Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Template:WPF navigation

Futsal articles

There are a number of Futsal competitions around, notably the domestic league of Brazil, Spain and Italy. However, there are no articles about these Futsal competitions, so should we do something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie goh (talk • contribs) 16:09, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

Of course we should. I don't see why you need to ask this question. Be bold and just do it. – PeeJay 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed criteria for football biography navboxes

Following the recent no-consensus but with a drift towards keep at the end closure of the mass TfD of continental tournamnet navboxes, I would like to make a few proposals for what navboxes should be supported by the project, and how we can go about reducing the visual clutter at the bottom of player/manager articles.

1. General rule The super-collapse function should be used when there are more than 3 managerial or 3 international navboxes using the layout discussed above: International top, Managerial mid, and current squad at the bottom.

2. Current squads - should only be used for teams playing in fully professional leagues (subject to deletion if displaying badly out of date information due to lack of updates)

3. International squads - Should only be permitted for the FIFA World Cup and the highest level of continental tournamnet (European Championship, Copa América, African Cup of Nations, Asian Cup and Gold Cup).

4. Managerial templates - (I'm not sure about the minimum standard for this one perhaps something like) Managerial templates should only be created for clubs that have played at least one season at the highest level of the national league structure, or at least 10(?) years in fully professional leagues.

5. Awards - Award navboxes should be strongly discoraged, the information and a wikilink to the award should be made available in the honours and awards section of the player/manager article.

6. Clearing succession boxes In cases where the succession box can be replaced by a managerial navbox, this should be done. In cases where the succession box does not refer to a managerial position the information (club captain, player of the year, etc) should be transcribed into the text of the article or into the honours and awards section as part of the succession box deletion process.

I hope people can bring themselves to support this proposal so that we can begin super-collapsing the big piles of navboxes and deleting all of the succession boxes and vanity award templates with some comprehensive consensus based guidelines to fall back on. Feel free to add your views below, thank you. EP 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

No arguments from me. Those criteria seem perfectly worded. – PeeJay 19:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here. We really really need to get rid of squad templates for teams not in fully pro leagues - they just encourage the creation of articles on NN footballers. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not if they're done properly - i.e. with non-notable players de-linked (and they usually are). A lot of Conference clubs have maybe two-thirds of players notable, so the navbox is a useful tool. And these players are less likely to have international navboxes, so there's less danger of clutter. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what would you have as a cutoff point for squad templates? I've seen some with only two links on - surely these are pointless? пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think ArtVandelay13 may make a good point. I'd perhaps add squad templates for teams one level below pro level, or at least for those countries where there is promotion/relegation between the bottom level and the one below. Peanut4 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be taken on a team-by-team basis: i.e. a minimum number of notable players. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Was just thinking something along those lines. It makes perfect sense. But rather than team-by-team I'd say we set a mark now. Either a percentage of the squad (half maybe) or at least a teamworth of notable players. Peanut4 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I could live with a teamworth (i.e. 11). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why this is necessary, just to protect a few English non-league sides. This could also lead to the absurd situation where player x leaves club y necessitating the deletion of the current squad navbox because less than half/only 10 of the players have played for other unrelated clubs. A less complicated alternative could be should only be used for teams playing at the national level of the league structure, which would allow navboxes down to Conference National level. I really think its better to keep it simple rather than come up with some convoluted definition aimed at preserving some pre-determined templates in English non-league football. EP 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In complete agreement with that and the complete removal of succession boxes. And it seems everything above looks good. Peanut4 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Establishing a consensus in the light of recent non conclusive TFD is quite needed. Personally I think the proposed points by English peasant are short and good formulated and I will support them if there will be some straw poll or voting. Just one note to the international navboxes - we should keep them consistent as FIFA World Cup templates are. Consistent in design, colours and naming. We should start from recently created Euro ones which almost all use different names. It's not "European Championship" but UEFA Euro etc. European Championship can be also in darts, UEFA Euro is only one. :) - Darwinek (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of leaving it a few days for discussion before opening a straw poll, so as to not get slammed for starting the !voting process too quickly. If anyone else feels it is appropriate to start a straw poll now I would not object if they set it up. EP 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I know I'm in the minority on this, but I still think that officially sanctioned awards have a place in templates. Certainly not magazine awards, etc. though. matt91486 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposals, but suggest that clubs which are fully professional but are playing in the top-flight national league (e.g., Standard Liege in Belgium or Saprissa in Costa Rica) which contains some semi-pro clubs may be allowed a squad template. These types of clubs typically play in continental championships are have notable squads, so I would hope a template is acceptable. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Any team in the Champions League certainly needs a squad template. But I think there needs to be a sensible approach to overlook any rules in certain cases for clubs that don't fit the criteria but where a template would help navigation. Peanut4 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposals

1. General rule The super-collapse function should be used when there are more than 3 managerial or 3 international navboxes using the layout discussed above: International top, Managerial mid, and current squad at the bottom.

2. Current squads - should only be used for teams playing in fully professional leagues or professional teams that are playing in leagues that are mainly professional (at least 80% 0f the teams have clearly sourced professional status). These templates are subject to deletion if they are displaying out of date and misleading information due to lack of maintenance .

3. International squads - Should only be permitted for the FIFA World Cup and the highest level of continental tournament (European Championship, Copa América, African Cup of Nations, Asian Cup and Gold Cup).

4. Managerial templates - Managerial templates should only be created for clubs that have played at least one season at the highest level of the national league structure, or at least 10 years in fully professional leagues.

5. Awards - Award navboxes should be strongly discoraged, the information and a wikilink to the award should be made available in the honours and awards section of the player/manager article.

6. Clearing succession boxes In cases where the succession box can be replaced by a managerial navbox, this should be done. In cases where the succession box does not refer to a managerial position the information (club captain, player of the year, etc) should be transcribed into the text of the article or into the honours and awards section as part of the succession box deletion process.

Straw poll

Following the discussion above, I have made a small amendment to point 2. please feel free to support or oppose the criteria as stated above. Cheers EP 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support all but 2. I'm not sure the best way to re-word or change 2, but I'd like to see this expanded for certain countries, i.e. expand for one to Conference National in England. Peanut4 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made another change to criteria 2 here which would allow Conference templates to be kept, for the demonstrably professional teams in the league. I hope this is satisfactory. EP 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I like Peanut4's expansion for number 2, and I disagree on #5. I think official awards should maintain templates. matt91486 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please define what you mean by official award? Player of the month as officially honoured by the BBC, some magazine award?, National FA award? FIFA approved award?--ClubOranje^Talk 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why awards shouldn't be linked to in the Honours and Awards section of player/manager articles it is the natural place to look for them. In my opinion there is no need to duplicate the information in a navbox. EP 14:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I mean awards issued or recognized by national or international federations or leagues. Like the MVP of Major League Soccer, FIFA World Player of the Year, or any of the World Cup awards. I know the World Cup awards are currently succession boxes, but I think they should be turned into templates and covered by this proposal. The only non-officially organized award I'd make an exception for is the Ballon d'Or, because it's so prestigious. It's not a matter of duplication, it's a matter of navigation. Their managerial positions are also all listed in their infobox, but we keep them so we can see continuity between leaders of the club and navigate amongst them. matt91486 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support revised proposal. Jogurney (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support the revised proposal. Salt (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support the revised proposal. Note: Only a few people participate in this vote, is there any possibility to advertise it? More people = stronger consensus. - Darwinek (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal. – PeeJay 09:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal Paul  Bradbury 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal. Bigmike (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support everything except "more than 3", I think it's a too low number. If a retired player who's not managed have played for example 3 World Cups and 2 Euro's I think they don't have to be collapsed. So for me the collapse would come when a player has 6 or higher (including all cups, manager and current), not 4 or higher. ← chandler 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal. GiantSnowman 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support except #3 Mostly suppport, but some concern regarding expansion of international squad templates to highest level of federation. Relaxing the criteria only encourages more relaxation of criteria. Federation cup will be next, with the argument that it must be more notable than the individual federation tournaments as it takes the best from each and puts them together. Then it will be qualifying for above qualifying is part of the process toward winning the world cup. and so it goes.--ClubOranje^Talk 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is ever enough support for these proposals to become accepted by the community, I would guess that any modifications to allow world cup qualifier squads (if there is such a thing), U-20 World Cup squads etc would have to be done by consensus, which I could never see happening. Unfortunately most of the people that helped to keep the Euro Cup templates at TfD seem to be unaware of this discussion. We can never claim these criteria as consensus based with only 11 supports. EP 09:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Games ending with penalty kicks

When we post the scoring details of games ending in penalty kicks, it is not always obvious which team kicked first. Can someone think of a simple way to note which team was the first to kick without confusing the reader with too much detail? Juve2000 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it significant.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not overly so, but in the case of team A kicking first and team B missing one, the final penalty count ends at 5-3 due to the final penalty not being required and team B only has taken 4, whereas if team B kicks first and has a miss, the total count would reflect 4-5, both having taken 5. in the first example, not knowing who went first may leave the impression 2 were missed. Juve2000, could you point to an example where this would be used?--ClubOranje^Talk 09:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the example I was thinking of when I made this comment. Assume team A and team B are at 4-4 going into their 5th penalty. Team A misses and Team B scores, thus all 10 penalty kicks are listed on the wikipedia page. When reading the data, I cannot tell if Team A kicked last knowing it HAD to score, or if Team B kicked last knowing a goal would mean victory. And to answer a previous question if its significant, probably not to most, but you can make that same arguement about 80% of the data.Juve2000 (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that - by point to an example I meant show me a page where it shows penalties being taken so I can see how it is currently presented and consider a solution to the issue. --ClubOranje^Talk 06:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples: 2008 UEFA Champions League Final#Match details or 2008 Scottish League Cup Final#Match details. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be worth indicating. Perhaps by specifying 1st kick / 2nd kick above each team's list. I tried a mock up of numbering the penalties, but it looked a bit manky.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal selected images

I nominated some images for the portal at Portal:Association football/Selected picture, but I don't think many people watch that page, so I thought I'd leave a message here. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-12 19:48

User:Captainbeecher

The above user has recently been making rather a lot of edits to player articles regarding FA Cup shocks most of which are referenced to a site that he himself appears to have created. See, for example, his latest edit to John Devey which is referenced to http://www.freewebs.com/captainbeecher/number18.htm. I suspect that this is the same guy who created the FA Cup Final articles such as that at hometown.aol.co.uk/captainbeecher/1890FACUPFINAL.html preceded by http://. As these articles are deemed to be Spam, I cannot link directly to it.

