Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 26

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

Help with Template:Infobox MLS

Hey can someone who understands templates slightly better than I help out with making the line about the MLS Reserve Division optional in the infobox? MLS announced yesterday that the Reserve Division had been discontinued after 2008, but the line needs to remain in te box for several other season articles before the 2009 season, though it no longer needs to be in articles from 2009 on. Any takers? -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's done now; do tell me if you run into troubles with my changes though. Kaizeler (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that didn't do it. Thanks for trying though. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Have had a go meself, seems to work on the 2009 article. Nanonic (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we even have an infobox specifically for MLS seasons? MLS isn't a fundamentally different sport from footy such that {{infobox football league season}} shouldn't be able to cover it. Time for another merge, methinks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Same for {{infobox MLS Cup}} and {{infobox Major League Soccer Event}}. I'm going to take a harder line in future with these and not include all the weird MLS quirks when merging. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've resolved this by merging {{Infobox MLS}} into the generic league infobox. Well, I say "merging" - I allowed for the MLS Cup / Shield thing and got rid of the rest. Other countries don't have the reserve league, individual player awards et cetera in their infoboxen and we should try to treat MLS just like other football league where possible. I've also transmogrified {{infobox Major League Soccer Event}} into a shiny new {{infobox football match}} and merged {{infobox MLS Cup}} into it. Further work should be undertaken on the generic templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with what you're proposing in principle, but only as long as key things like the distinction between the Supporters' Shield and MLS Cup are recognised. They might be different from most European leagues, but MLS is far from the only league with playoffs, and that has to be respected. -- Grant .Alpaugh 15:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've specifically catered for those two, yeah. Let me know if there's anything I've omitted which is a truly necessary exception. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Major League Soccer Supporters Groups

Just wanted to get an opinion on this template and the associated linked pages. Surely most of the pages for the groups are not necessary when most of the groups aren't particularly notable. Surely they'd be better off as subsections of the clubs' pages? Hack (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, merge them into the club articles. Skitzo (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:PALIO10

This user seems to be a die-hard fan of Slovak football, but is creating lots of stubs, which are uncategorized, players with no DOB etc... I've improved some articles like Ludovit Cvetler and give him a piece of advice User talk:PALIO10, but as he keeps editing [1], this would be hard for me to do all this work, and I'm a bit away these times...--Latouffedisco (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up some of the articles and will leave the user a note about adding sources, categories, etc. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Brendan Rodgers

...was appointed manager of Watford this morning. His article is still missing some basic details though, such as an accurate date of birth and more info about his playing career...any help would be appreciated! Giant Snowman 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Albanian Superliga

Is the Albanian Superliga fully professional? I bring this up because I noticed some PRODs were removed on Albania-based footballers, and looking at those articles, it's impossible to tell whether the league is fully professional or semi-pro. --Mosmof (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Those articles I PRODed were from players in Albanian Second and Third Divisions which are not professional. Might also be a few from the Albanian top division but as far as I could see the players I proded never even played a match. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

NF-board teams (or whatever they're called)

I've just noticed that Roma people national football team, West Papua national football team, Rijeka national football team, Maasai national football team, and possibly some others, all of which were deleted via AfD, appear to have been re-created. Was there a DRV or anything that I missed, or should I just speedy them all under criterion G4......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If there was a DRV then I missed it as well, so they're apt for speedying! Giant Snowman 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Jamie Waite

Can an admin move James Waite to Jamie Waite over the redirect? It's his commonname looking at pretty much every source, and according to findmypast.com Jamie Waite is actually his birthname. Peanut4 (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't you db-author and rename it yourself?--ClubOranje^Talk 00:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I never even realised I created the redirect page in the first place! Good idea. Peanut4 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting... :-) Jameboy (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editors - Football

Dear WP FOOTY project (and its projectors ;)),

i bring to your attention a seriously disruptive editor. Once i warned about a "contributor" called PARARUBBAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pararubbas), whom operated almost exclusively on PORTUGUESE FOOTBALL and/or FOOTBALLERS, and his modus operandi consisted of gluing sentences into one, removing brackets, links and references. Thank god i got some users to help him get blocked.

Now, i bring to you another user which i believe is the same, as PARARUBBAS is blocked and has not edited in 4 months. With the account name PEP10 (contributions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pep10), the M.O. is the same: Almost exclusively PORT.FOOTBALL, refs, links all gone just because and, like PARARUBBAS he does not write one single edit summary and does not respond to messages, although (over)duly warned.

Sincerely yours, from PORTUGAL,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you suspect someone is evading a block, you should report it at WP:CHECKUSER, not here. --Dweller (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rotherham United F.C.

Was there ever an honours list on the article? Govvy (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if you want to add one, all the info is here. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of 1956 FA Cup Final

I've not been very involved with this WikiProject for some time, so I've forgotten your assessment criteria, but I was surprised to find this article is assessed for importance as "Low". (It's today Main Page article, btw) --Dweller (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It probably ought to be higher according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment#Importance scale. However there is no real definitive guide for such articles. It's quite clear for leagues, players, teams and rules, but not much else. Peanut4 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Season articles, as stated in the final criterion are of "low" importance which I imagine includes things like the 1955-56 F.A. Cup, surely individual matches, even the F.A. Cup final cannot be of any higher importance? - fchd (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Richard. I had thought that matches of greater notability, such as the White Horse Final or the Matthews Final, would be worthy of Mid-importance (at the highest), but then I realised that it might be quite difficult to define criteria for naming any particular match as more important than another. – Pee Jay 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Notability Discussion

ATTENTION WP:ATHLETE is being re-written. There is a very big discussion here. The re-writing is focusing mainly on amateur athletes. You may well wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there's a second discussion further down the page that isn't dealing with amateur and is instead trying to alter professional notability, probably of more immediate interest. matt91486 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link. Peanut4 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris Morgan

Resolved

The page for Chris Morgan is getting almost hourly vandalism due to the publicity around the incicdent Iain Hume. I've been trying to keep it clear but is some form of article protection warranted until thigs die down? Thanks Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a week. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Expatriate footballers in Monaco and Liechtenstein

Where do foreign players in countries like Monaco and Liechtenstein need to be sorted? Are AS Monaco players expatriate footballers in France, because Monaco plays in the French league? Or are they expatriate footballers in Monaco, because Monaco is an independent principality? And what about Liechtensteiner clubs that play in the Swiss leagues? Aecis·(away) ^talk 03:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the most relevant category is the country the club played in. In that case, AS Monaco players are expatriate in France because they play in the French football system, and same case for clubs in Liechtenstein that play in Switzerland.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Martín Demichelis

Resolved

Can an admin please move Martin Demichelis to Martín Demichelis. Thanks. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton Academical (again!)

Hi there, IP users keep on adding three players - one of whom doesn't even have an article! - to the famous players section of this article, but won't say why they merit being on there when a list of past players already exists - please can an admin protect the page! Thanks, Giant Snowman 19:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Now registered users - Hamiltonvalcea (talk · contribs) - are at it! Giant Snowman 21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce on youth football

I would like to try and get support for a taskforce on Youth Football. This would be a taskforce similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Taskforce on women's football to help with the articles involving Youth Football across the world. I belive this is a good idea as not enough attention on Wikipedia is focused on the editing of Youth Football articles and bringing them up to GA or FA status, or just getting them out of Stub-Class. This article would be a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football.

To add your name to people supporting this click here. (I don't mind if you are not that active, just put your name down so I can start it and occasionally stop by to see how it's going. 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 17:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Which (and roughly how many) articles are you talking about? Other than articles on international under-21 teams, I'd have thought most youth football topics would be non-notable. --Jameboy (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think, national youth championships, where they exist, like in Germany (Under 19 Bundesliga (football) + Under 17 Bundesliga (football)), are definatly notable. Considering that every future star has to rise through its ranks, youth football could use a bit more attention. EA210269 (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no, as I don't see much notability in youth football. - fchd (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the many players of youth football will be glad to hear that. Anyway, players could be included in a youth football category until they are 23 - that is the maximum age for men at the Olympics, and in exceptional circumstances, the highest age you can be in a U21 team (if you are 21 when the qualification for the tournament starts, by the end you will be 23). There are many different definitions for youth, and many define it as up to 25, although I think the age limit in this task force would be 23. The main focus would be on clubs and leagues though. 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 16:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, in response to Jameboy (talk · contribs), I would have to mention that some of the articles on national teams at U21, U19, U17 etc are not that good, although there are some exceptions. 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 19:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

W00t!

NPOV is dead in Scotland? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretend I'm not very bright for a minute... what is your point exactly?--ClubOranje^Talk 09:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That giants is a popular way to describe Rangers or Celtic. Obviously each instance of the word was added by a Scot. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Template move

I've just been bold and moved Template:Infobox Football official to Template:Infobox football official, as I was sure this was the correct capitalisation. But then I noticed the widely-used Template:Infobox Football biography uses the upper case 'F' so I'm not so sure now. I think consistency within Category:Football (soccer) infobox templates would be good either way, but I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts. Sorry if this is quite trivial. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow we have to standardise these templates. - 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 19:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Sweden international footballers at FLRC

Hello, List of Sweden international footballers is up at WP:Featured list removal candidates to improve the article to meet current Featured List standards. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

National Conference Prem

Isn't the league full-pro now? Govvy (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Lewes and Eastbourne Borough certainly aren't. Probably others. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for this? Govvy (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Histon: BBC "Histon are one of the few clubs in the Blue Square Premier to operate on a part-time basis"

Altrincham: Official website 'Chairman Geoff Goodwin added, "We were the better side... The club is in a healthy state and we live to fight another day. We are part-timers and our lads did a day's work before playing".'

Barrow: Setanta "Barrow v Oxford (Friday, live on Setanta Sports): Holker Street hosts the part-timers against one of the favourites for promotion"

Lewes: Surrey Herald Report of Woking manager's sacking after a "dismal draw with part-timers Lewes".

Eastbourne Borough: Official website "Eastbourne Borough so far this season are averaging over 1,500 per home game with a highest of 2,200; the Club will be featured several times on live tv., despite competing against 75% of sides that use full time professional players (Borough players combine with Monday to Friday jobs) have won four of their opening eight games." (scroll down and if you get to the picture of the girl without her skirt on you've gone too far :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... thats good enough for me, interesting at that level, which is a fairly high level to play at if you ask me that it's semi-pro for those clubs. Govvy (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A potential problem could arise should Histon win promotion as they don't automatically become full time club yet would be in what is fundamentally a full time league. Skitzo (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's just one club, it's fair enough to say that to all intents and purposes, it is a fully pro league. This is what we've been doing with Scottish Division One, which has the occasional semi-pro club. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a bit crystal ball at this stage. There's a long way to go yet, and secondly, you may well find they go fully professional. Peanut4 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that its still early in the season I was simply making people aware of a potential plan so if we so desired we could come up with a consensus about it in advance, as for Histon whether they go full time or not is dependant on many factors but that wasn't my point, simply that it COULD provide many arguments about player notability with in league 2 and the League cup and JPT. Skitzo (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was probably a little flippant. However, last season Dagenham had a semi-pro player (Dave Rainford), yet the league remained a fully professional one. If Histon were to get promoted and stay a part-time club, I would still say the league remained a professional one, basically the same as Scottish Division One. Peanut4 (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

List of So-and-so F.C. seasons-type articles - cut-off point.....?

In the past it's been generally agreed that So-and-so F.C. season 2008-09 articles should only be created for professional teams, but what about List of So-and-so F.C. seasons-type articles? We've got one of these for a non-professional club which has made it all the way to FL, but that club has played at a national level (Conference National) - would a meticulously sourced article of this type be acceptable for a team which has never climed higher than the Northern Premier or Isthmian League.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, I don't see why not. However, it would seem to be appropriate to draw a line somewhere, or else we would end up with hundreds of similar articles for each of the hundreds of clubs in Britain and beyond that could back up such an article with adequate sources. Therefore, clubs that have played at a national level would seem to be an appropriate cut-off point. While we're on the subject, by the way, what does everyone think of Arsenal F.C. Reserves seasons and Arsenal F.C. Academy seasons? – Pee Jay 23:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As the Wikipedian who wants to start a Taskforce on Youth Football, I think your Arsenal seasons for Reserves and Academy is a great idea. As for the 'So-and-so F.C. seasons, I would have thought the more information, the better! Although that might just be me... 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 09:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If people feel that a club needs to have played at a national level to merit such an article then I'll knock on the head the one I was thinking of working on...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Appearances

Exxy keeps editing player infoboxes to show just starting appearances. Shouldn't the substitute appearances be included as well, and is there a policy on this? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should defnitely be included. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, any first team league appearance - start OR sub - should be included in the infobox. Giant Snowman 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, substitute appearances count just as much and should therefore be included. - fchd (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

League Challenge Cup

This isn't the correct title of this competition, surely.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Unibond League Challenge Cup apparently, which in its generic form would be the Northern Premier League Challenge Cup. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed a "bracket" section purporting to be a draw sheet for the 2008-09 competition, with all the results filled in. I think this competition deserves a mention in the main NPL article, together with a list of winners, but there's no need for a stand-alone article at all. - fchd (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Full names

I've found quite often that bullshit full names have been added to footballers, like Stephen Carr (Stephen Babeson Carr) and Shaun Wright-Phillips (Shaun Lombe Cameron Wright-Phillips), that have been undetected and remain for even years. By looking in The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records 1946-2005, I've found that these examples were incorrect, and has even led to independent websites copying Carr's incorrect name and so giving out wrong information. This leads me to thinking that surely we need to be stricter on the addition on full names and that, like all other aspects of adding information onto Wikipedia, references need to be added to confirm it. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Simple as that. Peanut4 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. An inline citation against the full name in either the lead or infobox should do it. Middle names are rarely quoted, so I see nothing wrong with insisting on a reliable source for it. By the way, is your middle name really "the", Matty? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameboy (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

Just to ask for some views on whether some players should be included in the first-team squad here. Ryan Mason, Jonathan Obika and Adam Smith were included in Tottenham's squad for their UEFA Cup game against N.E.C. Nijmegen, and so should they be included in the first-team squad? I would say so, as they have been included in a first-team game and so should be considered as being first-team players. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you had a look at Spurs.co.uk website? They clearly define those players as being reserves and academy. There is even Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy for us to list them in. It's quite clear to me. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that they have merely been involved with first-team affairs, regardless of their status as academy players. Having an article on such players is irrelevant to what I'm trying to point out. And also, why should Ben Alnwick be excluded from the squad? He is listed with a squad number on the official club website. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As Obika and Mason both played in the match against Nijmegen,[2] and Smith (as well as John Bostock) were on the bench, they are now part of the first team squad. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

p.s. As Alnwick has a squad number, he too should be included in the squad list. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - if they are part of a first-team match squad for a game, then they should be considered first team members. Giant Snowman 13:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Numbers can be changed and we should go by this, First Team Ben Alnwick is 3rd choice keeper, he can be included. But where are the others? They are in Professionals and Academy sections of the website. There-for on that conclusion I use the article Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy. Govvy (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Once a player has appeared in a competitive match, they are de facto members of the first team squad. I guess the club website is a bit slow catching up. According to the livetext report[3] on the Nijmegen match, the squad numbers included # 51 Bostock, # 67 Smith,# 77 Mason & # 80 Obika. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Numbers can't change during the season unless a player leaves. I agree with Daemonic Kangaroo and GiantSnowman here (and am getting a horrible case of deja vu). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote you, "Once a player has appeared in a competitive match" Are you including all those that go on loan, the whole roster? all 109 players for the club? Don't be silly, that why we have the other article. To put them there, one game does not make them proper first team contenders. Govvy (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, it logically does - if they makke an appearance in one match squad, then we should presume that they are available for selection in all subsequent games. Giant Snowman 13:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Every player on the roster is available and always have been, but the matter is, we created a specific article to contain these extra members and even below the main first team roster on the main page is a link to this second article. It is done with lots of big clubs now. It is not hard to find a person on Wikipedia, it is a process that works well. Why change something which isn't broken? I have work hard on Tottenham articles and I don't want to see them ruined by silly decisions. Govvy (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference between these players and the 109 others you mention is that the three have clearly been in the first-team squad this season, while the others haven't. And I don't think that moving some players from the Reserve listings to the First-team squad will "ruin" the article as you've suggested. Giant Snowman 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case, there's no reason why they shouldn't stay in the reserve list as well; There's natural overlap between the first-team and reserve team. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Very true - perhaps as a compromise these players should remain on both pages. Giant Snowman 14:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

One game which isn't league and you think first team, they might go on loan in January, Articles are suppose to have a certain length, style and amount of information. I don't think they pass enough notability to be first team. Govvy (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone might leave or go on loan in January. Wikipedia has the advantage of being editable at any time, so it's best to deal with the here and now. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Govvy considers that he "owns" the THFC article and that no-one else can edit it without his approval.

If a player has appeared in the first team in a competitive match, then he is a part of the squad that the manager has chosen to use and that applies whether the player only appears once or 40 times. It is accepted that a player is sufficiently notable to have a WP article even if he only makes a 10 second cameo appearance as a substitute in a cup match. Why should stricter criteria apply to be considered part of the first team squad? What number of appearances would make a player a member of the squad - 2, 4, 6, 8?

