Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Archives
July 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 February 2007 - May 2007 May 2007 - June 2007 Current archive (archived by bot)

Capitalisation

{{Football squad2 start}} Per the Manual of Style headers do not take "un-natural" capitals. Most navboxen and infoboxen also abide by this, I have changed this one to use the same style - Current Squad => current squad. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27 8 May 2007 (GMT).

Man City review

Manchester City F.C. has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan (talk • contribs)

Template:National squad

I reverted {{National squad}} to an older version to get rid of the ugly purple background behind the flag. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-14 23:27

User:Chris1ar

Garbage "article" on a non-notable (if it even exists) football team disguised as a userpage. I believe this is a violation of WP:USERPAGE but don't know the procedure for dealing with it - does anyone else.....? ChrisTheDude 07:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is surely a hoax and someone using their userpage to create a hoax article. Like you though I have no idea how this would be dealt with though. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(Extremely late response) Violations of WP:USERPAGE are dealt with by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. - Foxhill 12:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Done :) — Ash063 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by a bot. Mattythewhite 23:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already noticed that and wrote a message to its author. — Ash063 23:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Managers stats

I've just found out that soccerbase's managerial stats, which is mostly used for the managerial stats on Wikipedia, include pre-season matches. Seems quite concerning to me, especially as they don't include all of the pre-season games. For example, they are missing completely York City's friendly against Newcastle Benfield, but are including the one against Leeds. So the stats are therefore incorrect. Mattythewhite 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest I find soccerbase to be too inaccurate, especially at the lower levels. Taking Weymouth as an example, they have 12 players listed who are no longer at the club, and don't even have the first names of 3 of them. Alexrushfear 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• • They do tend to be wrong sometimes, but they are generally reliable. One question, have Weymouth ever been in the League? I think that might be why soccerbase is wrong with them as York, who used to play in the League, have accurate info. Mattythewhite 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair point (no they haven't, in case it wasn't a rhetorical question), although both are still playing in the same league at the moment, so some degree of consistency in accuracy would seem logical. Alexrushfear 22:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I also found this annoying. I've e-mailed soccerbase to ask them if they'd consider either not including friendlies or providing transparency by differentiating between competitive/non-competitive totals. --Jameboy 15:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the friendlies have now been removed from soccerbase, so the manager stats should now tally. :-) --Jameboy 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

List of football players with dual nationality

I started this article with good intentions a long time ago, but it is now full of unverified and (probably) untrue additions. I propose:

1. Change in format, from subheadings to bullet points, to make the page more pleasing to the eye.
2. Deletion of all subpages, so that we can have one page which we can monitor.

I've started the process on my subpage, which includes removal of unverified claims and 'red' players, addition of references, and the change in format, but want to get people's opinions before I continue.

Any thoughts? GiantSnowman 15:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly made in good intentions, but has gone way out of hand. Punkmorten 14:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that your efforts were bootless, but now the article is totally unacceptable. I've already wrote on the talk page, but that's not a problem for me to repeat. In the very first post you said: "We should include players who: 1) can trace their origins to a foreign country, 2)have gained nationality after living in a foreign country, 3)were born in a foreign country." Somehow you missed the fact that nationality(citizenship) and etchnicity are two big differences. Andrei Kanchelskis has dual Russian/UK citizenship and had USSR citizenship, but his ethnicity is Lithuanian/Ukrainian. It is absolutely inadmissible for encyclopedia to mix this two terms up or represent ethnicity of somebody with a national flag. Moreover, the fact that somebody was born in a foreign country have nothing to do with neither citizenship nor ethnicity. These cases are very different and must be included in different articles, not in the single article, especially the article called "List of football players with dual nationality". Moreover, there are players who has a citizenship of three countries. Moreover, "players who had dual citizenship" and "players who has dual citizenship" are different players. Moreover, what if somebody had a citizenship and then took another citizenship instead? This case is different from all. Moreover, such lists make sense only if every player is provided with multiple reliable rules, otherwise it's impossible to distinguish true from false. To make a long story short, very sad to say, the existence of current article is unreasonable. I also saw your subpage. I found many very strange statements like "Walter Samuel is Jewish" with a link to some forum. I missed the point of this because forums are absolutely unreliable sources. So, it seems to me now that a possible deletion of the article would be the best way not to mislead people. Are you agree? — Ash063 12:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but not entirely. For starters, the article should NOT be deleted. Plus, etnicity can equal nationality - if we continue to use your example of Kanchelskis, then if his grandparents were Lithuanian or Ukranian then under FIFA rules he could have represnted that nation at football. However, I agree that my original qualifiers were wrong, and have started making amends, by removing players and referencing nationalities, as can be seen on my subpage. And as for Samuel and other Jewish players - check out this website for referencing. GiantSnowman 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, nationality is an unclear term. It can mean both ethnicity and citizenship. And I have difficulty distinguishing football citizenship and real citizenship, can you explain that FIFA rule? It seems to me now that the main problem is in the name of the article, "List of football players with dual nationality". Firstly, it states smth about real citizenship instead of football citizenship, and secondly, it states smth about facts in present instead of possibilities in past (Kanchelskis could have represented Lithuania). Consider renaming the article to something like "List of players that could have represented several nations at football". And what about creating not just a list, but a table with information about why a player could have represented that nation, whether Football Federation asked a player about that and why he rejected that. Sounds interesting to me. What do you think? As for Samuel, I checked that site and found nothing about Samuel on it, so still no reason to claim that he is Jewish. — Ash063 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The FIFA rule stipulates that a player can represent any nationality that his parents/grandparents were. back to Samuel, I also checked that website and couldn't find him, but he's definitely Jewish - these pages are some which say so [1], [2], [3] GiantSnowman 11:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you trust such kind of sources? And it seems that you are not interested in renaming and creating a table, right? — Ash063 12:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• A table - there are too many players to make a table viable, so I would oppose it.
• Rename - what do you suggest? GiantSnowman 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean article name should fit its content, small notice at the beginning of the article is not enough for exclusion of confusion. — Ash063 19:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer)

