Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 83
 | 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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
Background color or bolding specific team in table
Hi. As you have been informed earlier there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Displaying a part of the table and we are so close to the end. This to have a single template that can be used on many articles instead of updating all articles individually (the season article tables soon gets outdated on some articles).
Now we discuss at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Highlighting or bolding the final visual part of the table and it would be great with some opinions from footy, and some consensus how it should look when displaying for a specified team.
The discussion is about to decide if we should use
- Background color
- Bolding
- Background color and bolding
- Separate the right qualification column
- Nothing
to show the team in question when we display part of the table for a specified team. The fourth alternative (could be combined with the other alternatives) will mean that the big table with all teams will also have separate rows (not looking as good) but then we can highlight that entire row (and not the block in the "qualification/relegation" column.
The result as it is now can be seen at User:Spudgfsh/sandbox and the template edited so far is Template:2013–14 Premier League table/sandbox. The table we based the template on can be seen at 2013–14 Premier League#League table
Feel free to add other opinions as well if you have any, you can respond here or at Village Pump.QED237 (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bolding only Personally I don't like the gold background colour, because to me gold signifies the team are champions. should be the default background colour (Green for promotion/European qualification, Red for relegation), but I do like the team name and position number being bold. VanguardScot 11:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- The gold color could always be changed if it is the color you are against. I have heard bolding being removed on some articles and it could cause some kind of problem depending on settings for the reader, but I have never seen problem with it. Your "vote" is noted. QED237 (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't read the whole discussion, but WP:ACCESS specifically forbids using colour only to identify list items meeting a particular criterion, because some people cannot see it or cannot see it correctly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with ChrisTheDude, keep in mind the MoS. I personally don't like the gold colour and also think it should be the default background colours as it is currently. JMHamo (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I did not read the whole MoS but I have checked the colors before and they meet the contrast requirements. Did not however see the line were it says "Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method", so I guess we should not have only the background color then? Except for the qualification and relegation that has text also on the right. Butshould we have bolding or perhaps both together is okay? Or should we use nothing? QED237 (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bolding makes perfect sense. Colouring the row isn't really an option for me, especially since colouring the row implies qualification for another competition. – PeeJay 12:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Currently testing the bold only.QED237 (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay now it is bolding only on User:Spudgfsh/sandbox. Anything else or should I go ahead and insert this on all articles? Should we expand this to use on more leagues as well as spanish league, german league and so on? At least the spansih league has a table that looks exactly as the one on Premier League? Or should we see that everything works fine first and editor have no problems updating the table? QED237 (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Currently testing the bold only.QED237 (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bolding makes perfect sense. Colouring the row isn't really an option for me, especially since colouring the row implies qualification for another competition. – PeeJay 12:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I did not read the whole MoS but I have checked the colors before and they meet the contrast requirements. Did not however see the line were it says "Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method", so I guess we should not have only the background color then? Except for the qualification and relegation that has text also on the right. Butshould we have bolding or perhaps both together is okay? Or should we use nothing? QED237 (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with ChrisTheDude, keep in mind the MoS. I personally don't like the gold colour and also think it should be the default background colours as it is currently. JMHamo (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Screen readers don't read bolding, either: see MOS:ACCESS#Text. But as I understand it, these tables are for use on club season articles? so no information is actually being lost by the absence of screen-readable highlighting. The row still contains the name of the club whose season is the subject of the article, even though it isn't as instantly "visible" to the screen-reader user as a bolded row would be to the sighted user. What would help is using row and column scopes, as at MOS:ACCESS#Data tables, which make it easier for the screen-reader user to navigate a table. In this case, the club name cell would be identified as the row header. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just had a look and yes it's much better without the gold background colour IMO. As PeeJay says, a background colour signifies qualification for another tournament, relegation, promotion, playoffs etc. Cheers, VanguardScot 13:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):You are completely right, these tables are for use on season articles and unless the team is on top of the table or in the bottom, the team will always be in the middle of the table and no information is lost if you cant see the bolding. The scope part I have no idea about in this case since the table are build on templates and I dont think that is possible. Thanks for the info though! QED237 (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably the underlying template(s) generate table markup, so they'd just need changing to generate the row and column scopes as well. It'd be a positive move towards increased accessibility, which wasn't really a consideration when most of these things were designed in the first place. Certainly worth doing, but maybe not worth rushing just for a small table with restricted and specific proposed use, as here. For information, use of row and column scopes in tables has for some time been a requirement at WP:FLC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):You are completely right, these tables are for use on season articles and unless the team is on top of the table or in the bottom, the team will always be in the middle of the table and no information is lost if you cant see the bolding. The scope part I have no idea about in this case since the table are build on templates and I dont think that is possible. Thanks for the info though! QED237 (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
As I can see it the discussion resulted in the use of bolding, since WP:ACCESS forbids using color to identify list item and also many would like bolding anyway since we should always show the relegation and qualification color and not hide it with our yellow/gold.
About the scope part I have no idea how to do that and since it requires edit to the template(s) inside the template I will not dig in to that, but if anyone is interested feel free to do it. I have done enough with this template.
If no one has something to add I will insert the sandbox we worked on to the template later tonight or tomorrow before the matches and see how it works tomorrow when matches are played.
About the future I hope to copy this template and change teams to make the same for other leagues such as La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A and so on if no one opposes? It would be for the best to have centrally updated templates instead of updating on every single article. QED237 (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I really like the idea of a template for a small section of the table, it saves lots of time and means we dont need the full table. Good job! VanguardScot 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Update
The current season templates {{2013–14 Premier League table}}, {{2013–14 Football League Championship table}}, {{2013–14 Football League One table}} and {{2013–14 Football League Two table}} have all been updated to use this new format. I've also been through all of the league/club season articles to ensure that they are all using the correct templates. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Brazilian (etc.) footballer names
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but it would be nice to have some guidance on the subject codified, if only in the WikiProject's own recommendations. For Brazilian footballers, and similar people who are known mononymously or by nicknames, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME would seem to strongly support titling articles by those nicknames. There are cases of such biographies titled by the subjects' full birth names, which are wholly unrecognizable. The only argument I can see for these full names is WP:NATURAL, especially where the nickname isn't unique, but WP:MIDDLES advises against "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person)," and the same would appear to apply to given names and surnames that aren't commonly used.
In the wild, so to speak, there are a mix of these common names and birth names. Has the project ever ruled on this issue? Would an RfC be fruitful? --BDD (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Due to the number of players who share a nickname, I think we should use full names in all but the rarest of occasions i.e. Ronaldo or Ronaldinho, which are clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 11:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- But as BDD points out, very few of these players are known by their full names, so WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME should apply. This is what we have disambiguators for. – PeeJay 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, and also the players are very hard to find in categories if they're under their real name, particularly when their nickname isn't in their real name. We did reach consensus on this a while back, and most players' articles are by common name, but there are so many that there are inevitably a few lagging behind. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- But how would you disambiguate between them, given the large number of players who share nicknames? GiantSnowman 21:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- You could put their real name in brackets if the usual "footballer born..." isn't enough. If their nickname is their firstname than the fullname can be used, as long as it's sorted properly. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that is one of the most ridiculous suggestions I've ever come across. GiantSnowman 22:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why? Do you think people should have to know the players' full names to find their article? The system described is already in place now, and works fine (putting the full name in brackets would only be needed in rare cases, and I've not seen it needed yet). If you're going to be rude, can you think of a better solution that doesn't massively hinder the reader? Most people won't know Branco's real name, or Rafinha's, not to mention the 1000s of less well known players. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think people should have to know the players' year of birth to find their article? Are you really suggesting we have articles at locations such as Robert (Robert Silva Rodriguez) and Robert (Robert Miguel Nunes)? in my made-up examples, both players have the same position and the same year of birth. GiantSnowman 22:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- But you won't need to know their date of birth to find them in a category, because they'll be shown by their common name. When I said "If their nickname is their firstname than the fullname can be used, as long as it's sorted properly.", I meant that it could be used on its own, so in your two examples Robert Silva Rodriguez and Robert Miguel Nunes could be used as article titles. The brackets would be needed in the case of say Branco (Jorge Luiz da Silva) and Branco (Roberto Gama de Oliveira), where again there's no other disambiguation. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think people should have to know the players' year of birth to find their article? Are you really suggesting we have articles at locations such as Robert (Robert Silva Rodriguez) and Robert (Robert Miguel Nunes)? in my made-up examples, both players have the same position and the same year of birth. GiantSnowman 22:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why? Do you think people should have to know the players' full names to find their article? The system described is already in place now, and works fine (putting the full name in brackets would only be needed in rare cases, and I've not seen it needed yet). If you're going to be rude, can you think of a better solution that doesn't massively hinder the reader? Most people won't know Branco's real name, or Rafinha's, not to mention the 1000s of less well known players. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that is one of the most ridiculous suggestions I've ever come across. GiantSnowman 22:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- You could put their real name in brackets if the usual "footballer born..." isn't enough. If their nickname is their firstname than the fullname can be used, as long as it's sorted properly. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- But how would you disambiguate between them, given the large number of players who share nicknames? GiantSnowman 21:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, and also the players are very hard to find in categories if they're under their real name, particularly when their nickname isn't in their real name. We did reach consensus on this a while back, and most players' articles are by common name, but there are so many that there are inevitably a few lagging behind. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- But as BDD points out, very few of these players are known by their full names, so WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME should apply. This is what we have disambiguators for. – PeeJay 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
So you don't believe we should have articles listed at the full name - but it is fine to disambiguate by full name? Doesn't that seem self-defeating? GiantSnowman 13:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
We should use nicknames where they're plainly the most commonly-used in reliable secondary sources, but to be quite blunt this isn't remotely as common as it's made out to be. An awful lot of Brazilians seem to find that once they're no longer playing for their hometown teams their kewl nicknames aren't quite as unique any more, and end up going predominantly by their real names when mentioned in international sources. If there isn't reason to believe that a player's nickname has truly become associated with them in the national psyche (as opposed to simply being cheaper to iron onto the back of a club shirt) then we should go by real names and not bother with the nicknames. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Iranian football club stubs
Anybody with the time might want to take a look at the heap of unsourced (and likely non-notable) stubs created by Ararat-tehran (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I mean, some of these clubs are somewhat notable... I doubt any of them pass WP:GNG but some do pass WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
United States national team
Can we get some people active on United States men's national soccer team. Surly there are some regular editors from US here. I've brought up some question on the talk page and had no response. Thanks.--2nyte (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, sorry about that. I must have taken the USMNT page off my watchlist my accident. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The entire text (as distinct from infoboxes and so on) of the above article is "Alba CF is a football club based in Alba, Somalia." The problem with this is that this is the sum total of any information I can find online about any place in Somalia called Alba - some other sites repeat the information about Alba CF, none say anything more about the place. So is this information correct? Can anyone find anything more about the place? Or where Alba CF is (or was) based? By the way, links to Alba, from both Alba CF and Somalia League go to an article on the early history of Scotland, which is clearly irrelevant in this context - I am just about to remove these. PWilkinson (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Probably Alba is no city but a company that once sponsored a club. They don't seem to play in the top 3 leagues under that name. My guess of company is: Aluminium Bahrain. edit: They at least played up to 2012 with that name (https://www.google.de/search?q="alba+fc"+site:http://biladaye.com). I also think the article should be moved to FC Alba or Alba FC, it certainly is not a Spanish name. -Koppapa (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
AFC Challenge Cup squad templates
I am sure this has been brought up here before but I shall bring it back up again: Why are their templates for the squads that participated in the 2012 AFC Challenge Cup? Templates like Template:India squad 2012 AFC Challenge Cup for example. Why? I thought the consensus was that squad templates were only to be made during the FIFA World Cup and top continental tournaments. The AFC Challenge Cup is a 2nd tier tournament in Asia which features both pro and semi-pro nations and is essentially a qualifier for the AFC Asian Cup so why have squad templates for it? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is definitely consensus at TFD, I suggest you open up a new discussion about these new templates there. GiantSnowman 14:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the previous discussion which FCNantes72 opened. There was errors in the template which Koppapa and myself corrected. Mentoz86 and GiantSnowman pointed out the template served a purpose but advised if you felt differently to bring it to TfD which you didn't. So it's probable best you bring it to TfD now if you still feel the same. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I probably missed that. The time period was not my best time on here anyway so ya... I will do the TfD now. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done, [1]. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I probably missed that. The time period was not my best time on here anyway so ya... I will do the TfD now. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the previous discussion which FCNantes72 opened. There was errors in the template which Koppapa and myself corrected. Mentoz86 and GiantSnowman pointed out the template served a purpose but advised if you felt differently to bring it to TfD which you didn't. So it's probable best you bring it to TfD now if you still feel the same. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to know what the opinion is on this page. I was thinking of doing a List of current I-League players page but I don't want to until I get a concensus on this page first. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think lists of current players are necessary. -Koppapa (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- So is that the overall thinking here? If so then we should PROD this then. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- The page belongs in the bin. It's an unnecessary duplication of existing information, and isn't particularly encyclopedic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- So is that the overall thinking here? If so then we should PROD this then. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone deal with the promotional rubbish that an IP keeps reinserting? I've already hit 3RR (that last revert was completely unintentional, and was my computer spazzing out), but half of it is unsourced, and most of it is irrelevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's probable best if the page is protected even before the promotional content there was a lot of reverts over December. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would strongly agree with that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- It has been protected for 3 months a swift response at WP:RPP. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Same templates and fb templates
Hello. I am from Greek wiki. These templates Template:Fb team Anorthosis Famagusta Template:Fb team Anorthosis are the same. Must be one. Xaris333 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why do we even need/use 'fb' templates? I know a bunch were deleted a while ago... GiantSnowman 14:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
We need them for League tables and Results. Xaris333 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Its much easier. Xaris333 (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- As Jack Ryder would say, "you are wrong." Table and results without team templates. It is not any harder. If anything it is easier since the wikilink is the same as the article title while the template generally is not.EddieV2003 (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not wrong, I think as Jack Ryder would say, "you are wrong." These templates are used in many articles. What do you suggest? Xaris333 (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the discussion from October on this topic. User:Gno-simple-edits has done a great job at substituting wikilinks for these templates. I have gone through some of the older Bundesliga seasons and changed the tables to use links. Just because other stuff exists, does not mean things cannot change. The two tables below show the same information. The first uses a team template and the second does not.
{{Fb cl header |hth=y }}
{{Fb cl team |p= 1|t=AEL Limassol |w=10|d=3 |l=1 |gf=23|ga=9|bc=#D0F0C0}}
{{Fb cl footer}}
{{Fb cl header |hth=y}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 1|t=[[AEL Limassol]] |w=10|d=3 |l=1 |gf=23|ga=9|bc=#D0F0C0}}
{{Fb cl footer}}
"Easier" is not the word/excuse for it. EddieV2003 (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Changing the tables would be the first step in getting rid of them. We allready decided on that. There was a botrequest written somewhere, don't know, if it let to something. -Koppapa (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
What about result table. Can you give an example? Xaris333 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- I already posted a link to a results table that does not use them, but here it is again results. This table uses the same colors as the template generated table. EddieV2003 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
As we're now getting very close to the big day (and with my son now off school I stand very little chance of getting anywhere near the computer!) can I be the first to wish all WP:FOOTY members a very happy Christmas -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas everyone! GiantSnowman 08:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- And Season's greetings to you and all football fans. May your favourite team enjoy success. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- And compliments of the holiday season from here as well, whether you celebrate it or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Happy 2016th birthday, Jesus! – PeeJay 12:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the motion proposed by GiantSnowman, per Struway2.--EchetusXe 12:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas guys! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wish y'all a Belated Merry Christmas or National Presents Day! :P Hisakiwa21 (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas guys! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the motion proposed by GiantSnowman, per Struway2.--EchetusXe 12:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Happy 2016th birthday, Jesus! – PeeJay 12:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- And compliments of the holiday season from here as well, whether you celebrate it or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- And Season's greetings to you and all football fans. May your favourite team enjoy success. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Player profiles on club websites
Hello, currently I am trying to revamp/update the entire Pune F.C. squad and right now I feel that I am in heaven as every player profile page for each player on their website has a very detailed article about the player from when they started playing football to now. It just makes this project enjoyable for me but that is where the problem occurs. I can source the player profiles as references but then what happens when a player leaves the club? That player profile is gone and I am left with a bunch of references that don't work anymore because that player profile will probably be gone. So how do I avoid this? Is there a way I can have the player profile stay beyond when the player leaves? One idea I had was creating like some sort of wordpress account and then copy and pasting the player profile there so that I could source the wordpress profile after the player leaves but I would rather hear from here first. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Simply use the Wayback Machine - I would strongly advise against copying & pasting whole pages from club websites onto your blog, for copyright reasons. GiantSnowman 14:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wayback machine is great, I just tried it with Jeje Lalpekhlua's page and it worked perfectly but then there were some pages in the past for me that it just did not work, thus why I came here asking if there was another place. I just have this worry that I will revamp a page using mainly the profile page and then when the player leaves the club I wont be able to use the wayback machine to get an old archive of the page and thus I would probably have to get rid of a lot of the article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Check out WP:Link rot and Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Pre-emptive archiving. And whatever you do, you really, really don't have to get rid of half an article just because a link goes dead. WP:Link rot says early on "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online" (original highlighting). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wayback machine is great, I just tried it with Jeje Lalpekhlua's page and it worked perfectly but then there were some pages in the past for me that it just did not work, thus why I came here asking if there was another place. I just have this worry that I will revamp a page using mainly the profile page and then when the player leaves the club I wont be able to use the wayback machine to get an old archive of the page and thus I would probably have to get rid of a lot of the article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello footballers! The player above has an article in the Spanish Wikipedia that is more up to date. (Armando Maita ) Is this a notable player, and should the English article be saved from deletion as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely notable, he is an international player, see NFT. GiantSnowman 08:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I postponed deletion and added some reference URLs. Perhaps someone here who understands football lingo would like to make them into inline citations so that the article can be moved to mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: I have added some better sources and updated the article. It's fine for mainspace. GiantSnowman 23:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I have moved it. Thanks - it helps to know what you are doing. The only sport in which I have voluntarily taken part is curling, and that was in 1967. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: I have added some better sources and updated the article. It's fine for mainspace. GiantSnowman 23:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I postponed deletion and added some reference URLs. Perhaps someone here who understands football lingo would like to make them into inline citations so that the article can be moved to mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
University Challenge
I don't know if anyone here is interested, but I thought I might mention that I was on University Challenge last night, competing for Cardiff University. If you live in the UK and haven't seen it yet, the episode is still available on BBC iPlayer. Cheers. – PeeJay 13:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Were you wearing a Maradona "hand of God" t-shirt? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Just viewed, congrats. I will add University Challenge 2013–14 to my watchlist :) JMHamo (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Luckily I didn't get asked any football questions when I was on The Weakest Link........... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- How far did you get, Chris? – PeeJay 18:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Down to the last three, then the other two conspired to vote me off :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You were clearly too much of a threat to them! I'd love to see that episode if you know where I can find it. What date was it broadcast? – PeeJay 22:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- The "highlights", converted from VHS by the highly technical method of filming the TV screen on my phone, can be found here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aye, being the strongest link five times in a row definitely contributed to your ultimate demise! Strong performance though. What was it, three incorrect out of about 20 questions? – PeeJay 10:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well done to you both although I do now feel inadequate I think I'll have to find a TV show to go on.