Most of the edits appear to be accurate, although the language verges on the PoV such as "sensationally beaten". Should his references be removed? I've copied this query to his talk page. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will defend this statement myself as I regard spam as being something that bears little reference to the statement it is being pointed at and is being done purely to advertise without providing any further reading benefit to the reader. The vast majority of bios I have edited {and may I point out here that most of the edits do not appear to be accurate-ALL of them are - and are also carefully researched against newspapers of the time were either mere stubs, containing virtually no career details of the player at all, or were heavily overloaded with detail from a particular players time with one particular club, virtually ignoring time with other clubs that was often more significant or thirdly, the detail in some cases was just plain wrong. To provide examples. Adam Haywood-his club details were wrong and only his Arsenal appearances were added. While Peter Meehan's bio, dealt solely with his time at Southampton, ignoring completely that he was a title winner with Sunderland and a cup finalist at Everton. Every edit I have made is 100% accurate and deals only with games that at the time were major events in football. For example the Millwall vs Aston Villa game was the first ever time the sporting life carried a banner football headline, a feat not repeated until Crystal Palace defeated Newcastle seven years later {'sensationally beaten' was how the Times put it and it is my oversight not to have referenced that}. If the edits were incorrect or the reference to which they are pointed did not provide further information of interest to a reader then I would agree that it is spam but not only are the edits correct, but they add more information to what are often little more than stubs and also point to further reading for the reader. In addition I would also state that these edits are being provided by an accredited soccer historian, though that is a point I only raise now when the validity of my edits is being question, hence my not adding a bio to my own home page. In closing I state that if the references are removed than all the text that has been added should also be removed, which will revert many player bios back to the mere stubs they were. Captainbeecher (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it is very bad form to add references to your own site(s). If they are considered relevant enough, others will add the links. - fchd (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Very very bad form. A conflict of interest. Self promotion. And beside that, can you explain how the site you link to meets WP:RS please? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the pages that John Devey or Adam Haywood link to and form an opinion of your own. I'm more than happy to share the research I find in newspaper libraries regarding these players with Wikipedia but find myself between the devil and the deep blue sea. Much of the information I have sourced it not available on any other internet website, otherwise Im sure it would have made wikipedia by now. I have supplied information of players before but seen it deleted because the source, often a newspaper from 18?? has been challenged as not being reliable. yet this information is good enough for books on the subject {I am a researcher whose information is collated in books e.g. The F.A. Cup The complete story by Guy Lloyd and Nick Holt. My efforts and expert knowledge on the competition is credited on page 415 of said book while many of the previously unpublished soundbites contained in it were researched by me, some of which now appear on wikipedia {many without source or reference I might add - wouldn't it be cat amonst the pigeons if I asked for those to be sourced with a reference from elsewhere or face removal?}. So in answer to the question, tell me how anything published in wikipedia meets WP;RS? It becomes an individual opinion what is a reliable source and what is not and I can assure you that there are dozens of statements on wikipedia that have come from official histories and actual club websites that when investigated are actually incorrect. So sure, I'm linking to a web site created by myself but at least it's an accurate historical record.Captainbeecher (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Captainbeecher can be right...Reliable doesn't work like: FIFA = reliable, anonymous website = not reliable. It's a matter of sources and accuracy in researching. Maybe it isn't reliable, but I think a different approach is needed discussing this issue. --necronudist (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought this obvious - if one's website is dealing with factual claims (e.g. who won what or what place a team finished) and it is accepted by the rest of the community, then I don't see a problem - I am thinking of users such as User:Richard Rundle, who is one of our most invaluable contributors. However for subjective or PoV claims (e.g. this was a "shock" or a "thrilling" match) or ones that are disputed (e.g. someone was a "legend"), then it is very poor form to use one's own website as a source. So delete the PoV and keep the factual ones. Qwghlm (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the information on your website is also in the above mentioned book (or other books) why not cite the books? They are likely to be more regarded as reliable due to the publishing process, than a personal homepage could have been slapped together with fantasy information (not to infer your page has been, just that many homepages are, hence the WP:RS issue). Even better if you can reference an additional source or review of the book which gives some backing to its authenticity. Reliable source does not need to be easily verifiable, just verifiable, and if that means a trip to the library for someone, so be it.--ClubOranje^Talk 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of reliability could be resolved with a page on the site about sources, explaining how the information has been collated. Or perhaps an "about the author" page. To continue the example of fchd, something like http://www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk/sources.htm. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I see no problem if the sources you use for your website are cited in your website.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but doesn't WP:SPS go against that by saying that generally, Self-Published Sources should not be used? D.M.N. (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a self-published source. If the problem is that he is adding his own website, another person can add it. But I think we're desperately searching a way, a little obscure rule in the middle of nowhere, to say he's wrong. Bad approach, this isn't discussing. --necronudist (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The guy did say that he has stated original newspapers as source but that these sources were deleted because there couldn't be checked {If I read it right. I've visited the site and to be honest found the content very interesting. There doesn't seem to be any money to be made in the site {re advertising} so i fail to see a problem here. Just as long as the links are credible to genuinely factual and informative material. All I would ask is that when placing your own site as a reference you also site these newspapers as well.Norniron (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Ramsey

Could someone please explain to User:Minkythecat how Aaron Ramsey is now an Arsenal player, which has been confirmed by several major sources? [1] [2] [3] Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also had a polite word...GiantSnowman 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

His response, let's say is pretty straightforward. <sigh> D.M.N. (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, can the move be completed outside the transfer window? I don't know if youth players are exempt or something. Beve (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the window opened on 1 June? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the window opens on 1 July. However, Cardiff may have released Ramsey from his contract so he could sign for Arsenal early. – PeeJay 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Really?! I always thought it was 1 June... but, I've seen it be stated that it opens when the season ends, on 1 June and 1 July... can't find any clear source for its opening date. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this link, transfer window is from the last playing day of the season. This link, however, implies it opens beginning of June (based on article date and "With the transfer window having reopened at the start of this month"--ClubOranje^Talk 01:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure players aren't allowed to register with a new club before 1 July. The transfer may be complete before then, but the player isn't officially a player for his new club until 1 July. – PeeJay 08:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Coventry City articles

I'm interested in what people think of Coventry City 2007-2008 Championship Match Facts and Coventry City 2007-2008 League Cup Match Facts. I am concerned at the ever-increasing level of detail and recentism in Wikipedia football articles. Do we really need line-ups for every match? Any comments/suggestions welcome. --Jameboy (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The results etc could be merged into Coventry City F.C. 2007-08 season or whatever the standard naming format is for club season articles. However, I agree that the level of detail is excessive, and would support a prod. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would back that up Number 57. If links are provided to either BBC reports or Soccerbase, on the Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08 article, then that would provide all these facts anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To get a firm consensus on this, I've opted to nominate the 2 articles for deletion. The discussion is here. D.M.N. (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be far too much detail on the Coventry City F.C. page too - every single Cov player who's ever played an international, tables of greatest no. of appearances for every season since 1968, etc. Dancarney (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lineup template

Hi. I have created a template for football lineups. The template is located at User:Kalaha/sandbox2 and an example is made at User:Kalaha/sandbox3. Will somebody please take a look at it, and please comment it. Thank you. kalaha 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to devalue your work, but I cannot see any advantage of your example over the format already in use at, to use the same match example, this article. There is a minor glitch on yours with positioning of the third substitutes' names. But I must confess I don't like any match article that gives a representation of players' positions, as these are far more fluid than such a diagram implies. Kevin McE (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it's the point that it doesnt look any different, only put into a template... Kevin, about number and position, they are in there under home1pos, home1no. The only problem I see is the last sub. ← chandler 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards the templateness (sic), I hadn't realised that the others did not follow a template. If it makes it easier for the building of pages to have it as a template, then I'm not going to argue against it.

As regards the players' names on the pitch "map", I appreciate that it is determined by the text: my issue is that it does not show the fluidity and flexibility that exists in reality, with wingers switching sides, or midfielders having flexibility for playing flat or as a diamond. It may well be that I'm in a small minority on this one, and I made it clear that is is my dislike, not a fault in the template, but Kalaha asked for opinions... Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, most of the matches that we add lineup images to are organised by UEFA, who provide a convenient "Lineups" press release an hour before the match. This press release includes a diagram of the players' positions on the pitch at the start of the game, making it easier to tell who is playing where. – PeeJay 17:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In defence of lineup diagrams, my practice is to display lineups as they were at the start of the game, rather than to show where the players actually played throughout the duration of the match. This negates any fluidity of the actual lineup and is also infinitely more citable.

In relation to the actual lineup template, I don't like the way all the icons next to the name default to the left-most column. I like it so that all the yellow cards line up, and all the substitutions line up. It makes it easier to read, for one thing. Also, do you think you could increase the number of substitutes to 12, just in case we feel the need to list every substitute in a World Cup or European Championship team? – PeeJay 17:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the pitch diagram in the middle, it is way too big in relation to the size of a normal match article. In fact, I think even over-categorising players into DM, etc is too much as one of the best things about the sport of football is that everyone but the keeper doesn't stick to a single position through the game. - fchd (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't like pitches on Wikipedia - playing positions are fluid, constantly changing throughout the game. GiantSnowman 19:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well these are the starting lineups ← chandler 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really like the pitch images. They provide a free image that fills up what would otherwise be whitespace. Most people visiting these articles would probably realise that football positions are not strictly defined and that players don't have to stick to the positions shown. The image is only meant to show the starting lineup, as defined by the official squad lists given to the organisers before the game. – PeeJay 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If the text was at 100% size (as it should be for accessibility reasons), there would not be very much white space to fill! - fchd (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true. But from a stylistic point of view, the smaller text looks a lot better. Text can always be increased in size using the "increase text size" function of one's internet browser. – PeeJay 21:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Disagree 100%. The small text looks horrible, and why when I've set my default text size within my browser should I have to enlarge it to read important information on a web page? No content less than 100% size please. - fchd (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Starting lineups are not necessarily the same as starting positions. GiantSnowman 20:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but where we have press releases like this one it seems appropriate to me to copy the lineup shown. By the way, surely the definition of a lineup is the way the teams "line up" on the field, and hence it would be their starting positions. – PeeJay 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The way teams "line up" is determined by where the ball is, and at kick off are not as shown on these charts (what if a team with one striker takes kick off?) You are well aware from this discussion that the perception of those watching can be very different from the press release. Do we include that which is verifiable, even when empirical evidence shows it to be wrong? Kevin McE (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't want a discussion about the table, as I have not made it. I just wanted some ideas to fix the smaller errors there is. kalaha 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the only evident issue is that third sub. What's your opinion on the pitch map? Kevin McE (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Three points on User:Kalaha/sandbox2.

• It would only work for international games. But it either needs to be modified or a fresh template, for domestic or continental games, e.g. FA Cup Finals, Champions League Finals.
• The starting positions look on first appearance to be pre-defined to GK, RB, LB, CB, CB, RM, LM, CM, CM, CF, CF. This isn't always the case.
• I think subs and cards could do with separate columns. Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not care about that pitch map. I think it is too hard to make for every user, as it demands .svg-knowledge. That is why I made it optional.

I know the issue with the third sub, but I don't know how to fix it.

To make it fit club matches, the big flag must be optional, and optional player flags can be added.

I just chose the 4-4-2-formation as default tactic, as it is the most common.

I'm not sure, what you mean on the separate columns for the subs and cards. The template is made from the already used ones, so after the player name column, there is a column for cards and thereafter a column for subs.

