Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 42

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

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

User: J Milburn

Just wondering if the above user was out of order with this edit before I go about reinstating the images. I only just noticed it. - Dudesleeper talk 01:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I say that you should re-instate the player pictures. I think the edit summary "What these people looked like is not important" is rather bizarre. Why this continuous attempt to make Wikipedia bland and boring? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Those images are copyrighted, and our image use policy is quite specific on when fair use is appropriate (the answer being something other than "whenever one feels that a page is bland and boring"). This should have been brought up in the first instance with J Milburn, not on the project talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Given their age, it is possible that some of those images could be moved to Commons as free use. If photographs are shown in a documentary film, surely the copyright still lies with the photographer, not the movie studio? The video was just an incidental medium for grabbing the images but no creative value has been added. If they were stills from moving images it would be different. --Jameboy (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When I added my earlier comment, I had not checked on the images' copyright status - this was not the reason given for removal in the edit summaries from J Milburn. I agree with Jameboy that many of the "disputed" images are probably out of copyright, but I'll leave it to Dudesleeper to undertake the necessary research. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jamen Somasu and UEFA Europa League

User:Jamen Somasu refuses to accept that Shakhtar Donetsk are still the defending champions of the UEFA Europa League despite being knocked out by Fulham. Obviously it is possible for a team to remain as the defending champions even when they are not involved in the following season of a competition, right? – Pee Jay 18:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. A title usually changes hands either after the last whistle of the Final of the competition or, in case of a league-like structure, when it is mathematically impossible to remove the leaders from the top. No sooner and no later. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the title changes hands after the competition is over, regardless of its structure. Even if its mathematically impossible to knock the leaders of a league out of first place, the championship trophy is generally not awarded until after the final match. Either way Shakhtar are definately still the defending Europa League Champions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are clearly still the champions until after the next final. matt91486 (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They are reigning champions, or "current champions" (which is the text in the disputed infobox); but having been eliminated, they can no longer be described as "defending" thier title. Wolves are reigning/current FL Champions, they are not defending champions. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Kevin McE, they are not "defending" the title (any more in this case, or ever were if they had not been in the same competition this year), they merely currently hold the title.--ClubOranje^T 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk about getting bogged down in semantics. However, you are right. Shakhtar are no longer "defending" champions; they are merely "reigning" champions. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's acceptable to call them defending champions until this year's final is completed. Eldumpo (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As eloquently pointed out above, there's a very good compromise in the term "reigning champions", which avoids a possibly disputable implication. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Kelly

This prod worries me. I think it needs an AfD, particularly because of the claims of playing a friendly for Jamaica's national side. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The two games that are mentioned in the article wouldn't be official internationals, and there's no record of him on the national football teams site. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, we can't take appearances in Football League reserve teams or unofficial international friendlies as evidence of notability for contemporary players. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why do articles about English Football League during '60s link to the same season of Fairs Cup and not to the following Fairs season? (exemple) --95.236.141.128 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the notation in the league table states that those clubs "participated" in that same season's competition. In my opinion, the league table doesn't seem like the best place to include that information. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

EXT Links needing cleanup.

914 football articles link to CBF which gives me "Server Error in '/' Application. The resource cannot be found." and always has since I first removed one some months ago. 606 football articles link to Sambafoot which possibly had some sort of player database at one point, but now simply links to an article on heel pain and foot care. Is there an easy clean-up option somewhere for this sort of thing?--ClubOranje^T 13:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, a search shows that en.sambafoot.com seems to hold the same content as sambafoot.co.uk did. I'll go through and fix this link in the next couple of days if no one else does. Camw (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hobbs

I was hoping that someone with the means could help me out. There's a goalkeeper, Fred Hobbs, listed in my very unreliable Blackpool F.C. book, whom I have in my sandbox list, yet in List of Blackpool F.C. players, there's a John Hobbs. Neither of these appear in Michael Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. Have there been two Hobbs's at Blackpool, or is this an error? - Dudesleeper talk 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind; I've answered my own question. - Dudesleeper talk 23:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It turns out it was a Calleyism, and it's actually Fred Mobbs, who also played for Gainsborough Trinity, Aldershot and Grantham, I'll stop talking to myself now... - Dudesleeper talk 23:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve Bloomer coach in Netherlands?

Steve Bloomer's article mentions that he briefly coached in the Netherlands, but does not mention a team or reference. Does anybody know which team it is, or where I can find this? --131.155.56.90 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Blauw Wit (Amsterdam) NRC 17-4-1918 Evening edition: http://kranten.kb.nl/index2.html Cattivi (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I did extensive work on Steve Bloomer article a few years back and added the fact he coached in the Netherlands. I have added the reference were I found it mentioned. I’ve just done a Google search and found it mentioned elsewhere. However some of these appear have copied the Wiki article ! I remember doing a thorough search at the time trying to expand on it but I came up with nothing. Djln--Djln (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Problem solved thanks to info provided by above. Article has been updated Djln--Djln (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mohamed Taidara

It seems that this article is an hoax (the player exists but all relevent info are highly unprovable). Based on verified french information [1] (and [2]) and on the site of Cardiff, all info might be made up. Please verify. More info can be found on french wikipedia here : fr:Discussion_Projet:Football/Archive14#Mohamed_Taidara. no information found on the player registration for transfer of the player. Loreleil (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Further inforamtion of highly probable hoax : based on the official Cardiff Roaster no sign of the player. based on a strange cardiff roaster (who claimed to be the official website) we strangely find the player. Further proof of an attempt of an Hoax : a somehow serious Greece Senegal report from SkySports doesn't speak about this player was a french compromised site tells us that the player is part of the team and played this match : [3] Loreleil (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to report the fake Cardiff City site as violating CFC's copyright and trademarks to the hosting company. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Flags

I know that we've had issues over the misuse or overuse of flags, but I think the editors of the Lithuania national football team have figured it out. The use of {{flagicon|Earth}} for unattached players was just far too funny to keep to myself. I hope someone else laughed as much as I did. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Amused? Highly. Surprised? Not in the slightest. Knepflerle (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet this project doesn't seem to want to do anything about the misuse of flags Gnevin (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please let's be mature about this. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What? Half the people who voted above don't want to do anything about the misuse of flags. In fact some even admitted they don't care if flags are out and out wrong Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And that discussion already has its own thread. Soapboxing about it elsewhere is unbecoming of what is one of WP's more collegial WikiProjects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I ain't soap-boxing. I know that the vote ain't going to change and I've given up on it as I've said it has become clear in my opinion this project or a large number of it's members don't want to do anything about the misuse of flags. Gnevin (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On a slight tangent to this discussion, I've posted a comment at Template talk:Football squad player#Country names regarding the lack of country names on the output of the {{fs player}} template. I haven't had any response there, so I thought I'd mention it here to reach a wider audience. Basically, I think that {{fs player}} should use {{flag}}, rather than {{flagicon}} as it does now. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Without indicating support or otherwise for your proposal. I know there isn't enough space for this without changes to {{fs start}},you should perhaps mock something up in your sandbox Gnevin (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This has been brought up before, but it's not a straightforward or uncontroversial fix at this time as it would be likely to cause layout problems on a non-trivial number of existing articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Chester F.C.

A new article has been started, Chester FC, for the new club formed by fans of the former Chester City F.C.. Please could an admin move the new article to Chester F.C., as this already exists, but as a redirect. Thanks. Dancarney (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Some of the links here will need fixing, though -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that Chester City F.C. started out as Chester F.C., so if these links are changed, you need to be careful that they are correctly "piped". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion. If Chester City were originally named Chester F.C., shouldn't the new team be Chester F.C. (2010) and Chester F.C. be a disambiguation page? 91.106.113.160 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

At least a disambiguation, but I would have to question whether the 2010 incarnation yet justifies an article: it has a name and nothing else at the moment: no manager, players, committee (beyond a "spokesman"). They do apparently have access to a bucket though. Kevin McE (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Chester F.C. should still redirect to Chester City F.C., which IMO is the clear primary topic for the search term Chester F.C. The club existed as Chester F.C. for near on 100 years, and was a Football League club for much of that time. The embryonic club, as Kevin says, is as yet little more than an idea. A hatnote at Chester City F.C. to Chester F.C. (2010), assuming the latter is notable, should be enough. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed Chester F.C. to a dab page and moved the current club to Chester F.C. (2010). If people feel that Chester F.C. should instead redirect to Chester City F.C., feel free to change it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not that bothered... If we're sure that's how it's staying, I'll fix the links to Chester F.C. which now land at the dab page instead of their proper destination. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is settled. Chester City are a famous club who used Chester F.C. for a hundred years; the current Chester F.C. are presently notable only by assocation with that club, and indeed the article's at AfD right now. I'd rather redirect to Chester City and have a hatnote. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Similar request, could someone move Crumlin United FC to Crumlin United F.C. please? The 'F.C.' version redirects to the 'FC' version. Fionnsci (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd be quicker slapping a {{db-move}} on the redirect in future. I've done that now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Fionnsci (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions for teams in league tables

Since I am currently in the prossess of changing the 2. Bundesliga articles to use the fb cl template, I was wondering if there were any existing naming conventions for clubs listed in league tables, particularly when there are two clubs from the same city playing in the same league? For example, both 1. FC Köln and Fortuna Köln played in 2. Bundesliga in the 1998–99 season. Under the current templating the former is refered to simply as Köln, while the latter uses the full name. To me this seems slightly POV, since implies that 1. FC is more associated with the city of Cologne than Fortuna. Thoughts on this? Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too POV to me. If in England we had teams called London F.C. and London Wanderers F.C., I'd expect to see them listed as "London" and "London Wanderers" in tables, and I wouldn't treat this as implying that the former club was the more senior or more closely linked with the city. How are they referred to in German sources........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nowadays 1. FC Köln is referred to as Köln or "der FC" (club nickname) when not refered to by its full name. This makes sense since they're playing in the Bundesliga, whereas Fortuna has passed into obscurity and is playing down in the fifth division. As for how they were referred to at that time: I don't know. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am generally against this too excessive shortening of club names... There are clubs which obviously wouldn´t miss anything by having the FC´s, FK´s... For me, it is still quite strange to see "Barcelona" for FC Barcelona, "Porto" for FC Porto, Köln for 1.FC Köln, "Seoul" for FC Seoul, "Zürich" for FC Zürich or "Smederevo" for FK Smederevo or "Sarajevo" for FK Sarajevo. There are just some names that look strage without them... and may lead to confusion. FkpCascais (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Köln and Fortuna Köln should be fine. matt91486 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason why most clubs are missing their "FC" is the following: When I created most of the first-level team templates prior to the 2008–09 season, I ommitted every case of "FC", "FK", "SV", "IF", "AC", "AS" or similar abbreviations because the template were all located in Category:Fb team templates at this time and I didn't want to have about 500 occasions of templates beginning with "FC". Thus, 1.FC Köln was shortened to just "Köln" while Fortuna kept their full name. However, this informal convention might have been applied not too strictly in the past (even by me), so I don't know how inconsistent the naming might or might not be at present. In any case, if there is the wish to change the naming, I am not against it – as long as potential moves are executed for all affected team templates. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem with having "1. FC Köln"? When ARD read the football results they often do say "der erste FC Köln". If people insist on shortening the club name to the name of the city, then simply call it "Cologne". Jared Preston (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason "Cologne" isn't used is that it's not the common name of the football team. In coverage of the game anyone would take "Köln" to mean 1. FC Köln and not Fortuna Köln. I think both of them are fine as they are. -- Big Dom 16:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources are happy to use "1. FC Köln" then so should we. FWIW, we're not required to disambiguate which Köln we're referring to unless it's genuinely likely to lead to confusion in an article, for the same reason that articles about British politics in the 1990s don't need to specify in the article prose precisely which John Smith they're referring to most of the time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gary Sawyer

Would some kind soul please clean-up his article? I would myself but don't have time right now. I checked it to see what had been done as he was transferred yesterday and its an absolute mess. All links have been removed from the lead and two sections have been added which don't improve it at all. Cheers. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ewood Park

More eyes requested at Ewood Park, where NPOV appears to have gone out of the window in favour of essays about hooliganism. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Would someone be able to add this to WP:ANEW as I need to log off? If not will do so tomorrow. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Added (and what a ball-ache the process is these days). Not sure I did it all correctly, but we'll see how it goes. - Dudesleeper talk 01:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked for 24 hours. Bettia (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had a bit of trouble with him in the past regarding the Turf Moor article, he seems to just target stadium articles for his vandalism. -- Big Dom 16:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't throw that word around lightly. It's misguided soapboxing, but it isn't vandalism. That said, we're not obliged to tolerate people who can't follow WP:NPOV, so when this reoccurs (as it almost certainly will) stick a final warning on it and then take it to AIV when it's ignored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really throwing it around. To start with, I don't think it was vandalism but to keep doing the same thing over and over again despite numerous requests to cease definitely is in my opinion. -- Big Dom 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He's blocked for seven days now. - Dudesleeper talk 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Premier League winners champions of Wales?

What do you think.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that a serious argument, do you think, or just subtle disruption? Or, would they also argue that if in some parallel universe Berwick Rangers won the SPL they'd become champions of England? Suspect not..... The serious answer, if one's really required, is that the League in question is the English Premier League, so its winners become champions of England. The winners of the Welsh Premier League become champions of Wales. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is "Champions of Wales" (or indeed "Champions of England") an official title of some sort? If not, we shouldn't include either. You're the Premier League champions, that's it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a title Champions of England, it's just an informal thing people use to mean the highest-ranked team in the country. I agree that we probably shouldn't use the title in the article. -- Big Dom 16:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed. I don't think it's in particularly wide use anyway: "Premier League champions" is far more common IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Raúl González

The article on Raúl González is not very good. I would have thought that Wikipedi would have a better article for the all-time top scorer of the Champions League, especially looking at other player articles. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the article? It is rated "B". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think whoever rated it B-class was being extremely generous to be honest, it's only just pushing C-class in my opinion because most of the article is just tables and there's very little text. I agree with the IP that for such a famous player it is a fairly disappointing article considering that we have WP:GAs of players in the Conference, for example Richard Brodie. -- Big Dom 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, people are always going to work on the articles which interest them, and you can't force them to do otherwise. Obviously I realise that Raul is approximately one million times more notable than Andy Hessenthaler, but I had great interest in working on Hessy's article and precisely none in working on Raul's. Yes, Raul's article probably does deserve to be better, but it will need someone who's actually interested in working on it to take the bull by the horns and fix it, and clearly that person hasn't come along as yet...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What!!! More important than Hess??!!? You and I both know that that cannot be Chris (although the rest of the world may disagree) Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Any of you guys have a height for Hessenthaler? he looks really stumpy in his photo!--ClubOranje^T 23:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Compact" please, not "stumpy" when refering to our hero! Kevin McE (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, Soccerbase had it. Is England still imperial by preference for that? --ClubOranje^T 06:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Measurement of a person's height by metric units is still practically unheard of in the UK. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Kendall

At the moment Ryan Kendall redirects to a section of Black Condor without any hatnote. The entry on the footballer recently created is instead at Ryan Kendall (footballer). This doesn't seem to be right to me. Surely the footballer should be the main entry with a hatnote to the character of Black Condor, who be instead be something like Ryan Kendall (Black Condor character). 91.106.99.99 (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, articles should definitely take precedence over redirects and I doubt anyone would disagree with that. However, now the page has been created it's going to need an admin to move the article over the redirect. -- Big Dom 22:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've speedied the redirect, so this should be done soon. Once that's complete a hatnote can be added for the character. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking an IP from updating a page