Ultimately it is not for Govvy, me or any other editor to decide who is a member of the sqaud. The decision rests with the club and its manager - IMHO, once a player is allocated a squad number, he is a member of the squad. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And how many games must they miss for to no longer be a member of the member of the squad - 2, 4, 6, 8? WP is supposed to contain verifiable data. You or I taking it that they are a first team squad member doesn't count for anything because You and I are not a reliable sources. Per Daemonic Kangaroo's last paragraph, the club and the manager decide who, and will probably tell us, maybe via their website, and if it takes 3 weeks for that verification to be available, the information should not be added to wikipedia for three weeks. Making the assumption they are automatically part of the first team squad because they have at some point been nominated as having a number is speculative, regardless of DK's or anyone else's opinion.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That raises the question as to what we would do if we were back in the days before squad numbers. I don't think it would hurt to set up a basic criteria as to what constitutes a first-team player. In my opinion, a player being called into the first team as emergency cover shouldn't be classed as a first-teamer until he has made at least two appearances. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely the basic criteria as to what constitutes a first-team player has already been set up; namely a reliable source showing that the player is in the first team squad.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. It's the manager who decides if a player is good enough for the first team, not the editor of the club's website. You get picked for the first team squad, you should be listed as such. If the Arsenal F.C. article were governed the alternative way, then Gavin Hoyte, who started a Premier League game last week, wouldn't be in the squad list as he's currently not an Arsenal "first team squad" member according to the club website. That's lunacy. Qwghlm (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You will, I'm sure, remember the similar discussion we had about Arsenal's squad, in September. We put up the same clear, consistent, reasonable arguments as here (and more), but had to give in and compromise, because of the persistence of other editors. Same thing happened shortly afterwards with Bayern Munich. Maybe we need some WP:FOOTY guidelines to get this thing nailed down? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest something along the lines of:

A player may be considered a member of the first-team, if any of the following applies:

He is listed in the first-team squad (with a squad number) at the club's official website
He is listed in the first-team squad (with a squad number) at the official website of an applicable association, federation, or competition
He has played, or been an unused substitute, in a first-team competitive game
He is a new signing who will likely receive a squad number before he is next available for selection

(Note that a player can simultaneously be part of the first-team and reserve team squads)

A lot of emphasis on squad numbers there, but they do apply in most notable competitions. We could set down criteria for teams without squad numbers, unless you think people can work it out for themselves. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need a policy for what is a basic logical conclusion. You're just restating everything I said anyways. Govvy (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I think it contradicts what you've been saying in a number of ways. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said I own the article, I have said I work hard on that article! Secondly I use the primary resource of the official website to make the decision on what is first team players and such. I have there for established the articles to represent this. Next I want to point out my comments above of that one game played does not necessarily establish first team credentials. It's pretty dam clear to see what I have done, Daemonic Kangaroo has said things completely out of context to my argument and Mattythewhite brought up this topic because he didn't understand what I meant when I said I follow what the spurs.co.uk set out between players list on their website. Clearly non of the arguments here other than my own have used sourcing (citation) other than myself. Govvy (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

#1 & #2 criteria above should certainly qualify them, #3 I don't think so. They may not be training or otherwise involved with the squad on a regular basis, may only be there as short term cover due to injuries, cup tied etc. Players are often given the opportunity to sit on the bench for the experience of it and their personal development, that doesn't make them 1st team squad. This will happen more so from this season with the 7-on-the-bench policy, particulary in cup games where a manager may include a couple of up and comings and may even give them game time if the game is going very well (or very badly!). #4 is very WP:CRYSTAL and I'm sure Bostock is not the only player to ever be signed and be placed in reserves, academy or youth squad for the first part of their tenure. I don't see any reason to break WP verifiability and sourcing policy just because we as football fans get a little excited about new players.--ClubOranje^Talk 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

With regards to #3, I don't think it's important why a player has been involved in the first-team squad, the fact that it's happened is all that matters - to read into a manager's reasons would be POV. #4 Isn't really intended for grey areas like John Bostock or other youngsters, it's for new senior players in the time between them signing and being assigned numbers. Really, just because the criteria I set out were reliant on squad numbers, I had to add this qualifier to cover new, obviously first-team players. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't second-guess a manager's thinking and start picking or dropping players on whether they're short-term cover or in the Carling Cup. The rule has to be consistent - not reliant on an individual editor's opinion. If you're given a number, or called up for a first-team match, you're a first team squad member in the manager's eyes and that should be the criterion respected. For the same reasons I'm less keen on including #4 - it's leaning towards WP:CRYSTAL. Qwghlm (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But everybody does #4 anyway, don't they? If Arsenal signed Gary Neville on July 1, but didn't name their 2009-10 squad numbers until three weeks later, you'd add him to the squad list, wouldn't you? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point there. Maybe add "pre-season" into the criterion for emphasis? Most mid-season signings are given squad numbers very quickly, unless they're the likes of Luke Freeman. Qwghlm (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's more prevalent in pre-season, but it still applies to mid-season transfers, not just in January, but all year round in the Football League (an example.) Stack will presumably get a number by Saturday, but Wikipedia has always been 24/7, and we need to make sure these guidelines don't stop us reacting to changes in the world of football. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed you can't second-guess a manager's thinking...therefore you can't include them in a first team squad simply because they have been given a number (as one is required to have one to play in some of these competitions) or been included on the bench for a game, as you don't know the reasoning behind it. To claim a player is a squad member in the manager's eyes unless there is a source showing they have now joined the squad is original research, or at the very least, speculative. We don't pick them or drop them based on whether they are short-term cover, we only record what is verifiable. A cameo appearance does not make one a cast member of Coronation Street.--ClubOranje^Talk 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What's Coronation Street got to do with football? This is getting far too abstract - back to basics: the definition of a first-team squad is the group of players that are registered and available (barring injury or suspension) to play for the first team. Agreed? Being given a squad number is a clear confirmation of their registration & availability. Being named in the actual team for a match is above and beyond that. Both of these facts are verifiable in both primary and secondary sources. They should not be excluded. End of. Qwghlm (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely - I really don't see the point of this discussion with regard to players who have actually played in the first team. although I can see grounds for debate for unused substitutes. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that James Reid has been added to the Nottingham Forest squad Template:Nottingham Forest F.C. squad, even though so far he has only made one appearance as a 90th minute substitute. Based on some of the views above, he should be deleted - but how many games must he play before he's allowed in? - Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of young players feature on the Template:Bradford City A.F.C. squad template, even though they haven't made a first team appearance - because the manager views them as future stars who are in the First Team as well as being in the Reserves. If a player makes a first-team appearance during a season, or the manager says he is in the First Team (as in Bradford's case) then he should be listed. Giant Snowman 17:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It really ought to be simple. Either any player who has a first team squad number or has played for the first team. The idea of first team squad is a little fluid anyway; some clubs will differentiate, some won't. Peanut4 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Shota Arveladze

How many matches has Shota Arveladze played for the national team of Georgia? 61, with 26 goals, as we say in the lead of the article? 53, with 22 goals, as we say in the infobox? Or 45, with 15 goals, as listed on Soccerbase.com? Aecis·(away) ^talk 09:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would go with the lead, given that it's cited and the ntupdate in the infobox is from 2006. Soccerbase isn't terribly good for football outside of England and Scotland. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

An arduous but definitive method to find the correct figure is to manually count them using the Georgian Football Federation website, which is how it was settled for Georgi Kinkladze. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Following on from the discussion of first-team squads...

if a player based in a foreign country where the season has finished for the winter signs a pre-contract agreement to join an English club when the transfer window opens in January, when would you add him to the English club's squad? As this is not a hypothetical question, any advice would be gratefully received :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would add him when he actively joins, and so on this occasion on January 2. A pre-contract agreement doesn't always necessarily mean they will definitely end up signing. Peanut4 (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is similar to the Landon Donovan joining Bayern Munich scenario. He should only be added once he is actually eligible to be a member of the playing squad, which is in January. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems odd to me calling it a pre-contract agreement, as he's nowhere near out of contract and we're paying a fee. The only difference between this move and any other transfer coming into effect on the day the window opens is that they've announced this one as a done deal a month in advance. Incidentally, I already had to remove him from the squad list once when all that had happened was the clubs agreeing the fee, so I don't fancy my chances keeping him out of it till January... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a pre-contract agreement is basically just a legal document. I suppose because of football transfer regulations he can't strictly sign for anyone until the transfer window opens in January. This agreement basically ensures he won't agree to join anyone else by January or have a change of heart. Peanut4 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Sven-Goran Eriksson signed a pre-contract deal to manage Blackburn, but eventually cancelled the deal to manage Lazio instead. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Søndergaard

According to this site, Tom Søndergaard has died way back in 1997. Is that correct? Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

succession boxes

Do we really need them? They seem like clutter and a repeat of information most of the time. Between clubs and bio pages there is the Honours section which already lists the honour with the date. You can view who was previous and post by looking through those dates. The succession boxes although makes it that tad quicker, is just a repeat of information when I see it... Thoughts? Govvy (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There no doubt was discussion about their introduction, so I'm not sure you'll have much success in your motion to remove them. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Footballers who played for other national teams

What are (or should be) the inclusion criteria for the "Foo-born footballers who played for other national teams"? The reason I'm asking this is Law Adam. I had included him in Category:Netherlands-born footballers who played for other national teams, because he was born in the Dutch East Indies, which at the time was a Dutch colony. Ario ManUtd (talk · contribs) has removed Adam from the category because "the page I created means all of footballers who were born in present day-Netherlands (not included Netherlands Antilles, Aruba, etc)." Aecis·(away) ^talk 01:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Law Adam should NOT be included in Category:Netherlands-born footballers who played for other national teams because he only represented the Dutch national side...Giant Snowman 13:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just my two cents: I'd say Adam has represented Switzerland as well. And Ario's criteria (assuming it's not overly protective) would mean that everyone who had represented, say, the Soviet Union team, should be listed as "Russia/Ukraine/Turkmenistan/etc-born footballers who played for other national teams", which of course is unpractical, as not only it gives a false impression (sticking with the example, in most cases the Soviet team was the only they would be eligible to play in), the concept of "present day" is always subject to changes. I'd have to agree with Aecis' interpretation there. Kaizeler (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, if he has played for Switzerland as well then that changes matters, and I would also agree with Aecis' interpretation. Giant Snowman 15:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't clear about that in the op. Adam has represented both Switzerland and the Netherlands. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get about what Kaizeler has said. IMO, if Law Adam is included in the Category:Netherlands-born footballers who played for other national teams, so this means, i.e. a person who was born in Ghana (in colonial period), but he played for Australia, he could be included in English or British-born footballers who played for Australia. --Ario ManUtd (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's completely beside the point. Adam was born in what was then the Netherlands as a Dutch citizen and he has played for Switzerland. This means that he's a Netherlands-born footballer who has played for another national team, which means he qualifies for the category. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple articles for one season?

I know that things like Bolton Wanderers F.C. season 2006-07 are standard (the concept, I mean: the actual article needs sources, an introduction, ...). However, to add to this a long, long page (when finished) like Bolton Wanderers F.C. season 2006-07 game log seems to me overkill. Do you have some guidance and/or guidelines on these? Fram (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The equivalent article for 07-08 was PROD'ed earlier this week but then changed to a redirect to the main season article. I suggest the same be done with this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The content from the game log article should be copied into the main season article and then the game log should be changed into a redirect to the season article. – Pee Jay 16:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done just that. Peanut4 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Froylán Ledezma

Look at the categories at the bottom of his article. Are they all needed? I know this has been brought up many times but there is never a clear answer. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Same happened to Frank Stapleton today. Peanut4 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It happened to both articles because I'm in the process of going through all the footballers in the Dutch leagues. I've categorized all the current Eredivisie and Eerste Divisie players and I have also categorized all past players of Feyenoord and Ajax. I was about to continue with PSV, but I won't do that while this discussion is ongoing. If you think such categories should be deleted, please take it to CFD. I don't wanna waste time on something that the community doesn't want. Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nuri Şahin

I don't want to start an edit war with Hubschrauber729 (talk · contribs) over Nuri Şahin, so I'm bringing the issue here. I had added Şahin to the categories Category:Turkish expatriate footballers and Category:Turkish expatriates in the Netherlands, because he has represented Turkey. Hubschrauber729 twice changed that to German, because Şahin was born and raised in Germany. What is the "rule" for the expatriate categories? Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say he can be considered both a Turkish and a German expatriate in the Netherlands (but not a Turkish expat in Germany, nor vice-versa should he move to Turkey). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To go into more detail: he fits Category:Turkish expatriates in the Netherlands, which basically means Turkish foreigners in Holland, which he is, but not Category:Turkish expatriate footballers, because that's for people who have left Turkey, which he's never done. Both categories fit for Germany. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on what the term Expatriate means, Sahin is a German expatriate. Here's another dispute about these stupid expatriate categories. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true that we could be better off without them. There's quite a lot of overcategorisation as far as footballers are concerned. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hubschrauber, in your edit summary at Nuri Şahin, you wrote "expatriate: a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing". I assume you also saw the last three words of that sentence in the article Expatriate: "...or legal residence"? And did you see the definitions of "expatriate" in reliable dictionaries? It's very well possible to be an expatriate of a country you weren't born in, as long as you have the citizenship of the country. There's no denying that Nuri Şahin is also a Turkish citizen, and there's no denying that he has represented the Turkish national team. Aecis·(away) ^talk 07:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

SafeStanding

Just discovered (in a clicking-around sense) this article, which had a notability check tagged upon it in September. I thought it might be of interest to some in the project. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's notable at all. Should be deleted. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

" Chairman champions return of standing at football

06 January, 2005 Falkirk Herald" - that's the bibliographic data I have for their google news hit. I'm not sure of anything else in easily accessible press coverage. matt91486 (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Safe Standing redirects there, which is backwards. There's been sufficient media attention to the topic in general to merit an article about the concept, e.g. [4], but the term should not redirect to a pressure group. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roy Keane

I think this page needs some protection - the sacking speculation is going to send the article ballistic. Dancarney (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

He's now gone - the BBC confirms it - but the page should still be protected, in case any irate Mackems get vcandalising! Giant Snowman 15:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo stream

I know photos, particularly older ones, can be difficult to get our hands on. I've just found this photostream on flickr, which seems to have the appropriate licensing for us to use. Most of it is of Craven Cottage and Fulham, but in case anyone might want to use some of them, I thought I'd add a quite note. Peanut4 (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

União Futebol Clube "Os Pastilhas"

I've just come across this team, which just happens to be one that Luis Figo played for when he was a kid. From what I can tell, this is just a small futsal / street football club based in a Lisbon suburb, and would probably not be notable enough under the usual scheme of things. However, there does seem to be a bit of news coverage on this team, such as this article. The question is this - would this be enough to satisfy notability guidelines for a football team? Bettia (rawr!) 16:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is notable enough, then it'll need renaming IMO. Giant Snowman 16:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Adam Boyd

Were we (as a project) given notice that Adam Boyd was undergoing a GA review, as the first I heard of it was when I saw "Adam Boyd no longer GA" in my watchlist. I wasn't watching the Boyd article, but I'd quite like to have known that we were in danger of losing a Good Article - too late now, though we could always bring it up to scratch and re-nominate it. In any case I think it would be worth a few of us checking the good article reassessment page from time to time so that we can do our best to maintain the status of our existing Good Articles (as well as getting new ones listed). --Jameboy (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I can't remember us getting any notice. The first I noticed it was no longer a GA was last Friday (prior to our FA Cup tie with his new Leyton Orient side), when I was reading through his bio. I've just removed it from the list today when I was adding another entry. It doesn't look like there's too much work to get it back to GA status. My guess is the principle editor was notified and is no longer active on WP. Peanut4 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not even that. Nobody was notified, it was simply reassessed by a passing editor, leaving notice only on the talkpage. It wasn't put at GAR, the editor simply created a new review (Talk:Adam Boyd/GA1) and left notice on the talkpage; the review page is linked from nowhere and I checked the assessors contributions and they didn't notify anyone. That is a product of the GA system though and one of the reasons I avoid it. Woody (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Henrik Larsson under GA review

Hello there, the article Henrik Larsson, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

High Altitude Football Controversy

I just came across this article High Altitude Football Controversy, it is surely a subject worthy of an article, but it currently reads like its been writted by a journalism student. The high altitude ban is an issue that his implications outside Bolivia, the list of Bolivian home results seems unneccessary. I will attempt to clean it up a bit, any help appreciated, King of the North East 00:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

We've got two categories for expatriates from the former Yugoslavia: Category:Yugoslav expatriate footballers and Category:Yugoslavian expatriate footballers. Which is the right name? Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the former, being the older of the two. The other was only created on 28 November. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that afaik the name of the category should correspond to the parent categories. The parent categories for expat footballers from the former Yugoslavia are Category:Yugoslav expatriates and Category:Yugoslavian footballers (bolding added for emphasis). Aecis·(away) ^talk 07:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone born and raised in Yugoslavia, I have always understood Yugoslavian as meaning part of the nation and Yugoslav as belonging to the nation, e.g. "Mate Parlov was a Yugoslavian boxer" and "Soko J-22 Orao is a Yugoslav airplane". Some other statements might read: "What are you?", "I am Yugoslavian" or "I'm a Yugoslav". So, there can (only) be a Yugoslav team with Yugoslavian players. -- RomânescEsteLatin (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So these would be Yugoslavian expatriate footballers? Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Yugoslavian expatriate footballers, as an article title, heading or category name. -- RomânescEsteLatin (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why we would then have Category:Yugoslav expatriates and Category:Yugoslavian expatriate footballers? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can only suppose something related to having the Category:Football_(soccer)_players_by_nationality. Regards. -- RomânescEsteLatin (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(In response to the inquiry on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia) The proper adjective for a person from Yugoslavia is "Yugoslav". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So now we've got RomânescEsteLatin saying that we need to use Yugoslavian and you saying that we need to use Yugoslav? Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I've always preferred "Yugoslavian". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Searching through the article about Yugoslavia, I found multiple mentioning of "Yugoslav" (people etc.), but only two times were "Yugoslavian" used. lil2mas (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fábio Pereira da Silva

This article was restored from deletion by User:Phil Sandifer today, with the assertion that being in the Manchester United first team without actually having played a match is enough to satisfy WP:N and that the reasons for deletion given at the article's AfD are no longer valid. Can someone please talk some sense into him? – Pee Jay 23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted it again and pointed out that it already had a DRV, resulting in "keep deleted". I've also asked him to take it to DRV if he wants to restore. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had been notified of this discussion to participate in dialogue instead of having you wheel war. This is shockingly poor conduct. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance of your talk page shows that you were aware of such discussions, or at least of fellow editor's views...Giant Snowman 02:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied to PeeJay2K3. I was unaware of this discussion in which the decision to overturn my action was apparently actually reached. That is, for all practical purposes, conducting the reversal behind my back instead of discussing with me. Deliberately non-centralizing the discussion and then reaching the decision at a place I was not notified of us far outside the spirit of the administrative reversion policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It has now gone to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 7#Fábio Pereira da Silva. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 02:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, no such decision seems to have been reached from this discussion - PeeJay has simply notifies other WikiProject member about the situation, and Number 57 - an established admin - has made the decision to delete the article. Giant Snowman 02:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that Phil has recreated the article yet again, even though the DRV is still going (and indeed was closed as "endorse delete" at one stage. Can another admin please deal with this, as no doubt I will be accused of "wheel-warring" if I delete the article again. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to await the DRV discussion's outcome. Any admin action now may lead to further wheel-warring, while just waiting for the DRV outcome does not really do any harm (we'll have the article for a few more days at the worst). Regards So Why 18:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not the way the DRV looks at the moment, unfortunately. - fchd (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that WP:ATHLETE is part of WP:BIO, which explicitly says that satisfying notability through WP:N is also acceptable. If you really want the "nobody who hasn't made an appearance for a professional team" rule to be hard and fast, you're going to need to modify WP:ATHLETE to note that it is not intended to allow WP:N as an alternative route to notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Still looks to me like this guy fails WP:N, WP:BIO AND WP:ATHLETE. - fchd (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? I count three sources in the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Which does not make one notable. Go and read a newspaper - they are full of little articles like the one(s) quoted every day of the week. Due to the internet and journo's wanting to sell copy, such articles are 'dime-a-dozen'. My aunt got more coverage than that when she turned 100. Repeating the newspapers in WP is just turning what was supposed to be an encyclopaedia into just another blog site of triviality--ClubOranje^Talk 23:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that your proposed replacement of WP:N with... whatever it is you're proposing is going to find much traction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaken Phil, I have not proposed any replacement of WP:N.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I assumed when you declared that significant coverage in multiple reliable sources was not grounds for notability that you had some replacement in mind. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio's on the rampage.......