Hope you understand my terrible English. kalaha 08:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a few points to try clarify things. PS No worries about the English.

• This link has optional positions for subs. Can you do the same for the starting line-up so that modifications can be made when it isn't 4-4-2?
• Your current sandbox has the yellow cards and substitutes aligned in one column. But if you look at UEFA Euro 2008 Group A#Switzerland vs Czech Republic and other such matches, yellow cards and substitutes, etc. have their own separate columns to ease alignment. Peanut4 (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the things should be fixed. I have also made an example with a club match here: User:Kalaha/sandbox4. kalaha 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Now, using this match as an example, what functionality does your template provide for players who are substituted off after being substituted on themselves? – PeeJay 17:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, a simple space could do it:

|away12pos = MF | away12no = 23 | away12player = [[Vladimir Bystrov]] | away12sub = {{subon|46}} {{suboff|70}}
kalaha 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What about if I wanted to get the subon to line up with the suboff, like in the amendment I just made to the example match (which I should have done before)? – PeeJay 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Sorry. kalaha 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, you see how Bystrov was subbed off after being subbed on? His suboff icon is further to the right than his subon icon because it's in a separate column in the table. I have now made it so that Adamov's subon icon is in the same column as Bystrov's suboff icon in order to make it obvious that Adamov was coming on for another substitute. Is there a way that this could be implemented in the template? – PeeJay 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no referee in the User:Kalaha/sandbox4 example. He'd be on United's side too, naturally, along with his assistants. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

*quashes joke* There's no need for the referee to be included in the template, as he's already listed in the {{footballbox}} template =P – PeeJay 20:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd either move the referee out of the footballbox template, or move the assistant and third official into it. Not sure there needs to be a separation, since (as I demonstrated) it might lead editors to assume a mistake has been made. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should make the lineups an optional extra for the footballbox template, and move the referee to the bottom with the assistants and fourth official. Obviously this would be prone to overuse, but we can't just not do something because we fear it might be abused. – PeeJay 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary? Further it is so rare, that I don't think it matters. kalaha 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you think, then I'm afraid I can't support this template just yet. If it can't provide the functionality of a simple table like the ones we use now, then what purpose does it serve? – PeeJay 17:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It can be (easily) fixed, but I personally don't think it is necessary. kalaha 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If it can be done easily, then you should do it, regardless of whether you think it is necessary or not. – PeeJay 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have also created 5 more subs for each team. kalaha 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, cheers. – PeeJay 19:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I will move the template to Template:Football lineup and slightly start use it. kalaha 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about anyone else, but I think it will need some instructions how to use it? Peanut4 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't have experience with making "/doc"-pages. I would prefer somebody experienced user would help with that. kalaha 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that template is in use, so the title is: Template:Football line-up. kalaha 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, having seen the new template put to practical use in the UEFA Euro 2008 Group A article, I have to say I don't see what benefit it has over the original table. They both perform exactly the same function and, although it shouldn't matter as Wikipedia is not short on webspace, the table takes up less bytes. Also, there can often be confusion over how to use templates such as this one. For example, people may assume that the numbers in the parameters (e.g. "home1player") may refer to their squad numbers and fill in the template as such. Therefore, although the template was a good idea to start with, the table is probably simpler to use. – PeeJay 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would ease up the process and would be easier to edit for the not-so-advanced-user. kalaha 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fair dos. Like I said, it was a good idea, but I have to say it hardly takes an "advanced user" to copy a table from one match and replace the names and numbers for a new match. Of course, if anyone feels like using the template themselves, it's not up to me to say they shouldn't. It's just an alternative to the table, and perhaps both will end up being used in equal measure. – PeeJay 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard Webb

There is impossible to edit Howard Webb but tere is lie in Euro 2008 section. "Polish prime minister Donald Tusk, who was at the stadium, said he felt like he wanted to kill Webb [23]." - it's not true. Polish prime minister wasn't in Austria - he was in Poland at that time. he said before Euro2008 "It's enough to see matches in TV for me." - ("Wystarczy mi oglądanie meczów w telewizji"). At the stadium Was polish President Lech Kaczyński and he said "It's not way to win a match!" ("Tak nie wygrywa się meczu"). In Howard Webb article as the sours is Sunday Mirror shown - i don't think it's an reliable source!!! XtraVert 2008-06-15 23:51

I have removed thetext "...who was at the stadium," as it is not actually supported by the citation. No comment on the Sunday Mirror! But I'll look for a BBC citation or something. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: I've swopped the citation for one to The Scotsman and expanded the quotation to make it clear that Tusk was describing his emotions rather than making a death threat or something! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly he didn't say he wanted to kill Webb, he said he wanted to kill. John Hayes^talk 11:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Custom kits

_fmgtest

Ok, I know this might not be totally allowed, but wouldn't it be a bit nice to be able to have higher detailed kits. I play fm quite a lot and there are very many different version of fan-made kits, now most of these are shirts only, but recently some guys over at FMGLive created a kit with shorts and socks, now they release the templates in .psd form free to the masses (but I'm not sure of the copyright, but could ask). To avoid some problems I striped the corporate/club logos of this one, if that does it any good. You could probably also create such standard templates as Image:Kit_body.png so you fill in the colour yourself. Now I know it would be too hard to try and update every club... but if it would be allowed at least, it would be great. Though these might all be under copyright from like nike, adidas etc who own (probably) the designs for the kits, even though these templates here have been made by internet folks. Just thought I'd throw the idea out, even if it wont get through ← chandler 05:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See the relevant section above. - Dudesleeper / Talk 08:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with copyright from Nike/Adidas etc. - the representations are very low resolution and we can claim fair use. There is definitely a problem with the copyright of their representations as made by the users of FMGLive, unless they all licence them under GFDL/CC-by-sa. So I think - a nice idea as it is - it's not workable. Qwghlm (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I've asked he creators of the kit and they were all fine with us using it. Now we don't have to switch all clubs completely but you could at least be allowed to use them, couldnt you? — chandler — 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2008 controversies

This article seems to have been created in advance on the assumption that some controversies would probably occur, and so far all it has to report is that there was one questionable offside call and one dodgy penalty award. Does that really merit a full-blown article.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not in my opinion. It's clairvoyance to create it in the first place, and surely any controversies worth mentioning would be covered in articles higher up the chain? --Jameboy (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree this doesn't deserve an article, if anything some of these should be mentioned on the main euro page but i don't think those "controversies" deserve even that to be honest Prem4eva (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The title almost suggests WP:OR especially when you consider how early it was created. It should be contained within the relevant UEFA 2008 pages. Peanut4 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Degree of controversiality is POV. One man's controversy is another's clear cut decision. Should it include controversy about whether Greece should have played 3 up front? About which goalie Germany should have chosen? Lots of marginal decisions, otherwise footie fans and pundits would have nothing to discuss, but they are not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Stipe Pletikosa

There is a slow edit war there - Croatian users removing all mentions of Yugoslavia, others reverting them. Please share your thoughts on which variant for his country of birth is more accurate. My opinion is that there were no such country as Croatia in 1979, so we should write Yugoslavia. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Same problems in Darijo Srna and likely on numerous other footybios. People are pretty active now due to Euro. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is quite clearly Yugoslavia. Croatia was not a country in the 1970s or 80s. I have blocked one IP for clearly disruptive editing and warned another user. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You're the 1000th user to ask this! You win an original 1971 Cuda. --necronudist (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

SFR Yugoslavia (now Croatia) is what I revert to, which can't be too far wrong as it has lasted more than a week without reverts on (xxxx) page (name withheld to prevent immediate revert!) - although I must research the official change date to Croatia - it won't be long before there are notable players born after Croatia became an independent state--ClubOranje^Talk 08:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatia declared independence on June 25, 1991. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixtures

The fixtures for the English 2008-09 season were released yesterday. They are copyrighted to the Premier League / Football League, yet several seasons' articles in Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2008-09 season have already included all the fixtures for the current season. What legal position does wikipedia have to including these fixtures? Peanut4 (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't even understand how you could copyright fixtures, It's just lists of "Man U - Man C [date]" And there was ppl can't remember who, took out the upcoming fixtures (not the played ones) for "copyright issues" last season, So after they are played they are free or what? ← chandler 01:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how they can be copyrighted, they are only dates. I guess I can't help you.Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From the bottom of here:

Copyright © and Database Right 2008[/9] The Football Association Premier League Ltd / The Football League Ltd / The Scottish Premier League Ltd / The Scottish Football League. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any way or by any means, (including photocopying, recording or storing it in any medium by electronic means), without the written permission of the copyright/database right owner. Applications for written permission should be addressed c/o Football DataCo Ltd, 30 Gloucester Place, London W1U 8PL.

- Dudesleeper / Talk 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But the question still remains, are you really allowed to copyright things like these... I mean they are just dates, between teams. Do we have to do some sort of thing like they do in Football manager / Pro Evo Soccer etc. for clubs they don't have licenses and call the matches "Merseyside Red - Man Red, 13 sep 2008, English Top Division"? ← chandler 02:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They are the property of the relevant authorities, but it seems to be one of those things – like waiting until July 1 to include transferred players in squads – that isn't clamped down on around Wikipedia. - Dudesleeper / Talk 02:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not qualified to comment on the legal basis of their copyrightability (sic), but I know from people who have run fansites that they are vehement and litigious protectors of their copyright material. So be careful. Kevin McE (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not possible that it could fall under some sort of fair use? They would probably have similar copyrights for these fixtures (and I still cant understand how you could copyright fixtures) and pictures like this one Image:Premier League.svg — chandler — 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• According to leading statto Tony Kempster, the Premier and Football Leagues require a payment of "over £9,000" to reproduce their fixture lists. I somehow suspect they wouldn't be able to do this if it was not possible to copyright fixtures, therefore we must assume that it is.