User User:Cls14 has moved the Football (soccer) article to a new article he created Association football without discussing it first either here or the talk page of the article. Such a huge change surely needs discussing first and I thought that this had been discussed numerous times and the consensus was to keep it was it was with football and soccer in the title. I would simply revert it back to how it was, and ask him to discuss it here and the talk page, but I don't know how to go about reverting something like that. Is Cls14 right to make such a massive change without at least discussing it first? If not could someone look at reverting it please? thanks ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

He is completely wrong, this is a very controversial move and need at least a thorough discussion. I reverted his move. --Angelo 15:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did have a go at reverting it, but failed miserably! I am sure there has been discussion before (and if I recall correctly discussed at great length), either on here or the articles talk page, about the naming of the article and it the consensus was to have it as Football (soccer) as a compromise as even though most countries use football it has to be acknowledged that the sport is known in some countries as soccer whether or not people like that or not. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't a consensus to have it at football (soccer), thats why the debate gets dragged up so often.... and will continue to do so. Most of the time the "football (soccer)" people are in the minority, but that minority happens to include admins. - The Daddy 04:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

List of goals by a player - reads like sports magazine

I've seen player's articles listing every goal they made. This seems ridiculous and not encyclopedic. Example: International goals table on Nery Castillo. Opinions? Remove? -- Alexf(t/c) 16:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd delete table of goals/appearnces. GiantSnowman 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll keep an eye out for other players with the same issue. -- Alexf(t/c) 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

One person's comment constitutes a consensus now? - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. What's your opinion then? -- Alexf(t/c) 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Convert to prose (like in Pelé's article mentioned below), then remove. I'm not in favour of the wholesale removal of information for no reason. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dudesleeper, I think it is not encyclopedic and overdone, but as you have a point in having more discussion, I restored them until we get a better idea. In case it is not clear by now, I vote delete :-) -- Alexf(t/c) 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding how it isn't encyclopedic. Please explain. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at Shunsuke Nakamura. I have once removed, but reverted. I accept Pele one (season by season), and more detailed which games scored in INTERNATIONAL TEAM, but not for club. Matthew_hk tc 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just checked Nakamura. I find the list way overdone. A sports stats section in a newspaper, the player's, or his team's website are a more apropriate place for that kind of detail IMHO. -- Alexf(t/c) 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a related AfD, Gilberto Silva goals. Matthew_hk tc 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good link! Thanks for the pointer as I had not seen it. I agree with AfD in Silva's case and the reasons pointed to there (see you voted for deletion too). Does the Silva case form a consensus? What do WP Project Football members at large think? Surely we should not need to open and AfD case as in Silva's (or Nakamura's) every time. -- Alexf(t/c) 21:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Silva case is a completely different issue because that was an "article" which was merely a list of goals. Putting a list of goals within a relevent article is ok in my eyes, but I guess it depends upon the scope of the list. Listing every goal scored by Pelé is obviously ridiculous, as it would dwarf the article, but listing goals scored by Jamie Carragher seems perfectly reasonable as he's only scored 3 or so.