★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well done to you both although I do now feel inadequate I think I'll have to find a TV show to go on.
- Aye, being the strongest link five times in a row definitely contributed to your ultimate demise! Strong performance though. What was it, three incorrect out of about 20 questions? – PeeJay 10:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The "highlights", converted from VHS by the highly technical method of filming the TV screen on my phone, can be found here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- You were clearly too much of a threat to them! I'd love to see that episode if you know where I can find it. What date was it broadcast? – PeeJay 22:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Down to the last three, then the other two conspired to vote me off :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- How far did you get, Chris? – PeeJay 18:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... (Congrats, by the way!) This gets me thinking whether we should have a proper generic extlink template for iPlayer, barbarous restrictions notwithstanding ({{In Our Time}} already links to iPlayer, for instance). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nice performance PJ! If I ever get onto Take Me Out I'll let you guys know.--EchetusXe 21:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If anyone still hasn't seen it, my match (so difficult to avoid sounding self-centred when I'm on a team, but I'm the only one you guys would conceivably be interested in) against Liverpool is on YouTube now. – PeeJay 01:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposing deletion
-List:
- Chad Premier League
- Estadio Juan Canuto Pettengill
- Estádio Municipal 22 de Junho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.183.56.90 (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Estadio Juan Canuto Pettengill and Estádio Municipal 22 de Junho have been nominated for deletion already. The Chad Premier League article has multiple issues (which have been tagged now) If you want to nominate it you will have to give an explanation. I think it's notable. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 22:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The Irish Times
Some of you may have already noticed but The Irish Times now do statistics as you can see here & here. It's limited to league stats for players but already came in handy for Ebanks-Blake's page and it seems pretty accurate. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's the original Guardian database, nothing new. Various organizations have it licensed but are allowed to design their own interface to present the data, so their websites may look like something new while in fact they are not. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:Fc
Again, a template I see as having no purpose whatsoever. Can anybody please enlighten me? GiantSnowman 22:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's for the terminally lazy as far as I can see. how much is it actually used? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 22:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing that a bot substing couldn't solve. GiantSnowman 22:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow haven't seen that one before. Totally useless template I would say. QED237 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing that a bot substing couldn't solve. GiantSnowman 22:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
After some more searching I found similar template {{Efs}} QED237 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jeez. QED, fancy taking these to TFD for us please? GiantSnowman 12:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's also the likes of {{Nfa}}, {{Nft}}, {{Nftu}}, {{Nwft}} and {{Nwftu}}. Hack (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have never been to TFD, but sometime has got to be the first for everything. However time for some food and a family afternoon (saturday today) so it would have to be later today/tonight. I dont wont to rush it and make it properly since it is my first time. If you want it reported faster someone else can do it, feel free to do so. QED237 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Hack: I saw the templates you suggested to, but I am not sure id they should be deleted to. They are somehow the same but somehow not. I have seen those being used many times, but I can agree with you. What do everyone else say? QED237 (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: At TFD could you ask for a bot to make the edits or how does that work? How to you see on what articles a template is being used?. QED237 (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- The premise behind the FC/AFC templates and the NFT templates is the same. If you delete the former, the latter should go as well. Hack (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yes, you could ask that a bot substs all the templates before deletion. GiantSnowman 13:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Qed237: you can use catscan to search for the pages using the templates. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Spudgfsh: Thanks, it was a lot for articles than I thought. Definately a job for a bot and not something to do for a single editor. QED237 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Qed237:, when you take it to TFD the closing admin will be able to run a bot task to subst before deleting. GiantSnowman 19:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman:, that sounds great! I just sat down at the computer after a family afternoon so I will take it to TFD later (it is on my "to do"-list but have some other things of wiki to do first). QED237 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Spudgfsh: Thanks, it was a lot for articles than I thought. Definately a job for a bot and not something to do for a single editor. QED237 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Qed237: you can use catscan to search for the pages using the templates. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's also the likes of {{Nfa}}, {{Nft}}, {{Nftu}}, {{Nwft}} and {{Nwftu}}. Hack (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Now at TFD, which you can read and comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Wikilink sports templates. QED237 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
This discussion and that at the TfD discussion seem to be based on a complete misunderstanding of how these templates are meant to be used. They are intended to save an editor time and key strokes when creating an article; server space is a total irrelevance. As the documentation onTemplate:Fc says, these templates should only be used with substitution active. If I create an article about a footballer who played for Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and Wolverhampton Wanderers, it is much simpler and quicker to type: "Joe Bloggs was a footballer who played for {{subst:fc|Nottingham Forest}}, {{subst:fc|Sheffield Wednesday}} and {{subst:fc|Wolverhampton Wanderers}}" which produces the result "Joe Bloggs was a footballer who played for Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday andWolverhampton Wanderers" than it is to type: "Joe Bloggs was a footballer who played for [[Nottingham Forest F.C.|Nottingham Forest]], [[Sheffield Wednesday F.C.|Sheffield Wednesday]] and [[Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C.|Wolverhampton Wanderers]]." (At least it would have done before the templates were tagged for deletion.) Once the edit is saved, the template is replaced by the desired wikilink and the template then ceases to be used. I agree that all unsubstituted uses of the template should be replaced by proper wikilinks, but the templates themselves should be retained and the documentation improved to stress the need for substitution. I see no point in removing a tool that makes an editor's life easier just on the grounds of a bit of housekeeping. I have made use of these templates (properly substituted) many, many times and they have probably saved me several days of typing time. Please can I ask people to think again about the proper use of these templates. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- In my eyes that particular template doesn't save much typing, as there ist ctrl+c and ctrl+p, but i get the idea. And after some thinking those above templates are not much different than the fb, fbw, fbu, fbwu tempalte on use on every major football tournament. -Koppapa (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Caps United
Are these the same teams?
Is this the solution? {{Merge from|CAPS F.C.|date=January 2013}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.7.4.148 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you read the CAPS F.C. article it distinctly gives the impression that they are not the same team (they did me at least). A hat-note might be needed on both articles though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- They are different teams. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Use of template tables on 2013–14 Football League One and 2013–14 Football League Two
As part of the discussion above (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Background color or bolding specific team in table) and the discussion on the village pump (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Displaying a part of the table) I created template tables for the three football league divisions. When completed I placed them on the season articles and started a discussion on each talk page stating what I'd done. They keep getting removed by editors every time they go to update the table. The table as displayed is exactly the same, can I get some support for getting them used on those two pages. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's not much more we can do apart from inform the offending editors of the consensus we have reached here and at the Village Pump. There is obviously a consensus to use the templated league tables across Wikipedia now, so why ignore that? – PeeJay 19:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was using this as a starting point to point people. and didn't want to start an edit war... => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- User @Colindavies142: continues to revert the consensus, despite all attempts to talk to him about the consensus here. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 23:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was using this as a starting point to point people. and didn't want to start an edit war... => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
PR request
Hello football editors! Can I request if someone will peer review Football in the Philippines? Any suggestion for improving it are welcome. The discussion is here. Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Re-Analyzing the article
Hello,
I'm curious, who do I have to talk in order to let them examine the article and see if it does not need the stub-class rating anymore or the warning of not enough sources? Hisakiwa21 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are allowed to remove maintenance or Cleanup templates such as BLP sources when the issue is resolved and anyone can add or change an article's assessment rating. Given your discussion with User:Carioca I gathered it was Ademir da Guia's article you were referring to so I went ahead and reassessed to start class given the current example of start class, Steven Kinniburgh, is of a similar standard and I removed the maintenance template. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aye, that's the article, and thanks, I do appreciate it very much :) Hisakiwa21 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your welcome, have a good new year. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Aye, that's the article, and thanks, I do appreciate it very much :) Hisakiwa21 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Cristiano Ronaldo career stats table
Hi, I formatted the career statistics table at Cristiano Ronaldo so it includes divisions (and thus conforms to the layout given at the player MoS), references for each season (when previously areas, including the entire Sporting CP stats, were unsourced) and annotated notes for other competitions. Also, I made corrections to the international career statistics table (with references). However, I was reverted by Kante4 (talk · contribs), who reasoned that the inclusion of divisions looks "horrible". Just bringing this here to garner consensus, although I'm not sure I'm really obliged to considering the version I added conformed to project-wide MoS and included the addition of previously absent sources. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion here which led to the standardization of the stats table did not come to any agreement on the inclusion of divisions - some are against it (myself included), others supported it. It was the only point of contention, but not one worth edit warring over. GiantSnowman 16:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- But nonetheless it is encouraged by the project-wide player MoS...? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would say it is more important we get the general format of career stats tables correct i.e. less of this mess. GiantSnowman 16:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh god, you have no idea how much I hate those yellow career stats tables... probably the worst things I have seen before (I don't care if the creator of these is among us). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes the table is much more informative when the division is included. Those who say it somehow looks bad are wrong.--EchetusXe 20:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Taste is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". While I also prefer the inclusion of the division, my opinion is that repeating the same division each line without the usage of rowspan looks bad. But it still looks a lot better than these yellow stats tables. --Jaellee (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, those yellow ones need to go, worst thing. 2. A link to the year/season article of the specific league is/should be enough like it is on most articles. User/Readers can see in which league the player played back then (clicking on the link). Repeating it again and again just look not good (although looking good/bad is objective). Kante4 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can't the season link to the club's season instead of the division's season? – PeeJay 22:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is my preferred method. I know some like '2013–14 Premier League' or even '2013–14 in English football' but ideally it should be '2013–14 Wiki A.F.C. season'. GiantSnowman 22:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I actually usually link to the season article because, esspecially in Indian football, those are the ones where every season has an article. If I create a box for say Subrata Pal then his 2007–08 season would be a red link to 2007–08 East Bengal F.C. season rather than a blue linked 2007–08 I-League. It is just more neat and better looking in my opinion. As for adding the division, I like to look at Arata Izumi's page for that where I have included the league and it still looks neat and nice. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Make blue links where it's possible for the season articles, and when it's not available use the league article from that year. Kante4 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- If it's a redlink for a notable season then leave it, it will be created in due course. GiantSnowman 23:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- But what if the data is not available? We need to pass WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- If it's a redlink for a notable season then leave it, it will be created in due course. GiantSnowman 23:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Make blue links where it's possible for the season articles, and when it's not available use the league article from that year. Kante4 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I actually usually link to the season article because, esspecially in Indian football, those are the ones where every season has an article. If I create a box for say Subrata Pal then his 2007–08 season would be a red link to 2007–08 East Bengal F.C. season rather than a blue linked 2007–08 I-League. It is just more neat and better looking in my opinion. As for adding the division, I like to look at Arata Izumi's page for that where I have included the league and it still looks neat and nice. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is my preferred method. I know some like '2013–14 Premier League' or even '2013–14 in English football' but ideally it should be '2013–14 Wiki A.F.C. season'. GiantSnowman 22:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can't the season link to the club's season instead of the division's season? – PeeJay 22:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, those yellow ones need to go, worst thing. 2. A link to the year/season article of the specific league is/should be enough like it is on most articles. User/Readers can see in which league the player played back then (clicking on the link). Repeating it again and again just look not good (although looking good/bad is objective). Kante4 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Taste is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". While I also prefer the inclusion of the division, my opinion is that repeating the same division each line without the usage of rowspan looks bad. But it still looks a lot better than these yellow stats tables. --Jaellee (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes the table is much more informative when the division is included. Those who say it somehow looks bad are wrong.--EchetusXe 20:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh god, you have no idea how much I hate those yellow career stats tables... probably the worst things I have seen before (I don't care if the creator of these is among us). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would say it is more important we get the general format of career stats tables correct i.e. less of this mess. GiantSnowman 16:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- But nonetheless it is encouraged by the project-wide player MoS...? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or are there too many unnecessary parameters in this template? The infobox is supposed to provide an at-a-glance overview of the most important points of the article, not list all the stats such as "biggest win", "highest attendance" and all that bollocks. I was mainly going on the state of the 2009–10 Premier League article, from which I have already removed much of the guff, but the parameters could still do with being removed from the template, IMO. – PeeJay 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. Makes for a handy overview over precisely these kind of stats. --Madcynic (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- In what way are stats like the biggest win integral to the article? The article itself could very easily live without them, so in what way are they necessary to the infobox? – PeeJay 20:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I did not say they were integral. These parameters can be left empty, after all. I just do not understand the desire to exclude certain information. A season article is by definition largely a collection of stats, therefore I do not understand why you wish to exclude some stats, but include others. Madcynic (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have added back the removed elements. I do not think it is correct for any editor to remove sourced elements from an established template and then start the discussion as to whether the template should contain those parameters. In my view the elements removed are in no way guff and are standard stats that would be commonly discussed. I don't see any reason to remove them from the template unless consensus is established here that they are no longer desirable. Where such information was included leading to a lengthy infobox compared to the sourced prose in the article I can see an argument for removing comment from the infobox and placing it in the main article, but this is a lengthy season article where the infobox provides a decent, unintrusive summary. Given that historic, competition-wide record wins are considered notable enough for their own articles within a given sport, it seems to me that the biggest win in a given season is just as notable within the context of that specific season and so should be highlighted, where they can be sourced reliably, in the infobox for that season's competition. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I never said the info should be removed from the article, just the infobox; indeed, the information does still exist in the stats section of the 2009–10 Premier League article. Including it in the infobox, however, is definitely guff and contrary to the purpose of the infobox. – PeeJay 17:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have added back the removed elements. I do not think it is correct for any editor to remove sourced elements from an established template and then start the discussion as to whether the template should contain those parameters. In my view the elements removed are in no way guff and are standard stats that would be commonly discussed. I don't see any reason to remove them from the template unless consensus is established here that they are no longer desirable. Where such information was included leading to a lengthy infobox compared to the sourced prose in the article I can see an argument for removing comment from the infobox and placing it in the main article, but this is a lengthy season article where the infobox provides a decent, unintrusive summary. Given that historic, competition-wide record wins are considered notable enough for their own articles within a given sport, it seems to me that the biggest win in a given season is just as notable within the context of that specific season and so should be highlighted, where they can be sourced reliably, in the infobox for that season's competition. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I did not say they were integral. These parameters can be left empty, after all. I just do not understand the desire to exclude certain information. A season article is by definition largely a collection of stats, therefore I do not understand why you wish to exclude some stats, but include others. Madcynic (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- In what way are stats like the biggest win integral to the article? The article itself could very easily live without them, so in what way are they necessary to the infobox? – PeeJay 20:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The press are speculating that Gedion Zelalem will make his Arsenal debut in the FA Cup against Spurs this weekend. No doubt, this will mean that he passes the notability test. What surprises me is that the article still exists as it "failed" an AfD in April 2003. I guess it has slipped through the net. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- p.s. Shouldn't the April 2003 AfD be mentioned on the article talk page? Also, shouldn't the original article's history and the current one be merged? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, the AfD was in 2013, not 2003. Secondly, Daemonic, there was a discussion on here (now archived), and at AfC, where it was determined the subject now met GNG; it in no way slipped through the net. Please ensure you do your research properly before hinting it should be deleted. Yes, the 2013 AfD should be mentioned on the talk page, but there's no real point in a histmerge. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hey man, no need to take that aggressive attitude. Sorry about the typo. I did check the article history and links, but missed the one you seem to be referring to (here). Mea culpa. It would be helpful if discussions such as these were copied to the article talk page to avoid similar misunderstandings in future. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have restored th article history. Ideally this should have gone through DRV as opposed to AFC, given the past 'delete' consensus at AFD. GiantSnowman 13:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Accessibility - Australia national football team results / use of Template:Football box collapsible
Is there any reason that the likes of Australia national football team results should be autocollapsed? It is pretty painful when trying to locate information when the majority of data is not visible. I seem to recall a discussion around this sort of setup being an accessibility issue. Hack (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- It should be. No reason to not have results automatically visable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a policy or guideline that covers this? Hack (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- MOS:COLLAPSE: "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." Which means, among other things, that collapsible footballboxes don't comply with the MoS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a policy or guideline that covers this? Hack (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Leeds City F.C. directors
Does anyone have access to any reliable sources on Leeds City? My particular interest is with Alfred Pullin, a cricket/rugby journalist from that time who seems to have been one of the club's directors some time before its collapse. Any further details on his relationship with the club would be much appreciated if they exist anywhere, or even if anyone knows where more could be found. Cheers. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Discuss. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Belongs in the bin. Hugely out of date, unreferenced, and if it was complete, it would be absolutely enormous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- AfD'd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Football League Championship players with international caps) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 22:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Merging
- Chad Premier League=Chad Premier League 2011
- Timsah Arena=Bursa Metropolitan Municipality Stadium
- Young Sports Academy=Young Sports Academy Bamenda
What is the solution?--95.236.246.49 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd redirect all the latter to the left ones. -Koppapa (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. Also, Chad Premier League could use some serious clean up of both content and layout. If we can trust RSSSF, it seems as if the competition modus of the national championship is more similar to the one used in Germany before the introduction of the Bundesliga, meaning the best teams of several regional leagues played a separate tournament for the title. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are right, but its hard to find info on the league. The 2011 article should actually be deleted, as there was no national play-offs and the article is infact about the local N'Djema league. -Koppapa (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've redirected them all. -Koppapa (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. Also, Chad Premier League could use some serious clean up of both content and layout. If we can trust RSSSF, it seems as if the competition modus of the national championship is more similar to the one used in Germany before the introduction of the Bundesliga, meaning the best teams of several regional leagues played a separate tournament for the title. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Bury F.C. stats?
