contributions to the article. In other words I think he's claiming ownership of the article. -- Grant .Alpaugh 08:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but as the creator of the article, he must have chosen its title for a reason. Anyway, I would say a discussion isn't properly closed until it has been marked as closed in a similar vein to an AfD discussion. – Pee Jay 08:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, and if you read his comment on the article talk page he admited that when he created the page it was just a list of managers, but it grew into a FA. To get to that status it became an article primarily about the role, which he admits. If you look at User talk:Tone you'll see Rambling asking for the discussion to be closed because he wants to move on. There is no legit reason to oppose this move. You say that the creator has a big say and (when he's not claiming ownership) he admits the article has changed since he created it into something that requires the new name I proposed.

As for "closing the discussion" I don't understand what you're talking about. Point me to the policy page you're referring to. Unless there is one, a 3rd party admin seeing consensus at the talk page is enough for the move. The discussion here has been mostly about who we have "better things to do," in which case let's move the article and get on to other business. -- Grant .Alpaugh 08:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as it happens, I don't usually check other users' talk pages so I was unaware of TRM's request for the discussion to be terminated. Nevertheless, I feel that my objection to the move is valid and worthy of further discussion. – Pee Jay 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dynamos F.C. (Zimbabwe)

I noticed that Dynamos F.C. (Zimbabwe) has been moved to Dynamos FC Harare. There are quite a few problems with this page anyway, but as far as I can tell the team's full name is Dynamos Football Club and the move is to an incorrect title (even though they are based in Harare). Dancarney (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The crest certainly shows simply "Dynamos Football Club". I see no reason why the article shouldn't simply be at Dynamos F.C., maybe with a hatnote pointing to Dynamo (disambiguation)..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Dynamo (disambiguation) there is only one other team called "Dynamos F.C." and they appear to be a South African one that's been bought out, or something. So, I think your answer looks like the right solution. Dancarney (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I would support a move back to Dynamos F.C. -- Grant .Alpaugh 10:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also support such a move. Giant Snowman 11:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done it. Dancarney (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just fixed a double redirect, should be OK now. Giant Snowman 21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know?

The number of football related article chosen to appear in the Did You Know? section on the Main Page has dramatically fallen recently; In December 2007, there were 6 new articles selected, in January 8, February 13, March 5 and April 3. See here. There doesn't appear to be a drop-off in the number of new articles being created - see here for April's new football related articles. So guys, can I exhort those of you with time on their hands to create interesting new articles and then find a relevant "hook" for proposal for the Did You Know?" section. Happy editing. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox only articles

See this, Adrian Zermeño. I warned the guy already about creating articles like this, he's also been making hoax articles and I think he has a few sockpuppets too. I really don't have the time to clean it up and look through his contributions for more, any offers of help? E P 23:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Adrian Zermeño is, at least, not a hoax and I have added a little text, a citation, template, cats and stub. I'll have a look at some more when I get time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this user is making articles for every Mexican league player (they are not hoaxes). I'm a little worried that there are some that have never played, but I'm adding Medio Tiempo links for a bunch of them and all have played before. I'll leave the user a note about adding Medio Tiempo links at a minimum to any new articles he creates. Jogurney (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with Template

Can someone with greater template expertise than I help me with the issues I've brought up at User talk:PeeJay2K3. Thank you very much. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

European club competition winners, country of origin attribution

I was looking through the articles and found a slight inconsistency, but thought I'd check here first to see if there's been a discussion or a decision about it before. What I'm talking about is list by nation etc, and the flags. From European Cup and Champions League records and statistics, Yugoslavia is under 1 win, 1 runner up, the Red Stars win in 91 and Partizans second place in 66, Every thing seems ok there. (Though at By club they have the Serbian flag). At UEFA Cup records and statistics, Croatia has 1 win 1 runner up, both times Dinamo Zagreb in the 60's, now I'm under the impression, that they played in a Yugoslavian league, and under the Yugoslavian flag at that period? The same thing goes for the second place Red Star got in 79, this is recorded under Serbia in by country etc. At UEFA Cup Winners' Cup records and statistics, Ukraine has 2 wins both by Dynamo Kiev 75 and 86, at the time they surely played in a Soviet league? Same goes for Dinamo Tbilisi's 81 win (recorded under Georgia). There's also inconstancy within the article also as Czechoslovakia is listed. (I think this was all inconsistencies about which country they are under). What to do? ← chan dler 18:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kyiv as well as Tbilisi were Soviet teams in 70s and 80s, so they should be under Soviet Union. They represented Soviet Union in Europe. Jhony 00:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the easiest way to think about these as football associations rather than nation states. The teams are nominated by and represent the association, not the political entity corresponnding to the associations' jurisdiction. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that, but for example Dynamo Kiev has to have been under the Football Federation of USSR, right?... Maybe a new flag template should be used for football clubs, that link to the associations instead? ← chan dler 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, they represented the Football Federation of USSR. Jhony 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability check

Being a Yank, I know next to nothing about real football. :) Could someone take a look at Craig Berrigan for me, and let me know if there's a claim here of meeting WP:ATHLETE? Many thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a Yank, but I'm pretty sure the Irish second level is not fully professional. Can anyone confirm? Jogurney (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he fails notability. --Jimbo^[online] 12:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've prodded the article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Jason Gavin

As can be seen from the edit history, me and Peanut4 have been involved in a dispute with an IP user over this article; said IP user thinks adding personal opinion about a player's quality is acceptable. We have discussed the problems on the user's page, as well as in edit summaries, but he seems unable to comprehend the fact that POV has no place on Wikipedia. Could anyone with a bit more clout have a word with him perhaps? Many thanks, Giant Snowman 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article. POV pushing (such as personal opinions and considerations about a subject) simply does not belong to an encyclopedia. --Angelo (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Angelo, much appreciated. Giant Snowman 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

David Burrows (footballer) etc

According to WP:NAMB, David Burrows (footballer) does not require a hatnote back to David Burrows, as it is not ambiguous (except if there were more than one footballer called David Burrows with an article). User:Chanheigeorge has added many such links however, and is continuing to do so after I left a message on his talk page about it. Assuming I've interpreted the MoS correctly, maybe an admin could have a word? --Jameboy (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a David Borrows or David Burrow out there who played football at the same sort of time as the left-back. Soccerbase is always good for that sort of thing. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the only footballer with a similar name on www.allfootballers.com is David William Burrows who made one appearance as a Fullback for Lincoln City in 1978-79. Hardly likely to have a WP article, but you never know! As for User:Chanheigeorge's edits, I think they are quite useful, so you can see why the suffix "(footballer)" is required - sometimes this takes you to quite interesting articles. Sorry to disagree! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cameron Belford

Cameron Belford is now up for re-creation as he has played in a game in professional league. Discuss here. Kingjamie (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreated. D.M.N. (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded this article and I think it is start class so if people agree with me than re-classify it. Also can I people check for bad grammar, typos etc in the expanded infornmation about Worcester City Kingjamie (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability check

Is there a concensus about the notability of a player who has only played league matches in the Lithuanian Lyga A (top flight)? Davidas Arlauskis has not yet played for Unirea Urziceni in the Romanian league, but has played several matches in the Lithuanian league. He has also appeared for the Lithuania U-21 national team in UEFA qualifiers, but I don't think that is sufficient for notability. Before I prod the article, I wanted to check here. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the Lithuanian top flight fully-professional (i.e. no part-time teams in it), if so, then yes he passes notability. As for Under-21 caps, I thought that made players notable - could someone clarify? --Jimbo^[online] 19:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The consesus is that youth caps do NOT confer notability. Giant Snowman 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no way to confirm whether the A Lyga is fully professional, but since it is the top flight and there are only 8 clubs, I suspect it may be. I'll leave the article as is. Thanks for the clarification on U-21 caps. Jogurney (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How is a league defined as fully-pro? Is it if every single player in that league is full-time or is it if the majority of players in all the teams in said competition are full-time? --Jimbo^[online] 11:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We tried to get a list together of what leagues qualified, but we haven't succeeded yet. It should be in one of the fairly recent archives. I'd love to get that list complete and set somewhere a notability standards to go by. matt91486 (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Spirit of discord and contentiousness in this WikiProject

I do not like the recent turn for the worse that has been experienced on this page and others relating to this WikiProject. I've been around here for some time and we've always worked collaboratively and supportively. We've not always agreed, but we have disagreed respectfully and without getting heated.

Of late, discussions in this WikiProject have too often degenerated into incivility, strawman arguments, playing the man not the ball, tendenciousness and aggressive fixation on getting one's way, especially over minutiae, and edit-warring.

This saddens me greatly.

I therefore plan to devote all my efforts to WP:CRIC, WP:FAC and WP:FLC for the foreseeable future, which is a shame, as I was well on the way to completing a football-related FT on Norwich City F.C.

I strongly recommend WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY. --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You finally asleep...this is Wikipedia baby. --necronudist (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

May I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by Dweller. I think this project needs to look long and hard at what it has become, and needs to rememeber that we are here to edit in a collaborative and congenial manner. Woody (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'll back that up too. I'm relatively new to the project but I've felt a little disheartened these past few days with the apparent cohesion or lack of it recently. We're fast heading towards losing some very good, nah excellent, contributors. Peanut4 (talk)

Ditto. There used to be a core of good, loyal editors, and unfortunately we are starting to lose them. WP:FOOTBALL needs a good kick up the backside, as it were. Giant Snowman 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My overwhelming view is that way too much time is spent by editors trying to ****-off other peoples efforts. The endless search for articles on players from the Scottish 3rd div, English squad players who have not (YET!) made a 1st team appearance or players from some obscure league so that the article can be deleted (can anyone tell me if the Lithuanian 2nd tier is fully-pro!!!). If we were talking about the tea-lady or the programme seller or Wikipedia was running out of storage space I could relete to this trend for removing articles. The emphasis seems to be on destroy rather than build and the bickering over the notabilty lists is just another instance of this. Surely there must be a more constructive trend on here rather than the obvious whoop of delight felt by some as another article or amendment bites the dust? Perhaps a read of WP:INSPECTOR would help? --Egghead06 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree in some respects with Egghead06 that there seems to be too much focus on the mass-killing of articles instead of actively trying to save them (oh so he hasn't played a game? well I'm sure you've all checked to see if they've had some press reportage before AFD'ing haven't you, I mean WP:N still trumps WP:BIO..). A lot of tit-for-tat deletions, no real wish to do anything other than maintain the status quo. The same old arguments rolling back and forth for years, the same problems rolling back and forth for years; both with no solutions either suggested or adopted. A stubborn few refusing to let any changes be made and putting their fingers in their ears and going 'lalalalalalalala can't hear you lalalalalalalala' whenever it's pointed out they're in the wrong. New editors stamped up and down on and labelled as pariahs before anyone bothers to explain to them what (if anything) they've done wrong. No-one thinking 'well actually that looks kinda good, lets do that elsewhere too'. The only thing that kept me interested was seeing the contributions from amongst others ChrisTheDude, Dweller, Rambling Man and Qwghlm - quality edits, advice and additions that helped and improved the encyclopaedia. But in all honesty, I gave up on it all a few months ago.. Nanonic (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A pile of non-notable footballers

User:Gokhantig seemingly is lacking in understanding of Wikipedia notability policy, as he created an article for every player from Fenerbahçe Under-20 squad. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to sort it out, so I'm asking someone to do mass deletion instead of me. Thanks! Jhony 13:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page. However, it has raised in my mind an issue in relation to WP:BIO: would it not be true to say that all the players in all the teams in the Premier Reserve League, and probably also those in the Premier Academy League are full time professionals? I don't think I like the idea of anyone who has played in these levels suddenly flooding the project, but these are leagues, with prizes and proper officials and fixture lists, and they seem to be fully pro. Do we allow them, or is there something in the phrasing that I have missed, or do we have to try to tweak the definition at WP:ATHLETE? Kevin McE (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they aren't notable, at least because it's impossible to find any of them in a decent published football encyclopedia. Jhony 08:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest all players in either the Reserve or Academy leagues are full-time professionals - they are under-21 and under-18 leagues respectively and many involve apprentices or trialists. For example, for Mark Randall of Arsenal, he played in the Premier Reserve League for a season and a half while still on schoolboy forms, until he signed a pro contract in February 2007, midway through the 2006-07 season. I'm sure there are many more players like him in other teams. Qwghlm (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute that the PRL is an U-21 league, it is used to maintain fitness and recuperate for any age of player, but so long as we can keep on finding examples like the one you cite, we should be safe. Thanks. Kevin McE ([[User

talk:Kevin McE|talk]]) 10:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify - three overage players are allowed per match (to allow for fitness & injury recovery) but rules state that at least eight must be 21 or under. Qwghlm (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? I ask because in this game there were at least four on each side (Taylor, Knight, Berger and Salifou for Villa, Taylor, O'Connor, Schmitz, Doyle, and De Ridder for Birmingham) over 21. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a reserve league such as Football Combination. --Jimbo^[online] 12:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did I misunderstand something? The game I mentioned was in the Premier Reserve League a couple of months ago, is that not what Qwghlm was on about? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not three, but four, but there is a limit. I definitely read about the restriction somewhere as they revamped the PRL to be more like a bridge between the Academy and first teams - premierleague.com is terribly bad website and has a very poor search function, alas. Qwghlm (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging "notable player" sections as OR

Hello, user:Fasach Nua has been mass tagging sections like ==Famous players== or ==Notable players== in national football team articles as original research before I asked him to stop and discuss his position here. I do not believe that mass adding tags is the best approach to the problem. Renata (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a problem. The sections might need trimming down in the case of eggregious offenders, but certainly OR isn't the offense. It's not like there are sources out there listing notable players, so that bar can't ever be met, but I think some threshold should be set to standardize these lists. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It might not be OR, but it's certainly WP:POV. Who is to say if player A is notable but player B isn't? Peanut4 (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Fasach means well although I disagree with his approach as I have explained at Talk:Ireland national football team (1882-1950). I think his tags imply the list is inaccurate and serve to undermine the articles. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that this was in good faith and is something that should be dealt with at both the national team and club levels, but we should actually have some sort of discussion before we go mass tagging things. Centralized discussion should be pursued whenever possible. In any event, does anyone care to propose a criteria for notability on national team and/or club levels? -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out the football team FAs, e.g. Arsenal F.C., Aston Villa F.C., Chelsea F.C., Ipswich Town F.C., Scotland national football team. They either don't have such a list or have strict criteria what to include. Peanut4 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Criteria for National Team notability

Captains
100 Caps
Scoring Leaders
Caps Leaders

others? -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what is meant by 'Caps Leaders' (top 50?, 100?) limiting this to the above would remove most of the 1966 World Cup winners (eg Nobby Stiles). However much of an opinion it would be there has to be some room for those who took part in a significant tournament or game.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a risk of recentism here as well, is it possible to look back 100 years and know who was captain, (if there even was such a thing). If we look in terms of caps/goals, it wil in almost all cases exclude pre-WW2 players, who wouldnt have had the opportunity to play in as many games, earn as many caps, or score as many goals. There are halls of fame, but this is not uniform across all associations, there is the FIFA 100, famous and notable are such subjective terms, its hard to know how to define them Fasach Nua (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So Fasach, and I'm seriously asking here not just rhetorically, are you suggesting that we scrap those sections entirely? -- Grant .Alpaugh 09:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All content must satisfy wp:verify, a list of 100 most capped playes can satisfy this, a list of 50 top scorers can satisfy this, but if there is to be section called "notable" or "famous" it must satisfy wp:verify criteria. I do not know how to satisfy this criteria on these two topic, if it can be met then keep them, and if it can't lose them. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Criteria for Club notability

