Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 53

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

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Hungary National Team of the 1950s

I'd like to invite the participants to this project to express their opinion on this discussion [1] (Iaaasi (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

It seems odd that such a high importance football article like this would be effectively unreferenced. Hack (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a byproduct of the way the article was developed, starting as it did as an essay with prose so gushing it would have looked awkward in the national stadium's trophy room, let alone an encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish autonomous teams

We currently have 16 teams (including a couple of dubious ones) in the category 'Spanish autonomous football teams'. From what little I know there appears to have been a move in the last decade or so towards each region's team playing a match against another region or a national team at Christmas. Some, eg Catalonia occasionally play twice in a year. Does anyone have any more info on these teams? Some have virtually no information at all, or appear to be defunct, eg Balearic Islands. There's a brief mention of these regional teams on the Football in Spain article, but not how regularly they play, if there's a team for each region or if only some are taken seriously etc. Some articles also seem to conflate amateur regional teams which compete in the UEFA Regions Cup with the 'national' team, eg Asturias. Do the amateur teams merit a separate article if they're competing at a continental level? Should there be a separate article on, say, Autonomous football teams in Spain?Stu.W UK (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Catalonia is the only one that I could name off the top of my head as being notable, mainly thanks to the influence of Barca; merging the others into one article sounds like a very sensible idea. Giant Snowman 00:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't made this very clear - maybe one day I'll learn 1am on a Monday morning is not the time to post this stuff! I think most of them are notable, I was thinking of a separate article in addition to the ones on these teams. Some of them played regularly in pre-Franco Spain so are notable for that era, even if not now. I think as well as asking for more info I really should have asked if anyone knows what has happened in recent years to these teams, because a lot of them have not had fixtures added for a few years. Was there a brief resurgence in the idea of regional teams, or were these articles created around that time and just not updated since? Did they play at all between the 30s and the late 90s? It would also be interesting to know what people thought about these teams regarding notability though, so I've included the template here to make them easier to have a quick look through. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I'll have to learn not to try and answer stuff at 1am on a Monday morning! Your best bet would be our Spanish-language editors (Vasco, Mega60 are just two that spring to mind), to give you both context and information. Regards, Giant Snowman 01:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know perfectly well Spanish and I have plenty of translation experience with all languages I know weel. But I lack time right now to seach the web about this teams, but if you find anything you can post it here and I woudn´t mind at all helping. Now, perhaps the Spanish wiki would provide more info on them. Check: es:Categoría:Selecciones autonómicas de España. FkpCascais (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Buchtmann

Could someone please look if this a recreation of the page deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Buchtmann. He still does not appear to have played 1st team football...--ClubOranje^T 02:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he has only played for their reserve team in the Regionalliga. So he has gone from Liverpool reserves, to Fulham reserves and now 1. FC Köln reserves. Nothing notable about that. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Remind me: Winning an UEFA Under-17 Championship does not confer notability, no? Madcynic (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you achieve in your youth career doesn't make you notable, per WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin please check who created this? Last time it was an Alex Latham sock. Was this one in good faith? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Help urgently needed

Can anyone provide a reference or a comment to establish ForaDeJogo as a reliable source? There is a GA review ongoing and I need to demonstrate that it is reliable for the article to pass. From what I can tell, it involves a lot of volunteers who collaborate to achieve a rather exhaustive database about Portuguese football, but it doesn't say exactly where they get it from or whether a respected publisher is involved. It has been invaluable to me because statistics for the LPFP don't go any further back than 2004 at the moment and the FPF isn't easily navigable to me. Without ForaDeJogo, as far as I can tell, I have no other way to track the players progress. So, if I can't show it's reliable then the article will fall agonisingly short which, to put it bluntly, would suck. If anyone can help then I will be extremely grateful. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For Portuguese footballers, it's as reliable as it gets, alongside ZEROZEROFOOTBALL.COM. Of course, none of them are official, as the ones you refer to above, but those are the only ones available now, as far as i know. From my extensive searching in both, i can also add that more often than i would like, the stats in both sites do not match, albeit slightly...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the site on several ocasions, and it is definitelly a very complete website regarding all footballers that have played in Portugal. Even for non-Portuguese players, it already happend to me to find more info and stats in ForaDeJogo than on any other website (Playerhistory, WorldFootball, etc.). The website however ocasionally lacks international information for less known foreign footballers that played long time ago, but I mean, come on, what website doesn´t? I definitelly think that ForaDeJogo is the most complete website for Portuguese football (alongside ZerozeroFootball as Vasco well said) but sometimes going even further and having more historic data and even more relativelly unknown players that played a long time ago. I would support you Argyle on this and I´ll try to see what else can I do to help you. Now, regarding what Vasco said about stats not allways matching, I must say that Zerozero often provided me discrepances with other websites more often than ForaDeJogo, altought it happend to me to find rarely slight errors in both. But generally is quite acurate FkpCascais (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say zerozero is necessarily "as reliable as it gets". It says that Jose Belman spent a season with Gillingham, which I know for a fact isn't true...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point Chris, but Belman isn't Portuguese, he's Spanish. I'll browse the web and see if i can find anything regarding those years, as it's quite evident from your approach he did not play for Gills. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find anything that might suggest it is a reliable source. I found that the data is taken from other publications and websites, but some is user supplied, and there is some kind of review process (people are thanked for error detection): http://www.foradejogo.net/about.php?&language=2&language=1. A regional version of a newspaper website used foradejogo.net as a source, which suggests it was viewed as credible. User supplied data is not automatically published and goes through a moderation process, with the site owners having the right to choose what data to publish: http://www.foradejogo.net/about.php?&language=2&language=1. I'd say it's close to a reliable source, although I wish I had more evidence. Jogurney (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help so far guys. The link to the newspaper using the website as a source is a big help I think. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that it appears there is some agreement that foradejogo.net meets the WP:RS standard, should we add it to a list of reliable sources that are commonly used by this project? I understand the RSSSF.com, soccerbase.com, and probably a few others have been reviewed and considered reliable sources, so having a list (with links to discussions like this) might save time in the future. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean this list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links, right? FkpCascais (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we could add notes about sources being considerated reliable sources to that list - but it only has one note of that type so far. Perhaps a separate list would be easier to manage? Jogurney (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible, Gerrit Bals

somebody has some sources about him? He was the goalkeeper in 1969 Champions Cup in Madrid, when Milan won Ajax 4-1; I created his article on it.wiki some minutes ago and I'd want enlarge his article.. 93.32.233.182 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be known as 'Gert' in his native Netherlands. Giant Snowman 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

seen :), it seems they haven't a lot of informations about him and I don't know very well the language :).. I speak better english!! 93.33.11.34 (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

the article in italian isn't so great but it's ready, if you want it, for a translation, I must only add his palmares, he won some scudetti.. 93.33.11.34 (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Needed info? / Player positions

I remember discussing the same contents regarding Pedro Rodríguez Ledesma, and now it has happened in David Luiz: how encyclopedical (and needed) is a match-by-match detail of the player's career in Esporte Clube Vitória? I mean, come on, User:Buí even inserted info regarding the games Luiz MISSED (some sentencing included: "he played five games in a row", then "missed one game", then "played nine games a row")! After i reverted him, he re-reverted me, claiming "it's referenced". I remind my teammates that so were Pedrito's games for Barcelona (see said discussion here please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_45#Storylines_on_players).

After i posted the discussion regarding the FC Barcelona player, i was told that no, two much info was not good (i also remind that, before i cleanedup Pedro's article, there were references to ALL the games he had played with the first team, EVERY SINGLE ONE), so i think that we should compose D.Luiz's article in the same fashion, no? I have already notified the other user about this. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Item #2 (i also saw it wrongly added in D.Luiz), hence it being included here: he is NOT a right-back, just because he played some games/minutes in that position (managers often do that to "confuse" the opposition, the same goes for wingers), the only Portuguese players (or players operating in that country for years) i know that have successfully made the transition to the position are Marco Caneira, Jorge Fucile and Paulo Ferreira, no one else. I would like for the user(s) to stop adding that to Luiz's article if you please.

Does anyone think Javier Farinós or Paulo Sousa are goalkeepers? They played once in that position, but it is not inserted in their articles as a player position is it? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I was trying to see it all in the edit history of David Luiz but I lost a bit myself with so many edits. Regarding position, I think you talk on the change done in the text where you correct intead of "either side" to a specified "left". As I said, you "corrected", so I need saying no more. Regarding the expansion done at his Vitória period, I´m not sure, and I´ll leave it to others. FkpCascais (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grupo Desportivo Palmeira

The article Grupo Desportivo Palmeira has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found "Your search - "Grupo Desportivo Palmeira" site:RSSSF.com - did not match any documents". Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To whomever might be interested (especially Chris)

After some browsing in the web regarding José Belman's (possible) stint with Gillingham, i asked User:Mega60, Spanish footballers' connoisseur extraordinaire, and he told me that he found the same as me: various sources indicating he did represent the Gills, but none official (probably they all stem from what's written in his article here), so i guess we're pretty much at a dead end now.

Funny how we can't find anything, when the player has retired just a few years ago. I do have to say he's a little bit obscure (for example: no games for Real Valladolid, seven Primeira Liga games in six years for C.D. Nacional)...Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Recopa Intercontinental 1968

Some vandal has deranged the article. Can anybody please fix it? I think that it's a simple work, but I am not so expert... Thanks! --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Number 5 7 20:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And overworked. Digirami (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! --VAN ZANT (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the status of this tournament? Why is it notable at all? Looks like a number of (admittedly) fancy friendly matches to me. Anyone have background ~~beyong~~ beyond the intro? Madcynic (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can surely adfirm that this competition is 100% official. In 2005, Conmebol recognized it, as you can please verify consulting this article and the following caption: International competition recognized by the South American Football Confederation on September 2005. CA Peñarol have won the South American zone (composed by the South American winners of the Intercontinental Cup until 1968) in 1969, but don't have played against the European zone winner in the final match. See also "El olvidado tercer lauro intercontinental del Santos de Pelé" (in Spanish). Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol. http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/activeCompetition.html?x=53&sub=3&id=5299&type=1. Retrieved 2005-09-23.. --VAN ZANT (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Players called up to the national team squad but who haven't played

What was the consensus regarding this? Matt Jarvis very quickly had "0 England apps" added to his infobox yesterday...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Na, wrong. Remove. We discussed this many times and from what I remember the agreed was to add the info in the article, but not in the infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you already did that. Well done! FkpCascais (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have 0 caps for England (for now...!), can I put that in my infobox? Giant Snowman 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have zero caps for hundreds of countries... gets coat Darigan (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think GiantSnowman should have displayed in his infobox England 0 (1) cause with this joke he definitelly scored without playing! And Darigan can do the same for all the countries he wants! FkpCascais (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure it wasn't an owngoal?! Giant Snowman 16:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Na, it was definitely a classy goal. A long free-kick, or something similar. :) FkpCascais (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think i thaw (Looney Tunes homage) an offside there...Naw, nice work folks! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris: a clear majority of WP:FOOTY members believe that zero caps doesn't belong in the infobox. Although the numbers are a bit less clear-cut if we strip out those just turn up and vote, or those who are only capable of saying something more than "per X" if they're being sarcastic, which appears to be the case with two or three of those above. The argument against is that we never have, and they're not contracted to their countries. The argument for is that it is easily verifiable if someone has been in an international squad, and that being called up to a squad and not playing is no different to going out on emergency loan and not playing. I've yet to see a convincing rebuttal for either argument, and therefore the decision should rest with the primary contributor(s) to a given article. —W F C— 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WFC, you are not being fair with your comment. If you want we can perfectly go trough a entire new debate over this issue. But, Chris just asked a short question about what is the consensus, and I unswered him. So I don´t think that short answer make us deserve to be put in the category of "sarcastics" or "not capable of saying more than per X". What just happend here? FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WFC - imagine a player who is called up by his country at every international level (U16 all the way up to senior squad, for example) but for whatever reason never actually makes ANY appearances. Would you have six or seven 0 (0)s in the infobox? Giant Snowman 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fkp: There were four posters between myself and Chris. The phrasing I used was two or three.

Snowman: Find me one example of a player who has been in that situation in three teams, without having played for any other team. I consider your example to be so nonsensical as not to be worth consideration, but I'll take it seriously if it's shown to be even a remote possibility. —W F C— 01:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it's deliberately nonsensical - read my edit summary - but it has to be. Suggesting we include international call ups in the infobox is equally ridiculous. Club and country football are quite different, and so making analogies to 'emergency loans' isn't valid. If you wish to pernickity, you should question why Kenny Dalglish's loan spell to Cumbernauld United (in which he scored 37 goals!) isn't included in his infobox, or why Chris Smalling's one-month spell at Boro isn't in his. By all means, feel free to include zero international caps in infoboxes, but please don't get offended when the "clear majority of WP:FOOTY members" (your words, not mine) remove it. Regards, Giant Snowman 01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You admit that your example was ridiculous. You have yet to provide an alternative reason, other than pointing out that Kenny Dalglish's infobox is incomplete. Quite frankly, you can't defend your position. But because you believe every discussion boils down to a simple yes/no vote, you believe that that is the end of the matter. Please correct me if any of that is wrong. —W F C— 03:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In one of our more recent discussions here on the matter, you agreed with the view that callups shouldn't be in the infobox, what has made you changed your mind? Also, please don't belittle my contributions here. Giant Snowman 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What I said was that I agreed with Struway and Mattythewhite that that was the convention. In the very same post I questioned said convention. While apologising for the tone of the previous post, I stand by the content, and would point out that none of it has been refuted. If it's going to be dismissed because of my choice of words, let me rephrase.

Three people in this discussion have argued why there may be value to 0 (0), some or all of the time. More than three people have disagreed. But of those, only Jogurney has made any sort of argument for why we shouldn't. And I would counter that by pointing out that it's little different to a Manchester United or Chelsea player turning pro at 17 in 2002, suffering a career-threatening injury shortly before his 21st birthday in 2006, and retiring after failing to recover at 23 in 2008. From the infobox, we haven't got a clue whether he was a regular in the League Cup (possibly also feature in a couple of Champions League dead rubbers), whether he was a frequent non-playing substitute in the Premier League, or whether he was nowhere near either. We haven't got a clue about when he was available or unavailable. All we have is 2002-2008... 0 (0). The situation is analogous to being called up for two friendlies vs frequent callups and being included in tournament squads. —W F C— 16:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology. I didn't feel the need to refute any questioning of my conduct in discussions because I'm happy with it and haven't had any complaints until now (even though all I did was crack a bad joke AFTER the discussion had seemed to be ending...); also, I haven't made any argument for my view because a) others have already put it way more eloquently than I could and b) I'm sick of this debate coming up again and again. If you want, let's have a straw poll, once and for all, so we can all move to more important things. Giant Snowman 21:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion of a straw poll very much highlights my previous point. —W F C— 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WFC, I can´t remember who defended what on those discussions, do you actually defend the inclusion of the 0 (0) national team stats? (I´m not asking this ironically at all because I quite understand well the arguments for both sides. When I was unswering to Chris, I was answering what was agreed by the "consensus" and not my POV on the issue. I am quite divided over the issue because being called for the NT, even without actually playing, is quite an archivement. That is why I said to add it in the text, because I think it is definitelly worth mention, just that the consensus was that it would not be included in the infobox) FkpCascais (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the infobox is supposed to provide biographical and career highlights "at a glance". Showing call-ups in the infobox is at least a little confusing (someone could have a call-up as a youngster and then not be called up again until age 30, and show a 10-plus year international career, with the "0 (0)" entry not doing much to explain what happened). I'd rather have the infobox give concise, easily understandable information, rather than things that can easily confuse the reader. Jogurney (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't support adding 0 (0) to infobox either, but I think those players are worth an Wikipedia article (and not being deleted). Pelmeen10 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Don´t worry Pelmeen, deletion was never in question here. Regardiing this issue, as curiosity, National-football-teams website had for years created the pages of all players that were called up for their national teams. Obviously part of them ended up never earning a cap, but they were still having their pages there for years. Obviously by doing this, the website ended by having houndreds of article about footballers that have been called but never appeared. The curiosity that I mentioned is that somewhere about January or Ferbuary this year, they seem to have made a major clean up and removed all those articles from their database, and I alrady found some NFT death links and removed them from the articles of footballers in that situation. The only ones of the 0 (0) kind they left were the ones that are part of the current year national teams. FkpCascais (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's wierd. Estonia NT call-ups Rene Kaas and Stanislav Pedõk was deleted. Can I make them again? Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No. They would need to play for Estonia or in a fully professional competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier comment. Generally speaking, a standard call up should not appear in infobox if the player does not play - but is fine in the prose. If, however, a player is listed as part of the official squad for a major international _finals_ tournament (being FIFA WC, FIFA Confederation Cup or Confederation Championships ie EURO,CAF etc) there is a valid reason to include with "0 (0)". The obvious problem with this approach is that some editors will see players that have it and think any player that has been called to a training camp should have it in the infobox. I notice New Zealand had a few called up to the preliminary squad for this week's internationals, several of which were not included in the final squad for the matches, yet all had NZ added to infobox. They and others ~~are now~~ were listed under New_Zealand_national_football_team#Recent_callups despite not being included in the travelling squad for a game that ~~doesn't~~ wouldn't take place for another 4 days!--ClubOranje^T 06:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point WFC is making, as it does create a degree of inconsistency when international call-ups are not shown in the infobox but non-playing club loan spells are. The difficulty with just including 0 (0) for internationals is that it doesn't explain that the person was called up, and thus editors could try and 'complete' the entry for various players. If any input in the infobox is included for called-up players it would almost be better if something like 'called-up' is included as text to try and accurately show the situation, although this could be a bit messy for an infobox. Eldumpo (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had pretty much agreed that the international appearances section covered caps. In fact, if this discussion is going to continue to come up, why don't we alter the infobox to reflect that? It'd take two minutes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What should it look like? Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean add something simialr to the club section's "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only", saying that only actual caps should be included in the infobox? I'm down for that. Giant Snowman 12:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No need for a new disclaimer. Cap is unambiguous. sandbox updated, examples in test cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If we were not including caps, that would be a good solution. But the more I read of these discussions, the less convinced I am that the balance of arguments is in favour of that. —W F C— 16:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "if we were not including caps"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. Make that "if we are not including zero caps. I agree that sooner or later a line needs to be drawn under this. But the more of these discussions I read, the less convinced that I am of the case for going that way, other than ancient history. —W F C— 17:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I always thought of the box as that who "kept a score/count on X or Y figures", if the player has none, why should it be in box? As Snowman put it well, if a player is called up from the U16 to the seniors, but appears the grand total of zero times combined, the box (in case it's granted) would look really odd methinks... I am in favour of "only" the due notes in storyline.