Does anyone know where I can find stats and line-ups for Bury F.C. in the mid-1990s? I'm trying to fill in a stats table for David Johnson (footballer born 1976), but Soccerbase doesn't have complete stats going back that far, so I'm flying blind on his Football League Trophy stats. All I need to know is whether his one FLT goal came in 1995–96 or 1996–97. – PeeJay 18:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- News of the World Football Annuals for the relevant years would have those stats, but unfortunately I just checked my collection and, although I have some from the 90s, I don't have either of those. If all else fails, you can buy the 1997 edition for a penny on Amazon........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- He scored in Bury's 6–0 win against Mansfield Town on 13 January 1997, according to the English National Football Archive. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Somalia national football team vandalism
I believe Somalia national football team has sustained some unreverted vandalism since late November, so much so that I think it should be restored to a past version, but I'm not sure which was the last stable version. There are some versions in November with full World Cup records etc. Help would be appreciated, thanks. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Done I removed the vandalism, cleaned the article up a bit, updated the squad and added the page to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads up. 2nyte (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for fixing it :) Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, could editors please monitor the edits from Tyau123 (talk · contribs). Seems to be removing sourced content from Middlesbrough related articles and reverts on sight when you fix. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The user seems to be more constructive since returning from the block but I'll keep an eye on him/her. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Competency is still an issue as their edits had to be fixed and his/her attitude is still awful. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- His dodgy editing is returning, removing source from David Karanka and replacing with a source that's not relevant. JMHamo (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, not trying to be rude, but it is relevant, he (being Aitor Karanka if not clear enough for you...) is the definitely the current manager of Middlesbrough, i can assure you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyau123 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Sinebot! 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Tyau123 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2014
- JMHamo (talk) Have you now realised that it is not dodgy editing?! This is 2014, and Aitor Karanka is not a player anymore, my reference is from a reliable source and says he is NOW in the PRESENT day a manager, we don't want old un-updated garbage on Wikipedia do we? Tyau123 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014
- I have amended the article in a way which does not suggest that Aitor Karanka is still a player, but does highlight the important fact. It is relevant to David Karanka's early career that his brother was also at Bilbao at the time. It is not relevant to David Karanka's early career that his brother is now manager of Middlesbro nearly 20 years later. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank You for amending JMHamo (talk) mistakes. Much appreciated that someone agrees he is still not a player. Thanks. Tyau123 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2014
- I did not say that JMHamo had made mistakes, or that the previous version implied that he was still a player. But hopefully my wording will be an acceptable compromise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your less assertive manor. It was a mistake however that one 'certain' user still thought Aitor Karanka was still the manager, still, this is not the place for dispute and I thank you anyway for updating the page. Tyau123 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2014
- Whoa s/he lost the plot last night I think the indef was appropriate. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your less assertive manor. It was a mistake however that one 'certain' user still thought Aitor Karanka was still the manager, still, this is not the place for dispute and I thank you anyway for updating the page. Tyau123 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2014
- I did not say that JMHamo had made mistakes, or that the previous version implied that he was still a player. But hopefully my wording will be an acceptable compromise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank You for amending JMHamo (talk) mistakes. Much appreciated that someone agrees he is still not a player. Thanks. Tyau123 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2014
- I have amended the article in a way which does not suggest that Aitor Karanka is still a player, but does highlight the important fact. It is relevant to David Karanka's early career that his brother was also at Bilbao at the time. It is not relevant to David Karanka's early career that his brother is now manager of Middlesbro nearly 20 years later. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- JMHamo (talk) Have you now realised that it is not dodgy editing?! This is 2014, and Aitor Karanka is not a player anymore, my reference is from a reliable source and says he is NOW in the PRESENT day a manager, we don't want old un-updated garbage on Wikipedia do we? Tyau123 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014
- Thanks Sinebot! 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Tyau123 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2014
- Sorry, not trying to be rude, but it is relevant, he (being Aitor Karanka if not clear enough for you...) is the definitely the current manager of Middlesbrough, i can assure you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyau123 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- His dodgy editing is returning, removing source from David Karanka and replacing with a source that's not relevant. JMHamo (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Competency is still an issue as their edits had to be fixed and his/her attitude is still awful. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
FIFA Final rankings
Never understood why they rank teams not in the top 4, but anyway, where are those listed at the FIFA site. An IP comes up changes something and i wonder what is correct. Why would Tunisia at 0 points be above India at 1 point in the group in either of those two versions. Another example would be this change, what version is correct, how does FIFA rank teams losing in the quarter finals? By result in that round, by group stage record? Those sections in all FIFA tournaments definately could use a sentece explaining how the ranking was achieved, better have a direct source too. -Koppapa (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Emmanuel Adebayor
Could someone please review this edit to Emmanuel Adebayor by an anon. I don't want to revert again. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looks OK to me. I can't see anything in the article about Metz B, so it shouldn't be in the infobox, and Mr Adebayor did play 8 Europa League games last season. It should be as of match played 4 January, not 5, but unless I'm missing something, that's all that's wrong with it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Theo Walcott
Given I was not around most of 2013 I just wanted to clarify if consensus still stood that assists should not be included in career stats table. Theo Walcott's assists are sourced but given assists are subjective and there is no universal definition of assists should they not be removed? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Last I remember, not included. The rationale being that there was no clear definition as to what was an assist as various sources used differing definitions.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I just went by the article and removed the assists and now afterwards I saw this discussion. There should definately be no assist since the definition of assist changes from place to place. QED237 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input seems the stance hasn't changed. Guess you saved me some time QED. :) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I just got reverted at Jack Wilshere. Guess someone likes assists. QED237 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input seems the stance hasn't changed. Guess you saved me some time QED. :) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I just went by the article and removed the assists and now afterwards I saw this discussion. There should definately be no assist since the definition of assist changes from place to place. QED237 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
kadir ozkan 1461 trabzon
Kadir ozkan is dead. Who is new 1461 Trabzon trainer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.7.182 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- According to transfermarkt it is Ayhan Alemdaroğlu. The Trabzon website did not have anything different. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 11:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I know, that is why I did not change it yet ;) --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 11:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear footballers: Here's another old declined submission that will shortly be deleted as a stale draft. This player appears to have won a trophy. There's a navbox with many other players who have won this trophy, and they appear to have articles. Is this a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps if someone on here wanted to take the time to find individual sources for all those awards he has won in the past then he might pass WP:GNG but at this moment the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. He will be notable in a few months though as I suspect he will be drafted into MLS by then but that is WP:CRYSTAL for now. So ya, not notable! Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I have postponed deletion for six months and sourced some of the awards. Sorry if the citations aren't right - I don't really understand some of the acronyms. Is this notable enough now, or should the article be left in Afc while awaiting the draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on US college sports, but I'd guess the Hermann Trophy might well make him notable per WP:NCOLLATH. If there's a college sports WikiProject, you may want to try asking there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Hermann Trophy is often referred to as the soccer equivalent of the Heisman Trophy (the highest award in college-level American football) - eg "the Hermann Trophy winner — college soccer's version of the Heisman".[2] That would suggest Mullins passes WP:NCOLLATH. Hack (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Struway is right, per NCOLLATH he is technically notable but I would still like a revamp of the article with more sources before moving it to the mainspace. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there are six months to get that done. Thanks to those who took the time to look this over. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Struway is right, per NCOLLATH he is technically notable but I would still like a revamp of the article with more sources before moving it to the mainspace. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Hermann Trophy is often referred to as the soccer equivalent of the Heisman Trophy (the highest award in college-level American football) - eg "the Hermann Trophy winner — college soccer's version of the Heisman".[2] That would suggest Mullins passes WP:NCOLLATH. Hack (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on US college sports, but I'd guess the Hermann Trophy might well make him notable per WP:NCOLLATH. If there's a college sports WikiProject, you may want to try asking there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I have postponed deletion for six months and sourced some of the awards. Sorry if the citations aren't right - I don't really understand some of the acronyms. Is this notable enough now, or should the article be left in Afc while awaiting the draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This is to let you know that there has been a (further) discussion about the general reliability of the Daily Mail at the reliable sources noticeboard. Several editors think we should have a blanket ban on it. And a sample trawl I did of how the paper is being used as source reveals that it's often used in football-related articles. I thought you people might like to have a look and see whether you consider it reliable for various purposes. What I've seen seems to break into three categories: a) factual info such as results, b) opinion about play (reviews of games etc.), and c) info about players. In the c) category some uses may be close to gossip, therefore not encyclopaedic. Mario Balotelli is one example where you might be able to see if WP:BLP is complied with. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- As much as I hate the Daily
FailMail as a publication, I think it's a bit harsh to call it an unreliable source. Sure, we should use other sources if possible, but if the source is only being used to source basic facts (such as it is for Mikaël Silvestre's family's names in his article), I think it's OK. – PeeJay 18:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)- My opinion is the same as PeeJay's. It can be trusted for straightforward factual claims, but should be avoided for critical analysis, unless the purpose of its use is to demonstrate one of several differing viewpoints, all of which are represented in the section. Whether the Mail should be banned on matters which are not black-and-white is a matter for RSN – I think that would be a step too far personally, and would give further ammunition to those who argue that Wikipedia is not neutral. —WFC— FL wishlist 18:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have any specific opinions about its reliability in football-related matters? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- For specifics, you could consider this recent discussion. Thanks, C679 17:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have no problem using the Daily Mail if it is the only source available. However, we should use other sources if we can. For that reason, I would oppose blacklisting it. – PeeJay 18:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is an example of perfectly legitimate football journalism. If we blacklisted the Daily Mail then we could not reference much of the information stated in the article, or at least would be forced to use much less convenient sources. As it is I only came across the article long after the Wikipedia article was put into perfectly serviceable shape, but there we are.--EchetusXe 22:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have any specific opinions about its reliability in football-related matters? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- My opinion is the same as PeeJay's. It can be trusted for straightforward factual claims, but should be avoided for critical analysis, unless the purpose of its use is to demonstrate one of several differing viewpoints, all of which are represented in the section. Whether the Mail should be banned on matters which are not black-and-white is a matter for RSN – I think that would be a step too far personally, and would give further ammunition to those who argue that Wikipedia is not neutral. —WFC— FL wishlist 18:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Season articles
I remember a discussion a while back about the Liverpool season article getting out of hand WRT stats. I give you 2013–14_Portsmouth_F.C._season with all sorts of delights on it.
A couple of questions that it's made me ask.
- Was there a consensus on the displaying of all matches after the FL/PL lost the court case on it being proprietary data?
- Are we now displaying yellow/red cards in the {{footballbox collapsible}} template?
=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would also like to have answers on no.2. On many season articles thay are there and some articles not. We need some sort of consensus there. QED237 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've never put bookings in the {{footballbox}} template, whether it's the collapsible version or not. They do not contribute to the score of the match, so why bother listing them? – PeeJay 17:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- On number 1 I feel that the answer is No. Wikipedia has not the oportunity to take that chance. User:PeeJay2K3 wrote on Talk:2013–14 Sunderland A.F.C. season#Fixtures and he said it very well so i quote him: However, Football DataCo, the company that licenses the fixtures for the Premier League, Football League and Scottish leagues in the UK, would be well within their rights to take Wikipedia to court over the overuse of fixtures here. We are a free encyclopaedia, which means we cannot afford to pay for the license; it also means we definitely cannot afford to pay legal fees if Football DataCo decides to sue us over the use of the fixtures. If you want Wikipedia to be sued and then have to be taken down over non-payment of legal fees, be my guest and post the fixtures, but I advise against it.. Wikipedia can not afford to take that risk. QED237 (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just deleted the "matchday squads" section and all of the yet-to-occur fixtures from the Portsmouth article and was immediately reverted. Wow, some people are a bit precious about "their" articles, aren't they? – PeeJay 17:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't even try to be fair => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- "It's not confusing, and the reader will also know when his team will play in the future" - Well, I mean, when I need to know when my clubs play and I have an internet connection I just quickly go on the club website and click fixtures. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't even try to be fair => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
MOS question
As there is a MOS for club season articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Club_seasons) do we need to spend some time making updating it to take in the best aspects of some of the current club season articles and then enforce it more everywhere? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is actually where I have trouble agreeing with the MOS. For example, I remember with the 2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season article last year there was a debate about whether it should be done with the style already there or perhaps based on the 2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season or 2007–08 Arsenal F.C. season articles where transfers and background are first and then each league/tournament is separated by section whereas in the 2012–13 season article (and every other season article) all the tournaments are under a heading called "competitions". Personally I am a fan of the style used in the 2002–03 and 2007–08 articles. They are more organized, a lot more detailed, and just the right amount of stats - not overdoing it. If we were to recreate the MOS then I would like it to be based on those two articles (which are also rated as "great articles" by the way. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- The MOS is sorely out of date and doesn't really reflect any semblance of what I would consider to be a decent club season article. I may be biased, but I believe the Manchester United season articles are the best, with just the right amount of info, but the 2002-03 and 2007-08 Arsenal ones linked to above are pretty close too. – PeeJay 22:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- The important thing we should be encouraging readable articles, not stats filled ones. I'm not fussed if said editor wants to use tables or the infobox template for scores, just summarise the matches in writing above or wherever. I'm not keen on the EFS template -- better to create a wikitable, with a yellow/red cards column. I've worked on a few United and Arsenal season articles – 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season is probably the most comprehensive I've written. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I would be lying if I said I was not impressed. This is, in my opinion at least, an example of what these season articles should be. I like season articles and I feel they are notable for wikipedia if the club is at a national level but they need to remain encyclopedic and not like wikipedia is a football stats site when it is not. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I must say all of the mentioned articles are good ones, but 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season must be the best one in my opinion. Also I like the collabsible football boxes (if used properly with a lot of prose as well. Everything is better then 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season that has five rows of text (three in intro and two to explain a table), the rest is just tables and stats (about half of what is was earlier but still too much crap). QED237 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- So, are we all going to come up with a consensus for what the new MOS should be? It needs an update and honestly I would love to attack those 2012–13 and 2013–14 Arsenal pages and have this thread as back-up for being allowed to do it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I must say all of the mentioned articles are good ones, but 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season must be the best one in my opinion. Also I like the collabsible football boxes (if used properly with a lot of prose as well. Everything is better then 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season that has five rows of text (three in intro and two to explain a table), the rest is just tables and stats (about half of what is was earlier but still too much crap). QED237 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I would be lying if I said I was not impressed. This is, in my opinion at least, an example of what these season articles should be. I like season articles and I feel they are notable for wikipedia if the club is at a national level but they need to remain encyclopedic and not like wikipedia is a football stats site when it is not. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- The important thing we should be encouraging readable articles, not stats filled ones. I'm not fussed if said editor wants to use tables or the infobox template for scores, just summarise the matches in writing above or wherever. I'm not keen on the EFS template -- better to create a wikitable, with a yellow/red cards column. I've worked on a few United and Arsenal season articles – 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season is probably the most comprehensive I've written. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- The MOS is sorely out of date and doesn't really reflect any semblance of what I would consider to be a decent club season article. I may be biased, but I believe the Manchester United season articles are the best, with just the right amount of info, but the 2002-03 and 2007-08 Arsenal ones linked to above are pretty close too. – PeeJay 22:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
May I add the 2013–14 Cardiff City F.C. season here they list every substitution in the footballbox collabsible. That must be to much info. QED237 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not any more it bloody well doesn't! – PeeJay 22:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm definitely interested in what consensus is reached on season pages. I just started 2013–14 S.S. Lazio season today (yes, it's just tables and charts for now, and even though that's thousands of bytes, it's basically the same as any stub). In the process I looked at the MOS page and realized it had very little to do with how other Italian club season pages looked. Those pages are kind of spotty and in various states of disrepair…I had to rely a lot on the Italian wiki (which if you think we have problems with extraneous frilly templates—look at them). Anyhow, I think I at least got it to solid stub level, and any feedback is welcome. —Ed Cormany (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ya, this will not be solved until someone designs a new MOS in their own sandbox or userspace and we agree on it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- The problem a lot of season articles is there is no text that describes the information that is presented within them. 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season is a good place to start for a new MOS. It seems to flow well, provides enough information (without being a stats book), covers all topics that could arise and is structured in a way that could get editors to add text to the list of stats. It'd be good if we can get it through its ongoing GA nomination first though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay then, I will try to create a new MOS then based on the 2003–04, 2002–03, and 2007–08 Arsenal pages and lets go from there. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- @ArsenalFan700: Okay that sounds great. Let us know when you have something to discuss. QED237 (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay then, I will try to create a new MOS then based on the 2003–04, 2002–03, and 2007–08 Arsenal pages and lets go from there. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- The problem a lot of season articles is there is no text that describes the information that is presented within them. 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season is a good place to start for a new MOS. It seems to flow well, provides enough information (without being a stats book), covers all topics that could arise and is structured in a way that could get editors to add text to the list of stats. It'd be good if we can get it through its ongoing GA nomination first though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ya, this will not be solved until someone designs a new MOS in their own sandbox or userspace and we agree on it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm definitely interested in what consensus is reached on season pages. I just started 2013–14 S.S. Lazio season today (yes, it's just tables and charts for now, and even though that's thousands of bytes, it's basically the same as any stub). In the process I looked at the MOS page and realized it had very little to do with how other Italian club season pages looked. Those pages are kind of spotty and in various states of disrepair…I had to rely a lot on the Italian wiki (which if you think we have problems with extraneous frilly templates—look at them). Anyhow, I think I at least got it to solid stub level, and any feedback is welcome. —Ed Cormany (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
paredes -vutov (errors)
Leandro Paredes:Il giorno 07/01/2014 viene definito "fenomeno vero" dal famoso cantastorie calcistico Marco Boscaini.
Antonio Vutov:Udinese is interested but he currently plays for--79.51.7.250 (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC) levski
Tff.1.lig-tff.2.Lig-tff.3lig
TFF First League, TFF Second League and TFF Third League are fully professional league.
- [3]
- http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1_mesaj:82.58.107.172&redirect=no
- http://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=376--79.11.241.190 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The first and third sources do not actually confirm fully pro status, the second is a Wikipedia page and therefore unreliable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The status confirmed that 3.Lig si fully professional: [4],[5],[6],[7]. So super lig, 1.lig, 2. Lig, 3,lig are fully professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.34.6 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- So about 50 clubs in Turkey's fourth league pay their players enough, so they don't have a second job? -Koppapa (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
In italian professional Lega Pro Seconda Divisione some players play and have a second job.For a exemple [8] Luca passerella plays for A.C. Delta Porto Tolle and also work. But lega pro seconda divisione is fully professional.--79.51.7.250 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth locking the article, he's recently announced that he's gay, as such his article may be a target for vandals. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Already done JMHamo (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Mohammed Dahman's article contains ONE ref, which doesnt mention him. Any clues? Murry1975 (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Neil Brown's site
Someone was asking about this recently. It appears he's changed/changing from .htm suffix for his urls to .html, so that previously working .htm urls now land at the webhost error page. Which means we possibly have quite a lot of broken urls. Is finding all the Neil Brown links and sticking an "l" on the end of the url something that could be done with AWB (not something I use, so I wouldn't know) or should we make a bot request?
I noticed that @PeteS: has written a template to generate a Neil Brown link in External link type format. If this were enhanced the way {{NFT player}} has been, to output either EL or cite-web-with-accessdate format as appropriate, it could be useful in the future for inline referencing as well as ELs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, regarding the template, I notice that the format is currently {{NeilBrownPlayers|/player10/barryelliot.html|Barry Elliot}} - but would it be possible to change it to {{NeilBrownPlayers|/player10/barryelliot|Barry Elliot}} (i.e. the template auto-generates the appropriate suffix) - this means that if the suffix changes again, all we need to do is make one change to the template rather than fixing the many, many individual links.