Captains
Scoring Leaders

others? -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

International caps. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think having been captain lends any particular notability to a player. Being captain doesn't actually confer any significant responsibility or a special role upon a player apart from an apparent compulsion to shout a lot, the captaincy can change hands many times even during a single season, and records of who was captain in the past would be very hard to obtain. I'd struggle to tell you who the captain of my own team was any further back than about 15 years, and even that would be from my own memory rather than a reliable source..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a prime example: the usual captain of Gillingham is Andrew Crofts, but he missed one match recently so Simon King was captain. Would you say that King should now be deemed as a "notable player" in the 115 year history of the club simply because he was captain for one game....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. My point was in regards to officially named squad captains, as there will most likely be a press release announcing the appointment, or at the very least they will somewhere be called "club captain, XYZ" in a match report or something similar. Incidently, Up the Fleet! -- Grant .Alpaugh 09:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In the UK we don't really have the concept of "squad captains", the captain is the bloke who wears the armband for the match in question. I'm sure there have even been examples in the past of teams rotating the captaincy around the squad on a match-by-match basis....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but you'd have to admit that there are guys who get named the club's captain. Thierry Henry at Arsenal or Keano at United, Raul at Madrid or Beckham at the Galaxy. All of these players are notable in their own right, obviously, but I think in instances where there is a clearly appointed captain, they should be in any list of "notable players." -- Grant .Alpaugh 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment, but I think you'd be hard pushed to find out who was the captain of even a big name club in, say, 1911, and to include the 2007 captain and exclude the 1911 captain, when their claim to notabe status is theoretically identical, is surely recentism.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's not a really relevant "position" anyway - not like it would be in cricket for example. - fchd (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just have to ask. How is it gonna be "planned out", would you go from club-to-club, or is it "this player is a notable player" and you add him to all clubs he's played... To take some examples. Lucarelli, notable in Livorno, i think most can agree on... Probably not notable in the national team or in any other teams he's played in. Zidane, notable for both club and country and as he's more notable than Lucarelli, would Zidane be placed under notable at all clubs he's played in, even Bordeaux and Cannes... Even if he maybe wasn't as notable in there (worldwide). Owen notable in Liverpool, probably not in Real or Newcastle (yet), maybe notable in the national team... something like Zidane, if Owen is considered a internationally notable player, would he be added in the Real and Newcastle sections? The list could go on... Is it gonna be a list of notable players who go on every team they've played for... or would it be club per club... One thing I could point out, Maradona is under the notable section in Newell's Old Boys, where according to his article he played 7 games, and scored 0 goals. ← chan dler 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be addressed on an article by article basis. -- Grant .Alpaugh 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, I would always support the view that a list of notable players on a club article, if it has to be there at all, should only reflect players who made a notable contribution to the club in question. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be done on an article by article basis because I don't think determining general criteria is workable across all the leagues in the world. If anyone comes across a bloated and dubious looking list of notable players on an article, they should try to raise the issue of what criteria can be used to trim the list on the talkpage, instead of taking draconian action like deleting the entire section as original research or deleting all the players that don't meet their own personal idea of notability for the club in question. I would question the need for players to have made a specific kind of contribution to the club, for example Miguel Oviedo finished his career with Los Andes in Argentina, he didn't get hundreds of caps or goals for them, but as a member of the 1978 World Cup winning squad, he is clearly one of the most famous players in the clubs history and is definitely worthy of a mention in my estimation, especially since I haven't got around to creating a category for Los Andes footballers yet. E P 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What ever is decided it needs to a robust system, the reason why each player is added needs to be quantified, and a verifiable source supplied, a list of names without justification is unacceptable! Fasach Nua (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that every inclusion on that list needs to be for a "quantifiable" reason or that there needs to be a verifiable source supplied for it. The justification is the process used to compile the article. Someone adds a name, none of the regular edits goes "You're bonkers, mate," and they are sufficiently notable. I agree with the comments below that if you have problems then you should address the inclusion of individual players on the list, which the regular contributors to the article in question can decide on. We don't have a cite for every sentence on WP, nor should we. I think you are taking this a little too seriously. -- Grant .Alpaugh 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Having created a concept of notable or famous players, it's appearence in an encylopedic article, would suggest it is a definitive list, having done this

Should this concept of notability be extended, and create sub-catagories of category:notable England footballers and category:non-notable England footballers?
Should a template template:notable England footballers be added to each of the notable player articles, making it easier to navigate between them?
Should the articles Arsenal F.C., Aston Villa F.C., Chelsea F.C., Ipswich Town F.C., Scotland national football team be fixed to include such a lsit?

If this shouldnt be the case, what is the difference between these suggestions and adding a definitive list to a team article? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree, like seemingly most people involved in the discussion so far, that there should be a strict criteria. I would liken this to the idea that history sections of these club and national team articles are selective as well. They don't include sentences about every match, player, tournament, or season, just the ones that people at the club commonly deem to be notable. I think that a list of players along those lines is equally acceptable. I don't think any articles need "fixing" in order to include such lists, as the consensus at those articles is currently that they don't need them. As a Gooner, I know that the Arsenal articles links to a list of players with 100 first class appearances, which is fine, but I don't think that every article should include or link to a similar list. Every article in the encyclopedia can be different, with its own selection criteria for information. So that is why I have disagreed with you this week. -- Grant .Alpaugh 11:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[reindenting] That's a highly specious argument - prose and lists are entirely different things. Even if not every match is included in a History section, a team's performance over many can be summarised with a sentence about the relevant period of time. With lists, you're either in or you're out, there's no middle ground.

I fail to see the point of this discussion, to be honest. Any objective criteria for inclusion that we come up with is probably going to be pretty liberal, to make sure people's subjective favourites don't get missed out, and as a result the lists are probably going to be too long to include in articles anyway. We already have (for many clubs) lists of leading appearances, goalscorers, players with 100+ first class games, anyway - as long as they are linked to from the main articles, then the information's there and accessible. Qwghlm (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Peanut4 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Complete agree as well. The lists Qwghlm mentions are plenty enough, and based on definable criteria. Different "notable player" lists are going to be inherently subjective, and should be discouraged. HornetMike (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind list based on quantifiable qualities, a list without justification is not acceptable. I would propose that in the notable players section, you three subsections top scorers, most capped, and players who have won awards for excellence in play e.g. [[[European footballers of the year]], English Football Hall of Fame members, FIFA 100 etc. There will be the odd exception, such as having the Pope in goal, however if a player is truly notable, they should already be mentioned elsewhere in the article, without having to shoehorn them in with some abstract notion of notability. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tags

The original research tags I had added to a small selection of articles have been removed pending this discussion. I do not believe that the because there is a discussion here that some of these lists cease to be original research. The individual responsible for removeing the tags has stated "it's not like there are sources out there listing notable players" at the top of this thread, if the source of the list is a wikipedia editor, then it is quite clearly original research, and should be tagged as such. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong. Claimed notability only needs to be verifiable, not citeable. Establishing notability for a named player is an easy task, and will each time rely on original research from someone precisely because as can be seen above no standard has yet been set or agreed on. Without one, your mass taggings are not appropriate, unless you assert you have investigated every list you tagged yourself, as AGF requires you to assume of the people who created them. What you should be doing is tagging each player you suspect is not notable, allowing others the chance to agree/disagree. The heading 'notable players' is not an immediate pass to assume OR may exist, you need to back up your opinons on a case by case basis. MickMacNee (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are stating in article that someone is notable and someone else is not, it needs to be clear where this stuff is coming from, everything that is likely to be challenged needs a citation. As pointed out above the featured football team articles, define their criteria for players lists, and they are verifiable. To use a standard yet to be defined is ridiculous, it is not WP role to set this standard, it is WP role to document the standard set by some official source. I certainly didnt mass tag, I picked a small subset of ~50 articles, out of the 1000s of soccer team articles, and from that subset only tagged those which contained unquantified lists Fasach Nua (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that statement shows that you violated WP:POINT rather than start a discussion about a percieved widespread flaw. The fact is that we're developing a criteria (or criterias) for working this out (read: the right way to go about this), so for the time being refrain from being disruptive about this issue (read: the wrong way to go about this, as several people have pointed out to you).

The fact is there remains original research in hundreds of articles in what is meant to be an encylopedia, and there is no reason it should not be tagged as such. If people want to compile their own lists of notable players, they can go to geocities and make their own website, however this is wikipedia, and the information needs to be encylopedic, not the opinion of User:Grant.Alpaugh Fasach Nua (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your view is plain wrong, and your actions shown to be even worse if all you've done is picked a random set to tag if your concern is actually a general one. A club notability standard is simply just not required before any editor can claim notability for a named player for a named club, the policy you apply is called common sense, and is freely checkable on an individual basis. Your approach is an incorrect interpretation of the notability and verifiability principles. MickMacNee (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He's started again, and I would appreciate it if an admin could block him from continuing to make disruptive edits and violating WP:POINT. -- Grant .Alpaugh 12:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua, I respect your concern over this issue and I do believe that you bring up a valid point of discussion. However, I do agree with the other editors and thinking that you are approaching this issue in a non-conducive manner. We are here to discuss the issue in an attempt to reach a consensus that we can all agree to and all apply in our own edits across Wikipedia. I also have to say that I believe your approach to be disruptive to the community as a whole; for more information on disruptive editing, I encourage you and all other editors here to review WP:DISRUPTIVE. These guidelines state that a disruptive editor is one who continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Your actions fit this criterion. The guidelines also state that such an editor rejects community input: we are here to discuss the issue, not continue an edit war. We would all be more productive to settle the issue rather than reverting and undoing each others edits to the topic sections in question. You, along with a few other editors, are guilty of this. The guideline also states that a disruptive editor is one who, in essence, is on a campaign to drive away productive editors. While I believe that characterizing you as such would be an extreme stretch, I do fear that your edits, which appear to continue despite attempts to first discuss and come to a consensus, could be seen as such a campaign. While I think that edits should satisfy Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability, I think the issue of notable players/managers is one that can only be assessed by those with a personal knowledge of the club/team history. This is a tricky issue, I completely agree with you. But it is an issue that doesn't simply encompass National team articles. This is an issue that would carry over to all sports related articles, from cricket to tennis to volleyball to basketball. Most expansive sports team articles, whether of a club or national team, include sections on Notable/Famous players. I think that the Footy community, and Sports community as a whole, is in consensus that such sections are an integral part of the article in its spirit to provide a thorough overview of the team in question and on its history. Suffice it to say, I believe that we should keep the sections as they are..cosme. (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fasach is correct that those sections are problematic. Criteria need to be agreed for inclusion, or else I'd say the sections need to be removed. --John (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The criteria is notability. The way he and you are acting is as if this word doesn't have a meaning in Wikipedia. It not only has a meaning, but is a commonly used guidline. Its proper use and application to these lists does not need fretting about the lack of arbitrary rules before anyone is able to use their brain and apply it sensibly to the situation at hand. MickMacNee (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely these lists are just what they say they are - lists? If I want to check why a particular player is notable for say, playing for England, I click on the name and read the article. If the article fails to support 'England notablity' then the article is at fault and either it should be amended to prove notabilty or the player's name removed from the notabilty list. In a nutshell these lists shouldn't prove notabilty, the individual article should (IMHO!).--Egghead06 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are lists of most capped players, there are lists of top goal scorers, the definition of a cap and goal are well established, and can be verified by FIFA. How do you define 'England notablity'? It is arguable that every player that ever played for England is notable, what criteria are you using to exclude players? There are also list of famous players, most of whom 99% of the planet's population have never heard of, how many people need to have heard of you before you achieve fame? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, you have no credibility on this issue because you are claiming to know who is notable in England, Sweden, Romania, Iceland and Serbia, better than the people who edit or watch those articles, and despite every player I've checked in your tagged lists having a very long wikipedia article. I sincerely doubt you have such a comprehensive football knowledge to back up such a scope of indiscriminate tagging. Your edits are to make a point and to disrupt, not to improve the quality of information in each article. Notability is certainly subjective when you are comparing English to Serbian players for example. You're suggestion that gaining even 1 England cap makes someone a notable player for England clearly demonstrates you have no grasp of one of the central tenets of Wikipedia, common sense, and anyone who needs comprehensive hard and fast rules to cope with this shouldn't be entrusted with judging what is and isn't original research in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Does User:MickMacNee meet the criteria of WP:RS and thus becomes crediable? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think with that comment you've proved beyond doubt you don't have even the basic grasp of the issue. You have seriously misunderstood how wikipedia works, and how original research is prevented. MickMacNee (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I can see exactly where Fasach Nua is coming from. For example, on the England page, Paul Madeley is listed as a notable player. On what grounds did someone feel that he, out of all the people who've played for England, should be on the list? He won 24 caps, which isn't particularly high, he played in no major tournaments - on what grounds could his "England notability" be quantified.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Not only should he not be on the list but, more importantly, his article does nothing to support his England notabilty. It should be perfectly obvious to anyone reading an individual article on a footballer as to why he is considered notable for that club or for his country(he played nn games, scored nn goals, was club captain for nn years, was in the team that won the World Cup etc) You can't blame the list if the individual articles do not support inclusion on that list.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And on seeing that why are you finding it so difficult to apply common sense and tag/boldly remove the obvious error? If nobody reverts or questions you, then he wasn't notable. If one person questions, but others support you, by consensus he wasn't notable. If everybody reverts you, you're probably wrong. This is the normal way of wikipeidia, why do you feel the need to be backed up by an arbitrary rule, the criteria of which looks like never being agreed above and thus just becoming another perrennial uneeded wikidrama and subject for rules-lawyering, distracting people from editing real articles. As I keep saying, if people honeslty feel they require such piffling and arbitrary beurocracy before they think they can edit, then they don't understand wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like mass editing, whether I agree with the individual edits or not, but unless I've missed something, the tags added by Fasach Nua were intended to get each article's editors to think about the lists within the articles. Fasach Nua doesn't know enough about each individual national team to know whether any particular player in the list is "notable" or "famous", hence the tags, so that those who do know about the subject would get a wake-up call. If the tags provoke knowledgeable editors into re-considering the content of said lists, whether by pruning them, clarifying "their" article's inclusion criteria, or removing the OR tag with an edit summary of "sod off mate, there's no original research here", then that strikes me as working within the spirit of Wikipedia. General criteria of the sort suggested above certainly doesn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, which is why people above have suggested that if Fasach thinks this is such an important issue then he should remove any players from the list that he thinks are not notable, and if several people disagrees, then the issue is settled. Mass tagging these sections in such a way as to violate WP:POINT is surely the wrong way to go about this. He picked the most followed articles (England, Italy, Spain, United States, etc.) and then decided it wasn't enough so he just filled out his list by alphabetically adding a dozen or so more. Fasach has conducted himself in a way that is fundamentally antithetical to WP by following WP:verifiability to such an extent as to violate WP:common sense and more importantly WP:civil. -- Grant .Alpaugh 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't like mass edits. Nor do I like revert wars, or trying to make general rules where none are appropriate. There's been far too much drama, WP:POINT-making and general argumentativeness around WP:FOOTY recently, and it's uncomfortable. It's a pity really that when Fasach Nua first raised the matter, in a civilised manner, here and here, there was no response. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that, the atmosphere around this project's been terrible of late. I'm sure it's no coincidence that a number of long-standing regular contributors haven't been on this page recently.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if participants here could remember WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Failing that, it would be no trouble at all to block people to help them to remember to follow core policy. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the sentiments expressed above. I've only been here for a few weeks, but this conflict, the MLS conflict, and the FC/F.C. conflict I think highlight some important things. When people act unilaterally problems will always result. The MLS conflict started when PeeJay saw a flaw and fixed it, which everyone yelled at him for, and to his great credit he left it alone while the (very contentious) process was allowed to run its course. Everyone was able to be satisfied, and we moved on to productive things. In the other two examples I mentioned there have been users that ignored discussion to continue pushing their agenda, much to the detriment of the articles and the community at large. I think there really needs to be more respect for other editors, their opinions, the process, and the community/project at large in order to make WP work. I hope to see more of that in the future. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Memorable Matches