I think statistics tables are always a good thing. I assume that concensus would be with me seeing as the standard player infobox has provisions for listing some statistics. Going back to Pelé as an example, the table show in his article is highly encyclopedic. aLii 11:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with stats tables, and Pelé is a perfect example on why they should be included. Mattythewhite 11:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C. and FC Barcelona football rivalry

Chelsea F.C. and FC Barcelona football rivalry --> This is hardly Barca vs. Real or Man U. vs Liverpool. Do we really want to be creating these kinds of articles? What's next, Liverpool vs. AC Milan? Ronald Koeman vs. English teams? JACOPLANE • 2007-08-9 11:55

Totally agree. Where's the proper connection? Are we going to then allow things like Darlington F.C. and Östersunds FK football rivalry? Extreme example, I know, but do you see where it could lead? Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Totally nonsense. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is nonsense, there is no 'rivalry'. Meeting a handful of times in European competition in recent years does not constitute 'rivalry'. --Malcolmxl5 01:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No wikiproject Brazilian football?

Moved from Template talk:Football.

It amazes me that there are no wikiproject on Brazilian football as yet. I think it would be a good idea to start one as soon as possible because Brazil is the king of football. Any thoughts on this would be welcomed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be created as a taskforce, like with England, Netherlands etc. Mattythewhite 12:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So, should we start creating this taskforce for Brazilian football (soccer) as soon as possible? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But I'm not to sure how to make one! I think all we would do is copy the layout of another task force basically. Mattythewhite 08:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Before making one I think it would be important to make sure there is enough interest and enough people willing to take part. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right. so how am I going to go about doing this? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I´m on holiday right now, I´d be prepared to help out with WP Brazilian football, but my knowledge of Brazilian football is insignificant compared to Argentine football. I´ll have a look in a week or so and see what needs to be done. Regerds, King of the North East 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To create a new task force - basically:

1)create a new Task force page, based on one of the other Task Forces.

2)update the project navigation page (Template:WPF navigation)

3)update the Template:Football template (again just copy the entries for one of the existing Task forces)

4) create appropriate assessment categories (basically mirroring the structure in Category:WikiProject_Football_in_England_articles).

Think that's everything! Let me know if you need further help. Paulbrock 16:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cosenza and other football clubs name changes

After a discussion with Angelo, I take this "problems" here to ask for everyone's opinion:

• Rende Calcio has moved to Cosenza and changed its name to Fortitudo Cosenza, trying to fill the role of the old A.S. Cosenza Calcio that has disappeared: is it better to move A.S. Cosenza Calcio's or Rende Calcio's article to Fortitudo Cosenza? I've already moved Rende Calcio's article, but I'll change the articles if the general opinion is contrary.
• P.D. Comiso has moved from Comiso to Vittoria and fused with Junior Vittoria creating A.C.D. Città di Vittoria. Should the article on the old F.C. Vittoria be merged with it, though the new society isn't a direct heir of the old club?

Your opinion is much appreciated. :) CapPixel 13:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a stab at this one...

• Move Rende Calcio to Fortitudo Cosenza as it's the one club albeit with a different location and name. Keep the A.S. Cosenza Calcio article as a record of a now defunct club.
• Merge P.D. Comiso with Junior Vittoria and create A.C.D. Città di Vittoria. Keep the F.C. Vittoria article as a record of a now defunct club.

Is that OK? --Malcolmxl5 04:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Nobody else interested? CapPixel 07:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but as I don't know anything about the clubs in question it is difficult to give an informed opinion. Are we talking franchising, or straight mergers? Oldelpaso 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rende Calcio/Fortitudo Cosenza case is mere franchising, somewhat similar to the recent MK Dons case in England. PD Comiso instead merged with a minor team from Vittoria in order to be eligible to make the relocation (if I remind good, relocations can be made in Italy only between bordering cities, and Comiso does not border Vittoria). That is why Rende was able to move to Cosenza and Libertas Acate was denied to fully move in Modica, despite the fact they already play their home matches there. --Angelo 20:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Its a difficult one, on the Italian version of A.S. Cosenza Calcio's article has just been renamed Fortitudo Cosenza. In any event its essential that Rende Calcio's name should be featured somewhere in bold, to show that it is now part of the club.