- Secondly, regarding AWB, I think it would be safer to run a bot for this task. It's beyond my AWB skills. GiantSnowman 10:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Have you considered modifying the template to detect if there is any type-extension like .htm or .html and modify it to the correct type? Josh Parris 01:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been expanding the List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league appearances. I created the Template to avoid a lot of repeated typing. I too noticed the suffix change. I can change it to assume a common suffix (.html) which will mean we can easily fix all if this happens again. Shall I ? PeteS 16:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes please, if you can. Like I said - if the site changes again, it means we only have to adjust the template, and not the thousands of pages. On a side note Pete, you might also be interested in List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league goals. GiantSnowman 16:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I've requested a bot. WP:BOTREQ#Changing the url suffix from .htm to .html for a specific site. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman:@PeteS: And have had a reply, which says it's an easy fix but that this discussion implies we want to use the template instead. Is that the case? Personally, I'd rather get the 1000 broken urls fixed now and apply the template once we're sure it does what we want it to do. At the moment, it's perfect for external links, but it only generates external-link format, without publisher, accessdate etc, which isn't ideal for inline referencing, and isn't appropriate for articles where all references are consistently fully formatted. As mentioned above, if someone were clever enough to enhance it the way {{NFT player}} has been done (must admit, I hadn't known about that before yesterday) to also generate cite-web format...
But the point is, what do we want to do now? fix the urls, or apply the template? Further input welcome... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Struway2: Good point. The template is not fit for all purposes and needs many more fields and defaults to be fully functional. I think it would be a long term goal to have a template because all the refs/citations/links currently have different formats. PeteS (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've started Template:NeilBrownPlayers/doc - and agree we should add more parameters if we can, to bring it up to scratch for in-line use. GiantSnowman 12:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, does that mean you don't want the urls fixing now, but would prefer to leave them broken until the template's fully functional, or what? The bot operator needed a clear consensus if he was going to fix them now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Should the template include an optional accessdate parameter, for instances where the template is used as a reference? GoingBatty (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Bot approved and running - GoingBatty (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done - 5,410 articles updated. GoingBatty (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC).
Fb results table
We all want to get rid of those Fb-templates, and after I noticed 13 new Norwegian Fb team templates, I decided to do some experimenting in my sandbox to check if it was possible to replace the Fb results table. It turns out that this wikitable is exactly the same as this table which uses the fb templates. I realized that it would be easy to replace the Template:Fb r header and Template:Fb r team with wikitables, while Template:Fb r and Template:Fb r footer might still be useful and fits into a wikitable. What do people think? It is the first two templates that uses the Fb team templates, so if we get rid of those we might be able to get rid of a lot of templates. Mentoz (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- We definitely need to get rid of these templates. GiantSnowman 13:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- We could definitely cut down with the template usage, but will we be getting a bot to make the tens of thousands of changes?--2nyte (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, a bot should make these changes, ideally following a TFD. GiantSnowman 13:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I made one using a wikitable here. It looks slightly different, but I do not think a need for two links to the club exists. As far as the bot, I do not know if our last request was not clear enough or the people were just not interested, so will we get a bot? That will be determined in the future. EddieV2003 (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the link to the last bot request : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_56#FB_team_templates Not many takers there :-) -Koppapa (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I made one using a wikitable here. It looks slightly different, but I do not think a need for two links to the club exists. As far as the bot, I do not know if our last request was not clear enough or the people were just not interested, so will we get a bot? That will be determined in the future. EddieV2003 (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, a bot should make these changes, ideally following a TFD. GiantSnowman 13:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- We could definitely cut down with the template usage, but will we be getting a bot to make the tens of thousands of changes?--2nyte (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Move request
I have started a move request for articles on Premier League seasons prior to 2006-07. Please go there and make your views known. The location is: Talk:1992–93 FA Premier League#Requested move Thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
1999–2000 season articles
I just wanted to known why 1999–2000 season articles are named, for example, 1999–2000 La Liga rather than 1999–00 La Liga. It has always crossed my mind.--2nyte (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is because AB–C implies AB–AC, so it could refer to 1999–1900. The notes in MOS:YEAR do not list a reason, but it's talk page might have an old discussion about it. CRwikiCA talk 03:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It's amazing this article is here and obviously it should be here, at the time those games were the biggest club level international games.
The issue is, not only Sunderland won it. Those kind of games were also won by Renton, Hearts, and Hibernian. Shouldn't it be better to turn this article into an article about all those games? What should be the name then? 2.124.1.232 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- An article on World Championship (football), which is currently a redirect to that match (but should probably be a disambiguation page at the moment!) would be appropriate, stating who organised the matches, how they came about, how long they ran for etc. There could then potentially be a separate article on each match. All would need sourcing, however! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Swansea
Hi guys, probably you know that Swansea has very good stats H2H with English grand teams. I propose to add this info in team's article. Probably is the "small" team with best results against english ellite. Just look here
- Swansea vs Chelsea http://int.soccerway.com/teams/comparison/?team_ids%5B%5D=661&team_ids%5B%5D=738
- Swansea vs Arsenal http://int.soccerway.com/teams/comparison/?team_ids%5B%5D=660&team_ids%5B%5D=738
- Swansea vs Man. City http://int.soccerway.com/teams/comparison/?team_ids%5B%5D=676&team_ids%5B%5D=738
- Swansea vs Liverpool http://int.soccerway.com/teams/comparison/?team_ids%5B%5D=663&team_ids%5B%5D=738
XXN (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see the value in that. Eleven wins from 38 games in total is hardly something to get excited about...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with ChrisTheDude on this one. And who says what teams are the "english elite"? For example you dont have Man Utd and is Tottenham there? QED237 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, who decides that Swansea are a "small" team? For the record, I checked that site and, assuming their stats are accurate, Brentford have a much better overall record against the same four opponents, so the claim that Swansea are "the "small" team with best results against english ellite" isn't correct anyway...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with ChrisTheDude on this one. And who says what teams are the "english elite"? For example you dont have Man Utd and is Tottenham there? QED237 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Nahki Wells
According to this, Nahki Wells will sign on loan for Huddersfield Town for one game before signing a permanent deal. No other sources I have seen (i.e. official sites of both clubs) have mentioned. Is it worth adding this 'loan' spell in the infobox/prose/career stats table? I don't think it is to be honest... GiantSnowman 19:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- BBC has now said that the loan deal will be until "next week" - maybe it is worth changing to reflect this then? GiantSnowman 19:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I edit conflicted with you, but in light of the emerging facts, definitely in prose and infobox. What I was going to post was:
Not in the stats table. Infobox and prose, depends on sources. If the club site(s) say that, or the FA registration list, when it comes through, or national media, then it's moderately interesting to include in the prose (illustrates how anxious Huddersfield were to get it done) and it ought to go in the infobox for accuracy. If that report in the local rag is the only source, then no. See e.g. Jermain Defoe, who joined Portsmouth from Spurs on a one-day loan ahead of a permanent transfer, and doing it that way made him ineligible to play against Spurs in the league, or Neil Kilkenny's move to Leeds. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I edit conflicted with you, but in light of the emerging facts, definitely in prose and infobox. What I was going to post was:
Issue regarding years in player infobox, Johan Dahlin
I'm having a difficult time trying to explain to User:Plexus14 that in the article of Johan Dahlin the years for in which he played for Malmö FF in his infobox should be 2009–2013 and not 2009–2014. Dahlin left Malmö FF for a Turkish club on 7 January 2014 when the Turkish transfer window opened. The transfer was official already in December 2013, but more importantly, Dahlin did not play any league or friendly match for Malmö FF in 2014. I believe that the common practice across Wikipedia is to write the year in which the player last was part of the season squad, thus 2013 in this case. I see no logic point whatsoever in writing 2014 as his last season in the infobox, this gives me the impression that Dahlin played a couple of league matches or at least was part of the 2014 Malmö FF squad, which is clearly misleading. I don't want to break the 3RR rule so in the case that I'm correct in my view of common Wikipedia practice regarding this, then it would be much appreciated if someone could help me revert the edits. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The problem wtih this issue is more basic, if there is some regulations as Reckless188 said. It has been said that the player did not play any league or friendly match for Malmö FF and because of this reason it should be written the years "2009-2013", instead of "2009-2014" although his contract is still active until 7 January 2014. With this rules; for example a player has transferred to a team and he's got injured for a long time and did not play any single game for that team and next year he's transferred another team. Then should we ignore that year? Should we ignore that team just he was injured and did not play any single game with that team? İt is not seem logical though.
- For leagues that have calendar year seasons (e.g. Sweden, USA etc.) we have always traditionally always used the seasons a player played for a club - and not the specific date of departure - in the infobox. So for Dahlin, that would indeed be 2009–2013 (the season he joined, the season he left). GiantSnowman 09:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- For leagues that have calendar year seasons (e.g. Sweden, USA etc.) we have always traditionally always used the seasons a player played for a club - and not the specific date of departure - in the infobox. So for Dahlin, that would indeed be 2009–2013 (the season he joined, the season he left). GiantSnowman 09:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
2014–15 Bayern, Dortmund and Leverkusen seasons
2014–15 FC Bayern Munich season, 2014–15 Borussia Dortmund season, and 2014–15 Bayer Leverkusen season – cases of WP:TOOEARLY or perfectly legitimate articles at this time of the year? Discuss, please. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Much too early, IMO. Those three teams may have mathematically avoided relegation for this season (I haven't read the articles so I'm just speculating), but there is nothing concrete about next season yet. I'd wait until the fixtures for next season are announced, either in the league or pre-season. – PeeJay 22:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Leverkusen one is 32,615 bytes long, and the only readable content is that Sidney Sam has left for Schalke, which is factually incorrect and a BLP violation because it isn't 1 July yet... Far, far too soon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Much to soon. It is almost only empty tables, why have tables if they are empty. And also is all the info true? Could for example Bayern still be relegated this season theoretically and therefore not play in Bundesliga that season? These articles should not exist yet. QED237 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- They still seem to be 22 points short of ending in the top-15 for sure. Having empty tables like this is pointless, I would suggest to WP:USERFY the content on the editors page, so he (and potentially others that want to prepare the articles already) can update this minor information and move it all live when the current season is done. CRwikiCA talk 01:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like a solution that will make all happy. I agree that Lewandowski transfer was not a justified cause to start them. EddieV2003 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Far too early. Nominate for deletion and trout whoever created them. GiantSnowman 09:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your input. USERFYing the articles indeed seems to be the best solution. One more thing, though – could someone of the sysops please take care of Category:German football clubs 2014–15 season? This would be an empty category once the moves to userspace have been done. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Empty categories can only be deleted after being empty for 4 days, see WP:C1. GiantSnowman 14:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, right, completely forgot about that. Anyway... articles have been USERFYed, category has been tagged. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Empty categories can only be deleted after being empty for 4 days, see WP:C1. GiantSnowman 14:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your input. USERFYing the articles indeed seems to be the best solution. One more thing, though – could someone of the sysops please take care of Category:German football clubs 2014–15 season? This would be an empty category once the moves to userspace have been done. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Far too early. Nominate for deletion and trout whoever created them. GiantSnowman 09:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like a solution that will make all happy. I agree that Lewandowski transfer was not a justified cause to start them. EddieV2003 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- They still seem to be 22 points short of ending in the top-15 for sure. Having empty tables like this is pointless, I would suggest to WP:USERFY the content on the editors page, so he (and potentially others that want to prepare the articles already) can update this minor information and move it all live when the current season is done. CRwikiCA talk 01:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Much to soon. It is almost only empty tables, why have tables if they are empty. And also is all the info true? Could for example Bayern still be relegated this season theoretically and therefore not play in Bundesliga that season? These articles should not exist yet. QED237 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Leverkusen one is 32,615 bytes long, and the only readable content is that Sidney Sam has left for Schalke, which is factually incorrect and a BLP violation because it isn't 1 July yet... Far, far too soon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, just kicked off this article for cricket project. Guy played football too for Newcastle, Leicester and others in 1960s. Cool. So. Anyone want to adopt it for football coverage? --Bill (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'll expand momentarily. GiantSnowman 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting he's the son of former ManU player Charlie Mitten. [9] ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently Charlie gave John his senior debut at Mansfield at age 16. However I can't find a source verifying that. GiantSnowman 14:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- These sources [10] [11] [12] don't explicitly say debut but state his father who was player/manager played his 16 year-old son in a number of matches even dropping local favourite Bobby Mitchell in the process. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- These say [13][14] he made his debut against West Brom in November 1958 (missing a peno) a period when his father was in charge. He also had a spell at Whitley Bay. The book about his father looks an interesting read. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- These sources [10] [11] [12] don't explicitly say debut but state his father who was player/manager played his 16 year-old son in a number of matches even dropping local favourite Bobby Mitchell in the process. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently Charlie gave John his senior debut at Mansfield at age 16. However I can't find a source verifying that. GiantSnowman 14:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting he's the son of former ManU player Charlie Mitten. [9] ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Stadium under construction?Old Project for Euro 2016?
What is the situation about these turkish stadiums?
- New Trabzon Stadium
- New Konya Stadium
- New Eskişehir Stadium
- New Kocaeli Stadium
- Timsah Arena
- Vodafone Arena
- New Antalya Stadium
Are these stadiums under costruction or are they a old project for Euro 2016? What's the solution abou t the proposed stadium?Deletion or redirect? --95.244.242.218 (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Has anybody ever heard of Octavian Constantinescu. I can't find anything about him on Goggle or Soccerway. JMHamo (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've tagged him for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. The article reminds me of another recent-ish one. Can't remember what. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Struway2, I knew it was a hoax, but just wanted to get a second opinion! JMHamo (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Who's the image of, it is a player in a Bitonto shirt. Where does the image stand should it be deleted it was created by the same person. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The same dubious article exists on Romanian language Wikipedia see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Who's the image of, it is a player in a Bitonto shirt. Where does the image stand should it be deleted it was created by the same person. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Struway2, I knew it was a hoax, but just wanted to get a second opinion! JMHamo (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Spanish Wikipedia too. JMHamo (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The image used is most probably copied from here newsued.com... JMHamo (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The article previously existed on the English Wikipedia under name Octavian David Constantinescu which was deleted three times and the creator DigiTv1 (talk · contribs) blocked so GspTv1 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet that's evading a block and creating the same nonsense. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've tagged the Spanish one as a hoax. Romanian might be beyond me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have deleted the article and blocked the user. GiantSnowman 13:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've tagged the Romanian version for speedy deletion also. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Romanian version is now deleted and it was only created today so a decent catch. GspTv1 removed the speedy tag from the Spanish version. Can some take care the image. From the link JMHamo provided it seems to be copyrighted and person it depicts appears to be Francesco Monte. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tagged the Commons image for speedy deletion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Luke, there is also this image. I've contacted an admin on the Spanish Wikipedia in relation to the Spanish version of the article. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- If I knew the source of that, I would be able to mention it as a copyvio. I'll nominate it as a hoax image that is almost certainly a copyvio though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Having checked both accounts global contributions I found a third and fourth image. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- All images have been deleted and I've blocked both accounts on Commons. If any more socks/images show up, let me know on my talk here or on Commons. INeverCry 21:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Having checked both accounts global contributions I found a third and fourth image. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Luke, there is also this image. I've contacted an admin on the Spanish Wikipedia in relation to the Spanish version of the article. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Romanian version is now deleted and it was only created today so a decent catch. GspTv1 removed the speedy tag from the Spanish version. Can some take care the image. From the link JMHamo provided it seems to be copyrighted and person it depicts appears to be Francesco Monte. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've tagged the Romanian version for speedy deletion also. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have deleted the article and blocked the user. GiantSnowman 13:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've tagged the Spanish one as a hoax. Romanian might be beyond me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The article previously existed on the English Wikipedia under name Octavian David Constantinescu which was deleted three times and the creator DigiTv1 (talk · contribs) blocked so GspTv1 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet that's evading a block and creating the same nonsense. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Restore Tyias Browning article
Please can someone restore the article, he's been brought on as a substitute in the Championship for Wigan and is now eligible for an article. TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear football enthusiasts: Here's another one of those old abandoned drafts. This one was never submitted. Is this a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Long story short - not as far as I can tell. GiantSnowman 09:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- In more detail, Bosnia does not have a fully professional league, and there is no indication he meets WP:GNG. So not notable. Thanks, C679 10:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Sorry to be asking again, but soon the Afc backlog will be gone, and there won't be so many of these old drafts. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- In more detail, Bosnia does not have a fully professional league, and there is no indication he meets WP:GNG. So not notable. Thanks, C679 10:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
user watch
Expofunner adds a lot of unsourced stuff to articles. Maybe some people watch after him. -Koppapa (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Have given him an "only warning" template because of his edits, if any admin who comes across this issue wants to down grade this or even increase to a block, I have no objections. Murry1975 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- He is the same person as FallandSpringOlympics, his behavior won't change with warning. he also uses these IPs User talk:50.202.62.2, User talk:68.83.88.141 and User talk:69.171.176.176. I have already reported him. Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- He is the same person as FallandSpringOlympics, his behavior won't change with warning. he also uses these IPs User talk:50.202.62.2, User talk:68.83.88.141 and User talk:69.171.176.176. I have already reported him. Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Biography lead paragraphs
Re: a little trouble I'm having convincing another editor, I just wanted to confirm that we shouldn't be specifying what division a player's club plays in in the lead paragraph of a biography. Also, do we need to specify that the player is a professional? So, for example, should we be saying "Joe Foobar is an English professional footballer who plays for Premier League club Example Rovers" or just "Joe Foobar is an English footballer who plays for Example Rovers"? – PeeJay 00:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Let's tell the whole story here. At no point have you simply tried to remove the league & the word professional (They are refered to as professional footballers by the World's media & the general public afterall, not to mention they're professional footballers, that is the name of the profession, the word professional is there for other sports people, not to mention it helps to seperate semi-professional & amatuer footballers), what you have actually been doing is removing edits that include those changes and other edits too. You've undone edits that include alignment improvements to ensure ease for all future editors, formatting that puts loans in italics as is the norm here and also numerous other formatting corrections such as changing Hull City A.F.C. to Hull City AFC (when A.F.C. is correct here). With regards to including the league the player plays in, it provides quicker & easier information for users who don't know what league a club plays for, so it saves them from being on a players article, then having to click on to the article for the club they play for in order to see what league they play in. Besides, there is no downside to having the league there, especially when there is a problem with many professional footballers articles having the "too short lead-in" notification, and that is the main issue with you, what you keep doing over & over again is of no benefit what-so-ever. Whereas leaving the edits as they are makes it easier for all future editors (I see you've been here for a long time, but clearly you've forgotten what it's like to be new, you're not sure of how everything works and having the stats sections un-aligned is very confusing and off putting to new editors, it is best to make Wikipedia as friendly, easy, simple and uncomplicated as possible for new users, that much should be obvious). The way I have made it makes it as easy as possible for new and existing users alike, it is as clean, clear, simple & straightforward as possible. There is no downside from my edit and no upside to you constantly undoing it, your actions bring no benefit, they actually take away from the article. Pawac (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- This all seems like a storm in a teacup to me and you should both calm down. It's only Wikipedia, after all. As far as I can tell, the main article that you are squabbling over is Alex Bruce. The main problem I have with that article is that the Leeds United references take me to the home page rather than a specific article. As the references have been added recently, I presume that a subscription is required before access is granted to old pages. If so, this should be noted in the reference. None of the recent references comply with the citeref template; e.g. No proper title for the original article, no date of the original article, the dates in the references should be in the same format as the article (nn Mmmm yyyy, not yyyy-mm-dd). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Edit-warring over spacing in the infobox is ridiculous, and there's no need to rant about it. In my opinion, the extreme amount of whitespace in the current (Pawac) version, so that everything is aligned, makes it more, not less, difficult to find the current row for everyday updating, even if the user has a screen sufficiently wide for the rows to display without wrapping. Not everyone does, particularly if editing from mobile devices. Please understand that what one person sees as a perfect layout, others may well find impractical, confusing or irritating.