User User:Grant.Alpaugh has deemed this to be part of the same discussion, and has barred editing while this discussion is going on, so if this could be addressed to, that would be nice! Fasach Nua (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Memorable matches should be removed. If the match is truly notable, there should be an article about it. – Pee Jay 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's even more prone to POV and recentism than "famous players". I mean, look at that Turkey list, over half the matches are from the last eight years, and it includes things like a 0-0 draw with Brazil in a friendly. Maybe if it was American Samoa that got a 0-0 draw with Brazil in a friendly that would be worth noting, but for Turkey it's hardly an awesome achievement worth recording for the ages.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RoI do it slightly better here, but even still ... Fasach Nua (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with lists of "memorable matches" is that most of them are loaded with POV, and they can potentially end up being indefinitely long. Like I said, if a match is truly notable, an article should be written about it. Then all of the matches related to a particular team can be categorised together and the category linked to from the main article. – Pee Jay 09:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I liked how it was done on Ireland there, I agree that the turkey one seems very strange, but if its a historical match, that you can find good citations etc, and just have a small comment under I would be Ok with it for example lets say Sweden and England meet in the next world cup (there's been alot of talk about their meetings at least here) because England havent beaten us for so long, and if England won It might be a nice little note "2010 Sweden 0 - 1 England<br />For the first time in 46 years England won over Sweden after 20 missed attempts" (now those numbers are not right, but it might be something along those lines) At least, not noted for a own article if it isnt the World Cup final, but a small note somewhere might be nice :) though this was maybe not the bst example ← chan dler 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem Fasach is that the way you have conducted yourself is not productive. I've said repeatedly that you probably are right on the issue of, as another editor put it, "pruning" these lists and sections, but that you went about it in entirely the wrong way, showing yourself to be quite a dick in the process IMHO. When several people called you on this you should have stopped, but you went back for more in a way that is problematic. If consensus is that these memorable match sections should go, then fine, but unless there is you should work on contesting individual players/matches on lists in a way that is productive and cooperative. -- Grant .Alpaugh 10:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Season for premature changes

Listing of teams according to the division that they are almost certain to be in next season has already started, and by 4:50 this afternoon will probably be rife. However, Colchester do not formally become a League One team until a date determined by the FL: I think it may be 1st June, but that is no more than an uncertain recollection. Equally, players now in the last few weeks of their contracts will have their next employers announced over the next few weeks, but they do not become members of those new teams until (again, according to my memory of contract expiry details) 1st July.

Is it worth trying to preserve accuracy in the face of what will probably be large-scale, well-intended, but ultimately premature, edits? Kevin McE (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can try if your name's King Canute, but you will be fighting against the tide. I have given up trying to revert edits regarding Claus Lundekvam for example. Although he has announced that he will never play again because of injury, he is still under contract with Southampton until 30 June and should therefore remain as apart of the club's first team squad and on the squad template. As I write, he is shown correctly but I'm sure that there will be a queue of editors (usually non-registered) waiting to remove him. Hey ho. I'll stick to writing historical articles - less controversial! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradford City A.F.C. decided to release 13 players this week. There's already been a number of edits removing them, but again they're under contract and some played today. It's going to happen, we've just got to put up with it. Even if it means putting in remarks into the wikitext, asking people not to change until a certain date. Peanut4 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added such a comment into the Bradford City current players section. Giant Snowman 11:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Once the season is over, and there's no chance of the players playing for the club again, I see no problem with the players being removed from the current squad and having "unattached" on their profiles. The fact their contract doesn't finish until 1 June doesn't really matter, the decision has been made, they'll be on holiday or searching for another club, they might even sign for someone else before their contract is up. With regard to League talk - I don't mind Forest have their league status changed to Championship once their season is over. It's not going to change, even if the play-offs are still to come in League One. What I wouldn't change is the lists of teams on the league articles, and the team navigation template. They shouldn't be changed until the complete league line-up is confirmed. HornetMike (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree with that. PLayers are not unattached if they are under contract. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to report what is, not make an interpretation of the effectiveness of a contractual bond. I wouldn't object to them being removed from the squad list template box, but it is an anticipation, even if it is the anticipation of something inevitable, to say that, for example, Flamini is not an Arsenal employee until 30th June. Likewise, Forest do not become members of the Championship until next season, and next season begins when the authorities say so, not when the whistle goes on their last game of the previous season. Kevin McE (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much spot on. Some of the changes are fluid. The templates aren't because they actually say 2007-08. So until the year is likewise changed, the teams should match the title. Peanut4 (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tesfaye Bramble's non-league stats

Does anyone know where I can find Tes' early career stats for when he played for Chelmsford, Cambridge City and a short loan spell at Southend United. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 11:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found some at playerhistory.com, where I am a member and so have access to all their stats. It states he played three games at Chelmsford City during the 1997-98 season, but it gives a void for 1998-99. Then gives 18 appearances and three goals during the 2000-01 season at Cambridge City. And for the loan at Southend, he simply played no games. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Matty --Jimbo^[online] 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle United Transfers

Notable or not? – Pee Jay 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a typical impulsive idea that the author will abandon when they can't get past ten years or so... 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The originator got bored fairly quickly - his editing career lasted 11 days! see [1]. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not notable, transfers should be covered in season articles. I'd redirect it to Newcastle United F.C. or something. Giant Snowman 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think a redirect is worthwhile. It's not a likely search term when looking for Newcastle United F.C., and those looking for a list of Newcastle's transfers would be more likely to find them on a list of Newcastle's records and statistics like the lists that already exist for some other clubs. – Pee Jay 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Very true, thinking about it a redirect would not be worthwhile. Giant Snowman 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's at AFD now. Sorry to jump the gun, didn't see this discussion... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Portsmouth 1939 FA Cup Team

This template has been added to articles for all the members of Portsmouth's 1939 FA Cup Final winning team. I have put it up for TfD. Any comments? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No complaints against the TfD from me. As per usual, we should only have squad navboxes for current squads and World Cup finals squads. – Pee Jay 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the templates doesnt even look complete? Where are the subs? Or did they play seven-a-side :) One note though, I'd really like to see World Cup, current club and the confederation cups (not this one, but t h e s e !) ← chan dler 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Substitutes were introduced in the 1960s. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, i never knew that, if you look at like the 1930 world cup, they're more than 11 players :o ← chan dler 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they used to take squads to tournaments, but no changes during a game. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathieu Flamini

A load of wise users are including his name into AC Milan's squad, despite the fact he is contracted with Arsenal until June 30, the summer transfer window in Italy will not open before July 1, and both Premier League and Serie A are yet to end. I've semi-protected A.C. Milan and included a disclaimer in the section, but this actually seems not to be enough. Can you please put Mathieu Flamini and A.C. Milan into your watchlist and revert at sight such these erroneous edits? Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve Evans (footballer born 1962)

Could someone who has a better knowledge of WP:BLP take a look at this article? The section on his management career is entirely negative (despite his undoubted success with Boston and Crawley) and until I removed them, contained some very dubious statements (though the "sourced" one about him being "busy eating hot dogs and wobbling like a lavalamp" when the club were relegated did make me smile...). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Zenit and British press

Introduction to the subject is at Talk:FC Zenit Saint Petersburg#Response to ongoing defamation campaign by British press.

Apart from this, I've found that almost every example of racism or accusations of racism from racism in association football article isn't mentioned in the respective club articles. Is there a consensus about such[2] accusations in the club articles? Jhony (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS for Completion name

There is lots of English "common" name verse using Romanization likes:

Soviet Top League vs Vysshaya Liga

Belarusian Premier League vs Vysshaya Liga

Ukrainian Premier League vs Vyshcha Liha

Russian Premier League vs Premier-Liga

Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Premijer Liga

Moldovan National Division vs Divizia Naţională

Latvian Higher League vs Virslīga

Hungarian National Championship I vs NB I

Ukrainian and Belarusian league have the succession to Soviet's Vysshaya Liga (Top League), but how come it became Premier League? Should was mention that since the establish of English's Premier League, it common known as Ukrainian Premier League but it means Top League in Ukrainian language. For the rest, it doubt the name is a common name. Matthew_hk t c 07:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting point. What is the common name for these leagues. Certainly in some cases the local name should be used (Bundesliga rather than Federal League). What are these best known as in English speaking countries? John Hayes^talk 09:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you're saying but for example the Ukrainian Premier League would be more common and more easily understandable than just Vyshcha Liha or Ukrainian Vyshcha Liha. ← chan dler 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We can always have redirects to the proper names though from the more common ones. matt91486 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

National Football Centre

I've been looking for an article on the planned National Football Centre to be built in Burton-upon-Trent and opened by 2010, though I can't find one through any search. Nor does Burton's article link to it. Surely one exists? Can anyone point me in the right direction? If one does not yet exist I'll gladly create one, just don't want to duplicate! Grunners (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Have created an article at National Football Centre Grunners (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of league tables in articles

A user has added the current league table into the Huddersfield and District Association Football League article. Personally I think it's wholly inappropriate to include the table per WP:NOT a news update service, but then I got to thinking that articles like Premier League 2007-08 have the table in (which I also don't agree with, personally, but that's just my opinion). Now the HDAFL is clearly not going to have articles on individual seasons, so the closest equivalent could be said to be putting it in the main article on the league itself. If this rambling stream of consciousness makes any sense at all, then what do people think? Leave it in or take it out......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a list of teams currently playing in the league is what should be in the league article, not the current standings table. Although there probably won't be an individual season article for the specified league, I don't think it's a good idea to put the current league table in the league article. AR TYOM 08:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ishmael Welsh - place of birth?

Was he born in Deptford or Dartford? Soccerbase says Dartford, but I don't trust it too much. Can anyone shed any light on this? Cheers --Jimbo^[online] 12:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deptford is correct. --necronudist (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of professional football leagues

Pertaining to the list of professional football leagues we were trying to compile last month, I just found this article right here on Wikipedia with quite an extensive list. I don't know how reliable it is, but it could be worth comparing the two lists. – Pee Jay 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a list of leagues which may have some professionals playing in them e.g. (Scot League 3). Pretty sure it is not a list of leagues which are fully pro e.g. (Italia C2).--Egghead06 (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I take it to TfD, do people think this template is really necessary? With two clubs relegated each year from the FL, it has the potential to get very big very quickly. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Axe it. I'd suggest this is type of thing is what Categories were made for. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice scope for a list there, actually. Lead detailing when the Football League was first set-up, first team to go, process of re-election (frequency of teams being dropped), changes to the system, switch to two relegated to the Conference etc. Columns in the list - team, year joined league, year left, current league...? HornetMike (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice idea... who'll get there first? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a section in the Football League article listing former clubs, but this was removed at some point... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No-one tell ChrisTheDude... shhh.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Err apparently the list exists already: List of former Football League clubs. But we do have {{Former Scottish League clubs}} which doesn't have an article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I've TfD'd it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mário Silva (football player) vs Mário Silva (footballer)

There are duplicate articles on the quite average Portuguese left-back. Turning the football player into a redirect to the footballer would perhaps be the easiest way of dealing with this. There wouldn't arise any problems, would it? Sebisthlm (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No complaints here. Go for it. – Pee Jay 11:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How notable is winning the reserve premier league

Before I start I just want to mention that I am a member of WP:LFC so there is probably a slight bias on my part. My question is how notable winning the reserve premier league is, as Liverpool did last night, and therefore how notable those players are. For example the Liverpool Echo, has quite a few articles before and after the match [3] [4] [5], same for Liverpool Daily Post [6], along with some minor mentions in the national press. Some of the players, such as Damien Plessis have articles already as they have played in a Pro league, but someone like Stephen Darby doesn't, even though he has been captain of two Fa Youth cup winning sides, and now a reserve Premier League winning side. I'm not suggesting everyone who wins this title is notable, but someone who has won it, and has multiple third party sources (which this does, even if largely in the Liverpool area), should qualify for an article. I would suggest there are more people interested in such a player as 7500 people turned up for the game, which is more than many lower league professional teams. What does anyone else think about this case. John Hayes^talk 10:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:N, significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. I'd say they'd fail WP:N because the articles linked mention the names of (a few of) the players, which doesn't constitute "address[ing] the subject directly in detail", nor is the coverage "more than trivial". If you could find multiple non-trivial sources for any individual player, then you'd always stand a chance under the general notability criteria, but being owned by a big club and therefore surrounded by other better-than-average players and being part of a team that won the PRL wouldn't be enough on its own. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say not, largely as I think winning the FA Youth Cup is more important than a reserve league (based on the attendances in five figures for the finals), but that players who win the FA Youth Cup are not necessarily notable. Looking at Ipswich's win in the FA Youth Cup in 2005, six of the players who played in that game have disappeared without a trace. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll leave it then until the players in question either play for a pro team or have widespread coverage. Thanks John Hayes^talk 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Football statistics templates

I noticed that a lot of articles have been updated using templates like {{Football player statistics 1}}. Is there any documentation on how to use these templates specifically? I'd like to use those templates on one of my pet articles (Klaas-Jan Huntelaar), but I'm not exactly sure how they work. JACO PLANE • 2008-05-4 22:18

To be honest, I prefer the chart you've already got at Klaas-Jan Huntelaar. The above template doesn't look as consistent as the one that is in the Klaas-Jan Huntelaar entry. Peanut4 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the new charts at all. Someone's added it to one of my pet articles, Duncan Edwards and I think the layout is poor and the "international" heading is potentially very confusing...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow that's got to win a prize for the most horribly un-user-friendly template set ever! All it seems to do is provide an ugly squashed table format without any usefully tagged fields to let you know what you're doing. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding a handful or so as I recently noticed its use but I agree with the above: the Huntelaar example is far nicer to view. How about incorporating this version as the new template? •Oranje•·Talk 13:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to have some form of standardised template, with proper documentation. We have a standardised infobox, why not do the same for the career statistics? JACO PLANE • 2008-05-6 20:37

Does anybody with suitable knowledge of parameters, etc. want to knock something up in their userspace? •Oranje•·Talk 10:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am the person who made an argued template. Like a list of Klaas-Jan Huntelaar and Duncan Edwards, layouts are different by a player. Because I wanted to unify layouts, I made a template. I referred to a Japanese edition. As for the Japanese edition, layouts are unified in most players from a famous player to an amateur player. For example, it is ja:中村俊輔(Shunsuke Nakamura) or ja:マイケル・オーウェン(Michael Owen). There was a united feeling to a statistics table, and I thought that the statistics table of the Japanese edition was splendid.--Nameless User (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that some of the headings are/were very confusing - for example in the Duncan Edwards article there was a column headed "international", which would naturally make most people think it referred to appearances for England when it fact it referred to his appearances for Manchester United in the European Cup...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mm, 'international' would be better served by 'continental'. •Oranje•·Talk 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Had better I change "international" into "continental"?--Nameless User (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed "international" into "continental".--Nameless User (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a variety of these charts. The most common three I've seen are the one above, as seen on David Beckham, a simple wikitable, as seen as Thierry Henry and a similar one as seen at Nicky Law (footballer born 1988). I suggest we decide on a standardised format. My own preference is the second one, and I'm afraid to say the least preferable is the current template at David Beckham. It's too squashed and ugly and I'm not sure is very user-friendly nor has the ability to be expanded to more cup competitions. Peanut4 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the template on the Beckham page, he never played for Man U in the League Cup - yet another reason why that format is very user-unfriendly and potentially confusing..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

About the "squashed", I can improve a template. About League Cup of Beckham, I made a template to be able to make entry of League Cup by changing the parameter of the template into "YY" from "NY". Therefore, the cause of the problem is that I do not know data in League Cup of Beckham. The cause of the problem is not the template.--Nameless User (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the simple, straightforward table as per Nicky Law, with coloured background and cups separated out. I think the Steve Finnan layout has it about right, with optional club total rows where the player has been at a club longer than one season (though for some reason they've done it upside-down, with the most recent season at the top). Needs a bit of tweaking; I'd centre the columns, and span the first two columns together on the totals rows. But that layout is clear both to understand and to read. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Nicky Law one was also the wrong way round till I changed it last night. My main quibble with the Law/Finnan template is the alignment of the figures. I don't think the centralising like at Henry, is perfect but it's certainly more asthetically appealing than left aligned. It really ought to be right aligned, as most infoboxes are. Peanut4 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Law/Finnan template is nice to look at...shall we start a vote on the above three examples? Or are there other examples that we have missed? •Oranje•·Talk 18:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ryan Valentine scores.jpg Featured Picture list

Shouldn't this be added in the Featured pictures section as it is a listed as a Featured Picture. 90.240.94.133 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, it's featured at Commons and not Wikipedia... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm completely ignorant of the guidelines for Featured Pictures, but this is a pretty nifty close-up action shot, is it of FP standard........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been BOLD and listed it, hope for your comments on it. 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Most unnecessarily detailed section on WP........?