Interestingly, the official Cosenza Calcio website has now focused its information on Fortitudo Cosenza and the club features A.S. Consenza Calcio's foundation date on its crest. Take from that what you will. - The Daddy 00:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see where the site has focused on Fortitudo Cosenza. :) The crest is still the "old" Cosenza's one. Moreover, the site has not been updated since the 2004/05 season. CapPixel 21:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Serrant

I've created an AfD for Ryan Serrant and a few other Farsley Celtic players because as far as I am aware they don't currently fulfil the requirements for notability. Chappy ^T_C 08:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[Team Name] 2007-2008 season

I've seen these articles about ten times already, most of up for the upcoming season, and one or two from previous seasons. Question: Are they needed? I don't really think they are, because if some teams have them, surely that means every team should have one. I really think all of these should be deleted, because all fo the information can be put in the team page. Do you think this and this along with all the rest of these stupid pages should be deleted. After all, just what new does it add to the encyclopedia? Either every team gets a page like this, or no teams get pages like this. Davnel03 14:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion would be to delete them all. Number 57 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think the following list should be deleted [including this field (there's probably lots more):

• Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006-07
• Ipswich Town F.C. season 2006-07
• Plymouth Argyle F.C. season 2006-07
• 2006-07 Season for Sunderland A.F.C.
• West Ham United F.C. 2006-2007

Davnel03 14:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as they meet notability then I don't see why they shouldn't stay. As to whether every team or no team gets a page like that is purely up to whether someone wants to create them and whether they can show that the subject is notable enough to qualify for an article, not all teams would be (see WP:ALLORNOTHING). For instance Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006-07 documents Rovers' promotion winning season in which they won a play-off final for the first time and appeared in a cup final. It also shows which awards the team and club members won in that season. It's referenced well (using good secondary reliable sources), covers all aspects of the season comprehensively, is nicely laid out and (with the addition of a bit more prose) is a possible push for a GA. An article on Chippenham Town F.C.'s last season probably wouldn't be. And finally - as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT - whether you think the subject is stupid or not has no bearing on it's eligibility for inclusion. Foxhill 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as they're kept up-to-date, I don't see a problem with them (other than being a little over-the-top statistics-wise). There isn't a dedicated editor for each club, so accordingly there's unlikely to be a season article for each one. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on the notabilty point. They might be notable now, but are they going to be notable in ten-fifteen years time? I think most of [these are not notable and should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't a dictonary or a directory, so just why should they stay? I don't think they add notability to the encyclopedia. What these articles are is fancruft. There just really isn't any need for some of the article. Right, I'm making a little consensus on these articles on whether these articles should/should not be deleted, seeing as we have different opinions here. If many people believe these types of articles should be deleted, we'll nominate them for deletion.

Support - Articles should be deleted

• Davnel03 - per my reasons given above.

Oppose - Articles should not be deleted

Other Comments

• Hopefully we can come to some sort of conclusion to this. Davnel03 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an Articles for Deletion page specifically for this process, so take the matter there rather than face the possibility of going through it twice. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'll nominate them then. Davnel03 17:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated numerous times before, always resulting in them being kept. "Either every team gets a page like this, or no teams get pages like this." is not a valid reason to support deleting all the ones which exist, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion here. Davnel03 17:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Valencia CF

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, i'll try anyway. I've added an in-depth history of Valencia CF and everything else is top-notch, but the Valencia CF article still has absolutely no rating at all on the discussion page. Could someone add some ratings, ie B/C or whatever and either High or Medium.

Thanks. (Fadiga09 17:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

Done. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. seasons

I am trying to get the self-made article Manchester United F.C. seasons to Featured List standard, and make it the first list of its type to reach that standard. However, I could use some input on how the article could be improved. There is an ongoing Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer Review/Manchester United F.C. seasons so please feel free to go over there and lend a hand. Thanks guys. - PeeJay 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's the sort of data that should form the basis of main club articles, replacing things like lists of managers, players of the year etc. rather than being stripped off to seperate articles. - fchd 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

But surely people would be more likely to be searching for who a club's manager was in 1962 (for example), rather than a complete record of every season in the club's history? - PeeJay 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is now a Featured List candidate. I would appreciate it if all of you would comment on its candidacy here. Let's get Manchester United F.C. seasons to FL status. - PeeJay 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Club logos in .svg format

Such as Image:Logo Real Madrid.svg. Are these acceptable or does the fair-use criteria not allow them? WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 12:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Logos says "Overly high-resolution versions of copyrighted logos should be avoided, however, as they are less likely to be fair use. For SVG formats, versions of the logo that contain significantly more detail than is necessary to display at the desired (low) resolution should be avoided. Where possible, logos should be uploaded in PNG format. JPEG format should not be used as it is lossy and results in a less professional appearance.", if that is of any help. - fchd 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• When talking about Real Madrid, the other logo is too high-resolution to use, isn't it? Punkmorten 13:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably, yes. The image description page says there is a .png version somewhere as well which would probably be the best option. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 13:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The PNG version is here, but it's the same size as the GIF version, so it may not be suitable. - PeeJay 16:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Alan Ball Memorial Cup