Hi all. Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but seeing as I edit a football page it's as good as any. A certain IP address keeps making half-baked updates to the 2009-10 Premier Reserve League page. The IP is 86.163.108.154 and they always only update the Liverpool result and then not even properly. I need a steward to block that IP address. I put a lot of time into that page and it's not so that someone can mess it up! Rgds Bealzbob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bealzbob (talk • contribs) 22:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to try talking to the user and working with them as I can't see any edits so far that they would be blocked for. Camw (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I have now opened a dialogue with the user. But my IP was banned for an identical (and accurate) type of edit in the past, resulting in me creating this username. Bealzbob (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing the specific situation last time I can't say why that would have happened. It's good that you've attempted to start a discussion with the user, so hopefully that will help. Camw (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you were blocked for the same thing in the past then the best thing would be to try to get the IP not to make the same mistake. Anyway, good luck. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And again tonight from another IP (82.36.206.251). This time an inaccurate edit that only updated 1 team's line in a league table and not their opponent's. I've sent them a message too... Bealzbob (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bealzbob, As far as I can see its not a blocking issue. Fly-by IPs who have little experience of WP often just update a single statistic for their club or player without appreciating the wider picture, but they have as much right as you do to edit the page and have to learn how the Wikipedia project operates through building experience, we all start sonmewhere. It can be frustrating but you need to assume good faith as the edits do not appear malicious. Its possibly the same person on both days with a dynamic IP address so adding a note to their Talk page may not be very productive.Tmol42 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I don't know if this will be seen because it's archive but the 2009–10 Premier Reserve League has just been vandalised by one of our own users JamesH1381. He has add 12-0, 6-0, 8-0, 7-0 wins to all matches that are unplayed and has made the stats all incorrect. I am now attempting to rectify this but can someone with the power to do so, please stop this guys from doing further damage? Bealzbob (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Messi quality

Hey folks,

Lionel Messi seems to have some regular problems with quality / POV which are unbefitting its importance to the project. Any experts fancy giving the current version a look to see if there are still issues? This really needs to go to GA at some point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not my field of expertise, I'm afraid. But you could have a word with User:Spiderone if he's still about, he took it through GA last July..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Short question regarding category naming

Short question –- since all the categories in Category:Association football by year have been renamed, every subcategory of these, for example Category:2009–10 domestic football (soccer) leagues or Category:2009-10 domestic football (soccer) cups, should be renamed as well, shouldn't they? I thought I'd better ask before creating Category:2010–11 domestic association football leagues and Category:2010–11 domestic association football cups... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, created the categories. Now I have just to figure out again how to get the moving process for categories started... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CfD. – Pee Jay 10:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sparta Prague help

I'm doing some work on ice hockey and came across Sparta Prague. A quick glance at the Czech WP revealed that it is a multi-sport club. There is no article for the club itself, but the association football, ice hockey, and rugby union clubs all have their own pages that are also inconsistently named, Sparta Prague, HC Sparta Praha, and RC Sparta Prague. I was going to put together a brief article for the multisport club that would link the three and have its own category as a multi-sport club, but I'm not sure what to name it. (Also, the hockey club has HC Sparta Prague as a redirect; could an admin fix it so that they all use the same base name, "Sparta Prague". Thanks.) The Czech WP doesn't seem to be much help, as the football club is cs:AC Sparta Praha, and the parent club is cs:Association Club Sparta Praha. Thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also a similar naming issue for Slavia Prague. Football: Slavia Prague; ice hockey: HC Slavia Praha, with a redirect from HC Slavia Prague; basketball: BC Slavia Prague; rugby: RC Slavia Prague. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking to team season articles from league standings tables

Over at Talk:2010 Major League Soccer season, we're having a discussion about the decision to link the standings table to the respective team season articles via the team's name in the table. That is to say, when it says "Los Angeles Galaxy" in the league table, it links to 2010 Los Angeles Galaxy season article instead of directly to the Los Angeles Galaxy article. I disagree with this practice, as only the 2010 and 2009 seasons are following this practice, but not the first 13 seasons of MLS. The proponents of linking to the team season articles argue that this is comonplace in the other North American sports league season articles, like 2009 Major League Baseball season and 2009–10 NHL season. It should be pointed out that in the 2009 NFL season article, the division standings are linked to the main team article, but there is a seperate "Details" link to the team season articles, while the 2009–10 NBA season links the standings table to the team articles without any "Details" link or anything similar. It should also be pointed out that even in league season articles that provide links to team season articles, they only do this for the last few seasons. Furthermore, this practice is not followed in the articles about the MLS Cup Playoffs, Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, or CONCACAF Champions League, despite the fact that MLS clubs compete in these competitions alongside the MLS season. Because this practice is not found in the articles about any other major footy competition worldwide, I don't think it should be found in the MLS articles, but I may well be wrong. Either way, anyone who would like to comment either in favor or in opposition would be welcome. -- Grant .Alpaugh 15:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage any editors wanting comment to read the discussion on Talk:2010 Major League Soccer season and then share their opinions. There are a lot of points being made (have been made in previous iterations of this conversation) and I'd rather not fragment the discussion further. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T_C 02:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

...Wow. Is this still going? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I got blocked shortly after trying to stop this from being implemented last year, and so the handful of editors who wanted to make this change were never really challenged about it until I was unblocked. So, yeah this is still going on, but hopefully not for much longer. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Before you were blocked how many editors were in support of your side against the "handful of editors"? Thanks in advance.Morry32 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There were another handful of editors on this talk page, but none of them made their feelings known on the main discussion page. This was partly because the discussion became splintered by the templates each having their own talk page. Regardless, this isn't a vote, but a discussion about the merits of each proposal. Given that only a very few North American sports articles link their standings to team specific season articles, while the vast majority of those North American sports articles and every soccer article on the encyclopedia link directly to the team article, there seems to be no reason not to at the very least accept the compromise of providing both links. Those who changed the practice didn't even consider the fact that MLS teams play in other competitions besides the main MLS league (unlike every other North American sport), so the practice of linking the standings to team specific season articles from only one of those competitions when each competition is a part of the team's season. This shows how poorly thought through the decision was, and my being blocked prevented this point from being made. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The league table is what is being discussed, there is no relevance to if MLS clubs play international competitions. There was a vote and no one supported your side of the discussion, is that true?Morry32 (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Grant has now changed the templates- current and retroactively- based on his own needs to control these articles. I am disturbed by this and feel that this user could potentially be dangerous to the civility within the community. I question the point of banning someone permanently when it is in fact not permanent.Morry32 (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

First, the point is that all competitions are part of a team's season, so a link to a team's name in one competition should link to the same thing, regardless of the competition. If the group stage of the CONCACAF Champions League or SuperLiga is going to link to the team's article, then the standings in the MLS table should as well. The bottom line, though is that the consensus here and at the 2010 main article talk page was to make the changes. Some users have even expressed suprise that they hadn't occurred quickly enough. Also, I can't help but notice that you have chosen to object to my consensus-supported edits, and suggest that I should be banned for making them, without so much as participating in the discussion at the 2010 talk page. This is ridiculous, especially since the edits I made still provide for the team season articles to be linked to the standings tables. So, for suggesting and implementing a consensus-supported compromise, I'm somehow a disruption to the encyclopedia? I respectfully disagree. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus? You just happened to purpose it in a period where there were no MLS games for Five days, you suggested the changes and implemented them in 60 hours based on a handful of editors responding. You yourself have been banned for sock puppetry a consensus and making changes in the past. What would be the harm in having a real discussion like the one we had last season, the one that sent you into the crazed position that resulted in your banning? I've never stood in the way of a consensus and you will notice I am not changing any of your edits I am just questioning why you are the one leading this when your creditability is lacking entirely.Morry32 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points: First, the encyclopedia doesn't shut down just because there aren't any MLS games. Second, if you want to accuse Thumperward - a.k.a. Chris Cunningham (not at work), Number 57, and The Rambling Man of being my socks, please, go right ahead. I think you'll find yourself being made to look like quite a fool. Third, the only person against making the change both admitted on my talk page that it was unlikely anyone else would comment and that consensus had emerged for adopting the changes I proposed. Fourth, the changes I proposed were not the ones I proposed last year, so that discussion is irrelevant. I proposed a new compromise that sought to please all parties and appeared to have succeeded. Finally, when I rejoined the encyclopedia, I didn't do so with restricted rights. I'm allowed, even encouraged, to make changes to the encyclopedia. I made a compromise proposal, there was a consensus for it, and so I implemented it. If you disagree with the changes, you are free to revert them. I won't get into an edit war with you (which is what I was banned for initially), but I will continue to advocate those changes that I think should be made to the encyclopedia. The fact that a number of editors support the changes I proposed, but don't care enough about MLS to make them themselves, doesn't mean that there wasn't consensus to make the changes. The bottom line is that you disagree with something I did, and rather than providing an alternate solution or reasons why the changes I made are bad you are trying to question the way I made the changes in a way that does not assume good faith. There has been a number of lengthy discussions about this issue, and a compromise that should please both sides has been implemented, if only you give it a chance. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

List of UEFA Champions League winning players good source

I think that I've found an excellent and reliable source about this matter. Please you consult this: [4] --87.14.62.179 (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Would someone with administrative priviledges or WP:ROLL please restore Plymouth Argyle F.C. to User:Phenom V1.0's last revision. I have reverted vandalism on that page numerous times in the last couple of months, but this is the first time I've encountered multiple edits bunched together and I'm not sure how to correct it without using WP:ROLL. Its getting extremely tedious, but my request to protect the page fell on death ears a few weeks ago. Thank you. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I see it has been taken care of. In future, you can click on the linked date of the revision you want to revert to in the history, then click on edit and save the old version of the page. You can also use a tool like Navigation Popups to revert to earlier versions. Or why not ask for Rollback? Camw (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cheers for the advice. I'm considering whether to apply, but considering the urgency that it was needed I thought it would be best to bring it to the project's attention instead of waiting to be able to do it myself. Thanks DK for restoring order, a real saint that fellow. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Termination

This is in regards to 2010 Major League Soccer season so American editors might be more interested. When a coach (or anyone) is terminated in the States it is referred to as "fired". "Sacked" is a term often used in Europe when managers are let go. I'm not sure if little-used international jargon is appropriate in an American article. However, it is an international game. Any thoughts? I don;t really care but there has been recent some back and forth on it.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If an article is about an American topic, it should use American English terminology. If people in the United States rarely use the term "sacked", then you shouldn't use it in the article. – Pee Jay 08:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Can anyone else in the US verify that it isn't common. I would hate to remove it based on my perception alone.Cptnono (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard an American say "sacked" to describe a person being let-go. --MicroX (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Sacked is not commonly used by Americans to refer to the dismissal of a manager or coach. Fired is used instead. Jogurney (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Americans don't say "sacked" unless they're trying to sound British. :) JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah for us, sacked is when in the NFL, a defensive player pounds the Quarterback in the backfield. lol. So like we just said, a coach is let go, it's refered to us as fired. – Michael (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are we having this debate when there are all manner of unambiguous synonyms, most predominantly "dismissed"? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Because sacked is one of the synonyms of dismissed, but it is inappropriate in the cases discussed here? Madcynic (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm. What I meant was "dismissed is not ambiguous, so why not use that instead". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I know this is a late reponse but saw it and thought it was fun. "Dismissed" actually isn't very common here in the States. I say terminated but that is from working to closely with HR departments. It is surprisingly less common now with one of the best movie franchises ever grabbing the term. "Let go" is another common one. It does not matter anyways since someone else reverted awhile back. There is no longer an issue but amazingly good thought process mentioning dismissed as an alternative.Cptnono (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Succession of Yugoslav First League

While converting the templates using fb start/end to conventional Navboxes, I stumbled across Template:Succession of Yugoslav First League. First question: Does this template make sense (or in other words, is it useful and worth keeping)? If the answer to this question is yes – has anybody an idea how to convert this beauty? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read it as a tree branching out as it goes from left to right it makes sense, though obviously the text should be centred vertically in the columns. Whether or not it is actually useful in that format is another matter. I've posted a sandbox copy at {{succession of Yugoslav First League/sandbox}} which just goes by season, which is both more compact and more accessible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your idea, Chris. I have slightly modified it and will now, pending objections, move it into mainspace. One note though – RSSSF says that the Croats started play in 1993, the Bosniaks followed in 1994 and the Serbs in 1995 (that's why I listed the leagues in their respective locations). However, our internal links are not very helpful regarding the history and/or any particular seasons of said leagues. Is there any expert on this subject who can a) improve the existing articles and b) create the missing season articles? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I will try to help with those articles when I find myself with more time. About the question regarding if the template makes sence, I think it does, and it is very usefull to find and follow the seasons (I think this was what you meant). FkpCascais (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good article backlog

I wanted to throw a reminder out there regarding the push to clar out some of the GAN backlog. It can be fun and there is some project related stuff on there (Goodison Park needs some love so I don't fail it). Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010 if you want to do a couple.Cptnono (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Halifax Town Managers

1. Can anyone confirm which Harry Taylor was Halifax's manager in 1956-7 [5]. The Halifax manager section on Wiki [6] has a link to Harry Taylor (footballer), but there are 5 Harry Taylor's on allfootballers.com (I don't subscribe), plus there are another three Harold Taylor's.

2. Similarly, the 1936 reference on Wiki to Jimmy Thompson is wrong, as there are two sources showing it's Thomson without the 'p'. Allfootballers has 5 Jimmy/Jim/James Thomson's that could work time-wise - anyone know which one.

Or, for both cases, it could even be the manager was not a former footballer? Any help appreciated. Eldumpo (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

James Hunter Thomson born Deepdale (Shetland) 9-5-1884 died November 1959 a former Bury ,Hearts and Leith player (Also played for Portsmouth 1906-11 and Coventry 1911-13 in the Southern League. Harold Taylor (Halifax chairman) and E. Vivien Booth (Halifax director) managed the club 6-12-1956 / 4-11-1957 Booth was suspended by the Football League 7-10-1957. Don't know who this Harold Taylor was. He doesn't have to be a former football league player. Cattivi (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you got the reference confirming that James Hunter Thomson is the player who subsequently managed Halifax. The wiki article originally showed Taylor being co-manager with Booth, but because none of the sources I could see confirmed it, I deleted Booth. Is your source for this the same as Thomson? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's all from the same source: The Definitive Halifax AFC by Johnny Meynell. First team trainer in 1956-57 was Allen Ure Cattivi (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I have made the changes/refs, and made Taylor and Booth as normal text on the list. Given Taylor was the chairman at the time it's not that likely that he was a former player, but if anyone knows different let me know. Eldumpo (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

goalscorer or goal scorer

I was wondering whether "goalscorer" or "goal scorer" is correct or is either acceptable? Both forms return plenty of search results. Also I'm not sure whether there are colloquial differences in usage? Is it something that we have a standard for (or if not, should we?), particularly where used in article titles? Would be interested to hear thoughts. --Jameboy (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer "goalscorer." I don't think it's any more or less prevalent over here, but if it helps, I'm a Yank. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of the two, I also prefer "goalscorer". But given the choice, I'd prefer "goal-scorer". – Pee Jay 15:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's much difference between them, and suggest that we do not need to seek a preferred version. Eldumpo (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered either. However, there are articles here such as "Top international association football goal scorers by country". Goal scorers seems to fit better than goalscorers for the title. I think I'd be inclined to write "goal-scorer" like PeeJay though. Jared Preston (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, as I'd not even considered hyphenating. I think in that case I will just try to stay consistent within each article and not worry too much about which is "correct" for now. --Jameboy (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Drogheda United F.C. SD tagged for copyvio

Page in it's current state is a practically word-for-word copy from a website, so if anyone wants the page to continue existing, you'd better go through the history to find an edit where it's not, because I'm not doing your rabbit-hunting for you. HalfShadow 18:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you've fallen into the trap. There's a very good reason that it has almost exactly the same text – the website you've linked to is a Wikipedia mirror site for football articles. Check any WP page against the gfdb.com site and they will all be the same (or at least the same as the article at the time it was copied). -- Big Dom 18:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

About FC Barcelona honours

Hello. I appreciate an administrator to check this page after the editions of this user, who believe that Fairs Cup and Copa Eva Duarte are the same competition that UEFA Europa League and Spanish Super Cup, respectively, despite the official position of UEFA and the RFEF is completely opposite to that theory. Also, in the club official website that honours are not marked like he things.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Soccer players vs Footballers

We need to have a discussion about the player profiles. I had to do some maintenance on both Brad Friedel and Jozy Altidore's pages. The reason is because it said they were American footballer's. They're both American so they're both considered soccer players. If a footballer's sporting nationality is either American or Canadian, then he or she is considered a soccer player. If not then they would be considered a footballer. It took me a while to figure that out since joining wikipedia two years ago. But I had to fix hella lot of pages, a few of them were for this reason. – Michael (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a discussion. What you've just said perfectly sums up how WP:ENGVAR applies to footballers/soccer players. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you are completely correct. What needs discussing? – Toon 22:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I didn't see that. – Michael (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories of the tipe: Tunguazian expatriates in Siuxland.