Well lets not recreate tha whole thing, just team for team, and beat the system, YEAAAAA! — chandler — 07:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From talking to the guys who maintain the Gillingham fan site, the leagues also charge a smaller (but still substantial) fee to reproduce a single club's fixtures....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Still don't understand how something like "23 september vs Arsenal" can be copyrighted — chandler — 07:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

< Yes, the fixture list are copyrighted and thus should be removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But how are upcoming fixtures considered copyright protected and have to be deleted from here, but played fixtures are allowed to stay? And again, can someone try to explain how something like this is copyrighed — chandler — 07:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Matches which have occurred are a matter of historical record ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough... But still how can it be possible to copyright listing matches — chandler — 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They are regarded as the intellectual property of the respective leagues. Fortunately, I think it's just the Premier League, Football League, Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League who reserve this right, so we can still list the fixtures of Serie A and La Liga clubs. – PeeJay 07:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We couldn't do a "PES" and list the matches "North London vs. West Midlands City, 15 October, English Top Division", and get away with it could we?.... Still think its really strange that you could copyright fixtures :P — chandler — 07:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly that would look completely ridiculous, and could also be considered to be misleading readers by including false information (ie there is no such team as "West Midlands City") ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, just trying to beat the system ;) — chandler — 07:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Any legal system that would allow you to copyright something like that is a stupid legal system. Just more proof that Britain is Stupid. Also, just for the sake of argument, how can news agencies discuss upcoming fixtures? Surely they don't have to pay thousands of pounds in order to say "Rooney will miss the following games due to injury: Arsenal (A), Man City (H), etc." Again, if that's the case, I have a punch in the crotch with somebody's name on it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

News agencies can discuss upcoming fixtures because they pay the Premier League (and other leagues) exorbitant amounts of money for the license to publish the fixtures. – PeeJay 08:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess we'll have to settle for filling in matches after they happen, maybe we could do something like this. (Here after the first match has been played) and ofc Link to the clubs page where they keep the fixtures, or if the club dont have them to the Premier Leagues page — chandler — 08:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming Premier League Fixtures are the intellectual property of the Premier League. For upcoming Premier League fixtures see Liverpoolfc.tv

Some related discussion here ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What if you'd not specify which league or which date, just have it say "Hull - Chelsea" etc. — chandler — 08:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Would that not be tantamount to subterfuge? – PeeJay 09:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are so desperate to get the fixtures onto WP (seemingly by any means necessary) in the first place. I mean, it's not like there aren't 273 other places on the web where fans could get the info...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: a simple thing to do would be to provide a link to the fixtures on each team's 2008-09 season page. Like this: Hull City A.F.C. season 2008-09#External links. We just need to decide which source to use as standard (and where to place the link in the article, and how to format it, and whether this is a good idea...). Beve (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the UK now - there's a thread on a well-known English football forum about a French High Court ruling here - fchd (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As a Swedish law student I'm certainly not an expert on British intellectual property law, but I would be very surprised if prohibiting people from reporting on upcoming fixtures could be legal. My guess is that what's prohibited is reproducing fixture lists for commercial use, and not forbidding mass-media and others to report the fixtures on a non-commercial basis. Might I also point out that even if something is copyrighted it's still allowed to quote or in other ways use parts of the protected material (for educational purposes it's even allowed to copy pages and pages of books). I might also point out that there is no legal form to achieve copyright (such as patents for example) so anyone can "copyright" anything, if a judge would agree is another matter... I'd say we go about as usual. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a news story about this very subject. I quote some relevant chunks:

“ The Football League wins a case against Littlewoods in 1959, successfully claiming copyright in the printed fixtures of their clubs ”

and

“ when [BSaD, a Watford fansite] received what Grant and Rowson felt were threatening legal letters demanding the removal of offensive content they were shocked. They refused, their server was contacted and BSaD was taken off the internet until Grant and Rowson backed down. The heinous material that caused the problems? Watford FC's fixtures for 2005-06. "We were extremely surprised and did feel bullied," Rowson says. "We do the fanzine for the love of writing about football, with about 1,000 regular hits weekly. We never thought the outside world was even aware of us." That was reckoning without the keen commercial enforcers at DataCo. This is a company owned by the Premier and Football Leagues, whose job is to charge for publication of the fixture lists, as well as the increasing volume of other data, including match statistics, to which the clubs claim copyright. The operation makes £7m-£8m for English and Scottish professional clubs, paid by 22,000 newspapers, bookmakers, websites and broadcasters here and worldwide. The fee is standard: £266 plus VAT to print the fixtures of one English club. Newspapers printing the fixtures of all clubs, plus a delivery fee, pay around £6,000 plus VAT to DataCo. BSaD, oblivious, printing their own club's forthcoming fixtures, were asked for £266 plus VAT or told they must take them down. ”

So in essence the concept of the clubs claiming copyright over their fixtures has been upheld in a court of law, albeit fifty years ago..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out that all the people arguing in favour of including fixtures seem to be doing so on the basis of "I think the system is stupid", "someone might be able to challenge it" or "I can't see how this could work" - the quote above proves that the leagues have, in a court of law, successfully proven their case for owning copyright on the fixtures and therefore we must abide by that, however "stupid" we think the system might be...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris sums it up well. We may not like the situation, but we are bound by it. The fixtures are copyrighted, and the ability to copyright them has been upheld in court. Thus edits adding them need to be reverted. The law is an ass, but contesting it should be done by joining a lobby group such as the Football Supporters Federation or writing to your MP, not on Wikipedia, where the goal is produce content which can be freely reproduced without copyright wrangling. NB: See [4] for the full BSaD story. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems no-one here have read the actual cases (I haven't, but I'm certainly curious), so no-one can say how the copyright of British football fixtures are to be interpreted. If a court has upheld the copyright in the case of a League club (who for example has a contractual relation with the League), it doesn't necessarily apply in our case since judgments can have broader or more narrow applications on other areas or subjects. Even if some form of copyright protects this material, the UK have freedoms of speech and information etc, so discussing or writing about future fixtures can impossibly be all-together prohibited. All we know is 1. the fixtures are not completely free (in some way copyrighted) and 2. the fixtures are not completely protected (so that they can never be uttered on Wikipedia). Now, we could take the cautious approach that ChrisTheDude advocates, that we might infringe on a diabolical copyright, so we'd better not risk it, or we can go about our business thinking that the copyright couldn't in a sensible society apply to us (which I would guess it doesn't) and wait for the League to come to us if they think we infringe on their copyright. On a side-note, if we were to have this preemptive approach shouldn't we stop referring to clubs and competitions by their name (both Manchester United and Euro 2008 are protected)? Sebisthlm (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Material copyrighted as "all rights reserved" is incompatible with the GFDL. Discussion of fixtures is not prohibited, but publishing them in full is. Manchester United and Euro 2008 are trademarks, not copyrights. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You're of course completely right (I was perhaps a bit careless with my examples), but that doesn't affect my point, since trademark rights are even stricter. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how trademarks, as symbols of the origin of a product or service, are relevant here. We are not claiming to be a football club or tournament, nor are we claiming endorsement.

Playing devil's advocate by publishing the fixture lists and waiting for a takedown notice is not an option, simply from a licensing point of view, as every page states "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" at the bottom. In any case the default position of the Wikimedia Foundation is to comply with any copyright requests. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) This is what happens when you make careless examples. I'm not asserting that trademark rules are applicable here, I'm just saying that trademarked and copyrighted material both are protected and that we despite this protection use trademarked material. Since the legality of using these fixtures are uncertain, I don't think the way to deal with this issue is to apply self-censorship as a preemptive response to a legal issue we at this point can't evaluate properly. I haven't read the GNU Free Documentation License either but I'm not saying that we should continue doing something illegal and stop only when we get busted. I only say that, as we don't know if we are infringing on copyrighted material, it's not our job or in our interest to unilaterally censor ourself by judging our actions illegal. Sebisthlm (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the legality of using these fixtures (based on case law) is not uncertain - it's a breach of copyright, and by having this discussion here we are recognising that copyright. Unless someone wants to take a test case against DataCo, I think we need to act with extreme caution, and not list them. - fchd (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to argue with apparent intellectual property law experts, I'm not informed enough on the subject at hand or what kind of company DataCo is (it seems to be something like SPECTRE...). Let's just say I'm not convinced that this is as clear-cut as you seem to think. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Watford fans case, DataCo don't seem to have a problem with publishing results. Their problem seems to be with printing upcoming league fixtures. Therefore shouldn't the upcoming league fixtures just be hidden and then added when the result is known? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the emails from DataCo says: I can also confirm that there is no problem with showing fixtures and their results once the match has been played. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't just hide fixtures because they are easily visibile by looking at the source code. They must not exist on this site in any form. – PeeJay 19:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems we agree that we're not going to test the relevant authorities and anyway case law also suggests WP would have to pay to use them. So I presume we should just delete fixtures when we see them. Anyone know what the copyright is one Cup fixtures? Peanut4 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The F.A. do not enforce any copyright over FA Cup/Trophy/Vase fixtures. Don't know about the Football League Cup though. - fchd (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume the FA run the first three, and the Football League run the League Cup and Football League Trophy? If it follows from above, it wouldn't surprise me if they copyrighted those fixtures. I've not looked yet, but guess last week's draw is at Football League Cup 2008-09. Peanut4 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should test the water! hehe, as Sebisthlm said "Might I also point out that even if something is copyrighted it's still allowed to quote or in other ways use parts of the protected material", can't this have some similarity in quoting books, or writing articles about books where you probably have to use copyrighted material as the source/reference... Also if things like non-commercial has any relevance, a perhaps similar case (though I've never studied law so I might be wrong) I know of just because I'm a big hp-fan is a case between Warner bros. and RDR where as I have understood it seemed to be Ok when I was posted freely on a website but they've sued when I was suppose to be printed into a book (though the last I've heard no verdict have come in this case yet) — chandler — 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we shouldn't. It could get Wikipedia in all sorts of trouble if it's seen by DataCo. – PeeJay 20:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Media outlets pay several thousands of pounds to pay for the licence. There's no test case to guide how much court damages could be. Then you've got court costs on top. The fixture lists aren't available under a free lience, so I can't see why and how WP can use them in the current format. Peanut4 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The following comes from an email I received from the Football League one year ago on this very topic (expands on some of the above): --Jameboy (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

“ The issue of copyright in fixture lists was resolved by the High Court in the reported case of The Football League Limited v Littlewoods Pools Ltd. A copy of the case report can be found under case reference [1959] 2 All ER 546. The simple rational for the court's decision was that The League was entitled to copyright in the chronological list as a result of the fact that it was produced by the skill, labour, judgment and ingenuity of The League. A fixture is no longer copyrighted when the match has kicked off it is now a matter of public record and history. The League also acquires further intellectual property rights through the Database Directive. ”

Here is a letter to a Football Forum site I found with little difficulty via Google just now and sent I believe this time last year which is what WP can expect to receive I guess! Tmol42 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

“ We write on behalf of the Football Data Co Limited which is the appointed licensee of the FA Premier League, the Football League, the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League ("the Leagues") in respect of the licensing of certain intellectual property rights of the Leagues, including those in the fixture lists for this season August 2007 - May 2008 ("the Fixture Lists"), for use by third parties.

We have noticed that your website http://www.arsenalfcweb.co.uk/Fixtures.php is displaying Football Fixtures. In order to display the Fixture Lists you must obtain the necessary licence from the Press Association.

We wish to make you aware that we have a good faith belief that your present use is an infringement of the Leagues' legal rights and that all such unauthorised use must cease immediately. Please confirm by return your agreement to this and give your undertaking to cease all such infringements on any and all of your web sites. Pending your response the Leagues' rights are fully reserved.

The Leagues have appointed the Press Association as their official agent for the licensing and distribution of the Fixtures List. If you have inadvertently infringed our clients' copyright please take immediate steps to contact the Press Association (Email customer.services@pa.press.net) to obtain the appropriate licence. Please confirm to us by e-mail that you are now seeking an appropriate licence. Because of the time sensitive nature of the Fixture Lists you are required to remove them immediately from your site pending the granting of a licence.