Nice work folks in this discussion, you must be knackered, good effort - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but as I said to Snowman above, that would never, ever happen. Point to a real-life example where a player was called up for even three teams without playing, and the argument suddenly becomes a lot stronger. —W F C— 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How's about the more obvious point that while international caps are extremely well-recorded, there is not a hope in Hell of getting reliable figures for non-playing call-ups for the vast, vast majority of our BLPs? That's a deal-breaker by itself IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider the case of Aaron Clapham...who could feasibly have won the World Cup without having a national team entry in his infobox under this scenario.--ClubOranje^T 18:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's yet mentioned the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 48#Kevin Davies and other England fringe players, in particular this case where a player was called up by two teams simultaneously... Alzarian16 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the difference is between a player being called up for his national side and a player being signed for a club side. First example off the top of my head, Leigh Palin, has two rows 0 (0), in his infobox. Should we delete those? I'd say no, because taking them out shows an incomplete picture. Matt Jarvis has a physical call-up to the England squad so in comparison he should have 0 (0) for the England team from 2011 onwards. Brad78 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would personally prefer to have caps only. The infobox only has league appearances for clubs so isn't exactly a full picture as it is. The problem I would foresee would be that every player would have 0 (0) added by an IP trying to be useful. Anyway, I'm off to have some WP:TEA. I'd thoroughly recommend it! Stu.W UK (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that we should not include international teams if the player has not actually won any caps. While information about non-playing call-ups is easily available for recent squads in countries where football is fairly popular (e.g. Europe and the Americas), there are hundreds of players past and present for whom this information would not be available. This would especially be true for players from, say, more than 20 years ago. Caps, on the other hand, are very well documented and widely available so we don't have this problem when a player actually makes an appearance for their country. Big Dom 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolute trouth. And that is basically where any discussion about this ends, whatever our personal stand on this issue. FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Thumperward: While I accept that you intended to use it in a slightly different context to how it comes across, "vast, vast majority of our BLPs" exaggerates the issue. This would affect fewer than 1% of our BLPs. By default, we should be leaving an infobox's parameters blank unless we have references, but that is true for everything in any infobox. Infoboxes are meant to be a snapshot of the sourced material in the article. If it is sourced that an uncapped player has been called up, I don't see the issue with it going in the infobox. If it's not sourced, it should not go in, but then that's true of anything in a BLP.

@Thumperward & Dom: (I know this is an aside) I'd query the idea that caps themselves are always widely documented. I've had a lot of "fun" trying to reliably source caps for African players during my time here. In some cases, it is impossible. Should we therefore remove all caps from the infobox? —W F C— 21:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

But WFC, I was undecided on this, but for practical reasons I understand that is better not to use 0 (0) for nt´s in infobox. Just think on this (it´s hypotetical, but quite real), we do so much effort in trying to keep the articles "in order", right? If we accept that calls are used for infobox, I garantee you that we´ll have many many editors and IP´s adding all NT, U21, U23, U20, U19, U18, U17, U16, calls, many of them hard to confirm. As you said, even caps for some nations are hard to confirm, even worste would be with calls. If we accept it, it would enthusiasm a number of IP´s and we´ll have a "hell on earth" trying to fix, confirm and correct all of that. It´s really the "practical reason" that makes me think this way. And also, it would be recentism, because only the recent calls would be many times comfirmable. FkpCascais (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's more a point of practicality, than of why leaving infoboxes blank is a positive thing. It's hard to really apply that thinking to a specific infobox parameter: what's the difference between an IP adding rubbish to an infobox, and an IP adding rubbish to prose? —W F C— 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Of some of the arguments above, two can be thrown out.

What if IPs add spurious lines? If it's unsourced or incorrect or both, remove them; just as you would an incorrect height, or anything else incorrect.
It looks silly to have lines of 0 (0). If that's a player's record then put it in. We would for club career, so why not international career.

I'm unsure what is the correct decision, but those two arguments against, really don't have much substance. Brad78 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, on the club/NT relation, just to start, the two can´t be compared. A footballer when representing a club, he is contracted by the club, and even loans have contracts included. On the other side, representing a national team is a non-contractual relation. The club career is actually a list of professional contracts the person had (like a professional CV), and a NT is different, basically more like "awards" section in a CV. Perhaps this looks silly comparison, but someone please try to find better wording if possible. FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Both James Hanson and Matt Jarvis have 0 (0) international caps. Can I add 0 (0) to Hanson's article as well then? This is the slippery slope we are perilously close to sliding down. Giant Snowman 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when did James Hanson receive an international call-up to any international side? There's no slippery slope involved. Brad78 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh but there is - first it's international call up, then it's international training camp, then it's everybody who hasn't played at international level - because, technically, Hanson having 0 (0) is 100% as accurate as Jarvis - I mean, both players have the same amount of international caps i.e. ZERO. Giant Snowman 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And they both have exactly the same number of appearances for Manchester United, but we don't put that in their infobox. You're putting up an argument for argument's sake, not a valid argument. I'm not saying that international call-ups should be counted, but your argument, I'm afraid, is weak and invalid, as far as I'm concerned. Brad78 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - and you wouldn't include Manchester United in the infobox, just as you wouldn't include England non-caps. Why has there been such a burden on those who say not to include it - let's hear some strong and valid arguments from those who want to include non-caps in the infobox. Giant Snowman 00:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So why does Robbie Savage have 0 (0) in his infobox for Manchester United? The difference between Jarvis and Hanson, is Jarvis has had a full international call-up to the England squad. Brad78 (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Savage was actually contracted to Man Utd, although I wouldn't lose any sleep if anybody removed that line from his infobox tbh. As for international info - the infobox displays number of caps, it doesn't display number of callups. Giant Snowman 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Only people who were deliberately undermining Wikipedia, or someone writing a new article who assumed that we do it that way, would actually make that Hanson edit. There is a very good way of dealing with the former, and if new people are writing articles, I don't see any issue whatsoever with the latter. —W F C— 01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(rsp to GS) It was a rhetorical question! The argument isn't yours - that Hanson doesn't have any caps, or that we could see IPs add spurious lines to everyone's infobox. The decision whether to add the info to say Jarvis' infobox, is whether the infobox should provide a complete picture to a player's international career, including call-ups and matches not just matches, just as the infobox provides a full picture of a player's club career, including youth clubs, loan clubs and clubs where they may not have played. Brad78 (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@WFC: You would block somebody for adding that Hanson has zero caps for England? Why? - it's both factually accurate and easily verifiable.

@Brad78: Club and country are not the same! I'm all for as much information on articles as possible, and believe that every contracted club should be represented. However, I don't see any benefit to having 0 (0) in the infobox of the international section, when that same information in the prose will more than suffice.

Giant Snowman 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You ought to have said that in the first place, because that's what it comes down to. Should the infobox provide a complete picture both club and internationally, or will the text providing information about call-ups suffice?

Oh, and as for blocks, I think Wp:POINT would suffice. Brad78 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I'm notoriously long-winded, my lecturers hate me for it...as for the Hanson fan, I was thinking about WP:POINT as well. Giant Snowman 01:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has answered what would happen in the case of Eric Lichaj, mentioned earlier by Alzarian 16. If you are called up simultaneously for 2 national teams do you get a permanent 0 (0) for the country you choose not to play for? What if he still hadn't played for the US but had announced they were the team he wanted to play for? Would the two 0 (0)s be equally informative? What about a player who gets multiple call ups but never plays, do we need a way to distinguish between them and the one-off? Is there a difference between a call-up where a player gets injured and returns home and a call-up where the player just doesn't feature? The most interesting point raised by Lichaj's case is that until he actually featured in a match for the US senior team he could be selected for Poland. It feels to me like adding a Tottenham Hotspur 0 (0) in Beckham's infobox. Also Brad78, while the infobox only provides league appearances it hardly gives a full picture of a player's career. Ignasi Miquel hasn't played yet according to his infobox, for instance. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point regarding Ignasi Miquel, etc. But perhaps that's an argument for another day. As for Beckham, he wasn't eligible to play for Spurs. As for Lichaj, would you not only include countries where the call-up was acted upon. As for players who can choose two countries, etc, take Stuart McCall. Called up for England and Scotland Under 21s on the same day, chose the former, was picked on the bench, about to come on in the last minute then changed his mind and so delayed his substitution. He never got on and then played for Scotland instead. So we do represent that in the infobox or just leave it to the text? Brad78 (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Being called for 2 (or more, during career) NT´s is exactly a good reason why we wait actually for a player to make an apereance. If you all notece, that is also how FIFA deals with it. You can receve calls from all NT´s you want, and if you haven´t played you can still play for any of them, but when you actually make an apereance (cap) then it´s done, and you can´t choose anymore. Obviously this matters for A teams, but the point is that what counts on NT´s is the cap, not the call. FkpCascais (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(WP:POINT was what I was getting at above). At least we are now at an example that is a genuine "what if". I don't recall much about Lichaj's situation (although I know that I have read about it), but I know a bit more about McCall. Is the fact that he almost played for England but instead played for Scotland later on infobox worthy? I think so, and couldn't disagree more strongly with Fkp. The events of that day defined McCall's international career. He was a quicker jog away from never playing for Scotland. —W F C— 02:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So, WFC, that very interesting bit (i was unaware of that) should be referred to in storyline (INT.CAREER section) with storyline (and refs of course), why the particular stress on the box? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because the infobox should serve as an at-a-glance summary. Do I think that the 1984 England callup is worthy of at-a-glance status? I have a potential POV here (I'm English), but notwithstanding that, yes. It's not an exaggeration to say that he was less than a minute away from never playing for Scotland. Incidentally that infobox needs a second look, given that he was 25–26 in 1990. —WFC— 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  - The problem WFC is, how do you turn it into a rule? I mean, by now we have: "only appereances count", quite short and simple to understand and follow. Now, if we do it how you propose, how would we explain to a guy that wants to add the entire Vietnam U-16,U-18,U-19 0 (0), that is not the same? Shortly, transpose your proposal into a wiki rule. FkpCascais (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Easy. Call up without playing on match day, no infobox inclusion. Call up and named in official squad for a major international _finals_ tournament (being FIFA WC, FIFA Confederation Cup or Confederation Championships ie EURO,CAF etc), include in infobox. All of these official squads are verifiable.--ClubOranje^T 09:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very wary of this. Can't appearances at tournaments be included in the medal record section? We seem to be allowing a few edge cases to drag us around here. It is inevitable that the infobox will not provide a full overview of a player's career (especially as it omits domestic and confederation cup games, which are the highlight of many careers), but at present at least people know what they're getting from it (professional club registration and league stats for the club part, caps for the internationals). This whole discussion seems to be about unifying the two when they are pretty dissimilar. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) - Why I believe it should be this way: José Moreira would have had no entry in his infobox for 5 years after he won a Euro runners-up medal if the no-cap-no-entry were enforced; Andrés Palop would have no entry (actually, currently doesn't) despite having a Euro Winners medal; but for a second half appearance a week before the finals Sander Boschker would have had a World Cup runners-up medal without every showing national team achievements in infobox. Here on WP users get sensitive about their contributions being belittled - Let's not belittle the achievement of representing one's country at the World Cup. --ClubOranje^T 09:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure medal section is the right place to do it, Many of the players that appeared at such tournaments did not win medals. I am also not convinced that it is just a few edge cases - there are more than a dozen players listed at 2010 FIFA World Cup squads with 0 caps (although at least some of them are spurious zeroes), and no doubt at other finals as well.--ClubOranje^T 09:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify

(long-needed section break)

Looking at my comment above, it seems as though we might not all be singing from the same hymn sheet. Can folk please drop a note below explaining, as succinctly as possible, what they believe is represented in the club and international sections of our infoboxes right now? Just a bullet point. Not any sort of vote, just a judge of where we are. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Professional club registration and league stats in the club section; Caps and and goals scored in official games in the international section. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
My understanding of how the stats in the infoboxes (generally) work now is as yours above, and that the whole point of this discussion is about allowing call-ups to be included, where sourced. Eldumpo (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify for completeness, I don't think the infobox should only show 'professional club' info, further to Club Oranje's comment below. Eldumpo (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Professional club registration and league stats in the club section, (or national league appearances for players from amateur countries - many Irish, NZ and other internationals for example have not played in FPLs). Caps and and goals scored in official games in the international section including 0 appearances for ~~tournament players as per own comment previous section~~ players that have made a matchday squad, even if they did not get onto the field.--Modified to show what I perceive is shown right now ClubOranje^T 09:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
EXACTLY the same as you Chris. Giant Snowman 12:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Almost the same as Chris, but rather than professional club registration, registration and league stats at any club that plays at a reasonable level of any national league structure. This ensures we do not omit teams from countries which do not have professional leagues. We would also include stats for clubs at semi-pro/amateur levels where the info is available (e.g. English Conference, Scottish Second/Third divisions, French CFA/CFA2). Big Dom 12:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Club registration and stats for whatever league they played in, if available (within reason... wouldn't include Sunday league teams, for instance); caps and goals in official games, friendly or competitive, for international teams (under-age or senior). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
If you were to pick a random article, it would probably be roughly along the lines of Dom and Struway. To be clear, that is the de-facto situation, not my endorsement of it. But it is worth pointing out that there is widespread inconsistency, both for clubs and countries. —W F C— 13:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were to pick a random article that would certainly be true. Unfortunately, with many thousand football BLPs and only a few hundred or so having had call-ups but not yet played, it does not give a true picture of the actual state of affairs for the situation we are actually discussing as the chances are slim one would get a 0-cap national team player. Having just gone through 2010_FIFA_World_Cup_squads and looking at the 18 listed as having 0 caps at the world cup, 5 still appear to have no caps, and all 5 have NT entries in their infobox (with 0 (0)). disclaimer; the only ones of the 18 I recall editing are Aaron Clapham and Michael Dawson who have since gained a caps, and I didn't add the zeroes at the time. Extending that further, I went through the first few pots at UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying and looked at all the 0 cap players in current squads and found overall about 20-25% of them having NT entries, either with "0 (0)" or blanks in the cap columns. The further I got towards the unfashionable end of the pots, the higher the percentage (not implying anything, but for "home nations" fans, England = 0/3, Scotland 1/3, ROI 2/2, NI 0/1). This is of course likely to change over the next few hours, but reality is, that is what occurs under normal circumstances. There are also then the other confederations and the thousands of former players whose infobox shows them having 0 caps with a small amount of prose mentioning a call-up.--ClubOranje^T 09:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

...and to be clear; "that is the de-facto situation, not my endorsement of it" (WFC: 2p royalty is in the mail for use of the phrase ;-)--ClubOranje^T 09:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How to indicate callups

(splitting from above section for clarity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Further to my earlier post, a question for those in favour of adding call-up information to the infobox - just adding 0 (0) to the NT box does not actually inform the user that they were called-up. A reader may just think they have not been capped. So if something is to be included in the infobox (and I can see from the above cases where this could be useful) would it not be better to be including something in the infobox that actually indicates to the reader that the player was called up e.g. some kind of note? Eldumpo (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually considering a more radical change to the infobox layout whereby internationals get several new key-value pairs: "International registration", "first callup", "first cap", "last callup", "major tournaments". These have been sticking points for a long time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were near some sort of limit on number of parameters in the infobox already?--ClubOranje^T 10:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

{{infobox3cols}} exists to support this template. Extending it is straightforward if need be. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@Eldumpo; sure a reader will think they have not been capped - rightly so as they haven't. However, I don't think readers are going to wonder if they have been called up, the mere mention of the national team would tend to indicate they have been.--ClubOranje^T 10:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I disgree that readers will assume a player has been called up just because a 0 (0) is included, but see what others think. Eldumpo (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Eldumpo here. For a player to have 0 (0) in the international section of their infobox would in no way whatsoever imply that they have been called up to an international squad. The only thing it would imply is that they have played in zero international matches, but this is already implied by the omission of the international section. One solution would be to have a footnote in the infobox explaining what the 0 (0) meant, but I think that would look untidy and cumbersome. The extent of this discussion seems rather unnecessary for something that will affect an exceedingly small percentage of our articles. Big Dom 14:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If people want to include callups by 0 caps in the infobox, then why not just add a sourced footnote against the name of the national team to explain and verify what the 0 means. No sourced footnote, no 0. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think having a note after the 0 (0) could work, as long as the note was within the infobox. What about including the text Called up (followed by a citation) rather than 0 (0)? I also note Chris's points above about additional parameters which could make things easier. Eldumpo (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

One reason is that without a firm consensus as to when that's appropriate, you'll get people adding 0s to every player in the country with some rationale or other. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You say 'some rationale', but it would only be acceptable where the call-up was sourced. Eldumpo (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Without a firm consensus as to when it's appropriate, people will add 0s or anything else to infoboxes whatever system is adopted. With a firm written-down consensus as to when its appropriate, then the addition can be summarily removed if the rationale doesn't fit the consensus. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Struway and Eldumpo here. Often, I see project essays as a bad thing, as certain editors see them as canon law (I'd argue more so in this project than anywhere else on the site). But given that that is the case, we may as well make the best of that state of affairs. —W F C— 13:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify that, personally, I'm not in favour of including callups in the infobox. But if we do end up with a consensus in their favour, we need to remember that the important thing is for the reader to be clear what's meant. This was purely a suggestion as to how to achieve that simply and consistent with WP:V. There's far too much filling in of infoboxes with no evidence of where the contents come from as it is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

The national team years (xxxx–yyyy) show first played game=xxxx – last played game=yyyy, right? Not first call-up=xxxx – last call-up=yyyy. But when you want to add 0(0), then without years, am I correct? Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

At the moment there are two principles that seem to be emerging. The first is that if we are to have zeros, that line should be sourced inline, and anything that is not should be removed. The second is that if whatever the outcome of this discussion, we document whatever consensus we have.
To answer your question, widespread practise might change. But it's not as if we are consistent at the moment, even for players as high profile as recent England internationals. Take Paul Robinson (the goalkeeper, not the Watford legend). In my opinion, the current infobox (2003–2010) is fine. But under the convention of first cap to last cap, it should read 2003–2007. —W F C— 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell that I ensure no Estonian NT player has "first call-up – to last call-up". There's "first game – last game" or if reference says then "first game – last call-up". I've no idea where to find first call-ups anyway since 1920... (it's impossible)Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WFC, exactly for what Pelmeen said, it complicates it all. FkpCascais (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If we're merging dates of callups and apps for players who have actually pulled on their national shirt, then how on earth are we meant to source it?! I mean, yeah, it's fine for contemporary players, but what about older players? We need uniformity across all player articles (one reason why it's league apps only in infoboxes) and if we include call ups in the infobox, we simply can't do that. Giant Snowman 12:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources and links

You talked about links. We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links. We should clean it up and start using it. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Last deletion and recategorization??