Hi everybody! I hope the ones that had Easter hollydays have enjoyed them well, and the others that had to work, well, I hope they didn´t worked too hard ;P . Anyway, regarding our enormous footy-micro-cosmos here, I have been a little bit tired of the sort of categories like the one I mentioned in the headline. The one I used as exemple obviously doesn´t exist (I think...), and I used it so I wouldn´t accidentally hert nobody´s nationality (exeption, Sioux and Tunguzians, sorry guys). The problem lies that some editors have been massively criating and adding this sort of categories to the football biographies.

In reality, I support the "expatriate" categories, refering to the ones wich tell where some players play: Exemple: "Expatriate footballers in Tunguzia", meaning, you can find in this category a list of all players with article that play, or have played in Tunguzia, in any point of their career. I supose the category, at its creation, meant to list all players that currently play in "Tunguzia" but, since it would be extremely hard to keep updated all the categories of all countries, nowadays they have the list of players that played there at some point.

About this sort of categories ("Expatriate footballers in Tunguzia"), I just want to say they I find them extremely usefull, and they are in many ocasions complementary to the various lists of foreign players found here (Category:Lists_of_footballers_playing_for_a_foreign_country), because there are found the players that played beside the main, in the lower leagues of that country as well.

The problem comes when you have a retired player that played in a number of countries troughout his career. We will obviously have included (if complete) the "expatriate categories" of all the countries where he played, wich is good. But, when you start adding beside these, all the additional nationality expatriate categories, the list of categories becomes unendless and confusing. We will be doubling the categories (cat1:"Expatriate players in Siuxland", cat2:"Tunguzian expatriates in Siuxland",...)

Resumingly, isn´t too early, and unnecessary, to start applying in football biographies,this sort of categories (Category:Expatriates by country of residence), when we still haven´t completely adopted this earlier sort of categories (Category:Expatriate football (soccer) players)? Any opinions? FkpCascais (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought all of those were deleted in a cfd about a year ago. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A typical example (chosen more or less at random) is Mickaël Antoine-Curier who has three "French expatriates in ..." categories and three "Expatriate footballers in ..." categories. Personally, I'd sweep the whole lot away. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --necronudist (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC on making WP:ATHLETE more restrictive

This request for comment may be of interest to members of our fine WikiProject. – Toon 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see this all coming back to the old WP:FOOTYN charade all over again. I think there might be some crazy old suggestions over there in the coming days so I'd invite people to come and join the fun. Big Dom 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Villa Park

This article about a very well known ground in England has been moved to Villa Park with Villa Park now redirecting to a disam page (the alternative uses being a small town and a couple of city districts in the United States). Surely the stadium is the primary topic? NB the places in the US are all qualified by state, eg Villa Park, California and don't use parentheses. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if that's the case (that none of the other Villa Parks use parentheticals or have other qualifiers), then surely Villa Park should redirect to the article about the stadium with a note at the top linking to the dab page, right? -- Grant .Alpaugh 15:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That was the situation before the move made yesterday. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary said that "See no reason why a stadium takes precedence over cities", however given that the stadium's capacity is greater than the combined population of the three cities/areas, that would seem to be one possible indicator of primary usage. I think it should be moved back. --Jameboy (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it back. The stadium is clearly the primary topic with this name. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation, yes or no?

The issue probably belongs on the talk page of the season article task force as well, but I thought that feedback for copyright questions would be bigger on the parent talk page.

Is this use of stadium pictures within the 2009–10 Ekstraklasa article legal or is this a violation of any of the current policies or guidelines regarding copyright or the usage of pictures in general? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but it seems alright to me. We have pictures of venues in the World and Euro Cup articles. Except for that the Ekstraklasa is far less prestigous, this seems like the same thing to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not a copyright violation; all of the images used there are either public domain or Creative Commons, which means that they can be used anywhere with no restrictions whatsoever. It only would have been a copyright issue had any of the photos been used under an ineligible fair use claim or if they were otherwise copyrighted in any way, but these are all fine. Hope this helps, -- Big Dom 17:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely yes, thank you. This reduces my objections to an ordinary case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as it seems...*sigh* If someone has an idea though how to include the pictures without destroying the current standard layout too much, please be bold. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that I like it much either, but there's no reason apart from that (unless it turns out that there are lots of people who feel the same) to get rid of it at the moment. -- Big Dom 17:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to re-integrate things into the standard layout. A little better in my opinion, but nevertheless I still don't like it. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ticks & crosses in Greek football

I've got into a disagreement with another editor regarding this section of the Aris Thessaloniki page. I'm pretty confident that use of the ticks and crosses, indicating progress or elimination from a UEFA competition, are somewhat superfluous and should be avoided. I'm equating them with the annoying letter C in a blue circle that lots of articles use to indicate captain. The other editor seems unconvinced, and on the article's talk page rattles off a load of other Greek clubs who have similar stuff on their pages, namely Iraklis_F.C.#Europe, Larissa_F.C.#European_competition_history, PAOK_FC#European_matches_panorama. I think that the featured list, List of Birmingham City F.C. records and statistics#Birmingham City in Europe, sets a good precedent. Does anyone have any opinions as to whether either/both.none of us is right? Dancarney (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that you are right on this one, they look terrible and are completely unnecessary. You can see whether or not they progressed in the competition if there is more than one round shown for the same year in the table. Big Dom 09:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with BigDom. If we have a featured list with a good layout, this is the way to go. Aside from that, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also in agreement. Those ticks and crosses are even contrary to MOS:IMAGE, which says that images should be avoided when the message can be put across using text alone. – Pee Jay 11:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Football League inter-league fixtures

Can anyone help me find citations proving that the following games took place?

Date			Competition 		"Home" Team 		"Away" Team
21 April 1894 		Inter-League Match 	Football League XI 	1 	Scottish League XI 	1 	
11 April 1896	 	Inter League Match 	Football League XI 	5 	Scottish League XI 	1 	
14 March 1925 		Inter-League Match 	Football League XI 	4 	Scottish League XI 	3 	
25 September 1929 	Inter-League Match 	Football League XI 	7 	Irish league XI 	2 	
11 May 1935[nb 2] 	Inter-League Match 	Football League XI 	10 	Welsh Football League/Irish league XI 	2
21 October 1936 	Inter-League Match 	Football League XI 	2 	Scottish League XI 	0 	
4 November 1939 	Representative Match 	Football League XI 	3 	All British XI 	3 	
19 February 1947 	Inter-League Match 	Football League XI 	4 	Irish League XI 	2 	
10 October 1951 	Inter-League Match 	Football League XI 	9 	League of Ireland XI 	1 	
7 December 1955 	Inter-League Match 	Football League XI 	5 	League of Ireland XI 	1

TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This page on London Hearts will do the Scottish ones. This on Irish Footballing Greats does the 1929 and 1947 irish ones. Does your local library have a subscription to The Times' online archive (see User:Foxhill/internet reference sites accessible with a valid UK Library card)? if it does, you can check the following day's edition for the result and possible match report (you can do it online, you don't have to actually go to the library to use their computers) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! What an amazing resource. I had no idea that The Times archive existed. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Austin

About a week ago, with this edit, an IP user added statistics for Charlie Austin's non-league career at the tenth tier of the English league system. Now, to me it seems very unlikely that these figures are in any way accurate and I was going to remove them but thought I had better check here to see if anyone had relevant sources to prove or disprove the stats. Cheers, Big Dom 13:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

According to his father, Austin scored 21 goals in 28 games for Kintbury, although it doesn't state whether there are any cup games in amongst that lot. That's the closest I could find for any of those stats so far. Bettia (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look, I didn't manage to find that piece. Like you say, that could include cup games but we've absolutely no way of knowing. In any case, I don't really know whether that could be considered a reliable source, and it still doesn't address the issue of where the IP dreamt up the other years and stats from. Big Dom 13:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

football.mitoo confirms both the Kintbury Rangers and the Hungerford figures as accurate and league games only. The Hellenic League uses football.mitoo for its website stats, so it's about as reliable as you'll get. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good finds, I'd never have imagined looking at that website as I thought it was only for youth football. Big Dom 14:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Add the sources to the page otherwise the stats could possibly be (and with some justification) deleted. 91.106.114.163 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books


Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class football articles should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 00:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pat Fenlon

Could someone help keep an eye on Pat Fenlon? Random IPs come on every now and again and make counterintuitive edits like removing the {{tooshort}} tag and moving the place of birth into the lead alongside the date of birth, despite this contravening WP:MOSNUM#Dates of birth and death. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for canvassing, but what's going on there is getting a bit silly now. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a week of semi-protection for the article. I hate IPs. – Pee Jay 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[EC] - it's not canvassing as you aren't asking people to side with you; you have merely presented your opinions about the article. Personally I feel it could be a candidate for WP:RPP. Cheers, Giant Snowman 00:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A question of honour(s)

Hi there "teammates",

In the past year or years, i think "the commission" declared that runner-up honours only qualified in domestic or European cups, not in leagues.

However, in the last weeks, i saw that third-place honours (and even fourth-place) have been inserted in several Portuguese players, hence my doubt: do third places in UEFA European Football Championships and FIFA World Cups qualify as an honour? In the former competition, there is not even a third-place match, both the semifinal losers get third automatically, only in whe WC does that match happen.

What are your views? I have doubts if the 3rd place should be an honour, the fourth should definitely not. Debate, please!

Attentively, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think that only first place should be considered an honour. – Pee Jay 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For Euro cups, third place should definately not be considered an honour, because since 1984 no matches have been played to determine which team finished third. In a broader perspective, I think runners-up should be considered honour. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

But what does one actually win by coming second? Only the winners take home a trophy. As the saying goes, "second place is just the first of the losers". – Pee Jay 22:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur entirely with Peejay. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Runners-up medals in cup competitions. In England, teams also win a trophy for coming second in the Football League and winning the play-offs, i.e. potentially seventh in some divisions. 91.106.111.228 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Winning the playoffs is still winning something. Coming second isn't winning something. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is not did a team win something, but did they achieve an honourable finish. In my opinion, second place, at least in the most prestigious competions, is an honourable finish and ought to be noted in a teams article. Not to mention that second place is often also awarded some sort of trohpy or medal. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if i'll add anything positive to the discussion, but keep in mind medals are ALWAYS handed out to the runners-up, in WC and EC finals, and in UEFA competitions (at least, don't know about the other football associations) - thus, the MEDAL is an HONOUR.

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember watching Panama receive runners-up medals at the CONCACAF Gold Cup, so I would agree that most Confederation tournaments honor the runners-up with medals. Jogurney (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. But is that an 'honor' where you actually won something, or a commiseration trinket for coming second? --JonBroxton (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You have a point there Jon. I think it's just a matter of a consensus being reached - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As I probably said last time this came up, the club article MoS says the section should contain "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." The important word would appear to be "achievements", not medals. As to third places, I'd include them if that placing was earned in a playoff, or if it won a promotion. Clearly, for clubs that win their league title every year it would be appropriate to omit second places or lower. I don't see why the criteria should be any different for players. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was about player articles. – Pee Jay 08:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hence my concluding remark: I don't see why the criteria should be any different for players. When a player has won everything under the sun, perhaps runners-up spots may not be an achievement worth noting, but that isn't the case for most players. When 3rd place means something, it may be appropriate to include it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, maybe I should have said "perhaps runners-up spots in minor competitions may not be an achievement worth noting". A player's career is shorter than that of a club, so they're far less likely to have so many winners medals that runners-ups can be discarded. Runners-up in major international competition, World Cup, Euro Championships, UEFA Cup (and other confederations' equivalents), and domestic leagues and major cups are (IMO) always an achievement worth noting, whereas Charity Shield or European Supercup wouldn't be. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Struway2 on this point. Finishing second in the competions listed is no small feat, and not something every player can claim to have done. On the other hand, if a player has so many achievements that a list gets rediculous it certainly would be worthwhile omiting the runner-up finishes. With regards to third place finishes, I'd say that they're not inherently worth noting, but it theren is some other achivement attatched to that finish, such as a promotion (in which case I would argue the promotion and not the third place is the achivement), they might merit a spot in a players article, especially if that player has few other achivements of note. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Javier Hernández (footballer)

Transfer season starts early (or late)! Javier Hernández (footballer) probably could use some sane editor attention. He was sold to Man Utd, but as often is the case, he's subject to work permit approval, so it's getting plenty of premature editing. --Mosmof (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The article was protected a few minutes ago. Nothing to worry about for a couple of days now :) – Pee Jay 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Piping team names in standings tables

Can we please get some community-wide comment on this issue at Talk:2010 Major League Soccer season? Thank you. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup

It seems that User:Jamen Somasu is on a mission to merge the Intercontinental Cup article into the FIFA Club World Cup article. While I know that one has sorta become the successor to the other, it is clear (at least to me), that the two should be kept as seperate articles as they are separate competitions, as well as their respective statistics articles and templates (this, this, and this). Does anyone think the same? Digirami (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Except for the fact that teams from UEFA and CONMEBOL play in both competitions, the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup should be treated as entirely separate competitions. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. I have prodded the articles (although I expect them to go to AfD soon), and I have started a TfD for the template. I'm fairly sure there was a discussion about this about a year ago. Does anyone have the time to search the archive to confirm that for me? – Pee Jay 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I've also prodded List of Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup winning managers. – Pee Jay 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Question re: image

Does anyone know who this player is? It's taken from the England - Slovenia pre-game warmup but I can't figure out who it is. Image is licensed under CC-BY. JACO PLANE • 2010-04-10 11:54

I **think** it's Gary Cahill. [7] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's him, thanks. JACO PLANE • 2010-04-10 12:09

Discussion on the usage of "Turkmen" and "Turkmenistani" on categories and templates

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Turkmen or Turkmenistani? for further discussion. Thanks. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

South Africa

Which is the proper name, Category:South Africa international football (soccer) players or Category:South Africa international footballers? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the former as it has over 4 times as many links. TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But you can always merge one category into the other so I don't think it matters which category is more populated. Judging by categories under Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality, it seems [Country name] international footballers seems to be the consensus format. Which reminds me - weren't we moving away from the "football (soccer)" construct in favor of "association football"? --Mosmof (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Goodison Park

I am pleased to announce that Goodison Park now has GA status !! :) TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That's very good work. By my reckoning, half of the current Premier League grounds are now good articles or featured articles. --Jameboy (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to give credit where it is due, it looks like Goodison Park makes only seven (not too far off half but still less) and there are only a handful more for lower league and retired stadiums.Cptnono (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are 10, I've listed them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/England_task_force#Alternative_PL_table. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice! I missed a few then. Good work to TheBigJagielka and thanks for updating the table Jameboy. Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

2007 UEFA Champions League Final FAR

I have nominated 2007 UEFA Champions League Final for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Pee Jay 12:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

James Milner

I noticed that the James Milner article is rated as A-Class, it is the only A-Class article in this WikiProject, is this an oversight and should it be brought down to GA? TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer seeing it brought up to FA over demoting it. A class seems to be skipped often. I don't know why that is though.Cptnono (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be an oversight? The article is better than GA, but not good enough for FA, so A-Class seems appropriate. It would definitely be a bad idea to lower it to GA just because it's WP:FOOTY's only A-Class article. Let's get it to FA! – Pee Jay 12:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. For some reason I was under the impression that A-Class articles were being phased out because there were no other A-Class articles. When I suggested it should be brought down, I didn't mean demoted as such, more along the lines of brought in line with the articles. My mistake TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The WP:Footy community's assessment section should be amended with information how to specifically request A-class article status. The assessment section currently uses Alan Turing as an example of what a A-Class article but it has little relevance to WikiProject Football. I think the James Milner article was approved to A-class using the Biography WikiProject. Perhaps we could create the WP:Footy equivalent to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review? TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see this from the WP:footy main page: "Some of the articles supported by WikiProject Football have reached featured article or featured list status (FA and FL, respectively), meaning they are amongst the very best content in Wikipedia. They are listed below; a bold title indicates the article was "today's featured article" for the date listed. Also included here are articles that are featured article candidates (FAC) that failed, those that have undergone peer review (PR) as part of an effort to get them to FA status, and those that have achieved good article (GA) status, the next-highest level of quality." Presumably this is incorrect as indicates GA is above A? TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A good explanation I once saw (taken from here) was:

B-Class - assessment by a single editor representing the project
GA - assessment by a single editor representing the community
A-Class - assesssment by a team of editors representing the project
FA - assessment by a team of editors representing the community

So the GA and A-class parts could take place in either order, though in practice, footy articles tend not to bother with A-class and tend to stick at GA or push on to FA (a Featured Article would pass both the GA and A-class criteria). I think the confusion stems from having FA-"class" and GA-"class". Personally I think it would be better to separate out the project assessment classes (i.e. just have Stub-Start-C-B-A) from the wider community assessments (Good Article, Featured Article), but that is an issue for elsewhere. In terms of this project, I think A-class assessments would be a good thing because it would mean more checking of content by those familiar with the subject. --Jameboy (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Pools panel

I believe, possibly waywardly, that a mention of the British pools panel is a worthy addition. Should it have its own article, or be part of Football pools? - Dudesleeper talk 00:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There's information here about the original 1963 line-up (Stan Mortensen, Roger Hunt, Ronnie Simpson and Arthur Ellis). - Dudesleeper talk 00:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it merits a seperate article, but definitely inclusion in the existing one. Giant Snowman 04:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chivas USA player photos

Could someone familiar with C.D. Chivas USA players or Major League Soccer in general go through this Flickr photoset? They're apparently from a Chivas USA training session and the CC license is free enough for Wikipedia, but the players are not identified and there are no helpful squad numbers. --Mosmof (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Of the ones that would make decent profile photos, the majority of them are of Maicon Santos. P1020327 is the one I would choose. All the others are either too small and blurry, or don't show any identifiable facial detail. P1020361 shows Chukwudi Chijindu, but I think it's taken from too far away to be useful. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 logo

Looks like User:Biala Gwiazda is up to his old tricks again. Per these three links ([8], [9] and [10]), I uploaded this version of the Euro 2012 logo to replace this version as it seems to be the more commonly used one. User:Biala Gwiazda seems to have taken this as an affront to him personally and refuses to accept the change. If there is consensus for it, I would be happy to use the previous version, but it does seem to me as if the version I uploaded is the more preferable one. After all, the graphic portion of the logo is more clear in the version I uploaded. – Pee Jay 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Has this previously been discussed on the relevant article talk pages? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this is clearly a personal issue that User:Biala Gwiazda has, so it seemed appropriate to bring it to a higher level of discussion than the article talk page. – Pee Jay 15:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Things quickly become personal on here if people allow themselves to get hot-headed. While that user has seemingly been the opposite of cooperative, this is still a content dispute best resolved on individual talk pages. Start a thread on the subject on the pages in question and post a link to it here requesting comment, rather than making this all about one editor (who presumably isn't on Wikipedia specifically to frustrate you). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Who deleted the alternative logo? That should be too silly. IMO we could make a logo section to describe about the logos. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is already a section about the logo. But why should we discuss the difference between those two logos? The only difference was that one has the logo above the text and the other has the logo next to the text. Not really worthy of encyclopaedic discussion. – Pee Jay 08:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

David Beckham's loan status

Is David Beckham currently registered with Milan or the Los Angeles Galaxy? We all know that his injuries will keep him out of action with Milan until the end of his loan and that he has relocated back to Southern California, but does that mean we should change his infobox to indicate that the loan has ended? I honestly don't know the answer, but absent a source indicating that the loan has been terminated, I don't think we should be changing the registration status of such a high profile player, when all of the sources about his loan status say that Beckham is on loan to Milan until June. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. You know as well as I do that it is standard practice in world soccer for a player on loan to return to the parent club if injury ends the loan period early. It happens hundreds of times a season in every league in the world. Do we really need to make an issue of this? --JonBroxton (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because this isn't universally true. Absent any indication that the loan deal has ended, we should not suppose that it has. Grant is perfectly right here. Incidentally, you should both know better than to be edit warring about this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, there hasn't been an edit war. Jon made an edit, I reverted it, and the discussion began. I think Jon has reverted my revert, but there's not an ongoing edit war or anything. -- Grant .Alpaugh 11:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the Milan website, he's still registered (and unavailable for selection) to Milan. 91.106.102.41 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. Who changed it back as LA Galaxy? Although it is very very unlikely, Beckham could still come back from injury before the loan ends. Milan did not terminated the loan deal so Beckham should be with Milan at this moment. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"it is standard practice in world soccer for a player on loan to return to the parent club if injury ends the loan period early". Well, not in Italy, where players for a team are usually cured by the team itself, including when they are on loan from some other side. As far as I know, Beckham was just allowed to recover in California due to the gravity of his injury which will probably keep him out of action for the remainder of the loan period, but he still appears as a AC Milan player. --Angelo (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Aad de Mos

This article - Aad de Mos - makes no sense at all.77.250.200.70 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And do you intend doing anything about it? Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As the template at the head of the article says, it has been "roughly" translated from the original Dutch and need attention and re-writing. With sentences such as "Even at the clubs below, he knew no prizes to win and had his employment from relatively short time" are rather tortuous. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben Stevens (footballer)

Can anyone shed any light on this one?

The player does not show up in the current Dagenham & Redbridge squad on their official website [11]. An advanced google search of the official website indicates no 'Ben Stevens'. The edit history for this article seems dubious and has a lot of IP edits

There is a Ben Strevens who played for Dagenhan until 2009 when he moved to Brenford. There does seem to have been a persistent mistaking of Strevens for Stevens - see Dagenham fansite [12] which notes: "Stevens" - The name used by away announcers for a player better known as Ben Strevens.

The Ben Stevens page was created by a user and makes various claims around possible criminal activities so a quick decision needed on this one... Steve-Ho (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a hoax if I've ever seen one and it needs to be deleted ASAP. There's definitely no such player. The only link on the page goes to a profile of a supposed Torquay United player with a different name, a photo of someone in an Everton jersey, and all that on a website with no editorial control Like you say, some of the allegations in the article are also bordering on WP:CSD#G10. Big Dom 09:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember signing this guy on Championship Manager 01/02. He was pretty good. That is all. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ben Strevens is real but he plays for Brentford, the article in question is about someone born 12 years later and who just doesn't exist. There's no good faith to be assumed here. Big Dom 09:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh no doubt; it was Strevens I signed. As another random aside I've often wondered if the CM/FM series, with its extensive research, can be considered a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Now this is a tangent that I can go off at with you. I've seen that some users, especially Simon nelson (talk · contribs) do use FM as a source for player stats. Some editors agree with it and some don't so this could well be a worthwhile discussion. Big Dom 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... My initial thought is using a computer game would be madness. But then... CM/FM ploughs a lot of effort into its research and the game lives off its reputation for the accuracy of its information. Could it be that the only difference between CM/FM and say the media is that CM/FM uses its information for data in a commercial computer game, rather than a commercial publication? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue is we all believe they put effort into research - and they certainly do - but we do not know exactly how the information supplied by the on-location researchers is verified. As long as this is not clear, I can't say I'd be happy with using the FM/CM series as a reliable source. Interesting thought though. Madcynic (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point: it was a rogue researcher who caused the Tó Madeira scandal. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There was an Australian player called Ben Stevens who was a youth at Rangers, but never played in senior football.[13] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Throw in

I couldn't find it at the article page, and if I posted on it's talk it wouldn't get answered for ages. Quick content/rules question, if you perform a throw in and chuck it straight into the goal with no contact from anyone else, is it a goal? Has it ever happened? SGGH ^ping! 20:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, throw-ins are like indirect free kicks; i.e. they have to make contact with another player before crossing the goal line for a goal to be given. If no contact is deemed to have been made, a goal kick is given instead. The only time I can remember a goal being given from a throw-in was when goalkeeper Peter Enckelman received a throw-in from his right-back in a West Midlands derby between Aston Villa and Birmingham; the ball rolled under his left boot, presumably catching the studs on the way through, and into his own goal. It was credited as an Enckelman own goal. – Pee Jay 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)You can't score direct from a throw-in. If it makes any contact with any player before going in, it's a goal. I once played in a game where a player took a long throw-in aimed at the goal, the keeper tried to save it, but just tipped it into his own net. Goal. If he'd just left it alone it wouldn't have counted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for the Enckleman one too - goalkeeper howler —MDCollins (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. SGGH ^ping! 21:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a goal scored (by the US, I think) at the 2008 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup where a throw went into the goals. The ref adjudged that the keeper had got a fine touch on the ball and awarded a goal...Hack (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

True. Also attributed to the keeper as an own goal.--ClubOranje^T 09:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Consolidating navigational templates

Has anyone here considered consolidating the navigational templates used for the various leagues around the world? A user recently tried to do that with the Colombian league. Because it was done very poorly, I reverted his edits. But the idea isn't that bad or far-fetched. Major League Soccer and other American sports league do it (and some other non-American league football leagues do something close, but not so cleanly), and I think it could make things simpler. What does everyone think of the idea? Digirami (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Digirami, just for clarification: Do you propose to change the bottom navigational templates in terms of a combination similar to Template:Premier League teamlist and Template:Premier League seasons or rather in terms of Template:Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio?

And while we are at it, since the conversion to full Template:Navbox width is in full swing – what is deemed the preferred layout of the season templates, the one of the Premier League seasons list (split by decades) or the one implemented in, for example, Template:Fußball-Bundesliga seasons? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio, but the MLS template is a much fuller example.

I prefer the seasons layout similar to the Bundesliga. Organizing by decade leaves a lot of empty space. Digirami (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I had in mind, using the Premier League templates as an example. The first is the current Premier League navigational templates as they are.

This is the proposed change:

Instead of dealing with three templates (or one template with two added on), we have just one template for all related leagues articles. Simple. What does everyone think? (Of course, this is rough draft. I can certainly be refined. But, the example helps get the point across). Digirami (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It really depends how they're used. Do articles typically tack all three on just now? If so, it makes sense to merge them. If articles only use the most appropriate ones, then there's no point in merging them. I would suggest that the merged template is a little ambitious - do users really need direct links to all of those articles from random EPL pages? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the Premier League, the two bottom templates (teams and seasons) were added on to the code of the main one. So, all three appear together in every article. Digirami (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Honours of English football clubs

In lists of honours won by English football clubs, should First Division (until 1992) and Premier League titles be listed together, as in Arsenal F.C.#Honours; or separately, as in Manchester United F.C.#Honours? User:DoctorHver obviously prefers the former style, and has been attempting to change the Manchester United article to match it, but I disagree as the First Division and the Premier League are entirely separate competitions. The Premier League may now occupy the same level on the English football pyramid as the First Division once occupied, but they are separate. Aren't they? – Pee Jay 02:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Honor list should ALLWAYS reflect what level on the football pyramid clubs won during what specification season. Not the name of competitions (names have changed from levels too levels) some fixed point in time doing the later what PeeJay2K3 want to do is confusing and misleading, as competitions that are basically the same pre-1992 and post-1992 can be confused as different level of play as the Manchester United article currently reflects and its look like the premier league is some hove above the earlier incineration of the top-titer of the English football, thus making titles won from 1908-1967 as in case of Manchester United to be won on Level 2 of the football pyramid rather than right full spot which is level 1 Title won in 1967 is thus equal to title won in 1999 or 2009. Thus such listings can makes titles won pre 1992 as some hove inferior to titles won post 1992. So making it 100% clear Manchester United and Liverpool have both won 18 titles. In the same top tier of English football telling other wise is delusional(football league or not, Premer division or not). That is basically way most United was are more interested in winning the league for 19 time rather than premier league for 12 time, and same can be said about Liverpool they are more in interesting in braking there 20 year dire spell with wining the 19 time than winning the premer division for 1st time. The premier league name was only invention to create more money for the top clubs rather than be brake a way in any sense of the word, I mean it current 20 clubs are said to owners of the premier league but at the end of the season they send the Football league 3 rejects and gets instead three new clubs that win "promotion" thus new owner of premer division, thus complete brake a way would have included no promotion relegation as worst club wouldn't have wanted to risk losing money by getting relegated. Thus the Arsenal honor list is more "correct" in this sense. IF we keep that argument of different competition it would be like saying that Newcastle is winning (based on current position as this writing take place) there first title since 1927 they are now in the same "spot" as back in 1927 but no they aren't since they are level lower than in 1927 thus they are not champions of anything and the same case can be made for Wolves. DoctorHver (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea's honours include both Division 1 and Premier League together. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Arsenal format. There was a big deal made last season of the fact that Man Utd had drawn level with Liverpool in the total of English championships won, which gives equivalence to titles from both periods (even Man Utd themselves referred to this). There was a similar change from league to "Premier" league in Scotland; articles which talk about the likelihood of Rangers winning the league this year and their historic total talk about this being their 53rd Scottish championship, rather than it being their 6th SPL title. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whichever method is used, there should be prose or footnotes that explain the changes in division names that took place in 1992 and 2004, so that the reader can make sense of it. I think separating out Premier League and the old First Division is fine, as long as you don't combine old First Division and new First Division (1992-2004) together. Combining Premier League and old First Division is also OK, but only if it says something like "Premier League / old First Division" or "Level 1: Premier League (and First Division up to 1992)". For example, it should be clear that Liverpool have not won the Premier League, only the old First Division. --Jameboy (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is useful to link the following articles, which deal in champions of each tier, regardless of their various names: List of English football champions, List of winners of English Football League Championship and predecessors, List of winners of English Football League One and predecessors, and List of winners of English Football League Two and predecessors. Dancarney (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Arsenal formatting makes far more sense. Even if the EPL is technically completely distinct from the First Division in that the members had to resign from the Football League to join it, it's the same competition as far as every reliable source is concerned. Jmorrison230582's analogy with the SPL is cogent here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Hampshire Puma League"

A.F.C. Aldermaston makes repeated mention of the team playing next year in this league, but I can't find any other evidence of the league's existence, and the only Google hits seem to be scrapes of one BBC report. It doesn't seem to be a sponsored name for the Hampshire League as far as I can see. Any ideas.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sponsor for the Hampshire Premier Football League. Puma Engineering Hampshire Premier Football League. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Club footballers categories

I noticed that someone has created several of these categories for clubs that don't even have an article (e.g., Category:Marcali VFC footballers) and have very few articles that are included (or could be included) in the category. Should these be deleted? I suppose there's no harm in having the category, but it's odd without the club having an article. Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Every category has to start somewhere. It's a club in a top-tier league, so it will eventually be populated. The user who created it was active recently, so you could try pinging him. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that Marcali has ever played in a league higher than the third level. Perhaps that's enough for an article (they do play in the Hungarian Cup). Jogurney (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Illegal streaming of sports broadcasts

This is presently a dreadful little article, but I can't help but feel that there might be enough reliable sources that it could be saved. Anyone fancy a challenge? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Blaise (N)kufo

We have conflicting sources regarding this player's name; can anyone get down to the bottom of it please? Cheers, Giant Snowman 04:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to reference 6, the player himself has stated that Nkufo is the correct version so that would be the end of the debate for me. If he doesn't know what his name is, there's something wrong. Big Dom 07:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Something is wrong - according to the two references given in note 1, the player himself states it is spelt "Kufo"...Giant Snowman 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I already posted to GiantSnowman's talk page:

Concerning a Swiss player, whom do you trust more: Swiss media or a Dutch website? This article summarizes a long interview in the SonntagsZeitung and an interview in the Swiss TV sports show sport aktuell. Unfortunately, these original versions are not available anymore. The spelling (correct: “Nkufo”) and the pronunciation (correct: “Kufo”) of his name were quite a topic in Swiss media in August 2007. Before, his name had always been spelled “N'Kufo” (incorrect). You can also consult the official website of the Swiss national team (you have to scroll down and select his entry from the list). --Leyo 07:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here in the Netherlands he's normally referred to as Nkufo, which is also the name he is listed under at FC Twente website. [14] However the name of his jersey is "N KUFO" (without apostrophe). [15] --Angelo (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FIFA has him down as Nkufo. Here it is. – Michael (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, his correct name is Blaise Nkufo. Full name: Blaise Isetsima Nkufo. See also fifa.com and worldfootball.net., [16] and [17]. Greeting --Jorge Roberto (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would move the page back to Blaise Nkufo. – Michael (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, in the spirit of WP:BOLD --JonBroxton (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

County cup season articles

I just happened to visit Category:County Cup competitions and I noticed that there are a number of season articles for some of these competitions. The question is do these competitions warrant individual season articles? Thoughts please. Bettia (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure this issue was discussed fairly recently. Didn't we come to the conclusion that these articles should be deleted? They are basically just reserve team competitions nowadays (at least, they are in the case of Manchester United's involvement in the Manchester Senior Cup). – Pee Jay 20:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I quickly searched through the archives and couldn't find anything, but then again I was pressed for time so it wasn't thorough. Essentially some of them are reserve team competitions, most others are basically non-league cups with one or two league teams thrown in for good measure. Bettia (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

....and the league teams involved field their reserves or youths. In the case of the Kent Senior Cup, even semi-pro Dover Athletic don't field their full first team. I'd rate these tournaments as generally even less prestigious than things like the Southern League Cup and, while they certainly merit articles on the competitions themselves, I don't believe individual season articles should exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, to AfD we go then! Bettia (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here was the conversation: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 40#Notibility of seasonal articles for all cups & leagues in England. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Another in HONOURS (for the M.I.A.)