We thank you for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Stubbs

NetResult A Division of Projector NetResult Ltd Mulberry House, 583 Fulham Road, London UK SW6 5UA

Head Office: Projector NetResult Ltd, Harley House, 2 St Johns Street, Hereford, UK HR1 2NB

”

Bot category to project population

A couple months ago someone (I can't remember who) compiled an index of all the football related categories together to show how many articles we had amassed, and also how many of these weren't marked with the project page. As I edit articles, I still very frequently encounter articles, and major ones about leagues and federations, that aren't marked with the WP Tag. I was just wondering if anyone had a bot that we could get to just go and auto-tag all of the articles in football related categories; it'd be the easiest and most efficient method of tagging them all. matt91486 (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion; there is actually a page somewhere where you can put in requests for bots, but I can't remember where...Sorry. GiantSnowman 01:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is at WP:BOTREQ. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, cool - does anyone have that list handy? I can try to dig it up if no one does. matt91486 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, Elissonbot was created specifically for this purpose. Johan Elisson isn't quite so active these days, but it'd be worth asking him. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ShepBot was also created for this task and just finished up a WikiProject Composers run; so I'm free. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've hopefully delivered all of the pertinent information to Shep, so this should get all of the articles tagged for the project matt91486 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Qualification for Champions League berth 2008-09

I have today added a note about the different way FC Twente qualified for the UEFA Champions League 2008-09 but it was reverted almost immediately. I have now put it back in a different format, but am sure it will get reverted again pretty sharpish. What is the general view out there on having a footnote in the article about this? The article before implied that the runners-up of the Eredivisie are the second placed team, which would be Ajax, and therefore incorrect. - fchd (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A footnote seems OK. D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Layout

I was just looking at this. The colours seem OK, but then if you click "Show" the colours look "messy" as such, and don't exactly look professional. I notice, by clicking [edit] that each match is in it's own seperate box. I'm no good at templates, but maybe making a change to Template:Fb cm3 match would solve this problem. D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Anyone who can lend a hand at this discussion? It will be much appreciated, as you may well know more about this person than we do, but at the moment, the article completely fails WP:BIO. Many thanks, Lradrama 19:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article, about a rather dubious "player" Zlatko Kartal has now been deleted. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Bradford City Peer Review

The History of Bradford City A.F.C. has been at peer review for a couple of weeks now. Jameboy has helped to improve the article. I'm trying to get it towards FAC, and wondered if there's any more editors who can help out with the review. Thanks. Peanut4 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit of F.C. Copenhagen

F.C. Copenhagen has needed a copy-edit since January. Last time the article was GA-nomineed, which it failed, a copy-edit was required in the review. Since the article has been listed, but nothing have happend. kalaha 09:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to let people know.........

The Miracle of Geneva has gone to deletion review..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Same person twice

Johannes Gandil and Johannes Gandil (athlete) are the same person. --necronudist (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect into Johannes Gandil? GiantSnowman 16:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the redirect is useless... nobody will ever search Johannes Gandil (athlete) instead of the simple Johannes Gandil... --necronudist (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't delete it as the article history needs to be kept to comply with GFDL. I wouldn't worry about it, redirects are cheap. Qwghlm (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I just added {{R from merge}} to it as a reminder. Also, there are incoming links. Woody (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF Club Teams Task Force

I was noticing the sad state of the Central American and Carribean leagues and seasons. I thought that a task force for the purpose of updating CONCACAF Club pages would be good. Bornagain4 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Third-party ownership

Following the whole Tevez/Mascherano debacle, it was revealed today that Jo of CSKA Moscow cannot yet sign for Man City because of third-party ownership; as this is an increasingly common phenomenon in football should we have an article on it - Third-party ownership in association football or similar - or is it not worth it? GiantSnowman 17:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that would be a good idea for an article. There's probably plenty of info about the topic out there, so you should be able to source it adequately. Go for it! – PeeJay 17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks PeeJay, I'm going to have a crack at creating the article then, I'll let you all know when written something. Cheers, GiantSnowman 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been bold and created the article, it's pretty basic at the moment and so any help in improving the article would be greatly appreciated! GiantSnowman 17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a controverse and quite foggy argument, a sandbox preview would have been a better thing. --necronudist (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Spanish league question

Quick question on the Spanish leagues - am I correct in assuming that Segunda División is the lowest level of individual player notability and Tercera División is the level that much be attained at some point historically for club notability? Looking at the leagues, that's where I'd logically set it, anyway, I just wanted to see if that was a general consensus or if I was crazy. matt91486 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Primera and Segunda are notable for players, and Primera, Segunda, Segunda B and Tercera are notable for clubs. – PeeJay 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blimey!

I've just discovered that the WP College American Football project considers any match between two notable teams to be worthy of its own individual article. Can you imagine if that was applied to "our" football? You'd have things like Category:Matches between Rochdale and Bury...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Really?! That's insane, surely! And it's not even senior football. If that was applied to association football, you'd get "Matches between Cardiff University and the University of the West of England"! – PeeJay 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, those aren't notable teams. You can't really compare US college football, with its 50,000+ crowds and live TV coverage, to uni sports in the UK...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus there are only 120 teams in the top division of American College football, while there are thousands of soccer (football) all over the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.167.0 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the various bowls, e.g. Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton (the rest I don't know or have forgotten), or are there some other general game articles? Peanut4 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Their guidelines say that any regular season, post season or bowl game is notable enough to potentially have its own article..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Any regular season game. I don't even think NFL teams have this. I.e. see 2007 Miami Dolphins season and specifically the game-by-game scores from 2007 Miami Dolphins season#Week 1: at Washington Redskins. Peanut4 (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The explanation I got was "Wikipedia College Football is a project on American football at the college/university level that has guidelines that considers all regular season games, conference championship games, and bowl games deserving of an article. The logic is that when two notable teams play each other, the result is a noteworthy event." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"when two notable teams play each other, the result is a noteworthy event" Wow!! So if notable Alex Ferguson and notable Arsene Wenger have a phone call, is that a notable phone call? I think their logic is flawed. Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

They also have a guideline for articles on well known individual "plays". The soccer equivalent for that would be to have an article on something like Gordon Banks' save from Pelé. The only one I can think of that we have got is Hand of God goal...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Even so, it seems a bit ridiculous! GiantSnowman 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Worryingly, they're notable college teams include ones that play in the NIAA, which held last years final at a 5,000 capacity stadium. Time to include conference games me thinks. ;-)josh (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I create an article on the 2008 South Wales Varsity rugby union match? – PeeJay 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If these are notable, then I would suggest on the same lines any cup final of a notable competition, or maybe even play-off final is a notable match. 2008 FA Trophy Final anyone? Peanut4 (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we even have any set notability criteria for association football matches? Personally, I think that only finals of competitions open to notable clubs should be considered notable, perhaps with exceptions for matches of exceptional historical significance. – PeeJay 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have a good point there. Maybe time to set some criteria if we don't already have some. Peanut4 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the matches of historical significance area is where we'll have the hardest time deciding. I know that I personally think the Battle of Nuremberg article applies in that situation, but there are some other editors on the project who feel equally strongly the other direction. So we might have trouble explicitly undertaking what historical significance means. matt91486 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Very true. See Bayern Munich v Norwich City and its related AFD. Peanut4 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been to quite a few Hull City games that definitely weren't notable. Beve (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion help

Hello all; those that follow AfDs will see that I've been a fool and created two articles which fail WP:ATHLETE (although clearly at the time I thought they would scrape through) which can be found here and here, while the AfDs can be found here here and here. Now, to save everyone's time and effort, is there anyway that I, as article creator, can get the articles speedily deleted? Cheers in advance! GiantSnowman 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are the sole contributor you can tag them {{db-author}} and they will be speedied..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, speedy deletion criterion G7 ({{db-g7}}) will suffice here. – PeeJay 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted them both and closed the AfDs per your request. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, just thought I'd save everyone another four days of debate! GiantSnowman 21:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot tagging help

Hey WikiProject Football, when I tag articles for projects I give them a list of categories that are under the main category and have them filter it to just the categories they want. It might not seem possible but Category:World War II is a subcategory of Category:Thailand, and a bot will find it! There were a little 375,000 articles under Category:Football (soccer). Please filter the category list here and here for ones that don't belong. Dial-up users each page is 200 KB and will take a long time to load for you; be careful. Thank you very much! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I scanned the first list, and didn't notice anything that didn't belong. I may have missed something. It might be worth having a couple people go through each one. I'll let someone else do the second and/or check the first. matt91486 (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Two colours

Every article on teams have two different coloured uniforms shown, but no link explaining why. Is Germany wearing the white one or the red one in the Europe soccer cup this year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.155.231 (talk • contribs)

Why would a link explain something so trivial as first and second kits... Is there team sport in which teams don't have a reserve kit in the case of facing a team with the same home colours? — chandler — 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds silly, but he might have a point, after all we are meant to write articles for people who know nothing about the subject, so at least some sort of description might be needed. John Hayes^talk 09:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems daft to have to insert a block of text into every article about a team, or even into the infobox, though. Maybe we could put a heading of "colours" or something above the kit diagrams and wikilink it to Kit (association football), where the concept of colour clashes/kit changes is mentioned......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Added links to first,second and third "colours" in {{infobox football club}} — chandler — 10:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone who knows nothing about the subject might be confused when teams wear 'away' strips in a home match. Should we have first, second and third instead? Home and away strips don't really mean what they did twenty years ago. It's more marketing-orientated now so perhaps distinguishing between most commonly worn, i.e., first(-choice), second(-choice) and home/away. •Oranje•·Talk 10:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think that's a good solution. John Hayes^talk 10:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are able to use the parameter pattern_name1/2/3 (I added it some days ago on a similar request from here) though the default still is Home/Away/Third this could easily be changed to First/Second/Third... Though I still think most clubs refer to them as Hom and Away — chandler — 10:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also the issue of when a third kit is an alternative away kit, or when it is a primary European kit. For example in recent years Bayern Munich have had European kits which they played in even at home, instead of their normal kit. This addition seems to allow for that. John Hayes^talk 10:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you can do the pattern_name3 = Alternative away or pattern_name3 = European etc, but as you can see here it might wrap for some ppl (Alternative away and European Away wraps for me) — chandler — 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Chandler. Could you please make the same change to {{Infobox National football team}}?

FIFA Altitude Ban section/article Redundancy.