"Nice job" guys. The bot "accidentally" missed 1 cat, when "Category:X expatriate footballers in Y" got deleted. I especially explained 4times-5times how it made 2 cats into 1 and it must be made to 2 again when deleted. :/ Who tells the bot that he must add 1 more cat to all footballers?? Definitely not me, because I opposed the deletion. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I´m not much of a supporter for the Xian expatriate footballers. It makes sence rather for the countries who´s players rarely play abroad. But anyway, that category never got to be cleared out if it means now expatriate, or anytime expatriate, so many editors use it in one way, others in another, and many doesn´t use it at all. I was just in favour of keeping the expatriate footballers in X country. Regarding the Xian expatriate footballers, I´m not much decided. FkpCascais (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Estonian expatriates in Ukraine was empty for some time. I added 1 by hand though. Can't find others yet. Any suggestions? Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Stanislav Kitto, Jevgeni Novikov, Taavi Rähn? FkpCascais (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC) The problem is that the point was to avoid using those cats on footy bios... (I know that these are different, they exclude the word footballers, but anyway) FkpCascais (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought there were more than 4 of them. Do you want to say that I shouldn't use those categories?? I use them all the time (Estonian expatriates in...). Btw, never used Category:Expatriate footballers in Ukraine stuff for these incasions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there may be more, but you´ll have to see Ukrainian club and league archives, something I´m not quite enthusiastic to do right now... These I found in my 4 hours internet research to try to help you, ná joking, I found them on the List of foreign football players in Vyscha Liha. Regarding cats, well, I am not saying anything. After all, I am a simple poor editor in search of better life (lol). It´s just that if you notece, people have been discouraging others to use them in footy bios... The point is that if we use them, other editors and IP´s will also be encouraged to use them, and we are trying to avoid plyers that played in many countries (quite many nawadays) to get swallowed into enormous list of that kind of categories... Well, something like that was the idea I got somewhere here, but again, others should express their views on this as well... FkpCascais (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Regarding players, you can do many things, try going into history section in transfermarkt of Ukrainian clubs clicking "foreign players" like this one for Shaktar for exemple. You can also check Worldfootball and go into each Ukrainian club and see their A-Z players list like this one for Tavria, for exemple. FkpCascais (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, FkpCascais. I hope you don't miss those hours back (or atleast learned something new). But I would have hoped this kind of feedback from User:Jmorrison230582. (Do you guys think he/she has somekind of hate or racism towards me?) Maybe I was wrong, and there was only 3 players. (Stanislav Kitto has no Estoian citizenship). And thanks again. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Don´t warry Pelmeen, I think Jmorrison230582 was just frontal (not chousing the best words, but again... each one of us can have a bad day). I´m not sure what happened, perhaps he made the bot, and you ended up critisizing indirectly him with your comment, so he critisized you... FkpCascais (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not critisize him. I was disappointed to see that my 5 comments were ignored. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

See my talk page... Did he created the bot? FkpCascais (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he/she did. It was Cydebot on March, 20 (already 4 days ago, but bot's edits are hidden and I noticed it when Bogic changed Zenjov's categories). Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. If you don't care, then I don't care. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Attn for national team articles.

Greetings,

Now that football is on an international break, I thought I would remind some users to check for common things to correct regarding the squads of national teams.

It has been agreed by consensus a long time (and reinforced back during the world cup) that national team squad lists should use the Template:National football squad start (goals) and related template. If you see a squad list not using it, I encourage anyone to change it back to those templates.
There is no such word as "callup" in the English language. When referring to a player who was part of the squad, the proper term is "call-up" (also [2]). Make sure to use a hyphen since it is a compound noun. Removing the hyphen to make it "call up" turns the word into a verb.

Thanks. Digirami (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed one: Germany_national_football_team#Current_squad. But what break? Tomorrow are some games. Call-ups have somewhy been changed to callups while ago (by anonymus user I guess), though. Will change if I see. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(The break is from club football to play international match... hence the name). I've already changed Wales and Italy back to the accepted format, but found Japan, South Korea, and Ukraine are not using. When I get some time I'll work on those (unless someone beats me to the punch). Digirami (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

New template Template:Student athlete

Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Guess who is back...

Unfortunately, blocked user SuperSonicx (better known as Jamen Somasu) is back causing havoc to articles (like this one) and harassing me (see here) via based IP addresses from the greater Atlanta, Georgia area. Keep an eye out for this known menace. Who knows what he'll do this time around. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

He/she has been blocked. You can report here for any further vandalism. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that. But, the guy has 90 suspected sockpuppets (mainly IP addresses). He once, used around 15 in one night stuff to annoy us / prove a point. Reporting might not do much. So, WP:RBI... as one admin advised me to do today. Digirami (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that user runs out of IP-s one day... Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Tolchard

I've just created an article for the cricketer Jeffrey Tolchard. Jeff also played football for Exeter City, Torquay United and Loughborough. I've no idea where you guys look to find footy info on people, so I've posted this to see if anyone can expand the "Football career" section on his article. Cheers. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Added a source and an infobox. Sadly football does not yet have an online equivalent to Cricinfo etc. so sources might be hard to come by. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that it's hard to find out that the infobox is about football, without reading the article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD - Sousense

Unlike the "Futbol Club de Real Bigone" club (man should had us a few laughs on that one, at least i did!), this club is registered in the Portuguese Football Federation, but i doubt it passes WP:NOTABILITY, has never competed in higher than the regional leagues, never. Just some kid trying to achieve his 15 minutes of wiki-fame...

I also apologize for not doing the report in the 100% proper field (at least it is about soccer), i still have not discovered how to do it, i kindly pass the ball...Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: just found out the club has promoted this season to the Portuguese Third Division (the lowest of the national categories) for the first time ever. Does this change the whole notability scenario? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- IMO then it's notable.. Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  - They have played in the Taça de Portugal so they meet the project's criteria for club notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What a BIIIG list

CD Badajoz - Famous Players: is it me or this section should be named "All the Players that ever doned CD Badajoz's shirt, and then some"...Quite mind-blowing, happy weekend all!! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's slightly smaller now... Giant Snowman 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So i see :) What criteria did you follow mate? At least (at least!) Pedro Munitis deserves to make it, and he was erased (Spanish international, played for Real Madrid)... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no criteria for inclusion listed, and it was also unreferenced. Should you wish to be be bold and add some players back, please make sure you say something like "the following players represented their country at international level." Giant Snowman 01:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Was adding some more guys when you conflicted with me, my edit was "destroyed" :( Never mind, you see my point, and thanks for your new tip, will proceed accordingly. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This Notable players lists was also debated many times already and never a full agreement was reached. Last time (I have no patience digging in the archives for it, a year ago or so) after a discussion that couvered pretty much the entire project talk page where we all basically vomited arguments for days, it ended up with all of us dispersing with no definitive agreement reached and basically, if I remmebr well, it ended with me giving the list of possible options that was mostly agreed with all we had spoken, but lacked confirmation of many (only a few said, OK to it). So, since then, many clubs still have the lists inserted, some correctly ordered and with criteriums, some had them removed at all, some have still the same lists without criteriums (Badajoz was just one exemple, but there are many more) and many different formats and options.

What I have personally been doing is trying to replace the ones without criterium for ones with criterium (mostly national team players), but we also spoke about the chance of that list can possibly not interpret well the real notable players of the club since many minor countries can have their players easily playing for NT´s (some cases even without playing for the club) while other nations can have great excellent star footballers that never menaged to play for their national teams (mostly players from Brazil and Argentina, but other cases as well). So some Swedish club can have in the list some minor African nation international listed while their 10 seasons Brazilian n10 star would that way be excluded because probably he never played for Brazil...

Now, specifically for Vasco, remember the debate over club categories? Well, those have been quite usefull for me to simply replace the uncriterius Notable players list for some club with the simple mentioning of:

For a list of all FC Club players with Wikipedia article, please see: [Category: FC Club players].

Are you guys willing to discuss this again, or should we leave it for some other ocasion? Or, should I put it rather this way (easier), have we agreed that any club can have any sort of Notable players list, just needs to have some kind of criterium, basically whatever criterium any editor chooses? FkpCascais (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice input FKP. Regarding yours and SNOWMAN's approach, i am going to add some players to the club, based on: 1 - number of years played; 2 - international status importance. Of course, everything is still open to debate and/or removal. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Vasco - do what you think is right and we can have a review in the morning. I'm sure your approach will be great. Giant Snowman 02:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, number of years, number of caps or goals (over X) were also options. FkpCascais (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Major cleanup, my M.O. was majorly this: at least four seasons with club playing consistent matches, and/or internationals (my main support was WWW.BDFUTBOL.COM). Also, major cleanup in FAMOUS MANAGERS. Cheers, by all means do help if needed - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you just need to add a section lede sentence where that will be expressed, so people understand it, and so you can remove the tag. FkpCascais (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh!... now I like Orange, but that page does not do the colour any favours! I agree basically with general feelings above: Best approach to overindulged notable player sections is to delete them completely, come up with a club relevant criteria (small clubs maybe players that have played more that 100 matches, represented country etc, bigger clubs maybe tighter criteria to keep the numbers down) state the criteria at the start of the section and add in 10-15 players that meet stated criteria. Then you can simply accept or remove others that area added over the next few months by others.--ClubOranje^T 10:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Two players might be up for deletion at Badajoz, i am not sure...By all means, delete them if they do not qualify: Francesc Vilanova (only played one season there, but has gained worldwide fame as Josep Guardiola's longtime coaching sidekick) and Gerardo García León (also only one season, but has played in more than 700 games as a professional, also being capped for Spain at various levels). - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that if you don´t come up with a decisive criterium, you may end up having tomorow some other guy wanting to add another player that is now a sidekick of a guy who´s coaching his village club that made 30 consecutive wins in La Liga de los Leperos and so on... Hey, you stil haven´t made up a section lede sentence! Bad boy!!!

ClubOranje, the problem is that most of second and third level Spanish clubs have their articles almost copy/pasted from es.wiki where they use those colors for most clubs league tables where thy use allways the same color for each league. We can change them into some less agressive and more apropriate colors. FkpCascais (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunno how to make one :( Ah, and by the way, still "Badajozing" (great verb!), ENRIQUE GALÁN and MIGUEL CÁCERES are both internationals, they just don't happen to have an article. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, apologies then... Well, Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.#Notable_former_players is a perfect exemple, but Badajoz ain´t the Spurs, so something more simple should be made. It also depends on the criterium you choose, you need that first, then based on it, just say: "The following list contains the players that have...". or something similar. FkpCascais (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can't make a rule for this. Probably have to discuss if any disagreements occur. But we should look out for too long lists on smaller clubs. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually we do have a rule: the lists must have criteriums, otherwise they are WP:OR and by that they should be deleted. FkpCascais (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Vasco and everyone! I couldn´t resist not providing you THIS great exemple of notable... urgh... bunch of guys!!! FkpCascais (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

that's gone now. ;) -Koppapa (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. :( - Just joking, well done. :) FkpCascais (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick question: national stats in infobox.

What everyone thinks about this edit? FkpCascais (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good edit. Youth games should be included, right? -Koppapa (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If reliably sourced. Not saying they weren't here, of course. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a potential problem. We list club appearances not on the basis of running about on a pitch in a game described on the club's site or the media (which would include friendlies), but by virtue of such games being "legitimised" by a league. We list full international appearances not on the basis of running about on a pitch in a game for a national side described on the relevant FA's site or the media (which would include pre-tournament matches against club teams, or non-FIFA A internationals), but by virtue of such games being "legitimised" by FIFA. So other than age-group world cup or continental championship matches, who "legitimises" underage matches? Kevin McE (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is his UEFA profile: http://de.uefa.com/uefaeuro2012/teams/player=1906525/profile/index.html which confirmes youth caps. That shouldn't include friendlies. -Koppapa (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading this wrongly, but aren't U-17 games etc officially blessed by FIFA just like full international games? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, they only register matches in major tournaments. They can be included, but that is a discrepancy between underage internationals and full age ones: international friendlies are full internationals, but are underage international friendlies legitimised anywhere? If not, other sources and UEFA.com (for example) will be calculating data by different definitions. So, for example, do Jonjo Shelvey's U19 appearances for last autumn include September's friendly against Slovakia, or only the UEFA U19 qualifying matches in October? Given that FIFA run events at U17 and U20, and UEFA do so at U17, U19 and U21, what is the status of the appearances of any European player at U15, U16 and U18? Kevin McE (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is genuinely a point of confusion we'd do well to have an RfC over it. I'd previously believe all such matches to be of the same standing as full internationals. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the inputs. Basically the problem here is that he is 19 years old, so he can still be called for U-19 team. He played an A team match, but he will most certainly return to U-21, or even U19. I would definitelly favour the mantaining of youth stats for such young players, specially for this cases where the player is still elligible for some of them, and probably gets more youth caps in future. So, regarding this one we agree that it was a bad edit by the IP, right? Now, how do we stand for older players that are A internaional but have also youth caps (sourced obviously)? We keep them? Remove them? Depending on relevance? What? FkpCascais (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Siera Leone

What'S the best way to deal with Sierra Leone Premier League 2009/10, it is just an exact copy of the main premier league article. Nominate for deletion? Speedyly deletion? Make it a redirect to league article? -Koppapa (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Whichever causes least drama. A redirect should be fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions and advice

A recently discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. Your opinions and your advice are welcome. --Geneviève (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

UEFA 2012 qualification group templates

I was editing Template:UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying Group A (specifically the fixtures table) and as I usually do, I pressed the preview button to check my work. However, the preview did not show the fixtures table. It only showed the non-expanded standings table. Is there a way to see a preview of the fully expanded template with both the fixtures table and tiebreakers? Music+mas (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

FIFA Presidential elections

Is it worth creating an article on the 2011 FIFA presidential election? TheBigJagielka (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if it is worth having articles on the processes of election that resulted in changes of president in 1906, 1921, 1954, 1955, 1961, 1974 and 1998, and thelections 4 years ago, 8 years ago... Kevin McE (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be a stretch to describe the 2007 event as an election - he was returned unopposed. The 2002 election on the other hand, would make for a very interesting article. Hack (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Presidents of FIFA is pretty bare on the prose front. A "Selection process" subsection in which the noteworthy elections are described could be a good fit, in the same way that England national football team manager combines a list with wider background and context. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football biography

I understand this is the latest football biography template. Do people agree that the 'Years' row for clubs should be recording the years a player was contracted or registered to the club, and not the years in which they made league appearances for the club? The fact that the senior career asterisk is so close to the Years row could lead some people to think it should be for league appearances only. I think some further text should be added to the template page to make matters clear. As a wider point I think the template page should generally have more text explaining what information should (and shouldn't) be included in the infobox. Picking up on the lengthy discussion above about national team call-ups User:Thumperward suggested that he was hoping to add further parameters to the infobox, and perhaps at the same time the explanatory text could be re-visited/expanded? Eldumpo (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see those kind of explanatory inputs as good, and they will definitelly help the horde of editing IP´s to do things right. FkpCascais (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "The fact that the senior career asterisk is so close to the Years row..." In my browser the asterisk is directly after the "Senior career" title.--ClubOranje^T 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Picking up on my original question, I see there is already a parameter explanation of 'Years' which confirms it should be the period a player was contracted to the club. Yes, the asterisk is after senior career, so it is not right by Years but is still pretty close, such that editors may assume Years is also to cover the period when league games were played. Perhaps there should be some kind of hidden text that comes up when editing an infobox that indicates to the editor where further information on how to fill in the box is available? Eldumpo (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The order in which it's presented explains it perfectly well - Years/Club/Apps: for X years, he played for Y club, and in that time made Z appearances. If the years field came after the apps field then it might be seen to directly refer to it, but it seems clear enough, particularly as 100% of everything that's ever been written about football uses this scheme. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what there is everywhere, right? Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Years/Clubs/Apps order, but just pointing out that a casual editor of the infobox will see nothing that indicates that the 'Years' period should be referring to the time he was contracted to the club, as opposed to the span during which he played league matches for the club. Maybe this is a relatively minor point, as this is explained in the Template, but I was just wondering if there is any merit in having some sort of link back to the template from each infobox, as presumably many editors will simply edit existing infoboxes rather than go to the master template location? Eldumpo (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Working code, folks. I'm open to concrete suggestions on ways to eliminate any perceived ambiguity in the present layout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful to post a draft version of changes once you're ready, so people can comment and a number of changes can be made (if necessary) in one go. Re the specific point above, would it be useful if the years parameter changed to "contract years" whilst what shows in the infobox remains as "Years"? Eldumpo (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that while I'm happy to do the coding work, I haven't yet even begun to do so because I'm waiting for someone else to make a solid proposal regarding the required changes. On the one you just mentioned, that would be pointless: people largely edit infoboxes by looking at the output rather than caring about the parameter names, so all it would do is adding unnecessary complication to the code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, although I'm sure some people would read the parameter code once they actually edit. What about my other comment above - is it possible (perhaps on the Template example via WP:Footy) to have something within the infobox that provides a link back to the template guidance, as at present anyone editing an existing infobox can't immediately access the guidance on how things should ideally be filled in. Eldumpo (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest adding something on the documentation with . Btw, I think "League games only" or "Don't forget to update 'pcupdate' also" should be included also. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Top international association football goal scorers by country and other lists

Just to inform you that we have that kind of list. It needs some checking, updating and fixing though. Also it's being vandalised often. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it even worthy? Looks to be a snazzy C&P of the RSSSF page... Giant Snowman 00:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is. Fills some blank that List of association football players with 50 or more international goals (32 players on the list) lefts. List of association football players with 100 or more caps has almost 200 people on the list. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree an article listing the top goalscorer's for each country would appear to be notable, although some citations would help. Eldumpo (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But those other two lists have problems also. That 100+ list isn't worth updating after 1 player gets a cap. There's a FIFA reference on which the article should stand. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Or should we update it more often than FIFA? I sure would like to add Raio Piiroja on the list. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Nationality at full international level - question