Personally, I don't think including the word "professional" does any harm. The league division is more problematic; when accurate, it adds information, but there is a general problem of it being changed upwards seconds after a team's promotion is confirmed, yet only changed downwards when a supporter of a rival team comes across it. The word is Premier League "club" or "team", though, not "side" or "outfit". Loans don't go in italics: the relevant bit of the Manual of Style is MOS:ITALIC. But what's really wrong with the lead in this article is the same as for many such: it only mentions the current club, nothing about the eight years before Mr Bruce went to Hull.
The Leeds refs were changed recently by someone using a script to "fix" linkrot, though unfortunately they can't have noticed that the urls redirected to the home page. If they're not still on the LUFC site somewhere else, they'll almost certainly be on archive.org. I'll have a go at them later, if no-one else gets there first. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- The word "professional" should be encouraged, that is after all the claim-to-fame of many of the players. The (loan) in the infobox should not be in italics. As for the division itself, I am personally against it purely because when a team gets relegated, the information is often not updated. However, there is no use petty edit-warring over it. GiantSnowman 11:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up the refs as far as the end of the 2010/11 season (not 2011/11 as it says in my edit summary). The Leeds match reports are still on the LUFC website, just the urls have changed. As has often been the case with Leeds players, the match report or news item cited didn't back up the apparently verified content, so I've had to do a bit of tweaking as well. Will return for the rest later. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- The word "professional" should be encouraged, that is after all the claim-to-fame of many of the players. The (loan) in the infobox should not be in italics. As for the division itself, I am personally against it purely because when a team gets relegated, the information is often not updated. However, there is no use petty edit-warring over it. GiantSnowman 11:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Edit-warring over spacing in the infobox is ridiculous, and there's no need to rant about it. In my opinion, the extreme amount of whitespace in the current (Pawac) version, so that everything is aligned, makes it more, not less, difficult to find the current row for everyday updating, even if the user has a screen sufficiently wide for the rows to display without wrapping. Not everyone does, particularly if editing from mobile devices. Please understand that what one person sees as a perfect layout, others may well find impractical, confusing or irritating.
- This all seems like a storm in a teacup to me and you should both calm down. It's only Wikipedia, after all. As far as I can tell, the main article that you are squabbling over is Alex Bruce. The main problem I have with that article is that the Leeds United references take me to the home page rather than a specific article. As the references have been added recently, I presume that a subscription is required before access is granted to old pages. If so, this should be noted in the reference. None of the recent references comply with the citeref template; e.g. No proper title for the original article, no date of the original article, the dates in the references should be in the same format as the article (nn Mmmm yyyy, not yyyy-mm-dd). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Leicester City squad template
I've just added Riyad Mahrez to the Leicester City Template but when I clicked onto his page through it his name wasn't showing in the template on his page or that of any other of the players, can anyone suggest a fix please? Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Database lag. As soon as you edit the pages in question, the updated template will show - as I have done to Mahrez. GiantSnowman 17:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict). See null edit. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- You don't really need to make and edit. Purging the page is the easiest way.Blethering Scot 15:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict). See null edit. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Ashton Gate
This is just a reminder that Ashton Gate and Ashton Gate Stadium are completely different. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 17:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- IMO the stadium should be at Ashton Gate (that is its common name) and the district should be at something like Ashton Gate, Bristol. This would be consistent with Anfield and Anfield, Liverpool, or Easter Road and Easter Road, Edinburgh. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Jacques LaDouceur
Hello. In Jacques LaDouceur says that he played in San Jose Earthquakes (not San Jose Earthquakes (1974–88)) but he is categorized as Category:San Jose Earthquakes (1974–88) players. I don't know much about american soccer so I need your help. Xaris333 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- The category was correct, the other links have been changed by Hack (talk · contribs) to reflect this. GiantSnowman 18:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Changing file names for logos
Hi, I used to be able to do this but I already forgot for some odd reason. I am trying to change the name of File:Federation Cup.jpg to File:Indian Federation Cup Logo.jpg but like I said, I forgot how to go about this. If anyone would like, they can change it themselves or you could just tell me how to. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Can't you just do an RM? Or simply click "Move" at the top of the page? – PeeJay 16:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- In the past I've used a template called rename media.It gets the job done. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
FIFA 'friendly' associations
In light of today's Kosovo news, do we have a list of teams that have permission from FIFA to play their member associations? TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Does this help? - List of men's national association football teams... JMHamo (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Nemanja Matić
IPs kept adding unsourced speculation in relation to Chelsea which I removed then when they weren't getting their way they started vandalising so I had the page protected for ten days via WP:RPP. Since it's been protected User:BenficaNNossaPaixao has altered the article to appear as if he's joined Chelsea based on this ref which says: "Serbian midfielder travels to London today to commit to the team" another words he hasn't joined yet he's just set to. Nothing official has been announced by either club. Also the user thinks it's relevant to include the fact that Matić came second in the Puskás Award in the honours for which he doesn't receive an award. I have a pain in the face reverting stuff from Matić's and Mike Jones pages the last few days can some remove and have a word with the user. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ive left a couple of messages on his talk page and started a discussion on the article's own page.Blethering Scot 16:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assistance Matty and BScot s/he has got the message in relation to the transfer. I sent the user a further comment in regards to the award, which can be further discussed on talk page. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Ethnic group footballer categories
I noticed that Emmanuel Adebayor has the unreferenced category Category:Yoruba footballers and wondered if we should really be categorizing footballers by ethnic background. Typically, Adebayor would be categorized according to his nation of birth (Category:Togolese footballers), but this (and similar categories like Category:Basque footballers) categorize according to ethnicity. The articles in the Yoruba footballers category bear no references to support the ethnicity, and it seems like the same is true for many articles in the Basque footballers category. Perhaps there is a distinction between the two because there is an autonomous Basque region within Spain and footballers have represented an (unofficial?) Basque selection in international football, while there is no Yoruba nation or automous state and I'm not aware of any Yoruba selection that plays international football? What do project members think about these types of categories? My initial reaction is that they may cause significant debate (because footballers' ethnicities are rarely covered in reliable sources) and probably serve little purpose. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think those categores may open a dangerous precedent into world-wide creation of new ethnic/localpatriotic categories. I see nationalist POV-pushers running into them. And we may have then endless categories to be created. I think that footballers should be divided only into these categories: Category:Association_football_players_by_nationality, and by "nationality" we should have in mind the FIFA members. Besides that, all we can do is categorize by former FIFA members (Yugoslav, Soviet, Bohemian, etc. footballers if played in that period) and eventully include categories for these nations which have some sort of national team but are not FIFA members: List of non-national representative teams in men's football. Everything else besides this is superfluos for footballers, otherwise we can start creating categories such as Category:Footballers from the Chinese community from Amsterdam... FkpCascais (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:EGRS, which states that "ethnic groups may be used as categorizations." The issue here is not with the categories per se, but with the use of the categories. If there is no evidence in reliable sources that Adebayor (or any other player) is Yoruba (or any other ethnic group) then it should be removed on sight. GiantSnowman 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you GS. If I'm reading that guideline properly, it appears that we should not generally categorize sportspeople by religious or ethnic background unless it is somehow relevant to their sports career. I can't imagine that these ethnicities have any relevance to their footballing career, but I'll focus on the unreferenced categories for now. Jogurney (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- For Yoruba footballers, I would agree; an exception would be Basque or Catalonian footballers, for example, as that ethnicity is highly relevant. GiantSnowman 14:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no reason to have the mixture categories like Yoruba footballers. The category to be added then (with a RS confirming it) is Yoruba people. Basque footballers is different, because there is a Basque football team. However, as there is no Yoruba football team, so there should be no reason to create a Yoruba footballers cat. FkpCascais (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- For Yoruba footballers, I would agree; an exception would be Basque or Catalonian footballers, for example, as that ethnicity is highly relevant. GiantSnowman 14:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you GS. If I'm reading that guideline properly, it appears that we should not generally categorize sportspeople by religious or ethnic background unless it is somehow relevant to their sports career. I can't imagine that these ethnicities have any relevance to their footballing career, but I'll focus on the unreferenced categories for now. Jogurney (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:EGRS, which states that "ethnic groups may be used as categorizations." The issue here is not with the categories per se, but with the use of the categories. If there is no evidence in reliable sources that Adebayor (or any other player) is Yoruba (or any other ethnic group) then it should be removed on sight. GiantSnowman 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
OFC qualification for the 1966 FIFA World Cup
In the articles 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification, 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF, AFC and OFC) and 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC – OFC) it is specified that Australia competed as an OFC (Oceania Football Confederation) member country. This is incorrect as the OFC was not founded until 15 November 1966 (obviously after the 1966 World Cup and its qualification period). I think changes in the article titles and their content should be made.--2nyte (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd rename 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF, AFC and OFC) to 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (Africa, Asia and Oceania) and redirect the 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC – OFC) article to that. There basically is no additional info. -Koppapa (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there teammates, longtime no see,
any Rangers F.C. fans out there? I assume there are and so, would like to clear this doubt please: did this player qualify for his honours with the club? He must have at least received a Scottish Cup medal for scoring in the previous rounds, but there is the possibility he did not collect any silverware for not playing the amount of games required a la Premier League style (i am assuming the approach is the same in Scotland than in England).
I am writing this mainly this because User:GiantSnowman removed his honours section and i reinstated them, vowing to find sources for every single one of them, and now promising to remove the Rangers stuff if i can't find any positive reply here.
Attentively, thank you in advance --AL (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- You should not assume that just because a player's team won X or Y competitions, that the player also won that honour. We need direct, explicit confirmation in reliable sources. GiantSnowman 13:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Players in Scottish cup competitions only get a medal if they were in the matchday squad (starting XI + subs) of the final match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Did the Scottish league cup under the old SFL not operate a percentage of games rule? Also I'm not 100% sure but when Hearts won the Scottish Cup in 2012, some players who weren't in the final did get medals. The only reason i remember that was I'm sure was mentioned in the local papers at the time.Blethering Scot 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your inputs, even though they don't coincide (JM says Ñíguez should not get Cup honour, BS says he should but in the League Cup from what i understand, i'm caught in the middle so i'll remove because i don't want to be accused of anything). However, i add the following: please don't remove honours in (most) Europe-based competitions other than the UK of course (league or cup), because if they play one minute in cup and in the first round, they get medal, and if they play one minute in the league they win the league trophy, so we don't need no reliable sources there.
Thanks and cheers --AL (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking in terms of this player more in general. In any case unless we know for certain he did i.e. a source said he would of or did then should be removed. If those are the published rules of the competition in those countries then that would verify the would of clause of my statement.Blethering Scot 19:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Height templates
This discussion may be of interest/concern to project members. Should player heights be shown in infoboxes in centimetres (187cm) or in metres (1.87m)? For Rickie Lambert, Southampton FC show his height in centimetres [15] whereas the Premier League use metres [16]. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Both should be allowed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Who says they aren't both allowed already? – PeeJay 21:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- See User_talk:Gibson_Flying_V#Height_in_football_players.27_infoboxes.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Who says they aren't both allowed already? – PeeJay 21:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
User watch 2
This user changes goalscorers and results, some definately are made up. Maybe someone looks into it. User:DCUBEST -Koppapa (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I gave him a warning for his recent edit on 2009-10 Real Madrid article after he added goals for a team when matchreport said they did not score. (Unsourced addition of content). Someone else way continue keep an eye on this editor. QED237 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Moldova national football team results has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Serves the exact same purpose as [[Category:Moldova national football team results]].
While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Category:2014 FIFA World Cup referees
Category:2014 FIFA World Cup referees has been created and added to articles for referees who have been named to officiate at the World Cup. Would I be right to remove this category per WP:CRYSTALBALL given their participation is not guaranteed (they are still subject to fitness tests). Hack (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- As they most likely will be fit, maybe just add one or two sentences as a category description. -Koppapa (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree. I think the category should be removed until people have actually officiated at a match. RossRSmith (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Title of Copa MX season articles
What would be the "correct" title (i.e. one that follows our guidelines) for articles like Apertura 2012 Copa MX or Clausura 2013 Copa MX? Something in the terms of <year> Copa MX [Apertura|Clausura]? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know the project's guidelines on this matter, but a title of 2013 Copa MX Apertura is very confusing. The Clausura/Apertura wording ought to precede or follow the year. If you look at the Liga MX season articles, they appear to be named 2013–14 Liga MX, so it may be best to name the articles 2013–14 Copa MX for consistency purposes. Jogurney (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
RfC launched on football team naming
Following discussions about the naming of the Australian football team article, I've started a formal RfC here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#RfC: How should articles on national sports teams handle gendered teams? I invite you to share your views. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Squad numbers in the Premier League
I am trying to find out when squad numbers (and names on shirts) were introduced to the Premier League. The article Squad number (association football)#Great Britain says it was in the 1993–94 season, but it is unreferenced. Kudos to anyone who can add the information to that article and hopefully share it here. Thanks, C679 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- [17] backs up the 1993-94 season claim, but I'm not certain if that site is reliable or not, and I can't find anything else easily. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Three paragraphs from the end of this article? Jared Preston (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- There's also this: [18] Jared Preston (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Times of 16 August 1993 didn't like the "ludicrous policy in the FA Carling Premiership this season. Squad numbers may be justified in the World Cup; they are an absurd affectation in the league, and so confused the Newcastle announcer that he got both teams wrong when he read them out." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Premier League intended to introduce squad numbers at the start of the 1992–93 season, "but Manchester United vetoed plans 'because their laundry room was too small to handle all the extra shirts.'" From a Guardian article cited on 1993 FA Charity Shield. By May 1993, the clubs IIRC voted in favour of squad numbers. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Times of 16 August 1993 didn't like the "ludicrous policy in the FA Carling Premiership this season. Squad numbers may be justified in the World Cup; they are an absurd affectation in the league, and so confused the Newcastle announcer that he got both teams wrong when he read them out." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikilink sports templates
After the failure of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_28#Wikilink_sports_templates to reach consensus is it possible to get a bot set up to subst the ones that have not been used correctly (ie without the subst). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I guess replacinghas started. -Koppapa (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes - thanks to User:Hack for taking on this task. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Indian football-help
- Garhwal F.C.
- 2014 I-League 2nd Division
- MP United (Madhya Pradesh United)
--79.50.245.105 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- 2015 CAF Champions League (african football) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.245.105 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- What help do you require? GiantSnowman 13:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Who knows, 2 of those pages are not notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- What help do you require? GiantSnowman 13:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There is something of an edit war going on at the moment involving an IP who insists that all clubs must be referred to by current names (including stating explicitly that Milton Keynes Dons won the Cup in 1988). Please could we establish a consensus on how this should be treated at Talk:List of FA Cup finals#Establishing consensus on The Wednesday and Wimbledon? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Some editors are denying that Wimbledon FC and MK Don are not the same club. The talk page and article has links proving they are the same club, yet some editors deny fact. Wimbledon FC moved town and changed their name to MK Dons. This is not new as other clubs have done the same, notably Arsenal. The new name is MK Dons. On moving to Milton Keynes Wimbledon played under the name Wimbledon for the first season at the National Hockey stadium. The first team Wimbledon FC played in Milton Keynes was Burnley. The club's name was changed to MK Dons keeping the link to the old name in incorporating its nickname "the Dons", in the second season being located in Milton Keynes taking Wimbledon FC's fixtures and league position. They have the same history as Wimbledon FC. They are the same club. The same registration - otherwise they would not be allowed to take Wimbledon's fixtures and league position. Everton FC left the Anfield stadium, those who stayed behind attempted to take Everton FC's league position and fixtures. The FA ruled that the club holding the registration of Everton FC keep the fixtures. the new club, Liverpool AFC had to start at the bottom. MK Dons hold the registration dating from 1889 when the club was formed as a Wimbledon Old Central Football Club. The club changed it name to Wimbledon FC and then later to MK Dons FC. Two name changes in its history. AFC Wimbledon are a totally different and separate club with no legal connection to the old Wimbledon FC/MK Dons. AFC Wimbledon had to start at the bottom of the leagues as Liverpool FC did. This is fact. The club that won the 1988 FA Cup final is now called MK Dons - a name change.
- MK Dons and Wimbledon FC are the same club with the same heritage and the same 1889 FA registration (that is what matters). It is not difficult to figure out. This link clears it all up. http://www.mkdsa.co.uk/index.php/dons-history/facts-of-the-move "The change of name from Wimbledon FC to Milton Keynes Dons FC was made to reflect the club's new conurbation of Milton Keynes whilst maintaining a direct link with the club's heritage."