Surely we don't need this level of detail? I'm surprised the full menu at the refreshment kiosk isn't also listed..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No fewer than twelve external links too... •Oranje•·Talk 09:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think you could go through scores of football team entries, and find recentism and too much detail of club officials, or biographies and find far too much POV and MOS issues. I'd suggest anyone who finds a lot of it just be Wp:BOLD and edit away. Peanut4 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Works team

I've just converted this from a redirect into a stub. Can anyone think of any other football clubs which began as works teams (I'm sure there's a couple in the League, but I can't think of them off the top of my head), or confirm if Ford United were actually one? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Airbus UK used to be a works team. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Think bigger. There are European trophy winning former works teams — PSV Eindhoven, Bayer Leverkusen. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this is what you were looking for but some obvious ones for starters West Ham United as Thames Ironworks F.C., Arsenal as Royal Arsenal, Manchester United as Newton Heath, L&YR F.C. Livingston F.C. as Ferranti ThistleTmol42 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Coventry City F.C. used to be Singer's (a very long time ago). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Argentine teams started off as the works teams of British owned railway companies, Rosario Central, Talleres de Córdoba, Ferro Carril Oeste, Club Ferrocarril Midland, Club Atlético Central Córdoba and others. Although I'm not sure this is what you are looking for. E P 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If they're works teams, I think it is. Feel free to add to the article. I've taken a few of the above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe redirect to Football_club_names#Club_names_referring_to_a_profession which does the same thing? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't about club names, its about the concept of such clubs. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one define "works": Metropolitan Police F.C., Royal Engineers A.F.C. and many teams from the former Soviet block who were made up from members of the army or police (eg CSKA and Dynamo Moscow respectively). Kevin McE (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

West Bromwich Albion were formed by workers from a spring factory, although the "Boing Boing" didn't evolve until more than 100 years later :-) --Jameboy (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Changes to WP:FOOTY and its talk page have suddenly stopped appearing on my "My Watchlist" page: going through an unwatch-watch cycle does not seem to make any difference, and other articles that I watch seem unaffected. Anyone have any idea what is going on? Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have "hide bot edits" enabled in your preferences? A bot archives old threads every day or two. If the bot edit was the most recent to this page, it will not appear in your watchlist unless you select the "expanded watchlist" option. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems odd that it does not allow the last non-bot edit to show. Kevin McE (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Costel Rădulescu

On his article it is written that he took part at the 1936 Winter Olympics as a bobsledger. He coached the Romanian national team at the 1930 World Cup so it sounds to me really strange... Does anyone know (or have some sources) if they're the same person? Thank you. --necronudist (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but it's possible. I know in the US there have been athletes primarily known for other sports who have randomly done bobsledding at the Olympics (Herschel Walker), so there's at least similar circumstances. matt91486 (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as we don't know for sure, we need a source. --necronudist (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we don't need a source. I was simply trying to say that the possibility wasn't so terribly out of the ordinary as to be automatically untrue since you said you thought it really strange... matt91486 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange doesn't mean untrue. --necronudist (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources given on Bobsleigh at the 1936 Winter Olympics include a Constantin Radulescu competing for Romania. Its certainly possible that it is the same person. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the official reports and he's cited. I'm not doubting that. Also, Alexandru Papană competed with him, and he was a football players in the same Radulescu's period of activity (see this). --necronudist (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Any news? Last time I ask...I promise :-) Should I send an e-mail to Romanian FA and the Romanian Olympic Comittee? --necronudist (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Summer releases

Clubs are starting to announce these, so don't forget to update List of unattached footballers. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think you should. Although players are often described by their clubs as having been released, you will find that even if they agree a new deal elsewhere during May or June, (in England) they do not formally join those clubs until 1st July, because their contracts, and their registration, remain with the clubs they have been with this season until 30th June. There will be an equivalent date for other FAs, but I do not know what that date is. I would argue that players should remain on the articles for their present clubs (see the Gillingham, Brighton or Norwich squad lists), and that their individual articles should read something like Noel Christmas (born 25th December 1980) is a Laplander footballer currently at Arctica FC, but who is to leave the club at the end of his contract on 30th June 2008: in a couple of weeks, that might become ... but who is to leave the club, and join North Pole United, at the end of his contract on 30th June 2008. Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's just a technicality - if their season's over, they're not going to play or train with that club again, so are free to find another. To all intents and purposes they are unattached, and that's what's useful, not that they are technically still under contract. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And if we were chatting in a pub or on a fan website, I would agree entirely with you. But if this is an encyclopaedic project then nothing should be a higher priority than relating present realities. The role of encyclopaedic editors is to communicate facts, not try to evaluate the effectiveness of them: nothing is "just a technicality". They are not unattached, and will not be so until 30th June (and, of course, will hope not to be unattached by 1st July). Kevin McE (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - an encylopedia should provide useful information. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution on the Gillingham/Norwich/Brighton articles, and the proposal for individuals that I suggest above and have placed on articles of players leaving those clubs, provides information that is useful and accurate. Kevin McE (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, the page doesn't say 'out of contact', it says unattached - regardless of their contract, the clubs have effectively detached them, made them free to find another club. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The clubs do not have the contractual freedom to detach them: they have to pay them for May and June! Kevin McE (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

They're still paying them, but that's not the important thing - to all intents and purposes they are clubless. Adding these 'soon to be released' notes, all to be updated on July 1, seems like a waste of time. There is no practical difference between their situations between now and July 1. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was put off adding to the list purely because of the columns that need filled (especially when a club releases, say, eleven players, as Blackpool did this week). I'm not sure date of birth and nationality need listed, when that information can be gleaned from the player's article. In the case of someone such as Dimitrije Golubovic, who doesn't have an article, I say we  his date of birth next to his name until his article is created. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figured, since the category was listified, we might as well use that to add more info. There's a reason why all list pages aren't just bulleted lists, and I think the extra info is useful (the category was much easier, though, I admit). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the players should be removed from club articles and put on the unattached list. Not all released players are actually released. Three years ago (maybe four), Bradford City (under Bryan Robson) released Ben Muirhead. Robson's contract wasn't renewed and Todd took over and instead gave Muirhead a new contract. The same happened last year when under one manager several players were released, McCall came in and wanted to re-sign some of them, but they already had signed new contracts with other clubs. Until their contracts are up, I would keep them at the club they are at. Peanut4 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Asaph City F.C.

What is the notability cut-off point for Welsh football clubs? I'd like to create an article about my home town's club, but I'm not sure whether they're notable enough. FWIW, the club plays at step 6 of the Welsh football league system and, IIRC, was formed about two years ago. – Pee Jay 22:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about "St Asaph F.C." of the Clywd League Division Two, I'd say that is a long, long way from notability - it is the absolute bottom of the league ladder in that part of the world. There was a St Asaph City that played one season in the Welsh Alliance (1993-94), which might just be on the very edges of notability, but I'd be hard pressed to give even them a definite "yes". On the more general point, the trouble with setting notability standards in the Welsh Pyramid is that it is so unbalanced - the better clubs who are at level 5 in the South (S Wales Amateur League Division One, Gwent County Premier etc.) would probably be about level 3 in Mid Wales and maybe level 3-4 in the North. I think it would be best done on a by-league basis rather than a straight forward "Level" basis as in England. - fchd (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Competition names

Hi guys, there's a discussion going on over at WikiProject Rugby Union about whether or not competition articles should be titled after the tournament's sponsored name. The competitions in question are the Guinness Premiership, the Magners League and the Heineken Cup. This discussion could potentially impact on the way competition articles are titled over here at WP:FOOTY, so I would appreciate it if some of you guys could contribute your opinions. The discussion is located here. – Pee Jay 13:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Derby's season in the trivia

This trivia is taken from the PL 0708 season article.

Derby County finished with the worst record since the league was founded in 1992-93.

Now I was under the impression that this season of Derby isnt only the worst in the PL but the worst season of any team in the whole history of the Football League's top division. And the team before was Stoke City in 1889-90 (they've talked about it on tv for some weeks, don't remember if it was Stoke that season, but it sounds likely), because you take into account that they only played 22 games with the 2pt rule etc. ← chan dler 23:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"As for Derby, their 29th defeat of a wretched season means they equalled Loughborough Athletic and Football Club's 108-year Football League record of going through an entire season with only one win."[7] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the above linked article, Stoke had 10 points, so the worst since then. But in percentage terms, hey ... Peanut4 (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that BBC report about Loughborough Athletic. Has anyone ever heard of them? It appears the BBC have magicked them out of thin air to me. Peanut4 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Loughborough F.C. played 1899-00 Though in the Second division... guess they changed ID and disappeared after that shame ;) ← chan dler 00:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. And there's me trying to find them under Loughborough Athletic F.C.! Peanut4 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I searched for Loughborough Athletic and Loughborough F.C. was the fourth result... I'm a regular Sherlock Holmes ← chan dler 00:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes 10 points because of the 2pt system. Had they used the 3pt system as now, Stoke would have had 13 ← chan dler 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Portuguese football stadia by capacity

List of Portuguese football stadia by capacity - Many of the capacities of the stadia in the table do not match the capacity given in the stadium's article, in some cases being as much as 12,000 out! (and I've only checked half the stadium articles so far). This whole article needs a thorough check-up.

Please add further comments on the article's talk page Grunners (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the bizarrest thing about that article is that in several cases a stadium has an article but the team that plays there doesn't!! Why would anyone create an article on the stadium before one on the team......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Conference National Playoff Final 2008

Is this notable enough? The article is clearly not worthy of an entry in its current form, but I'll wait on that until at least the final is played. Peanut4 (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I havent checked this, but does the Championship playoff final have a own match article? If not, this has got to go. ← chan dler 00:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent (Category:Football Conference Playoff Finals is well populated). The Championship play-off did have an article last year (2007 Football League Championship playoff final). Not sure about League One or Two though. --Jameboy (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The last two year' have at 2006 Football League Championship playoff final and 2007 Football League Championship playoff final. I notice those two and the above (which has too many capitals) don't hyphenate play-off. Peanut4 (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Conference National Playoff Final 2006 might be unreferenced (and so doesn't ascertain WP:N) but at least there's some substance in there. Peanut4 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need the hyphen in play-off. The BBC use it on all their recent match reports, and the front cover of last year's Championship play-off final programme also hyphenates. P and F in "Playoff Final" are capitalised in a "Welcome message" in said programme, so I'd support that also. I think we should be consistent though. --Jameboy (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I say a big "no, no" to using primary sources for capitals. So many places do it to overegg their own importance as far as I'm concerned. If secondary sources use capitals, then so should we. Peanut4 (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. The BBC used lower case last year. ([8][9][10])

As per FA Cup and League Cup finals the year should go first. I think the "Football League" bit is necessary to clarify what the article is about. I propose therefore a naming convention of 2008 Football League Championship play-off final. --Jameboy (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'll agree with that. And if those are create pre-Championship and Premiership, I'd run that through to 1990 Football League Second Division play-off final, which would be for Football League Championship play-offs#1990, Swindon v Sunderland. Peanut4 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amend own comment slightly: As per FA Cup and League Cup finals the year should go first. In the case of The Championship and Leagues One and Two, I think the "Football League" bit is necessary to clarify what the article is about. I propose therefore a naming convention of 2008 Football League Championship play-off final and 2008 Conference National play-off final (assuming the latter isn't deleted). --Jameboy (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say merge to Football Conference 2007-08#Playoffs and do the same for others. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a merge would be much more suitable. Dancarney (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with that. I think that articles for matches is very dodgy territory: it invites a lot that is far more journalistic than encyclopaedic, the noteworthiness of a match is rather POV (winning the third round match is just as necessary for cup success as winning the final), and every professional match has multiple independent reports. Kevin McE (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

List of former Scottish Football League clubs

Following on from a point made at this article's PR, I would appreciate some wider discussion on two points:

Should those clubs currently in the SPL be on the list? They aren't currently members of the SFL, after all.
Should the 1965-2002 incarnation of Clydebank be included, even though legally and officially Airdrie United is the same club under a new name?

Thoughts please...... :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say not to include Clydebank - Airdrie United is exactly the same club (in the same way that Meadowbank Thistle/Livingston and East Stirling/ES Clydebank are the same clubs). Regarding SPL clubs, have they retained some form of league membership to enable them to compete in the Scottish League Cup? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

According to rule 21.10 of their constitution membership is terminated as soon as a club gets promoted to the SPL. The League cup is open to members of the SFL and SPL (rule 27.2). josh (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A batch of templates nominated for deletion

I've just come across a batch of templates which have been nominated for deletion. Please comment over at the discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin Allen (footballer)

Martin Allen's article has just been moved to include footballer in the name because someone has created an article on a writer. Should this really have been moved, or should the less significant writer just been linked with a hatnote? --Jimbo^[online] 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the move. They are both about as notable as each other. There is no really predominant figure from a neutral point of view. It seems to be a run-of-the-mill move to me. Woody (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the move; however, all associated pages & templates etc. will have to be edited to match the move, so they link to the correct Martin Allen. Giant Snowman 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think two sentences really can't move the footballers article... And look at all the new unnecessary faulty links here ← chan dler 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick run-through with AWB will fix the links. Laziness should never be a barrier to an article move. A two-line stub can become a full article soon enough. As I stated earlier, they are both seemingly notable in their own professions. Woody (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of the writer's article, Allen the footballer is far more notable. A totally unscientific jump into google brings up several other Martin Allens before the author. Dancarney (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the dab, it's not like Martin Allen the footballer is much known outside of football fans. Also fixed all the links. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the {{otherpeople|Martin Allen}} hatnote you added, because it's unnecessary thanks to the (footballer) disambiguation in the article title. This has been explained to you on your talk page before now. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 Major League Soccer season

There is a discussion and voting on Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season about the standings/tables format. Kingjeff (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, the discussion is not about removing some information from the MLS articles (like the one about the team infoboxes), but instead is about formatting. I think this directly corrolates to how we changed to a standard format between all footy articles and simply allowed the MLS teams in include extra information within the standard format. I think consistency is what matters the most here, please weigh in at the discussion. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How about giving people a chance to digest the whole discussion before you throw your two cents in. I was just letting the WikiProject know that this discussion was going on. Kingjeff (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I was merely trying to explain why I was against a unique MLS format on this issue, as opposed to before. Please don't try to belittle me this way. I have every right to participate in this discussion wherever it takes place. I'm part of both communities. -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think w-d-l should be used (if that's why we're talking about)... And I don't like all those table colors :P ← chan dler 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though Major League Soccer Uses W-L-T? Kingjeff (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely W-D-L to keep consistency across like-for-like articles, i.e. football articles. The fact one league displays its results in a different format is not a significant enough reason to depart from the norm on an encyclopaedia with a world-wide view. - fchd (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with W-D-L, but might make an exception for the MLS. However, I'm with Chandler on the colours. Ugh! Though, there are a some offenders in other leagues too. Peanut4 (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason there should be an exception for MLS is if content that would otherwise not be in a footy article would be in a North American sports article, like with the infoboxes discussion before. This is an issue of style, and like the infobox compromise we deferred to the international order of items. This appears to be a direct analog. We're not trying to change the information, just the format, so international standard trumps the US one. -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I voted for the W-L-T system, mainly because I view this as an AmEn vs BrEn issue. In my experience, the term "draw" is not often used in North America for a game where the scores finish level. In fact, draws are a relatively alien concept to North Americans, it seems :-P Seriously, though, as the article in question involves an American subject, AmEn should be used and I believe the W-L-T system falls under that. – Pee Jay 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its an ENGVAR thing, just the same as using "soccer" throughout an article. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My vote is for W-L-T, but I'm not going to elaborate here. I've been the one debating with Grant Alpaugh on this topic, so I'll let my words on that page speak for themselves. --Otav347 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to MOSFLAG

FYI, changes are afoot at WP:MOSFLAG to add a caveat for sports people. Currently standing at -

Use of flags for sports people

There is widespread usage of flags in squads and lists of results. However flags should only be used where that person is representing a national team or country such as the Olympic games. Flag usage such as Delray Beach International Tennis Championships or using a national flag for Golf players at the US Open is incorrect as they are not representing a nation.