Not sure of its genuineness or notability, so I'm passing it over to those more in the know. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Its real, saw a bit of it on the TV. Hardly notable though. Mattythewhite 16:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be integrated into the Alan Ball article, where it is already mentioned. --Malcolmxl5 20:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Article naming guidelines

What is the correct naming guideline for a manager who as far as i know didn't play. Would it be Dick Taylor (manager), Dick Taylor (football manager) or Dick Taylor (football (soccer) manager). Guidance would be appreciated. thanks Woodym555 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Football manager I'd think. Mattythewhite 23:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, in America they are called coaches aren't they for American football? Will use Dick Taylor (football manager). Woodym555 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Was he not a player? Most articles seem to use (footballer) even if the subject was arguably better known as a manager..... ChrisTheDude 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as i know he wasn't but there is not much information on him about. I don't even know if he is still alive! There is an Australian rules footballer called Dick Taylor, see Dick Taylor (disambiguation) (which i had to create), to avoid confusion with him i think manager seems to be best. Incidentally who is the most famous Dick, Dick Taylor directs to the drummer, any footy fan/Villa fan will say the manager is though. If we go by guidelines: the manager is the most notable because of the number of links, though that is distorted by the managers navbox. Personally i think they are all as non-notable as each other! Woodym555 22:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with article

A user has recently added the Template:Age in years and days to the List of English Football League managers by date of appointment. As part of his edit he seems to have corrupted something. Half of the templates do not work anymore including the featured list ones. In fact it is any below the Tony Mowbray insert. I removed the Tony Mowbray insert (on show preview) and the featured list worked again and a few more cite news templates worked but the majority still didn't work.

As the user has stated on the talk page that he doesn't know what has happened, i thought i would come here. (I have left a request on the Wikipedia:Help desk‎ as well) Anyone got an idea how to fix it? I have looked at everything i could think of. Thanks Woodym555 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a limit on the number of templates you can transclude into one page. The List of English transfers has the same problem. ArtVandelay13 20:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

More article naming confusion

I recently initiated a move request to move Jason Brown (goalkeeper) to the more sensible Jason Brown (footballer), but before it had run its course another user jumped the gun and moved it, only they moved it to Jason Brown (football (soccer) player). This was apparently done because there's also a Jason Brown (American football) and therefore just using (footballer) was deemed too confusing, but personally I think the nested parentheses look horrible. Any thoughts....? ChrisTheDude 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing an American football player referred to as a footballer. I'd just use (footballer). WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just footballer is needed. Mattythewhite 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the (soccer) one because of the deletion logs where someone complained about him being called footballer. It should be soccer player to avoid the parentheses. Woodym555 23:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please

Really?? C'mon... Template:Corinthians Junior Team squad. How notable is that?? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be deleted. As with all of those players. Youth players are not notable. Mattythewhite 15:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Matty, that's what I think. Now, take a look at this freak show. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposed Brazilian football WikiProject has its work cut out. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 15:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See a few threads up. I was commenting on the general poor state of Brazilian football articles. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 21:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, a real mess indeed. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that there is anything to get out of shape about. Just point out to Blgeoverlord that we have agreed upon notability standards for players and that he should bare it in mind in future when creating articles. - The Daddy 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul Macari on AfD

The son of Lou is up for deletion here [4] His article states that he played a few games for Stoke and Huddersfield, which would make him notable, but the consensus so far is that he's not notable in his own right. Did he play league soccer? If so does this make him notable? I think it does but the current majority of editors believe that he should be deleted regardless.

Several American commentors are arguing that Football League players are 'minor league' players in their terms and so shouldn't have articles. What is going on?

Nick mallory 04:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been closed early by another editor per WP:SNOW. Davnel03 15:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Stoke City F.C. FAC

The FAC for the History of Stoke City F.C. has been a bit quiet lately. Would anyone care to take a look and register a vote on whether it meets the criteria? Dave101→talk  08:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mido

Which versions better? This (the current version) or this?