Adam Barton has previously represented the Northern Ireland international team at full international level (Nov 2010) in a friendly according to the reference in his article (a BBC news report). He appeared yesterday for the Republic's under 21 team according to the FAI website. I thought that if a player had committed at full international level he was then tied to appearing for that country? Zanoni (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rules were changed a couple of years back so that a player may change national association once, as long as he hasn't played in an official competition, with friendlies no longer "locking a player in". See FIFA Statutes, articles 15-18 and specifically 18 (a). Jermaine Jones is a prominent application of the new rule. Camw (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah... thanks, that perfectly explains it Zanoni (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

League of Ireland players

I'm not sure how widespread this is, but I'd assume it applies to plenty of Irish clubs. Having found an article on Shane Duggan, a former youth team player at my club, I noticed that every member of Cork City's current squad had a page which, considering they're not even in the top division, seemed odd. I've had a bit of time to kill so I went through each of them and only one of the articles meets WP:NFOOTBALL. They have all been PROD'd apart from Danny Murphy, but I expect some of them will be challenged. A sweep of each club will probably be required because I doubt that Cork City are the only club who have editors that believe all of their players are notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Look here.--Echetus Xe 14:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

None of those justify having an article either. The problem with the ones I PROD'd isn't due to referencing, they're just blatently non-notable. Are there many people on the project who are heavily involved with Irish football? I just see so many articles about players who fail all established notability guidelines. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We had a bit of a problem a few years ago with a number of Irish editors (some now banned...) who were adamant that every player in Ireland was notable. Don't be afraid to spend time PRODding/AfDing any and all you feel aren't worthy, you're not the only one who thinks so... Giant Snowman 00:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have PROD'd 21 of Cork City's current players, so those who edit the page will be in for a shock. Most of them were created a long time ago by users that are now inactive, but 5/6 of them were created by a person who is an active editor so I'm not sure how they'll react. The way I see it, any notable Irish player will come over to England or Scotland and play in a fully professional league or be capped for their country. All but one of the articles for Cork City, like this and this are akin to creating articles for players who have gone no higher than Conference North/South. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably you already mentioned the deletion to article's creators? Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they all have notices on their talk pages. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We've had our first challenge, by an IP with no reason given, so it has been taken to AfD. I probably should have nominated them all for AfD because there are a lot, but I've not dabbled in this much before so I'm not 100% sure how to nominate them all in one AfD. Could people keep an eye on them, and someone more AfD savvy than myself nominate them together if you think it's the best course of action. Thanks. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The user who I thought was most likely to challenge all of the PRODs has done just that and commented on the one open AfD. According to this user, the League of Ireland is the highest level of football in the country so any player to have appeared in it is notable and a goal of WikiProject Irish Football is to have an article about every League of Ireland player. I have always been under the impression that the lowest level of player notability is that they need to have played in a fully professional league. I'm sure a few Irish clubs are professional but the League of Ireland Premier Division isn't fully professional and the First Division certainly isn't, so what makes people like Peter Krzanowski notable? Is my understanding correct or have I got it wrong? Right now it kind of feels like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you're correct - WP:NFOOTBALL clearly states that a player must play in a fully-professional league, which the Irish league isn't. We can show a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE with the LoI players - look at each on an individual basis - but with First Division players they are definitely non-notable. Take any you come across to AfD; our rules are solid. Giant Snowman 18:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of English professional football clubs

Is there really any point to this article? It is basically just a list of the member clubs of the PL and FL with a couple of extra columns saying where they are based...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect example of over-wikipizing. I guess there are no more articles to create regarding English football : ( –J10S ^Talk 21:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely pointless. There certainly are many more (useful) articles that can be written about English football, this is a bad one though. Big Dom 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading this it sounds a bit harsh. If you included all English professional clubs, that would be a start. Big Dom 15:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well some actual references for the existing teams would also be nice. Giant Snowman 15:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, that as well. Big Dom 19:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't say. There seem to be lots of English football fans. You could try to bring it to Afd, but I think you'd fail. But is it correct? List of football clubs in England says top 4 divisions. Pro clubs can play in nonpro. leagues. And 2 Wales clubs in English list? Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are they numbered by alphabetization?--Echetus Xe 00:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are so many more pro clubs out there AND this is lacking in references AND it is classic WP:LISTCRUFT. Get rid of it, I say. Giant Snowman 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

FFS. This bloody project again. Can't you people have the common decency to even inform others when you are discussing an article they created, or at least leave a note on the article's talk page? What the hell's is wrong with you lot? This might be the football project, but you don't own all the articles on Football, and you don't have veto powers on what people think is valid content or not. It's a list of clubs by location. Nothing more. So what? If people think that's not useful information, by all means take it to Afd, but it doesn't sound much different to IDONTLIKEIT, or it's cousin used more often for some reason just by this project, IWOULDNEVERUSEIT. If people are going to try and assert clubs aren't often talked about in geographic terms, then they're pretty much lying their asses off, or have never read a book or watched the TV. If you guys would be ecstatic if someone wanting an answer to the question 'which clubs are from the North West?' would be utterly wasting their time by coming to Wikipedia to find out, all power to you. Destroy it with your usual fire and go and write whatever article you think is more important. God knows what you think they are though, and I wonder why anyone would bother even attempting to start it with the shadow of death that is this project hanging around the place. I don't know what amount of money and resources the BBc recently put into that survey about which region is the most succesful at developing players etc, they are clearly utter morons. If you lot put half the energy you do into whining and criticizing other's perfectly harmless work, that you did in actually writing something yourselves, then you wouldn't have to whine so much that nobody is apparently writing the article's you really want for your precious kingdom. MickMacNee (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Now it has a misspelled title. And it's still sorted by club not by location. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

When have you ever seen a 'by location' list where the location column is at the left? Just because the left hand column is a list of clubs, doesn't make it a 'list of clubs (full stop)'. And the sorting is irrelevant - the columns are sortable. It would be completely counter-intuitive to present it defaulted with the clubs in a random order just so one of the locations was ordered (and which one would you even pick as the primary one to sort?) An admin will have to sort out the spelling mistake, I didn't notice I'd spelt it wrongly and forgot you cannot move back over a non-blank history redirect. If I had got it right first it would have warned me, but it's too dumb to detect the spelling mistake and I didn't notice after the fact. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Could a passing admin please move List of English professional football clubs by locatoin to List of English professional football clubs by location over redirect. Thanks.--ClubOranje^T 09:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Big Dom 10:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is useful, however it talks of "professional clubs" but then only lists the Football League/Premier League clubs, so it should either expand to include the professional clubs in the Conference National, or have an amended article name (or at least further text in the intro explaining that there are other professional clubs in England). Eldumpo (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You could make the number ranking column show their Football League ranking at the end of 2009-10. Otherwise it is a useless column.--Echetus Xe 10:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did that article evaporate (go to red-link) when Mick moved it? GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

When I moved the article, I deleted the page with the spelling mistake as it was not a useful redirect. Big Dom 15:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand three points

What difference this has to List of English football clubs.
Why professional teams in the Conference aren't on there, and seem to be specifically and incorrectly not included.
Why it's limited to England, when the league covers England or Wales. Brad78 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's a list by location. There is no way you can find out from List of English football clubs which clubs play in which particular region / county, or even city.
- I simply didn't have time. If I did decide to take the time to add them now though (hardly likely with the vibes of encouragement this Project gives off), I would add the whole conference, and drop 'professional' from the title.
- Because it's a geographically organised list, it's sensible to limit it to the largest geographic unit that is worth tabulating. It's not worth adding 2 Welsh clubs to the table, as they don't share any town, county or region, with any other club in the table. It's noted in the lead that there are 2 Welsh clubs. If readers want to know where they are, it's easier to simply tell them, Swansea and Cardiff.
- MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been slapped with an Unreferenced tag. Well done is all I can say. I note that List of football clubs in England contains not a single reference either (except, rather ironically, an external link which relates clubs to their geographic location! Funny that, seeing as this list by location is apparently worthless/useless/stupid). Is that list to be defaced similarly I wonder? I doubt it. Suffice to say, I won't be rushing off to reference every single table entry. The whole point of references, is to support material is likely to be challenged. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So tag it as unreferenced. This ranting is frightfully unproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Per established norms and WP:CITE, I only tag things that I intend to challenge or believe are realistically open to challenge. I leave tagging other people's work simply to make a point in full knowledge the tagging will achieve nothing in the way of actual referencing, to those who think that is an example of being 'productive'. MickMacNee (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we have lists "by location" really. Since lists are now easily sortable, this list could be "by county", "by town", "by general geographical location", "by stadium name", "by club name", "by league", "by #" (whatever that number is meant to mean). All of this information is, well, mildly interesting, but could be merged into a decent list of clubs which doesn't need the "by location" caveat, because it simply isn't "by location". That data happens to be there, but it's not directly about that. The lead doesn't mention anything really about geographical location either. It looks as if, through the course of the last 24 hours, this list has lost its way. For what it's worth, the Town and County columns should be merged (there's plenty of space) and I see no need at all for a "Region" column. Then add in stadium capacity, year of foundation, source it, and then, perhaps, you have a single, usable list of English clubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead explains that its only the top four divisions in England which play professionally across England. While it doesn't spoon feed it to the reader, that's imho a pretty good opening justification for why they are then presented with the following data in the table, listing clubs by location, to graduated degrees. That's because it's a list by location, that's what the title is, that's what it's for, that's why it was created. Sure, you can remove all the location info and replace it with whatever you like, shirt colours, year of establishment, stadium capacity, number of Jewish left-backs, but then it's not a location list is it? And no, you couldn't merge it in any meaningfull way with any other lists - they are all maxed out in terms of space that I've seen. This list is the widest any list should be, assuming a reasonable screen size. If we have any other lists out there that are wider, while they might seem super-useful by having 20 or 30 sortable columns on any number of things, they will still be basic ACCESS violations, and will look pretty incomprehensible to the average person tbh, and will have no real discernable basic purpose except to give people headaches and force them to close the window rather than look at the table long enough to some away with whatever info it was they were looking for. I really don't see why you propose mergeing Town/County, when you've already shown you appreciate the utility of sortable colums. And the 'region' column is there because it's a geographic term that is used to refer to clubs in England. Just like all the others. As an example of such, I presume people here who live in England have seen Late Kick Off, yes?. Well, that's one such example where someone might ask, what are all the clubs in region/county X. And tbh, they aren't going to find that in a super-sized all singing all dancing list in which the Town/County/Region info has all been merged into one so it can fit alongside 25 other columns, because people couldn't understand the basic purpose of 'by location' lists. MickMacNee (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think, fundamentally, we need to work out if a "list by location" is actually useful. Is anyone really interested in how many clubs are in the "Yorkshire and the Humber" region? Which clubs can be found in "Hounslow"? I really doubt it. That's why this is being accused of being over-wikipized. That's why a merger of those columns is a perfectly legitimate concept. Shirt colours, Jewish left-backs, not sure that'd be too interesting (although Coventry's brown shirts or Man Utd's grey ones were notable enough) so I think once you take the truly pertinent information and merge it into one list, you would find something useful here. No-one's suggesting 20-30 sortable columns, that's insane, and hyperbolic. I think the answer is that this list, thus far, has limited consensus. If this discussion continues without agreement, the only path forward is WP:AFD. Then we'll drag out these discussions one more time. And then I reckon we'll end up deleting the list. Just my opinion, once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest Mick, I think the average football fan would be more interested in the article List of English football clubs by shirt colour but that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. I'm struggling to find what relevance a club's location has to make this list encyclopedic. Brad78 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sod it. I've db-author'd it. It can be the second thing of mine you delete tonigh RM to save me hours if not days of future pointless annoyance with this bloody site. Frankly, whether location is important or not is like saying whether breathing is important or not. Comparing it in importance to shirt colours? Debating the cliche of ENCYC till the cows come home? Sorry, I'm not prepared to jump through hoops to defend the obvious. I've just given you a cast iron example of how location is used, you've ignored it. I've had it with having my plunger yanked by this project. I'm off to go push over some cows or something, anything that's more rewarding that filling in the gaps of world knowledge. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on Mick, the example was weak. People watching Late Kick Off aren't going to say, "hang on, which 'region of England' do Spurs play in?" are they? I'm not yanking any plungers (although I'm not convinced I know what that means and what effect it might have if I did or didn't do it) but my concept of merging a couple of those regional columns and adding them into a more useful list is the way forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The example was bang on. Your Spurs question aside, which was deliberately unrealistic tbh, it's a basic fact, anyone watching Late Kick-Off could very easily be wondering what clubs might actually be featured on their regional edition, or in any of the others they can access if they have digital TV. But they don't have a hope in hell of finding anything, nothing at all, on Wikipedia, to help them. Not one goddam thing. Go on, try it. You tell me what clubs play in North West England, down to League Two level, using just this site. Such inquiring minds, idiots that they are, were of course wholly stupid to select Wikipedia as their preferred information provider of choice, and they have to go elsewhere. And who would blame them if next time they think twice about spending 10 or 20 minutes using this 'encyclopoedia' as their first port of call again. What an utterly damning indictment of this project that it seems to think this is not a worthwhile part of the 'sum of all human knowledge'. I wonder again what information sources the BBC used in their location research project. I guarantee it wasn't this site. The hilarious thing is, there already is a category structure here that attempts to do exactly the same thing, categorise clubs by location. Only it's a half-completed total abortion of a structure, which cannot even achieve basic consistency between regions and counties. And even if it was complete (and let's face it, who would even bother to complete it, certainly if they came here first asking if that was a worthwhile job?), nobody would be able to confirm that it was infact complete, and it would still be half as informative as a list even if they did. And per WP:CLS, the absolute perfect way to do that was with that list. But no, we have to jump through the ENCYC hoop, which we all know has no answer and is just a convenient evasion device to save anyone making a real argument. It's been quicker for me to create it, fight you lot who have nothing better to do than tag it and move it and anything else you seem to think is 'productive', and then just delete it to save me any more mind-numbing hassle, than it ever would have been for me to get any of you to even define in advance what the parameters would be for judging whether such a list would be ENCYClopoedic. It makes me laugh to see who was the original creator of the Football in London, and what the very first thought that entered his mind was when he created it [3] - let's list all the clubs in London by division. It makes me laugh to see core articles like the one on the whole English league system adorned with maps overlaid on county boundaries. Well, that's yer lot. We shall go that far, and no further. And you can go fish it seems for even thinking such thoughts as hoping to find some similar source material here from which you could make a start on grand works like Football in North West England. Final moment of hilarity? It turns out we do have some form of NW coverage, although it's an outlier just like London. I wonder what became of the poor fool who created List of football teams in Greater Manchester. He appears still active, but I wonder how long before he goes insane too. I see too that his effort also received some attention from the 'productive' editors, dutifully tagging it etc. Although not for being unreferenced it seems. Not so much of an issue there apparently. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone who's watching Late Kick Off and wants to know what clubs play in their region, is more likely to look at, erm, let's say Late Kick Off before somehow finding the page List of English professional football clubs by location. Why not simply amend the Late Kick Off page? Brad78 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Because.....and this is a long shot.....it was just an example? And no, I don't really think that turning what is in essence an article about a television programme, into one which has 10% of its content about television, and 90% a football list, is a very good idea. But I'm learning all sorts of things about encyclopoedia's today tbh, so I could be wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this is something that could be captured by the use of categories, e.g Category: Football in the East of England? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

World ranking for official international club titles

I think that Al-Ahly have won 15 international official competitions (rather than 14). They won the Afro-Asian Club Championship in 1988. This competition was endorsed by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) and Asian Football Confederation (AFC), so I think that it was perfectly official. Do you agree? --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The Cup is listed in the previous competitions section, but it isn´t under the trophies that the club won, so it looks someone missed that one. FkpCascais (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It rather looks that the competition itself has been excluded from the list because Zamalek SC who won the Afro-Asian Club Championship twice (1987 and 1997) has them missing as well. But to further complicate things, Zamalek SC article has also missing the 1987 one in its honours section... FkpCascais (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories order

Since allways I have been dedicated in trying to keep categories in footy articles "in order". For some time I have been frustrated cause I have been finding a lot of footy biographies with personal cats at bottom. I "fix it" by putting it back in top, but after a while I find them again at bottom. I discouvered the editor doing this, it was User:Matthew hk, and I asked him to organise the cats by "personal cats" first, "footy cats", after, so it would basically look like most have (C:19XX born, C:living people, C: People from Tasmania, C: Siamese footballers, etc.). He doesn´t agree and thinks footy cats should be first and personal at bottom. Any thoughts? FkpCascais (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to put categories in the broad order you suggest, and there probably are occasions that I have re-ordered existing articles in this way. However if you look at [4] (7th bullet) there is nothing in the guidance stipulating which way is best, and I would say that if you change the existing order of an article, and it is challenged/changed, then it is reasonable to put/keep the category order back as it was. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have used this (1. C:19XX born, 2. C:living people, 3. C: People from Tasmania, 4. C: Siamese footballers, etc.) style all the time. And I haven't met any people who had change them back. I've heard one anonymus user say that cats should be alphabetically orderd. But IMO this one is better. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was told a long time ago that personal cats come first-footy later. But this really isn´t any rule, just an editorial preference. The argument of Mat was that cats should follow the order of imortance, so by that the Living and year of birth are "meaningless"... I personally prefer to have some order so searching them, or finding the missing ones is easier. FkpCascais (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personally, I use the same order as everyone above. WP:CAT#Categorizing pages says "The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule", and that "Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." Some editors believe that birth year cats and the like aren't the most essential or significant, so don't put them first, and this view is backed up by the FAQ at Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#In what order should categories be listed within the article? Though that does read more like a suggestion of best practice rather than a rule, and of a sample of three recently promoted featured articles, all three, Frederick Delius, Leslie Groves and John J. Crittenden, have the birth and death cats listed first.