I am posting this as I am having an issue with some redundant article and subsection. The part I am talking about is FIFA altitude ban is almost completely redundant to FIFA#FIFA_altitude_ban. As mentioned here at Talk:FIFA#FIFA_Altitude_Ban_section.2Farticle_Redundancy. that this is a violation of WP:Fork. I have opened the discussion at Talk:FIFA#FIFA_Altitude_Ban_section.2Farticle_Redundancy. to discuss what shall we do about this problem and I would like to see comments directed there. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 10:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bots again

In case anyone had missed it, DyceBot is going through any article which has years in its title, and replacing dashes with endashes - e.g. moving European Cup 1955-56 to European Cup 1955–56. However, it is not doing anything helpful like fixing all the broken links on templates that it leaves, e.g. all but ones of the links on {{Fußball-Bundesliga seasons}}. Argh! пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldnt be that hard to go through templates with notepad and "replace - with – or –"... though might be some easier way than doing it all by hand if some ppl have tools or bots for that — chandler — 11:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the seasons template, to endashes, though the latest 4 seasons had not been moved so i left them to link with -'s — chandler — 11:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it actually breaking links in templates, or just leaving them pointing to a redirect at the old hyphenated name? I had a look at its contributions, and it seems to be fixing double redirects. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is just leaving the templates with redirects. Still annoying (to me anyway). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Whilst not actually breaking the links, it does stop the current season appear in bold in the template. If you compare 1890-91 in English football with 2005–06 in English football for example, you will see that in the former, the current season is in bold in the "Seasons in English football" template at the foot, whereas the latter is not. Also, it seems to be fixing a problem that didn't exist and causing unnecessary re-directs. If I type 2005-06 in English football into an article that link will now redirect to the new title. I can't see what was wrong with the original title. As someone else said recently, there seems to be too much obsession with trivial details about dashes rather than adding meaningful content to WP. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Beve (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has raised the template problem on the bot operator's talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone outside Wikipedia use these pesky en-dashes these days? The BBC certainly don't, Sky don't appear to, and the (limited) print sources I have on my desk at the moment don't either. - fchd (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Former Toronto FC Players

Can someone take a look at Former Toronto FC Players? The standard for hockey teams is to make full lists of players (eg, List of Washington Capitals players), but I don't know what to do with this one.-Wafulz (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Toronto FC players already exists for players past and present; however, most clubs do have seperate articles detailing the playing career of players who meet certain standards (won a competition, internationals, certain number of appearances etc.), which should be located at List of Toronto FC players. GiantSnowman 16:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FIFA U-15 World Cup

FIFA U-15 World Cup has got an article half a week ago, but the FIFA website doesn't say anything about it. Is this hoax? SMARTSKAFT | ¿ 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any evidence for a U-15 World Cup yet. The best evidence against is this list of FIFA sponsored events from 2007 to 2014. --Scottmsg (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All I've managed to find is this [5] so far. However, given the lack of any information available, it does beg the question, whether the competition is notable or not. Peanut4 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Or if it even exists... – PeeJay 19:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. If it doesn't exist, it's a hoax; if it does exist, it doesn't seem notable. Both reasons for deletion. Peanut4 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If it exists, it's notable, 'cause it's a FIFA tournament. But I think it doesn't exist... --necronudist (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the lack of evidence, I'm inclined to agree with you. Delete the sucker. – PeeJay 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:G-14 clubs

I noticed this category in amongst the list of football sub-cats. Should it be put up for Cfd given that the group no longer exists. josh (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we could move it to Clubs of the former G-14 or something; it's still a valid historical grouping and it might be presentism to delete it outright. matt91486 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Are English Conference National players considered notable?

James Knowles (footballer) for instance...

Apart from the fact that the article needs a complete rewrite, is this a speedy delete or AfD candidate? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not. Head towards AfD, I think...GiantSnowman

There's a whole lot more created by User:Farsleyceltic. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just prodded them all. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 18:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

On the general point, some clubs in the Conference National are fully professional. That would make players notable if they played for one of the fully professional clubs against another (but not if they only played for or against one of the semi-professional clubs). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ATHLETE says that. I'm sure it's for footballers in fully professional leagues, which the Conference isn't. Peanut4 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Peanut's correct, of course - the league must be fully-pro, not just the team. GiantSnowman 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Having read WP:ATHLETE, I agree with you. This would mean players in leagues like the Scottish Football League First Division wouldn't necessarily qualify, because there is usually at least one semi-professional club at that level. Scottish players would have to play at the Scottish Premier League level to achieve notability with that standard. Having said that, it appears all ten clubs next season will be fully professional. Stirling Albion were the only semi-professional club last season and were relegated. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you define if a league is fully professional? I know of two players last season in League One and Two who were part-timers. Does this mean that those two leagues are not longer fully professional? --Jimbo^[online] 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, surely nine professional out of ten clubs in a league would give enough reason to justify inclusion? What happens if there are ten and one is relegated, replaced by a part-time team? Should we delete all player articles? •Oranje•·Talk 13:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because they have still played in a fully professional league, even if it isn't anymore. John Hayes^talk 16:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that consensus had been reached on this issue which, looking at WP:FOOTYN, is as long as the player's club is fully professional in a national level division... Bigmike (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which would make players who have played for a professional club in the Conference National notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was reached on WP:FOOTYN but hasn't been accepted as policy by WP:BIO. I think. So WP:ATHLETE is still in place and still the notability threshold for footballers. Peanut4 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But WP:BIO is unprotected, and we have established a strong consensus at WP:FOOTYN. Who is to say that we shouldn't publish it at BIO? Kevin McE (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. And I think User:English peasant would agree too. Peanut4 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, because consensus should always trump something that was just invented one day by a lone user, but I'm tired of making the same point. If anyone else feels consensus should rule they can try and get the issue fixed and I'll support them all the way, then return to contribute regularly at XfD. If not, there's plenty else for me to be doing. Regards EP 13:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mario Santana

Could an admin protect this page and remove all the pathetic drivel please. Cheers EP 10:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Angelo (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Scorelines

Is there a preferred standard for writing scorelines in articles? I tend to write the winning team's score first (3–1, for example): Stevenage faced Chelsea at Hindlegs Park, losing 3–1 to the Londoners. I've seen both 3–1s and 1–3s, however. - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I write the winning team's score first, but only because that's the style I see most often in the media. – PeeJay 11:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I was asking because the following doesn't follow suit in an article that lists scores winner-first, but I think it's clearer as-is: Blackpool's most notable achievement is winning the 1953 FA Cup Final, the so-called "Matthews Final", in which they beat Bolton Wanderers 4–3, overturning a 1–3 deficit in the closing stages of the game.. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably correct in that situation. You just have to decide what sounds right in any given situation. – PeeJay 12:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I wouldn't use Londoners as it assumes that the reader knows which of the two teams is from London, and even that London is a city not a team. I know it seems silly, but we are meant to assume the reader knows nothing about the subject. John Hayes^talk 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How would the reader be confused as to which team is from London from that sentence? It's probably poor grammar on my part. , and lost 3–1 reads better, but it was just an example. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well they would have to know that Chelsea is in London, and Stevenage isn't. John Hayes^talk 12:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If the sentence were Stevenage faced Chelsea and lost 3-1 to the Londoners, it would be quite clear that Chelsea are from London, as Stevenage (the subject of the sentence, to get all grammatical) cannot lose to themselves. Madcynic (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

SJFA articles

I'm a tad over my head in the Scottish Junior Football Association articles. Big Jim Fae Scotland, who laid the foundations of the topic, hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 2007, so it's largely been a one-man show. The main issue is updating the memberships of each division in the relevant articles and templates and also club infoboxes. Any assistance would be appreciated. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Midfield section

Can anybody help with people constantly changing the page above please? i have done it far better in the last couple of days and plenty of others have in the past, as it simply needs it. Yet people keep changing it back to obvious wrong/misleading or even not adequate information. There is far more to consider than whats on that page and whilst Football is the easiest game in the world to know/understand/learn, different tactics/abilitis and even different jobs the same player can do can cause a lot of confusion, which is why it's not the easiest to get right. But when better information keeps getting reversed back or even changed again to sometimes even more obviously wrong/misleading details, something should be done to stop it. Again, i don't care too much about the time it's taken but when somebody does try to help and improves something, at the very least they shouldn't have to read the old, wrong information that was the only reason they changed it in the first place when coming to have a look. Would appreciate any help. Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.114.86 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you use edit summaries to explain your changes, and especially if you provide sources/references, there's less chance of your edits being reverted. Beve (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Standard for group results sections

I've noticed that every article for each notable competition seems to have a different way of displaying results. Some (like UEFA Champions League 07-08) have the table of fixtures next to the standings, which I personally like because it takes up less space. Some have the individual results from each match, including goalscorers, refs, etc. Some just don't show the results, only the standings themselves. Shouldn't there be a standardized way of doing this? I suggest just copying from the UEFA one with the table at the side. What are your thoughts? --iTocapa ^iChat 23:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Also, what about the order of stats in the standings table? I've seen points first or points last, W-D-L or W-L-D, goal differential or no goal differential, points bolded or points not bolded, etc.? I think there should also be a standard for this. --iTocapa ^iChat 23:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice on season naming

Hello, I am totally clueless when it comes to sport so I need some help. Somebody created a bunch of articles about A Lyga seasons (top soccer league in Lithuania), but named them as [Year] LFF Lyga. I do not think that's correct. LFF is Lithuanian Football Federation and it runs the A Lyga. So what would be the correct naming? [Year] LFF season? Should LFF be spelled out? [Year] A Lyga season? Something else? Renata (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's because some articles cover all the LFF Lygas, not just the A Lyga (an example would be covering three leagues in The Football League 2007-08 rather than having separate ones for each league (e.g. Football League One 2007-08) etc. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying current naming is ok? Renata (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware yes, but the other division's data needs to be added to the articles to make sense of it - 2005 LFF Lyga is one example where it is properly done. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And "lyga" is ok too? Shoudn't it be replaced with "season"? Renata (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Scottish Cup and Tennent-Caledonian Cup

I'm looking at some of the minor competitions played by West Bromwich Albion. Are the Anglo-Scottish Cup and Tennent-Caledonian Cup one and the same? According to my books, Albion played in the Anglo-Scottish Cup in 1975-76 and 1976-77, and in the Tennent-Caledonian Cup in 1977-78 and 1978-79. Both competitions involved English and Scottish clubs, so I wondered if it was the same competition by a different (sponsored) name? --Jameboy (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they are different competitions. The two ran concurrently, Anglo-Scottish Cup from 1975–1981, Tennent-Caledonian from 1976–1979. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Alves

Does anyone know if Daniel Alves' move to Barcelona has been completed? Several Sky Sports articles ([6] and [7]) seem to think he has, but there has been no mention of it from the club itself ([8]). Anyone know...? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first Sky story says he'll actually write his name on the contract when he returns from international duty, which is still ongoing. Also, Sevilla's website mentions him here along with other of their players on int'l duty in S.America as if he were still their player, and again, there's no mention on their site of any transfer. Think that probably comes down to "not yet". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see evidence in both Barcelona and Sevilla articles, so he should be considered as a Sevilla player until an official announcement is provided. Sources provided from websites such as Sky Sports and Goal.com are simply invalid, since a signing is to be considered completed only once one of the parties confirms it. --Angelo (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Manchester City Task Force

I have proposed a task force on Manchester City over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Manchester_City_Football_Club trying to gauge interest. If you are interested please add your name Paul  Bradbury 09:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wartime guest players