2nd one; I have never seen the first version used on similar articles. Davnel03 17:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be honest neither of them are great. I do prefer the old version though, the large block of text to the small subheading. At least they should be === Section === headers. As an aside the WP:LEAD needs expanding as well! Woodym555 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Shall revert it, and might add in some headers. Mattythewhite 17:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should put in headers as the article is very small. Unless it's the size of Thierry Henry, which it clearly isn't headers are not needed. Nethertheless, for a player of Mido's stature, the article should be bigger than it's current size. Davnel03 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've decided against doing so. But the article is in such a state. Some of the info in the othe version was quite useful, so I've added it in. But it was poorly written, so I've tried rewriting it. Mattythewhite 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better! Could do with one or two more references, but I'll try and look for them. :) Davnel03 18:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The image in the first one is a blatant copyvio [5], not copyleft as the tag suggests. I've tagged it accordingly. Oldelpaso 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks 100 times better than what it was yesterday! Do you think it could pass GA if I nominated it for GA-status? Davnel03 08:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, i wouldnt pass it --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about now? Mattythewhite 17:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive

Is this page no longer being used? I was just about to put Mido on it, but it looks very inactive. Davnel03 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I should have put something on the talk page a while ago. I've been the only one updating it for a very long time, and participation had dropped to almost nothing. I was on wikibreak for all of July (first half unplanned due to my net connection going up the spout), so it froze. Since returning I've not been inclined to update it due to the lack of activity. I think there's a place for some form of improvement drive, but not in the current guise, as there hasn't been a truly productive one since Puskas in November. Oldelpaso 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Club season articles

A wise user in the AC Milan talkpage requested to update A.C. Milan 2007-08 to make it look like Chelsea F.C. 2007-2008. However, I think the latter looks pretty ugly and messy, full with plenty of unnecessary information (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as you surely know). As it is not the only case (see F.C. Internazionale Milano 2007-08 for another example), I'd like to find a consensus in order to change them and possibly establish a Manual of Style for such articles. Let me know your opinion. --Angelo 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinions to delete them all. But, meh, yeah there does need to be a Manuel of Style and example layout structure for all of these articles because they all look different, we need to establish some sort of consistency with these types of articles. Davnel03 20:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of their deletion, but as per Davnel03, if they must stay, some sort of consistent format would make sense. - fchd 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A recent AfD about some of these articles ended with a consensus in favour of keeping them. Thus, deletion appears not to be a feasible option. Much better to create a MoS for all of them. I've created some of these articles for US Palermo, and I think they are fairly good. Here is one. --Angelo 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very good season page with a very good structure. One problem with these types of articles are the amount of tables in them, which is something hard to avoid unfortunately. Davnel03 20:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's good. However, I would remove friendly matches from there, they're not "official" matches, as well as the "discipline" and "awards" sections (looks like excessive and indiscriminate info to me). Then, another issue is the attendances, which are hardly sourceable and seldom reported by the media here in Italy. --Angelo 21:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Roverrrrrs page there is very impressive stuff. Ideally we'd have someone looking after all 92 league clubs in the same way all season, every season. It's all fact and since it's avoided deletion (I'm sure we haven't seen the last of this per WP:NOT however) then a general move for a MoS for historical seasons is in order. The Rambling Man 21:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of these articles seem to be overloaded with stats (which makes them very close to crossing WP:NOT#INFO), so the more prose the better in my opinion. Dave101→talk  21:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(De-indent) I've removed the friendly results from Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006-07, per the suggestion given above, because the results are not really notable and many of them do not feature a full first-team squad. I envisage including a new section called something like Review, which would be the first section after the lead. I have started writing it in User:Gasheadsteve/Sandbox2, and will move it to the article when it is finished. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 08:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Right so structural wise, I'm proposing that we could use the below structure:

• Review
• Team kit
• Chronological list of events
• Player details
  • Goalscorers
  • Discipline
• Awards
• Transfers
  • In
  • Out
• Match results
  • League
  • Main Cup
  • 2nd Level Cup
  • Other (Champions league etc..)
• See also
• References

What do you guys think of this structure? Davnel03 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Review first, then the match results. Anything else - kit/disciplinary records/transfers should follow on from that as subsidiary information.

Perhaps the transfers section should be a sub-section of Player details. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 12:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for a "chronological list of events" when you already have a "review" section (by the way, who decides which events are really worth to be cited in that section?). To me it's way better just to have a "review and events" section in a whole as I did on US Palermo seasons' articles. I agree about the other paragraphes. --Angelo 21:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, a few paragraphs of prose is much better than an ugly list of events that doesn't flow. Dave101→talk  21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What does everyone think of the style I am attempting to use at Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07 and Manchester United F.C. season 2005-06? I think that an article about a club's season should consist of a list of the club's fixtures in that season, a significant amount of prose about the club's involvement in each competition they entered, and the club's squad and appearance/goals details for the season. Transfers and various statistics such as disciplinary records could be included at a push, but statistics should not be added indiscriminately as in Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08 and Chelsea F.C. 2007-2008, in my opinion. - PeeJay 00:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The sun symbol for the transfer-window column is a winner... - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Input needed

I probably should have asked this a few days ago, but am I applying too much prose to my first stab at a season article (just the first section in the table of contents)? I've been writing it solely from a results page on Soccerbase but plan to incorporate information taken from elsewhere around Wikipedia during last season (as well as adding references, of course).