- The article should contain the current names of clubs with a ref to older names where applicable. This then does not confuse a reader. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- There was no team called 'MK Dons' in 1988. There was a team called Wimbledon, and they won the title. GiantSnowman 13:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Read it again. Wimbledon, who won the FA Cup in 1988 are now called MK Dons. The same club. The article should show current club name and ref to older names. It is simpler that way and easy to understand. WisdomIncorporated (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, they're not - MK Dons and Wimbledon F.C. are seperate articles. GiantSnowman 13:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- They are not, they are same club, as Woolwich Arsenal are Arsenal, the same club, as Newton Heath and Manchester United are the same club. Man U changed name, kit colour and moved town from Manchester to Salford keeping a link in their name to their origin, "Manchester". MK have a link to the old name and location in the "Dons". Football is full of such examples - the way it is. Read above it was very clear. The link given was very clear as well. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, they're not - MK Dons and Wimbledon F.C. are seperate articles. GiantSnowman 13:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Read it again. Wimbledon, who won the FA Cup in 1988 are now called MK Dons. The same club. The article should show current club name and ref to older names. It is simpler that way and easy to understand. WisdomIncorporated (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- There was no team called 'MK Dons' in 1988. There was a team called Wimbledon, and they won the title. GiantSnowman 13:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of whether MK Dons and Wimbledon FC are the same thing, we should use the name of each cup-winner as at the time they won it, for historical accuracy. The 1988 Cup Final was won by a team called Wimbledon FC. Every time it comes up on TV - the Crazy Gang beating the Culture Club and all the rest - it's still called Wimbledon. This is an encyclopedia, and as such it has to reflect historical fact. The historical fact is that a team called Wimbledon won the FA Cup in 1988, and for an encyclopedia to use a different name in a list of FA Cup-winners would not only deprive that encyclopedia of any credibility, it'd be unbelievably misleading and confusing for the reader. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Historical fact is MK Dons are Wimbledon. That is sorted? Yes? OK!! Now the point about one club with TWO different named entries. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - it is valid to show a club's current name in the "wins by club" table, with a note referring to any previous names as appropriate, but in the table of individual finals, which is a historical record of what occurred at the time, the name in use at the time should be shown. And referring to "MK Dons' win in the 1988 final" in the lead, as the IP wants to do, is 100% wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- This article had two separate entries in the tables for the same club, The Wednesday and Sheffield Wednesday. This is totally confusing as I am sure most agree. The only way around it is to use the current name and ref/link to then old name. This of course will mean MK Dons will have to be in the 1988 entry with a link/ref to the old name. It is the best way of doing it as it does not confuse the readers - how any knew Sheff Wed were called The Wednesday? Very few. For some reason most, prob via football mag propaganda, think MK Dons are a new club. They are not, they are the same club as Wimbledon FC from 1889 keeping the same league status and fixtures - that is hard indisputable fact. Why are people getting their knickers in twist over this? 94.194.23.28 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- "This is totally confusing as I am sure most agree" - well I for one don't agree that it is........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- As you wrote most of the article with the inaccuracies, you would say that. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Which bit of use the historically accurate name are you failing to grasp? If the name engraved on the cup and recorded in all reliable sources is Wimbledon, or The Wednesday, then we can't decide to use something else just because we feel like it. Struway2 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- "This is totally confusing as I am sure most agree" - well I for one don't agree that it is........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The article has TWO differently named entries for one club - Sheff Wed, which you never grasped. That is madness - daft. People know clubs by the current name, they do not go and look at a trophy to know the name :) 94.194.23.28 (talk)
- Anon; MK Dons are not the same thing as Wimbledon FC. The club themselves will be the first to admit that. They signed all of their trophies over to the local council where the old ground was. Referring to Woolwich Arsenal as Arsenal is fairly logical; both clubs have "Arsenal" in the name. Saying that MK Dons won the FA Cup in 1988 is absolutely and unequivocally wrong. Most of what you have said is wrong; no one other than you would make these absurd claims. And you're vandalizing articles by breaking links to push your POV as well... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is indisputable fact that MK Dons and Wimbledon are the same club. They have the same 1889 registration. Please try Luke ;) MK Dons voluntarily gave the trophies to Merton is keep the heritage link - which is irrelevant to hard fact that they are the same club. I am only interested in FACT not POV or myth. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And you'll be telling us next that Julius Caesar led the Italian army through France to invade England?
But seriously, Wikipedia is built on verification with reference to reliable sources. We aren't trying to source the identity or otherwise of Wimbledon and MK Dons FCs. We're sourcing the name of the club that won the FA Cup in 1988 or any other year. If the reliable sources call it Wimbledon, so do we. If the reliable sources call it The Wednesday, so do we. That's how Wikipedia works, and not something we can overrule here.
We then come to linking. If we have an article that deals with Wimbledon F.C. up to the relocation, and another article that deals with a club now called MK Dons after the relocation, with a bit of overlap at the join, then we link to the historically appropriate article. If the reader wants to learn more, they can read the article linked and browse anywhere it leads them after that. If we have one article that deals with The Wednesday and Sheffield Wednesday at the same page, then we link to it. Struway2 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
ry 2014 (UTC)
- You are wrong. You cannot have TWO different named entries form one club. Wiki is not about confusion. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
OK! I consider it best to have the original name in the table entry and the new name as well. Such as The Wednesday now Sheff Wed. Wimbledon now MK Dons. It has to be factual. So as not to confuse a reader. There is two clubs - MK Dons and Sheff Wed with name changes. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You still haven't got it. Keeping it the same is not simple, it is confusing the reader. What I suggested is a great compromise and factual. This article has two separate entries in the tables for the same club, The Wednesday and Sheffield Wednesday. This is totally confusing and wrong. The idea is to create quality factual articles, not get one over another editor. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's us who haven't got it I'm afraid. The idea is to create articles based around WP:CONSENSUS using verifiable reliable sources. If you don't like it, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the right project for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ramblimng Man it is clear on the article that you developed an attitude. I told you so and for you to drop it and cooperate. It took a while but you sort of did but not 100%. Now, reliable sources. Given and proving MK Dons and Wimbledon are the same club. That is now closed. Proven. The other points is confusingly having two separate entries in the tables for the same club, The Wednesday and Sheffield Wednesday. That has to change. This has a knock-on in that MK-Dons have to be mentioned as Wimbledon have changed their name. Quite simple. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's not about me or you or any other editor. It's about consensus. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- "It's not about me or you or any other editor.". I do not believe you when you write such things knowing your track record. It does not mean you cannot come around though. It is about fact and common sense. It is ridiculous to have two entries for the same club. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really care what you think, I do care about respecting consensus. And it's not ridiculous to have two entries. Not when they were called different names when they won their titles. Imagine, if you dare, the variation in names of Formula One teams. Would you extrapolate back to the 1970s and change "Williams Grand Prix Engineering" for "Williams F1"? There are plenty of articles that could use your help there, starting at 1978 Formula One season. I'm done with this "conversation", so wish you well and good luck convincing the rest of Wikipedia that your answer is the answer! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- "It's not about me or you or any other editor.". I do not believe you when you write such things knowing your track record. It does not mean you cannot come around though. It is about fact and common sense. It is ridiculous to have two entries for the same club. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's not about me or you or any other editor. It's about consensus. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ramblimng Man it is clear on the article that you developed an attitude. I told you so and for you to drop it and cooperate. It took a while but you sort of did but not 100%. Now, reliable sources. Given and proving MK Dons and Wimbledon are the same club. That is now closed. Proven. The other points is confusingly having two separate entries in the tables for the same club, The Wednesday and Sheffield Wednesday. That has to change. This has a knock-on in that MK-Dons have to be mentioned as Wimbledon have changed their name. Quite simple. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to have two entries. If you cannot see that desist in editing. It is not for you. I have done lots of technical writing in my time and this is a no, no. There has to be a link from old to new club names or both names in the same entry box. Simple. I have the impression many are wanting a confusing article because they do not like MK Dons. If so, grow up boys. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure who this helps, but the Football Association, whose Cup this is, refer to Sheffield Wednesday throughout. see here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- But no mention of MK Dons. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- This link say Wimbledon in 1988 with the link taking you to a MK Dons page. 94.193.161.101 (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- But no mention of MK Dons. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well spotted !!! 94.194.23.28 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Independent sources such as RSSSF and the Nationwide Football Annual, however, do not............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Anon, the only things that are ridiculous are your claims and comments. Kindly grow up, or go away until such time as you have. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Should I take note of someone who thinks MK Dons are new club when given all the evidence that it is not? Please try Luke. Please. It is about producing quality factual articles. I just looked. This Luke is only 19. He can't even remember Wimbledon !! He is telling others to "grow up" Hilarious !! :)94.194.23.28 (talk)
- Since there are two articles, there should be a link to Wimbledon F.C. for when that article is historically accurate and a link to MK Dons when that article is historically accurate. As for Sheffield Wednesday, I feel there should be a piped link like with Meidericher SV before its name changed to MSV Duisburg. EddieV2003 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Given that the anon is not capable of simple maths (I was born in 1994, Wimbledon morphed into MK Dons in 2004, 10 years after I was born, so yes, I can remember Wimbledon), I think that explains why their WP:COMPETENCE is so low. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Since there are two articles, there should be a link to Wimbledon F.C. for when that article is historically accurate and a link to MK Dons when that article is historically accurate. As for Sheffield Wednesday, I feel there should be a piped link like with Meidericher SV before its name changed to MSV Duisburg. EddieV2003 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Should I take note of someone who thinks MK Dons are new club when given all the evidence that it is not? Please try Luke. Please. It is about producing quality factual articles. I just looked. This Luke is only 19. He can't even remember Wimbledon !! He is telling others to "grow up" Hilarious !! :)94.194.23.28 (talk)
The way things are currently presented in the article is exactly how I would expect. The names in the main list are as they were at the time of each final; to do otherwise would be anachronistic. In the list of wins by club, the entries where any possible confusion could arise are given extra explanation below the table. It is difficult to envisage a reader coming away from the article in a state of confusion over club identities. There is no need for us to continue feeding the trolls here. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The names in the main list are as they were at the time of each final - the original names. Running down the list one club has entries under two different names. If you did not know The Wednesday and Sheffield Wednesday were the same club you would come away thinking they were two different clubs. If people want the original names, which is confusing and the FA do not do that with Wednesday, then there should be a link in each entry in each box. That is, each time The Wednesday is in a table box there should be a link to an explanation at the bottom of the table. Or better have both names in box. Tables are to skim and scan. Few start at the top and work their way down reading each row. Few read the comments at the bottom. If there is no link or both names are not in the box, the reader will be confused until he gets to the bottom and sees an explanation, if he reads it. At any point in the table any anomalies must be clarified at that point. That is how professional tech writers do it. 78.105.235.121 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand any of the anon's arguments in this discussion. MK Dons were originally set up as merely a renamed incarnation of Wimbledon FC, that is true, but they have since relinquished any claim to Wimbledon's history and honours, including the 1988 FA Cup. – PeeJay 22:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- The arguments are clear. Fact is fact. MK Dons ARE Wimbledon FC. Read above it is all clear with a link to read. MK Dons hold the 1889 registration, which is the most important point proving they are the same club. They even went under the name Wimbledon for the first season at Milton Keynes. MK Dons gave the trophies to Merton Council as a link to the club's south London heritage, to say we are not walking off pretending the history did not occur in south London. It did in south London and the historical link is the trophies at Merton Council. This is a non-issue as it is clear and proven that they are the same club, whether some find it distasteful or not. Many find Arsenal's promotion in 1919 over Spurs distasteful, and it is, but we have to go along with it and Arsenal are still in the top-flight. 78.105.235.121 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, MK Dons are not Wimbledon. They have relinquished their claim to the club's history. – PeeJay 11:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- What twisted logic. ;) What deterimes a club is its registration and date of first registration, and only its registration. If MK Dons hold the original Wimbledon registration then its is the same club. Mk Dons were founded in 1889 and that is fact. Stop telling yourself lies and beliving them. WisdomIncorporated (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, MK Dons are not Wimbledon. They have relinquished their claim to the club's history. – PeeJay 11:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- The arguments are clear. Fact is fact. MK Dons ARE Wimbledon FC. Read above it is all clear with a link to read. MK Dons hold the 1889 registration, which is the most important point proving they are the same club. They even went under the name Wimbledon for the first season at Milton Keynes. MK Dons gave the trophies to Merton Council as a link to the club's south London heritage, to say we are not walking off pretending the history did not occur in south London. It did in south London and the historical link is the trophies at Merton Council. This is a non-issue as it is clear and proven that they are the same club, whether some find it distasteful or not. Many find Arsenal's promotion in 1919 over Spurs distasteful, and it is, but we have to go along with it and Arsenal are still in the top-flight. 78.105.235.121 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds this anons language and tone somewhat familiar? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am no Wednesday fan for sure, neither am I an MK Dons fan, although I like their stadium, if that is on your mind. My tone is one of common sense not a partisan football mentality, which has nom place in Wiki. Wiki does not go by myth, misinformation and pretending. No consensus should override proven fact. 78.105.235.121 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- This partisan football mentality has ruined some football articles. A bunch of guys can get together and form a "concensus" based on illogical partisanship, keeping text in articles that is clearly not true. Factual articles must be parmount. All of you must have this at the top of your minds. The article in question has it that MK Dons were founded in 2004, which is overtly incorrect no matter what "consensus" states. Factual articles must be parmount. All of you must have this at the top of your minds to improve the quality of the articles. WisdomIncorporated (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- To the anon - no that's not what I meant. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- This partisan football mentality has ruined some football articles. A bunch of guys can get together and form a "concensus" based on illogical partisanship, keeping text in articles that is clearly not true. Factual articles must be parmount. All of you must have this at the top of your minds. The article in question has it that MK Dons were founded in 2004, which is overtly incorrect no matter what "consensus" states. Factual articles must be parmount. All of you must have this at the top of your minds to improve the quality of the articles. WisdomIncorporated (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
As antagonistic as the IP is, they are completely correct in saying that Wimbledon and MK Dons are the same club - it's the same legal entity, merely moved and renamed (much like Ferranti/Meadowbank Thistle and Livingston). The reason we have separate articles is presumably because of the emotive history surrounding the move and the distaste most fans (including myself) have for the current version of the club, and also because any attempts to merge Wimbledon F.C. into MK Dons would probably bring the internet to a standstill, even though it is really the correct thing to do. The fact that the Dons chairman made a gesture of returning the silverware to Merton BC doesn't really change the fact of the matter with regards to the club, although it certainly muddies the waters in the case of the FA Cup article in question. Number 57 13:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good post Number 57. Firstly I am not antagonistic merely assertive and ramming home some home truths. I do not wish to wind people up merely wanting cooperation. I have gone to great lengths to explain to many here just simple logic and the facts - read above. That Wimbledon and MK Dons are the same team is indisputable - that is a closed issue. The distaste or support of the move of Wimbledon should not cloud any articles. If MK Dons was founded as "new" club in 2004, as many misguidedly believe here, why did south London want to invade Milton Keynes a year back? :-) It could have been worse - Celtic and a Dublin consortium wanted to take the Dons out of England so that they could play in the Premier. I was reading that as Welsh clubs play in the English league and one English club plays in Scotland, a precedence has been made. EU laws says any company can operate anywhere in the union. Top lawyers said they could have taken EUFA to court and won. The time and more time in appeals in many countries frightened off the Irish and Scots. Thank God Wimbledon only moved to just outside London. Your point: It does not muddy the waters in the case of the FA Cup article in question at all. The 1988 FA Cup final winners are the club registered in Milton Keynes, currently named MK Dons. No more muddied than The Wednesday and Sheffield Wednesday. 94.193.161.101 (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Having Wimbledon in the 1988 entry is confusing as many may confuse the club with the current Wimbledon who are in the league, who have no connection whatsoever with Wimbledon FC. 94.193.161.101 (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, Wimbledon has to be the entry. It would be far more confusing to have a team name there that didn't exist until 15 years later. At most one could add a hatnote to dissolved or renamed clubs stating their currnet name or year of dissolvement. Or replace Wimbledon with Wimbledon FC. -Koppapa (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is best you read this section and understand the points put across before posting. Wimbledon FC and MK Dons are he same legal entity. Mk Dons were founded in 1889. That is indisputable. I am constantly writing the same thing - it does not appear to sink in with many. The point of having the old names of clubs in the table is confusing. Sheff Wednesday and Mk Dons are the two in question. The Wednesday were in FA Cup finals in the 1800s but the name Sheff Wed only came into being in 1929. Having "Wimbledon FC" and "MK Dons" in the same box and "The Wednesday" and "Sheff Wed" in the same box is very clear and dissolves any confusion. The comment that MK Dons only came into existence should be removed as it is infactual. 94.193.161.101 (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is best that you drop the stick, stop trolling and stop wasting people's time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is best you read this section and understand the points put across before posting. Wimbledon FC and MK Dons are he same legal entity. Mk Dons were founded in 1889. That is indisputable. I am constantly writing the same thing - it does not appear to sink in with many. The point of having the old names of clubs in the table is confusing. Sheff Wednesday and Mk Dons are the two in question. The Wednesday were in FA Cup finals in the 1800s but the name Sheff Wed only came into being in 1929. Having "Wimbledon FC" and "MK Dons" in the same box and "The Wednesday" and "Sheff Wed" in the same box is very clear and dissolves any confusion. The comment that MK Dons only came into existence should be removed as it is infactual. 94.193.161.101 (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- As a comparator, List of World Series champions (another FL) shows the New York Giants as the winners of five Series and makes no mention against any of the entries of the fact that the team relocated to San Francisco over 50 years ago...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Boston Americans, the first winners on the list are now the Boston Red Sox. That is a good example of using the old name Chris. EddieV2003 (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- The FA Cup - the trophy itself - has a list of past winners inscribed on it. It says Wimbledon not MK Dons. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Boston Americans, the first winners on the list are now the Boston Red Sox. That is a good example of using the old name Chris. EddieV2003 (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Group season in statistics tables by club or list them chronologically
There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players about the ordering of the seasons in statistics tables. The question is if the seasons should be grouped by club like this one
| Club | Season | League | National Cup | League Cup | Continental | Other | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Division | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | ||
| Template United | 2000–01 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2001–02 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2004–05 | Premier League | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | |
| 2005–06 | Premier League | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | |
| Total | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | ||
| Wiki City (loan) | 2000–01 | Second Division | 15 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 10 |
| Template Rangers | 2001–02 | First Division | 15 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 23 | 0 |
| 2002–03 | First Division | 36 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 40 | 0 | |
| 2003–04 | First Division | 28 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 32 | 0 | |
| 2006–07 | First Division | 18 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 19 | 1 | |
| 2007–08 | Second Division | 30 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 35 | 2 | |
| Total | 127 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 149 | 3 | ||
| Career total | 145 | 12 | 14 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 177 | 3 | ||
or sorted chronologically like this one
| Club | Season | League | National Cup | League Cup | Continental | Other | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Division | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | ||
| Template United | 2000–01 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wiki City (loan) | 2000–01 | Second Division | 15 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 10 |
| Template United | 2001–02 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Template Rangers | 2001–02 | First Division | 15 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 23 | 0 |
| 2002–03 | First Division | 36 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 40 | 0 | |
| 2003–04 | First Division | 28 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 32 | 0 | |
| Total | 79 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 95 | 0 | ||
| Template United | 2004–05 | Premier League | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| 2005–06 | Premier League | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | |
| Total | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | ||
| Template Rangers | 2006–07 | First Division | 18 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 19 | 1 |
| 2007–08 | Second Division | 30 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 35 | 2 | |
| Total | 48 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 54 | 2 | ||
| Career total | 145 | 12 | 14 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 177 | 3 | ||
I prefer the chronological version because it is less confusing and reflects the career of the player. What do you think? --Jaellee (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would not use the chronological version. I think it's more counter-intuitive to group the player's seasons with his various clubs together. Here are perfect examples of player articles with career stats tables, which I think should be the standard (including a citation for each season in the table) -
Wes Fletcher JMHamo (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't think anyone was suggesting grouping two completely separate spells with the same club together, as in your top example: that really wouldn't make sense. Of if they are, it's the first I've heard of it. I thought the problem was just whether loan spells be included chronologically interspersed with seasons at the player's owning club, as per example 1, or placed together, after the owning club details, as per example 2.