National teams

In sports where the national team in the highest level of competition such as Soccer or Rugby Union, flags are commonly used on club pages to indicate the players' national team. However this can be confusing as readers may assume the flag indicates the player was born in that country or has ties to it, sports such as Rugby league and players like Matt Gafa have loose requirement and so can declare for a chosen nation where there may be little prior ties. Flags should be replaced by links to national associations/federations such as Malta on clubs pages to indicate the national associations/federations associated with.

Feel free to join in the discussion there. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so much of a discussion - it was added to the "guideline" on 11 April.[11] However, this appears to have been done at the intiative of a single user rather than as a result of a discussion (no-one joined in the discussion until today when someone noted the action was done without consensus). As such I am going to remove it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus I've started a separate section to discuss their use in football squad templates here. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is now a discussion/poll underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#Proposed text. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Shorts and socks for the kits

I raised the same question at {{Football kit}} but only one person replied so I thought I'd try here too.

Isn't it time for {{Football kit}} to get parameters for shorts and socks like {{Rugby kit}}. Other templates like {{Basketball kit}}, {{Netball kit}}, {{Baseball uniform}}, {{Field hockey kit}} at least have shorts. Many teams have two colored socks etc... isnt it at least time to add the parameter? ← chan dler 16:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As the only respondant at the template talk, I'll respond here as well, giving my support for such parameters. Giant Snowman 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can think of no reason to oppose this suggestion, my advice, be bold, do it. E P 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well its protected so I can't do it... Would suggest Football kit to use Rugby kit's parameters etc... And one thing more, why are there all these different templates, wouldnt one "{{Kit}}" work for everything... if its the default kit ppl worry about, maybe a sport parameter. ← chan dler 01:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been done now, It now also available to use in the club infoboxes. I've gone ahead and created two custom shorts and socks for use (can be seen in use @ AIK Fotboll)

_black_stripes

So now its just time to build up the archive of shorts and socks ← chan dler 23:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good man, looks great! Giant Snowman 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Scottish clubs in the FA Cup

I discovered this article by chance the other day and have since completely re-written it. Before I put it up for PR, can anyone suggest a better title? I'm thinking it should be "List of...." something, but I can't quite think how to phrase it...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say "List of Scottish football clubs [appearing] in the FA Cup". A ecis^Brievenbus 09:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that seriously even need a table? It doesn't exactly tell you much beyond the text. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What does everyone else think? Table or no table? I was thinking about putting it up for Featured List, but without the table it wouldn't be a list any more..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the table is much, much better. It's easier to take in the information in table format, rather than list in prose how far each club got year-by-year. Peanut4 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"–" or –?

According to Template:Infobox Football biography an ndash has to be used in the Season year format. Is there any reason why I should type – instead of just typing the character "–" (note, this is not a "normal" hyphen "-", but exactly the character displayed when – is used)?

I think that it is easier to type (it is just the first symbol after the Insert: in the box with all the symbols below the edit window) and keeps the source code more readable. Some users claim that there is a policy to type – instead of just typing "–" and revert my changes. As also the source code of Template:Infobox football biography/doc uses the character – and does not type – I can't believe that. Is there a policy for this? --Jaellee (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is information in the guideline Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes related to what dashes Wikipedia uses and how to use them (stylistically), but I've not seen any specific policy related to how you should key them in. I've always used Alt-0150 (num key pad) or Alt-0151 (num key pad) because its quick and easy and that's what I'm familiar with. Help:Special_characters identifies four different ways to enter in special characters (which would include en and em dashes) so from that I would intuit that any of those methods would be acceptable for entering such a character. That Help page also discusses issues around the use of special characters under different browsers which may be what the – thing is about. Beyond that I'm not aware of any policy, nor have I bumped into any editors with that particular bent. So there you go. I don't believe I will be getting into any kind of edit war over this one. :) Wiggy! (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I also don't want to start an edit war about this, it is all in all quite ridiculous. I also don't go out of my way to change – into –, I do that usually only when I'm making other changes (I still think it enhances the readability). But it really annoys me if somebody who probably just can't tell an ndash and a hyphen apart reverts my changes, ignores my attempts to explain it to him and points to a policy which most likely doesn't exist. --Jaellee (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Petty nuisance stuff. That's the kind of crap I just mentally file under Que sera sera and then carry on (in the quiet belief that I have left some sort of happy person behind me). Would be kind of curious to know, though, if there is indeed some sort of policy on this and related. Sort of like having an itch scratched to really know. Wiggy! (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any policy on which is best, but for the same reason you change an endash to a –, I do the opposite, because in the code, I can't tell the difference between – and -, but I can between – and endash or - and endash. I don't go out of my way to change them, but will sometimes change if I'm changing something else. It's certainly not worth an edit war over. Peanut4 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my browser/font combination it is quite easy to see the difference, but I can easily imagine that this is not always the case. So I think I will continue to change – to – when I'm in the mood for it and keep on trying to explain users that endashes come different varieties in the source code. It is just important that it displayed correctly. --Jaellee (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

<laugh> You guys could spend a lifetime casually cancelling each other out. But at least you're being all friendly about it! I think maybe Jaellee hit the nail on the head back in the original discussion with the user who made the change that started this. The policy related to dates is that the dates in the date range be separated with an unspaced endash. The editor probably just didn't recognize the – as an endash as Jaellee guessed. As for me, I'm pretty sure I'll be going to some sort of wikihell because I haven't been consistently separating my date ranges with endashes - sometimes I've used just a plain old hyphen. Bad Wiggy!. I will reform my ways. Wiggy! (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

At least we won't run out of work that way. There will be always something to do in an article. (-: --Jaellee (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE

I see that this policy/guideline/whatever it officially is has been reworded slightly to state "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a high-level, fully professional league" - anyone care to have a stab at figuring out exactly how we quantify what a "high level" league is..........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask User:Wizardman who made the amendment on 28 April with the edit summary "tweak"!. See here for edit history. I can't see that there was any discussion about the change. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it! I was just following the edit trail back and had come to the same conclusion. - fchd (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, admittedly I wasn't thinking about football when I made the change. It makes it easy for the american sports, which are set up so as to where adding it makes sense. I guess it adds confusion for soccer players though. I could take it out for now until it can be figured out how such wording would work and if it would be acceptable for all sports covered on here. Wizardman 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that it adds confusion, more that literally thousands of articles have been created in good faith on footballers who have played in a fully professional league but not necessarily the highest level league in the land (in England, for instance, the top four levels are all fully pro), so a change which could be interpreted as suggesting that players had to have played in the top flight would have absolutely vast consequences..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, adding confusion is exactly what it does do. Re English football there's consensus that the top 4 levels are fully pro and under the old wording, a player having played at that level passes WP:ATHLETE and a player not having done so, doesn't. Now it says "high-level, fully pro", there's ambiguity. That wording moves the bar from a precise point – below the top 4 levels of English football – to somewhere indeterminate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I see. Ironically, I thought I was doing the opposite, moving from ambiguity to obvious. By all means you can add in that this refers to the top four levels for football, since that would fix this issue. Wizardman 13:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only the top four levels in England. In Scotland it's the top two, in other countries more or fewer. So we'd need to addin a disclaimer for every country in the world..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It would for England, but that's just one country (sorry if I wasn't being clear). Different countries have different numbers of leagues satisfying the fully-pro criterion, but either a league is fully-pro or it isn't - the criterion was unambiguous. I know little of American sports - why did you need to make the change to clarify the position in the US? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In american sports, there is generally one major league, much like the four in England. However, while levels below that, such as minor league baseball, are not notable for players who play in them in and of itself, the criteria "fully professional" technically applies to it, making it sound like everyone who's played baseball in even the rookie league is notable. This is certainly not the case, as there has never been consensus on allowing minor league players (though some are now allowed these days). The criteria as a result sounded far more inclusionist then it was actually meant to be. Wizardman 14:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case couldn't you just revert it back to "fully pro league" but add a caveat saying something like "in American sports, minor leagues are not considered to be fully professional". Seems a bit silly to try and come up with a tortuous form of wording to apply to the whole of the rest of the world when one sentence would seemingly fix the American issue...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the wording now, ideally no one should have issues now. If there's still ambiguity let me know, but I hope I fixed it. My apologies for the problems I caused. Wizardman 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as kind of funny that we could spend months discussing debating and reasoning with each other to reach consensus over WP:FOOTYN only for it to be shot down by WP:BIO because they didn't want it to supersede WP:ATHLETE yet the meaning of WP:ATHLETE can just be changed by anyone who wants to, with no discussion or attempt to find consensus and WP:BIO folk don't object at all. If one guys opinion on how the notability criteria should be written can over-rule hard won consensus, something is badly wrong with the way we assess notability. Perhaps it is time to clearly define notability sport by sport instead of expecting two (now three) sentences to cover all the sports in the world. E P 19:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just incase anyone is interested I found out where the sacred and oft cited WP:ATHLETE criteria came from. It just appeared one day in September 2005. I really cant see why something drawn up by one long gone editor nearly three years ago continues to take precedent over something discussed, debated and analysed by dedicated contributors to the subject area over a number of weeks and supported by consensus. E P 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Think it's about time we pushed for that discussion and consensus by a number of contributors to be made policy over the thoughts of one man. Peanut4 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comments here. E P 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Brahim Hemdani

The article on Brahim Hemdani says that in Februari 2008, Hemdani "decided to play for Algeria national football team." Is he still eligible for Algeria? He was 29 when he made the decision, and he has played for the French national youth teams. AFAIK he can't switch to Algeria anymore. Is this correct? A ecis^Brievenbus 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, if he hasn't played for senior France team, he can switch (after FIFA gives the ok). --necronudist (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This BBC article confirms the switch from France to Algeria. Giant Snowman 12:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find the specific rule, but afaik the FIFA rule is that a player who has represented the youth team(s) of one football association can only switch to another association before his 23rd birthday. If Hemdani has played official matches for French youth teams, and it appears that he has, he would now be too old to switch to Algeria. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the rule you're referring to would have had him too old at that time. I would say it would be more aimed at keeping todays youngsters from flip-flopping, rather than stopping a decent player a shot at international football.Londo 06 12:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aecis, the maxiumum age of transfer under the new FIFA rules is 21; a similar case in point is Dominique Kivuvu, who is eligible for both Angola and the Netherlands. Giant Snowman 13:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The same applies to Youssouf Hersi. But wouldn't this mean that Hemdani is just too old to switch to Algeria? A ecis^Brievenbus 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the rule only refers to players who were aged 21 and under when the rule was introduced, hence why Freddy Eastwood was able to switch from England to Wales, and Hemdani from France to Algeria. Giant Snowman 13:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think Hemdani never played for France youth teams: that would explain why he is able to play for Algeria. A younger player, Hassan Yebda, is now unable to play for Algeria as he played for France youth teams. A very common case in French football.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured / comprehensive lists

Does anyone know what is the current stand on comprehensive lists, particularly as a result of the List of Arsenal F.C. players featured list review? I notice it has been brought up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Dispatches#A current issue: longer lists and comprehensiveness. Peanut4 (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the very recently changed featured list criteria? Specifically, #3, Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items... Interpret as you will :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Interpret as you will. Indeed. There was some suggestion as to creating a full list of players and sub-lists of those with specific number of appearances. I think specifically, Gillingham, was the main one. What happened to those plans? Peanut4 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

They are here and here Kevin McE (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, guts (mainly mine) were severely busted to create the expanded list. One day I might fill in the 400-odd redlinks..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Badge of Honour FIFA

The dodgy title aside, does anyone else have any issues with this article? To me, the so-called "FIFA Badge of Honour" is along the same lines as the badges worn on the sleeves of the Premier League's winning team from the previous season. Unlike the UEFA Badge of Honour, which may be worn ad infinitum, the FIFA Badge of Honour is worn only for one season at a time, and only by the team that won the previous season's competition. So, AfD anyone? – Pee Jay 17:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a quick mention on the CWC page, nothing more needed really. Giant Snowman 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with the Giant Snowman, it deserves mention, but it should work fine somewhere on the CWC page. Otherwise, eventually you'll end up with a page which is just a list of CWC champions. Is that what the thing is really called? Wiggy! (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the bulk of the info is already included in the lead of the FIFA Club World Cup article. Unless anyone thinks an AfD would be better, I'll prod it. – Pee Jay 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dukla Pumpherston

Is this article about a charity football team for real or should it go to AfD? The line "They are best described as a drinking team with a football problem" seems to sum them up. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Definite AfD material. Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The amount of third-party coverage may even mean this one survives AfD. - fchd (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is real, and consists of ex-players, celebrities, etc. They get media coverage now and again when they play charity matches. •Oranje•·Talk 18:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

English Div 1 top scorer 1935–36

Can someone with Rothman's or another similar football book please check who was the Football League First Division top scorer for 1935–36? (ideally with a formatted reference that I could use). English football champions and RSSSF.com both have three players tied on 31 goals, but W. G. Richardson scored 39 Div 1 goals that season (according to several WBA books I have). I'm pretty sure he was the actual Div 1 top scorer but can't find a source to back it up. In the meantime I have emailed RSSSF and asked them to look into this. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't do a book, but these [12] [13] [14] websites would support you. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The AFS Annual for 1935-36 (ISBN 1 899498 36 6 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, published 1997) also shows WG Richardson with 39 goals, but doesn't provide a dedicated list of top scorers. - fchd (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent, many thanks. Those should be sufficient. --Jameboy (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:English football seasons

I just noticed that if for example you were on the 2007-08 in English football page, then the template at the bottom of the page, which show the past 4 and future 4 seasons, has that season as a red link rather than bolded. Will someone with better knowledge of using the template be able to fix it?

I believe I've fixed it. Whoever edited Template:Season list to use endashes made a mistake, which I have now corrected. – Pee Jay 19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Peejay. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD today

Just a heads up that there are a large number of articles on football clubs in Guinea and Mozambique up for AfD today. The nominator is essentially saying that they are all hoaxes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice the creators, User:Shtraker and User:Mozaikka have created a number of African articles recently. If these are hoaxes there may be more. See Special:Contributions/Shtraker and Special:Contributions/Mozaikka. Peanut4 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Runners-up honours?