Maybe it's time to look around the season articles, take the most useful parts, and put together a WikiProject Football/Season articles page. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. More prose is seldom a problem, normally articles have too many lists and not enough prose. I'm not generally a fan of season articles, but I realise consensus is against me in that respect. Looking at other sports, 2006-07 Toronto Raptors season is a GA, and might give some ideas. Oldelpaso 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference section accounts for almost half the length of that article. I don't feel quite as guilty now. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This just appeared

Lincoln City players/managers - should be merged to the club article? Punkmorten 09:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost definately. Davnel03 09:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a current squad article, more of a List of Lincoln City F.C. players. It needs to be renamed to something along those lines, and perhaps made a bit clearer. ArtVandelay13 10:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be an attempt to mirror articles like List of Arsenal F.C. players but hoping to include every single player that's ever played for the club!!!! Seems extremely ambitious. Certainly shouldn't be merged to the main article, though ChrisTheDude 10:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have though a catergory would be more appropriate for this. If you try to link every player/manager the list will be huge. I don't think it should be put into the main article, i think it should try and mimic the List of Arsenal F.C. players or List of Aston Villa F.C. players in that it only mentions notable players. Woodym555 10:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be fine as a list, i moved to a more suitable name too --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already the Category:Lincoln City F.C. players for all players with a Lincoln article, Category:Lincoln City F.C. managers and the generic Category:Lincoln City F.C.. Would this not merely be a duplication of these? Woodym555 12:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The aim of a "list" article is to provide a bit more information than a category can i think. there are featured lists of some teams players so its acceptable --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That list was started way too early (as a proper article, at least). It would have been prudent to start it in a sandbox first. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You should try telling the creator of the article, maybe they do not know about sandboxes. Try leaving whoever made it a message --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Football League Referees

Hi. Are we happy with the above article? Although it does not say so in the title, it is actually a list, not an article about referees in the Football League. As such, it appears time-sensitive, in that it seems the list will be updated to cover following seasons and not preserved in its present form. It is almost a list made up entirely of redlinks, although this may change as referee articles are added. However, notability criteria for the individual referees listed would preferably be Premier League status, so the list may not be worthy enough in some editors' view. Opinions please. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, 3/4 of the referees are all redlinked. Should be AFD'd or PROD'ed. Davnel03 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Football squad player

What is up with the football squad's why is the first half different to the second? 84.66.151.81 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an article in which this is occurring? Oldelpaso 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Accrington Stanley's and others. 84.66.151.81 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that earlier too. The "Position" in the left-hand table heading doesn't line up correctly with what's below it, but the template hasn't been changed since May. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a change to {{Football squad start}} on August 17. It looks like that may be the source of the problem --Scottmsg 17:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the unexplained edit. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, that was my fault. I edited Template:Football squad player before requesting the change to Template:Football squad start to put nationality after position. I guess I just forgot to change Template:Football squad player back. Sorry again. While we're on the subject, though, why don't we make the order of the columns: Number, Position, Nationality, Name, Other?- PeeJay 18:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

People already seem to think nationality (or, rather, the flag of which) is more important than anything else. The change you mention will only encourage them. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

People are stupid then. I've seen plenty of tables in which the national flag is put right next to the player's name, particularly Top Scorer tables, etc. In fact, Template:Football squad player is one of the only places where anything comes between nationality and name. - PeeJay 18:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, but in this case I'd say a playing position is more important to a squad table than a nationality, hence it should be the field immediately before the name. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable?

Is this sort of "tagging" acceptable? What do you think about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JoSilva.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Janczyk.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AlexPato.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LeandroLima.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Malecki.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Starosta.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bialkowski.jpg — Ash063 19:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If he tags them all with the same licence as he has with the first one, we can just crop them to remove the watermark. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

All but Image:Janczyk.jpg give you the right to edit the photo mercilessly. The Janczyk had no copyright tag so have tagged it with no licence for now. Woodym555 20:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