So using your example, the difference would be between your second table, purely chronological, and the one immediately below:
- I didn't think anyone was suggesting grouping two completely separate spells with the same club together, as in your top example: that really wouldn't make sense. Of if they are, it's the first I've heard of it. I thought the problem was just whether loan spells be included chronologically interspersed with seasons at the player's owning club, as per example 1, or placed together, after the owning club details, as per example 2.
| Club | Season | League | National Cup | League Cup | Continental | Other | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Division | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | ||
| Template United | 2000–01 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2001–02 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Wiki City (loan) | 2000–01 | Second Division | 15 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 10 |
| Template Rangers | 2001–02 | First Division | 15 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 23 | 0 |
| 2002–03 | First Division | 36 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 40 | 0 | |
| 2003–04 | First Division | 28 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 32 | 0 | |
| Total | 79 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 95 | 0 | ||
| Template United | 2004–05 | Premier League | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| 2005–06 | Premier League | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | |
| Total | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | ||
| Template Rangers | 2006–07 | First Division | 18 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 19 | 1 |
| 2007–08 | Second Division | 30 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 35 | 2 | |
| Total | 48 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 54 | 2 | ||
| Career total | 145 | 12 | 14 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 177 | 3 | ||
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
My issue with tables that are arranged chronologically rather than by by club they end up looking like this mess of a table. GiantSnowman 13:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I support the table indicated by Struway2 for the exact reason pointed out by GiantSnowman. The table on that old version of the Jordan Slew article is abhorrent. – PeeJay 16:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- And for the record I also support Struway's template, which is pretty much the template already in place... GiantSnowman 18:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I support the chronological table, we try to list everything else chronologically, why shouldn't this be done in this case? The table currently present in Joe Hart's article is how I think we should do it. Makes no sense to me to list the loan-spells from seven years ago at the bottom of the table. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- But what use is that to the reader wanting to get a full picture of his Man City career? GiantSnowman 19:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- And what use is Struway's example in the case of Stefan Effenberg? He had two different spells at either Borussia Mönchengladbach and FC Bayern Munich. A reader couldn't get a full picture of his career at either club because Effenberg played for Fiorentia in between and so the seasons shouldn't be grouped. It seems to me that there are different use cases for statistics tables and your proposed use case isn't one I have very often. --Jaellee (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Struway's table doesn't apply to Stefan Effenberg though, since he was never on loan to any clubs. Furthermore, why would you group together two separate spells at the same club? All we're saying is that if a player went on loan, the loan spells should come after the stats for the club he was on loan from. – PeeJay 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't group anything together since I favor the chronological version, as far as I have understood GiantSnowman above, to get a full picture of his Bayern Munich career (in this case). Isn't that the point in grouping the seasons at one club together (or have I missed something else)? --Jaellee (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Look at the Joe Hart table - one spell at Man City, but you cannot tell because of all the loan spells that have been shoved in there. If he'd left Man City for another club and then re-signed, then yes have separate chronological lists. But having chronological lists at the expense of club lists is, quite simply, rubbish. GiantSnowman 21:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't group anything together since I favor the chronological version, as far as I have understood GiantSnowman above, to get a full picture of his Bayern Munich career (in this case). Isn't that the point in grouping the seasons at one club together (or have I missed something else)? --Jaellee (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Struway's table doesn't apply to Stefan Effenberg though, since he was never on loan to any clubs. Furthermore, why would you group together two separate spells at the same club? All we're saying is that if a player went on loan, the loan spells should come after the stats for the club he was on loan from. – PeeJay 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- And what use is Struway's example in the case of Stefan Effenberg? He had two different spells at either Borussia Mönchengladbach and FC Bayern Munich. A reader couldn't get a full picture of his career at either club because Effenberg played for Fiorentia in between and so the seasons shouldn't be grouped. It seems to me that there are different use cases for statistics tables and your proposed use case isn't one I have very often. --Jaellee (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- But what use is that to the reader wanting to get a full picture of his Man City career? GiantSnowman 19:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I support the chronological table, we try to list everything else chronologically, why shouldn't this be done in this case? The table currently present in Joe Hart's article is how I think we should do it. Makes no sense to me to list the loan-spells from seven years ago at the bottom of the table. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- And for the record I also support Struway's template, which is pretty much the template already in place... GiantSnowman 18:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I repeat, no-one is suggesting grouping separate spells at one club together. Effenberg's table is fine by me, apart from I'd repeat the division names each row, pending confirmation from someone with competence in accessibility issues that you don't need to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- A player's spell with a club should be grouped together, and not 'interrupted' by whatever loan spells he may have had. A 2nd spell with the same club would, obviously, not be grouped in with that 1st spell either. GiantSnowman 13:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously? Maybe it's time that you check your assumptions, it seems that I don't share them. I was first told that a table should to be "grouped by team and not by season". In my world view, "team" means for example Manchester City or FC Bayern Munich. That's why I created the first example table which is grouped by team. Up to that point, no one had ever said to me that it really meant something like "group according to the time a player was continuously contracted to and playing for the club" (this seems to be the unspoken assumption). My belief was reinforced by GiantSnowman's remark about a reader that could be wanting "a full picture of his Man City career" which I interpret as "all the seasons he was playing for Man City". I guess here obviously everyone knows that "a full picture of someone's career at XY" means "a full picture of a single continuous contract at XY". Maybe you should compile a list of "obvious things" and give it to me, this would make it easier for me to follow your logic. --Jaellee (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't be a smart arse. You've had it explained to you at least twice since your original post in this thread. Surely you comprehend the type of stats table we meant now? – PeeJay 18:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your helpful response. I was annoyed by the way some editors assume that certain things should have been clear from the beginning without ever saying them and tried to explain that not everything is obvious and not everyone who doesn't see the obvious is a moron or worse. Obviously, I failed. And for the record, I still think that the chronological version is the more intuitive one. None of the reasons why the other one is better has convinced me so far. --Jaellee (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good thing it's not just your opinion that matters then. – PeeJay 18:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's also not just yours, either. I interpret the answers of most editors as something along the lines that Struway's example is "neater" or that the chronological versions are "messier". So in my opinion, the format of the table is mostly a matter of taste and regarding to taste, not everyone who has a different opinion is automatically in the wrong and can be dismissed. --Jaellee (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No one is dismissing your opinion; it has been considered, and the users above (and below, apparently) view your opinion as the inferior option. That's how consensus works, isn't it? – PeeJay 20:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record, not every one has considered my opinion as inferior and I don't have a problem with the opinion being considered as inferior, but some edits on this topic suggest that a person holding such an opinion is regarded as inferior and I object to that (which was also the point I wanted to make above, after which I was called a smart-arse). --Jaellee (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No one is dismissing your opinion; it has been considered, and the users above (and below, apparently) view your opinion as the inferior option. That's how consensus works, isn't it? – PeeJay 20:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's also not just yours, either. I interpret the answers of most editors as something along the lines that Struway's example is "neater" or that the chronological versions are "messier". So in my opinion, the format of the table is mostly a matter of taste and regarding to taste, not everyone who has a different opinion is automatically in the wrong and can be dismissed. --Jaellee (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good thing it's not just your opinion that matters then. – PeeJay 18:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your helpful response. I was annoyed by the way some editors assume that certain things should have been clear from the beginning without ever saying them and tried to explain that not everything is obvious and not everyone who doesn't see the obvious is a moron or worse. Obviously, I failed. And for the record, I still think that the chronological version is the more intuitive one. None of the reasons why the other one is better has convinced me so far. --Jaellee (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't be a smart arse. You've had it explained to you at least twice since your original post in this thread. Surely you comprehend the type of stats table we meant now? – PeeJay 18:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously? Maybe it's time that you check your assumptions, it seems that I don't share them. I was first told that a table should to be "grouped by team and not by season". In my world view, "team" means for example Manchester City or FC Bayern Munich. That's why I created the first example table which is grouped by team. Up to that point, no one had ever said to me that it really meant something like "group according to the time a player was continuously contracted to and playing for the club" (this seems to be the unspoken assumption). My belief was reinforced by GiantSnowman's remark about a reader that could be wanting "a full picture of his Man City career" which I interpret as "all the seasons he was playing for Man City". I guess here obviously everyone knows that "a full picture of someone's career at XY" means "a full picture of a single continuous contract at XY". Maybe you should compile a list of "obvious things" and give it to me, this would make it easier for me to follow your logic. --Jaellee (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Chronologically, as suggested by Struway2 is clearly preferable from a logical perspective. The first example is really messy and is difficult to follow the thread of the career. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding of the principal of date tables in wikipedia was that they should always be chronological in ascending order. The issue of moving loan spells that break up a longer period at another club elsewhere in the table based on a notions of 'neatness' seems completely counter intuitive and a very poor user experience requiring anyone reading it to have to move up and down the table to actually get the idea of the flow of a players career. The examples that have been given haven't really highlighted the reality of that style as included in the MOS but I still maintain that this table is in fact extremely confusing to read:
| Club | Season | Division | League | FA Cup | League Cup | Other | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | |||
| Template F.C. | 1995–96 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996–97 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1997–98 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1998–99 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1999–2000 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2000–01 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2001–02 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2002–03 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Template F.C. total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Template Rovers F.C. (loan) | 1995–96 | League One | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Templaton United F.C. (loan) | 1998–99 | League One | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wiki F.C. | 2003–04 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2004–05 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2005–06 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2006–07 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2007–08 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2008–09 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2009–10 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2010–11 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2011–12 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2012–13 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Wiki F.C. total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Wiki Wanderers F.C. (loan) | 2003–04 | Scottish Premiership | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Career total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Whereas a properly chronological table makes much more sense like this:
| Club | Season | Division | League | FA Cup | League Cup | Other | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | |||
| Template F.C. | 1995–96 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Template Rovers F.C. (loan) | 1995–96 | League One | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Template F.C. | 1996–97 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1997–98 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1998–99 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Templaton United F.C. (loan) | 1998–99 | League One | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Template F.C. | 1999–2000 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000–01 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2001–02 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2002–03 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Template F.C. total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Wiki F.C. | 2003–04 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wiki Wanderers F.C. (loan) | 2003–04 | Scottish Premiership | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wiki F.C. | 2004–05 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005–06 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2006–07 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2007–08 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2008–09 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2009–10 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2010–11 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2011–12 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2012–13 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Wiki F.C. total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Career total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- But it doesn't make sense - what's the usefulness in splitting up one spell with the same club? GiantSnowman 16:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because that accurately reflects his career - his time at one club was split by time spent at other sides, it wasn't one continuous spell. 'Tidying up' by re-locating short spells actually distorts his career and I can't see how sandwiching data on '95 and '98 between data on '02 and '03 (as per my examples) helps anyone reading it. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- But then the 'Template F.C. total' is broken up by the loan spells, and could provide mis-leading/confusing figures. GiantSnowman 13:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- What misleading figures? There is a total column for the clubs. -Koppapa (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- By having the loan spell(s) mingled with the parent club stats, the reader might think that they form part of the 'total' figure. GiantSnowman 14:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- (NB. I've amended the tables above to give each a title for ease of identification in the discussion) I don't necessarily disagree with the potential for some confusion but the same could be true of having loans grouped elsewhere - look at Example C above - you've got a table with regular total rows set within it. A user could potentially (and not unreasonably) expect that the total row will sum everything between it and the last one - but again there's a row (the wiki city loan) that isn't included in the total below it as a user might expect. And in that case those numbers are even less relevant as they occurred during the period covered by the previous total row. I don't see that grouping loans below their time period is in any way less confusing than having loan periods moved out of chronological order - potentially up to ten or fifteen rows out of place - and still not included in totals. An alternative solution (based on having loans included chronologically) would be to either a) include a 'loans total' row alongside the parent club total, including data on all loans while at the same parent club rather than a row for each - this would highlight the fact that he had been playing games during that time period, if not for his parent club or b) move all the total rows to the base of the table and include a single 'loan' total row - this would provide a simplified career overview and ties the numbers in better with the career total row at the bottom. I haven't got time to code those up at the moment but will try and do some examples later to aid discussion. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- By having the loan spell(s) mingled with the parent club stats, the reader might think that they form part of the 'total' figure. GiantSnowman 14:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- What misleading figures? There is a total column for the clubs. -Koppapa (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- But then the 'Template F.C. total' is broken up by the loan spells, and could provide mis-leading/confusing figures. GiantSnowman 13:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because that accurately reflects his career - his time at one club was split by time spent at other sides, it wasn't one continuous spell. 'Tidying up' by re-locating short spells actually distorts his career and I can't see how sandwiching data on '95 and '98 between data on '02 and '03 (as per my examples) helps anyone reading it. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why assists are removed from the table? Isn't it a "statistic" table? Look for example to basketball player Michael Jordan stats table, it doesn't show only goals per game. This new table is only suitable for attacking players, and not midfielders and playmakers who make scoring opportunities and assists for those goals. It is wrong, unfair, and altogether unsportsmanlike.--Crovata (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
So returning to my point above - that would result as either:
| Club | Season | Division | League | FA Cup | League Cup | Other | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | |||
| Template F.C. | 1995–96 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Template Rovers F.C. (loan) | 1995–96 | League One | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Template F.C. | 1996–97 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1997–98 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1998–99 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Templaton United F.C. (loan) | 1998–99 | League One | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Template F.C. | 1999–2000 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000–01 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2001–02 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2002–03 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Loan total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Template F.C. total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Wiki F.C. | 2003–04 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wiki Wanderers F.C. (loan) | 2003–04 | Scottish Premiership | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wiki F.C. | 2004–05 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005–06 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2006–07 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2007–08 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2008–09 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2009–10 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2010–11 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2011–12 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2012–13 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Loan total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Wiki F.C. total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Career total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
or
| Club | Season | Division | League | FA Cup | League Cup | Other | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | Apps | Goals | |||
| Template F.C. | 1995–96 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Template Rovers F.C. (loan) | 1995–96 | League One | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Template F.C. | 1996–97 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1997–98 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1998–99 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Templaton United F.C. (loan) | 1998–99 | League One | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Template F.C. | 1999–2000 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000–01 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2001–02 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2002–03 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Wiki F.C. | 2003–04 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wiki Wanderers F.C. (loan) | 2003–04 | Scottish Premiership | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wiki F.C. | 2004–05 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005–06 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2006–07 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2007–08 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2008–09 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2009–10 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2010–11 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2011–12 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2012–13 | Premier League | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Loan total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Template F.C. total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Wiki F.C. total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Career total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Both of which I believe are preferable to the seemingly random table here. My point is, the reality of a player who leaves a club on loan is just that - he physically leaves and then comes back again. To ignore that to show an uninterrupted spell at one club simply to allow cells in a table to be merged appears to me to be ignoring reality - the very thing Wikipedia is supposed to reflect. Yes - where a player spends a lot of time on loan the table won't look as elegant - maybe even a mess - but then that reflects a players career at that point - a bit messy. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why are you grouping separate loan spells for separate clubs under one 'total'? Why are your totals far apart from the clubs they relate to? How does that assist the reader in any way, shape or form? GiantSnowman 09:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because I was making suggestions based on on you claiming that including loans in the chronology of when they happened was confusing. For the record I'd suggest that example E was the best solution. The only argument for ignoring wiki guidelines on chronological events seems to be the desire to merge cells to make a players career seem 'neater' and ignore the fact that he, to all intents and purposes, leaves the club for a period within one season and then returns at a later date, therefore physically breaking up his period with one club. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, football fans! Here's another article up for review. Any opinions? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would say it is notable - it was an official cup competition organised within a national league. Number 57 13:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I added a note to that effect on the submission. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Another football submission at Afc! Is this a notable competition, and should the name be changed to "Scottish Summer Cup (football)" ?
- I think the title is appropriate and it is a notable subject. In biographies of Jock Stein, for example, the victory of his Hibs team in the 1964 Summer Cup is quite often mentioned in the context of the impact he made there and the progression of his career. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this subject notable? Where he plays now, Segunda División B (if that, box shows he has only played thus far for the reserves, in the REGIONAL leagues), does not confer any notability, and i have the gut feeling (i could be wrong though) that Lega Pro Seconda Divisione is not professional as well.
Attentively, thank you very much in advance --AL (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you @Always Learning: so I have sent it to AfD for debate. JMHamo (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Tankovic or Tanković ?
I recently created Muamer Tankovic, but Mattias321 (talk · contribs) moved the article so that the surname is spelt Tanković. I've not seen one source that spells it Tanković. The Swedish FA site doesn't use Tanković or any other sources I found, so shouldn't Tankovic be used? JMHamo (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It's 100% correct, all Yugoslavians (and the nationalities that stemmed from the former country) have that accent in "c". Cheers --AL (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced. It doesn't matter that he's of Bosnian descent and that they use "ć" in their names. If the sources don't spell Tankovic's name with a "ć", then neither should we. Case in point: Justin Tipuric, the Welsh rugby player, is of Croatian descent, but his name is always spelled with a plain "c" (and pronounced "TIP-er-ick") because that's what the sources say. – PeeJay 18:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is not entirely true. While Serbian and Croatian names often end in -ć, Slovenian names end in -č instead (e.g. Zahovič). 109.173.211.121 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, most players of Balkan ethnicity who grew up in Western European countries don't use diacritics in their names, even on shirts, for no other reason than following the spelling in their passports/ID documents. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- And not every Serbian name that ends in a 'c' has an accent, e.g. Milan Biševac. GiantSnowman 20:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
On his profile on Fulham official website, the spelling is Tanković. // Mattias321 (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry my bad, was only trying to help. But great teamwork overall, kudos to you all! --AL (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Should Template:Fc be bot-substed?
In this edit, User:Eckerslike added Template:Fc to Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, which would cause AnomieBOT to subst all existing and future transclusions of the template. However, since the template currently has over 100 transclusions, the bot will not subst it without it being added to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force.
If this template should be automatically substed by the bot, please add the template to that page (or submit an {{edit protected}} request if you don't have an admin handy). You might also place {{subst only|auto=yes}} on the template's documentation page instead of adding the category directly. If there is not consensus for the template to be substed, please revert the edit linked above. Thanks. (I am not watching this page for replies; please ping me or post at User talk:Anomie or User talk:AnomieBOT if there are any questions) Anomie⚔ 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think it should be automatically substituted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Re:user watch
- Expofunner or FallandSpringOlympics is back under the name Rio2InParadise. -Koppapa (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have opened this SPI case. Feel free to add more supporting detail. JMHamo (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- And he gets creative, starts artciles and is also using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NoSockpuppeting -Koppapa (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've asked @The Rambling Man: for assistance. JMHamo (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- and he is back with User:2001:558:6026:26:35EB:9B6:C6B:B542, I reported this user and his IPS here. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've asked @The Rambling Man: for assistance. JMHamo (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Giuseppe Caimi, if somebody speaks italian :)
I'd suggest this article, I can't create it because my english is illegal.. 151.12.11.2 (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonably sensible article to create. Looks like he could've had a bright future, if not for the war... sadly, there's too many people we could say that about. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- And I've gone ahead and written that article. If someone with better Italian than me could check it over, that would be fantastic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Should lists of notable players be deleted or tagged ?
Should lists of notable players within club articles be deleted or tagged ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fenix_down
(League Octopus 13:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC))
- Does this wording address the issue?
- Former EXAMPLE CLUB players with Wikipedia articles are listed below:
- Refer to this example:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4pyl%C3%A4n_Pallo#Former_players
- (League Octopus 14:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC))
- I can use this format for larger clubs:
- but it seems pointless for smaller clubs. It will mean undetaking a lot more format work re categories & links with very little in terms of content.
- This is another example where I have introduced nationality into the criteria. In my view details of foreign players is most important info that we should not be deleting.