Should runners-up honours be included in articles? I recently had an edit reverted where the user claimed that "runners-up isn't an honour", however I noticed that most high-profile individuals have runners-up honours included in their article, including Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger and Martin O'Neill. Franky843 (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't get runners-up medals in the Premier League, so I don't include that. Cup runners-up I do, though, as well as 2nd (and 3rd) placed promotions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I include them. The player article MoS says nothing on the subject, but the club article MoS suggests runners-ups should be included, and I don't see why it should be any different for players or managers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, I have included runners-up finishes (national final, national cup final) in articles for German clubs that I work on. Wiggy! (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Gardiner

Hi! The football project on French wikipedia has a problem. The article they have created about this Scottish footballer here could be deleted if no information is provided to the article. Could you guys bring up some contents to improve the article? Would be a shame having this article deleted. So any information is welcome. Thanks!--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think we have an article on Robert Gardiner on en.wiki. Interesting though that a Scottish player of the 1940s played a season in France. The discussion looks to be heading for 'keep' in any case. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, seems this player has not its article on en.wiki, he played for Clyde F.C., Valenciennes FC and Arbroath F.C., that is all we know.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Current club" field in infoboxes

I was under the impression that non-playing positions (other than that of manager) weren't included in infoboxes. Andy Goram, for one, has Clyde (Goalkeeping Coach) listed in the field, which I removed earlier but has now been reinstated. How far down the hierarchy do we go, if at all? I didn't see anything about this in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Players or its talk page, but I thought it had been discussed before somewhere. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why other positions can't be indicated in the infobox. Though I don't have a clue what the general policy is. Peanut4 (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth wouldn't you include that? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

From Template:Infobox Football biography: {{{currentclub}}} — The club for which the player currently plays. Leave blank if retired. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The instructions on that page are contradictory, because it includes the currentclub tag for current managers. Managers have strictly retired. And it makes no mention of players who have gone on to other positions, e.g. coaching. I don't see any harm in including non-managerial positions. Why hide correct information? Peanut4 (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so that's what you're told to do, but thinking independently, why not do it? It's an infobox, with a current club field, and you know the current club the current club, so... (anyway, I would take that note to mean don't enter the word Retired - I think it's imprecisely worded). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I add (retired) after the playing position. Goram's infobox is the old Template:Football player infobox, which is where my confusion lay. I didn't realise it had been redirected to Template:Infobox Football biography. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think there needs to be a Job field, to go where the squad number field goes for players (some people put the job in the number field. That's bad). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually think the Job field idea is a very good one, and put it where the current clubnumber goes. Although any player-manager, player-coach, etc, would need two lines there. Secondly, I'm not a fan of the word "retired" in infobox, next to a player's position. There will probably be more infoboxes of retired players than current players. I think it's redundant info to be honest. Peanut4 (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why hide correct information? - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew you'd say that! And I haven't got a full answer to it. Though retired isn't a position, when goalkeeping coach is. Do we need to tell readers that someone 83 is retired? The first line of the text ought to say "former footballer" or "retired footballer" etc. Peanut4 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I just meant it's a common-sense (in my eyes, anyway) partnering to playing position, since the person is no longer playing, but I seem to be one of the few who thinks people look at infoboxes first when an article loads. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be, as ArtVandelay13 has already put forward, to have a 'Job title' parameter in the infobox instead of squad number. Giant Snowman 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we get around this by replacing Playing position with role? To be a left-back is one role at a club, to be manager or goalkeeping coach is another. It would not require major reworking of info in the boxes. We'd just have to be careful of non-encyclopaedic entries like bench-warmer, pension-fund augmenter or space-waster. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree with replacing playing position with role. Players become managers, so they need both their playing position and role in their. The role needs to be part of the "current" section rather than the top overall biography section. Peanut4 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The few player managers could be indicated thus: Player-manager (Right Back), or some similar solution. For retired players, I would suggest that their position is not so important as to need to be immediately visible in the infobox: there has to be some reason to read the article. There will be consistency issues over having a Job title box: club officials will be described in the text as a manager, and listed in articles like List of English Football League managers by date of appointment, but the formal job title might be Head Coach. Kevin McE (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peanut4. Also, since the "squad number" parameter is optional, so should this proposed "role" parameter. Anyway, this is the best solution so far. No objections here. – Pee Jay 11:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Peanut & PeeJay. Giant Snowman 12:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. •Oranje•·Talk 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too - the playing position should be just that. No reference to coach, manager or whatever. For a current coach/manager, I would like to see this under "clubnumber". --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

User:Darwinek has nominated me for adminship. I would appreciate it if some of you guys would contribute to the discussion, which can be found here. – Pee Jay 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's a template that exists that questions why a list of players are notable, is there? It would save a lot of typing. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

European Cup logos... again

We seem to have a couple of dissidents over at the article on Valencia CF regarding the use of icon-sized images of trophies in the club's "Honours" section. I have directed them to this small discussion as a reason why I have now deleted the icons again, but I have yet to hear back. Basically, if we could all keep an eye on that situation, it would be quite useful. – Pee Jay 23:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I like those icons... though It looks really weird on Valencia with the Champions League trophy when they've never won it, just been runners-up, which I guess is a argument for not adding them as most teams have runners-up notes on honours ← chan dler 23:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the discussion came to the conclusion that the icons are unnecessarily decorative. In fact, I'm pretty certain that the rights to the image or design of the European trophies belong to UEFA, and that their use here is a copyvio. – Pee Jay 00:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The icons look horrible to be quite honest. But are certainly unnecessarily decorative. I've also noticed in the past, the Valencia article, has had some pretty stupid edit wars. I think editors of that page should put as much effort into improving the article - it currently has a sum total of one reference for a start. Peanut4 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree, they don't look horrible at all, I do think they really do look like the real trophies, especially at low res... PeeJay, about the copyrights... Can it really apply if they are "home made" not 100% accurate copies? File:FIFA World Cup (Gazzaniga).svg File:FIFA World Cup (Rimet).svg look escpecially good imo. ← chan dler 02:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether they look horrible, or just like the real trophies, the issue is that their use is purely decorative, and their inclusion adds no information to the articles they are used on. They do not help to identify the tournament in question because they almost always appear next to the name of the tournament written in bold text. I agree with P4, that time would be better spent adding references or translating good information onto these articles, rather than prettifying them with micro-images. E P 02:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

about the copyrights... Can it really apply if they are "home made" not 100% accurate copies? Yes, see derivative work. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why, of all the trophies on Wikipedia commons [[15]] with possible (not sure) copyright issues, did you propose for deletion only two of them? :D

p.s.: those images are widely used outside the english wikipedia
p.p.s.: this user has serious problems with personal attacks --Jcer80 (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I proposed the deletion of those two because they were the only two that I could be bothered to find at the time. Second, I find the title of this discussion to be extremely disrespectful. Please change it. – Pee Jay 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To Jcer80: the discussion title is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. In addition, if you have some sort of issue with the user, please discuss it directly with him rather than using the WikiProject talk page. Thanks in advance. --Angelo (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it only my fault? It's clearly a personal attack against me. Please respect non-english wikipedia projects Jcer80 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it a personal attack against you? I have no issue with you, just these images. – Pee Jay 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack in the slightest. Please use policy in your discussion on the future of the images. Not launch an attack against PeeJay here. Peanut4 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is: those images (not only the ones made by myself) are part of a set used in a large amount of articles in other Wikipedias. We've already had a discussion on them.

About Peejay: this is not the first time and you proposed for deletion only two images. What about Uefa cups? --Jcer80 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The word you're still looking for is deletion. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir.--Jcer80 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway: this [[16]] is the discussion (november 2007) on these images on the italian wikipedia and this [[17]] is the list of the articles.--Jcer80 (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

These images are a) in breach of copyright, b) add nothing to the articles in question and c) I'm sorry to say, ugly. I'd certainly be in favour of their removal. The fact that they are used in other language Wikipedias is also irrelevant. - fchd (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like them as well. And, don't feel offended, but this is not the Italian Wikipedia, so the discussion you refer at is merely irrelevant and worthless here. --Angelo (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, I nominated the images for deletion at Wikimedia Commons, as that is where they are stored, so this discussion would have an effect on several Wikipedias. – Pee Jay 08:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: these images have nothing to do with the english wikipedia. Angelo questo qui viene a rompere le scatole gratuitamente da altre parti, è inutile che te lo difendi. Fai come vuoi --Jcer80 (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not converse in Italian on the English Wikipedia. Anyway, the images are located at Wikimedia Commons, which means that what happens to them affects every Wiki project. They are in breach of copyright no matter what language you speak, so their deletion cannot come swiftly enough. – Pee Jay 12:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are stored into the Wikimedia Commons, so their deletion has nothing to do with this place. In short: please discuss the issue on Wikimedia Commons, and not here; this is definitely the wrong place. Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

John Reames

I've been discussing the age of John Reames, the former Lincoln City chairman and manager, who died last week with Tomreames (talk · contribs) - a relative of the deceased; all the sources provided give a death age of 65, but Tomreames is adamant that John Reames was born on 19th Feb 1942 - giving a death age of 66 - and he has said he will send me a birth or death certificate to prove it. How should I proceed? Giant Snowman 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Keegan

Paul Keegan once was a disam page, pointing to two footballers. Paul Keegan (footballer), who played for Drogheda, and Paul Keegan (soccer), who played for New England Revolution. 18 months ago, the original footballer disappeared, the soccer player was moved to the footballer page, and Paul Keegan was made a redirect to the footballer article. Got it? Now, I can't find any record of the original footballer being deleted - so what I want to know is, where is it? Was it correctly deleted it? Or accidentally written over? If it was deleted correctly, then obviously Paul Keegan needs to become the article location. HornetMike (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit appears to have over-written one player's details with the other..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That edit actually appears to have overwritten a lot of nonsense with the Paul Keegan (soccer)'s details. Soccerbase details for the Drogheda one, previously Leeds and Scunthorpe, are here, and for the New England (later Scottish clubs) are here.

Looks to me as if there never was a genuine article about the Leeds/Scunthorpe/Drogheda one. The only resemblance the overwritten stuff bears to that player is that they have him playing for Leeds (though at that date, he'd left them long before). And I suspect the reference in the old Paul Keegan disamb page would have been a redlink. The Drogheda one would be entitled to an article, on the basis of his 2 apps for Scunthorpe (and possibly his Irish career, though I know nothing about Irish notability). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreation after AFD

It doesn't seem to appear in the WP:Sppedy criteria, but do we have a fast way of getting rid of an article like this created only 4 days after its deletion was unanimously agreed? I've left a message on the re-creator's talk page. He knew that Kane Louis was to be deleted, and presumably why, and yet he has made articles for 3 other Brighton trainees offered contracts. Do some people enjoy making work for AfD patrollers? Kevin McE (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of an article deleted via AfD is a speedy deletion criterion...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kane Louis seems to be heading for a record for the number of times the article has been created and deleted - seven times so far! see log. unless, of course, you know better! --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag previously AfD'd articles with {{db-repost}} and they will be speedily deleted. Kane Louis has now been protected to prevent recreation. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a record by any length: Encyclopedia Dramatica lives up to its name. The trump card though is The weather in London.

By the way I have protected Kane Louis so only admins can recreate it. Woody (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Honours

Is there a consensus view on how "Honours" should be shown on a player or manager article? The honours for Gordon Strachan were changed recently, see here for the current format and here for the previous version. I personally prefer the older version, although I can't say why. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The latter. The former results in a needlessly cluttered table of contents. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (why on earth, though, is 'qualified for the round of 16' under there?) ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

SoccerBase and play-off games

If you look at the Michael McIndoe entry, his play-off apperances last season for Wolverhampton were counted as Other, but his play-off apprance this year for Bristol City has been classed a League which makes thier data unreilable. It seems a bit odd when Conference play-off games are classes as other like the Magno Vieira entry So what shall we do about this? Does anybody know if SBase has a email address where we can put this point them. Kingjamie (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See here. I've usually received a reply back from them, although it sometimes can take a while. --Jameboy (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, Soccerbase data is extremely unreliable. I've spotted a few mistakes, but this makes me treat all the data with a very big pinch of salt. Peanut4 (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed soccerbase and got a reply. All the games should now be going under the "Others" column. Peanut4 (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

They are now counted as others, I remember they did the same thing last year. Kingjamie (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As good as it is, Soccerbase routinely gets lower league Scottish football wrong, and despite my repeated requests to change, insists on supplementing the proper David Goodwillie entry with a daftly-spelled clone for the early part of his loan spell at Raith. •Oranje•·Talk 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Should the stats on a player's wikipedia page include playoff appearances or not? Please see recent edits on Richard Garcia. Thanks Beve (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No. League games are confined to normal season. Peanut4 (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Logo use in football articles

The original discussion posted here related to the proposed deletion of a number of national team football logos by User:Fasach Nua drifted away from here onto other pages and has recently been archived. The issue is not dead and has been inflamed by FN's stepping outside the bounds of the discussion he initiated by unilaterally deleting a number of football logos claiming they failed #8 at WP:nfc. (He's variously claimed failure for logos at #2 and #3 at points in the debate). You can follow the resulting discussion at my talk page, at FN's talk page (root through the history, he regularly whitewashes the page), and at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#These_Logos. The original discussion that appeared on this page is here.

Fasach Nua has made it clear that he is strongly opposed to the use of any non-free content, including logos. I am in my turn strongly opposed to that notion, specifically with respect to the use of logos. You should get a pretty clear sense of our respective positions from the links I've posted above.

So down to the nub of it. You are permitted the use of logos under the existing non-free content policy Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images. It's not a right and it has to happen within the bounds of current policy and guidelines Wikipedia:Logos. This is further supported by consensus. The nature of this consensus is touched on here Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Why_does_this_page_exist and there is other relevant discussion on this page that should help capture some of the flavour of the debate.

Fasach Nua is trying to arbitrarily take that freedom away from you by aggressively pushing his no non-free content agenda based on a narrow and unsupportable interpretation of policy and guideline and disregard for concensus. Ultimately, if he gets his way that could mean stripping logos from all articles on sports clubs, or from any other article where you might legitimately see a logo displayed today. We've been duking it out in the various spaces identified above and now its come down to this attempt to delete a group of logos I've placed in articles on German football.

Whatever your view of the whole thing, its time to weigh in and express an opinion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_11. I don't have any doubt that if it goes his way, FN will take it as carte blanche to remove or block the use of team logos on other football pages. And then move on to some other pet point of policy.

The other aspect of this whole thing that I find disturbing is Fasach Nua's bullying approach to this and other issues, and his general disdain for other editors. There is another thread here about the rancor that some editors feel has crept into this project, making it a less pleasant place to be than it once was (review it above and check some of the related links). The type of pointy editing employed in this debate and in the mass tagging of noteable player sections as original research without any prior meaningful discussion is just the sort of thing that is contributing to the deteriorating atmosphere here. And yes, I understand the gross irony of what I've posted here, but I believe it is important to stand up to editors who are clearly disruptive and more interested in pushing their own POV than contributing in an effective and collegial manner. It is wrong to snipe at your fellows in this manner and it is sad to see good editors driven away or intimidated by this sort of thing. As a group the project members here have generally managed to work things out over time through discussion, experimentation, and trial and error - not through aggressive, non-collaborative editing practises, which should be opposed at every turn.