But what's clear from the above is that the order of categories isn't something to edit-war about: as it says in the lead section of MOS:NUM (not just about dates), "Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style" (my italics). If an article's been stable with the cats in a particular order and someone changes it, then it's reasonable to restore the original order and suggest to the other editor that they should discuss the matter before changing it again. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we didn´t edit wared properly over it, is just that seems that both of us just ordered the cats the way we prefered each time we added some cat. Something like an indirect long-time edit war... Many times I automatically order the cats to see if any is missing. FkpCascais (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not anal about it and don't normally change existing, but I tend to put them alphabetically on new articles largely because it is easier to check whether a cat is missing if an individual has a few cats already listed. This, by virtue of xxx births beginning with a number, puts birth and death cats at the top. (although I also put "Year of birth missing" etc there as well on the theory that it will ultimately be changed to a year).--ClubOranje^T 07:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps naming issue

Can someone please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Blake Wagner about the link piping issue for the Vancouver Whitecaps. I'm pretty sure I have the policy correct, but I'd like some second (third, fourth, fifth...) opinions. Thanks. JonBroxton (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you don't have the policy correct. The Portland Timbers situation is the correct one to follow. In either case, you'll have to change the Timbers to match what you think is the "policy" or I'll be changing the Whitecaps to what I think is the "policy". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You are discussing the way the two Vancouver Whitecaps are presented in the infoboxes. From what I understand Jon wants to leave the "FC" at the end of Vancouver Whitecaps FC so that way they are differenciated from the Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010), presented simply as Vancouver Whitecaps in infoboxes, having in mind the precedent of Seattle Sounders/Sounders FC. I just don´t understand what Walter proposes, or why oposes, or in other words, how do you Walter propose the two clubs to be differenciated in the infoboxes. I understand you mention the Timbers/Timers situation, but I don´t know what you mean by that? FkpCascais (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Walter wants to have "(USSFD2)" at the end of the pipe for Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010), so it would read Vancouver Whitecaps (USSFD2). The old Portland Timbers and new MLS Portland Timbers have identical names (i.e. no FCs or other abbreviations), so somone took the decision (or there was a discussion somewhere and a consensus was gained) to add "USL" to the end of the old Timbers pipe. If my memory serves me correctly, this is against the standard policy of not having league abbreviations in the link pipe, but in the absence of another sensible option, seemed like the best choice for this team. For the Whitecaps, it just makes sense to me to have just "Whitecaps" for the old USL team, and "Whitecaps FC" for the new MLS team, following the idea set by the Sounders. JonBroxton (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No I don't want that Jon. Adding (USSF-D2) was my suggestion for the last league. I'm open to suggestions. I'm not really open to excluding the FC.

The club took on the name "Vancouver Whitecaps FC" in 2003, when they were playing in the USL. They played in that league for seven years and the league dissolved and was replaced with the USSF-D2 in its final year. That league also no longer exists.

We should keep in mind that the Montreal Impact may have to deal with the same issue next year when they move from the NASL to MLS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So this solution may effect Vancouver, Portland, and Montreal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, wouldn't it be simpler just to merge the two articles? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would be, but Jon leads a contingent that feels that because the MLS holds the contracts for all the players and the clubs, that the team is a franchise and only a name. It would mean changing a lot of other articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not leading any contingent. I'm just following the consensus that was established when the Sounders left the old USL1 and started a new frachise in MLS. I don't have a vested interest either way, other than to ensure that all teams in the same circumstances are treated identically. But let's not have this discussion for the 767th time, please... it's been done to death already. This is about link piping and ONLY link piping. JonBroxton (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, we have to solve this disambiguational factor for future cases to come. Walter, you proposed the league initials to be included, you mean, USSF2 was the last league the club played in? Do we have any other options? For exemple, I know the NK Olimpija Ljubljana (1911) that was disbanded in 2005 and NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005) was created. Here the year of foundation was used as disambiguational factor. However, I haven´t checked how the two clubs were displayed in the infoboxes for players that played for both... FkpCascais (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Whitecaps team that existed from 1986-2010 was piped as [[Vancouver Whitecaps FC|Vancouver Whitecaps]] as per the usual standard of not including FC/AC/SC initialisms, until the name change to make way for the new MLS team; it's now (usually) piped as [[Vancouver Whitecaps (1986-2010)|Vancouver Whitecaps]]. The new MLS team is now at Vancouver Whitecaps FC. I'm proposing to leave the link pipe for the 1986-2010 team like that, without an FC, and not pipe the link to the new Whitecaps team at all. This follows the precedent set out when the Seattle Sounders folded their USL1 franchise at the end of 2008, and moved to MLS as Seattle Sounders FC. JonBroxton (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon, you're misleading the project with the statement above. The Sounders were called the Seattle Sounders until they joined the MLS at whict time the adopted the FC. That was five years after the Whitecaps, who remained in the second division not only changed their name, but the club structure. They include the Whitecaps Women and a development programme in 2003. So it's not as clear-cut as the Seattle example. I have written that several times and I'm disappointed that you continue to misrepresent the case. The FC must remain in the club name in some form, at least for any players who were on the team after 2003. I also don't have problem with merging the articles of the last two teams who were known as Whitecaps FC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Walter, that has got nothing to do with the link piping issue. When the Whiteaps adopted FC, or didn't adopt FC is completely immaterial, and I'm not "misleading the project" or "misrepresenting the case". All I'm trying to do is come up with a sensible way of differentiating the old Whitecaps and the new Whitecaps with a link pipe so that readers don't get confused over which club is which. Until this year, the Whitecaps club that existed from 1986-2010 was piped without an FC, simply as "Vancouver Whitecaps", as per the standard manner for omitting initialisms in team names that don't need them. All I'm saying is that we continue to do that for that link, and link to the new club as "Vancouver Whitecaps FC". That's it. Nothing else. No other issues to do with when the old club adopted the FC, when they changed their namem, what the club structure is. All that stuff is totally irrelevant to this discussion. JonBroxton (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy mark the name in the infobox as Vancouver Whitecaps FC (D2) or even Whitecaps FC (D2). They played for a longer period in the USL1. The problem is, just as with the Portland Timbers infoboxes, they didn't finish in that league. They have players listed as having played with USL who never did. This is what we get for splitting the articles around financial structures. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so a team with the same name, same colours, same players, same staff, same owners etc. becomes a different one when it moves leagues? Huh, interesting. Giant Snowman 12:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Different players, different staff, different owners, different *legal status*. The Whitecaps (and Sounders and Timbers and Impact) didn move leagues - the old team was dissolved and no longer exists, and the new team came in to take it's place. Think of like when Aldershot, or Newport County, or Halifax Town, or more recently Chester City folded recently in England and re-started as a new team with virtually the same name; the difference here is that the US teams CHOSE to fold so that they could join MLS, instead of being forced to for financial reasons, and were re-born in a higher, rather than a lower division. JonBroxton (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of the same players, but additional players. Players are signed to contracts by the MLS whereas before they were signed to contracts by the club.

Ownership group is the same. The ownership deal was struck during the USL years and the investors were investing at that point, but at a lower level. MLS is the only new owner.

Most of the staff is identical. The additional staff are former Whitecaps players (Nash).

Different legal status.

The old team may not exist, but in the case of the Whitecaps, the old club still does. It is running the womens team and the development teams. The club did not fold. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the case. Crazy isn't it? Could only happen in America. Big Dom 13:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Different colours. Otherwise, it is crazy. Is there a consensus on an action, aside from committing all of "the colonies" to an institution for commercially insane? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Same colours, non? Blue & white → white & blue? Giant Snowman 16:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Colours includes the kit design, no? The old kit was a wide horizontal stripe with "Whitecaps" inverted in the stripe. Home kit was white background, blue stripe, white text. Away kit was blue background, white stripe, blue text. New kit is all white with room for a sponsor name on the chest and incorporates two different shades of blue in the shield which is over the left breast. The colours themselves are the same. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, by "colours" I meant "colours" - name a single team anywhere in the world that has kept the same design over the course of their history. Anyways, a moot point, and my original assertion still stands i.e. why on earth do we have two articles about the same club? Giant Snowman 16:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason that we have two articles is because Jon, and others in the MLS group, feel that the legal status has changed. All players and clubs are owned by the league, the MLS, and the local representatives are franchisees. He argues that they ceased to exist as a separate entity. This has happened with several other teams (Seattle and Portland being two examples) and says to allow the Whitecaps to be merged would not be following the precedent of those club articles. I don't think it's necessary however, but after months of MLS people arguing to the contrary, I relented and agreed that two different legal entities should be sufficient.

So how do we deal with the name difference in the article infoboxes? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In comparible English examples there's scope for ambiguity (Chester City were playing in 2010, Chester FC started playing in 2010). In North America this isn't the case (one stopped playing in 2010, the other started playing in 2011). So in my view this only becomes an issue when a player played for both. In that instance, I'd go for (USL) and (MLS) appended to the teams' names. Unless there is someone who played for the Whitecaps before 1997 and is now in the MLS roster, that should work. —W F C— 12:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I will follow this suggestion. There are only a few players who transitioned between the 2010 side and the 2011 side. I will mark them as being part of the appropriate division: (USL) and (MLS). For players who did not make the transition, I will mark as Vancouver Whitecaps FC only. Jon: is this acceptable or do you have a counter-proposal? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No complaints from me. I just wanted to make sure we were consistent. Just one clarification: are we piping it with the FC as part of displayed name (as per Seattle Sounders FC), or without the FC (as per, for example Manchester United)? Historically, we piped the old USL Whitecaps without the FC. Either way is fine by me, I just need to know which one to use. JonBroxton (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point Jon. I was thinking of including FC since there was a Vancouver Whitecaps and then they became Vancouver Whitecaps FC, but recognize that the latter is usually not used. Suggestions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Before this falls off the radar

I am still seeking input. My plan was to make all post-2003 Whitecaps articles read Whitecaps FC with a link to the appropriate article. I would not include "Vancouver" in the title since to the best of my knowledge, there is no other professional Whitecaps franchise in the world. In the few cases where a player played for the second division Whitecaps and the MLS Whitecaps indicate that by adding (USL), (D2), and (MLS) to the infobox. I don't know if I would extend this to the main articles yet. I would appreciate feedback before starting the changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Shall I take the lack of response as tacit approval? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think having them simply as "Whitecaps FC" is a good idea, because that's not the WP:COMMONNAME. 99% of the articles I have read about the team has called them Vancouver Whitecaps. For the post-2003 Whitecaps, I would pipe Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) as Vancouver Whitecaps, omitting the "FC" part of the name as per the standard practice of not including abbreviated initialisms in the pipe. For the current MLS Whitecaps, I would do the same - Vancouver Whitecaps FC piped as Vancouver Whitecaps. Then, as you say, for the few players that have played for both the USL and MLS incarnations of the team, add either USL or MLS in parentheses in the pipe as appropriate. JonBroxton (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They call themselves that. All of their tickets are as Whitecaps FC http://whitecapsfc.com/tickets

I won't belabour the point, I'll just drop it. I have understood what you want since you first suggested it a week ago. That's why we're here Jon. However your suggestion is the worst possible idea for the Whitecaps. That naming scheme fits your club but not the Whitecaps. So I'm going to do what I think is best on the Whitecaps-related articles and you can do what you want with the non-Whitecaps-related North American football articles. To avoid conflict, may I suggest that you stay away the Whitecaps-related articles? No one else seems to care which way it's done and your way does not honour the Whitecaps. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what your complaining about, Walter. The name of the club is Vancouver Whitecaps FC as per, you know, pretty much everything you see about the team, everywhere. All I'm suggesting is doing what we do for the vast majority of other clubs which has an FC initialism, and pipe it as Vancouver Whitecaps. How is that the "worst possible idea"? How does it not "honor" the Whitecaps? What makes the Whitecaps so special and unique that is has to be treated differently from all other clubs? Also, don't tell me what I can and can't edit. You do not WP:OWN the Whitecaps articles. JonBroxton (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And you don't WP:OWN the MLS and other North American football articles, but you certainly act like you do. You impose your will on almost every NA Football article I watch going so far a changing article without references just because you think they should be changed much like this edit.

The rule is that British clubs don't use FC in their titles. That does not extend to German clubs. I have seen examples of other clubs including the FC, or the national equivalent, as part of their name. I see no reason why the Whitecaps FC should not be one of them. You're the one who has insisted on multiple articles for the club, there has to be a way to distinguish them from the other franchises that run in NA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Current suggestions

Whitecaps FC - Rationale:
1. There is only one professional Whitecaps football team so it would not be confused with the Minnesota Whitecaps
2. There is a history of using "FC" in non-English teams, it is being used by the Seattle MLS side and the Toronto MLS side, so team there is no reason to exclude this team for a rule that does not apply to their country or their league.
3. The club itself is attempting to brand themselves as Whitecaps FC as can be seen from their ticket sales site.
Vancouver Whitecaps - Rationale:
1. "FC" is excluded from names of English team names unless it's integral in the teams name.
Vancouver Whitecaps FC - Rationale:
1. Full team name as is displayed by other MSL franchises.

Only players who played in two incarnations of the Whitecaps at different league levels would require identification. In other words, if they played for the second division side and the MLS side a (USSF-D2) and (MLS) would be suffixed to title to differentiate the financial differences.

Just a reminder, if option 2 is accepted, then Sounders articles must also be changed because they are playing at the same level and in the same league and cannot be different just because they changed their name when they entered the MLS as opposed to the Whitecaps who changed their name and structure in 2003. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the rationale of Option 1, especially the assertation that the club "is attempting to brand themselves as Whitecaps FC as can be seen from their ticket sales site". The TV broadcasts this weekend, the wording on the club's logo, and virtually every media report I have read about the team includes the word "Vancouver", and removing the city name from the pipe IMHO would be stupid. I also don't agree with the rationale that only English team names exclude initialisms - if that was the case how do you explain the way we pipe AC Milan, Melbourne Victory FC, Internazionale Milano F.C., R.S.C. Anderlecht, PFC CSKA Moscow, and dozens of others? (I'll give you a hint - it's without the initialism) - or that piping the Whitecaps this way would somehow affect the Sounders. However, my choice, as has been the case all along, would be Option 3, with the caveat that the old USL Whitecaps continue to be piped as Vancouver Whitecaps, as they always have been until this year. JonBroxton (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The broadcast this past weekend was done by TFC and Sportsnet. Milan has two clubs so that explains those two. Don't know the other three clubs. I don't mind dropping the point however.

The Sounders are affected if we go with option 2 since they are in the same league and their full name is Seattle Sounders FC just as the Vancouver Whitecaps FC are, so if one is changed the other must be as well. It's only logical. You can't change one without the other.

So one vote for Jon. Others? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If the Sounders are also going to be affected, WP:SOUNDERS should be informed. And by informed, I don't just mean of the existence of this discussion, but an outline of it. —W F C— 09:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why it should continue to be Vancouver Whitecaps FC in articles and infoboxes, which won't affect the Sounders articles. In player infoboxes, no change unless the player played for both the second division club and the first division club. In that case mark the one as either (USSF-D2) or (USL), depending how long they played for the club, and (MLS) for the first division team. I agree it would be a lot simpler if there were just one larger article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the Sounders, "FC" does not stand for "Football Club". It means "football club" but their legal name is "Sounders FC" not "Sounders Football Club". If it is much like DC United not being "United" as seen with the formation of English Clubs and FC Dallas not being "Footbal Club Dallas". It is a cute marketing gimmick to make the teams seem more European. So the reasoning to remove "FC" since it is common with other articles has such a different variable that it does not need to be handled the same. We have a featured article with Seattle Sounders FC and are pretty close to hitting Good Topic and might even be able to Featured Topic. As I have said in Timbers and Whitecap discussions: I don't care that much what you guys do (although you still have RECENTISM issues and the teams are not the same and the articles will have LENGTH issues) as long as it does not impact our project which is running like a well oiled machine.Cptnono (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The legal name of the Whitecaps is Vancouver Whitecaps FC and they're trying to brand themselves as simply Whitecaps FC. Best of luck with reaching feature status. May come down for a match. I have a friend in Belleview who has never seen the Sounders play. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Vancouver, but we researched this a while back for Seattle and have had it confirmed by the club that the full name is "Seattle Sounders FC". Regarding the Seattle club, this topic has been discussed and disputed many times and the consensus we have on that article's name is strong based on the various discussions and the fact that the article is now featured. The discussion here and now is about how to proceed with the naming of the article covering the MLS team in Vancouver. No one should assume that a decision made here has any affect on the naming of Seattle Sounders FC. That will need to be a separate discussion preferably on the task force talk page where informed editors can weigh in. Thanks. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad that the Seattle article is featured. However the Witecaps' official and legal name is Vancouver Whitecaps FC as well. No one is suggesting changing the name of the articles but the name used to link to them in infoboxes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

An example

I modified Kevin Harmse, who falls into this category, as an example of what I suggested above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No comments. Shall I assume that this is acceptable or unacceptable. I noticed that Jon was busy changing all other entries (moving them away from the articles consensus without discussion) but has not commented on this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you wanted to include the FC part, as per your whole thing about the rebranding with the FC as part of the club title. That's why I removed the pipe, so that the FC would be displayed. Honestly, I try to do something that I think is useful as per YOUR SUGGESTION, and you're still bloody complaining. -- JonBroxton (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the FC part, but you also removed the USL/MLS part. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you initially removed the changes on Kevin Harmse am I to assume that you don't approve of the change or should I assume something else? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I agree with you. As per your suggestion, we should pipe the existing MLS club as Vancouver Whitecaps FC, since the club is clearly trying to brand itself with the FC are part of its identity. Since, historically, the old USL/USSFD2 club was never piped with FC part of its name visible in the infobox, we should just continue to do that - no use creating work for outselves. This makes the MLS/USL tags unneccesary since the clubs are differentiated by whether they show "FC" or not. JonBroxton (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The historical issues is one of error on our part and it's time to correct it. The club has been legally Whitecaps FC since 2003 and that's why you brought us here, because I wanted the FC added to the USL and USSF-D2 clubs and you didn't. So your position still has not changed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be going ahead with the method used in the example (Kevin Harmse) by the weekend unless someone else can offer a reason why it shouldn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"of X descent"

Take a look at this revision. It is high time we kicked this out of the project altogether. I've commented on it several times, but there are far too many productive editors around here who are willing to let such nationalist name-tagging go unhindered. If I see particular editors making such edits in future I'll be raising it as an issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this case is exagerated. FkpCascais (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

But, after having better look I actually disagree with you. When making my first comment I suposed we were dealing there with a disambiguation page, but not, we are talking about a surname article. Sorry, Cris, I disagree, this is not footbollistic issue, but an ethnological one, so makes much sence to have those descent explanations, they should however be sourced. FkpCascais (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Surname articles are not really within the scope of this project, but while a surname might be able to trace its origins to a place or time, mere possession of the surname does not mean that the individual can do so (marriage/adoption/change of name for assimiliation/etc) or would consider it in any way meaningfully descriptive of them. Kevin McE (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais: look at those articles. Not one of the four which list "Serbian" or "Croatian" contain any reliable sources backing that up. That's what I'm getting at here. You can't say "oh we need to say he's of Serbian descent or people might not be able to find the right article" when a) all three footballers on that page were listed as being of Serbian descent and b) nobody's going to look for a player based on what part of the Balkans the last nationalist to wander through Wikipedia has tagged his as being descended from anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If heritage can be verified through reliable sources, then mention it. If it can't, remove it at once. Simples. Giant Snowman 12:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait Chris, I think we are mixing here different things. I don´t understand where you see nationalism in there. OK, we have some editors and IP´s who like to highlight it (not me personally), and we have a few polemical ones that went ocasionally trough edit wars, but, I don´t understand, you want to totally remove it? I understand for exemple that American players don´t mention it (and even those often do mention), but the case is different. While American Scots or others are most likely to be a product of a 2nd or 3th generation, these are mostly, 1st generation, if not born and emigrated while young, so there is a sence to mention it. It shouldn´t be in lede, of course, and we discussed football nationalities already, but removing it? Also, this is hardly a Balkans issue, almost every country has its share of emigrated players. See Mario Gómez for exemple: its mentioned right after the lede, in a special section named "Personal life", and unsorced!