[5] -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Explain your problem with the removal of these red links? Sarumio (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And there's at least 5 reverts on the Birmingham County Football Association page over the last 48 hours, plus there's also edit wars going on over the Surrey Senior Cup and probably other pages as well. I've given up trying to engage in talk with him/her as it's completely pointless. - fchd (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Richard - can you enlighten me as to what is wrong with my edit to this page - I made three changes - I removed the red links for Tipton and Saltley College (as they are non notable club and will never have their own article) and corrected the link for Wednesfield Social directly to Wednesfield F.C. Please explain why you're getting your knickers in a twist! Sarumio (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the individual edits on the BCFA, I agree with them all, but 5 reverts in 48 hours is madness and is heading you in the direction of another block (and no, that's not a threat just an observation). The same pattern is visible on half a dozen other articles on my watchlist - e.g. Kent Senior Cup, Bedfordshire County FA. Why don't you ever, ever, initiate talk page discussions, either on article pages or on user pages, or why do you use edit summaries only in 1-2% of edits and when you do it's abusive, calling other users "ignorant" for example? I'm sorry, but your editing style seems almost designed to wind up as many people as possible. - fchd (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And you have nothing to say TO or ABOUT the individual who has been reverting my edits? Because as far as I can tell - he has been the troublemaker here! I suggest you (and others) start getting your facts straight and target your moans and groans about the ACTUAL CULPRIT! It takes two to edit war, that TWO Richard. Please feel free to start another topic on here complaining about the anonymous user who has been reverting my edits for NO REASON whatsoever but lay off me! Kindest lovliest regards Sarumio (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Scottish footballers who have played in England

Isn't this category just Scottish expatriate footballers in England? Govvy (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but James Morrison (footballer) isn't really an expatriate as he was born in England and as far as I know has always lived there. --Jameboy (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, "Scottish footballers who have played in England" is correct as Scottish people are in England aren't expatriates because they're still in Britain. – Pee Jay 17:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems a vastly under-populated category. Peanut4 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also notice the category title is in past-tense form. I am assuming this is for those that have played in England and have now returned to Scotland. That is why I removed Alan Hutton from the category. As he still plays in England!! Still seems to sound wrong to me and my personal thoughts again is that this is another example of over categorisation. Govvy (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The category should contain all Scottish footballers who have played in the English league, regardless of whether they are playing there now or not. Alan Hutton should be readded to the category. – Pee Jay 22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you say that the category needs to be rename from to directly say in present-tense aswell as past-tense too. Right now, if you think that the the title of this category is wrong. Govvy (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope - you can have done something, and still be doing it. It's fine. The category itself seems to me to be a waste of time though. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh. Weren't all these categories meant to have been nuked from orbit by now? There is no such thing as a Scottish nationality as far as anyone living in the last several hundred years is concerned and there are players with Scottish national team caps who self-identify as English. Rather than bickering over who belongs in this silly pigeon-hole, let's just delete it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I second that idea for deletion. Govvy (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I don't see the point in those categories either. I have enough trouble adding enough/the right basic categories as it is; this just takes things that unnecessary step further. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion proposed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbase.com

I am finding them a little unreliable at the moment. For instance Didier Zokora & Jermaine Jenas‎ stats on the site are wrong. Jenas didn't play against Liverpool in a game and Zokora was selected to take his place. Soccerbase failed to take light of this, nor did it respond to my email of their statistics being incorrect. It makes me feel that the website is unreliable. At the same time I think ESPNs soccernet.com is much more reliable. I don't understand why we don't use them enough for external linking or citation. Govvy (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree soccerbase has errors in it, though on a quick search, soccernet doesn't have manager stats and doesn't have a much historical data. Soccerbase is probably 95-99 per cent correct. I would personally say a range of sources is a good idea. Soccerbase also has the advantage of a deeper game log too. There are other sources available including National Football Teams and Guardian Stats Centre (which at the moment I can't access). Peanut4 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peanut - although it is sometime unreliable, by and large I trust it - but using its information in conjunction with other sites is always best. Giant Snowman 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if my email was ignored or spam blocked, but maybe someone else can try and email soccerbase.com to see if they can get them to repair their data. Govvy (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed them before and had a response but also emailed them before and had no response and no correction to incorrect data. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is they are also well-respected and other people use their website which can produce inaccuracies. For example today a story in the Daily Mail had Alex Rhodes down as 19. Unfortunately they had the wrong Alex Rhodes, because Soccerbase have split his data and confused two different Alex Rhodes'. That was one of the times Soccerbase decided to ignore my email. Peanut4 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbase are extremely unreliable in the Scottish lower leagues, for example - youth players from Scottish Premier League players routinely have newpages created when they go on loan to lower clubs, despite having a page already created. And yes, Soccerbase have never once responded to my many e-mails. Heightwatcher (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Kit colours

I do hope this is the right place... having a little trouble working out how to create a new kit design for Royal Marines A.F.C.. They have an unusual wide dark blue hoop, narrow yellow hoop, narrow green hoop, mid-sized red hoop and another wide dark blue hoop, on a white shirt (click here for a picture). Could anyone either help me create it or point me in the direction so that I can do so myself? Stuartpgardner (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that you are probably wasting your time as, no offence, but this article will probably be deleted within the next couple of days as the Royal Marines AFC have never played at Step 6 or above and have never entered an FA competition so any work you do to this page will probably be in vein. Sarumio (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been put up and taken down for deletion already. I feel it'll be a wrong decision if it is removed, as the Royal Marines do have a history of entering teams in FA competitions and this new team is too young to be allowed to compete in an FA competition. Stuartpgardner (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Using the pic at [6], I made Image:Kit body royalmarineshoops.png and placed it in the article for you. Nanonic (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I rather like their kit myself. Something interesting. matt91486 (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris Eagles

I read this in the paper and found the article online, [7] I am assuming Eagles is effectively saying he is a Spurs fan by this quote. "I was a season ticket holder at White Hart Lane, the whole family were Spurs fans so it is a very special game for me," Just asking if you lot think the url is good enough to add to his article for citation saying he is a Spurs fan? Govvy (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Peanut4 (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Club nicknames

I've been removing club nicknames from articles that appear to be used only by fans of the club in question (Superhoops in Q.P.R.'s article, for example). I am in the right to be removing these, I take it, even though it can be argued that these nicknames are in common usage? - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My belief is that any nickname that has wide useage, and a relaible source to back it up, should be mentioned in the article, but only the official nickname(s) in the infobox. Giant Snowman 22:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Spot on - journalists writing for what we call reliable sources often refer to, say, Liverpool as "The Reds" so as to vary the language of their articles, but I doubt they'd ever use "Superhoops" in a piece about QPR...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say as a general rule, we shouldn't use anything that implies PoV ("mighty..." "super..." or going the other way, "the Scum", "the Sh*t" etc.) Even if talking specifically about the nicknames we should still be wary of these and cite a reliable source. --Jameboy (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely that is the whole point of nicknames in the first place? Aren't they virtually all fan creations? Superhoops is a prime example, I'd say it has more currency as a nickname than those listed in the Sky Sports Annual - Rangers or R's. "Official nickname" is an oxymoron to me. - fchd (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Only QPR fans would all them the "Superhoops". That nickname wouldn't be used by anyone else, whereas "the R's" would. Beve (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which makes Superhoops a perfect example of a nickname to me. Perhaps QPR aren't the best example, as I would have thought that most of the time, people just refer to them by their initials. - fchd (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The most notable nickname for Queens Park Rangers is QPR, and that should go in the infobox. The Rs and the Superhoops are notable nicknames and should be mentioned in the body copy. --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Not sure on this... will rethink. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of football matches

Quick question, what constitutes a notable football match? Obviously Cup finals such as Chamions League, UEFA Cup, World Cup final, etc, have their own articles, but is there a notability guideline for non finals matches? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is probably a bad example given the absence of referencing but a match like The Death Match would be notable in their own right.Hack (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Some useful debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayern Munich 1 - 2 Norwich City --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Jay Spearing

Is he the son of Tony Spearing? The name's relatively unusual, and at 44, Tony seems about the right age... But any RS? --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any mention of it, and nothing points to Tony Spearing ever having lived in Liverpool. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Shame. Thanks. I'll slink back off to cricket stuff now, cheers... --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Query on squad players who've not yet played for a pro club

I'm aware there's been discussion about this issue, but it's been a long time since I was involved with WP:FOOTY and I suffer badly from WP:TLDR disease.

Is there an NPOV and brief summary of where consensus is now on this? --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that consensus is pretty clear that they fail WP:ATHLETE because they haven't played in a fully pro league (or in a cup for a club in a fully pro league). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what I thought, but I see the confusingly unclosed closed DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_7#F.C3.A1bio_Pereira_da_Silva and the article exists baldly stating 0 pro appearances... I'm generally confused. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion above. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Saw it. Read some of it. Confused beyond belief. Posted here --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically it was very bad behaviour from an admin. Article was deleted at AfD and then kept deleted at a DRV. He took the liberty of restoring it, after which I deleted it and asked him to take it to DRV again. The second DRV was originally closed as speedy endorse deletion, which resulted in him creating the article again anyway. The DRV then re-opened and was closed I think due to the article already existing again. A second AfD seems like the way to go. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done New AfD is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fábio Pereira da Silva (2nd nomination). --Dweller (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Valencia CF and its history...

The latter has a size of around 65 kB and is more or less neatly packed into History of Valencia CF. Nevertheless, the content of this article also appears word for word on the Valencia CF article as well, although there is a link to the history article at the top of the section. This bloats Valencia CF to around 100 kB, which clearly violates WP:SIZE. I have already tried to remove the redundant content, but got reverted by User:Fadiga09 without comment. Another IP user who tried the same thing a few days ago was reverted by Fadiga09 as well, accompanied by an editing summary of "Shut up." I have used up my second reversal opportunity now, but I'm almost sure that it will being reverted as well. Can other project members help to ressolve the issue? A discussion has already been started at Talk:Valencia CF as well; participation in it would be gladly appreciated. ---Hockey-holic (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiments that it needs shortening, I've restored the original content partly because it will make it easier for someone to summarise. However it need summarising rather soon. Peanut4 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

League Stats Only

After reverting an editors addition of non-league games from the infobox, it got me thinking: Why do we only put the league stats in the infobox? What is the purpose of doing things like this? I can't seem to find any reason in the MoS or think of any reasons why this should be "the correct way". Any one have any thoughts on this? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. It's because, unlike league stats, stats for other competitions can be hard to obtain for players from more than a few years back (try finding stats from the Football League Trophy from 1985 and see how much luck you have :-) ), so the only way to ensure a "level playing field" is to show just league stats for everyone. Of course there's nothing to stop editors putting in an "all-comps" table within the body of the article if the info can be found, as has been done for, for example, Matthew Jarvis.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup Redlinks

I'm starting a list of redlinked articles (on a user subpage, here) relating to the FA Cup which could do to be created. Just to be sure before I begin, though, I'm assuming that if a player has played in the FA Cup Final, or if a team has competed in the FA Cup proper (not automatically notable if they only played in the qualifying rounds), that they're notable? If not, is it down to being a pro-team, having played in the Football League at any stage, or what? El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 10:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For clubs, we've generally accepted even playing in the qualifying rounds as enough to confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note - Thornycrofts (Woolston) F.C. (who are listed as appearing in 1919-20) are now known as VT F.C. Bettia (rawr!) 14:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth help

I'm planning on writing an article on another Gary Bennett, but I need his DOB to disambiguate the page (there are already two other footballers by the same name with articles). This one played for Colchester (1988-1994), Braintree, Chelmsford, AFC Sudbury and a few other East Anglian clubs. If anyone has details on his club career between 1994 and 2000, that would also be appreciated> Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

According to allfootballers.com he was born on 13 November 1970 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gary Bennett (footballer born 1970) it is then! Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All-time AFC Champions League table ???

Okay, I'm not familiar with Asian football at all, but what in all world is this? Given that (according to the AFC Champions League article) there have been six season of AFC CL play so far, this table seems not quite right to me, to say the least. <irony>But perhaps it's another new competition with a similar name we have not heard of so far.</irony>

Seriously, everything points to a hoax or something similar. PROD? AfD? Hockey-holic (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced. Uncategorized. No lead. Nothing to indicate what it is. Teams appearing twice in the table. Delete it somehow. Peanut4 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have slapped speedy tags on the article and the corresponding Fb team templates category. However, I have saved the team templates (with some renaming) for future use where no double template was already available. The redirects of those templates, on the other hand, were speedied. Could a mod please finalize the mess cleaning, please? Hockey-holic (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The teams appearing multiple times could be that there are a number of teams with the same name (eg. Al Ahli, Al-Ittihad for a start). Not having had a close look at this page it would seem they are including results from the Asian Champion Club Tournament and Asian Club Championships competitions which where forerunners of the current ACL. I'd suggest with a bit of work this page could be retained... Nothing to see here... Hack (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Some clutter from this operation (double Fb team templates and a corresponding category, to be exact) had to be listed for a deletion discussion. Participation would be welcome. Hockey-holic (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wingers and wide midfielders

We've got an IP editor seeking to re-open the debate on this issue once again on the Midfielder page. Please feel free to add your thoughts on its talk page. Thanks. Beve (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to engage him/her on the talk page, but to no avail. I'm going to have to step away from this one or I'll be in breach of WP:3RR. Beve (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we did have a discussion on the talk page and the change has gone ahead with 2 for and 2 against, and the content has been removed. This leaves the article in a bit of a state, because we have four diagrams in there that show LW & LM as separate positions, and RW & RM as separate positions, but this isn't discussed or explained anywhere in the article text. So one way another, it needs fixing - either with new diagrams or with some sort of explanation. I'm not going to fix this, because I think restoring the removed content would do so, but this would be edit warring, so I'm not going to do it. So I'm highlighting it to the project as an article that needs attention. The article is rated as "Top importance" on its talk page. Beve (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Olympic goal

I came across this article. Not ever hearing this in English was just wondering if this term is widely used...Hack (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

First time I've ever heard it. So I don't think it's widely used in the UK. Beve (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard the term either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of it, this is an American thing rather than an English-language thing. Perhaps the article needs altering slightly to make that clear. Bettia (rawr!) 09:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The only RS attestation for it currently is in Spanish. It could be a notable term in Spanish, but not in English. It could be notable in both. Or it could be notable in neither. It's hard to say. Best bet is to open an AfD and invite expert opinion from members of this WikiProject and at say a Latin American one and the Languages Ref Desk. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

NB it has interwiki links to Spanish and Portuguese wikipedias - might be worth leaving a message in English on the talk pages of their articles, inviting comments at our AfD. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is alot of videos on YouTube showing such goals, but it looks like it is used mostly in the Latin world. Maybe the article should change its name to Gol olímpico, to avoid confusion. Since this is not a goal scored in the Olympics, but a direct corner kick into the net. lil2mas (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The other day I was reading a piece on the origins of various football terminology that mentioned this very subject, but for the life of me I can't remember where I read it. In any case, I think this is something which could be merged into corner kick. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

NFCC Logo overuse discussion

There is currently a bun-fight going on at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 39#Severe overuse problem over the inclusion of some College American Football logos in articles outside the teams core articles. In particular, the discussions are hovering around their additions to season, game, rivalry and league articles and how this is possibly/probably/definitely (depending on your outlook) an issue of decoration. I know we're pretty good now at keeping our logos only in the most relevant articles and having decent FURs for them, so if anyone feels qualified to chip into the argument - have fun. Nanonic (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(Top) goalscorers

This topic is in my opinion pretty interesting but still unsolved. What is the number of players that should be included in the list? Also there are some leagues (like Danish Superliga 2008-09) where all the scorers are listed although under the name Top goalscorers. Hockey-holic tried to remove scorers with only 3-4 goals or less in Serbian Superliga 2008-09 but this only led to a discussion. I don't want to do anything without asking others interested in this topic (like Kalaha that edits Danish article) and I would appreciate comments on this. SonjiCeli (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce On Association Football Variants

We are a new taskforce, looking to categorise and improve articles about variations of football, like Futsal or Beach Soccer.