This is your space. Stick up for it and make it the best you can. Wiggy! (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there seems to be some edit wars between you and this editor, and no one seems to give up. If I personnally would like to keep these logos, this issue should be resolved, I would not like the loss of a good editor because of logos.--Latouffedisco (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For the most part I'm content to quietly drift around do my own thing and chip in where I can. I feel that in this case it was worth a bit of a tussle because there are a couple of fairly broad principles involved (use of non-free content in accordance with policy, guideline, and consensus; editing through discussion, consensus, and a respect for community) that were being badly beaten on. This place is interesting and fun and should stay that way. I keep seeing your user name crop up in the articles for French-German football clubs (and here on the project and elsewhere - you're a prolific editor!). Good to see additional material added and really happy to see the articles develop without the bad blood you so often see where the history of a club is tangled up in politics and the unpleasant bits of European history. Thanks for the note. Wiggy! (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, the discussion(s) related to the group of logos put up for deletion has been closed with each of the images being kept. As a group the members of this project have made it clear in the disscussions on this issue that took place in the various locations wiki-linked above that they support the appropriate use of logos within the established interpretation of policy and guideline. I hope this means we can put this to rest and that it helps to steer editors away from tendentious editing practises and towards solution-oriented approaches that respect the need for discussion and the consensus of the community. Wiggy! (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability isuues (again)

In case anyone missed it, WP:ATHLETE has been changed again today. Yet another modification by a single user without any kind of discussion or consensus. I found out where these sacred and oft cited criteria came from. It just appeared one day in September 2005. How can something drawn up by one long gone editor nearly three years ago continue to take precedent over something discussed, debated and analysed by dedicated contributors to the subject area over a number of weeks and supported by consensus?

I really can't believe that we spent weeks discussing debating and reasoning with each other to reach consensus over WP:FOOTYN only for it to be shot down by WP:BIO because they didn't want it to supersede WP:ATHLETE, yet the meaning of WP:ATHLETE can just be re-written by anyone who wants to, at a whim. Could we get our act together to demand that WP:FOOTYN is accepted as our notability criteria in order to end this farce. E P 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That edit is probably part of a row that erupted the other day over the deletion of some coaches of college [American] football teams. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you revert the edit, and why aren't you discussing the issue there, rather than here? Qwghlm (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert it because I believe notability criteria should be determined by consensus. Removing the edit to a previous version which was also not developed via discussion and consensus would be as unilateral as the guy who added it. The issue of recent changes to WP:ATHLETE has been raised twice on the WP:BIO talkpage. I was hoping to get some comments/support from the people who helped create WP:FOOTYN, this seemed like the right place to raise the issue. E P 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts at the initial discussion to try and bring up some guidelines, and the recent discussions haven't changed. I don't see why our full discussion cannot be made policy, when people keep making random edits and change WP:ATHLETE. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding flags for clubs

I was just thinking about this, what I consider, inconsistency. Cardiff City is a welsh football club playing in the English league system, right? So when they are showed with a flag, they have the Welsh flag. Now when you look at AS Monaco, which is a monegasque football club playing in the French league system they get the French flag, not the flag of Monaco. What's the reason for this inconsistency? ← chan dler 07:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is Cardiff City FC's flag shown, namely? --Angelo (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh flag is used for Cardiff City because they are primarily affiliated to the Football Association of Wales and only have associate membership with the Football Association, meaning that they compete in the English league system as a guest club. AS Monaco, however, are registered primarily with the French Football Federation, hence why they use the French flag. – Pee Jay 07:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't even have association membership with the FA, but they do compete in the English League System under their own right - the court case with the non-league clubs after the formation of the League of Wales proved that you don't need to be affiliated with the FA to play in an FA sanctioned league. They compete in the FA Cup by invitation. I still don't think it is worth putting an identifier, either in text or a flag, on every single Cardiff City reference though. - fchd (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelo it is shown for example in the UEFA Cup winners' Cup 67/68 at least. Yes PeeJay, I understand that, but that doesnt make Monaco a french team. Now if the flagicon shown was the crest of the FA the teams are affiliated to, I'd be totally OK with that (but from what I understand, most, if not all the logos of FAs are under copyright and not available) but now its the flag of the country in which the FA is most active in. Which I think is somewhat misleading in this case. I think location should go over FA affiliation. I guess you'd have to ask the Monaco fans if they consider them self a french or a monegasque club. ← chan dler 09:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Flags should represent the country that the club would represent in continental competitions. Cardiff, as members of the FAW, are not allowed to qualify for Europe via English competitions under current FA rules. However, if they had won the 2008 FA Cup Final, they would have competed in next year's UEFA Cup as England's representatives because of some bureaucratic nonsense. Monaco, however, represent the French FA when they compete in UEFA competitions, which makes them a French club in my opinion. – Pee Jay 09:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And in the Cup Winners' Cup example cited above Cardiff were representing Wales anyway, by virtue of having won the Welsh Cup...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What about a team like FC Vaduz (which from what I saw looks like one of the most successful liechtensteiner club), they've been in europe in the cup winners' cup (from winning the liechtenstein cup i guess). This team has now been promoted to the top league in Switzerland where they compete (If their infobox is correct) this means they have the chance to qualify to the UEFA Cup through their domestic cup and to Champions league / UEFA Cup through their league. And you would have them under a Swiss flag depending on from where they qualify? What would be done if they qualify to the UEFA cup from both league position and Cup winning, what flag then? ← chan dler 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Countries only have a set number of places. So it depends which country they would be representing. Even if they qualified twice, they would only take one place, leaving the other open to another team. Peanut4 (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know... but still, it will just look strange if they have the LIE flag in the next UEFA cup and the Swiss in the year after that, and then the LIE again the season after that. ← chan dler 10:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems someone set the topic too difficult to digest... Okay, say it in another word. For the UEFA competitions, I'd rather let the team follow the association which they played in. If it is in league, put them as the country they come from. Raymond Giggs 11:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggs for Temporary (talk • contribs)

Regarding FC Vaduz, there was another discussion here recently, during which user:Edgar e-mailed FC Vaduz to ask them if they could qualify through the Swiss league, the reply stated that "Liechtenstein teams can't qualify for European football through the Swiss league system.", if that's true then there will never be a reason to put a Swiss flag next to FC Vaduz. Overall I think the rule should be that the flag displayed is the "nationality" of the competition they qualified through, take Derry City's Rep. of Ireland flag as an example. - MTC (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the main places where I come accross flags attached to clubsis in the squad list on national team articles. Here, I believe that what is of interest to the reader is what country's league a player participates in, not the location of the team's home ground or a legal affiliation that does not give information about the player. We should avoid giving the impression that international players listed on the Ireland, Finland or Northern Ireland squad lists are playing at LoW levels! Kevin McE (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that the same principle should apply to national team squad lists as to clubs in European competition. The national association that the club is affiliated to/qualified for Europe through is the country that should be displayed next to their name. – Pee Jay 14:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Henri Pierre Armand Nnouck Minka

Surely this chap is known by a shorter name?!?! Giant Snowman 17:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his profile on the clubs website (which isn't the link given on the article despite what it says in the EL section) his name would appear maybe to be "double-barrelled with both his first name and surname: Henri-Pierre A. Nnouck-Minka? Unless it is Henri P.A. Nnouck-Minka?!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A double-barreled name would make more sense...Giant Snowman 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Many naming systems have a double, but not double-barelled (i.e. hyphenated) surname: Spanish for one. I have no idea what name this player is usually known by, and no real knowledge of Cameroonian naming customs (but some Wiki article might have light to shed on the matter), but let's be careful not to impose Anglocentric conventions without evidence. Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to impose it, just speculating, without any knowledge about the topic, as to whether or not the surname could be Nnouck Minka (with or without the hyphen) and his first name Henri Pierre (with or without the hyphen). Whatever the correct format I would have thought that there was no need for his full name to be used.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that (some) Cameroonian naming customs are similar to Spanish ones - Samuel Eto'o and his siblings have a 'double surname' of Eto'o Fils. However, we cannot assume that this is the case with this particular player. Giant Snowman 20:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cameroon is a French speaking country and "fils" is French for "son" so I suspect that's not a double surname per se, more akin to him being Samuel Eto'o Jr. ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good point...but what about his brothers, David and Etienne? They are also 'Eto'o Fils.' Giant Snowman 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, pass :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought as much :) Giant Snowman 11:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Also sons of Mr Eto'o? Shows the dangers about making assumptions based on Anglo- or Euro-, centric knowledge. Kevin McE (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Another question is: is he notable? Doesn't look like it. Punkmorten (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-League stadiums

User:Lord Cornwallis has been creating articles on Non-League stadiums, e.g. populating {{Northern Premier League Premier Division Venues}} and {{Isthmian League Premier Division Venues}}. Personally, I don't believe these stadiums are notable, and that any info should be included as part of the club article. A couple of years ago someone added merge tags to all grounds below the Conference and I weeded them all out a couple of months ago. What do other editors think? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's true to say that all grounds at that level are "blanket" non-notable. I managed to get Hartsdown Park up to Good Article status, finding quite a few good sources in the process.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hartsdown Park has seen Conference football, and therefore I would say it is notable. I am more concerned with grounds that have never seen anything above Southern/Isthmian/Northern Premier League football. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're probably right there. Although of course we shouldn't impose any rule that editors can't create an article if sources can be found (there have been books published on non-league grounds)..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro leagues in New Zealand

Paul Harkness has played only for non-league clubs in England but appears to have also played for North Shore United in New Zealand. This club apparently plays in NZ's Northern League - anyone know if this is a pro league......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful, tbh. I'm not even sure that New Zealand's national championship is fully professional. – Pee Jay 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No football league in NZ is fully professional, altough many players in the top echelon are paid (semi professional), and some possibly derive their full income from football. The only true professional representation is Wellington Phoenix who play in the Australian A-League--ClubOranje^Talk 00:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Profiles

User:Jonathan Winsky has been making a number of edits to add club profiles from various club websites to the external links of players. I've noticed one or two at other players' bios in the past. One or two have been reverted by a couple of other editors. But should they be on here or not? Peanut4 (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the problem - what's the difference to adding a soccerbase or englandstats profile? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The few links I've looked at are WP:RS - I think the only question is that of linkfarming and whether it's over the top. Right now, for the few I've checked, it isn't, but possibly worth keeping an eye on... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see is their transiency: once the player leaves the club, the link usually becomes dead very quickly, which would obviously mean it'd need removing. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics in article titles

As part of a mass move by User:Evlekis, the articles on Nikola Žigić and Nemanja Vidić were recently cut-and-paste moved to titles without diacritics, citing a "daft new Wikipedia policy" as the reason. I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy that now prohibits the use of diacritics in article titles, so I wondered if anyone can link me to the discussion about this proposal. – Pee Jay 08:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it was that User:Philip Baird Shearer was arguing for page moves based on WP:UE using the line that as the UK media don't use diatrics, neither should we. Personally I think we should stick with them as it is the correct way of spelling them, regardless of the media (who probably don't use them because they don't have the keys or are just too lazy). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my thinking too, and also the reason why I immediately moved Nemanja Vidic back to Nemanja Vidić. Haven't got around to doing Nikola Zigic yet, but I'm sure admins have special tools for doing this better than I could. – Pee Jay 08:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done Žigić as it involved a page history merge. However, there is a discussion on Talk:Nikola Žigić about the move if people want to add their 2p. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And it's been moved again... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the UK media, I wouldn't use diacritics, partly for being lazy, but mainly because I don't have the keys, and my system doesn't even allow accents on even the most obvious of words that need them. Peanut4 (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to use diacritics there should be a always be a redirect page that will let an English language user always find an article easily. Right or not, I'm not thrilled to see Žigić on en:Wikipedia, because I know there is no hope I'll ever find the thing (along the lines of trying to track down Fußball vs. fussball, Königsberg vs. Koenigsberg or Konigsberg). But I could easily find the re-direct page for Zigic. I would think it would be about balancing off being technically correct with being useable. Is it standard practise to use that kind of re-direct? Maybe should be. Wiggy! (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be standard practice to use that kind of redirect. I'd never have found Jiri Jarosik otherwise. Certainly now that endashes are allowed in page names, a redirect using a hyphen is required, per WP:DASH, paragraph headed "En dashes in page names". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The title should contain diacritics, accents, etc. (so longer as it is broadly understandable to an English-reader) and a simplified script version should redirect to the correct title. I don't see how there can even be a debate about this. Dancarney (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, particularly where personal names are involved. - fchd (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I also concur. Redirects can be used to make navigation easier, the article title should be correct, not "dumbed down". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Shall I take this as consensus to move, or do we need to transfer all these comments to the talk page for a proper RM to take place? There seems to be a clear consensus (6-1 - not clear which way Peannut4, Wiggy! and Struway2 are leaning) for diactrics. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Quickly for the record, I'm for the use of diactrics as long as the simplified re-direct page is in place. Wiggy! (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to this discussion in the article's talk page would be sufficient? To further the case for diacritics, Vojislav Koštunica and Boris Tadić (the Prime Minister and President, respectively, of Serbia) include them in their article titles. Dancarney (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Struway is leaning very strongly towards correctly using diacritics in article names. Which would make the score 7-1, not that I'm counting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree in keeping diacritics. --necronudist (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it back and linked to the discussion per Dan's suggestion. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer ChrisTheDude. No, your teachers were not totally incorrects. Accents are rarely used on capitals letters although they should be see here or here (Académie Française) which says "On veille donc, en bonne typographie, à utiliser systématiquement les capitales accentuées" which I could translate by "In a good typography, we look after using systematically accents on capital letters."I hope this is clear enough.--Latouffedisco (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In English there is no correct way to spell a word there is only usage. The Wikipedia:naming convention reflect this. The naming convention and its subsidiary pages are clear. The name should reside on the page that verifiable reliable sources use. Further it is no use arguing that a local consensus exists. Because as WP:consensus states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted". The guidelines are clear on this issue as are the sources so if you want the page name under a name that is different from name that Wikipedia guidelines suggest then do it formally through a WP:RM and ask a disinterested administrator to consider the arguments both and make a decision. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) failed to gain consensus, so currently there isn't a set rule either way beyond the common usage, so we should use what ever the sources use. If all the sources use Vidic we should use that, if they use diacritics we should use them. Either way we can set up a corresponding redirect. John Hayes^talk 17:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer has now requested a move of the article from Nikola Zigic to Nikola Žigić, presumably to determine once and for all whether or not we should use diacritics in article titles. – Pee Jay 18:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This one decision about Nikola Zigic is not binding on any other. This is just to do with the Nikola Zigic article: do we use the Wikipedia guidelines and place the page Nikola Zigic as that is what most reliable English langauge sources use, or do we not. In another case the English common usages might be with accent marks (diacritics) or they may not. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the decision on that article has no impact on any other. John Hayes^talk 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that potentially getting too complex? Having to decide each case on individual merits is going to result in perpetual little edit wars. If the group agrees to consistently use diacritics on the main article and also provide a redirect from a title based in common English usage we've got something that'll work every time without any wrangling. That sounds about as simple as it gets to me. And there's no harm in this group providing some leadership on the issue either. Wiggy! (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my own position from above, I'm totally in favour for diacritics, since you would expect simple French accents on French names, the same should follow all the way through. Just simply add redirects for those of us who type with English keyboards. This is an encyclopedia, so let's not dumb down. Peanut4 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty obvious. --necronudist (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd think so, wouldn't you? However, much as it pains me to say, the mere fact that we're having an RM discussion about this particular article would suggest otherwise. – Pee Jay 21:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There are clear guidelines that say use the spelling as is found in reliable sources, (See WP:UE). If the English most language reliable sources use accent marks then use accent marks (diacritics) in Wikipedia, if they don't then don't use them in Wikipeida. If those rules are followed there would be no need for this debate. It is only because some people think that they know what is "correct", (without producing any reliable sources that support the proposition that using accent marks is correct), that this debate is taking place. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wiggy! and Peanut4: the titles should be in diacritics, and redirects in common English, in order to easily find the articles. I understand that a name like Dževad Šećerbegović could be difficult, but It's the original name. And as a Frenchman I think the article Eric Cantona should be Éric Cantona for example, although I never tried to move it, because of potential edit wars.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My French teachers at school taught me that accents weren't used on capital letters, were they incorrect.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So should we follow the grammar rules about accent marks depending on the mother tongue of the person -- sounds very complicated -- why not follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that say follow English language usage for that name in verifiable reliable sources? If we do, we do not have the complications of what is correct in a any particular foreign language, because if the English reliable sources place an accent mark on the first letter we use it, if they do not we do not. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said for the non-Turkish players with Turkish diacritics: I don't care about the title (I think it should follow the common spelling), but should be mentioned in the article the heritage spelling. Joe Sakic (ice-hockey player) was born from a Sakić and it must be mentioned that his original surname was Sakić, later adapted to Canadian customs. Kubilay Türkyilmaz was born in Switzerland from a Türkyılmaz and lost Turkish ı due to the fact that it cannot be used in Switzerland. Plus, I've never seen Lukáš Jarolím written that way in any English or Italian newspaper/magazine/website, but that's the way he was born and it's his original and only name. I don't understand why I should follow magazines errors or lazyness in an Encyclopedia. --necronudist (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