You need to understand that many of these players keep their links with the emigrant comunities, and many had several national team calls because of it, and many even return to their origin countries after ending their careers. And there is nothing polemical (neither doubtfull) about those aditions, because surnames in ex-Yugoslavia are basically as clans in Scotland, so by it, you obviously have a pretty clear perspective from which city the family of the guy is! Obviously, I suport sourcing of it, and I suport its non-inclusion in the lede, but removing it from a surnames article? I think you went too far in trying to make a point and you were very unlucky in choosing the article for it. I apologies, I didn´t intended to confront you in any way, but I had to be honest and clear. FkpCascais (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A huge number of famous Americans in all walks of life are first- or second-generation immigrants. They always have been! And yet we do not routinely refer to them by their ethnic backgrounds as early and often anywhere else on the encyclopedia as we do football articles. Disambiguation pages should use what material is necessary to differentiate entries from each other. Ethnic background is way down that list in almost every case, even for the most famous people. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

But that was a surnames page, not a disambiguation one. Anyway, I think we agree on the issue. I have been "cleaning" some articles lately and removing the ethnic background information from ledes and other places where they don´t belong. On the other side I think you shouldn´t be so negative about it because the background info can be a plus if adequatly mentioned, after all, it is not so much "background" if people were born in other places. In the multi-cultural globalized society we live in nowadays, totally ignoring this multi-ethnic factor would be wrong, and we will have more and more cases of these in time to come. What I agree is to correctly deal with these cases as early as possible and I´ll correct all cases I find around. Basically, the sportsman are categorised by their sports nationality and it is that one that should be mentioned in the lede, the ethnic background if necessary and sourced goes to the article boddy. FkpCascais (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Which infobox template for players should be used?

I was (until now) editing under the impression that Template:Infobox football biography (formerly Template:Infobox football biography 2 until the merge) should be used for footballers, the reason being the better web accessibility of this template. I had a a run-in with User:FkpCascais at Petr Stoilov who prefers Template:Football player infobox for this player as the data about this player is not complete and adding clubs which are earlier in the time line is tedious with the "new" parameter format of. I converted this back to Template:Infobox football biography and asked him not to change to the "old" parameter format, because changing the "old" into the "new" format is also tedious and I don't want to repeat this if it is not necessary. As Template:Football player infobox is only a redirect to Template:Infobox football biography I was sure that the "old" parameter format should replaced by the new one, but User:FkpCascais said that this problem was discussed already earlier with no clear-cut result. Can anyone please tell me when this was discussed and what the general opinion on this is? --Jaellee (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox football biography}} should be used, no questions about it. Giant Snowman 19:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As everything redirects now to Template:Infobox football biography this is only the minor question. The major question at this point is: years =, clubs =, and caps(goals) = or years1 =, clubs1 =, caps1 = and goals1 =? --Jaellee (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The gap was big. The article was starting with his first club at his age of 23. I am willing to work in searching for his career, but in at least 5 years missing career who knows how many clubs are missing. We found 2. Now, I wan´t be updating the guys career each time with the new format. I update it in a much easier way by the old infobox and convert it to the new one when we at least have his career nearly completed. We were still missing one club before his arrival to Germany (playerhistory source, it´s seen a flag from a different country than the ones we have), and we still have his career starting at 21. It´s not Owen we are talking here, and I see no harm in converting the infobox later, after at least making some improvements first. The format of years1, years2, is just not "workable" for a player missing around 5 years of early career. FkpCascais (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The template should ALWAYS be converted. It's not hard to change the number paramaters if/when new career details are found. Giant Snowman 20:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is basically what´s in question here: [5]. I transformed the numerical part of the years,clubs,caps(goals) into the old format so completing his early career would be much easier, and I changed the template name cause I wasn´t sure if it would work without changing it. FkpCascais (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, yes it is hard and bloody tedious, and this was of the shorter exemples, although we don´t know how many clubs can appear in at least still 3 or 4 years of his earlier career (Czech players, which is the case, often begin playing at 17, being many times loaned at begining, so it will be to expect some more clubs, plus the Macedonian one, which was not included by now cause we don´t know which is).FkpCascais (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that hard, and saying "I can't be arsed" is no excuse to devolve infoboxes. Giant Snowman 21:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

But, what is the problem of having it in non-numerical way in the meantime and converting later? We have houndreds of biographies done without numericals... Already other editors complained on this, I just can´t find the discussions (it was when the new infobox was donne, and at least another on this issue was donne later). I remember that I was told that I could perfectly use the old format until the careers were not at least near being completed, since it was no intention of WP in making things more difficult for editing. I would even go further and propose not using the numerical format for players that have very incomplete eartly careers. FkpCascais (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposing not using numericals in infobox for very incomplete careers

The question of this tread is not very fair to the debate itself. Obviously that the format currently in use is the one that should be used, but as Jeallee well said, the only issue is regarding the numericals in the Years,Clubs,Cats&Goals sections. I propose not using the numericals, and use the old sequencial method, for players with much early careers missing, and change it to numericals when we have at least much of it complete. Having numericals for a player who´s entire pre-23 years old career is missing has no logic. FkpCascais (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason the new infobox was brought in was for accessibility reasons, for people who use screen readers and the like - therefore we are supposed to use it! For some players, you may never be able to fully complete their career details, and saying "well we shouldn't use it until a player has a 100% complete career" is utter nonsense I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I specifically said, "much", not 100%. Please read the posts. What is nonsence is using it for these cases when we probably only have half of his career. FkpCascais (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK then - how do you determine if somebody's career is "near complete"? You don't actually know that this player didn't start his career at age 23, do you? Giant Snowman 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do, I found already at least 2 clubs, plus one unknown, so now seems a bit more complete. You obviously know that if you only have data since his 23 years, you are missing something. FkpCascais (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all, it's not unheard of AT ALL for players to start their careers later in life - Ian Wright began at 22, Roy Goulden at 22, Harry Gilberg at 24... Giant Snowman 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Not using a template that was specifically developed to increase accessibility is nonsense. Yes, it is somewhat of a pain to insert clubs if there was a knowledge gap, but your proposal to first use the other template as long as there is "much" info lacking is impractical. There is no clear cut-off point, therefore your proposed method would become the focal point of many a debate. And it's not as if there weren't enough discussions going on in this WP without adding yet another possible point of dispute because of the very rare case of having to add clubs earlier in a player's career. My 2 cents. Madcynic (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We still have old infoboxes in tousands all around, what difference would make to have one more for this rare cases of very incomplete careers. It would be preferable to incentivate editors to easily complete them first, and convert them later. I´m not saying to go back to the old infobox, I´m just saying in this rare cases. FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

But you cannot tell if a career is incomplete or not! Giant Snowman 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) From my experience I can tell you I´m 99% of time sure. Using this method of using the old infobox while completing careers and converting them later I have completed many of careers all around... FkpCascais (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument that it's difficult to convert them, either. I convert infoboxes all the time for players who are new to MLS (coming from Europe, or South America, for example), and it takes me 3-4 minutes at the most. I must have done a couple of hundred by now. JonBroxton (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not difficult per se, but is a boring task, error prone, and takes some time to perform. I've also converted lots of them and especially for those with many clubs in their career it takes some time to check if I made some mistakes during the conversion. A bot would be really helpful. --Jaellee (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jaellee for understanding. I think a year ago when we spoke of it, it wasn´t possible back then. FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote against the proposal. Infoboxes using the new template and the new coding work much better on an iphone web browser or an iphone app. Those using the old coding don't aline correctly. Brad78 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I´m talking about a minority of obscure players who´s careers have just recently have been apearing in websites more completed. I´m not campaining for using the old infobox instead, no need for panic. Í just support replacing the infobox while updating until we don´t complete it a bit more. If there is nothing to complete, the new infobox comes in power. Just for rare cases of clear incomplete careers... We have tousands of important biographies using old infoboxes, a few obscure players with incomplete careers wan´t miss it much for a couple of hours or a day or two. Goshhhh, forget it, nevermind! FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What happens when you insert gaps. Leave out years1 to 4 start with years5, then 7, and if complete 8,9,... does that leave gaps in the layout? -Koppapa (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You must use the "clubs1=" to initialise the heading, but missing others doesn't leave a gap IIRC. Years apps and goals for any set will not show unless there is a corresponding club parameter--ClubOranje^T 11:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For me the whole thing is a disincentive to correct errors, a fix that would have taken seconds on the old infobox can take 10 or 20 times as long in the new one. It is disappointing that the issue was repeatedly raised but no fix was done before the big roll out of the new template plus the fact that the cack handed naming and functions of the update parameters were never addressed despite suggested improvements. When I drop in occasionally to try and correct an error, I find that what used to be a simple task is now a mind numbing number substitution exercise that takes far longer than before. Surely we should be trying to make basic administrative tasks take up less time so that editors can focus more of their time and energy on content generation? Finally, the attitude that the (highly productive) editors who raise these issues are somehow lazy ("can't be arsed") and their concerns are "utter nonsense" is indicative of the unhealthy atmosphere around here these days. King of the North East 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My suggested improvement would be to allow the insertion of missing data on (eg) the second row of an infobox using 1.1 as a substitute: |years1.1= |clubs1.1= |caps1.1= |goals1.1 = & having a bot to convert 1.1 into 2 & doing the mindless number substitution bit on all of the subsequent rows. King of the North East 08:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Is this technically possible? --Jaellee (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur. The current infobox displays better than the old, but editing it is rather tedious and something like this would be welcome. Jogurney (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the frustration, but template syntax is an extremely simplistic programming language and like everything else on the encyclopedia we want regular users to be able to read and correct the code itself. This precludes it from automagically being able to handle this sort of thing. KotNE's request in particular simply cannot be handled in anything resembling an elegant manner and even the addition of one significant figure's worth of decimal points would lead to in excess of a 10x increase in code size. While adding new clubs prior to existing ones in an infobox is more complicated than it used to be, this was deemed to be an acceptable compromise in light of the numerous advantages that the new syntax afforded both readers and editors in general. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, which layout of infobox is correct? First: | years1 = | clubs1 = | goals1 = | caps1 = or another one:

| years1 =
| clubs1 =
| goals1 = 
| caps1  =

I use first version. It's more practical and popular. TheBiggestFootballFan (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Either's fine, it doesn't actually make any difference other than to amount of whitespace. Personally I find the first version easier to navigate, but each to their own! Giant Snowman 17:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jaellee, It would be technically possible to replace the "| years1 = | clubs1 = | goals1 = | caps1 =" series with "stat1={{stattemplate|years|apps|goals|club}}", then simply add in an earlier line and whizz down incrementing the statx= parameter. I vaguely recall something along these lines being suggested somewhere late in the ifb2 development... --ClubOranje^T 10:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The increase in code complexity, along with the need for editors to retain yet another syntax in their heads when dealing with varied articles, pretty much ruled this one out. As it is, it doesn't matter what order you put the attributes in, nor what whitespace you leave between them, so long as the numbers match up. That has proven to be broadly successful in the 28 months since I started hacking on the replacement for the old footybio template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Outdenting to reply to the original proposal: our priority should always be our readers. Readers may have difficulty with the old format. Players whose articles are missing large swathes of data are going to need a lot of time spent on their articles anyway, and another 5-10 minutes on the infobox is not a giant ask in the long run. I appreciate that our editors' time is precious as well, so we allow for the old format to be used if necessary, but we cannot approve of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Makes sence. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Association football goalkeepers who have scored

Is it just me that thinks that "....a goal" should be appended to this cat title? As it is, it sounds like it's for keepers who got lucky down China White's after a game....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the category should be changed to Category:Goalscoring goalkeepers in association football so as to match the existing List of goalscoring goalkeepers. King of the North East 08:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "goalscoring" even a word? I doubt you'd find it in any dictionaries. Big Dom 16:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

From Oxford English Dictionary: Eleventh Edition, Revised (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 609:

goalscorer n. a player who scores a goal.

DERIVATIVES - goalscoring adj. & n.

Ah, the benefits of being an English student! Giant Snowman 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Touché. Us chemistry students have no need for dictionaries. Big Dom 17:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Too busy trying to turn lead into gold, eh? Giant Snowman 19:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I said the same thing back here.--Echetus Xe 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a poor name, I was just trying to keep it short as practical. User:King of the North East's suggestion is fine by me, or Category:Association football goalscoring goalkeepers to match the several thousand others that start at Association football.--ClubOranje^T 23:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What about Category:Association football goalkeepers who have scored competitive goals, just to be specific here and rule out any misguided attempts to add in goalies who have taken penalties during their testimonials and the like? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Template date

What are the various date parameters in Template:Infobox football biography to reflect? Does it reflect the date the league page is updated or when the article was last updated? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the dates at the bottom should reflect the last time the stats were updated. For example, if he played his most recent club game on March 11, 2011, that's what it should say at the bottom of the infobox. JonBroxton (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that you typed in five tildes ~~~~~ which displays the exact date and time of the last update. Giant Snowman 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, but what does that date represent? If there are just five tildes there, then it will update the date everytime ANYTHING is done to the page - removing a comma or a spelling mistake - and doesn't give an accurate reflection of when the stats were last updated. Surely the fact that the message in the infobox says "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of XXX" indicates that the date should reflect the stats update date, not the page update date. JonBroxton (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, five tildes displays the date and time of that edit - but not subsequent ones. I mean, your four tilde signature doesn't change every time somebody edits this page, does it? Giant Snowman 19:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear in what I meant. You're saying that, every time you update a player page, you type five tildes in the infobox, right? Even if you haven't updated the stats? If that's the case, I'm saying I don't think that's the right thing to do - my point is that I think we should only update the date when the STATS are updated, not when we remove a comma from the prose or correct a typo or something, and that the date we use should be the date of the last game played. JonBroxton (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, maybe I wasn't clear in what I said either - I only use five tildes when I actually update the stats, not for every edit to a page. Giant Snowman 19:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The tidle is replaced by the template like this: 19:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)~ Documentation clearly states "A timestamp of the last time the player's infobox career statistics were updated" --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The only problem with using the auto-time/date option is if a stats page has not been updated with the latest result. I try and show a recent date when that team has played no game, so another editor can be clear up to what point the stats are correct. Eldumpo (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I update the current date usually. Many anonymus "forget" to change "pcupdate" and I don't want to waste time to search the last game's date. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

El Clásico (disambiguation)

Is this page really necessary since the term "clásico" is the Spanish (American) term for "derby", or should be list every "clásico" in this page (which is essentially everything from the Americas in the local derby article? Thanks. Digirami (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in two minds. Only Superclásico and El Clásico could reasonably claim to have popular usage in English, but that would complicate the hatnote at local derby quite a bit. I understand the reservation about assigning this kind of languagecruft its own page, but it's probably not worth the effort to try resolving it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

FOOTYN club notability

This section has been moved to WT:NSPORT#Association football clubs and Leagues. Please continue the discussion there so we might garner a consensus to include relevant criteria into the guideline.

Moved to WT:NSPORT#Association football clubs and Leagues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Our project-specific guideline, WP:FOOTYN, states that for a club to be assumed notable they must "have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists)". However, when it comes to minor English clubs many editors seem to disregard this, claiming that playing at Level 10 of the English football league system is enough to infer notability. A couple of recent AFD discussions (1, 2 and probably more) show that the guideline that was supposedly a result of consensus between the members of this project is considered meaningless. The reason for this is apparently that Level 10 clubs are eligible to play in the FA Cup, but that is not enough to establish notability according to NFOOTY. It's time to start following the rules we set out on that page, or get some consensus to change the wording of them and clear this up once and for all. Big Dom 16:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

An early but close variant to the club notability at FOOTYN was added by King of the North East (talk · contribs) back in April 2009 - my memory doesn't stretch that far so I'm not sure if that was the result of a discussion here or not. I'm no expert on club notability AT ALL so somebody who is (ChrisTheDude? Number57?) will be able to explain how/why we reached the Level 10 cut-off point. Giant Snowman 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A historical memoir: That page is an essay, more's the pity, not a guideline. The players section was discussed to death, in possibly the last serious policy discussion this project ever had, and unfortunately, when editors here assumed it'd actually mean something if used at AfD/DRv, the big people at WP:BIO told us to go away and play nicely amongst ourselves. You'll notice that the players section bears little relation to that at WP:NFOOTY, which is what counts. The clubs section which you've quoted from, was formulated one day by someone, agreed to by I think one other person, and boldly added. Many of the football editors at the time had lost so much motivation when the guideline they'd thrashed out at length, and which had got consensus, was summarily ignored, that nobody much cared. A consensus certainly used to exist, since before my time, that what is currently called level 10 (but wasn't always) confers notability, because it's the level at which clubs are eligible for national cups.