We need members, and it would really help if you joined us - 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 15:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nordic expatriate footballers in Scotland

Uhm, I'm against all expatriate categories but this one doesn't even make any sense. Expatriate refers to a nation not a region. Any thoughts? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah, totally unqualifiable. Take it to CfC. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Football (soccer) categories

How did this category renaming slip through without coming to the attention of WP:FOOTBALL? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that as well - the subsequent bot moves appared on my watchlist - should definitely be 'association football' IMO. Giant Snowman 18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Should definitely be "association football". In fact, I was considering creating the category "Association football scouts" - any reason I shouldn't? Cheers, Beve (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but are there enough articles about scouts? Giant Snowman 20:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent CfD (started by me) that suggested that all categories that used the term "football (soccer)" be moved to use the term "association football", in line with the RM that moved Football (soccer) to Association football. However, the suggestion was thrown out by the editors who contributed to the CfD, saying that "football (soccer)" helps to identify the sport better than "association football" does. Now, I may not agree with that decision, and I doubt that many here do either, but there is an apparent consensus, so any category that uses "football (soccer)" in its name is correct. – Pee Jay 20:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why were we not told about this? Football is easy to understand, Football (soccer) is just making it simple for some of the idiots on here, I suppose - 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 12:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In North American usage soccer is the most commonly used for the game. It needs be used in some way, shape, or form. The term "association football" will just get you a dull blank stare in most cases. "Soccer" makes the thing accessible regardless of one's feelings for the term and its use. Wiggy! (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But isn't Wikipedia supposed to be global, not America-centric? They can click on association football and learn that that's where the word "soccer" is abbreviated from - voila, they've learned something new and we've done a good deed for the day! Beve (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As an Englishman in ~~New York~~ America, I've had to explain, amongst many other things, the origin of the word soccer on countless occasions.- Dudesleeper / Talk 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining it to the people who objected to the category move then? Personally, I'm fed up with not being able to get through to them. If you want to get anything done in this country, you've got to complain 'til you're blue in the mouth! – Pee Jay 21:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

We've had this argument before. We don't refer to the eponymous vegetable as a swede (rutabaga) everywhere for the sake of cross-Atlantic relations. We have naming conventions and style guidelines, and a long and difficult renaming debate which settled the argument of what to call this sport decisively. It's far less confusing if we use that title as consistently as possible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Assists

In the "career statistics" tables on several Arsenal player articles, e.g. Theo Walcott, Robin van Persie, Cesc Fàbregas there are columns for "assists" which are referenced to Soccernet. I can't see similar information for players from other clubs, e.g. Cristiano Ronaldo, Frank Lampard or Steven Gerrard. In my opinion, this information is not particularly relevant nor meaningful and I'd like to get rid of them but I'm probably on my own here. What do other users think? incidentally, how reliable are the soccernet pages? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Assists are surely a matter of point of view? Frankly, I would delete them immediately since they are certainly not verifiable for lower leagues and older players, and aren't a widely available statistic for those at the top either. They are merely a fabrication of fantasy football. Peanut4 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Assists are pretty big in American coverage of football and it seems a lot of MLS people might be upset by a general deletion of assists. I reckon it should be left as is where the stat can be verified. Hack (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

They are pretty meaningless as far as I am concerned. As I understand it, a player whose shot rebounds of a post to a colleague who taps it in gets credited with an assist, yet if the original shot is on target and it rebounds off the keeper, he doesn't! I'd say remove them until a clear and useful definition can be developed. - fchd (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd count soccernet as perfectly reliable for MLS because the stat is actually counted in America. I don't think this applies anywhere else. We certainly shouldn't be counting it for Premier League players. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in this sort of data: Planet World Cup has compiled statistics on assists for World Cups going back to 1966. --ChaChaFut (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Medio Tiempo has tracked assists (PPG or pases para gol) for all Mexican Primera matches in its archive (seems to cover mid-1980s through today). Here's one example: [8]. I've never noticed other media paying any attention to assists in the Primera, but they are tracked on the Medio Tiempo site which is in my experience highly reliable. Jogurney (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

For all the MLS stats you never wanted to know, the MLS website is a veritable treasure trove - [9].Hack (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canaries World Wide Supporters Group

I'm struggling a little with this...

Supporters clubs can be notable, but I think it's clear most of the ones nominated here are not.

I'm struggling though with Capital Canaries. See my comments at the AfD. While the existing article definitely fails WP:V, I think that it can be verified as notable, as I've explained at the AfD, but I'd appreciate some expert opinions from others on this. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce on Scottish Football

A new taskforce, like the WikiProject Scottish Football was, except with more members. Anyone intrested? 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 16:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you've established enough taskforces for the time being? IIRC, this is the third you've proposed recently. – Pee Jay 17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it is, although only the Youth Football one was my idea. I just wanted to see if anyone was intrested, and then start it in the future (or get someone else to start it up now). Surprised you're still counting the taskforces, although I suppose that they have all been advertised here at some point! 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 20:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Irish club notability

An editor has created articles on all the clubs in the Galway & District League down to its fifth level. This is effectively the fifth to ninth level in the Republic of Ireland.

Does anyone have opinions on where the rough cut-off for Irish club notability should be? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If the random example I chose from the highest of those divisions (Oranmore F.C.) is anything to go by, they appear to play on park pitches. I'd suggest that any level where clubs do not play at proper grounds is below the level for notability. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The cut-off level should be around where there are reliable sources satisyfing WP:N. If that means some teams at level 3 fail while others at level 7 pass, so be it. - fchd (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it shouldn't be forgotten that our notability rules apply for what we consider automatic notability. There's nothing to say that a team, league or player can't pass notability on an individual basis for specific reasons. I'd suggest that these articles be individually assessed. Also, beware of biting the hard-working editor who'll be annoyed when their work starts getting zapped. Apart from anything else, treated politely, they could become a wonderful asset. --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, he's **already** a wonderful asset, just slightly misdirected on this score. I'd get rid of the speedy tags and notifications for now and begin by engaging him in dialogue. There's no deadline, and it doesn't matter if we don't blast his work out of the sky in an instant. Best result would be if he could be persuaded to db-author any/all inappropriate articles because he's understood our policies. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Irish A Championship in 2009 League of Ireland season article

There is currently an on-going discussion if the A championship and its teams should also be included to the FAI League of Ireland 2009 season article. The controversy is about whether a) the A Championship is the third tier of the LOI and b) the three non-reserve teams are members of the LOI. Can somebody more familiar with Irish football help to resolve the issue? --Soccer-holic (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bradford fire

I'm currently working on improvements to Bradford City stadium fire. In the mean time, User:Coolgamer keeps adding a direct link to footage on wikileaks. I've reverted it a couple of times, and has also been previously removed by User:Thumperward and IP addresses. I've previously asked him to take it to the talk page, since at least three users reverted it, but to no avail. His last edit claims he thinks it's notable. I disagree since it has received no third party coverage, and the footage is in breach of copyright from Yorkshire Television, and so for the same reason YouTube videos cannot be used as sources, I've removed it. Does anyone else have any opinions on whether to include it or not? Peanut4 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You're correctly following Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking, why not point them at that page too. See also relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Nanonic (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's received third-party coverage, and the controversy over the footage is what makes it notable. It is the only available record of the event, and deserves mention. Coolgamer (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If the wikileaks coverage has third-party coverage, I have absolutely no concerns about including it, just as there is mention of the other leaks to various sites. But the link to the footage itself is in breach of copyright. Peanut4 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:English expatriate footballers

Again one of these categories, this time it is an English one! nether-the-less. An expatriate is someone who has removed from citizenship of so called country. I just had a look at the category and most of the peeps in there are living in England and currently have citizenship. Being an English expatriate footballer, well something is clearly wrong here. I think there needs to be a real series address on this subject. Frankly I want this category removed because it is just ridiculous. Govvy (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

obviously someone has just added every english player that has played outside england, just remove those that aren't currently doing that, its fairly simple really. Skitzo (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the intention of these categories is to cover players who have played outside of the nation of birth/citizenship. In the US, we call these players "Yanks Abroad", and it seems other nations have an interest in the players who ply their trade outside of their "home" nation. That said, there are some sticky issues: (1) there are no English/Welsh/Scottish citizens (only British); (2) some players have dual citizenships; (3) some players move to a new country before acquiring citizenship of that country (are they considered expatriates because they once were?); (4) should the categories only include professional players (does someone that is a professional but had a spell in the French CFA belong in the Expatriate footballers in France category?); and certainly others I can't think of at the moment. Jogurney (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it atm, the category should only be players that are currently playing outside of Britain. Saying they are expatriate seems wrong, a better name for the category would be English footballers abroad. That way the category isn't asking the question of citizenship either, it's more straight-forward naming. Govvy (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Barry Bannan

Could an admin restore Barry Bannan? He made his debut for Aston Villa today as a substitute. matt91486 (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He's back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

5ft 3? The man's tiny! Giant Snowman 17:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fanny Walden was even shorter, at 5ft 2. Dean Cox is 5ft 4. Time for a list of shortest footballers, similar to Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates and List of shortest people? Aecis·(away) ^talk

Any admins about?

I tagged Cole Arns for speedy deletion as blatant hoax, and notified the creator. The page has similar content to this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Matthews, created by the same editor. The speedy tag has been removed by an anon. Don't know what the procedure is now... help... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Blatant hoax, can easily qualify for speedy deletion, so I am deleting it. I can't unfortunately delete the fake picture, because it's uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, even if it looks to me like sort of photoshopping to an existing picture - that is, derivative work from a probably copyrighted image, so would qualify to speedy deletion as well. --Angelo (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Stephen McShane

I'm guessing this is a hoax? Can anyone else confirm? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it - the two linked profiles actually relate to Marco Gbarssin and Google turns up nothing on a player with this name playing for Antwerp..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If so, should it not be "prodded"? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming issue with N.E.C. Nijmegen

Hi all, I've discovered yesterday that the article about NEC Nijmegen uses dots in its title, so it is N.E.C. Nijmegen; since all other Dutch football teams do not use dots (see PSV Eindhoven, AZ (football club) and NAC Breda, just to cite some), I would like to ask you for more thoughts and clarifications about this choice. Personally I think dots should not be used in this case, the club name is never mentioned with dots in local media, and even the club crest does not use dots. I started a discussion at Talk:N.E.C. Nijmegen. Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

But their club website (http://www.nec-nijmegen.nl/layout.php) uses the full stops every time, as far as I can see. - fchd (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Exodus Geohaghon

This article has been PROD'ed as the player has never played in the Football League, however the article includes at least three sources which are reliable and solely about the subject in question. Without wishing to re-open a big ol' can of worms or get all waxy, if that Man U kid passed muster due to the existence of sources, doesn't this guy too? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that stands out as a perfect example of why WP:N does not work for footballers. This guy is not notable, yet there are still plenty of references available. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Geohaghon's goal at Rockingham Road in the First round proper of the 2008–09 FA Cup as Kettering Town held Football League Two club Lincoln City to a 1-1 draw on 8 November 2008" isn't that enough to pass our notability criteria? (Even if he hadn't scored) --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see our criteria state that an FA Cup fixture doesn't count unless both teams are fully professional. Is that a recentish change? Either way, I think it's an error. If you play in the FA Cup proper, (ie first round proper, onwards) you're notable IMHO. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this should not be considered as a notability fact, this would cause many Conference players to become notable just because of a game, even if they have never played in a level higher than non-league. I was happy of seeing Havant & Waterlooville in the news last season because of their impressive FA Cup campaign, but I don't think the team players are notable to have their own article just because of that. --Angelo (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think individual Dorchester Town, Evesham United or Leiston players should qualify for articles on the grounds of their appearances in the FA Cup first round proper this season -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So, taking this to an extreme, if Hereford had not managed to get promoted, late in his career, would Ronnie Radford not be notable? I'd argue he's notable because of one goal in one match he played. If he'd broken his leg the next minute and never played again, he'd be notable. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Radford was clearly an exceptional case and he would easily pass muster based on general sources. I don't believe, however, that every semi-pro player to have made it to the first round proper should be deemed automatically notable. That would surely cover most players in the top three levels below League Two -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. How does the team notability work? --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to the original question, I note that most of the sources for the Exodus Geohaghon article are from local newspapers (8/12) with the rest either from his club or from sites dealing with non-league football (and one to the ITV coverage of the FA Cup). If such sources are sufficient to meet the requirements of WP:N, then any non-league player will get through, providing the article is fully referenced. Likewise any youth player for a professional club would get in. For example, I could find enough references in either the local press or the Southampton website to write an article about their third choice goalkeeper, Tommy Forecast, although he's never got further than the bench. Likewise, I could find enough sources to create an article about Luke Byles, who plays for Eastleigh - he's regularly mentioned in the local press. Neither of these players meet the standards of WP:ATHLETE, however. It seems to me that by allowing WP:N to over-ride WP:ATHLETE, the bar has been lowered to such a point that anyone will qualify for an article, providing sufficient sources can be found. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A good point - and one that applies equally to youth players at pro clubs, like Luke Daley. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In the recent debate about this at WT:BIO there seemed to be sveral people arguing that it would be right and proper to keep an article on a non-entity like Forecast or Byles but to delete the article on someone like Pedro Cea, who played in the World Cup final but for whom no in-depth sources appear to exist..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what WP:RECENTISM is about. In modern times, it is quite easy to find sources regarding almost anyone in the world, and it gets even easier when dealing with people involved in a top sport discipline in a European or North-American country (e.g., football in Europe, ice hockey in Canada, american football in the US). I think the only way to allow WP:N overriding a WP:SNG such as WP:ATHLETE is to accept only nationwide sources in places like UK, and European-wide ones in countries where a popular national source is unavailable (e.g., San Marino). --Angelo (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are two national weekly papers in the UK dedicated to Non-league football. I don't really see why they wouldn't be considered to be at least as reliable as the national red-top tabloids. Furthermore, if a player with a League Two team became notable by playing in an FA Cup first round match, I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to a Conference player who could well be on the opposing side of the very same match. - fchd (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in WP:N, anything that either rules out local newspapers or non-league newspapers from independent sources. In my opinion, Exodus Geoghegan passes WP:N but clearly not WP:ATHLETE. Peanut4 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Some wise IP user has removed the PROD notice with no summary explanation at all. I am opening an AFD. --Angelo (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Category:English footballers who have played in Scotland ?

We deleted Category:Scottish footballers who have played in England Should we not also delete Category:English footballers who have played in Scotland ? Govvy (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Exactly the same rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just added it, Here. Govvy (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Add two more for CfD, Category:English footballers who played in Ireland (before 1923) and Category:English footballers who have played in Northern Ireland‎. Govvy (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Template move request

I found bored to move the Fb round2 templates as the UEFA Champions League and Europa League rounds are renamed. Please help for rename those template please. You can feel free to rename by refering here, thanks. Raymond "Giggs" K o 05:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the templates for all UEFA 2008 or 2008-09 leagues earlier today. However, the one or another club article for those seasons might not been changed yet, so if you spot one of those, please feel free to correct. Once everything has been changed, the templates not required should be either speedied or put to TfD. Soccer-holic (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Celtic F.C.

Could somebody check the recent edits made by anons to Celtic F.C.? I have no idea whether their edits are correct or not. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the suggestion that Celtic won the 1955-56 European Cup, erm no, that's not correct. Real Madrid beat Reims in the final. Celtic didn't even enter the European Cup until they won it at the first attempt in 1966-67. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Other categories to consider for deletion.

Category:Expatriate footballers in China (We have expatriate categories to say the country players are coming from also. Why is this one needed? Too general?)
- Category:Expatriate footballers in Portugal
- Category:Expatriate footballers in Italy

Category:Football (soccer) players by position (And all the sub categories) (This category could be huge and probably is, it would have to be vastly populated and in a way would have far too heavy count. There is no range limit to it. Out field players move around in different positions all the time. It is too general and defeats it's own self.)