I was just editing Gabriel Milito, when i saw that the honours won by the player at FC Barcelona in 2008–09 still remain there (i am not going to remove them again, rest assured), which brings the question:

I think when a player trains, even if he does not play (a good case could be the third-choice goalkeeper or, in default, the second), he still merits to have the honours inserted in his page, because he was an active part of the squad. However, Milito did not train for one second in the season mentioned above (unless you include fitness sessions in the gym!), that is why i always thought the honours should not be there.

Debate, please, cheers,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Gabriel Milito, rather than his brother Diego, a striker who plays for Inter? There are usually a minimum number of games you have to play in a competition before you get a winner's medal—I know it's ten in the Premier League [18]—so we should probably use whatever that number is for the Spanish league to decide whether it is listed as an honour. Assuming there is a number, of course. – Toon 22:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It was my mistake, i already corrected it, i meant GABRIEL :) . I do understand your approach about the minimum requirements, but please read above, he did not train or play, one second (besides, there are no limits in Spanish football, if a player plays one game, he gets honours). VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't Spanish teams have to register a squad of 25 players for La Liga each season? If this is indeed the case, shouldn't every player who was registered have the same honours for that season? Therefore, if Gabriel Milito was registered for 2008-09, then I think he should have the Spanish league included in his honours. – Pee Jay 23:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I also see your point, PEEJAY. I think he was always registered by the squad, as Carlos Gurpegui was so for Athletic Bilbao, even though he was suspended for two years due to a nandrolone case (Monty Python would be proud of me - something completely different!); Milito was as registered as Lionel Messi and the lot, but i doubt the player, if asked, would feel he played a part in the accolades. Tough matter of consensus indeed... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not really a matter of consensus - it's a matter of whether he did or did not receive a winners' medal. That's what the honours section of an article records. He could put his medal on eBay if he wants but he'll still have won it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Roy Keane does not consider himself to have won the 1998-99 Champions League, but he has a medal for that competition as he was part of the Man Utd squad. – Pee Jay 13:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Before I propose an article for an AfD, can someone confirm (or not, as the case may be) that a player who has only played at Conference South or lower does not pass the Notability guidelines. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

An argument could be proposed against the deletion if it passes WP:N, but it's more than likely not notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't pass WP:ATHLETE, although they may pass the general notability guidelines if there are enough reliable non-routine sources, but this is unlikely. Big Dom 19:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably depends on the outcome of this argument too. 91.106.99.139 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that argument will be relevant. Aren't they trying to make WP:ATHLETE less inclusive? – Pee Jay 22:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Goodison Park - Peer review request

Hi, I'd like to request a "Peer review" on the Goodison Park article but I don't know how to do it. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow the Nomination procedure at WP:PR. And then wait till hell freeze over for anyone to turn up and review it... Yes, I know, I'm as guilty as the next person :-( cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Muhammed Aburub

Muhammed Aburub seems like a hoax to me (he was a professional football player at the age of 15?), could somebody please check it out? Woogee (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's now up for AfD, here. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Chester F.C. pages

Why have the disambiguation page at all? There is no need to have Chester F.C. (2010) (name "year") This naming convention seems wrong. You don't need that disambiguation page in the middle when it is going to have just two results. Where one article finishes and the other starts via the time-lines. That's how it should be shouldn't it? Govvy (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and amended accordingly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

UEFA website

Hi. I posted this here on March 3, and I was advised to mail UEFA. I mailed them on March 7, but they have so far neither replied me nor fixed the links we have on our pages. However, I just saw this discussion and this one. They suggest that it's not UEFA's fault, but rather we have to modify all the references so they can match the new format introduced by UEFA. What shall we do now? --Магьосник (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't see a good workaround for this. One productive step would be to email UEFA and express your desire for whatever idiots they employ to run their websites to take some time to look up the meaning of the word "permalink". We're going to have to update articles manually; it would obviously also be a good idea to look for sources other than UEFA for references in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I mentioned this before, but the easiest way to correct the links is to change the "www." in the old links to "en.archive." – Pee Jay 14:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If this works, we could presumably have a bot do it at WP:BOTREQ. – Toon 16:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Image showing league positions

Hi, is it a good idea to include this in FC Schalke 04's article? A similar image was included in Hertha BSC's article. Personally, I think that these images are ugly, but I would like to know what others think. --Jaellee (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, a couple of years ago, User:Pone created a series of images like this, which I think should be included in this discussion. Should we keep them? Perhaps they are only appropriate for articles like this or this? – Pee Jay 10:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Johnson

Ok, I'm having a battle with someone regarding Ryan Johnson's page. Grk1011 is telling me that he moved the page to Ryan Johnson (soccer), which I don't really get because he's Jamaican, he played for the Jamaican national team, so I don't understand. But he was saying that he moved it because he's an American citizen, which is true, but doesn't nationality come first? – Michael (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Any comments on the matter should be presented here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Navbox controversy

I have been debating with folks at WP:HOCKEY about navboxes. Can you please make sure that I am representing the soccer/football position on the policy User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Presumed accidental page blanking.

One of our internal discussion pages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, got somehow blanked when a new section was created. Can an admin restore the deleted content with the new section at the bottom? I assume that's possible, but it's beyond my knowledge of how. matt91486 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, but I don't think it was accidental. I'm no admin and was able to restore it. Someone just reomved all closed disscussions when they added a comment. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nottingham County

I was wondering if anyone has come across a team called "Nottingham County"? One of my books makes reference to this team - specifically they appear in lists of West Bromwich Albion friendly matches (in 1887, 1888, 1893 and 1894 - I can give dates and scorelines as well if that helps). My first thought was that it is a typo and should be Notts County, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something, particularly as "Notts County" appears elsewhere within the same pages. Another thought I had was that it could have been some kind of representative team. I can find no reference to it elsewhere though. --Jameboy (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

These friendly matches were against Notts County. (source the official history of Notts County 1862-1995 by Tony Brown) There seems to be some disagreement about the result of the match played on 4-1-1894 (3-0 or 3-1) Cattivi (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. My source (Albion! A Complete Record of West Bromwich Albion 1879-1987 by Tony Matthews) has that match as 3-0 to County. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong questions

I recently proposed an AfD for Sheffield United (Hong Kong) (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheffield United (Hong Kong)). During the discussion, someone pointed out that the team is listed as having played in the Hong Kong First Division League 2008–09 season. However, my concern is what happened to them after that. According to Hong Kong First Division League 2008–09, Sheffield United (Hong Kong) finished high enough to avoid being relegated for the 2009-10 season, yet they aren't playing in the 2009–10 Hong Kong First Division League season. What happened to them?

By the same token, Hong Kong First Division League#Exceptions says that two clubs were exempt from relegation, the Army and the Police football teams. However, neither of those clubs is actually playing in the HK First Division now. What happened to them? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions regarding categorization of domestic cup season categories

As you might have noticed, the league season article categories have recently been renamed in order to match the changed naming structure. Next up in line are the cup season categories; in relevance to the moves, there were two questions raised by Theilert (talk · contribs), which I hereby copy and paste from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Feel free to comment. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Should these categories be categorized in Category:Seasons in association football by year as well? Or should we create new parent categories like; Category:Domestic association football cups by year and Category:Domestic association football leagues by year, and finally categorize the two new parent categories into Category:Seasons in association football by year? lil2mas (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Independent of the outcome above, should we rename Category:Seasons in association football by year to Category:Association football seasons by year, and do the same with "by country" and "by club" to match Category:Association football seasons by competition? This would match the parent category Category:Association football seasons, but if "Seasons in" is more correct we could do a reverse rename. As long as we gain consistency, I will be happy! lil2mas (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure there's a need for a separate cups by year category. 2. I think the 'Association football seasons by year' is better. Eldumpo (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about number one, but for number 2 I agree with Eldumpo on this. By supressing the word "in", the category title becomes, in my opinion, a more commonly used phrase. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I would then first setup the process of renaming the "by season/country/club" categories (pending any objections) and afterwards file the cup season categories in Category:Association football seasons by year. A restructurization can still be made at a later point if desired. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 07:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Austin Speight

Despite this reference [19] I can find no statistical evidence that Speight played in the Football League for either Stockport or Rochdale (checking Neil Brown and allfootballers). Can anyone confirm whether he played for either Chicago Sting or Finn Harps. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

He played a couple of league matches for Finn Harps in the 1981-82 season. He didn't play any matches in the NASL (Chicago Sting) or the conference (Northwich Victoria) And I'm not sure newspaperarticles should always be considered as a reliable sourceCattivi (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Have you got a source for him playing at Finn Harps. It seems the other 3 clubs should be removed. Eldumpo (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the news article doesn't technically state that he actually played for any of those clubs, only that he was on their books..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A source for Finn Harps is this: [20] Cattivi (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source though, anybody can submit stats to the Playerhistory website and the editorial controls are almost non-existent. Big Dom 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else got a view on the accuracy of the playerhistory site or an alternative source to show he played for Finn Harps, else he may be a candidate for deletion? Eldumpo (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly doubt that Finn Harps were fully pro in 1981, even if the appearances are taken as verified. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the search results I get from [21] (21 and 28 september 1981) playerhistory is probably correct. I agree with Kevin that this doesn't make him very notable. Cattivi (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Never played in NASL - he is not listed here. Giant Snowman 01:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Professional L

Hi, I contribute to Wikipedia in French and I came accross this page: Professional L (redirected from Professional Leagues). The original page was European Professional Football Leagues, that's actually the page linked to the article in French (fr:European Professional Football Leagues). But it's been moved twice and then deleted. The Professional L page has aslo been moved, it seems a bit messy. Is this normal? Shouldn't the "right" page be European Professional Football Leagues? fr:User:Ben5 14:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.243.232 (talk)

That was a bit of a mess. Lots of page moves had left a trail of double redirects which I have now fixed. I have also merged the history of one of the redirects as it seemed to be the basis for the article. The article as a whole needs cleaning up considerably. Thanks for letting us know. Woody (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I'm afraid the article is now a copyviolation of the official website but that can be fixed easily I guess. Sorry for not helping on this (going back to French). Cheers! fr:User:Ben5 87.67.243.232 (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Club season articles

Two questions:

What is the correct naming convention for Football Club season articles? In Category:English football clubs 2009–10 season, most of the article titles have the club first, season second; e.g. Arsenal F.C. season 2009–10, but a few are the reverse; e.g. 2009–10 Manchester United F.C. season. As all the articles in Category:Seasons in English football take the form 2009–10 in English football, shouldn't the club seasons follow the same format?
Is there a "manual of style" for club season articles? There seems to be a different presenation for each and every club, covering the order of the content and what should be included. Taking three clubs near the top of League One for example, Norwich City F.C. season 2009–10, Leeds United A.F.C. season 2009–10 and Huddersfield Town F.C. season 2009–10, there is very little similarity between them. The infoboxes are all different, the squad tables are different, some have an appearance table, some don't; likewise with disciplinary matters. Should the summary of the season take the form of a diary of key events or should it be an essay? Etc. etc.

I await your comments with interest. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

1. All season articles used to have the year(s) at the end, but recently a few articles have been moved so they are at the front. I think we should continue with this in order to, as you say, make them consistent with the categories, etc.

2. Personally, I can't stand season articles that are just full of statistics. A diary of events is practically WP:PROSELINE, and I prefer seasons written as proper encyclopedic articles, with background information, a few paragraphs of text about the matches, etc. My points are made clear in the two season GAs that I've written, 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season and 1922–23 Nelson F.C. season. I don't know of anybody else who writes seasons in this fashion, but this is definitely the kind of thing I aim for.

Like you, I'm also interested to see what opinions other people have on the matter. Big Dom 16:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) IIRC, we decided at WT:FSATF that since the season comes first in competition season articles, it should be the same for club season articles; therefore, 2009–10 Manchester United F.C. season is correct and Arsenal F.C. season 2009–10 is not. I would also suggest that 2009–10 English football season would be preferable over 2009–10 in English football. They use a similar format at WP:CRIC, with season articles titled as 2010 English cricket season, etc. – Pee Jay 16:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Year first.

I think we need to have a discussion on the structure of the club season articles in the WT:FSATF talk page. You'll be hard pressed to find two club season articles from two different clubs with the same general structure. Once a structure is established, we can move on to how data should appear (i.e. tables, charts, whatever) in support of prose. Digirami (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is an italophone, here..

I work on italian wikipedia and I'm creating some pages (Serie A players from the past, 50 or more years ago), if you're interested in translating them in english I can list them.. I can also write you the updated voices..93.33.3.66 (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

England national under-18 football team

The England national under-18 football team article has not been updated since April 2008 and, as such, is rather pointless. Is anyone interested in bringing it up to date? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Think it's been updated quite alot since 2008 and according to the FA website is not far different from the players they list as in the current squad. I will remove those not listed on the FA site.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability

Is it time to revisit/refresh the Football Notability criteria in the light of discussions at [22], which seems to show broad support for the individual sports defining notability. I would question the use of 'fully professional' without an agreed definition, although perhaps any specific comments are best at the FN talk page? Eldumpo (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above some postings have been made at WP:NSPORTS and I would welcome comment at [23] Eldumpo (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible hoax

Is Marcos (footballer) real? If not, can anyone delete it, or request for it to be deleted? Thanks. — Martin tamb (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be related to this load of rubbish.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeap, just yesterday I reverted his vandalism on the Brazil national football team article . I don't know how to request for a speedy deletion. Perhaps anyone here familiar with it could do it, it would save a lot of time rather than wait for me to read the instructions on WP:CSD. — Martin tamb (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the latest one of these serial sockpuppet/vandals. If there's any admins about could deal appropriately, or I'll report it to WP:AIV. The footballer article can be speedied as blatant hoax/vandalism. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've speedied the article. About the sockpuppets, I suggest you to report them to WP:AIV indeed. --Angelo (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Have done, thanks, Struway2 (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Fb cl templates

There is an edit conflict on the Fb cl templates at the 2009–10 Ukrainian Premier League article. Brudder Andrusha and an anonymous person keeps revert the baseline of the qualification and add a template called "Europe". That's not the usage of the Fb cl templates.