As to the actual wording of WP:FOOTYN#Club notability, you've misread it slightly. The first thing it says, is that "teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists)" are assumed notable. The second is that teams "that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria". It doesn't speak at all on teams that are eligible for national cups but haven't played in one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad calling it a guideline when I meant essay, but I didn't misread it at all. I saw that the second part about teams passing WP:N if ineligible for cups. The fact that there was nothing in place to deal with teams in the intermediate situation of being eligible but choosing not to play was what finally persuaded me that it needed bringing up here. Nobody can deny that if these clubs played in a different country outside the UK and hadn't played in the national cup their articles would not be kept, so I really think that we need to get something written down that can be followed and applied in future. Big Dom 17:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have read too much into your suggesting we should follow the rules as set out on that page despite their being indeterminate. I do agree that when consensus is reached on something, we should write it down, it'd save a lot of hot air being expended to no effect. Are you aware that club notability was raised recently at WT:NSPORT#Association football clubs and Leagues? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that it had been discussed there, I don't have that page on my watchlist. There isn't really anything there that expands on what we have though. Cheers, Big Dom 18:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One problem with the "eligible for the national cup" criteria is that everyone had best get very busy in order to cover every team that played in this year's Coupe de France. About 7,500 teams took part. Maybe a "one size fits all" solution is not viable? Are we making a guideline that works for english clubs but not ones from other countries? I'd like to see the argument when an team article is spared deletion because they once played in the first round of the 1987 Burundian Cup...
One other problem is the definition of "national cup". Some counties have many cups: in England there's the FA Cup, League Cup, FA Trophy, FA Vase, FA Interleague Cup. I would say that the FA Cup is the national cup, but others believe that entering the FA Vase denotes notability. Dom makes a good point about if it were not England. If there was a cup for level 9-11 clubs in another country (e.g. Egypt, Mongolia, Ecuador) would that give notability or are we being biased towards english teams?
Finally, the guideline seems to be missing info on the point at which a season article become notable. I assume it's the same level at which leagues become notable i.e. to the level that gives eligibility to enter the national cup. Delusion23 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Level 10 was agreed after extensive discussion on here a couple of years or so back. TerriersFan (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I could accept level 10 as a cut-off point for English clubs, but what about clubs in the other 200 or so countries? The "playing in a national cup" rule doesn't work – in France over 7,000 teams from as low as Level 14 are allowed to enter the Coupe de France, while only teams from the top 4 Italian leagues can enter the Coppa Italia. I found the discussion from almost 5 years ago when it appears that level 10 was agreed upon, specifically for English clubs. But much has changed in 5 years; there are many more WPF participants nowadays and most of the editors who discussed it there haven't been seen in years. Big Dom 19:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically any team can participate Estonian Cup also. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to do it on a country-by-country basis. For the United States, it's the top four levels (MLS, NASL, USL-Pro and PDL/NPSL) that are eligible for the cup each year, plus a handful of amateur teams which come through a complicated regional qualification process. We've pretty much come to the agreement that all clubs in the level 1-4 leagues are inherently notable, and then amateur teams are given articles as and when they make the final stages of the cup. JonBroxton (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

While a case-by-case basis is certainly a viable option, I'd like to make a few suggestions: For the entry into the domestic cup, we could use the number of teams that competed in a given round as an indicator of notability, for example: A team could be considered notable if it competed in the first round of the domestic cup in which 100 teams or fewer compete. Of course, this still has the Burundi problem brought up by Delusion23 and the multiple cup issue, but at least it would deal with cases like the Coup de France. The other option I had in mind was use league division in relation to the lowest fully-pro league in a country as an indicator, i.e. a team that has played three flights below the lowest fully pro league in a country, or in the top three flights if no fully pro league exists. Of course, this has some problems. For instance, I doubt that third division teams from Swaziland or Guam are particularly notable, but it might be a useful starting point. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts: 1. Eligibility for the national cup and an actual appearance in it are two separate things. The guideline - if it ever sees the light of day - should only be concerned with the latter, e.g. notability should be based on whether the club has played matches in the top national knockout competition. 2. If that would be the case we would obviously need a cut off point as cups with a massive number of entrants usually have a number of preliminary rounds before top level or second level clubs enter. Why wouldn't we take that as a rule and turn it into something like "a club is notable if it reached a stage in the national cup competition at which professional league/top flight teams enter"? I'm not sure which level in France is fully pro but I assume this would mean Round 5 or Round 7 in the current Coupe de France format; first round proper in the FA Cup, first round in the Croatian Cup, etc. 3. This rule would also render the "what is considered a cup?" issue irrelevant as basically if the competition is not entered by professional league teams then it simply does not contribute to the club's notability. Another criterion for determining what is a notable cup is if clubs can win spots in continental competitions through it. Timbouctou 01:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Matthias Cuntz

I'd have thought today would be the worst of all days to start an article about this player - no-one would be believe he's real. But he is. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

click here for a related video on YouTube.--Echetus Xe 15:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel sorry for this guy. His nickname is Wankaton, apparently. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011_March_31#File:1966Cuacpue.jpg

Check WP:NFCC. All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk^talk 19:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How do I join

I wish to join this group. However I don't know, can someone tell me how? Usasoccerftw3665 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's easy, just add your name to the Members list. Welcome to the project, Big Dom 20:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

A heads up on the semi-professionalism in Norway's second highest league. The league is further and further away from being professional, if anyone ever believed it was. See this. Geschichte (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Adeccoligaen is not listed at WP:FPL, so it's all good in the hood. Thanks for the info. Giant Snowman 19:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago national team

This series of edits has resulted in a number of players no longer being listed in the team line up. Does anyone know if this is valid? The page suffered some vandalism to just these players so I would revert to the old version... but I have a feeling that some of them don't play for the national team any more.

Any one?

Yaris678 (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a 'current squad' list which is sourced. Either a newer source needs to be found, or the players need to be restored. Giant Snowman 10:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the old version for now. If someone wants to update the thing the list I guess they can find a new source.

That said, the source cited was a dead link when I checked so if someone with a knowledge of football could look, that would be great. I only came across the page when searching for vandalism.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If I was you I'd follow the advice of WP:BRD - they were bold, you reverted, so now engage the IP editor in discussion. Regards, Giant Snowman 14:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But which IP editor? At first those players were vandalised, changing names to, for example, Peter Griffin. Several changes later they were no longer there at all. Yaris678 (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wanderers F.C.

Wanderers F.C. have reformed apparently, and will compete in the Surrey South Eastern Combination next season. Is this a continuation of the original team, or a new team with the same name? Giant Snowman 10:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

From their website: "The original Wanderers ran from 1859 until 1887, were founder members of the Football Association, five time winners of the FA Cup and helped promote the sport across the UK. In 2009, the club were reformed with the endorsement of the descendants of the founders to support the work of UNICEF UK." So not the original, but not brand new either. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way a club could claim to be a direct continuation of one that closed down over 120 years ago. The alleged endorsement by the descendants of the founders still doesn't make it anything other than a new club which has adopted the name of an old one IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. The new team won't be considered 'notable' I don't think so no need for a seperate article - but if they get a couple of promotions... Giant Snowman 14:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Gone, and back again

In 1934, Curaçao played its first FIFA international. They played regularly under that name for some years, before being subsumed into the Netherlands Antilles, in which it was the major partner, especially after Aruba left that confederation. A few months ago, however, the Netherlands antilles were dissolved, and Curaçao is back on FIFA's member's list in its place. FIFA plot a continuity of record, Curaçao - Neth Ant - Curaçao. So, do we just retain one Curaçao nft article, with Neth Ant as a redirect (my preference); do we have 3 nft articles, one named something like Curaçao national football team (1934-58); or do we have the Curaçao nft article as a stop/start article, with a 52 year hiatus in its history (as at present, but very incomplete). Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So it's basically one national team that has competed in three different spells under two names? I say keep the one article - that's what FIFA have, after all. Giant Snowman 18:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree also. I don't see any reason for us to differ from what FIFA does. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Iceland national under-14 football team

This article, Iceland national under-14 football team, seems to be the only one on an under-14 national team. Is there a rule against such articles? Should this one be deleted? Fences&Windows 23:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A team full of 12 & 13 year olds? Ha! Definitely not worthy, PROD it with my full support. Giant Snowman 23:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, I would wager a lot that User:Raggi2010 is Ragnar Hansson and User:Rikki9876 is Ríkharður Árnason. Delete all of this. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Definately not notable. PROD if not speedy delete. Delusion23 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just tagged 5 articles created by these two jokers for CSD. Giant Snowman 01:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Best to stop it now before it gets prolific. Good idea. Delusion23 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No comment. FkpCascais (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't speculate about the possible identities of editors who may be children and please don't insult them. We can deal with problematic articles without being mean and offensive. No wonder editors aren't joining Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 19:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Was that a serious comment or sarcastic??? and full support of me to delete this. Kukoo kids eyy. –LiamTaylor– 19:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fences&Windows is right and not sarcastic at all. After all, they acted in good-faith. FkpCascais (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that editnote: teams of kids are not notable. Perfectly true and succinct. No need to pussy foot around those who consider it OK to try to edit a project without making any effort to understand the principles underlying it, regardless of what age they are: with willingness to assume good faith, that still describes these contributors. If they are old enough to edit, they are old enough to be told when they do it badly. Kevin McE (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, trouth, that is why I shortened my comment, but hey, they did a better job on tha u-14 article than some editors around wp... :) The article looks nice, the infobox was good, the templates, "See also" section, categories... they just missed the sources. But, hey, we all had our share of patience with some kids editing footy articles. But jokes aside, yesterday I found another one: he started making the entire squad of 3th league FK Sloga Kraljevo club... He´s come until the nº9 by now. FkpCascais (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox issue

Quick question: is a made-up infobox preferred over one that currently exist? All recent season articles for Manchester City F.C. (like this one) use this awful monstrosity that doesn't do much that the existing doesn't do already. Trying to replace it with the infobox template has been met with resistance (along with other edits people don't like for no reason). Opinions needed. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, one already exists for a reason. It should be used in all season articles. Giant Snowman 01:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the above posts. I didn't think there was a preferred/agreed style for club season articles. The last I recall someone was asking for input a little while back, and myself and others left some comments (can't remember what page), and I haven't seen any further mentions at WP:Footy about an 'agreed' layout? I didn't see a problem with the Man City article myself. Eldumpo (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I know there isn't a set style (MOS) in place, but I think we can agree that using Template:Infobox football club season in these types of articles is a given. Why else would we have it? (FYI, that was me who asked for comments in the season article taskforce talkpage.) Digirami (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I said I was confused, and I see your query was solely regarding the infobox rather than the general article. Is your concern just that the information presented should be in the official Infobox or that some of the items listed are additional and should be removed? I don't see a problem with the Man City infobox, unless it's a matter of simply wanting to do an admin-type change to the infobox. BTW, did anything happen with the season article guideline? Eldumpo (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I always thought the point of infoboxes was to provide a consistent house style for Wikipedia articles of the same type, in which case all club season articles ought to be using Template:Infobox football club season. If there's anything in the Man City one that the standard one doesn't provide, maybe the Man City editors could propose amendments to the standard one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No doubt Digirami will next be insisting we all use the "footballbox" template because that one already exists for a reason too, despite the fact that the "footballbox collapsible" is a much superior template. If the current "football infobox" template was any good I would be using it. No doubt it was considered "state of the art" when it was first created. Unfortunately it has now exceeded its shelf life in a similar manner that "footballbox" has. Perhaps the real solution here would be to develop a much better template to replace it with so that ALL club articles would benefit from it, rather than insist that all club articles be reduced to a more mediocre level based on some arbitrary agreement that no one appears to have been party to. Personally, I prefer soaring with eagles rather than running with turkeys. Thanks for your voice of reason Eldumpo. You are entirely correct with what you wrote. And I obviously quite agree with your suggestion, Struway2. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 18:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

MLITH - stay civil, I'd advise you to strike some of what you have just written. Giant Snowman 19:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Way to not personalize this issue. If you were familiar with some general project policies, you would know that the project strives for a level of consistency across the board. While there isn't a set MOS of club season articles in place (there will be soon), it's obvious that the Manchester City season articles don't use the appropriate infobox for the article. As a previous user said, we have it for a reason. Furthermore, don't you think you should have proposed changes to the existing infobox before creating your own version? Hell, you can do those changes yourself if you deem it very necessary. The point is we have this infobox for a purpose: to be used in club season articles. The Man City articles should be using them. (Oh, and no, I would not insist on replacing Template:Footballbox for Template:Footballbox collapsible. They have their distinct uses, and it is irrelevant to this issue. Do not ever assume what I will do or not do ever again.) Digirami (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What would have been the point, Digigram? People such as yourself would have just nixed my suggestions. You seem to think that Infobox is perfectly adequate even having seen an alternative. I'm all for consistency across the Wikipedia articles, but by elevating things up to the best level, NOT by dragging everything down to the lowest common denominator. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You say Digirami would have pooh-poohed any suggestions you make, but how do you know unless you suggest them? You keep assuming people's future actions will have negative consequences against you without even testing those assumptions. Furthermore, we have the infobox template so that if any changes need to be made to the standard, we can simply change them in one place rather than having to change them in potentially thousands of articles. So propose your changes at Template talk:Infobox football club season and we will discuss them. – Pee Jay 00:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I saw the really poor quality of his recent edits to the MCFC season article, that's why. Let's try it this way Pee Jay. You've been to the City season articles often enough in order to revert those logos so you must be familiar by now with the content of the MCFC Infobox. Would you approve support of all those fields in the new standard template that is coming down the pike (if I understand earlier comments correctly)? Such a template should allow for everything to be captured so that editors of particular club articles can choose the subsets of the parameters they need / can handle (because you can't expect all editors to come up with the same info. for each club, due to either choice or availability of the data). Making a template only handle the parameters that are most frequently used across all clubs doesn't really achieve anything, does it? It simply has the effect of reducing everything to a common minimum as I claim.

Horses designed by committees tend to come out looking like llamas. I'm not going to waste my time helping to produce a llama. What a good template should do is display all parameters that are entered in the same order and style, not dictate that only these four parameters can ever be used. That's what is wrong with the current template, plus its format is poor. A four year old could have designed a better template. You can achieve consistency without making everything drab and mediocre. Case in point, the MCFC Infobox uses a standard Infobox template ... just not a soccer one. Which says that that template is correctly designed because it standardizes the input without restricting it. The current soccer Infobox is just a restriction on that one - preventing much of what the basic template allows. How on earth is that a good thing? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

With editors adding new season articles at random all the time, I think we need to pin down some guidelines (and preferrably a MOS that we strive for) which can be applied across the board. The sensible solution in regards to infoboxes is to use the pre-existing one rather than new concoctions. 03 md 00:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Poor quality? Right... Because it was so much better before (people can judge the before and after for themselves). But again, you're making me and others digress from the topic at hand. Your last paragraph sounds like you think consensus is a bad idea. If that's the case, that opinion isn't going to get you far within Wikipedia, let alone this project. It also seems you have no idea what to expect from an infobox. By your standards, Template:Infobox football club season is a good template becaus eall the parameters are entered in the same order and style. But, it's also a bad one since it dictates which "four" parameters to use. MCFC season articles doesn't use a proper infobox. It should. And it doesn't restrict anything. Again, if you think something could be added, you know where to take it. Digirami (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

about user:118.96.20.141 editing

I am Japanese. I do not speak English. Please excuse the bad English, which was passed through Google and checked with my limited English skills.

I want you to confirm it. Is 118.96.20.141 editing a fact? I saw the contributions. About Japanese football, most editing is inaccurate editing. Specifically,

And, does EL SAVADOR F.C. exist? I think that EL SAVADOR F.C. is fake article.

I do not know other players which 118.96.20.141 edited. I can not confirm it. I want you to confirm it. --Nameless User (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This will show you what articles the IP has edited, and EL SALVADOR F.C. is indeed fake, it has been PRODded. Regards, Giant Snowman 16:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Kits in club infoboxes

Having seen a general disregard for this project's consensus regarding levels of detail in images of club kits creeping into various articles (e.g. Manchester City F.C.), isn't it about time we simply used images of the kits similar to those used by the American sports projects (see Minnesota Vikings, New York Yankees and Toronto Maple Leafs)? – Pee Jay 16:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has been that we shouldn't have intricate details - no need to change consensus just because a few editors have been uploading new designs. They were bold, you should revert and then discuss. Giant Snowman 16:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Football in the United States

The usage of Football in the United States is under discussion, see Talk:Football in the United States

65.93.12.101 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

David Luiz

Don't know if this is sheer vandalism or people who do not have their data right but, either way, this player is not a right-back (as "explained" in INTRO), stop adding it!! Just notifying the "force" i will remove it time and time again, it is wrong information, period.

Second time i add this discussion here, the first time it received, as habitual, almost ZERO feedback. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Taken care by User:Joao10Siamun, who went through the trouble of finding the refs, as should i :( sorry for my outburst. But he is not a RB, even though a user offers a "debatable" approach in the article's talk: "he played 25 minutes against Fulham in that position, it qualifies", never heard that one...