Thoughts? Govvy (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel that there is nothing wrong with maintaining these first level expatriate footballs in Y categories, it is the Xian expatriate footballers in Y triple intersection categories such as Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Portugal that need dealing with. They can easliy be generated like this. The 2nd point about players by position raises a valid issue, that many players have played in more than one position, hence the existence of Category:Football (soccer) utility players. These categories can be used in searches like this. It would not be an improvement to the encyclopaedia to delete them. King of the North East 01:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:Fb team SSV Ulm

Can an admin please delete Template:Fb team SSV Ulm? The template is a hardcopy of Template:Fb team Ulm and thus had been speedied since December 7, but did not appear on Category:Templates for speedy deletion for some reason. --Soccer-holic (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Staff members

How many staff members should be included in a club article? Nottingham Forest F.C.#Club officials lists the Chairman, the Chief Executive, the Finance Director, the Associate Directors, the Manager, the First Team Coaches, the Goalkeeping Coach, the Academy Director, the Sports Scientist, the Physiotherapists, the Chief Scout, the Medical Consultant, the Football Administrator, the Stadium Manager, the Head Groundsman, the Safety Officer, the Operations Manager, the Commercial Manager, the Ticket Office Manager, the Shop Manager, the Press Officer, the Programme Editor, the Website Manager, the P.R. Executive, the Community Directors and the Club Chaplain. Way too much, imo. Aecis·(away) ^talk 13:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The technical staff (i.e., head coach/manager, assistant coach/manager, first team coaches) is way enough --Angelo (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with Angelo; coaches and chairmen and maybe physio, or anyone with a wikipedia entry. But the list should try be concise. Add a link to the page on the official website if anyone wants to read more. Peanut4 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Chairman should be listed elsewhere in the article not in with the staff members in my opinion. Skitzo (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We already have a good place where to put the chairman's name, and it is the main club infobox. Personally, I think physios are unnecessary, they can hardly be deemed as notable and they hardly receive some sort of non-trivial coverage. Agree with a official website link as a reliable source for the list. --Angelo (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to help sum up the article though, and hence the chairman's name ought to be included elsewhere. Peanut4 (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also go with Angelo's suggestion, but should the Secretary be added to the list as well? These people are a vital part of any football club. Bettia (rawr!) 09:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Premier League managers

Is there really any point in this? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered that. There seems to be a few other templates for other leagues, and I spotted a similar type template for starting NFL Quarterbacks!! I honestly can't see the point of them really though as navboxes. Peanut4 (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty standard template in American sports leagues. I believe the primary benefit comes to those people less familiar with the subject. For us, people who know who is managing already, we think of it as useless, but it helps others with less background knowledge navigate and see commonality between subjects. matt91486 (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Football Biography

Call me reactionary but the heights in these boxes seem to be changed/vandalised/contested with far too much frequency. Is there any reason why they should even be there? Height is largely an unimportant factor for a footballer (with the exception of goalkeepers). Strikers, midfielders and defenders come in all shapes and sizes (as the human race does). Is there any specific reason why height is more important to mention in the infobox of Pelé than it is, of say, Barack Obama? I suggest removal of the height field on the basis that provides little value to the articles. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it does seem to be abused a lot. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with "abuse" being used as a rationale for deleting something. If we deleted everything that got abused, there wouldn't be a Wikipedia. Height is an interesting statistic for sportspersons, regardless of their position on the field. – Pee Jay 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay. Peanut4 (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Were this a trivial stat I'd be fine with nuking it, but physical characteristics differ in importance per game - weight maybe isn't important for a footballer so much as a boxer, height maybe isn't as important for a darts player as a footballer. Vandalism requires vigilance, not capitulation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My main concern wasn't the vandalism, rather that the statistic wasn't of much importance. Seeing as people feel otherwise about it I suppose it's better off being in the infobox than not.

To tackle the second subject, the vandalism, perhaps we can draw up some guidelines over what's best as a reliable source for heights? Personally, when deciding which source is most reliable I would judge the hierarchy as follows: current club website, previous club website (if any), highly reliable sources (e.g. national press, even FourFourTwo etc. maybe?), stats sites (ESPN soccernet etc), personal websites. Height conflicts have bored me to tears at various points; is it worth "legislating" on the issue? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of Toronto Lynx

Can an admin please take a look at the edit history of the Toronto Lynx page, and protect it? There is a persistent vandal who continually adds the names "Rony Talow" and "Lil' Rosny" to the roster, using multiple sockpuppets and different IP addresses. It's so tiresome having to keep reverting it. Thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Help is still required with this issue. Thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected for 1 week, might be worth keeping an eye on North York Astros, too. --Oxymoron⁸³ 17:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations from club websites.

On the bit =publisher do you think it's best to put the website url? Or the full club name? Govvy (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer publisher=Wiki United F.C., but publisher=www.wikiunited.com is also OK I think. A compromise, which I've only just thought of this second, could be publisher=Wiki United F.C. | work=www.wikiunited.com Jameboy (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I always out the club name, rather than the website: url=www.giantsnowmanafc.com/history|title=History|publisher=GiantSnowman A.F.C. Giant Snowman 17:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Expatriate footballer triple intersections (again)

User:Mayumashu has been creating and populating a load more Xian footballers in Y categories despite being aware of the consensus to delete them. Please can we do something to uphold this consensus before we end up with 20,000 categories like Category:Algerian expatriate footballers in England and the completely empty Category:Argentine expatriate footballers in Italy. They can easily be generated like this. King of the North East 21:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

He's agreed to stop on his talk page. Might be worth a mass CfD, if we have a clear precedent and a complete list of them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How about putting them all into Category:Xian Expatriate footballers in Y intersections to establish the number of them and as the basis for a list? King of the North East 23:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add this category to every remaining triple-intersect of this type. Only 104 left. Jogurney (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to do a mass CfD, but I think it's the only option. I tried to manually clear out many of these categories and have them deleted as empty categories. It's easy enough when the category has 10 or fewer articles in it, but some of them have 100 or more. Also, for every category cleared, it seems a new user creates two more. If we have a CfD, hopefully the problem can be cured at once. Jogurney (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadly it looks like Mayumashu isn't planning on letting this proceed; he's still adding new expatriate categories to other sports (just not football), and he's put the holding cat up for deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started the process of listing them for deletion, I have only managed to get through the ones beginning A-C so far. Could someone help me with the full listing as I have to go out now, cheers King of the North East 14:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added all of the other categories in the "holding category" (the MS Word Replace function is my friend). Jogurney (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The older ones, they have been pretty much voted for to delete a few. Maybe an admin can look at the current CfD list we have, close those and delete, then we can pass onto the main bulk. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Mayumashu

On César Sánchez Spurs second goalkeeper Mayumashu just removed two categories saying redundant cat page links cut I am not quite sure, but it sounds wrong to me, I think they should be put back. Can someone confirm that for me. Govvy (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, they should probably be put back, and the triple intersection category (Spanish expatriate footballers in England) be the one to be removed. - fchd (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bajram Sadrijaj

What is the nationality of Bajram Sadrijaj? His article says Albanian, but the article Borussia Dortmund says Serbian. I've found both on the internet. l'Equipe and France Football say Albania, Fox Sports says Serbia. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably he's from Kosovo (as confirmed by Bild.de [10]), that is the reason behind all this mess. Anyway, there is no evidence of this guy having ever played at international level. Even Borussia Dortmund's website defines his nationality as "Kosovo" [11]--Angelo (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Both the Bundesliga [12] and Kicker [13] say Serbian. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And to add to the mess: since he was born in Augsburg, he presumably also holds German citizenship. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The most recent version on the German WP says Albanian, the "stable" version says Serbian. I say either put Kosovo or cite the Bundesliga website. – Toon ^(talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't FIFA have that 21st birthday rule, where a player can choose a national team to play for up until that point. So if we find out which national team he is available for, would that solve the problem? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Afaik that doesn't apply if the country becomes independent after the 21st birthday. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is not internationally represented and personally I doubt it will ever be, due to the controversial way it got independent and the lack of recognization from countries like Russia, Serbia and even Spain. If one day Kosovo will have an international team, such rules do not apply, as it happened more recently with Montenegro. Kosovo players of Albanian ethnicity usually play for Albania and are awarded Albanian citizenship (see Albania national football team for details). --Angelo (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As the article creator, I'm more than happy for his nationality to be changed - to Kosovan prefrably! Giant Snowman 17:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that at least in football, Kosovo is not a recognized nation yet. The national federation has not been recognized by UEFA and FIFA and there is no official national team yet. Football in Kosovo is, from a sporting regulatory point of view, still under the authority of the Serbian Football Association. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oman national football team

Any reasons why the kits are not in the infobox, but just below it? Giant Snowman 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the wiki-code, they've been added as standalone images outside the infobox template. I can think of no valid reason why this should have been done.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspected as much - does anyobody (hint hint Chris!) fancy whacking them in the infobox then? I'm OK but not brill at football kit codes... Giant Snowman 22:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Done it, now I'm off to watch MotD :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers man! (And ditto, I can't wait to see Big Sam's first game in charge, or the Boro getting horrendously beaten!) Giant Snowman 22:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that another user has taken them back out of the infobox and put the "floating images" back in, for no obvious reason..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I've just noticed about the article - first match is given as 16 March 1974. Biggest defeat is given as 21-0 on 6 April 1966... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The star player must have been Dr. Who...Giant Snowman 17:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the 1966 game was one as "Muscat and Oman"? RSSSF lists a few games pre-1974, here, all defeats, and all but one of them real hammerings. - fchd (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Can sanyone else help out with the article? User:Salalah4life keeps removing the kits from the infobox and putting in excessively detailed depictions as floating stand-alone images (not using the fb kit template) further down the article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not have undetailed kits in the infobox, and detailed kits in a section called ==Kits== or ==Colours==? Giant Snowman 17:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Would I be right in thinking........

..........that if an individual's only involvement at a fully professional level was one match as caretaker manager, there isn't really any grounds for him to have a WP article? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on whether the individual concerned is covered by the usual combination of non-trivial, independent reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I can see, so his only route on WP would be via WP:ATHLETE as having managed at a fully pro level, but I wanted to confirm my gut feeling that one match as caretaker doesn't really count..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say they would be notable through WP:ATHLETE, but I guess it would depend on their ability to pass WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if he did pass WP:ATHLETE, I'd still think it would need to pass WP:N as well to pass the general notability guidelines. Out of interest, would you think someone called up from the youth team or the reserves to play a single game would be notable (forgetting WP:N)? If so, I can't see the different in theory with a caretaker manager for a single game. - fchd (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think they would have grounds for a WP article. Though it may be on grounds of WP:IAR rather than other criteria. Not sure we have any guidelines for managers. Peanut4 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they would - and as caretaker manager they would no doubt have plenty of independent coverage in contemporary newspapers and articles, wouldn't they? Qwghlm (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Programme covers

I just scanned in two programme covers with Bill Nicholson on, but I am now not sure if I can use them on wikicommon or pedia. The copyright is owned by Tottenham Hotspur, they are from 1986 and 1983. :/ Govvy (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they'll still be in copyright in both the US and UK. There is perhaps a minor fair use justification for illustrating the Tottenham matchday programme in the main Spurs article, but unlikely for the main Bill Nicholson article, particularly as there is already one non-free fair use image there. Qwghlm (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yuletide

No matter what you celebrate, or who you support, this is for you.

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

 Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas all. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Xmas everyone - Prem4eva (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

God jul — chan dler — 20:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ho ho ho -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's greetings :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Simon Grayson

An anon editor insists on removing this image from Simon Grayson, saying it's too low in quality. What do people think? I personally think it will suffice. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not that great in quality, but I suppose its better than having no image at all. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not the best quality, better than nothing know, maybe a supporter can get a better one. Govvy (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

meaning of "Football ground"

Football ground currently redirects to Association football pitch, but I understand the term to mean the whole stadium, not just the pitch, albeit that this is probably colloquial and technically inaccurate. I'd be interested to hear what other people think about this. My own point of view means that I am unable to objectively determine what the primary meaning of "football ground" should be. Not sure if it should be a disambiguation page, if the redirect should be altered or if it should stay as it is. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure "football ground" is used to refer to the stadium as a whole; at least, I've never heard it used to refer to only the pitch. I think that "football ground" can be used to refer to a location where football is played in front of spectators, regardless of the spectator capacity, whereas a "stadium" must have stands (possibly on all four sides). – Pee Jay 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Kassam Stadium doesn't have stands on four sides. Otherwise yeah. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If anything it probably ought to redirect to stadium. Peanut4 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that it should re-direct to Football stadium, but this is itself a redirect to Soccer-specific stadium. Aaaaaaaagh! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that Football stadium needs to direct to a new article Football ground which would be a non-US-centric version of Soccer-specific stadium (which it could mention in a section). If no-one else wants to have a go, I'll give it a try over the Christmas break when I'll have some spare time. Black Kite 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that Football ground is the stadium as a whole but you could leave a disambiguation link at the top of the article. Skitzo (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's not a lot to discuss here. At some point someone will split football stadium off into its own article, football ground can be re-pointed there and this will close. For now, a hatnote will suffice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It definitely means the whole thing not just the pitch. I say redirect football ground to the same place as football stadium. Beve (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Winter transfers

With the upcoming transfer window, which leagues should be included in the lists of winter transfers? The German list includes all three professional leagues, whereas the English list features only the two highest leagues and the Dutch list includes only the top professional league (Eredivisie).
And which system should we use? Most lists are sorted by club, but Italy, Croatia and Spain are sorted by date. Belgium has a double intersection, listing the transfers both by date and by club. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well for the date v. club listing, I'm all for listing transfers by club. I don't see how it is important to see the exact date. We know its in the winter transfer window, what else do we really need? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer listing transfers by date, but in a sortable table, like the English lists. That way, the reader can sort by the selling club, the buying club, the date and the fee. Listing by date also makes it easier to compile the list for the editors who create it, as they merely need to add the transfer to the bottom of the list. Therefore, this approach is favourable both to the editors and to the readers. – Pee Jay 19:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The German list is not difficult to edit at all. Just find the club and then put the info in that section. And how is the exact date so important? It adds virtually no value to the article. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Personally, and I'm sure there will be others who feel the same, I find it interesting to know whether a transfer went through as soon as the window opens or on deadline day. Even the dates of transfers in the middle of the window are interesting, as it lets the reader know how much time the selling club had before the end of the window to replace the player they sold. It may not be as useful to know the date as it is to know the fee or the clubs involved, but it certainly has a place in the article. – Pee Jay 20:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with PeeJay. The German list isn't very user friendly since the reader can only look through club-by-club rather than sort per buying club, selling club and fee. I don't think date is all that relevant but it can be particularly for last day transfers. Peanut4 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Positions by round in Süper Lig 2008-09

I have just PRODded Positions by round in Süper Lig 2008-09 and merged the content into Süper Lig 2008–09. Any PbR tables, if needed at all, should go directly to the respective season article, shouldn't they? --Soccer-holic (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the prod and turned the PbR article into a redirect to the season article, in order to comply with the GFDL. – Pee Jay 19:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dessie Gorman

Two things:

1) Please can an admin protect the article, IP users keep on adding links from the Irish Times which require subscriptions. I have relpaced said links with free equivalents, but my edits are constantly reverted.
2) He was born in England and spent his entire pro-career in Ireland, but methinks he may have played as a youth for some English sides - anyone know which ones, if any? Cheers, Giant Snowman 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with giving a reference from a site requiring a subscription if said site is a reliable source. I see no need for protection, this should be sorted out on the talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

But if the same information can be provided in a free link (as GiantSnowman says) then the free version should be used as it makes for easier checking by other editors. At the very least, both should be provided. Qwghlm (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In response: I have tried discussing it with the IP users, but they call my edits 'vandalism' in edit summaries and don't respond to comments on their talk pages. And as Qwghlm says, free links make verification much simpler. Giant Snowman 17:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Book request

Would anyone happen to have access to a copy of Red and Raw: A Post-War History of Manchester United v Liverpool? I'm looking to expand Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United F.C. rivalry, and a printed source might be quite helpful. – Pee Jay 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Leagues

Does anyone know the which leauges in Turkey are fully professional? We all know the Süper Lig is fully pro, but I am not sure if the TFF First League is fully pro as well. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I only have anecdotal evidence that it is fully professional, but here goes. The league has a sponsorship deal with Bank Asya (see here: [14]) and almost all of the clubs have stadia with capacity of 10,000 or more - Boluspor has the smallest stadium with 8,000 capacity according to the league's website (at same link above). I don't read/understand Turkish so I can't find attendance figures for the matches. There are semi-pro leagues with sponsorship deals and attendances in the low thousands, but Turkey is a large nation with a strong footballing tradition (some of the clubs at this level include Samsunspor and Altay S.K. which have played in UEFA competitions in the past). Is there anyone who reads Turkish that can check the league's website for more clues about it's status. The TFF website says the league is professional (and these clubs players are listed as professional), but that's also true of the third tier (which is much less likely to be fully professional). Jogurney (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup/FIFA Club World Cup

There's a bit of a discussion over at Talk:Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics about whether or not the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup should be treated as one competition by combining their stats. User:Gethomas3 seems to believe that the two competitions are effectively the same thing, despite the fact that FIFA only records the history of the Club World Cup from 2000 onwards. The user also believes that statistics for the European Cup and the UEFA Champions League should be separated, despite the fact that UEFA records the history of the two competitions together all the way back to 1955. Anyway, the discussion is available for you all to see at Talk:Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup statistics#Suggested split. Happy commenting! – Pee Jay 18:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Atlético Madrid

The Atlético Madrid article was moved to Atlético de Madrid on 2 December 2008, as a result of an RM request on the article's talk page. There was one support !vote, which was given with no rationale and given by someone who clearly doesn't spend much time editing football-related articles. The RM was not listed for anyone to see, other than people who might have been browsing WP:RM from 27 November to 2 December, which gave most of us bugger all chance of seeing it. I have now reverted the move with the suggestion that, should anyone wish to request the page to be moved again, they list it here at WP:FOOTY. – Pee Jay 11:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy with that point of view - I agree that Atlético Madrid is probably the best title for the article, you're out of order in terms of process. If a move has been made through the accepted channels, any reversion should be made through the proper channels as well. You should not have done what you did, and instead raised it back at WP:RM. - fchd (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just one !vote in five days for a potentially controversial move regarding one of the major European teams: this should raise some suspect regarding the correctness of the procedure. If the procedure was not properly followed by nominator (as it seems in this case), WP:BOLD obviously applies. --Angelo (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Proper procedure was followed. While it may be polite to do so, there is no obligation to inform each and every Wiki Project that may be interested in an article. - fchd (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry about that. I just don't think that two people are enough to say that a consensus has been established. – Pee Jay 12:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's an agenda here to make the article more hispanic, the edits I just made to the opening of the Lead (what the club's usually called in English) are likely to be reverted. Lookout please? They could do with some referencing, if anyone's feeling up to it? --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the other alternative names, but I'm not sure "Athletico Madrid" should be listed there. In my experience, people who call the club "Athletico Madrid" are simply mispronouncing "Atlético Madrid". – Pee Jay 12:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought similar, till I Googled and found 51 recent news hits for "Athletico Madrid", including some surprising titles that I thought should know better. It seems an uncomfortable halfway house to me - why not go the whole hog and call them Madrid Athletic (Oldham's wealthy cousins, obviously), but if that's what RS use, that's what RS use... --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Example from The Independent. Tsk tsk. Though it seems to be a bad subeditor's mistake - the journo's got it right and the sub has got it wrong in the headline. PA article, so it's an Indy staffer's laxity/ignorance? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I think I might petition FIFA to mandate that they be referred to as Madrid Athletic F.C. in English. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazing how the glory and glamour disappears when idiomatic translations are poorly applied: the Phillips Works Team, Eindhoven anyone? Young Boys of Turin? --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I dare say we'd get used to it fast enough. What does Civil Service Strollers translate into in Italian? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris, wouldn't the corrent name be "Madrid Athletic Club"? :p On moving it back to without de, is a really dumb thing to do imo, without the de it becomes grammatically incorrect, plus I don't see for example Swedish clubs being treated to the same stripping of "s" as Spanish clubs get stripped of "de", Djurgårdens IF and Helsingborgs IF don't lay on Djurgården IF or Helsingborg IF. I think the spanish clubs should have the same "right", Celta de Vigo Atlético de Madrid, Deportivo de La Coruña Sporting de Gijón Racing de Santander Recreativo de Huelva — chan dler — 10:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. In English RS, the most common name for the club is Atletico Madrid or Atlético Madrid. Either of those two names is where we should locate the article. The same principle applies for other names used differently in English RS, ie the article about the capital of Austria is at Vienna, with Wien a redirect, regardless of what its inhabitants might call it. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Vienna might be located at Vienna, but FK Austria Wien is not located at FK Austria Vienna, and as I said, the samething with Swedish football clubs IFK Göteborg and Gothenburg, those clubs are allowed the local name, but not Spanish clubs? As Ecemaml wrote in the discussion for the move