The standard league table shows following:

{{Fb cl header}}<!--Put "y" after the "qualified=" if the teams are actually qualified for the competition-->
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 1|t=[[FC Dynamo Kyiv]]|w=18 |d= 5 |l= 1 |gf=50 |ga=13|bc=#ACE1AF|qualified=}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |competition=[[2010–11 UEFA Champions League#Group stage|2010–11 UEFA Champions League Group stage]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 2|t=[[FC Shakhtar Donetsk|Shakhtar&nbsp;Donetsk]]|w=18 |d= 5 |l= 1 |gf=50 |ga=16|bc=#D0F0C0|qualified=}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |competition=[[2010–11 UEFA Champions League#Third qualifying round|2010–11 UEFA Champions League Third qualifying round]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 3|t=[[FC Metalist Kharkiv|Metalist Kharkiv]]|w=14 |d= 4 |l= 6 |gf=37 |ga=21|bc=8ACEFF|qualified=}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |competition=[[2010–11 UEFA Europa League#Play-off round|2010–11 UEFA Europa League Play-off round]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 4|t=[[FC Dnipro|Dnipro]]|w=12 |d= 7 |l= 5 |gf=37 |ga=20|bc=#97DEFF|qualified=}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |competition=[[2010–11 UEFA Europa League#Third qualifying round|2010–11 UEFA Europa League Third qualifying round]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 5|t=[[FC Karpaty Lviv|Karpaty Lviv]]|w=11 |d= 8 |l= 4 |gf=38 |ga=27|bc=#BBEBFF|qualified=}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |competition=[[2010–11 UEFA Europa League#Second qualifying round|2010–11 UEFA Europa League Second qualifying round]]}}
|-
|colspan=11|Skipped
{{Fb cl2 team |p=15|t=[[FC Zorya Luhansk|Zorya Luhansk]]|w= 4 |d= 5 |l=14 |gf=17 |ga=40|bc=#FFCCCC}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=2 |relegation=y|competition=[[2010–11 Ukrainian First League|First League]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=16|t=[[FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih|Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih]]|w= 4 |d= 3 |l=17 |gf=24 |ga=43|bc=#FFCCCC}}
{{Fb cl footer|u=11 April 2010 |s=[http://www.fpl.com.ua/ Premier League website] {{uk icon|date=April 2010}}|orfc=1<sup>st</sup> points; 2<sup>nd</sup> goal difference; 3<sup>rd</sup> goals scored; 4<sup>th</sup> fair play<ref name="Regulations"/>}}

The row of "Qualification or relegation" is showing the fate if the teams reached the place at the final, instead of showing the ensured qualification or ensured European qualification. However, in their knowledge, the row has been used like that. All of the articles except Ukrainian Premier League articles (this did not occur for this year only, it has been occured last year) use the row of "Qualification or relegation" for the baseline. However, Ukarinian Premier League use a different kind of knowledge, which affects readers to understand. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of a valid use of the template as of April 10, 2010

{{Fb cl header}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 1|t=[[FC Dynamo Kyiv]]|w=18 |d= 5 |l= 1 |gf=50 |ga=13|bc=#ACE1AF|qualified=}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=2 |competition=2010-11 Europe }}
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 2|t=[[FC Shakhtar Donetsk|Shakhtar&nbsp;Donetsk]]|w=18 |d= 5 |l= 1 |gf=50 |ga=16|bc=#D0F0C0|qualified=}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 3|t=[[FC Metalist Kharkiv|Metalist Kharkiv]]|w=14 |d= 4 |l= 6 |gf=37 |ga=21|bc=8ACEFF|qualified=}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 4|t=[[FC Dnipro|Dnipro]]|w=12 |d= 7 |l= 5 |gf=37 |ga=20|bc=#97DEFF|qualified=}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p= 5|t=[[FC Karpaty Lviv|Karpaty Lviv]]|w=11 |d= 8 |l= 4 |gf=38 |ga=27|bc=#BBEBFF|qualified=}}
{{Fb cl footer|u=11 April 2010 |s=[http://www.fpl.com.ua/ Premier League website] {{uk icon|date=April 2010}}|orfc=1<sup>st</sup> points; 2<sup>nd</sup> goal difference; 3<sup>rd</sup> goals scored; 4<sup>th</sup> fair play<ref name="Regulations"/>|other=yes}}

The column in Fb is "Qualification or Relegation" and such is the valid situation currently in the Ukrainian Premier League season 2009–10 season when both top teams have qualified for European football for the 2010–11 season.

Again, the template signifies a correct situation for the current state of qualification. The template is used correctly defined in the "Qualification or relegation" column of the Fb template. That is what templates are used for. The use of "Qualification or relegation" in 2009–10 La Liga is in violation of WP:FUTURE where the links are incorrectly directing teams that have NOT qualified yet for those stages of the competition.

Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your template you think that is valid to here. My only opinion is listen to the other's voice to determine which is the appropiate one. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for an occasional reader (and that's what this is all about) I think that putting the tournament/round templates (Raymond's first screenshot) does not necessarily and exclusively mean either ensured or predicted qualification for some of the European tournaments. However, I would say that probably the majority would primarily see it as a predicted qualification, mostly due to other information (number of played games, number of rounds in the season etc.) presented in the article. And, I wouldn't say that inputing (Q)s and (R)s is redundant since it gives the final information even to those who aren't certain about the templates' meaning.

If the majority would primarily see it as a predicted qualification, then the purpose sublimely implies speculation which is discussed in WP:CRYSTAL and that is not the purpose of the information in the Qualification and relegation column.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating in WP:CRYSTAL, okay. Then I have to copy the whole paragraph of WP:CRYSTAL here.

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims. In particular:
1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.
2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory.
3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
4. While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.

First at all, is that the champions would qualify for the GS of CL, runners-up for QR3 of CL, 3rd-placed for PO of EL, 4th-placed for QR3 of EL, 5th-placed for QR2 of EL? Then it is already followed the Individual scheduled or expected future events, there is no any problem.

But you don't know the team - so that is pure speculation until it happens. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I afraid that you are meaning every posistion should be fixed with the same teams in every year. The fact is the qualification should be fixed with the position, not the team. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And you still did not get what I mean after I repeated at least five times. I hope it is the last time but I believe that it is unlikely. The column "Qualification and relegation" is only to state what the fate of the team if they reached at the specific position AFTER the last match of the whole league. It does not have any intention or purpose or intent or something else to crystalball any team to qualify for the tournament. It is only want to put relationship between the position and the fate, not the team and the fate, which is the common knowledge to read the league table. The format is commonly accepted by all of the press, including FIFA and UEFA. However, only you disagree of it. Then don't use that format if you think that the article is yours. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the intention to put relationship between the position and the fate, instead of the team and the fate which you think of and also an uncommon knowledge, and the fate is already a confirmed information, there should have no any crystalballing possibility - unless anyone replaced the position with the team, which what you did. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And again you are incorrect in your assumption. It is the team that qualifies to the tournament not the position. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the qualification is given to the team which occupy the place after the last fixture of the league, not the team. Team already confirmed could use the (Q) for indication. It solved the problem of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history". 2 and 4 are not applicable as they are about topic naming and science respectively. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You continually want to force the (Q) and (R) when there is column Qualification and relegation. To confuse matters for the reader this is placed by the team who now has to go to the bottom to the footnotes and decipher 6-point fonts what the annotation means. If not confusing then even more farcical. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but it does not mean that you could use the template like that. If the column "Qualification and relegation" is useless to state what they could qualify for as you said, then remove it and don't add any qualification despite they are confirmed to qualify. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All in all, I can easily imagine that people see them as a tournament and round teams will be placed in after all the games have been played. I also saw them like that when I first started reading and editing the leagues. Actually, I don't recall being confused at all what the templates and the colours mean. However, there are probably people who don't see it that way. But, since EVERY (I repeat, EVERY) other article has the same scheme, I don't see how they can be so wrong when nobody, as far as I know, ever tried to revert any league table to the Ukrainian format (and, trust me, there were numerous single-handed attempts of redesigning many parts of the articles, but never in the Ukrainian style). Therefore, I must agree with Raymond. SonjiCeli (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Indoctrination and conformity is easily to control, but whether it is displays correct information is very much debatable. This article also has the same standings schema - except that currently does not have links to competition and those stages. In due time it will. No one has changed the previous season's Qualification and relegation so the conflict is not when the competition is in the past. In my mind if a reader selects a link they would expect to see the team in that competition and stage - not some arbitrary statement that some placed team from the competition will be here. That is completely misleading! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No one changed the qualification and relegation? I was strongly oppose to the arrangement already. But I was forced to do nothing as you said "Don't put it in because it will be deleted by my automated script". Okay, then I gave up it. However, it doesn't mean that I agreed of it. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm going to remove the league table template only from the 2009-10 Ukrainian Premier League article, as it is using an unique style, and you keeps reverting from the baseline. I'll make a more suitable league table, but it is required to recalculate the goal difference and points now. You could suggest to make a new template for the Ukrainian Premier League article, but I strongly against it as it is just a copy of the Fb cl template. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good enough for UEFA and FIFA good enough for us? cha ndl er 03:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking for the color coordination to be changed, but not putting the link in until actual qualification, or the correct qualification which currently for Ukraine is that both teams have qualified for European competitions for the 2010-11 season. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Chandler, obviously you did not get the keypoint here. Brudder Andrusha persist in "not sure, no qualification template". Take it easy. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems to consist of some kind of misinterpretation of the content of the "Qualification or relegation" column during the on-going season. Well, I agree with User:SonjiCeli here – if the system of adding the qualification information directly behind the respective spots would have led to a mass confusion, it would have been thrown out of the window the very next moment. Since this is not the case, it has to be assumed that the current practice reflects a widely accepted (to be precise, 99 out of 100 people) consensus for league articles all around the English Wikipedia.

The alternative to putting the information directly into the last column would be a explanatory key below the table. This, however, has a number of drawbacks. Aside from the necessity to introduce a separate and small standalone table structure below the content, the association between places and their qualifications would solely happen via their coloring, which should be avoided under terms of WP:COLOR.

Again, if there would be mass confusion, the system wouldn't have been a) implemented in the first place and b) adapted for other football season articles created by hundreds of different users all over the English Wiki. Therefore, constantly pointing at WP:CRYSTAL seems a little bit of a moot point. Given that the Ukrainian Premier League season articles are also reluctant to follow another Wiki-wide consensus regarding the structuration for league articles (as having been worked out by the season article task force, see its discussion page), it must also be questioned if WP:OWN is an issue here. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Raymond and Soccer-holic here. We're not talking about a proposed template or format that had not been implemented, or even one that was implemented unilaterally by one user earlier this season. We're talking about something that has been around for 2 or 3 years, and something that is in place, without confusion, on literally dozens (hundreds?) of articles. There's not rampant confusion about any of this, especially since most websites like ESPNsoccernet, Sky Sports, UEFA, and FIFA using similar systems showing qualification to European competition. This wasn't made out of whole cloth, and it hasn't been implemented without broad support for this kind of thing throughout the project. -- Grant .Alpaugh 12:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Grant's comments. This method has been implemented in far too many articles and has drawn no complaints up to this point as far as I have seen. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is a TfD here. Please discuss to determine if it is not valid. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 17:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian Premier League and European qualification presentation, part two

<sarcasm>A radical new idea has popped up in 2009–10 Ukrainian Premier League.</sarcasm> Any opinions on this chart? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a canonical example of over-complicated graphical formatting repeating what could be said in two or three short sentences. But in a way some mobile browsers, all text-only browsers, all monochrome browsers, all screen readers and some colour blind people can't read. And written in code the vast majority of our editors could edit or adapt. I'd be happy to see it go, but far more important is to include the information in a way more of our readers can get at it. Knepflerle (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related note – this link has been used to source the content. Question #1: Is this kind of sourcing allowed? I highly doubt that. Question #2: The original source used in this link is this blog. In terms of WP:V, especially sections 2.3 and 2.4, is this source deemed acceptable or not? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article on Wiki that uses webcitation to archive references - 2009–10 Australian region cyclone season. There are many, many references to stored urls in this article. Why would you think that it is not acceptable? There is a section in the cite web template for archived urls. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's no problem with using archive links for pages subject to change, as long as the original author and location are given and it is clearly marked as an archive copy - as is the case here. This method is suggested as good practice in Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Pre-emptive archiving.

However, I share Soccer-holic's reservation on using this blog as a source; we can't be sure about its reliability as regards fact-checking and accuracy. It shouldn't be too hard to find a more satisfactory source for this information if it's correct. Knepflerle (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of sources which are in Russian and Ukrainian. I would think that this one in English is far better for those want to check. But if you have reservations about such a site which has 20 different authors and is specific to football then why would they want to provide inaccurate information. I'm sure primary news feed agency will have it somewhere in English and if I come across it will be updated. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay. I was just wondering because I haven't seen this method (via webcitation) of sourcing before. Sorry if I may have sounded a little... weird.^^ --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tull's Billingham

In a recent book I read [Gods, Mongrels & Demons (London: Bloomsbury, 2004), p. 363] the author Angus Calder says that a Private named T. Billingham, who tried to recover Walter Tull's body, "had played soccer with him for Northampton Town." Does anyone know the identity of this enigmatic player, and if he was related to another Northampton Town player born in 1914 (son, nephew?) called Jack Billingham? Giant Snowman 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a piece about Tull in the latest When Saturday Comes that mentions it, I'll take a look. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The player is Tom Billingham. The WSC article says he was the Leicester Fosse goalkeeper (citation stuff: Adam Powley (May 2010). "Pride and prejudice". When Saturday Comes. 279: 28.). The piece is about a book that has just been published, Walter Tull 1888-1918, Officer, Footballer by Phil Vasili. A 1996 journal article by Vasili described Billingham as a Northampton teammate. Maybe he played for both teams, or perhaps Vasili was originally mistaken and has since obtained more accurate information. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for that. Does anyone know if he ever make a first-team appearance for Leicester/Northampton? Giant Snowman 17:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

He's not on allfootballers, so he never played in The Football League. Big Dom 18:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's great, many thanks! Giant Snowman 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be of help. Big Dom 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike McCulloch

Does anyone have any sources for Scottish League players that could be used to add the stats for Mike McCulloch who played for Falkirk between 1913 and 1921, and Hearts between 1921 and 1922. Cheers, Big Dom 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Falkirk 161-22 Hearts 0 matches. Source is the Emms-Wells book and the rsssf site, because goalscorers from the 1917-18 and 1918-19 season are missing in the book. No stats for St Bernards 1925-26 because that was Scottish second division.Cattivi (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no record of him playing for Hearts on [24], which ties in with Cattivi's written record. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys, added the stats to the article. Big Dom 16:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Club season article structure discussion

Just to give everyone a head's up, I have started a thread in the season article task force's talkpage to discuss how club season articles should be structured and organized. Input is welcomed. Link available here. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism from a wiki user

I have just had to manually clean up 26 separate malicious edits from the user JamesH1381 in the 2009–10 Premier Reserve League page. These edits ranged from filling in 12-0, 6-0, 8-0 results into fixtures that have not yet been played. Changing the league table to reflect these edits. Stating that 2 teams had 'points dropped due to playing players with the wrong name'. Filling in the playoff final result as 5-0 to Man Utd - a match that's being played on May 3rd. Changing the 'biggest away win' to be Burnley 0-7 Man Utd - a match that is being played next Thursday. Giving Mame Diouf 7 goals he hasn't scored just to make him top scorer. I would like someone with the relevant powers to stop further vandalism of that page please Bealzbob (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note on your talkpage Bealzbob. In terms of the article, I am watching it now. There is no need to protect the article at the moment as it is just the one user, and they can be blocked if they continue. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reported JamesH1381 (talk · contribs) to ARV as vandalism-only for persistent hoax edits. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sortable tables

Can anyone fix this table so that it sorts properly:

Position	Name	Football League		FA Cup		Total
Position	Name	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
FW	Jack Angus	13	6	4	4	17	10
DF	Charles Baker	15	6	4	6	19	12
GK	Jack Barrett	4	0	1	0	5	0

Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Help:Table, sorting does not work properly on tables that have merged rows or merged columns, which would seem logical. If you definitely need sorting on the table, I guess you could rename the columns e.g. to Football League Apps (or if that makes the column too wide, FL Apps with a key explaining what FL is). --Jameboy (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A brief read of Help:Table#Sorting reveals the restrictions:# Do not divide a table into sections by subheaders spanning several rows. # Do not have elements spanning several columns; instead, again, repeat the content on each row, in a short form. So the grouping of stats by competition will be less visual. And you'll need to separate the nationality from the names if you want them individually sortable. And you will need to assign a value to positions (I've made GK 1, DF 2 and FW 4, leaving 3 for midfielders) and to flags. Leaving you with something like this:

Position	Name	League Apps	League Goals	FA Cup Apps	FA Cup Goals	Total Apps	Total Goals
FW	Jack Angus	13	6	4	4	17	10
DF	Charles Baker	15	6	4	6	19	12
GK	Jack Barrett	4	0	1	0	5	0

Kevin McE (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You only need give a value to the position if you want it to sort into GK/DF/MF/FW rather than just alphabetical. And if you include the country name with the flag, as per the MoS, by using {{flag}} or {{fb}} rather than {{flagicon}}, it sorts OK.