Anyhoo, it seems it's solved, thanks JOAO, everybody keep it up! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

CAF Champions League

A certain user, who has a history of "imposing his style" on articles, has changed the results table in the CAF Champions League article. Previously, each final was listed in one line, and it was a lot easier to look at the table. However, he has now gone and expanded each final in the table, and included lines for the aggregate score, 1st leg, 2nd leg and final result. What do you guys think of this? Is this the proper way to list things or should it be reverted? I'd appreciate some feedback. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Website needed

We are missing a website for current season for Serbian SuperLiga. We have one website at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links which couvers the SuperLiga, Second and Third leagues records which is Srbijafudbal but it only updates stats each half-season (6 months). In the meanwhile we have been using Transfermarkt as current season source. I would like to ask permition to start using utakmica.rs. I contacted the website administrator and they keep updated all stats regarding the current season, and they do it using the official FSS data. The two websites (Srbijafudbal and Utakmica) would work complementarily, because the first has the last decade record for all players of major leagues, while the second has all top league data updated round by round. The website is in Serbian but is easily navigable with all data easily avaliable. FkpCascais (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If nobody oposes I will add tomorow the website at the list. FkpCascais (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2020

This article appears to have been recreated by an editor who doesn't seem to have realised that it was already deleted via an AfD discussion. I tagged the article for deletion under speedy deletion criterion G4, but an admin keeps declining to delete it because the content isn't identical as the previous iteration. However, surely that is irrelevant if the reasons for deletion that were raised at the AfD discussion are still applicable. Could an admin PLEASE delete the article so that we don't have to go through a pointless AfD again? – Pee Jay 22:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Some intentions to bid are cited: I've just moved it to UEFA Euro 2020 bids, paralleling its preceeding edition. Kevin McE (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bwood1957

This user appears to have gone through a whole host of Football League and Premier League season articles, changing the "Notes" column so that it reflects how far each team went in European competition the following season. That column is supposed to indicate which round each team entered their respective European competitions. Could someone help with the laborious task of reverting this mass of incorrect edits? (N.B. this user has also made some extremely useful edits, so please don't be over-zealous and revert all his edits, just the wrong ones) – Pee Jay 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

May be a good idea to leave a message on their talk page to let them know. Delusion23 (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Wummer71

I should like to make project members aware of this user. Though he occasionally lapses into vandalism, he is an enthusiastic editor of football pages who is making some very poor edits combined with some that are useful. Football is not my prime interest on here, so I am unable to monitor all his edits, but members of this project may be able to help. TerriersFan (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Woah. I've nominated a category he created for deletion, a template for CSD, and an article of his into a redirect, as well as reverting other edits such as addition of unreferenced information about BLPs. I'll continue to keep an eye. Giant Snowman 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC):Wow , thanks! Most of my edits have been vandalism LOl! Wummer71 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Icelandic U 14 players again

Some players from this team were recently deleted but have been rewritten. Ragnar Hansson, Jón Gunnar Hafsteinsson and Ríkharður Árnason. Plus the team article still exists as Speedy delete was declined by admin. What's the best way to get rid of these articles and make sure they don't keep on being recreated without having to wait the 7 days for PROD and give them another few days in the limelight? Delusion23 (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In the case of those articles that were deleted but have been recreated, go for a speedy delete again for the same reasons. An admin will understand and would delete it again. As for the team article, I don't know. Giving a more substantial argument then just "not notable" might help. Digirami (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

All three put up for CSD, again. Ridiculous. Giant Snowman 16:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Will SALT if recreated again. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, I had already requested SALTing at ANI before I saw this. Regards, Giant Snowman 18:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Should season competition articles link to season club articles?

I was thinking, with a season competition article, like 2005–06 Premier League, shouldn't the links to Liverpool point, not to the main club article, but to the season article, i.e. 2005–06 Liverpool F.C. season? That seems to contextualise the season better, and makes the season articles more whole, and neatly connected. Alternatively you could have the link to the season articles next to the club article, in brackets, or with an icon. Obviously where there is no season article, you just link to the club. Thoughts? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with a small link, perhaps at the end of the table in an extra small column on the end. Though a problem arises if there is no article available for that season. Below level 1 there are a significant lack of season articles (particularly the further you go back in time) and it seems to be very unusual to have any season articles below level 5. I'm not sure what level a team must be at in order to have a season article, though Gateshead have one here from when they were in the NPL, though it seems to be a very thorough article. Delusion23 (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If season articles are to be linked, then either ALL clubs should have such an article OR the links should go to the respective main articles. In other words: While the practice would definitely work for Premier League seasons, it would be bogus to apply it to other leagues as well. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't have a mixed economy. Look at List of Liverpool F.C. seasons for example: the links go to "...in English football" for seasons where there is no article. As seasons are added it's easy to change. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's because season articles like this will have 44 links to 1994–95 in English football. As will all Southern League and Isthmian League season articles. Any league from Championship to Conference North/South will have as much as 20 or so links to the same article, especially in seasons prior to the last 5 years . I've not even started with foreign teams that have less info on the English wikipedia. The available team season articles for the particlular season you are looking at are contained in the template at the bottom of the article anyway e.g. Template:2010–11 in English football Delusion23 (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me. In a seasons list, you'd link to a national season where there isn't a club season article; in a competition season, where the club's season doesn't have an article. you just link to a club. I just use that example to show that it's possible to have a mixture of links. So:

April 7, 1990

19:45

Liverpool	2–0	Coventry City
Beardsley 17' Barnes 68'

Anfield, Liverpool

Attendance: 39,625

....seems fine to me. I know the templates are there, but my reasoning is this: where there is a Liverpool F.C. season 1989–90 article, that is more relevant to the Liverpool links in 1989-90 in English football than the main Liverpool article; it's that season's team that the article refers to. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Football biography using deprecated parameters

Nearly 50,000 articles - wonderful. It's gonna be a looooong summer. Giant Snowman 13:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no football to distract us this summer, so we should be able to get it done by the time the new season starts. Swaddon1903 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sweet... I updated one while expanding an AfD nomination so it's a start! Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

One down, 49,708 to go... Swaddon1903 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... with that many articles populating the category, and the task to be done seeming to resemble a simple replacement/removal (according to the category description) – how about a bot request? Even if there is no meaningful football apart from the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup this summer, the time spent on this task could probably be used better elsewhere... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A bot would be fine to replace caps(goals)1 with caps1 goals1, but I think it would be much, much harder for older infoboxes that still use the linebreak system. Giant Snowman 22:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way is to just start editing within your area of interest and expand from there once from there. For example, since I like Ecuadorian football, I'll start with the Ecuadorian footballers and then move on to let's say Colombian footballers or Argentine footballers. If we do that, I think we can make a sizable dent within a couple months. Now the trick is to get other people on board. Digirami (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's harder, but it's still well within the capabilities of a well-written bot (or an average CS undergraduate's homework). Far better to do it once and be done with it than be stuck with this for another X years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 06:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Middlesbrough and Ironopolis F.C.

This club, which never actually played a match as far as I can tell, surely doesn't merit its own article. However, which of the two "parent" clubs should it be merged to......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Both, perhaps. It's not mentioned in the whole 2 lines of Middlesbrough Ironopolis F.C.#History, so certainly ought to go in there. It's not mentioned in the main Middlesbrough F.C. article, but is covered in History of Middlesbrough F.C., so maybe the extra bit of detail could go there as well? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned in both, but to which should it be redirected was what I was driving at........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, never considered you might need a redirect after a merge... Ironopolis, probably. If people are searching for the would-be amalgamated club, they might be more interested in obscure bits of history. And in Middlesbrough Ironopolis F.C.#History, include a See also hatnote to History of Middlesbrough F.C. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

NT appearances in certain tournaments

I was editing a coupple of players that played in the 2011 African Nations Championship. It is basically a tournament with African national teams formed by domestic league players. Does appereances in this Championship count as full A national team appereances? FkpCascais (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It would appear not: the definitive listing of whether a match is an A international is the fixtures and results section for each team at FIFA.com, and Tunisia have no games listed there between mid-November and last week (Tournament was in Feb, and Tunisia won it). However, I believe that any match that both countries want listed as A fixtures can become such, so it might be that some of the games are considered full internationals. Kevin McE (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I´m not sure if I understand your last sentence, you mean that it depends on individual countries to consider them, or not, full A appereances, meaning if both countries agree the fixture between them to count as A team match, then it counts? FkpCascais (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe so. I'm certainly aware of some friendly tournaments in which some matches were A internationals, and others were not, although both teams were full FIFA members (eg this in Feb 2008: most matches at the CONCACAF Gold Cup are listed as full internationals, but those including Guadaloupe cannot be. I'm sure they cannot declare, for example, a WC qualifier not to be a full international, but if the Fooland FA and the Templatonian FA both tell FIFA that they have a forthcoming fixture that they wish to be listed as a full A international, even if it is within the structure of a tournament in which not all matches are of that status, I don't believe that FIFA would refuse the designation (presumably some criteria, eg rating of referee, must be met). Listing a fixture at FIFA.com is probative: absence from FIFA.com of another fixture in the same tournament is not. Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we have enough confidence in how well FIFA keep their website up to date, such that we can be happy that a listing (or not) on their site confirms the status of a match? I would've thought there are more official means as to whether or not a match is a full "A international"? Eldumpo (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think FIFA defines FIFA A international. Lots of other sites will talk about international matches, but will they make it clear whether it is a full A international or not? I suspect they will not do so consistently. What is effectively a second string might play in a match, but it can still be rated as a full international eg England vs Ghana last week), what is in essence a full strength side might play in a game that is not a full international (as often happens pre-major tournaments), the definitive list is maintained by FIFA, they are the highest authority in international football. Do you have evidence of that site as unreliable?. Kevin McE (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the point, who better than FIFA.com to know which are FIFA A internationals. I think Eldumpo didn´t meant that the site was unreliable, but rather if they keep all those data, including minor and less known tournaments and friendlies, updated? FkpCascais (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my point was not so much that I would doubt that a listed international at FIFA is not official, but that they may not be listing all 'official' matches, whether because not updated or because they have not covered a particular competition/era. However, having now looked at the match centre quickly at FIFA (just Wales results) it does appear to be quite comprehensive/up to date. However the following disclaimer is listed at the bottom of the results page:

FIFA's information does not stem solely from official information from the associations or confederations, but also from third parties (media, private individuals). FIFA can therefore not vouch for the accuracy of the data in every case (especially regarding friendly matches). However we make it our duty to constantly verify unofficial data.
Mail us your input regarding past competitions and upcoming matches to updates@fifa.org

It is clear therefore that FIFA do not believe their records to be 100% definitive and we need to take care about assuming a match is not a full international just because it is not listed on the FIFA site. Eldumpo (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so resumingly we know that the fixtures that appear at FIFA.com do count, now, about the others we need to search around. FkpCascais (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done a lot work on Wikipedia related to the 2011 African Championship of Nations and I am quite certain they are not considered as full internationals. In terms of listing the stats, for the Algerian players involved for example, I've listed their stats with the local team (known as the A' team) under Algeria A' in their inofbox, and the team even has its own article at Algeria A' national football team. TonyStarks (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fifa statutes[6] define A Internationals; "An international “A” match is a match arranged between two Members of FIFA and for which both Members field their first representative team." While it is arguable which players may constitute a country's "first representative team", the African Nations Championship is only open to players playing in their local domestic league, therefore they generally cannot be considered full "A" Internationals as it is not open to all players eligible for the national side.--ClubOranje^T 09:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's clear than the CHAN tournaments are not FIFA A internationals. Jogurney (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, many thanks, that part regarding the tournament seems to have been solved now. Just one question, isn´t the naming Algeria A' national football team missleading then because of the "A"? FkpCascais (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Its A' (A-Prime) and that's how its always been referred to as in the Algerian media since the team began play in 2009. Some have called it a B-team but I think a B-team is a second string A national team, like you see sometimes with England and France.TonyStarks (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That definition scarcely seems tenable: The England-Ghana match last week was an A international, but no observer would consider that to have been the England first XI: group matches in World Cup tournaments, once progress has been secured, and WC 3rd plce play off matches wouldn't be A internationals by tat definition, and besides, it is far too subjective to be definitive. Kevin McE (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No Kevin, sorry if I wasn´t clear, but I didn´t meant that, but rather what Tony said. I was meaning that the A with prime sign could possibly be missinterpreted by many readers that are not familirised with the meaning of it, and think that it´s about the A team. I think many people may not know the meaning of that A prime and may be more familiarised with the naming B team for exemple... FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A club season MOS: the next step

Well, I finally made one!

Yes, after some recent discussions, I decided to fasttrack whatever results from a recent discussion on the matter to a draft MOS in one of my sandboxes. Here it is. Like I said, this is a draft, but I think I covered all the bases for now. Either way, feel free to provide input in the talk page; do not edit my sandbox please. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the existence of this has just been brought to my attention, did anyone know that a club season MOS had existed since 2007? Certainly makes all the trouble the project has gone through in relation to the topic sort of fruitless. Digirami (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ian Walker (footballer)#Career_statistics

Could someone with a wee bit more time than myself change the division names to the ones the clubs were actually in at the time, as opposed to the equivalent current names which weren't coined until up to 10 or more years later.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

User:Roslagen continues to engage in page moves without ONE explaining word in the summary. I bring it to your attention because it's about football articles and because the last one striked me as "wronger" than the bulk of it...

There are five (not one, not two, FIVE) Vidigal brothers, all footballers. All contained the word Vidigal in article, as it should. Mr.Roslagen has taken upon myself to move José Carlos (aka Lito)' page to Lito (footballer born 1969). I think it's dead wrong, even though Lito is a nickname, it should at least be named "Lito Vidigal", or "José Carlos Vidigal", lest the relation between him and the other four is "lost for all eternity".

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Lito is his common name (WP:COMMONAME) but, because there are other Lito´s, seems that would be preferable to be named by his second common name (Lito Vidigal) which is actually also widely used, over the Lito plus a disambiguational factor in parentesis. We can notece that actually his article in the Portuguese website zerozero.com also uses Lito Vidigal, and Playerhistory as well Lito Vidigal. I kind of disagree with you that by not having a family surname in the title of the article the family relation would be "lost for all eternity" because the info is obviously included in the article, but I suport that the article returns to Lito Vidigal because of the naming disambiguation option being more correct. FkpCascais (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. While parentheses should be avoided if there is a commonly-used name for the subject which does not use them, we're under no obligation to name different members of the same family using the same convention. If notable players have notable brothers then the place to include that information is in their articles, not in the titles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. I've moved back to Lito Vidigal. — Satori Son 19:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

2012 CAF Men's Pre-Olympic Tournament

For anyone that works on African football .. in the article, it says "The 16 winners from the first round will be drawn into 4 groups of 4. The best three placed winners of each group will advance to the Olympic Games while the fourth winner will play a play-off with AFC team for a last spot." Can someone confirm this? I haven't been able find any information to confirm this and I believe there will be another round of home/away before an 8-team tournament will be held. Thanks.TonyStarks (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Preliminary Round: home & away, 14 teams, winners advance to next round. Dates: 8-10 October and 17-19 December 2010; First Round: home & away, 32 teams (7 winners + 25 higher ranked teams), winners advance to next round: Dates: 25-27 March and 08-10 April 2011; Second Round: home & away, 16 teams, winners advance to next round. Dates: 3-5 June and 17-19 June 2011; Final Tournament: in a country of one of the qualified teams. 2 groups with 4 teams, dates provisionally set as 2-18 December 2011. The top three teams will represent CAF at the OFTs in London 2012.

Play-off: The 4th-placed team will contest the play-off match with the Asian Team."

http://www.fifa.com/mensolympic/qualifiers/index.html TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming! TonyStarks (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Football songs and chants

Apparently this cat is for Articles about various football codes songs, chants and anthems - is there any compelling reason for multiple codes of football to be in the same cat? We don't categorise players or clubs from multiple codes together........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be a parent category for Category:Association football songs and chants, Category:American football songs and chants, etc. Giant Snowman 15:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh good, it's started already........

Despite still having five games to play in the Conference National, Crawley already "compete in Football League Two" apparently.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And so it begins. Well done to Crawley though. I am salivating at the prospect of my club playing there next season... Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is especially interested in cleaning up news content, Special:Contributions/Wummer71 (the account responsible for the above edit) is probably worth a look. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Check his talkpage for the amount of warnings/deleted articles this guy has had in such a short period of time... Giant Snowman 01:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors who dive right in are likely to hit walls of some sort. I prefer to help them rather than templatespam them off the project. You L3ed this user for an apparently innocuous edit to an image tag the other day. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Incremental warnings for a substained period of disruptive editing (notice the block a few days earlier) - the L3 warning wasn't just for that edit, it was for a number that day. Don't forget, the editor himself has admitted that "Most of my edits have been vandalism LOl!" However, I don't want to be appear to be biting the newbie, hence why I've already offered help. Giant Snowman 01:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Transfer window article titles

Apropos of this, we need to have a discussion of how to fix the titling of these articles. It is plainly nonsense to label extra-window activities as being part of the following summer's window, most obviously in the above case where we have an article containing a variety of supposedly done deals for a window which isn't even open yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 06:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We also need some consistency in the articles. The transfer window was brought in at the end of the 90s, so currently we are missing articles for several years. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 are single lists, when there is enough information for separate summer and winter lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.96.82 (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec. I unfortunatelly didn´t came in time to comment on that discussion, but I just think something rather different. The tranfers listed there (mostly loans happening in February and March) are actually transfers affecting the second part of the 2010-11 season. By that, what I mean is that those transfers should be added to the winter transfer window. The transfers are named after what they affect, and these clearly affect this season, not next summer. The next summer transfer window is about the transfers that will affect the first half of the 2011-12 season, thus nothing to do with this ones. FkpCascais (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite right either. March is not a winter month just because it happens to be closer to February than it is to June. The winter transfer window is quite explicitly slammed shut at the end of January and the summer one remains firmly so until the last day of the season (adjust as appropriate for your particular league / federation). Transfers outwith those periods are by definition part of neither. It may be that we need a total of four articles for each season's transfers. Frankly I have my doubts as to whether this is a useful purpose for a project which purports not to be a football magazine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope two transfer lists per year are quite enough, and I know that these transfers are not technically winter ones because the winter transfer was closed, but as way to facilitate, I allways have been adding them to the winter transfer list, not just because of being closer, but because I considered them affecting the second part of the league (January-July) and because they may move further in summer. The rule (at least for cases I know) says that transfer window is opened from X December til X February, but clubs can sign free players even after the window closes. By that, in my view, all transfers donne before the opening of the next transfer window actually belong (or, are complementary) of the previous one.

Exemple: A player is loaned to club X in April and plays for that club until the end of the season; when season ends, he returns to his club of origin and is further loaned to another club Y where he´ll play the start of the next season. Now, by my logic, the first loan in April to club X should be added to the last winter transfer list, and the loan to club Y is the one going into summer list. It´s rather listed by what part of season affects, rather then by month proximity... If we added to summer tranfer list the loan to club X will be talking about past... not sure if all this sounds as clear as I wanted... FkpCascais (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with FkpCascais; the current practice of putting transfers from February, March, April in the list of summer transfers is completely illogical. The summer transfer window represents the beginning of a new season so it seems incongruous to include transfers from the previous campaign. BigDom (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BigDom. That was exactly what I meant. FkpCascais (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

v t e Spanish autonomous community football teams
Men's	Andalusia Aragon Asturias Balearic Islands Menorca Basque Country Biscay Gipuzkoa Canary Islands Cantabria Castile-La Mancha Castile and León Catalonia Ceuta Extremadura Galicia La Rioja Madrid Melilla Murcia Navarre Valencian Community
Women's	Asturias Balearic Islands Basque Country Cantabria Catalonia Galicia Navarre
Spanish stage of the UEFA Regions' Cup