"The usual name of the club is Atlético de Madrid. If there is an English convention against the use of the "de" then it makes no sense to spell the term "Atlético" as in Spanish, with an acute accent. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)" — chan dler — 13:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

FIFA refers to the club as "Atlético Madrid", while UEFA refers to the club simply as "Atlético". There I can see two excellent reasons why the "de" should be left out and the acute accent left in. – Pee Jay 13:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

UEFA refers to them as Club Atlético de Madrid — chan dler — 13:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Which they shorten to "Atlético" in the Spanish league table and on the Champions League pages (see here and here). – Pee Jay 14:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that but they shorten other teams in the tables, which makes little sense, IFK Göteborg are called just Göteborg, even though there exist other teams in Göteborg, for example GAIS there, which UEFA seems to call GAIS Göteborg, which makes "Göteborg AIS Göteborg". Back to Atletico their club page in UEFA.com [15] list the whole name — chan dler — 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

<-I'm not aware that Austria Wien is known in English popularly as anything else, but I do suggest we move SK Rapid Wien to Rapid Vienna per COMMONNAME. --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So move Sporting Clube de Portugal → Sporting Lisbon as well? or at least Sporting Clube Portugal as "de" can not be accepted — chan dler — 13:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just silly, and to be honest, I find this whole discussion to be rather pointy. – Pee Jay 13:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont think its disruptive to show a double standard. But it seems some teams are subject to WP:NCCN, but others don't. I just think adding the "de" for Atletico is so uncontroversial, and many other spanish clubs with "de" in the name while the other things are written out use the "de", Celta de Vigo, Racing de Santander etc. I can agree with that if clubs like Real Madrid are on Real Madrid CF you dont need "Real Madrid C de F" but if it was on "Real Madrid Club de Fútbol" (like it is on some other wiki's) it shouldn't be at "Real Madrid Club Fútbol" — chan dler — 13:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not disruptive as such, but I feel like you're suggesting these things to prove a point about something. Each article should be treated on its own. Personally, I would say that it should be "Celta Vigo", "Racing Santander", "Deportivo La Coruña", etc., but those aren't the articles being discussed. As for "Real Madrid C.F.", you would never see the O in "of" included in an English acronym, so why should the "de" be included in the middle of the "C.F."? – Pee Jay 14:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I said "you don't need "Real Madrid C de F"" but if the whole name had been without acronyms it should be there, as with Atletico (Which it self could be at CA Madrid in reality) — chan dler — 14:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry. I misread you. But yes, you are right that the "de" would be necessary if the Real Madrid article was at Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, as it wouldn't be grammatically correct otherwise. It wouldn't make sense for Atletico Madrid to be at C.A. Madrid, though, as the club is most commonly known as "Atlético" or "Atlético Madrid". If the "Atlético" part wasn't in the article's title, it would be quite confusing. – Pee Jay 14:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm not proposing a move to CA Madrid, because Atletico is there (im guessing not to comfuse with Real Madrid), but the acronym at least stand in CA Osasuna. But if you agree that it would be grammatically incorrect for "Club Fútbol", can't you agree with Atletico de Madrid? I don't really see a big need to update every article where Atletico is mentioned (Champions league seasons, league seasons etc) to be changed with the de (though it would be nice), but only the article — chan dler — 14:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a page move version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Because other pages are currently badly named, doesn't mean AM's should be too. It's just that we've not got round to fixing the others yet, possibly because there's more important things to do, like writing decent articles. WP:COMMONNAME is very clear - AM should be named without any "de" in it. --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You say its the other who are named badly, I (and I guess some others) say it's only this which is named badly — chan dler — 14:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You (and some others) are welcome to discuss an amendment to the existing policy at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, if you read WP:NC#Sports teams it makes a case for Atletico de Madrid, or even Club Atletico de Madrid, it has a official website in english [16] where they use their Spanish name, the name exist on UEFA's team site it is recognizable and you can't confuse it with any other team. — chan dler — 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you cite the policy and inadvertently miss out the bit that disproves your point.

I'll paste below what it says in full, with some adapted use of bold from the original to make it clear:

Tests for "no ambiguity": the club's official web site has an English-language section; and that name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media; and it is recognizable; and it is not easily confused with other clubs' names.

Can we stop now? --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC) (NB even the club themselves on their official site use the common English variant: see opening lines to this page about their centenary --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore

Tests for "ambiguity": the club's official web site does not have an English-language section; or it is not broadly recognizable; or it is easily confused with other clubs' names.

then? It has a website, it would be easily recognized with, and you can't confuse it with other clubs. This is not changing the spelling of the town from local to english, its just adding the correct grammar. And ignore all the "de" on their english page just because they don't have it on all plages, as you can see, full name used officially in the table in the fixtures they use Atletico de Madrid in the text and so on. And if you read the HEADLINE on the link you posted you'll see Atletico de Madrid — chan dler — 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

<ahem> You're supposed to be arguing it's "not ambiguous", not "ambiguous". if it's ambiguous, we definitely will go with AM. If you want to argue my side of the point, you're welcome. --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am, as you see showing that it FAILS "ambiguous" because it has a English language website, it's recognizable and cant be confused with other clubs. — chan dler — 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

English language RS call the club AM. With no "de". Are we on WP:LAME yet? I'd really rather be spending my time writing an encyclopedia than arguing this point. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Time to move forward with the Sporting Lisbon move then? Because if I don't remember incorrectly for that club and a club like Dynamo Kyiv their article names go from their official english website name, overriding English language RS — chan dler — 15:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And to disprove "English language RS call the club AM", if this is the right links atlético de madrid 9,644 hits compared to atlético madrid 12,361 hits, that's not a significant segment of the English-language media? Really? — chan dler — 15:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Spanish hits from page 4 of the "de" results. If anyone else wants to flog this dead horse, they're welcome, but I'm worried about the carcass rotting and irritating my neighbours. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be expecting you to request moves for all clubs laying on their official English names, but not the most used common name in English media. Or do you think it's only important to make sure Atletico is the only team that has to follow one part of the policy ignoring the other parts. — chan dler — 15:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I live about 10 minutes from the stadium and am a fan of the team. In Spanish, the team's name is Atlético de Madrid. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

On the wider issue

I see FK Austria Wien were brought up here. They're usually referred to as Austria Vienna in the English press. Isn't it time we went through the European leagues one-by-one and came up with a proper set of consistent standards for which form to use? Right now it appears that there's little consistency even between teams in the same league. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy suggests inconsistency is the way forward :-) It'll be the more famous teams and/or teams from the more famous cities that potentially have Anglicised names and may fall under COMMONNAME. I wish you luck with your quest! --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are to go through all the European leagues, we also need to go through the English and Scottish leagues. I might be totally missing something but I don't understand how "Club Atlético de Madrid" drops Club and de to "Atlético Madrid", yet Manchester United F.C., etc. includes the F.C. Maybe it should even be Manchester United Football Club. But if it should be just X F.C., I don't understand how come English and Scottish team names have periods in F.C., yet the likes of FK Austria Wien, is simply FK and not F.K. There seems to be a huge amount of inconsistency across the board. Peanut4 (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, and I have been trying to deal with this stuff on the various CONCACAF teams that are involved in international competition (the CONCACAF Champions League) If you take a look at my contribs page, you will see some of the moves I've done recently in an attempt to create some consistency. I figured it was best to start in CONCACAF because, A) I care more about that than anything else and B) these articles are much less controversial. I think that this WP would be very well served by developing a consistent, across the board, multi-language, approach to club article names that would cover things like:

Formalizing names (nicknames, shortenings, etc.)
English variants of native languages (Bayern Munich vs. Mayern München, for example)
Punctuation (F.C. vs. FC and all the variations across languages)

and all the other different issues that arrise. I think that a lot of the confusion stems from what I perceive to be the uniquely British disregard for getting names right. Whether it be city, country, club, or tournament names, the Brits simply can't be bothered. Look no further than the recent inability by most Brits to properly recite the name of the FIFA Club World Cup. I heard everything from the World Club Cup, World Clubs Cup, Club World Championship, and on and on. Anyway, I would be more than happy to be a part of any discussion relating to the development of a standard, so please feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost think the easiest thing for consistency is to do what the Spanish wikipedia seem to have started to do if you have a look around at least Spanish and English clubs, no acronyms, full official name in the title. So it's es:Sunderland Association Football Club, es:Newcastle United Football Club, es:Sevilla Fútbol Club, could go on. I think it would be the easiest way to get consistency all over, the only hard parts might be Cyrillic language teams or perhaps Chinese teams, though if you'd go with the English website official name it wouldn't be that hard. Though this wouldn't fix the "problem" in league tables and in text (where they ofc can't be called the full name) , with Team FC or Team F.C. — chan dler — 01:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That fails WP:COMMONNAME though, because practically no club is referred to in the vernacular by the fully-expanded name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Move of Fredrik Ljungberg and Daniel Alves

Just noticed that a user called Mikemor92 have moved the articles of Fredrik Ljungberg and Daniel Alves to nickname titles, Freddie Ljungberg and Dani Alves, I tried to look for some discussion about it but couldnt find any. And I really don't see a reason for the moves and think they should be reverted. Any thoughts? — chan dler — 18:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the moves as they are obviously contentious. I will suggest to the user that they start RM discussions for those two articles. – Pee Jay 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't be moved – they are not widely used names in the same way that Adrian 'Aidy' Boothroyd or Francesc 'Cesc' Fàbregas are called by their nicknames, but are simply informal shortenings. Giant Snowman 18:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that they shouldn't be moved. The BBC regularly refers to Ljungberg as "Freddie", and he is also called that by the Sky Sports News anchors. Seems a bit more 50-50 about Alves, but he does wear "Dani Alves" on his shirt. – Pee Jay 18:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On Ljungberg, I've never understood why he's not been called Fredrik (is it a usual name or hard to pronounce in the UK?), for what I can remember he's never been referenced as "Freddie" in Sweden (and yes I understand its English to go by), or "official" player listings by UEFA on the Euro's or the Champions League — chan dler — 19:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a little Mistake on Alves but for Freddie Ljungberg, according to the Seattle Sounders FC roster, this is why I changed his page. – Michael (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only ever heard Ljungberg referred to as Freddie Ljungberg. But I reckon Alves should be Daniel Alves. Peanut4 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant, but as PeeJay said earlier, the back of Alves's shirt says Dani Alves. As for Ljungberg, the title of his page should've remained as edited. "Freddie Ljungberg". – Michael (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a difference between Brazilian players who have "artist names", Swedish players don't have that, Freddie is just a nickname. Just a to compare Henrik Larsson is very often, almost always referred to as "Henke Larsson" in Swedish media, but his article on the sv wiki is Henrik Larsson, because it's just a nickname, similar to Freddie. — chan dler — 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a name is a nickname rather than the name actually printed on the player's birth certificate is irrelevant, we go by the name the player is most commonly known by. We don't have articles called Edward Sheringham, Robert Charlton, Anthony Cascarino, Alexander Ferguson, Steven Sidwell, Timothy Cahill, etc etc etc. I obviously can't speak for how Larsson is referred to in Sweden, but on a worldwide scale, as far as I can see, Henrik is the name he is known by -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand Larsson is known as Henrik all over the world, but I just mean that in Sweden he is probably called by his nickname at least as often as Ljungberg is called by his worldwide, and he and other Swedish players are the same, all the ones you took up are from English language countries, where it might be more common to use nicknames as the "real" name. Of the first names you gave Alexander is the only common name here, and I can bet 90+% are always called Alex most of the time, though I don't think any Swedish Alexander players are on "Alex"... I just think it comes down to regional differences in using nicknames — chan dler — 18:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that on en.wikipedia.org, it's the most common name for the player in the English-speaking world that should be used, not necessarily their real name or what's used in their home country? Beve (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd still say it's a bad move to make, google news only gave a 12,800 to 9,370, and there are many English sites, Including UEFA and FIFA use Fredrik. And they use "official" nicknames there for example Teddy Sheringham and Bobby Charlton, so they don't use the full name just because it's the full name. — chan dler — 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no convincing reason not to have the nickname redirect to the proper name in either case. matt91486 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with having a redirect, but I dont think the article should be moved to the nickname — chan dler — 23:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Which article should not be moved to the nickname? Articles should be placed at the most appropriate place per WP:COMMONNAME just as ChrisTheDude suggests, e.g. Teddy Sheringham, Bobby Charlton, Alex Ferguson, Tony Cascarino, etc. Just as those players who are known by their middle names e.g. Lee Mills not Rowan Mills, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fredrik Ljungberg — chan dler — 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be Freddie Ljungberg, go to soundersfc.com and look at the roster, it has his name on there as Freddie, that's why I changed it. – Michael (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for Sounders to override FIFA and UEFA — chan dler — 17:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What about the many English language news sources that refer to him as Freddie? Would they be enough? – Pee Jay 18:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above many (other) English news sources refer to him as Fredrik. — chan dler — 20:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If these are the correct search links: Fredrik 9,370 include BBC, Times Online, New York Times, etc. Freddie 12,800 include BBC, Times Online, Telegraph, etc. That can hardly be as common as for example Sheringham, Charlton, Ferguson and others. — chan dler — 20:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nearly the right search, just needs filtering for English language only. That gives 11,800 for Freddie and 4,780 for Fredrik. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to keep mentioning Seattle Sounders FC everytime regarding putting the name down as Freddie Ljungberg, I'd rather change it back to Freddie. – Michael (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Freddie is by far his most commonly used name in English, therefore the article should be at Freddie Ljungberg, per WP:COMMONNAME. – Toon ^(talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

FIFA and UEFA always have him as Fredrik because Freddie is just a nickname. — chan dler — 20:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I similar case I can see is Rafael Benitez, often called Rafa. But when it comes to official places, such as FIFA's match reports, he's always referred to as Rafael. He shouldn't be moved either — chan dler — 01:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Aww, come on folks. This is ridiculous. Has anyone noticed that Ljundberg's first name isn't flipping Fredrik in the first place? He's referred to almost exclusively as Freddie in the English press (I'm entirely unimpressed by what FIFA, UEFA or his mother calls him), and is currently signed under that name, so that's where the article is going. Rock-solid policy, as indicated by the exquisitely put together list Peanut4 provided. I've moved the article back per WP:COMMONNAME. Please let's not have a lame edit war over something with such an obvious right answer. If other articles have issues (Alves is fine with "Daniel", again by the simple BBC test) then let's discuss them separately. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

His name isn't Fredrik? Are you freaking kidding me... And why would you be unimpressed by what FIFA says. We even let "them" decide were the article for the sport in suppose to be located. — chan dler — 11:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As a participant in the association football naming saga, I know full well how we got to that title, and it wasn't settled on a flat "this is what FIFA calls it" call. Ljundberg goes by his middle name officially, but "officially" counts for very little - in common parlance, and indeed on his shirt according to the discussion above, he goes by "Freddie". So it's no different from Robert Charlton. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember FIFA calling it association football was a pretty important argument. And just because Karl is said before Fredrik, doesn't mean it isn't his "first name", it's very common in Sweden to have a "middle name" before your first name, I have it myself for example. And I see a big difference in that players like Bobby Charlton and Teddy Sheringham actually are called Bobby and Teddy on match reports from the World Cup and competitions alike, Ljungberg is not. — chan dler — 11:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What people are called in match reports does not matter. Have a read of WP:COMMONNAME. Seriously. It's already been shown that in English sources "Freddie" is the most commonly-used name. It's unambiguous. That is literally all there is to say on the subject. Furthermore, there looks to be broad support for the move in the discussion above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're proposing moving every player to their informal nicknames? Josep Guardiola, for one. — chan dler — 11:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing following policy on one article. You can argue the rest individually if you want. What you should not be doing is edit warring in the face of apparent consensus - I've just had to fish a comment out of the Ljundberg talk redirect, which means the page move will now require administrative action, which is a huge pain in the ass. Whether a title is "informal" or not is an utter irrelevance, because our naming conventions don't take that into account. If you disagree with that policy then feel free to argue about it on the policy talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So lets just pick out at one article and not care about following policy on others. I'm seriously wondering if there would be other players not having their article on the name used by FIFA, with exceptions for players who have disambiguating titles — chan dler — 12:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make a bigger issue of it then so be it, but that's not a reason to put a page move which only you and GiantSnowman seem to disagree with on hold for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move requested

What a gigantic pain for something which shouldn't require two minutes' worth of discussion. Talk:Fredrik Ljungberg#Requested move. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sporting Nationality" of coaches

Since this has turned into a slow edit war on Seattle Sounders FC in regards to the flag to put next to Sigi Schmid's name in the team's infobox I figured I'd bring this up to the football community at large... According to MOS:ICON, when a flag is used it should be the flag for the national squad that they are associated with. So, in Sigi Schmid's case, he was born in Germany, immigrated to the US at an early age, hasn't played for any national squad, but he has been the coach for the US U-20 national team. Would the flag associated with Sigi be the US or German flag? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The news posts I read when it was announced he'd manage Seattle have referenced him "German". FIFA have called him German multiple times in news articles. But if you look at match reports they list him as "USA" [17] in the two tournaments I think he's coached in, it's hard, but I would probably have him as USA because of the FIFA reports — chan dler — 01:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing of the man concerned, but if it's that unclear, you could always omit the flag entirely, per MOS:ICON#Inappropriate use: "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, totally agree with you, Struway2. I've previously removed the flags from the infobox because they are generally for decorations, but they've always been re-added because "Everyone else is doing it". As far as him being referenced as "German" but listed as "USA", it may be because his citizenship is German, which is different than his sporting nationality. At least, that would be my guess. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 10:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If everyone else is wrong, then that's a problem for everyone else. Persons with dubious or disputed nationalities don't get flags. That's all there is to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year Footy Project.