Should players who guested for teams during WWII have the relevant team details in the infobox? And if so how, the same as loan (i.e "→ Wikipedia United (guest)"?) GiantSnowman 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's how I've done it in article on Eddie Latheron that I have recently created. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the best way, although remember wartime appearances don't count as official league ones. That said I don't like putting zeroes in the column - perhaps putting dashes: — (—) which implies not applicable may be a better solution in the apps/goals appearances. Qwghlm (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the dashes actually make it look like no appearances were registered, rather than implying "n/a". Maybe the data should be put in italics, with a footnote explaining the unofficial nature of the matches, or something...........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of italics in the infobox. And I think with the number of appearances, it would be very difficult to read or spot. Since the infobox is for league fixtures, I would either put 0 (0), or simply leave the line blank, and explain the number of appearances in the text. Peanut4 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Djln, who has done a fair bit of work on wartime footballers, added appearances to Billy Hughes (footballer born 1918), formatted as seen (except I de-italicised guest and wartime), including appearances for the owning club as well as for guests. Don't know whether their figures are just league games or what they are. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If we can accept appearances in various minor leagues (see e.g. Steve Claridge), then appearances in the wartime leagues must be acceptable, although I think a footnote should be added. I can see there would be problems in verifying these figures as they are not included in most "official" records. My Southampton reference books refer to the wartime leagues with details of appearances and goals on a season by season basis, although they are not summarized, so I've never bothered to include them in infoboxes. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, it just seems obvious that all a players appearances should be cataloged, regardless of who he plays for, as long as the player meets the notability criteria from somewhere in his career. matt91486 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagging images

What tag do I use on an image where the copyright info is incorrect? I'm pretty sure this image hasn't got the proper copyright info as it's been uploaded from Yahoo. --Jimbo^[online] 10:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

{{imagecopyvio|withtheURLhere}} - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class introduced

Hi guys. Just a quick note to say C-Class has been introduced between Start and B Classes. However, it is not yet in Template:Football. Would anyone object to it being added as part of the template? D.M.N. (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I see nothing about it here. Buc (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It exists here at least, under <noinclude></noinclude> — chandler — 08:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, and discussions on that page. D.M.N. (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lineups again

There is a bit of a discussion here about the EURO 2008 line-ups. UEFA provide two different line-ups in the press section on their site, one that is given out prior to the match, and one that is created after the match has played. The latter will show what positions the players actually played in, while the former is probably created from some info the respective team give UEFA. The discussion is whether to include the pre-match lineups with the match report or the postmatch lineups. As you can see on the talk page, I prefer the latter version, but my argument has not been rewared with a reply by User:PeeJay2K3. Please note that this is not a personal attack on PeeJay, but rather an attempt to reach a broader consensus. If this has been discussed elsewhere, I am unaware of it and would greatly appreciate if you could show me that discussion. TIA. Madcynic (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to the question you posed at the earlier discussion. I didn't see it at the time, but I have now responded. Anyway, I think this is a fairly new issue, as I only started to see lineup images on here around the time of the 2006 World Cup, so it's unlikely that standards have been officially laid down regarding lineup images. Nevertheless, the standard I have been following, albeit my own, seems to be working OK. – PeeJay 14:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So you keep saying. Please don't take offense, but I'd like to hear some other opinion other than ours :-) Madcynic (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep the early lineups, as it's always been this way (I mean, not only in Wikipedia...even before it ever exists). --necronudist (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It would seem logical to me to use the actual line-ups rather than what was predicted before the match. Beve (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 3183 articles assigned to this project, or 10.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Result maps

I've noticed that in this image that Russia does not inherit the USSR's results. However, the results table at the competition article does follow FIFA's/UEFA's habit of assigning Russia those results. Any idea how to resolve this inconsistency? Madcynic (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Change the image. Simple as. – PeeJay 14:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But if Russia "inherits" the results of the USSR then so should Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia etc. By the same token, the Czech Republic and Slovakia would take on Czechoslovakia's results and all the countries from the former Yugoslavia would gain Yugoslavia's results. With the large number of changes to the political landscape in Eastern Europe over the years I would be kind of dubious about how meaningful such a map would be. You could almost do with two maps, one showing the countries as they were in 1960 when the championships started, and one for 2008. --Jameboy (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. The debate is not which country inherits which honor. Fifa/Uefa decide that and questioning/doing it differently comes close to OR, I think. The debate is whether those inherited honors should be added to this map. Madcynic (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Incorrect. According to UEFA records, only Russia is the rightful successor to the records of the former USSR. Similarly, the Czech Republic retains the records of Czechoslovakia, and Serbia (formerly Serbia & Montenegro) retains the records of Yugoslavia. – PeeJay 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

League name changes

Am I right in thinking that when a league sells its sponsorship rights to a company, the league's actual/official/legal name doesn't actually change as such, but rather the company buys the right to have its name "displayed" as part of the league's title? So, for example, to say "in 19xx the Isthmian League changed its name to the Ryman League" is not technically correct, as the league is still officially/legally the Isthmian League but merely operating under a "trading name"......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We were wondering the same thing over at WP:RU a couple of months ago with regard to the proper names of the Magners League, Guinness Premiership and Heineken Cup. Would be interesting to find out what the answer is, since everyone over at WP:RU was adamant that we should use the current (sponsored) names regardless of what the league's legal/official/actual name is. – PeeJay 14:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was searching to see if there was a policy on this recently, and the nearest I could find was an essay for pool fans. I have always taken the line of avoiding the names of commercial sponsors unless those names are intrinsic to understanding a reasonable concise reference, as they would be in, for example, cycling teams, or reference to the Watney's Cup, but are not in talking about leagues. My reasoning, however, is not as technical as CtD's: it's simply that the sponsors are not giving me, or Wikipedia, any money, so why should we advertise them. Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The ephemeral nature of sponsored names means the unsponsored name is the only sensible choice in most cases, unless perhaps a competition has never had another name. Otherwise you'd have to work out which of Milk Cup, Rumbelows Cup, Littlewoods Cup, Coca-Cola Cup, Worthington Cup or Carling Cup to use every time you mentioned the League Cup. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to the original query, wording such as "rebranded as" or "became known as" or something would sidestep the problem. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The most recent Isthmian League Handbook I have to hand is 2002-03 (still in the Ryman sponorship era though) Under the Companies Act 1985 Rules & Regulations, rule 1 is "The name of the Company is "THE ISTHMIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED" (their caps). Later, in the "Rules of the Isthmian League" section, rule 1(b) under Nomenclature & Constitution includes "The name of this Combination of Clubs is The Isthmian Football League and shall be known by such name as required by any sponsor and approved by the Management Committee". On my website, I always refer to the leagues by their unsponsored names, but am collating sponsor details to show on league summary pages to give the sponsors the credit for putting their money into football. - fchd (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the rugby competitions it definitely seemed to fit there, however unless there is a need for disambiguation purposes it would seem to be wrong in football. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

American college soccer teams

College teams in articles on American 'soccer' players are listed in the infobox under 'Youth Teams', but should one link to the University itself, or (if applicable) to the University sports team's individual article - for example to University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee or UW-Milwaukee Panthers? GiantSnowman 22:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conversation here might be relevant. I would imagine the link should be to the universities' sporting arm: that is the team. The analogy would be that we link to national football teams, not the national FA. Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, much appreciated. GiantSnowman 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Soccer League

Canadian Soccer League is currently a disambiguation page, with links to the current incarnation of the league - Canadian Soccer League (current) - and a previous one - Canadian Soccer League (1987 — 1992). Do you not think we should have the current league at Canadian Soccer League, with a hatnote pointing towards the defunct league? GiantSnowman 23:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me. matt91486 (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

USA/United States

Not that its a big deal, but I was wondering why {{fb|USA}} produces United States and not United States? Obviously everyone knows USA is United States, but do any other countries use abbreviations? When you type {{fb|UK}} produces United Kingdom, and not UK. Length isn't an issue. After all, we have Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 02:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because, for some reason United States national football team isn't the article for the national football team, but a disambiguation page. And the article lies at United States men's national soccer team from which USA national football team is a redirect... This might have nothing to do with it those... Or it might just be it's never refered to as "United States" in the football world, always USA — chandler — 04:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered that FIFA always lists it as USA. That's probably the reason. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Turkish question

Hello. As we all know we use the "players" form in category names for football club players if the name of the club is not shared by other sports, i.e. "PSV Eindhoven players", not "PSV Eindhoven footballers". However, Cat:Footballers in Turkey by club shows that most of its subcategories still use "footballers" form. Should it be changed or the club names in Turkey are generic, referring to many other sport teams? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite a lot of Turkish football clubs are actually sports clubs with a variety of different teams across different sports - Galatasaray S.K. being a good example. Just using the term "players" could be confusing. Dancarney (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed something similar with Category:Spartak Moscow footballers. Although there is an Ice Hockey team called HC Spartak Moscow, the category for their players is named Category:HC Spartak Moscow players. Should the football club related one be moved to include the full name, FC Spartak Moscow and change footballers to players, i.e. Category:FC Spartak Moscow players? --Jimbo^[online] 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed to Category:FC Spartak Moscow players. That would also tie in with previous discussions on this subject. Peanut4 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This move was originally proposed in March 2006 and was turned down - see the discussion, such as it was, here. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anyone even bothered to present an alternative argument to the "Oppose" voters in that discussion. The move makes perfect sense, and should be proposed again forthwith. – PeeJay 09:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey lads! I took the initiative and nominated Spartak category for renaming. Vote and comment --> HERE. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

I'm getting quite concerned about the amount of editors ignoring WP:ATHLETE at recent AfDs, or trying to weasel their way around it by using the old "amateur sports" line. There seem to be a lot of editors ignoring or being ignorant of past consensus on things like youth caps or club notability. I think it would be helpful if regular WP:FOOTY contributors would take a more active role in commenting on the open AfDs so that the debates are led by the better-informed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to sound mean, maybe we need an overhaul of WP:FOOTBALL. Category:WikiProject Football members lists 275 members, but I would say there was only a core of about a dozen or two who regularly contribute to AfDs and other discussions. GiantSnowman 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could set up a list of people who regularly visit the project page or something? I contribute to AfDs etc whenever I'm around, but it's not very often these days because I'm so busy in the real world. I'm sure a lot of other project members are probably the same. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but how would we go about it? GiantSnowman 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's sufficient to count and see who are the more frequent contributors in the talk page's history, I think. By the way, I think it's a good idea in any case, even regardless of the AfD issue, as established users usually know policy and guidelines more thoroughly than newbies. I also think a list of administrators who contribute actively to our WikiProject would be a good idea as well. --Angelo (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that a list of Admins is especially important. GiantSnowman 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Some other project I was looking at the other day (I forget what) had a rule that people who hadn't edited for a certain length of time be removed from the participants' list, so it only showed active editors..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I used to do that for the list here, but keeping it up to date is a really dull task, so I haven't done it for months. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we are getting ridiculous - one editor has started taking cases of clearly failing WP:ATHLETE to DRV - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 26#Jason Naidovski... пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Had you discussed the facts in the AFD, rather than simply blowing off the objections, we wouldn't be at the deletion review. Meanwhile everyone seems to be ignoring that many of the AFDs are trying to delete players who are notable according to WP:FOOTYN which as far as I understand is the consensus of this community, though perhaps not the entire Wikipedia community. Nfitz (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP:FOOTYN is a draft and has no value at all; WP:ATHLETE is a guidelines, so it has some sort of effective value. And the subject is not notable even for as he has not played at the Olympics, since they are yet to begin. If he actually plays a few minutes in Beijing next August, WP:FOOTYN could maybe apply there, but not now. --Angelo (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• No one is arguing that the subject is notable under WP:FOOTYN. That isn't an issue that's been raised by anyone for that deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• So, which AfDs are you referring at? Just out of curiosity. --Angelo (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)\