←By the way, the guideline which is being perpetually referred to states quite clearly at the top "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" - in this case, common sense suggests we use the "English" (incorrect) version to redirect to the "diacritic" (correct) version. Can anyone see any harm in this? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In the absense of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) that is probably the most sensible idea. John Hayes^talk 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "correct" in English, there is usage as it appears in reliable English language sources, if those sources use accent marks so should we and if they do not nor should we. Or is the argument being forwarded here that reliable English language sources are less reliable than the opinions of Wikipedia editors? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, what's being proposed is a very good compromise that if you're looking for the article (this is, after all, the main purpose of people visiting the site) then you can type the non-diacritic'ed name into the search box, and you'll be redirected seamlessly to the article whereupon you'll learn that most of the rest of the world use diacritics. It's a beautiful compromise and everyone would win. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

<--necronudist you write "I don't care about the title (I think it should follow the common spelling" but lower down you write "I don't understand why I should follow magazines errors or lazyness in an Encyclopedia." The rule in WP:NC, and WP:UE is simple use the name as it is commonly written in reliable English language sources (such sources are taken to be correct English usage in Wikipedia articles (see WP:V). WP:UE also encourages the inclusion of alternative names --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And WP:UE is a set of guidelines which "...are under development. Please discuss and improve." What is the problem with the common sense approach? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Wikipedia policies, 'cause I usually don't modify spellings. Just, we're talking from ages about diacritics in every project and we'll talk about it again and again and again, always with the same questions. I think the correct name should prevail over the lazy magazines who don't care about diacritics, or avoid them due to printing problems. Another little issue: do you really think this is an English encyclopedia? I think it's a worldwide encyclopedia (I'm Italian but I spend most of the time in this wiki), with worldwide users and readers, and should change its approach. But this is a minor issue and isn't really related with the diacritics one. --necronudist (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline ties in with the policy WP:V and several other guidelines including WP:NC and WP:MOS. Given the content policies, the common sense approach is to use reliable English language sources to decide what is the best name to use in the English Wikipedia. Sometimes those sources will use a name with accent marks, in other cases they will not. We should use reliable third party sources to determine the content of our pages, not what some editors think is "correct" without as far as I can tell a coherent line of argument as to why they think those spellings of the names are correct when reliable third party sources use other spellings names. This is an English language encyclopaedia not an English encyclopaedia. necronudist as you are Italian, how do you judge what is the correct name for a person in English if you do not use reliable English language sources? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

But don't you think we can do better than that? I'm no expert but most of these diacritics modify the way in which the names are pronounced. English attempts to translate them are varied. All variations can redirect to the real name. I fail to see why an encyclopaedia shouldn't contain people's real names, particularly when REDIRECT caters for all other eventualities. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Shearer, let me notice your common sense approach is actually not the common sense approach. You seem you want to disrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate your point of view, despite a clear consensus emerging against your opinions. I suggest you to improve the encyclopedia articles rather than keeping on pushing your own view of the things, possibly starting from those exact articles you argue should be renamed. Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Angelo. And Shearer, I'm a football researcher. I know a bit of those things... --necronudist (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to inform that User talk:Philip Baird Shearer have reverted Number57 edit and moved back Nikola Žigić to Nikola Zigic, and this against the consensus. And by the way, necronudist, I agree with you en.wikipedia is worldwide wikipedia.:)--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of articles for South American players with diacritics, many of them have received virtually no coverage in the English press. A good example is Mauro Zárate, who received almost no English language press attention until he joined Birmingham, suddenly a flood of articles were written by lazy journalists who couldn't be bothered to use the accent. Anyone trying to claim that Zarate is the correct way to write his name on the back of this would have to ignore the fact that he was born Zárate, his real name never stopped being Zárate, his footballing brothers who never got a flood of English press attention are still called Zárate on English Wikipedia, removing the accent from a name has pronunciation implications for people who actually understand how they should be used, and many sources to their credit have gone to the effort of including the accent. I am fully in favour of the common sense redirect to help people who want to search for an article from an English keyboard and believe that all articles using diacritics should have a plain text redirect, I know Gene Nygaard would agree with me on this. E P 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, lazy journalist checking in. Do you not also think that said lazy journalists may also use wikipedia as a source, see no accent, and repeat the error. You are never going to see Šećerbegović in a headline, whatever you think about newspaper methods, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be that way on here. At the end of the day, omitting the diacritics is basically a spelling mistake. To suggest we should copy what WP:RS put is daft. If every newspaper for 15 years misspelt Alan Shearer, to Alan Sheerer, it's no reason to put that on here. Peanut4 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is it is not the policy of Wikipedia to correct errors, it is the policy of Wikipedia to follow see WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". If most reliable sources have spelt the man's name "Alan Sheerer", then that is what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say use. This may seem counter intuitive, but it does lead to a more accurate encyclopaedia in in the long term. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't really argue with that, it is one of our core policies. John Hayes^talk 11:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it just leads to the continuation of the dissemnination of factual errors. There is no way on earth that leads to a more accurate encyclopaedia. - fchd (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, do whatever you want :-) In my database I'll keep diacritics 'cause I must do a reliable work if I wanna publish it. However, don't be bothered when someone say that wikipedia is not a reliable source....if there's a policy who basically say that I must be inaccurate...funny! --necronudist (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Champions League Honours

A few players, notably Louis Saha and Mikael Silvestre, have had Champions League Winner 2008 added to their honours. Given that Saha wasn't even included on the team sheet (for the final) and Silvestre didn't get on the field, are they entitled to have that honour recorded? In most competitions, your winners medal applies only if you played the final - notwithstanding FIFA recent rulings for World Cups which are a 'closed squad' tournament. What is our consensus? every player that ever stepped on the park for MU, or just those inn Moscow, or just those that stepped over the white line. --ClubOranje^Talk 00:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that, it was mentioned on the night there were a group of players who went up for a medal even though they never played tonight, i.e. I'm pretty sure X number of games in the competition qualifies you for a medal. MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also not sure. I know some competitions have a certain number of medals to give out and it's up to the club / country, how they do so. It would be guesswork on our part to include honours for certain players in certain tournaments. Does Les Sealey count as having a 1990 FA Cup Final honour since he gave it to Jim Leighton? Or do Glen Johnson and Jamie Ashdown count as having 2008 FA Cup honours because their medals were stolen? Both answers are yes, but second-guessing who does and who doesn't have medals if the initial scenario is right, is impossible. Peanut4 (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that for all UEFA or FIFA competitions, as long as you were in the registered on team sheet as eligible for such competitions you should be considered a member of the winning team. The fact that one did not participate in the final match should be irrelevant, as Angelo Peruzzi or Marco Amelia then would not be FIFA World Cup winners. Do you? ^yes...|_{or no} · 01:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

All in my opinion of course. Would be helpful to find an actual UEFA and/or FIFA policy for this. Do you? ^yes...|_{or no} · 01:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

All I can find in the Regulations of the UEFA Champions League document is that thirty gold medals are given to the winning club, and thirty silver medals are given to the runners-up. How the clubs distribute those medals is entirely up to them. I don't know if Louis Saha got a medal, but I assume Mikael Silvestre did as he was in the final squad. Because of that, I would add "Champions League winner" to Mikael Silvestre's article, but not Louis Saha. Same goes for Gary Neville, who only played one CL game all season, even though he is the club captain. – Pee Jay 08:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guess that matchday squads, i.e., starting eleven and subs, are eligible for Final medals in any competition. In addition, the English and Scottish Premier Leagues award championship medals to players who have played at least ten matches. •Oranje•·Talk 10:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir Bobby Charlton was given a medal, is he now a winner too? John Hayes^talk 13:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression (though I may be wrong) that anyone who played in at least one game in the tournement qualifies as a "winner" (on the basis that someone could play all the games and then get banned or injured from the final). John Hayes^talk 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Players in the matchday squad for the final definitely get medals, and should definitely be considered have having won that competition. In most competitions, particularly outside the UK, the entire first-team squad gets a medal, and in UEFA competitions this is taken to be the 25 man list of eligible players submitted to UEFA. Whether you include players outside the 18 is debatable, but I generally do (See List of UEFA Champions League winning players, which I don't have the heart to update today). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this really can help, but when they play Football manager, you have to cup-tie certain players for the champions league 25 max, I think they hold pretty hard on having the correct rules... Though there should be something on UEFA.com probably... at the very least I think players who played, even if it was only for 1 second this season, qualify for a "win", though I'm not sure about players who maybe only sat on the bench once ← chan dler 13:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely even Man United wouldn't sub on a player with one second to go? Now seven seconds, that's a different matter ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the earlier comment, if anyone taped the ITV coverage (I didn't), right as Man U go up to collect their medals, I am sure the commentator said there were players going up who had not player (or were subs). Now the confusing part - the managers got medals too (Avram got 2, one for the happy slapper, and his which he threw into the crowd). MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And remembering the FA Cup coverage, I even possibly think the commentator said Defoe gets an FA Cup medal, even though he was cup tied and never played in the cup for Pompey. MickMacNee (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If he was cup-tied, he played ← chan dler 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? He was cup-tied, so he didn't. I find it fairly unlikely he got an FA Cup winners medal, given that he didn't - couldn't - contribute. If he did, it's meaningless and shouldn't be included. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Champions League-article's titles

From Talk:2008 UEFA Champions League Final#Champions League-article's titles

Why are the finals titled "Year" UEFA Champions League Final (e.g. 2007 UEFA Champions League Final, while other articles follow the format UEFA Champions League "Insert season year"' (e.g. UEFA Champions League 2006-07 or UEFA Champions League 2006-07 knockout stage)? Thanks. Do you? ^yes...|_{or no} · 01:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because the final takes place on one specific date in one specific calendar year, whereas obviously the complete tournament is spread over an entire season. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And also, whereas you might say "Super Bowl XLII" (for example) in normal speech, with the year/edition of the tournament coming second, it is much more common to put the year first when referring to football matches, such as the 2006 FIFA World Cup Final or the 1999 UEFA Champions League Final. – Pee Jay 08:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Billy Scott (footballer)

When did he die? This needs to be fixed. michfan2123 (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about death date - I'll do some research in a minute - but I've changed the article to reflect that fact that he is not alive at 125! Giant Snowman 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Death date is blank on allfootballers.com..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

An immortal footballer? Amazing...Giant Snowman 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Everton FC have his date of birth as 1/1/1884, NIFG and Michael Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 book have 1884, so I wonder if the article's 1883 year of birth might be a typo? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Could be, if no source is given for 1884 then change it to 1883 and provide the above references. Giant Snowman 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability question

Is this player notable - he has not yet played in a fully-pro league (but has recently signed with a League 2 side, with the manager stating he would be the #2 keeper), the highest level he has played at so far looks to be the Conference North...HOWEVER, he has played in the FA Cup, in a BBC-televised match against a League Two side in Round 2 of the FA Cup. Many thanks, Giant Snowman 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No. He has to have played for a fully professional club in the FA Cup, not against one. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that might have been the rule. I'll have to wait until he makes his L2 debut then! Cheers, Giant Snowman 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If he has played in such a high profile match there is a chance he is notable enough under the extensive coverage rule, though it's unlikely. John Hayes^talk 16:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

FA founder clubs

Is it worth having a template for the 12 founder member clubs of the Football Association? Something along the lines of {{FA founder clubs}}? Giant Snowman 16:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on the FA there are only 11 founder members listed (and unsourced), of which a couple appear to be not even notable for an article, while at least two others are only represented by the smallest of stub articles. - fchd (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth some sort of article if there is not yet sufficient material in the FA main article. I did a short page that lists the founding clubs of the DFB. Needs a couple minor corrections and to be expanded into a proper article, but it at least gives a some background and puts all the original clubs in one place. Some of the resulting club articles are just stubs, but every once in a while someone pops up with a tidbit or source to add, so I'm encouraged. Makes a interesting side project. Too many clubs to make into a useable template in the case of German football. Wiggy! (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then how about a Football Association template, which lists in it the founder clubs, presidents etc.? Giant Snowman 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That may well have legs. - fchd (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go at creating one, once I've done it I'll come back here and ask for people's helps with cleaning it up. Cheers Richard. Giant Snowman 18:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The template has now been created at {{The Football Association}}, any improvements will be greatly welcome! Giant Snowman 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, perhaps there is scope for a section on the competitions run by the FA, - the Cup, Trophy, Vase, Sunday Cup, Youth Cup, County Youth Cup, NLS Cup, Women's Cup, Futsal Cup and Community Shield, plus the defunct Amateur Cup. - fchd (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good...at the moment I'm adding Presidents, Secretaries, Chief Executives etc., but any other expansion would be fantastic. Giant Snowman 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability: fully pro team or league?

Crewe Alexandra's season template

Some help please

Category:Match Attax Cards

SPFA or PFA Scotland?

Featured topics

Scottish league playoffs

Bot request

Jim Hagan

Team and competition logos

Question from talk page of England national football team managers

Dynamos F.C. (Zimbabwe)

Did You Know?

Infobox only articles

Help with Template

European club competition winners, country of origin attribution

Notability check

David Burrows (footballer) etc

Notability check

Spirit of discord and contentiousness in this WikiProject

A pile of non-notable footballers

Tagging "notable player" sections as OR

Proposed Criteria for National Team notability

Proposed Criteria for Club notability

Removal of tags

Season for premature changes

Tesfaye Bramble's non-league stats

Zenit and British press

MOS for Completion name

National Football Centre

Inclusion of league tables in articles

Ishmael Welsh - place of birth?

Re: List of professional football leagues

{{Former football league members}}

Mário Silva (football player) vs Mário Silva (footballer)

How notable is winning the reserve premier league

Football statistics templates

Image:Ryan Valentine scores.jpg Featured Picture list

Most unnecessarily detailed section on WP........?

Huh?

Summer releases

Competition names

Derby's season in the trivia

List of Portuguese football stadia by capacity

A batch of templates nominated for deletion

2008 Major League Soccer season

Changes to MOSFLAG

Shorts and socks for the kits

"–" or &ndash;?

Brahim Hemdani

Featured / comprehensive lists

English Div 1 top scorer 1935–36

AfD today

Runners-up honours?

Robert Gardiner

"Current club" field in infoboxes

Adminship

{{no criteria}}

European Cup logos... again

John Reames

Paul Keegan

Recreation after AFD

Honours

SoccerBase and play-off games

Logo use in football articles

Notability isuues (again)

Question regarding flags for clubs

Henri Pierre Armand Nnouck Minka

Non-League stadiums

Pro leagues in New Zealand

Profiles

Diacritics in article titles

Champions League Honours

Champions League-article's titles

Notability question

FA founder clubs

"–" or –?