I just got home to find I left my PC on... again! But anyway, Happy new year from London to all. Govvy (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year everyone! Giant Snowman 17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

German football champions

User:NapHit has been editing this page for most of the day. I have asked him why he has removed functionality from the article, to which he replied he was "cleaning up" as it was "messy". I have told him I disagreed with his edits and suggested he open a discussion about them, however, he has chosen not to do so. I'd appreciate it if someone could have a look at what he's doing and render their opinion about it. Madcynic (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes look fine to me - the table (1991 onwards) is much clearer to read now. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with removing the FC's and SV's, so long as they're not needed for disambiguation and what's left is a sensible shortening of the club's name; that helps to make it look neater.

I don't think the number of titles bracket should be removed. The reader might very well want to know that 19xx was when a team won their 10th title or whatever. If it's messy (which it was, a bit) then make it neater, don't take useful information away. The 1991- table is crammed into 80% width at the moment, give it a bit more width and make the number-of-titles bracket normal font size (like the goals scored) and it keeps that functionality without being too cluttered.

What I really don't see the point of (which isn't one of Naphit's changes} is sorting the top scorer by name when some seasons have joint top scorers, so all you get is sorting by the first-named of the pair. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Zanzibar national football team

This BBC article confirms that the Zanzibar national football team is playing in the Cecafa Cup - does this mean that they are now an official national team, become affiliated to either CAF or FIFA? Giant Snowman 17:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Zanzibar has played in previous editions of the CECAFA Cup, but I see no evidence that they are now affiliated to CAF or FIFA. Jogurney (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Zanzibar does get a place in the main CAF club competitions though, doesn't it? The CAF article shows Zanzibar as a "CAF associate member, but non-FIFA member" - fchd (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If they are an associate member, they have the same status as Guadeloupe or Martinique who can participate in confederation competitions, but not in FIFA competitions. Jogurney (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Therefore players in squad lists etc. - like players from Guadeloupe - would be represented by the Zanzibar flag, and not the Tanzanian flag? Giant Snowman 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think the French FA has a policy of not allowing players to represent France once they play for Guadeloupe or Martinique in CONCACAF competitions. However, I thought some players had represented both Zanzibar and Tanzania. That would makes things rather difficult. Jogurney (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Zanzibar can't play in the Africa Cup of Nations.

It seems that there are issues between Football Association of Tanzania and the Zanzibar Football Association as shown by this article from 2002...Hack (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sort buttons

Is there an issue with the clickable sort buttons in tables? It could be browser-related (I only have Mozilla at present), but I can't sort columns at all. See list of one-club men for an example. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also got firefox, and I can sort the table on that page. Peanut4 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have Firefox and I can't sort the table. Skitzo (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Version 3.0.5 here. I did take an anxiety pill and try it in IE, and it worked, so unless Peanut has an older version of Mozilla I don't have an answer. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got 3.0.5 too. How odd. Peanut4 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Works fine for me with an old version of Firefox (1.0.6) as well. - fchd (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I reported it at WP:VPT last night and it will be fixed in the next software update. Nanonic (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-league coords

I've noticed that User:Jonathan Winsky has gone through a massive number of non-league club articles and has made the club's home ground in the infobox a link to the ground's coordinates. I'm not sure that this is particularly helpful, but thought I ought to put it up for discussion before doing anything about it. Dancarney (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox is not the place to do it; I have nothing against including the co-ordinates in the article (e.g. Eastwood Town F.C.). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with it myself. I've looked at a few and they seem pretty accurate to me. In the past, I've added a link to a multimap locator of the ground of Bideford A.F.C. in the External Links section, but what User:Jonathan Winsky has done looks more professional to me. - fchd (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a coordinates parameter in {{Infobox Stadium}}, which is where they're supposed to go; they display in the infobox or at the top of the page or both. See St Andrew's (stadium). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But for most of the clubs involved, there isn't an article for the ground. Therefore do you propose adding that parameter to the football club infobox? - fchd (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't thinking... Ignore me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what locating the club - as a metaphysical entity - in space adds, but the ground location, as a physical entity, seems valid. The information appears true and accurate, and as long as he is going through doing all the work what is the problem. Stadiums with their own article have this, but in the absence of a stadium article it seems to me to qualify as useful information enhancing the quality of Wikipedia. I guess the debate comes down to whether it should be placed in the infobox per User:Jonathan Winsky's edits, or at the top of the page per the Eastwood Town F.C. example. St Andrew's (stadium) was not a very good go-by...it has it in both places, as do most other articles I looked at that supply coordinate information. As the information specifically relates to the stadium location rather than the entire article, I would favour linking it as per User:Jonathan Winsky --ClubOranje^Talk 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't you just hate this time of year?

When every sprog with access to a PC thinks he is a budding journalist and has to be the first to break the news that player X has moved from XYZ F.C. to ABC F.C. Wayne Bridge is a classic example. I'll just go away for a few days and tidy up the crap when the deal is done. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See what you mean about Bridge. I'd have thought 100+ mostly unconstructive edits in 24 hours was reasonable grounds for requesting protection for a day or two... Good job no-one's interested in who my lot are buying :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, protect it! Beve (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I've noticed several unsettling naming conventions. surely stating (for example) 'Liverpool', 'Leeds' or 'Milan' when discussing a football club in the opening sections of an article or a table is incorrect. I can see how this would be no problem mid-article once the identities of the clubs are clearly established, but when an article starts (for example) 'the 2005 champions league final was contested between Liverpool and Milan', using simply the name of the town/city, surely this is not right? Liverpool the city was not playing Milan the city, and as many Evertonians will no doubtedly attest, Liverpool F.C is not the only club in Liverpool! I've even seen 'Manchester' as 08 Premier League winners, the implications of which - ie City winning anything - I personally take offence to!

if this has been discussed before, it should be again and sorted, becuase the way many articles read is simply not correct. Jw2035 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with dropping the "F.C." or "A.C." or whatever when writing a football-related article. Obviously, it is incorrect to just write "Manchester" when referring to Manchester United, but as long as the first instance of a club's name is linked and piped (i.e. Liverpool or Milan), that's fine by me. – Pee Jay 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this is although the link is correct, it simply does not read or look right - without the nice yellow box (at least in firefox) that says AC Milan or Liverpool FC when you hover over the link it is not obvious reading which Milan or which aspect of Liverpool is being discussed. this is even more of a problem in tables, and leads to having to click on links just to see which Milan or which manchester an article refers to.

as given above, as plaintext, or just reading it, statements like 'the 2005 champions league final was contested between Liverpool and Milan' sounds and looks incorrect. surely the convention should be to add the fc suffix/prefix where confusion may arise??Jw2035 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem wrong to me. If the other Liverpool club actually used the name of the city in its own name, then I could see where you're coming from, but "Liverpool" and "Everton" are dissimilar enough not to cause a problem. Same goes for "Milan" and "Internazionale". – Pee Jay 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No-one is going to confuse Liverpool for Everton, but the absolute novice might not know that Milan means AC Milan and not Inter. Beve (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)When talking about football in a football article, there is only one Liverpool and one Milan (No Internazionale is never refered to as Milan) and can't cause confusion. When it comes to cities with two or multiple clubs with the city/same name playing at reasonable high/same level, Manchester, Sheffield, Madrid for name a few, it's ofc important to use the full name, or the common way to distingue them (I heard that American commentators for example called Man Utd "Manchester" during thte Club World Cup). — chan dler — 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

think it's ok in match commentary - liverpool arn't called liverpool fc throughout, and man united are often simply called 'united' by match commentators. but this is only alright since it has been established that the 'manchester' means 'that team in red which is playing' and not 'that city in the north west' or 'that club which play in sky blue'. this is the same in articles - once the distinction has been made (for example in the intro) it should be ok to simply refer to 'united', 'liverpool', 'sheffield', but the distiniction should always be clear. i think even though inter milan are as internatzionale throughout wikipedia, simply putting 'milan' for ac is still confusing to a novice reader? Jw2035 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Adem Ljajić

This little guy is the subject of rather a large bit of misinformation today. The BBC, UEFA and, I'm sure, numerous others claim that he transferred to Manchester United today, only to be immediately loaned back to Partizan. On the face of it, that would seem to be the case, and editors could be forgiven for editing Adem Ljajić's article in order to reflect that circumstance. However, Manchester United themselves claim that they have "an agreement" with Partizan that Ljajić should remain with them for the remainder of the calendar year of 2009. Again, seems feasible. But what both sets of sources has failed to mention is the FIFA regulation that non-EU players under the age of 18 cannot be transferred to clubs within the EU. Since Adem Ljajić does not turn 18 until September 2009 (after the 2009 summer transfer window has closed), he cannot join Manchester United until January 2010. Bearing that in mind, can someone PLEASE help me keep Adem Ljajić's article in check? Failing that, let's just have a big discussion. – Pee Jay 23:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the Man Utd statement backs up everything you say that he will join in January 2010 and until then isn't a Man Utd player. I'm guessing it's a gentleman's agreement rather than anything else. The key words from Fergie in the statement are, "Tosic joins us immediately, his work permit is through;" I.e. Ljajic doesn't yet have his work permit for the reasons you've given.

It might be worth putting a note on the talk page explaining the situation now, if you haven't already done so. Peanut4 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. – Pee Jay 00:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he shouldn't be listed at transferred to loaned back. I'm guessing there's either a gentleman's agreement, or (if FIFA allows it) a transfer contract that specifies January 2010 and all that. When It comes to his infobox, I'm still not sure what I think would be the best solution. — chan dler — 00:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the situation is so unclear, I think it would be best to leave the infobox as it is. Putting a note saying "due to join Manchester United on 1 January 2010" might be incorrect, since, as you say, FIFA may not allow even pre-contract agreements. – Pee Jay 00:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what you've done so far is spot on according to the Man Utd statement, which is the best one to believe. I'm guessing all the news sources have overlooked this rule. Peanut4 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want a third party news source, The Guardian via Reuters seem to have got it right. Peanut4 (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian is usually pretty good with stuff like this. Probably my favourite of the British printed media. – Pee Jay 00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's why I looked there first. Peanut4 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just generally enjoy their coverage. It's usually fairly accurate and exceptionally entertaining. matt91486 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think leaving 2008– Partizan is the best choice. Because 2008–2010 Partizan 2010– Manchester United might at first glance look like he's ended his Partizan spell, while 2008– Partizan 2010– Manchester United might look a bit weird. — chan dler — 00:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

2010– Manchester United will be wrong. Because there is no guarantee he will join in 2010. Anything can happen over the next 12 months. Peanut4 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is correct in its current form of 2008–2009 Partizan 2009– Manchester United 2009– Partizan (loan) for the simple reason that simply because he is not registered with the FA does not mean he isn't a Manchester United player. Other teams cannot sign him without the permission of Manchester United and paying the appropriate compensation to Manchester United. Ljajic is on loan to Partizan untill 01/2010. This is the same for players who do not qualify for a work permit and are loaned to other EU clubs. Use some common sence people, he's a Manchester United player who is on loan to Partizan untill Jan 2010. Ck786 (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing webpages that will change

Basically, I want to use YourThurrock as a source in a couple of articles. The website is kind of bloglike and the main page changes, and stories are not archived. How do I source the page as it is now, before it changes and the citations I need are gone? Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 06:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Pre-emptive archiving, in short - use WebCite (or another website like that). Nanonic (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jw2035

This user has been reverting sourced information from most of the Champions League final articles including two which are up for GA nomination. He claims he is doing this because the information is not required and does not fit in with the 2007 article which is a featured article and he claims is a template. PeeJay has also encountered the same problem with this user, I would like to know what the community thinks, and what course of action you recommend, as his actions are jeopardising two GA nominations, one of which is on hold. NapHit (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

now this is a personal attack. doesn't the accused get a say?

the GA nominations in question have failed. they have failed for several reasons, notably the use of pov statements, colloquialisms, rambling 'reactions', 'build-up', 'aftermath', 'route to the final', 'what arsene wenger says', etc... sections, trivia only vaguely connected to the finals and sometimes rambling into topics that have nothing to do with the article in question (which towns are twinned with the finalists for example) and selective POV quotations.

the two above users have made no effort to discuss any changes along these lines (even though I've provided full justification for every edit), instead resorting to accusing me of vandalism, sock puppetry and ruining 'their page' or 'their work' - including a statement from NapHit that he had written (solely) the 2007 final featured article.

if anyone has any opinions on what the format of a champions league final article should look like and contain, please post here. otherwise UEFA Champions League Final 2007, a featured article, is the template to wich I have made any structural edits. i've justified every edit i've made; please feel free to post on my or the article tal page if you disagree with any of them, and i'll be happy to discuss it. Jw2035 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"The accused"? You're not on trial, you know. As I have just mentioned over at Talk:2008 UEFA Champions League Final, the sections about the build-up to the game, the clubs' routes to the final, etc. are quite valuable to articles such as this, as the article would otherwise have been quite bland and boring, just talking about the match itself. As I recall, there was no mention of Arsene Wenger's opinion in the Reactions section of the article, so you're talking out of your arse on that one. You decimated a half-decent article! – Pee Jay 19:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

dear, dear, more incivility. you simply added wild trivia and cruft, pooly written. looking at the history, you also reverted anyone who made even the slightest constructive edits. 'coincidences', 'did you know this town was twinned with thing' - i'm sure, makes the article more entertaining but doesnt make it better; in fact, the opposite. Jw2035 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think information like that makes an article worse. matt91486 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

presented correctly, relevant to the article, useful - no problem. this is not the case Jw2035 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I count four people who have now objected to your edits. – Pee Jay 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

you can count a million. only one has been reverting. refresh yourself with Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. however many you count (sockpuppets?) doesn't change the poor quality aspects of the article. anyway, why should anyone listen to someone so uncivil? Jw2035 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why so uncivil? Because you've driven me to it by being so pig-headed. – Pee Jay 20:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can't keep your temper, perhaps you should stop editing? let others get something constructive done? Jw2035 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The GA nominations have not failed those are previous ones, your refusal to acknowledge anyone else edits means is unbelievable. NapHit (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

i could say the same about you, you've reverted without any debate which i've repeatedly offered. i stand by my comments above about the articles and your conduct. it is not your article and simply reverting edits because 'it's up for good article' or 'i worked hard on that' is not on. Jw2035 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would accept your edits if you were improving the articles but you are not you are removing large tracts of referenced material and are diminishing the quality of these articles, because they don't fit in with your 'template'. I never once referred to owning any article, whereas you have telling me on my talk page to leave certain pages alone. To be honest your behaviour is childish and tiresome, hopefully you will come to your sense and stop defacing articles. NapHit (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, you simply dont seem to get it. my problem is not whether it's referenced or not, my problem is that a lot of what was there, sourced or unsourced, was cruft, trivia, went into discussions of too wide a scope, had sections which were too open ended, has multiple pov problems, was written in a colloquial style, etc... '...I worked extremely hard on the two articles you have defaced...'. if that's not a case of this is my article, dont edit it... Jw2035 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please reach a consensus and abide by it. Take it to dispute resolutiuon if needed. Thanks, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

i see no way of reaching consensus with the above editors by discussion. they seem unprepared to debate any changes to their pet articles. either formal mediation or back down and let the edits stand Jw2035 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean everyone agrees, it means that the dominant view prevails. If you are in a minority of one, you are not the dominant view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't, and, given the circumstances, probably wouldn't have said it better myself, Malcolm. Furthermore, Jw2035, accusing people of believing that they "own" an article is unlikely to do you any favours. Leave the article as it was, seek a consensus, and then make the changes. It is bad practice to make changes while the consensus is still being formulated. – Pee Jay 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maps in general

I'm just want to check if there is a consensus for if for example Kosovo is suppose to be included on current maps. And small other things. I ask because yesterday I updated File:European Football Championship appearances.png (plus Hosts, Winners, Best results) per request to include the UEFA countries missing. Now on those I left out Kosovo (and Monaco, Vatican City and some other non-UEFA dependencies). But should Kosovo be represented as a non-UEFA, or non-existing (as if Serbia covers the whole area) until the Kosovo FA have been accepted into FIFA and UEFA? Or are there guidelines on what to do with maps when there are territorial disputes? And should perhaps non-FIFA FA's in internationally recognized countries be included as non-UEFA countries on the map? — chan dler — 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD on player we deem non notable closed as "Keep"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fábio Pereira da Silva (2nd nomination).