• Primarily [9] where a professional player signed to a long-term contract to a fully professional English Tier 2 team, was in the past loaned to a fully professional Tier 5 team, who played in a professional league (Conference National) where the majority of the teams were fully profession. It get's into the debate above about wherever professional Conference National players are notable or not. It's also come up in AFD debates on MLS reserve players, who play in a fully professional reserve league. Nfitz (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, the Conference National isn't a fully professional league and it has been determined in numerous discussions that players in that league are not notable unless they've played at a notable level in the past. As for MLS Reserve League players, they should be considered to be of equivalent notability to players in the Premier Reserve League, who are not notable. – PeeJay 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I question the statement that WP:FOOTYN is a draft and has no value at all. If so why are people directed to follow it on WP:FOOTY? Nfitz (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason that is still a draft and not a policy/guideline is (if I remember rightly) that there was no consensus to support it.... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Title question

Why is United States men's national soccer team‎ so called when all other such articles are "X national football team"? Buc (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Because, like with pretty much every other walk of life, the Americans play by different rules to the rest of us. – PeeJay 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be moved into the right place imo. — chandler — 18:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, along with Canada men's national soccer team and Canada U-20 men's national soccer team. GiantSnowman 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course they'll have to be moved to "X national soccer team" unless you want to start another massive argument... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No reason why they shouldnt be at x national football team — chandler — 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that they refer to it as "soccer" over there, but that's your can of worms, not mine :D – PeeJay 20:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly, PeeJay. I'm all for renaming them "football" and never referring to "soccer" ever again, but our American cousins don't agree :-) Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the use of "soccer" in North America rather than "football", but I don't like the use of "men's" (sexist as that sounds!) and I don't like the use of "U-20" instead of "under-20". GiantSnowman 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've left a note on the talk page. Buc (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely naming conventions and varieties of English conventions would require it to be called "national soccer team"? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Struway2 is correct. Even though the proper name for the sport is, of course, football, because it is for the US team we have to use American English and hence it is their soccer team. Interestingly, there is a US national American Football team. Dancarney (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should definitely be under "soccer team" per WP:ENGVAR. The only question is why "men's" is in there..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The only explanation I can think of is that some bright spark thinks that women's football is more popular than men's football in the US, and so they might think that the women's national team predominates over the men's team. – PeeJay 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, by WP:COMMONNAME. In the US, the women's team is/was at least as important as the men's team, so people wouldn't automatically assume that "national team" means "men's national team", as they would in most other countries. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "National Association football team"?

All relevant policies say that we should use the common local term, though, which is indisputably "soccer". Some of this debate smacks of "let's get the word soccer out of the title because we don't like it"......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rightly so I think, I would never have called them a "soccer" team. Buc (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please fell free to go and vote on the articles talk page. Buc (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wartime games

Sorry if this has already been covered, but should wartime league appearances be included in infoboxes etc? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion further up this page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Wartime guest players. Cheers, GiantSnowman 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for that! Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

US soccer team manager templates

As is such with franchises, many defunct American sides only existed for a few years, and only had a few managers, but should they be given manager templates as most other teams have? I only ask because Eddie Firmani's page has both manager templates (for his time at Charlton and NY Metrostars) and succession boxes (for his time at defunct teams), and I think it looks ugly. Cheers, GiantSnowman 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your query but I like the entry in one of the succession boxes that he was "Preceded by Creation". Allelujah!!!! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. I don't mean to offend anyone.

Eddie Firmani is God? I'm sure a few Charlton fans would agree with you there ;) GiantSnowman 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But didn't we agree that succession boxes should not be used for coaching positions, and instead be replaced by navigation templates such as Template:Manchester United F.C. managers? --Angelo (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did, but would there be a point in having a manager template with potentially only a few (one, two, three) managers in it? GiantSnowman 12:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to remove a popularly believed urban myth

Hi I've come across a discussion on the Tottenham Hotspur page where an image link has been placed showing Notts County with the FA cup, with ribbons tied on it. Its placed there to prove that Spurs were not the first team to do this, despite the claim being made in the article. The claim was removed but keeps being replaced by a user named Govvy, who refuses to believe the evidence despite seeing it in print. He says its a scarve but the concept of the football scarfe hadn't been invnted in 1894. It's also documented in the Guiness record of the FA cup that County adorned the cup with ribbons but I can't find the info at the minute. Norniron (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Normiron, before we go any further I hope you will not mind me just checking something out with you. I noticed your user name cropping up before in relation to postings by User: CaptainBeecher in relation to his use of his own football history site as a citation for his contribution to football pages discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#User:Captainbeecher on this occasion you popped up a few days with a posting in support of his use of this site, fair enough. I then see that CaptainBeecher originally raised this issue about the ribbons on Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Ribbons on the cup 1901 myth back in May and again after a gap of several weeks this time again supporting his comments. I then notice that both of you have created independently a sequence of several identically designed articles on the Grand National but have never exchanged comments on these articles on the talk pages. Perhaps this is just a coincidence but it would be appreciated to know if you are in any way connected with CaptainBeecher? Tmol42 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a claim on the page that Spurs were the first to do this, then there should be a reference attached that says they were the first. It's not a matter of arguing/proving it on the discussion page, remember verifiability not truth. Tag it with , and if no evidence can be produced to support the claim then it can justifiably be removed. Beve (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Club career stats charts

Hello everyone. I'm quite new in WikiProject Football but I would like to make a proposal for the re-arrangement of the All-time club performance charts that provide some great info about some players (i.e Lukas Podolski, Philipp Lahm, Bastian Schweinsteiger). I have seen that this chart is usually located at the bottom of the article. If it is a CLUB performance chart, shouldn't be better if this chart was a part of the sub-section CLUB Career? I mean, you have the international career and goals but, suddenly, you end up reading club info again. Check Lahm or Schweinsteiger's articles for example: I re-arranged the club charts and the page looks more coherent, and respects a logical order. Now compare them with Podolski's article: note any difference? I know that this is not a huge problem but I fear that whenever anyone re-arranges the chart's location someone other is going to revert the edit because there is not a concrete policy about the topic: it seems that the usual thing is to place the chart at the bottom but I think that it is about time to make it right. What do you think?

I just reviewed another alternative that was suggested by Hubschrauber729 and that is already applied in articles like Michael Ballack and Ruud van Nistelrooy: an exclusive "Statistics" section that would encompass all the quantitative info available on x or y player. (apps, goals with club or national team, etc.)

Duncan Edwards, a Featured Article, has it all in one section which I think works fine...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The table in Duncan Edwards also sources the information, which many such tables do not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. An only stats section should work fine. But it would be better if it turned out to be a stablished policy on player articles. Mannschaftskapitän (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

{{fb end}}

Can people have a look at Template_talk:Football_box_end and indicate your support or otherwise so we can proceed with this update? Gnevin (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Successor nations

On statistics tables, compiling for example the history of a national side's participation in a tournament, I believe that we should feel obliged to follow the decision of FIFA and the continental confederations where one country is attributed with the historical achievements of a country with different borders and name. Thus I believe that, for example, the Czech Republic should be marked as having one Euro win (1976) and one second place (1996), with footnote indicating that any result before 1992 was achieved as [[nft|Czechoslovakia}}. BanRay is insistent that the two historical records be kept separate, on the grounds that there was no such state as Czech Republic in 1976. I would see this as effectively OR, generating records that are not those reported by the authorities. It is clear that there are different articles across Wikipedia following different policies on this matter. Is there any historical decision or consensus that should direct us? Or if not, what would the opinion of the community here be? Kevin McE (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm for either pushing them all together or splitting them apart, I just don't like the inconsistency about it, both at the Euro Champ. and at World Cup stats. — chandler — 16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR says follow the source. If he has a source for his way, the issue is then if one source is more reputable/reliable than the other. If FIFA is the governing body, it's hard to argue against that being the best source. Beve (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

FIFA isn't the best source for a lot of things, however this is pretty a bureaucratic issue. I think that Czech Republic should comprise Czechoslovakian achievements (maybe with an explaining footnote). UEFA say Czech Republic played 54 matches at the Euro... --necronudist (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you Kevin; Czechslovakia > Czech Republic, USSR > Russia, West Germany > Germany etc. GiantSnowman 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that with a footnote, then listing an ancestor nation's achievements are fine. Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that Snowman, and not to forget Yugoslavia > * > Serbia. But if this is gonna be a change, it has to be done ALL over, at the world cup as well. — chandler — 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

TV Blackouts from last night

I was planning to develop an article in my sandbox regarding the blackouts from last nights Euro 2008 match, but didn't want to do it in case you guys were against it, meaning a highly likely trip to AFD. Does anyone think that an article on this is not warranted? D.M.N. (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I severely doubt that a power cut is worthy of its own article. – PeeJay 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The power outage hardly is notable enough for a own article, I don't know which Storms get articles but If there wasnt much fatalities or material damage I hardly see this storm getting a article, it's best just to have the section at the Euro 2008 article — chandler — 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Even as an inclusionist, I can't see this being worth a separate article. But you could expand the section in the UEFA Euro 2008 article? Beve (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Will do later/tomorrow. D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Successor states

I think it's about time we finally decide on this once and for all. Most wikipedia articles differentiate between former and current states in cases where the country has split into more than one state (like separate records for USSR and Russia, Yugoslavia and Serbia, Czechoslovakia and the Czech Rep. teams). User:Kevin McE has recently merged Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic stats (UEFA European Championship article), suggesting we should also merge all the rest, since that's what FIFA have done on their website and we have to follow their decisions. I disagree since, for instance, the USSR team had plenty of Ukrainian, Georgian and other key players (the Euro 1988 Soviet team had only four Russian footballers), so why should their work and achievements be attributed to the team they are not anyhow related to? The other point is that unlike FIFA, we have separate pages for all the former teams, that don't exist anymore. So what kind of sense will it make to keep those pages, with the Euro page saying that Russia are the 1960 European Chapions, whereas the team's page says that the Russia's best achievement was the 2008 semi-final. Thoughts? BanRay 22:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion 1

(Separate stats)

• Support, see above BanRay 22:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

(Yugoslavia becomes Serbia, Russia inherits Soviet records and so on)