Position	Nationality	Name	League apps	League goals	FA Cup apps	FA Cup goals	Total apps	Total goals
FW	Scotland	Jack Angus	13	6	4	4	17	10
DF	England	Charles Baker	15	6	4	6	19	12
GK	England	Jack Barrett	4	0	1	0	5	0

Take your pick :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys - you're brilliant. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Positions-by-round table

I shall gladly make a positions-by-round table for the 2009–10 A PFG article, just like this, this or this, but there's something I'd like to ask first. The match between Levski Sofia and Litex Lovech was due to be played during the 3rd round, but was postponed for one reason or another. This was the league table after the 3rd round was held on August 21-24, 2009. All teams had played three games, except Levski, who remained 3rd in the table, and Litex, who remained 11th. Levski and Litex were always one match behind until November 25, 2009, when the postponed fixture between the two teams was held. Here's what the table looked like just before that game. Levski and Litex had played 12 games while all the other teams had already played 13; Litex were leaders in the table while Levski were 5th. After the match ended with a 2-2 draw, all teams had already played an equal number of games. Litex retained their first position, but Levski moved up one place thanks to the point they earned. So my question is: given this situation, can a positions-by-round table be made, and if so, how should I make it? I can see there's no such a table in the 2009–10 Premier League article, which documents a season when many games were postponed. --Магьосник (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

These are exactly the reasons why such tables should not be created in the first place. In an ideal world, where every match in every round of fixtures is played on the same day, these tables might be a good idea, but in practical terms, when you get fixtures being moved around willy-nilly, these tables simply become a nuisance. There are just too many things to consider in their creation and maintenance, so I would suggest that you not bother. – Pee Jay 09:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay - as far as the league is concerned, there's only one table that matters and that is the final table. Trying to track intermediate "rounds" is not useful, is potentially misleading and in some cases virtually impossible due to fixture changes. --Jameboy (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that as well, also pointing to WP:NOT#STATS. Since three people of one opinion is not the broadest consensus to have for a removal of these tables, are there more users sharing the opinions above? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Are you (soccer-holic) proposing removing all pos.by.round tables? They should be included where possible, i.e. La Liga, Liga I and other leagues where fixtures are not moved around and postponed as in EPL. The fact that EPL changes fixtures all the time doesn't mean that nobody should have a table. Regarding misleading: that's subjective. A topscorer list is similarly 'misleading' as to who's the better player. Sandman888 (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandman, are you suggesting that "position-by-round" tables are encyclopaedic? In my opinion, they certainly aren't. In encyclopaedic terms, the positions a team occupies in the league table during the season are irrelevant. As Jameboy says, the only table of clubs that matters is the final league table. Furthermore, you cannot compare a league table to a table of top scorers. The table of top scorers does not show who is the best player, only who scored the most goals during the season. – Pee Jay 12:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed my proposal. Besides, you just say that such tables should be included, but you don't explain the reason why. As PeeJay said, it is pretty irrelevant in encyclopaedic terms if team X was in 13th place on matchday 5 and in 9th place on matchday 29. All that matters is the final position of each year, anything beyond this is trivial and perhaps even pointless information. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely not supportive of such table, per WP:NOT#STATS at first, but also because of the fact league game weeks regularly get postponed due to different kinds of reasons (European competitions, bad weather, etc.) --Angelo (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the vast majority here - they are definitely undesirable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Add my voice to this: not encyclopaedic per WP:NOTSTATS. Am I happy to see them go? Sure, just like anything else that doesn't satisfy WP:NOT. Knepflerle (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with the general sentiment that "round by round" positions are not notable, except to note that in some leagues (particularly Germany) there is a concept of "winter champions"; ie the team that is top of the league after the first full round of fixtures. Every team having played each other once, after which there is a long winter break. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. During the course of a season there is much information which is worthwhile and relevant to the article. Chronological events of the season are just as important as the final outcome. Games get rescheduled all the time and it is a matter of following when the rounds occur to update them. The English Premier League fixtures are originally published by round. But because the teams play in so many competitions (League Cup, Europa, CL) and also because of weather and because games are moved for TV it is not always apparent when the games of a round are played. Again this seems to be a move to control what is being displayed in an article, so that ALL season articles look the same rather than allowing concise innovative material. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the chronological events of the season are important, position by round tables are definately not the way communicate that information because they fail to do so. Precisely because of the reschedualing of fixtures these tables fail to do what they are intended to do, and as such they sould not be included. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. There seems to be two issues here: 1) if PBR is considered useful/good information and 2) whether it is possible to make it. There's plenty of leagues not suffering from the rescheduling that occurs in EPL, so I don't see why the lowest common denominator should be enforced. Therefor I suggest that PBR only be removed where it is hard to define, i.e. EPL. Sandman888 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above. I use the information in the PBR to decipher how a team performs and later when the season is finished where and when the improvement was and where and when downfalls occurred. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that everyone else thinks these tables are unencyclopaedic, and that is a far more pressing issue than fixture scheduling. – Pee Jay 22:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, lets delete "Results", because that's just taking up more space and its statistical. Let's not stop there. Get rid of 95% of the infobox, because that's just more trivia. Also get of the manager information and stadiums because that's already in the team's list. Now get rid of the standings table because statistics are just lies. Also what's the map for? I'll invite Pee Jay and Soccer-holic to write up an encyclopedic articles on all the seasons and let's keep it down to 5kb maximum. But don't hold your breath with these guys. I've seen how productive they are in this area of being "encyclopedic". And sorry my spellchecker is based in the US. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Under the strictest interpretation of WP:NOTSTATS, the results' grids probably fall outside our articles' remit too. The whole point of writing an encyclopaedia article on a club (as opposed to an almanac entry) is that is supposed to be writing: there's a good reason the first two words of the the very first good article criterion (1a) are "the prose", likewise in our featured article criteria. Outside list articles we should be telling the story of the subject, not just providing kb after kb of tabulated statistics and asking our readers to crunch numbers to extract it for themselves. Including statistics in separate articles such as List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics or 2006–07 Fußball-Bundesliga is not a problem; the problem is that in so many articles it is used as a substitute for real encyclopaedic content in the main articles themselves. It's cheap padding which doesn't display reliably and correctly on mobile browsers, and furthermore nearly always reinforces the recentist bias of our article.

For an example, take Slovakia national football team - in 35kb of "stuff", we have only eleven sentences of content about the team (as opposed ot the stadium), followed by reams of tables most of whose contents relate to just the last qualifying campaign. When the World Cup kicks off, our articles on competing nations are going to be read thousands of times, and are we really happy that eleven paltry sentences is all we can offer?

In summary: if you desperately want detailed statistics, create standalone supplementary articles to contain them. If you want to point out that club A collapsed after January, and club B won ten in a row at the end of the season to steal the title - then write it, in the article text. That's what it's there for. Knepflerle (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The write it aspect of the article is where the dilemma is. Especially for non-English based teams and competitions. How many people are really going to sit down and spend some real dedicated time to produce an article written in superb Muther Englysh about the 2009–10 Georgian Football season ??? (At least on the volunteer level which is what us Wikipedians are all about). I'm also going to also include the added work of adding citations and references which seem to be neglected on so many articles. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How good does an editor's English have to be to write "Dynamo Kyiv and Shakhtar Donetsk occupied the top two places for almost the entire season. Chornomorets Odessa spent almost the first third of the season in the relegation zone but recovered to 13th place."? It doesn't even matter if the English isn't perfect, most English speakers can read imperfect English better than half a spreadsheet. Knepflerle (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see a lot has been written here since I was last available. Maybe a positions-by-round table is inappropriate for Wikipedia considering the above arguments. I took a look at the 2009–10 Premier League article and found much content that could be classified as pointless as well. If everything that matters is the final positions in the table, and if everything related to chronological events throughout the season is to be deprecated, then why does the article contain the following sections?

Also, with what are the following parts of the content more important than the PBR table, and with what do they satisfy WP:NOT#STATS more than the PBR table does?

Infobox showing the biggest away win, the longest losing run, the lowest attendance, etc;
Personnel and kits section;
Season statistics section - all of it;
even Results section (again);
maybe Stadia section.

Moreover, I agree with Brudder Andrusha that a PBR table could give the reader some idea about how a team performed during the season. But I also agree that it will be misleading in the event of games getting postponed. --Магьосник (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Folks, let's get serious. I just checked a couple of other, international wikis (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Ukraine, to be exact) for their versions of both the Premier League and La Liga articles. Exactly ZERO of them have implemented a concept even distantly related to the PbR tables. I further checked some copies of the German kicker football yearbook, which is usually a good reference, with the same result. I would also assume that you wouldn't find anything like that in Rothmans or other similar publications. So, if even well-established writing capacities do not employ such a concept, why should the English wiki? Do the articles gain anything USEFUL from adding these tables? I leave this question intentionally unanswered.

Which leads me to your list above, Magyosnik. Results is a must keep, as a) this is where the league table comes from and b) this concept is well-established in both printed and online media. The top goalscorers are usually included in these publications as well, occasionally accompanied by a list of hat-tricks in the dedicated football yearbooks. Managerial changes and yearly awards are probably keepable as well, since these are noteworthy events of the season. For stadia, you could argue either way, so in dubio pro status quo. Ownership changes are borderline and should only be included if they had an impact on the season. Finally, the "personnel and kits" (or similar named sections) and "season statistics" sections should go as soon as possible as these are violating WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#STATS imho.

If this turns into a discussion what should be included into a league season article and what should not, so be it. A guideline for these is long overdue. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that things such as "personnel and kits" and "season statistics" are fairly trivial. Stadium information is only really worth noting in a prose format, for instance if a club changes ground, or a major development (e.g. new stand erected, becomes all-seater) occurs. Dancarney (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree; see my comments above on preferring prose over tables where feasible. Knepflerle (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on league season article format

I'm up for the discussion. Seeing the 2009-10 EPL page I agree that all more or less static information should be axed; the map, stadia, kit(!) and various dubious records. Sandman888 (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be for keeping the map. I find them useful when looking at seasons for leagues where I don't know the footballing geography. The kit details are total cruft. Dancarney (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's go into it; this is what I feel to be right:

Managerial changes: yes - they are quite related to the season, and often depending and affecting the results;
Ownership changes: not as a section, as not strictly related to the league season itself; can maybe be considered useful as a prose, however;
Kits and sponsorships: WP:TRIVIA - kill with fire;
Monthly/yearly awards: yes, but only if officially awarded by the League Committee itself;
Results: yes, of course, that's where the table comes from;
Stadia: I would say to keep them, venues and capacities are not really such static info;
Map: yes, it is quite nice to have and adds information about the geographical distribution of the league teams. Geographical representation is actually a matter of debate in several countries, including Italy.
Infobox with lowest attendances, longest winning run, etc.: no, to me it's just additional WP:TRIVIA, especially when it's featured when the season is still ongoing;

Have your say. --Angelo (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree except Stadia. They're not really static? Capacity is hardly volatile. Axe 'em. Sandman888 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Info about stadia should be kept for club season articles. – Pee Jay 16:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sandman too. Knepflerle (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that this is becoming an editor's hack fest rather than focusing on what the occasional reader, browser or information seeker who is going to use Wikipedia as a source. The dramatic rise in usage is because there is a wide varying source of detail for which admins now want conformation. Firstly, its called guidelines - later it will be call Rules. As long as the source is verifiable that is a pretty good reason for inclusion. (The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability - intro of first sentence! WP:Verifiability) Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"As long as the source is verifiable that is a pretty good reason for inclusion" - no, no, no. And fourthly no. Verifiability is necessary for inclusion. It is not sufficient. This is a fundamental of Wikipedia, and precisely why we have WP:NOT and WP:N. This cannot be emphasised enough. Knepflerle (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course - NOT! That's why we have admins here who keep on shouting "NO! NO! NO!" Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see many admins around in the discussion. This isn't an admin matter anyway, no tools are required to decide as a group how we want our articles to look. Knepflerle (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Brudder Andrusha, the other point to remember is that we are not just considering the complete removal of information; another alternative in some cases is to move it to dedicated statistics articles. This is what I did in some tennis articles; I created Daniela Hantuchová tournament progression and career statistics, so that the biographical article Daniela Hantuchová was not swamped with the tabular data and blow-by-blow accounts of every single tournament she had competed in. Knepflerle (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This, on the other hand, would pave the way for articles where every single league match is listed with complete goalscoring, cards and possibly even the color of the referee's jersey. In other words: 240 footballboxes for a 16-team league, 306 for a 18-team league, 380 for a 20-team league and 552 for a 24-team league, together with countless occasions of Template:Goal and its likes. It is very questionable if this is indeed the way to go, especially since we had a couple of these articles taken to AfD in the past. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, we can and should put limits on what goes in these articles too. I agree that more quasi-auto-generated 230k template-junkyards in the "model" of 2009–10 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round is the last thing we need. To put that size in perspective, our article on World War II is 167k. Knepflerle (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have sympathy for Brudders sentiment that WP is a fine source of information for football nuts, but when you have to skip two screens of trivia to get to the league table, it's too much. Maybe we could also have a discussion of the ordering of trivia on the seasons pages? Sandman888 (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We can have everything since 0s, 1s and the data devices they are stored on are very patient. But in order to actually achieve anything, this discussion must now be carried on until its final conclusion. (Ladies and?) Gentlemen, everyone of us knows what a sandbox is (and if not, click the link ;-)). How about a couple of example proposals which can be discussed? "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." (quote taken from Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut/Yogi Berra). --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, since nobody took up the loose ball, how about this proposal? As for the choice of the league – sorry, could not resist.^^

Some annotations:

The tons of uncited material in the "Season summary" section are intended to be preferably sourced by native pages. If these, however, should not be available, the respective kicker matchday league tables can easily be inserted as they contain both results and a "snapshot" league table (Example: UPL, "Round 23" and following mid-week matches)
The "Changes from last season" sections were merged partly into the lead, partly into the season summary. Any remaining sections considered keepable as per the list above have been moved below the goalscorers list. The order of these sections is, of course, subject to further discussion if desired.
Note that any qualifications for European competitions before the end of the season are cited in the season summary. The benefit: Precisely formulated information a la the notes currently to be found at the bottom of the 2010–11 UEFA competition articles without the need for additional templates or fancy graphics. By the way - the reluctance against these is rather a technical aspect than a personal dislike. To quote User:Knepflerle, "some mobile browsers, all text-only browsers, all monochrome browsers, all screen readers and some color blind people" are not able to read any information which is solely based on a non-textual visualization. I hope I do not have to explain it any further as this has already been done before.

Timelines are used in many other wiki articles and should not be a restriction in these articles. If they are used in 2009–10 Australian region cyclone season they can be used anywhere in wiki. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally, and on a more minor note, the infobox has been cleaned up since less information is more information in this case.

Any comments, ideas, thoughts on this are gladly welcome. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the proposal. I don't see anything I would add or remove, at the moment. I'd probably only move "Stadia and locations" above the league table. As for the "Managerial changes" section, I'm not sure whether to put it above the league table or below "Top goalscorers", but both solutions are OK. SonjiCeli (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While the positioning is better. The season summary is too wordy and as you have it citations and verifiability will cause an eye sore and typical poor quality. But that of course is what you want instead of Round-by-Round and a seamless approach to the chronology of a season. I also object vehemently to the League table which continues to flaunt WP:FUTURE by putting links into competitions which teams in that position have NOT QUALIFIED during the season. This should be a major correction which the season task force address but continues to sweep under the floor with band-aid corrections and the premise that consensus must be right. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fedya, I'm sick and tired of your constant whining and counter-productive behavior. Instead of actually trying to contribute constructively, you are bashing each and every approach the SATF has made regarding league season articles so far. On top of that, you have recently gone to an WP:OWN approach regarding a certain article, and are trying to support it via the one or another IP edit in order to avoid breaking WP:3RR. Your age should usually tell you to act a little more sophisticated instead of bitching around like a teenage boy in his adolescence. If you are not satisfied with the efforts and proposals other contributors made, either try to put up proposals of your own and convince other editors to accept them by discussing or engage in constructive criticism in order to improve consensus. If you are not able or willing to do so, stay at RSSSF and perhaps the Ukrainian Wikipedia and get the fuck out of here. And yes, I know that I have become very WP:PERSONAL here; this will be the first and only time I will do so. If this bashing results in a block, so be it. I got much better things to do with my time at the moment anyways. *heads off to a wikibreak* Sincerely not yours, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: There is a veeeeeeeery, very simple solution to the problem which triggered the current discussion on first hand, and it involves exactly two minor changes in all of Wikipedia's league season articles.