Can I now move to mainspace User:Dweller/Tom Adeyemi and User:Dweller/Luke Daley? I think not. But I have cited non trivial mentions of these players from RS in their articles (especially Daley, whose article is more "worked up"). So what makes da Silva special? It can't be that he has a notable brother - notability is not inherited. So, is this result saying that players are not notable until they play, unless they're signed by Manchester United? Either that's the case, or Adeyemi and Daley are notable too. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The keep closure is a shame: there is no consensus to keep the article, a "no consensus" would have been fairer. Then, Wikipedia policy defaults keeping articles with no consensus to delete them, but that is a different thing. --Angelo (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the consensus - as one might expect - is that WP:ATHLETE does not supersede the general notability guideline. Some people thought, even given that, that da Silva was non-notable. But I think there is sufficient consensus that WP:ATHLETE does not supersede WP:N (and indeed, WP:ATHLETE says as much). That said, looking at the Adeyemi and Daley articles, they appear to be sourced entirely from Norwich FC pages - although one of the sources on da Silva was a Man U website, it was one of many, and I almost decided against counting it as an independent source for the purposes of notability. Certainly I do not think the article would have been kept if that was the only source running. I would also suggest that, in practice, there is a bias of size of club, with a club the size of Man U having an easier time getting its reserves in than a club the size of Norwich. It also probably helped that da Silva had captained Brazil's U-17 squad in the U-17 World Cup. Again, while both of these are not sufficient for notability, and there is no consensus that they award notability, they were, I think, factors in why this specific article was kept. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In common with all major football teams in the UK, Norwich's reserve matches are widely covered in local media. I could easily produce four or five references to Daley or Adeyemi from EDP, Pink 'Un, Evening News etc. Youth football is not notability - a huge number of players who have played U17 for England have never gone on to play a single professional match. --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. My concern is that because "reliable sources" about even the most non-notable footballers are available, that this close may lead to a WP:OTHERSTUFFGOTKEPT issue at AfD, where the bright line of having played professionally (either you have or you haven't) is superseded by arguments about how trivial (or otherwise) coverage about a player is. Black Kite 14:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not a single media source in the Fabio da Silva article was a Manchester local paper. Which, again, helped. As for the international issue, I agree there is no consensus that U-17 experience is in and of itself grounds for notability. But I would say that it certainly helps the cause - particularly when the experience is remarkable, such as captaining the squad or being goal leader from a defensive position. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re your comments about Manchester United, that's a breach of NPOV and exactly what we should not be doing - notability should be an objective test, irrespective of what club a player is connected to. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think one can objectively say that Manchester United is a more notable club than Norwich. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As notability is not inherited, that is irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant inasmuch as it follows logically from the statement that Manchester United is a more notable club than Norwich that signing for Manchester United is more notable than signing for Norwich. The problem you're running into here is that, outside the world of this WikiProject, editors generally look at the results of applying policy and ask "Does this pass the sniff test?". The idea that an article with multiple sources to national media means that a reserves player for Norwich is also notable will fail to pass the vast majority of those sniff tests. And if you think the prominence of Fabio da Silva's club did not affect the decision to keep, you're deluding yourself. Not only was the prominence of Man U compared to Norwich part of why Fabio da Silva was the subject of so much press coverage (the novelty of him having an identical twin who also signed being another part), the statement "we should delete an article on a heavily covered player with non-trivial international experience, who is signed for and listed on the first team of one of the biggest clubs in the world" failed to pass a number of editors' sniff tests. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That lots of non-expert comments mistakenly applied inherited notability is exactly what I'm concerned about. Their sniff tests should have told them it stank. And I'm surprised you're arguing another fallacy - in terms of being included or not, there is no such thing as more notable or less notable, there is only notable and not notable. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing policy literalism with the actual decision processes that govern Wikipedia. Indeed, WP:N does not describe degrees of notability. On the other hand, when people actually make decisions, they keep in mind not only WP:N's term of art use of notability, but also the actual concept of significance and importance. Ignoring the role these concepts play in inclusion decisions leads to making decisions that are likely to be overruled by the community at large. Empirically, as a matter of social fact, consensus will form more easily for inclusion of a Man U player than a similar Norwich player. Given that it is the social fact of consensus that actually governs Wikipedia, not robotic application of policy, this fact is worth contemplating. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The sad fact is that it should have never been at AfD, as the article was illegitimately re-created by Phil following two DRVs which were both closed as endorse deletion. No consensus to delete should have been a no consensus to restore. Perhaps the improper procedure is worth looking into. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to stick up for Phil here. Why are you lot so adamant that Fabio's article should be deleted, exactly? Just because he doesn't meet wp:athlete? Lots of people don't meet wp:athlete. Henry Kissinger, say. Presumably no one's going to nominate Kissinger for deletion on those grounds. Fabio's article looks fine to me. He's notable despite failing wp:athlete. Flowerparty^☀ 14:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty spurious and unhelpful argument, as WP:ATHLETE pretty obviously only applies to articles on sportspeople, not famous politicians. It's equivalent to pointing out that Barack Obama fails WP:BAND because he's never had a hit single -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Obama is notable, so we shouldn't delete his article on the grounds that he fails wp:band. Fabio is notable, so we shouldn't delete his article on the grounds of failing wp:athlete. Flowerparty^☀ 14:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So gaming the system to get the result you want is fine? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I gamed the system exactly as much as was necessary to actually have a discussion of the question of notability that was not based on a core of topic editors shutting down discussion while screeching about how the matter was settled and there would be no dissent. I was content with either of two results - the article being kept, or an actual discussion of it. Repeated wheel-warring to delete the article and fast-closes of discussions - both flagrantly contravening policy - pushed me into applying more pressure on the situation. But the issue, frankly, was the conduct on the part of several editors, which was designed to protect the decisions of this project from outside scrutiny. Particularly galling was being wheel warred against saying "Take it to DRV" only to have the DRV speedy-closed as an invalid re-raising of an already decided issue. When more calmly knocking and asking if we could maybe reconsider this specific decision was rebuffed, I resorted to blowing the door open. I would suggest, however, that I was not the primary problem there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Much of why I created a new version of the article after the speedy close of the DRV was precisely because of the determination to railroad the discussion on a bright line reading of WP:ATHLETE that was actively hostile to the specific nuance of the situation. Especially since WP:ATHLETE explicitly says it does not supersede WP:N, the failure to look at WP:N at all, and indeed the refusal to allow DRV to do so led me to force the issue. All of this was aggravated by the fact that I came to the subject as a reader, that this is outside my usual editing areas, and that I was gobsmacked by the degree to which the prospect of my asking questions and challenging past decisions was viewed with active hostility.

To my lack of surprise, the actual policy won out over a single WikiProject's somewhat myopic reading of the policy. And, to my further lack of surprise, the particulars of this case - a player who was the subject of unusual media attention (far moreso than, say, Ben Amos, who has made a first team appearance), who signed for as big a club as one can sign for, and who has significant (if not notability-establishing on its own) international experience was sufficient to establish notability.

I would respectfully and humbly suggest that this project take this incident not as an example of malfeasance and poor decision-making, but as a cautionary tale about the myopia that develops from spending extended amounts of time in one topic area collaborating with the same people. Automatic decision making is a poor process, and leads to errors that, when wider attention is brought to them, are likely to be rebuked. Projects that have persisted with such approaches tend to be the subjects of more stinging rebukes. The decision to keep the Fabio da Silva article is not an overturning or a shift of policy away from WP:ATHLETE. What it is, however, is a rebuke to the insularity that leads to an inability to see the difference between Fabio da Silva and a reserves player for a side battling relegation in the Championship - a difference that, I assure you, is transparently clear to most of those who do not spend the bulk of their editing time inside the bubble. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For someone who's been spouting off about anti-intellectualism, it's quite rich of you to try and tell experts in the field that they are being short-sighted. I would say that this project consists of a group of editors who really know what they're talking about when it comes to football, and that they are far better placed than the mainstream community to know when a footballer really becomes notable or not; there are numerous examples of footballers who have played for England U17s and had a squad number at a Premier League club, only to disappear into the wastes of non-League without playing a match. I can't name any, because they're not notable, but they do occasionally feature in "Whatever happened to..." articles in FourFourTwo and the like. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you viewed my comments about anti-intellectualism as being a call for experts in a topic to have special editorial authority in that topic, you did not read my comments closely at all, since what I was upset about was the exclusion of peer-reviewed analysis, not editorial authority. And I would also suggest that if you think that the credibility granted by academic peer review is in any way equivalent to the credibility you gain via your dedication to Ipswich Town or whatever club you support, you're so completely off the reservation that the search party no longer has any hope of finding you. Regardless, I have no doubt of the quality, dedication, and competence of the editors heavily involved in football articles. The articles are mostly very good. But familiarity breeds insularity and, subsequently, myopic understandings of topics. When that myopia is combined with an attempt to shut down outside scrutiny, it becomes harmful. That is what the project got smacked down for here, and I hope the project will learn from the experience rather than developing a bunker mentality that will worsen the problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Several editors here (including myself) are contributors to off-wiki sources that are deemed to be the amongst the best sources for football-related research (e.g. the RSSSF), so please don't try to insult my intelligence with put-downs regarding which clubs I may or may not support. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A statistics compiling project extending out of a Usenet group really doesn't meaningfully compare to peer-review either. And this ignores the fact that my point in that discussion was not a call for experts to have special editorial powers. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Football experts surely know better than average users what makes a footballer notable, aren't they? Don't try to minimize the efforts produced by this WikiProject, which is casually one of the biggest in the whole Wikipedia, and also respect their users. Footballers should be deemed notable because of their footballing efforts at first, likewise musicians, politicians and writers. It makes no sense to deem a footballer as being notable because he barely makes the news, with sources regarding him hardly covering the subject in deep and significant detail, and most of sources existing just because of the team he is contracted with (not the team he plays for, because he has never actually played for Man Utd's first team). Would he be notable if he was contracted with Wigan Athletic instead than Manchester United? I think no. And I think he is not notable in any case. As said earlier, we're between two pushes, the one being more inclusionist (especially supported by major team fans who also happened to create articles about team physios, I know this by personal experience), the other being more deletionist (supported by users who cannot accept having articles for each professionally contracted footballer). A single AFD case does not change the widely-confirmed consensus for having only players who actually managed to play a competitive game. --Angelo (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. This AfD should manifestly not be taken as a challenge to WP:ATHLETE. But I do think it is a lesson about the problems of applying guidelines robotically and without larger reference. Now, I'm willing to accept arguments that da Silva wasn't notable. I think there is a debate to be had on the coverage he had. But I think the argument "failed WP:ATHLETE, nothing else matters," was roundly rejected here, and that the attitude that led to the AfD of shutting down attempts to think through the issue more thoroughly was rebuked. The project is a good one - the football articles on WP are largely good, and WP:ATHLETE as a guideline gets it right far, far more often than it gets it wrong. But I think there was a destructive myopia that reared its head here. And I think rather than deciding that this is a wrong result that should be ignored or grudgingly accepted, figuring out what can be learned from the rejection of the deletion argument in this case is a valuable pursuit. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't worth staging a drama over. The guy will probably come on as a 92nd minute sub on boxing day and hey presto, he meets wp:athlete and everyone's happy. (The idea that playing a couple of minutes of professional football can flip a person's status from Non-Notable to Notable! is of course absurd, but that is the dogma being advanced by a number of people here.) And this is largely irrelevant, since the references already listed in Fabio's article clearly establish notability, but can I propose a thought experiment here (and for similar cases). Can anyone think of any circumstances under which this guy would not meet wp:athlete at some point in the future? It's possible that he will never play a first team game for Manchester Utd or for any other club. Given the amount of press coverage he's already got, however, I'd think anything that could prevent him from achieving wp:athlete-sanctioned notability would be so catastrophic as to warrant a good deal more coverage. Phil is a voice of reason here, and I'd recommend those disagreeing with him to think carefully about his arguments before trying to shoot him down in flames as an impostor. Flowerparty^☀ 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

This subsection is not for discussing the AfD, or how the article got there, but what, if anything, the result means moving forward and what, if anything, the WikiProject should do in response
<ec with Flowerparty>Best solution would be for Fergie to pick the bloke on Saturday, which would end the debate. If he broke his leg in eight places tomorrow and quietly disappeared, never having played for United or any other club in a notable match, we're left with an awkward situation here. Some questions:

Do we reconsider our well-established notability criteria?
Do we challenge the AfD?
Do we ignore this article's existence? ie not respond to the AfD decision in any way Clarified by --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that there are special circumstances for option 3. We've all wasted enough time on this already. This chap is one of a pair of twins, signed simultaneously. That's kind of curious and enough to spark a little more media interest. Yes, his brother is the better player and he probably enjoyed an uplift because of that, as well as the inherited notability from MUFC. But there's enough unusual stuff here for it not to need to be seen as a precedent. --Dweller (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Great minds, eh? Flowerparty^☀ 16:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

...and fools.--ClubOranje^Talk 19:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would hope the intention of this is not the personal attack it initially appears to be... Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following:

Unclear. You should note that WP:ATHLETE is part of a larger guideline that explicitly says that WP:N also needs to be considered. Inasmuch as your notability criteria do not currently do so, yes, you should reconsider them.
God I hope not. I mean, you can, but I think at this point you'd run into procedural walls.
I'd hope not. You guys are probably the best possible maintainers of the article, and I'd hope you'd maintain it well.

But I think the precedent here is that there are exceptional cases that resist automatic notability guidelines. The precedent is not that the general guideline is wrong - it's that ignoring the specifics (MUFC, the existence of the twin brother, the international work) is a mistake. The general guideline gives you a quick answer. But it does not finish the discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, by option 3, I didn't mean ignore it completely, but just not respond to the AfD decision in any way. The article'll need maintenance if it stays. --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, I would say that allowing the result to stand is probably wise. I would guess, at this point, that a DRV would be closed with a result along the lines of "Oh God, not again." But I could be wrong. There could be interest in the procedural matters. But I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that there's a new perspective to be had. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well exactly - the last DRV confirmed the deletion, which would suggest that there is indeed no new perspective. I'm really concerned about WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE here, and the best thing that could happen is, as someone said above, that he stumbles onto the pitch for 30 seconds in an actual game so this can be neatly swept under the carpet. Black Kite 19:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I voted delete in the AfD, but I think this article was unusually well-sourced and far superior to any of the typical "permastub" articles created for players that fail WP:ATHLETE. This project gets accused of allowing too many "permastub" articles under WP:ATHLETE, but this is unlikely to be one of those. We should continue to try to purge the many new articles that fail WP:ATHLETE and contain only a sentence (and maybe an skeletal infobox). I don't view this AfD as having any precedential value in keeping those "permastubs" except when they are extremely well-sourced and deal with a player that has a very high profile. The unfortunate thing is WP:N is much more subjective than WP:ATHLETE, and discussions about which sources (and how many) satisfy WP:N are typically long and painful (like this one) - we should not give up on WP:ATHLETE. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Jogurney. I would go as far as suggesting footballers should meet both WP:N and WP:ATHLETE if they are only notable for being a footballer, as in the case of Fabio. Peanut4 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That would require a substantial change to WP:BIO, as it would affect numerous parts of that guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say just ignore it, AfDs should not be used as a precedent. There are other non-notable footballers where the football guidelines were overridden by pile on votes from fans (or Australians in the case of Dean Bouzanis). I agree with Jogorney that we need to spend more time as a community dealing with crap like Juan Carlos García, Kelvin Castillo, Juan Obelar (more) and the hundreds of other useless footy permastubs that are created every week. A sourced but non-notable footballers seems like a minor issue compared to the thousands of pathetic unsourced one line articles that assert no notability, that make WP:FOOTY look like a joke with no minimum standard for inclusion at all. King of the North East 22:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What does this AfD change? Not a lot, AfD is not case law. All parties probably agree that the player is on the fringes of notability, even if they disagree as to quite where that line lies. Playing in a youth international alone does not guarantee notability; examples abound of such players that never made it into the pro ranks. Being on the books at Manchester United does not guarantee notability; even some of the "Class of 92" disappeared into obscurity. I maintain that even stepping across the whitewash doesn't guarantee it, the coverage resulting from, say, a single injury time sub appearance rarely meets the description of sources that "address the subject directly in detail". But a variety of the above can sometimes result in an AfD keep. One line permastubs will continue to be given short shrift, debates will continue over longer articles, some of which will be kept. In the meantime, lets hope Fabio Pereira da Silva doesn't rupture his knee ligaments in training. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I must clarify my close. Like someone said in the other section, WP:ATHLETE does not supersede WP:BIO (stated on my talk page here). This was the reason I believed the arguments to "keep" the article were valid. Besides this, the discussion had an even amount of editors supporting deletion and keeping the article. Closing the discussion, I could not ignore the fact that there was no consensus to delete the article. As such, I do not believe the closure should establish a precedent, and each deletion discussion should be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking every notability policy subsection into consideration (for example an artist who plays soccer may fail WP:ATHLETE but not WP:MUSIC even though the article was written mainly about their sports career--and of course the article would need to be refocused). Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but you closed it as a keep, if there was an even split surely it should of been an no consensus closure, which would have avoided this discussion, added to the fact the article was re-created by an admin despite it failing 2 deletion reviews ...

as for the point about WP:ATHLETE and WP:MUSIC, we are talking about footballers in this project, so WP:MUSIC is irrelevant to the discussion Skitzo (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at WP:BAND (the notability criterion) for musicians, it says:

A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
etc etc

Wouldn't the easiest thing to do be to change WP:ATHLETE to read:

A sportsperson is notable if he/she meets any one of the following criteria:

He/she has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the sportsperson itself and reliable.
Has played in a fully professional league
Has played at the highest amateur level

or something like that....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Clause 3 would definitely need clarification (i.e. "in sports where there are no professional leagues anywhere"), otherwise it opens the door to Conference/top flight in Andorra players. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I realise that, I was just being lazy with my typing, as my real point was the addition of clause 1. I believe the current wording actually says "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed. WP:BAND is an independent guideline, but WP:ATHLETE is part of WP:BIO, which already specifies that the general notability guide is also a route to notability. The addition would thus be redundant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Judge each case on its merits and don't always be so desperate to delete stuff? Beve (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The requirement for a person to have played fully pro football could be problematic in countries that have or have had semi-pro or amateur national leagues.Hack (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)