- (League Octopus 14:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC))
Hi, saw this so thought I might as well comment as it is about my editing. I used to tag such lists, but have stopped doing so because the manual of style seemed pretty clear about things and very few of the lists ever got the required inclusion criteria. Personally, I would say that a list of all players with a wikipedia article is not necessary. The link to the category by definition suffices and such a list would not only become unmanageable over time as every player, but would suggest that a player playing for a low league team who then played one game in a fully professional league but would not otherwise pass NFOOTY is more notable than a player who spent their whole career at the club making hundreds of appearances but did not do sufficient to pass NFOOTY of GNG.
Using the example you highlighted first, of the two players on that list, one of which merely was there as a youth player, never making a first team appearance and the other made only 34 league appearances according to their articles. Why would they be called out separately? Why are they specifically notable players at that club just because they have a WP article? To me it seems like both of them actually accomplished very little while at the club.
Additionally, being foreign is not necessarily something that makes a player notable beyond basic WP notability? If the notion of foreign players at a specific club has garnered significant reliable coverage then by all means discuss it, but a random list of players simply because they are of a different nationality strikes me as OR, the editor effectively saying, "these players are foreign, therefore they are inherently more notable than those who are not".
Happy to undo my edits if people disagree and won't remove any more until there is more discussion here. Fenix down (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- There are some very useful points being made above by Fenix down but in my view we should be acting upon firm guidance/discussion from WT:FOOTY (assuming there has been none already) if we are to adopt the wholesale deletion of lists of Notable/Former players from Club Articles. At the moment it appears that Finland is the first country to receive the "big-hit".
- As a starting point:
- 1. Is a consistent approach being followed across all countries?
- 2. Should we tag before we delete?
- 3. Should we give a reasonable period (say 2 months) to respond to the tag before deletion?
- 4. Should we provide some proper guidance to Editors on including/excluding lists of Notable/Former players in Club Articles?
- 5. Can we use a bot to enable the provision of Category generated lists?
- 6. Can our current dialogue form the basis of a discussion by WT:FOOTY?
- NB: An example of a list that has been deleted;
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helsingin_Jalkapalloklubi&oldid=591303676#Notable_former_players
- An example of a list being protected:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merstham_F.C.#Former_players
- An example of a Category List:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grays_Athletic#Former_players
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Grays_Athletic_F.C._players
- (League Octopus 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC))
- The discussion above has been moved from GS's talk page here for wider discussion.
To answer LO's questions above:
1. A consistant approach is being followed as the Manual of Style clearly states that lists of famous / notable players without clear inclusion criteria should be avoided. Removing such lists is in line with the manual of style.
2. Happy to tag, wait and remove, but I have previously done this to hundreds of articles and seen only a fraction of 1% of them ever altered. To be honest, a list like the one noted above that contains no inclusion criteria whatsoever is straight OR and should be challenged immediately, it can always be added back if clear inclusion criteria are provided.
3. See comment above, I provide a clear edit summary and link to the manual of style indicating what is required, better to remove then add back with inclusion criteria than have it sitting around with a tag for a random amount of time. 2 months seems excessive, a watched page with active users should be dealt with within a week. I used to leave tags on pages for one month, then remove.
4. Clear guidance is already provided at the manual of style, the lists removed from finnish club articles have only been those lacking any form of inclusion criteria, or those that have just been "foreign players" (why should someone's nationality make them specifically notable at a given club unless there has been significant coverage on foreign players at a particular club? We don't have lists of "black players" or "left-handed players")or something so vague as to be no use to a reader. As such, the second example here is fine. I have not removed any lists with inclusion criteria. A previous discussion here did not result in any consensus on unfirom criteria and I have taken the view since then that any list with some for of inlcusion criteria can stay unless consensus says otherwise. Whether a given set of inclusion criteria is satisfactory is outside the scope of this discussion, this only concerns lists completely lacking criteria.
5. I presume by "category lists" you mean this? I have no issue with a link to the player category for a given club under the current squad. I can see how this could be useful and to me is probably the best way around any accusations of OR.
I would welcome people's thoughts on this. Should we have lists of players with WP articles at club pages? SHould we have lists of "notable players" with no clear inclusion criteria. The MoS seems clear, but happy to have debate. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- I assume that if we place the following text in front of the Former players section there should be no problem:
- Players that have played in the Football League or any foreign equivalent to this level (i.e. fully professional league).
- OR
- Players that have played in a fully professional league.
- OR
- Players with full international caps.
- Hence in front of Notable former players in the HJK example I would have placed:
- 1. Players that have played in a fully professional league; and/or
- 2. Players with full international caps.
- rather than delete the paragraph.
- The issue that FD has raised is certainly worthy of informed discussion. League Octopus 09:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely not for the first two! What you have proposed above is the same as saying "here is a list of all players to have ever played for this club with a WP article". Being notable for WP is in no way the same as being notable within a specific club. How would you apply the criteria above to a club like Barcelona?
- I don't particularly like the "international caps" one either (why should a player be notable for club A when he only received intl caps for club B?), but other editors seem to, so I would accept that as at least being a clear inclusion criterion. If the HJK listing was trimmed so it only included international players then that would at least be some for of inclusion criterion, but you must also consider that a club like HJK is a major club in Finland and is therefore likely to produce a lot of home intl players. YOu should therefore ocnsider whether someone who plays for HJK and is capped once is worthy of being placed in the same bracket as someone who plays 50 times. However, there is no current consensus that this is not an acceptable criterion, so I would not remove the listing were it set up on that basis. Fenix down (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- There was a lengthy discussion about this a few months back. It drifted about a bit, and I'm not sure what conclusions it came to, but it might be worth a look: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 80#"Notable Players". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The approach I took to this (in Peru national football team) was to avoid lists and use the section ("notable players") to discuss the team's traditional style (as exhibited by its notable former players) and mention only a few truly remarkable individuals (according to reliable sources). The actual list, List of Peru international footballers, is elsewhere (and, as expected, terrible in quality).--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- The issue seems to have been covered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 80#"Notable Players". A quick message to me from Fenix down detailing the previous discussion along with a justification for changing many Finnish articles would have avoided the issue being raised again here. Deleting the "notable players" sections in my view is a somewhat Draconian action but I accept the point made by Fenix down re OR. The fact that if I had the time and inclination I could provide replacement "category lists" like this in my view shows our lack of flexibility given that many small clubs have very few former players with Wikipedia articles. Does it really matter that these players have been listed in the club article rather than a "category list"? It all seems very pedantic to me. League Octopus 09:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry if you feel that this is a duplication, but the last discussion did get a bit muddled and there was only consensus around some bits, so I think it was worth airing it again if only to get more clarity on what we have discussed. However, I don't think it is pednatic at all since a reader could easily infer from a short list of notable players wth the inclusion criterion that "they have a WP article" that they are therefore the most notable players to ever play for a club. A link to a category avoids any such misinterpretation and means that clubs that play in FPLs don't end up with vast lists of players called out as "notable". Fenix down (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- My issue is that the template states that there is no criteria, when the criteria in many articles is clear: has played for their respective national teams while playing for the club or has made significant contributions to the team. I'm removing them if they are applied to articles I watch if the criteria is clearly stated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Walter, I presume you are talking about this set of criteria that appear all over MLS clubs:
- This list of former players includes those who received international caps while playing for the team, made significant contributions to the team in terms of appearances or goals while playing for the team, or who made significant contributions to the sport either before they played for the team, or after they left. It is clearly not yet complete and all inclusive, and additions and refinements will continue to be made over time.
- I have highlighted the element which clearly invites WP:OR by using the word significant rather than specifying what a player actually has to have done to get on the list. This is clearly in contravention of the manual of style as it is inherently based on "opinion or whim". Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the bit that I have not allowed to be used. Unless it's clearly documented in the player articles then I remove the players from the list. No OR required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then why is it still in the inclusion criteria present in every single article?!? The tag does not question the validity of the list, merely the quality of the inclusion criteria. Until that phrase is removed the tag is valid. I shall remove that section from the inclusion criteria instead then. Fenix down (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's your opinion that it's OR. It seems clear to others what "made significant contributions to the team in terms of appearances or goals while playing for the team" means. It clearly depends on context though. A player who was a starter for the entire first season of the club should be considered as notable for that team. A player who lead the team, or the league, in scoring while playing for the club is clearly notable for that team. A player who started for the team for multiple seasons is clearly notable for that team.
- However the true understanding comes when looking at the player's article and the references there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then why is it still in the inclusion criteria present in every single article?!? The tag does not question the validity of the list, merely the quality of the inclusion criteria. Until that phrase is removed the tag is valid. I shall remove that section from the inclusion criteria instead then. Fenix down (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the bit that I have not allowed to be used. Unless it's clearly documented in the player articles then I remove the players from the list. No OR required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Lists like the Merstham one which use the criteria "Players that have played/managed in the football league or any foreign equivalent to this level (i.e. fully professional league)/Players with full international caps." should be tagged with {{listdev}} because I doubt very much that only four ex-Merstham players (coincidentally all from the last 10 years or so) have ever played professionally -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Height in m or cm?
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED to determine if height should be displayed in metres or centimeters.—Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Heads up
Looks like we've got an Indonesian IP mega-vandal at the moment, see Special:Contributions/110.137.208.170. I've just fired the rollback on every single one of their edits, which are unsourced at best, and obvious hoaxes/vandalism at worst. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
List of Foreign Players
I was going to nominate List of foreign Scottish Premiership players for deletion as i cant see why being foreign would make you specifically more notable than another player who is Scottish in the same league. However i then found List of foreign Premier League players which was kept after an AFD in 2007. Just wondering what current opinion is.Blethering Scot 00:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- These articles are generally deemed as notable, I would say, if the league is WP:FPL. I remember taking the Faroes Island league version to AFD where it was deleted. GiantSnowman 12:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes the leagues are notable, but what is more notable about being a foreign player than being Scottish or English.Blethering Scot 14:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing - hence why we also have List of Premier League players. GiantSnowman 14:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Blethering Scot, what is the problem in having a list where a person can find, exemple, all French, players that played in Scotish Premiership? If you dislike the list, ignore it, and move on. Otherwise there are people that find this lists usefull. Apologise for my tone, but I can´t understand why someone implicates with something he doesn´t value but others made an effort to create it and find it usefull. FkpCascais (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Discussion of the amount and origin (including actual listings) of foreign players in several leagues (I've looked at Liga MX in particular) gets a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources. For me, that's reason enough to justify these lists. Jogurney (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- If thats the case @Jogurney: why aren't these reliably sourced to indicate specific notability of their nationality. List of Premier Leauge Players, is appropriate but you are not notable because you are Foreign. These are both extremely poor quality and plucking being notable because your foreign out of the air. Its not a case of me disliking it, its a case of there is nothing notable about being specifically Foreign. Were an encyclopaedia based on notability which is why the main list is notable but not specific lists on foreign nationality. We have cats for that and we have the main article there is no need for multiple player lists one for all and one for foreign is OTT.Blethering Scot 16:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Discussion of the amount and origin (including actual listings) of foreign players in several leagues (I've looked at Liga MX in particular) gets a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources. For me, that's reason enough to justify these lists. Jogurney (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Blethering Scot, what is the problem in having a list where a person can find, exemple, all French, players that played in Scotish Premiership? If you dislike the list, ignore it, and move on. Otherwise there are people that find this lists usefull. Apologise for my tone, but I can´t understand why someone implicates with something he doesn´t value but others made an effort to create it and find it usefull. FkpCascais (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing - hence why we also have List of Premier League players. GiantSnowman 14:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes the leagues are notable, but what is more notable about being a foreign player than being Scottish or English.Blethering Scot 14:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The achievements of Claudio Pizarro at the Bundesliga are notable precisely because he is foreign. Hence, being foreign in a league does boost notability. Whether this should be the case or not is a good question, but it doesn't remove the fact that it is notable.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well these articles need to rapidly improve their sourcing to show thats the case in these specific leauges and players in these articles. I am extremely dubious that can be achieved or i fully intend to take all these type of articles to AFD. Being foreign over Scottish does not make you more notable in fact a large percentage of the players in the Scottish Premiership article are far less notable in its maiden season than the Scottish Players. There is very little that could not be achieved by merging articles like foreign players into the likes of List of Premier League players to show the ones who are truly notable because of their nationality rather than achievements.Blethering Scot 22:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Being foreign over Scottish does not make you more notable" - That is the problem, no one is claiming that. It is just an informative type of list with one specific inclusion criterium. Most leagues have limits in number of foreign players, so by that, the league itself is making them a separate of the kind, and a reason for grouping them all together in one place. FkpCascais (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you AfD them, I will certainly insist to add this one then as well, List of foreign NBA players, and we´ll see then. FkpCascais (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Huge FIFA ranking archive found
Right here at Wikipedia: FIFA rankings of the AFC. Allthough all editions link to a source i doubt they are useful here. What are your thoughts? -Koppapa (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Eee-gads! they are enormous List of FIFA rankings of the AFC (2006–2010) is 173,049 bytes! As they provide nothing above what the original source does I'd be tempted to nominate them for AfD. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes we should look to AFD these, citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've tried to AfD them (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA rankings of the AFC) I'm not sure I've done the extra articles correctly. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Not just WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but also WP:COPYVIO. The FIFA World Rankings are copyrighted, so to list the positions of every AFC team from every month in the rankings' history is a massive copyright violation. – PeeJay 19:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Really? How can the results of arithmetic operations be copyrighted? 213.156.124.52 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good question. You'd have to ask FIFA who apply the following at the bottom of the rankings page Copyright ©1994 - 2014 FIFA. The copyright doesn't show if you call the service directly though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Really? How can the results of arithmetic operations be copyrighted? 213.156.124.52 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes we should look to AFD these, citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, football fans - one more old stale draft eligible for deletion - is this a notable player, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is he notable? Yes. Is the article, as it is, worth keeping? Not really. There is [19], and [20] verifies that he has made multiple appearances in a WP:FPL. Although the player is notable, the loss of this draft wouldn't cause me to shed any tears. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Move the draft into mainspace and then overhaul it once its live. GiantSnowman 13:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I have fixed up what I could; now it's up to the football enthusiasts. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Mohamed Salah
Hello, could someone please review Mohamed Salah as my edit has been reverted. The transfer has not been completed IMO, and even the official Chelsea site says "The move is subject to the Egyptian international agreeing personal terms and completing a medical examination."... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. There is no reference to the transfer being completed just that it has been agreed. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've undone the previous edit and added in as much as can be expected to be on the page at this stage. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just because the teams has agreed it does not make him a Chelsea player yet. Things can still happen. QED237 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- The same must apply to Chelsea F.C and the season article were he has been added to the squad. QED237 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just because the teams has agreed it does not make him a Chelsea player yet. Things can still happen. QED237 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've undone the previous edit and added in as much as can be expected to be on the page at this stage. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
FA nomination, please review
It would be great if any of you could take the time to review the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive4 FA nomination. If passed, the article would serve as a strong model for other national team articles (and to rework the somewhat outdated Scotland nft FA-class article), which are bound to get much traffic once the World Cup starts.--MarshalN20 | Talk 07:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm having trouble reconciling the birth details of Daniel Hurst, who played around the turn of the 20th century. Few sources mention exactly when or where he was born, but the ones that do say he was born in Cockermouth on 2 October 1876. However, a user who claims to be related to Hurst has emailed me with copies of his birth certificate, marriage certificate and his entry in the 1911 census; the birth certificate claims that Hurst was born on 9 November 1876 at (very specifically) 5 Hayton Square, Workington. Even if the birth certificate is right and proper, how do I cite it without access to my own copy, not just one that was emailed to me? – PeeJay 10:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that we weren't supposed to cite things to birth certificates? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Can anyone confirm that? It would certainly make things easier if that were the case. – PeeJay 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think Luke is correct the birth cert would fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- If it's a BLP, yes, in general. But for a dead person, AFAIK, you can use official documents so long as you're sure they refer to the notable person and not to some other person of the same name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm certain that the birth certificate in question refers to the right person. I'm also sure that the info contained therein should be considered as more reliable than books published years later. But how to cite it then? – PeeJay 12:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Forgot he was dead I so infrequently edit such articles, but this source also says he was born on 9 November 1876 in Workington. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's interesting. That page has changed since I last looked at it, apparently thanks to information provided by "John Shaw", the same person who emailed me the birth certificate. I guess I could use that article as a source if I can't work out how to cite the birth certificate properly. – PeeJay 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't know if this is the standard method, or if there's anything better, but the article Edward Alexander Wyon contains numerous refs to BMD certificates that look fairly tidily formatted. (and thanks to whoever fixed the mis-highlighting in my last post :) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Forgot he was dead I so infrequently edit such articles, but this source also says he was born on 9 November 1876 in Workington. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm certain that the birth certificate in question refers to the right person. I'm also sure that the info contained therein should be considered as more reliable than books published years later. But how to cite it then? – PeeJay 12:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- If it's a BLP, yes, in general. But for a dead person, AFAIK, you can use official documents so long as you're sure they refer to the notable person and not to some other person of the same name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think Luke is correct the birth cert would fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Can anyone confirm that? It would certainly make things easier if that were the case. – PeeJay 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Adam Mitchell DOB
- Adam Mitchell (footballer born 1994) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Andy80214 (talk · contribs)
Andy says he is this subject's father, and says the DOB is incorrect - it should be 18 October 1993 and not 2 December 1994. I have no reason to doubt him, but almost every source uses the latter date. Further help at the article talk page would be appreciated so we can resolve this. GiantSnowman 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what's the evidence he is the subject's father? The DOB is currently sourced to a Sunderland profile that makes no mention of his DOB. Sky Sports however do state the current DOB. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Bit random for day, month and year to all be wrong in the date on his profile...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unusual yes (particularly in this day and age), impossible and unheard of, no. Isn't OTRS the place to go for things like this? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have already advised this user to try OTRS; if he hasn't or that is still pending we should still attempt to help. GiantSnowman 20:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- ESPN says the date his father claims – 18 October 1993. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have already advised this user to try OTRS; if he hasn't or that is still pending we should still attempt to help. GiantSnowman 20:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Unconfirmed transfers
Is there a standard editnotice which can be placed on the talk page of a player when that player is negotiating a transfer, but has not yet signed for the prospective new club? This is in relation to current threads at Talk:Michael Essien, and recent threads at Talk:Juan Mata (there have been several others in the past). The anon editors simply do not grasp the idea of reliable sourcing, and got so abusive at Talk:Juan Mata that I unwatched if completely. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Bot request
I am unsure (or have forgotten) where I'm supposed to file bot requests, but is there a good reason that most subcategories of Category:UEFA European Championship, like this one and this one, should still be using a title that the main article is no longer using following a move discussion of over eight months ago? --Theurgist (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Probably because no-one has raised it at WP:CFD yet, so I suggest you do so. Moving by bot is inappropriate without that specific discussion; at the end of it, a bot would sort everything anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Did Category:UEFA European Championship ever go through that process? --Theurgist (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)