I kind of figured that you would go off the block with constructive criticism which you can't seem to handle. I didn't think it was so easy. BTW It's easy to know that you and your boys SATF are into chaos control, conformation followed by harassment. In your wikibreak - Enjoy the footy there definitely will be some. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had this discussion and the majority of us were in agreement as to what belong in league season article. PBR, personnel/sponsorship table, and any unreferenced unnecessary stats were a no-no. The only thing I'll add to the discussion is that the stadium capacities should be removed from the table. Digirami (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

List of FA Cup winners

Please could those who worked on the Featured List List of FA Cup winners have a look at my comment on the talk page there. The list currently contradicts one of my GA noms under review (specifically around whether extra time was played in the 1886 FA Cup Final) so I would be really grateful if we could clear up any confusion quickly. Cheers! --Jameboy (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Chris, very much appreciated. --Jameboy (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian Larsson

In Internet Explorer this article appears to have a huge whitespace in the middle, but I can't figure out why. Any ideas.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the issue is on your end, and not with the article itself. It looks perfectly normal when I load it in IE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been fixed in the meantime, looks OK here now too...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FC Inter Wehnen/RFC Wehnen

I see quite a lot of footballers being listed as playing for either of these clubs [25], but with nothing on the web to back this up - I'm not entirely sure that either club actually exists. Can anyone shed any light? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a hoax. Wehnen is a tiny district just outside Oldenburg, Germany and the "club" doesn't appear on any German club databases. The "club" appears in only two places: firstly, this blog whose team play in the "Russian league of Germany" contains such teams as "Spartak Lübeck", "Zenit Saarbrücken" and "Rubin Kiel" [26]. Notice that all the players involved in the related edits from the IPs introducing Wehnen (Special:Contributions/88.71.245.147 and Special:Contributions/188.96.191.187) were out-of-contract players with stronger or weaker connections with Russia or Eastern Europe, and often have played in Germany. The IPs themselves resolve to Germany.

The only other mention of this "club" is on the site "football-talents" (it's on the spam blacklist so I can't give a direct link; it's easily found by Google) which lists two players - one appears to be a genuine Russian U17 player, and the other appears to be the writer of the blog who has allegedly received invitations from all of the national squads of Georgia, Uzbekistan and Serbia [27] for his scoring prowess [28].

Overall this is nothing more than the product of a rather fertile imagination. Taking a look at the global contributions of the IPs (e.g. [29]), the hoax seems to be spread over en.wiki, de.wiki and ru.wiki at the very least, so some interwiki cleanup is in order.

I'd say something now about the endemic lack of explicit referencing of sources in infoboxes making this sort of hoax all too easy to perpetrate and repeat, but I think you can fill in the rest of the details for yourselves.

Good spot by the way, ArtVandelay.

Best, Knepflerle (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done the clean up on en.wp. Knepflerle (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, well done. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Association football players with an unknown status

Category:Association football players with an unknown status, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Goalscoring article?

Do we really need an article dedicated to listing all the goalscorers in a continental tournament? One was made for the 2010 Copa Libertadores and it seems a bit much. Digirami (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No we don't need that; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. I think the "useful" information, i.e. the top 10 goalscorers, should be included in the main 2010 Copa Libertadores article (although I imagine it already is), and the rest of the page deleted pretty quickly. Big Dom 05:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus is to not have the article, I was planning on redirecting it to the appropriate section the 2010 Copa Libertadores article. Digirami (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Good call. On a related note, what is the consensus on truncating goalscorers lists for an entire 38-match season that go down to scorers of single goals, e.g. 2009–10 Eerste Divisie#Statistics? Knepflerle (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is to have the best ten scorers plus those with an equal number of goals as the tenth-best scorer (unless this amended list would get too large, of course). --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Unassessed football articles

There are 4,126 unassessed football articles. Maybe we should start paying attention to more articles. Kingjeff (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When you consider how many articles fall under the scope of this WikiProject, 4,000 is a very small percentage. Surely creating new articles is more important than assessing existing ones? For what it's worth, I think that the articles that anybody cares about have been assessed anyway so it might be a while before anyone gets round to those. Big Dom 05:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw some FIFA and UEFA tournaments in there. I'm not saying that we should do every single one of them. But lets at least get to the ones that have at least some value. Kingjeff (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, if we could get to the top-flight national competition (the leagues and cups), competitions for the 6 continental confederation and all FIFA competitions, then I think most of the problem here would be solved. Kingjeff (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That number was over 9,500 at the start of the year ([30]), so I'd say we're doing OK. --Jameboy (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I know I specifically mentioned the unasessed articles. But I think we also should focus on Stub-Class football articles which is at 75,358 and Start-Class football articles which is at 17,221. The greater issue is that these 3 categories are grossly high numbers and every effort should be made to bring these numbers down. Kingjeff (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Interwikipedian cooperation

Hi, I work on italian wikipedia where sometime I enlarge stubs.. if you want we can create a cooperation to help each other, you say me what is the stub on en.wikipedia you want informations (in basic english, my english isn't a great thing) you write me in simple english the informations about players from en.wikipedia I'd like enlarge.. then if there is an italophone we can make a still better work..93.32.229.34 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Special infoboxes for goalkeepers?

Hi, I didn't find anything about this topic in the archives and hope it hasn't been discussed to death yet, but I'm discussing with a user about putting negative goals (= goals conceded) in goalkeeper's infoboxes (like this) as most of the goalkeepers never score any goals and the number of goals conceded could indicate the performance of the goalkeeper. Personally I think that negative numbers do not belong into players' infoboxes as this stands for goals that the player has been awarded in league competition only for each professional club. So would it be a possibility to create special infoboxes for goalkeepers? I'm not sure whether this is a good idea (is information about conceded goals widely available?) but I want to know what others think. --Jaellee (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't have goals conceded as a negative number in the goals column, this would be incredibly confusing, especially for non-football fans who happen to be reading the article. Not a fan of the infobox idea to be honest. First reason is that for anyone from before the Internet era it would be very tricky to find out some of this information. Second reason is that goalkeepers are, of course, allowed to score goals just like any other player so how would this work in the proposed infobox? Third reason is that goals conceded very rarely truely reflects on the quality of a goalkeeper – a poor goalkeeper in a good team will likely concede fewer goals than a good keeper in a rubbish team. To say that a goals conceded column would be better for keepers is like saying for defenders we should have a "tackles made" column because they don't score many goals either. Big Dom 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No no no no a million times no. It would be a nightmare to keep track of the stats. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BigDom. Defenders don't regularly score goals either, or for that matter defensive midfielders. We're not here to say which goalkeeper has performed better than the other. That would be on a par with writing their CVs, a job their agents could well be doing. By all means, in the text body it might well be interesting to read, for example "Player X played three seasons with Team Y, letting in only Z goals". Interesting of course, if we had any such infobox, would be how to update goals scored by goalkeepers. -1 for each goal allowed, +1 if he then scored one at the other end? I think it's a bad idea and doesn't reflect anything apart from the team he plays for. San Marino goalkeeper stats spring to mind... Jared Preston (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, why not add an 'Assists' column? And yellow & red cards? And shots on target? And 'Man of the Match' Awards...etc. etc. This is a very slippery slope and I am 100% opposed. To quote Abe Simpson, "I ain't fer it, I'm agen it!" Giant Snowman 19:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely terrible idea. Looks ridiculous, and I challenge anyone to produce a reliable source stating how many goals any goalkeeper active before 1995 conceded. Oh, and heaven only knows what infobox we'd use for Rogerio Ceni........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your postings, I think the general opinion on this topic is quite clear now. I will point out this discussion to other editors in future. --Jaellee (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

ok people might oppose putting up goals allowed... but we can have clean sheets record keeping...that what matters the most...goalkeepers do need special record keeping

I think that current goals scored information (e.g. 0 all the way for Neuer) is painfully uninformative. Clean sheets (or as measured by the team not having conceded any goals in a match in which the goal keeper played) similar to the stats held by baseball pitchers (no runs / no strikes) seems more appropriate. "looks ridiculous" is not a good reason. Simply because historical data is not available is no good reason either.

Stub-Class Article Improvement Drive WikiProject

The Stub-Class football articles category stands at 75,358 total articles. Would anybody be interested in starting a WikiProject based on improving Stub-Class articles? Kingjeff (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested. I know that in the past I created a lot of stubs and realise now that I probably should have spent more time on them, so I think it would be a great idea to transform some of the many stubs we currently have into proper articles. Big Dom 04:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see there are some serie A stub articles, I could help with some translations from italian to basic english.. I need help with Gustav Gärd voice on italian wikipedia.. he was a swedish player, he played at Sampdoria in 1950-1951 Serie A season, coming from Malmoe.. if you have informations..93.33.6.223 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does everything need a WikiProject? JFDI. --Jameboy (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If WikiProjects help to get things done, there's no reason not to use them is there? Big Dom 10:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess. But how will you promote it? You can't really tag it on talk pages because once an article has been expanded, it immediately falls out of the project's scope. :-) --Jameboy (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

True. Maybe it would be better just to have a drive within this WikiProject, like the recent GA drive, rather than starting a new project. Big Dom 11:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it means that it will out of our scope once it expanded. I think if we can get an article into at least C-class, then it would be good. As far as promoting it, Community portal is suggested by others. This isn't just a problem in this project. WikiProject Germany has 29,216 Stub-Class articles, WikiProject Netherlands has 6,413 and WikiProject Olympics has 6,649 Stub-Class Olympics articles. So, it's worth more than just a task force. Kingjeff (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

50 games limit

I do not know if this is the right place to mention but I would want to object about the 50 games limit for notable players, particullary for Argentine teams. Is very common for young players to move abroad after 1 season (that would be Apertura & Clausura tournaments). There are plenty of examples , only for Banfield we have Fernando Ortiz, Mariano Barbosa, Paletta, Datolo, and surely James by June --Jor70 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What 50 game limit is this? The current guideline states that one professional appearance is enough and, as far as I'm aware, the WP:NSPORT guideline that's currently being worked on will have the same inclusion criteria (for footballers at least). Big Dom 14:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he's referring to Club Atlético Banfield#Notable players..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

50 appearances for a club seems a very low threshold for a list to be placed on a club article. There would be 350+ Gillingham players on the article if that were to be applied. If it is no more than a list of players who have played 50 or more times, is it justifiable to describe the section as containing "notable players"? Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I meant mainly for Argentine teams (but suspect for Brazilians would be the same, though) for a player to reach 50 games he would need 4 short tournaments (2 years) and you can easily check that currently nobody remains so much. You cant establish the same comparison with European clubs. There are too many cases, another one e.g. would you say Mario Bolatti is not notable for Huracan ? Anyone who really follow Argentine football can explain that --Jor70 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that would make more sense. Well, I've no opinion on those, although if you disagree with the criteria, you can make a standalone list with criteria of your own choosing (so long as they are reasonable). Big Dom 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm, there is no WP:FOOTY "rule" that 50 games should be used as a limit for these sections, in fact most WP:FOOTY regulars think that such sections should not even be in articles in the first place! If you want to include players with less than 50 games, suggest them on the talk page of the relevant article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like you all to introduce you to the WikiProject on Argentine football (if you didn't know about it before). It is there that 50 game limit was established. You can read the full guidelines here. Digirami (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the best place for Jor70 to discuss this. I hope I'm not doing people a disservice, but I'm not sure many of the regulars here are enormously au fait with Argentinean domestic football...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Standardizing titles of 'national football team results' articles

There are currently 288 articles about national football team results in Category:National association football team results and its subcategories, and approximately 20 formats are represented in the titles of these 288 articles:

103 use the format {Foo} national football team {Year}

63 use the format {Year} {Foo} national football team results

33 use the format {Foo} national football team results

16 use the format {Foo} national football team results – {Decade}

9 use the format {Foo} national football team games – {Decade}

9 use the format {Foo} national footbal team {Year} results

8 use the format {Foo} national football team {Year range} results

7 use the format {Foo} national football team in {Year}
Japan national football team in 2004 Japan national football team in 2005 Japan national football team in 2006 Japan national football team in 2007 Japan national football team in 2008 Japan national football team in 2009 Japan national football team in 2010

7 use the format {Foo} national football team {Decade} results

6 use the format {Foo} national football team results ({Year range})
China PR national football team results (1950–1969) China PR national football team results (1970–1979) China PR national football team results (1980–1989) China PR national football team results (1990–1999) China PR national football team results (2000–2009) China PR national football team results (2010–2019)

5 use the format {Foo} national football team results {Year}
England national football team results 1930 England national football team results 1966 England national football team results 2008 Syria national football team results 2009 Syria national football team results 2010

3 use the format List of {Foo} national football team results
List of Australia national football team results List of Denmark national football team results List of Montserrat national football team results

2 use the format List of official matches of the {Foo}ian national football team
List of official matches of the Maltese national football team List of official matches of the Montenegro national football team

1 uses the format {Year} in {Foo}ian football
2010 in Paraguayan football

1 uses the format {Foo}ian football in {Year}
Vietnamese football in 2010

13 use some other format

I am posting this breakdown here in the hope that the members of this project could consider and arrive at a consensus for more standardized naming of these articles. The most common format, {Foo} national football team {Year}, is unfortunately one of my least-preferred (the year should at least be in parentheses), but I think that standardizing to any one format would be an improvement over using 20. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember a discussion where there was a consensus that the whole idea behind listing results of national teams in specific articles was not a good one, and that such results should be listed in "year in review" articles (i.e. like 2009 in Ecuadorian football). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digirami (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Merging these articles to {Year} in {Foo}ian football articles would certainly address the issue of unstandardized naming, and most of the articles are short enough so that consolidating information would be an improvement (see e.g., Estonia national football team 2007 and 2007 in Estonian football). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that we should always worry about standardising all lists etc, although having said that there are a large number of formats. Perhaps the second one listed is best because it has the year first, which is consistent with a number of recent season/competition name changes. I don't think having combined season overview/international results articles would work well for countries with fuller league structures, but for smaller nations there could be merit. Eldumpo (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

v t e Premier League
Competition	Seasons (current) · Teams (winners) · Players (foreign) (winners) · Managers (current) · Stadia · Founding · Broadcasters · Referees
Statistics and awards	Records · All-time table · Top scorers · Hat-tricks · Golden Glove · Manager of the Year · Manager of the Month · Player of the Month · Arsenal undefeated season · 10 Seasons Awards
Finances	Richest clubs: (Deloitte list) (Forbes' list) · Team owners · Average attendances · Transfer records · Game 39 · Premier League–Football League gulf · Relegated teams (2005 onwards)
Associated competitions	Asia Trophy · FA Community Shield · UEFA Champions League · UEFA Europa League · Women's League · Reserve League · Academy League

v t e Premier League
2009–10 teams	Arsenal · Aston Villa · Birmingham City · Blackburn Rovers · Bolton Wanderers · Burnley · Chelsea · Everton · Fulham · Hull City · Liverpool · Manchester City · Manchester United · Portsmouth · Stoke City · Sunderland · Tottenham Hotspur · West Ham United · Wigan Athletic · Wolverhampton Wanderers
Former teams	Barnsley · Bradford City · Charlton Athletic · Coventry City · Crystal Palace · Derby County · Ipswich Town · Leeds United · Leicester City · Middlesbrough · Newcastle United · Norwich City · Nottingham Forest · Oldham Athletic · Queens Park Rangers · Reading · Sheffield United · Sheffield Wednesday · Southampton · Swindon Town · Watford · West Bromwich Albion · Wimbledon
Competition	Seasons (current) · Teams (winners) · Players (foreign) (winners) · Managers (current) · Stadia · Founding · Broadcasters · Referees
Statistics and awards	Records · All-time table · Top scorers · Hat-tricks · Golden Glove · Manager of the Year · Manager of the Month · Player of the Month · Arsenal undefeated season · 10 Seasons Awards
Finances	Richest clubs: (Deloitte list) (Forbes' list) · Team owners · Average attendances · Transfer records · Game 39 · Premier League–Football League gulf · Relegated teams (2005 onwards)
Associated competitions	Asia Trophy · FA Community Shield · UEFA Champions League · UEFA Europa League · Women's League · Reserve League · Academy League
Seasons	Football League · 1992–93 · 1993–94 · 1994–95 · 1995–96 · 1996–97 · 1997–98 · 1998–99 · 1999–2000 · 2000–01 · 2001–02 · 2002–03 · 2003–04 · 2004–05 · 2005–06 · 2006–07 · 2007–08 · 2008–09 · 2009–10 · 2010–11