All except for one has the same license. Yes we can crop them, but I wonder whether such tagging is accepted, declined or accepted but not recommended in wiki. — Ash063 20:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any specific ruling but it breaches the free-use guidelines in that it says copyright on it. That disclaimer contradicts the free-use licence underneath. Woodym555 20:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Image use policy, where said that "user-created images may not be watermarked". So should we delete these images because of copyright watermark or crop them because of cc-by-sa-2.5 license? — Ash063 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, cannot help but question myself whether the GDFL tags are true. Punkmorten 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We could ask the poster for clean images, if he declines could we not then crop them as dictated by th gfdl tag? Woodym555 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me now that if he declines then images will be deleted because of watermark and invalid copyright. — Ash063 04:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest asking the user to re-upload the images without the watermark, or otherwise delete them. It would be within our rights to crop them to remove the watermark but that would be unfair on the user who uploaded the images in good faith. Dave101→talk  08:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But what allows us to crop if copyright watermark makes cc-by-sa-2.5 license invalid? — Ash063 09:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews link

See the top of Fußball-Bundesliga 2007-08. A Wikinews link to a point-of-view article by a Bayern Munich fan isn't really permissible, is it? - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I would delete that if I was you. - PeeJay 19:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Expect it to return in the near future, however. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As predicted, it's now back, and it has multiplied into the articles 2007-08 FC Bayern Munich season and FC Bayern Munich. Apparently a two-point lead is "a stranglehold" in German football. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I support your removal of the wikinews links, though for this week I'm not going to argue with a two point lead being a stranglehold ;-) Oldelpaso 20:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It always was Germany, never "West Germany"

Please note that the Germany national football team exists since 100 years or so, always fielded by the DFB. The continuity is recognized by FIFA and UEFA. There never was a separate "West Germany national football team", only a separate East Germany football team that also used a modified flag of Germany etc. Please replace all uses of {{fb|FRG}} by {{fb|GER}} accordingly. Thanks in advance. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but they were still called West Germany, and that has to be reflected. FIFA also see Russia as a continuation of USSR, Serbia of Yugoslavia etc but the old names (and other differences) need to be reflected. ArtVandelay13 22:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No. We had these discussions already, the matter regarding Germany is clear. It was united anyway in 1990, and did not break up unlike others, so your comparison is improper. The DFB exists for over hundred years. The Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949, its number of states has grown in 1957 and 1990, similar to the number of US states having grown several times in the 20th century. There was a separate East German team for some time, but this does not affect the DFB team, which was and is team Germany. Always, no matter what names were used by some. Regarding Germany at the Olympics, there are currently even 5 designations used in hindsight, covering 4 decades, which is even more ridiculous. So please stop the bullshit. Every German team, except the separate competing ones from East Germany, was and is Germany. Besides, even the East Germans were Germans then, and are Germans now. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But the key thing is that the country (and the team), was known as West Germany - ergo, the 1974 World Champions were West Germany. All issues about Germany and West Germany being continuous are solved by the fact that West Germany nft redirects to Germany. Beyond that, you are way, way out on a limb here, you can't change history. ArtVandelay13 00:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

From 1949 to 1990, the DFB represented the country that was then known in English as West Germany. Therefore, this is reflected in the naming of the article about the team organised by the DFB in that period. - PeeJay 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone would register the usernames User:East ArtVandelay13 and User:North PeeJay, would you two agree to be called West ArtVandelay13 and South PeeJay? Or would you agree to be called Vandelay13 or Pee in hindsight before the time your new neighbors Art and Jay moved in? Assuming good faith, I'll repeat again that an informal unofficial name for a state is meaningless for a team name, especially since it is established, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, that Germany national football team is covering the political eras of Kaiserreich, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, and since 1949, Federal Republic of Germany. The only adjustment that is made is the display of the contemporary flag, as with many countries. The flag of Germany has not changed since 1949, BTW. On the other hand, the other German state that had existed for some time under occupation did not even call itself Germany, nor East Germany, and also distinguished itself with a different flag from Germany proper, so there is no justification to mangle the name of Germany. It is utter ridiculous to use {{fb|FRG}} for a past period anyway as the FRG and "West Germany" still exists, having been enlarged by Saarland in 1957, and the former GDR states in 1990. So, let's only use {{fb|GER}}. Besides, the Saarland football team not only nearly prevented Germany from qualifying for the 1954 WC, it was them who would have deserved to be called "West Germany", as a look on the map proves. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthead, your argument may perhaps be true in Germany (though Deutschland would be used not Germany), however in the English-speaking world, the name used was 'West Germany'.[6][7][8]. This is en.wikipedia and so the conventions of the English-speaking world applies as does WP:COMMONNAME. And, as someone else says, you can't change history. --Malcolmxl5 06:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

History can't be changed, but proper names can and should be applied. The use of West Germany was and is sloppy at best, and offensive at worst. The proper name of the state was and is Federal Republic of Germany, it has not changed in 1990. Neither did the DFB. There is no reason why the name of the team which won the 1990 FIFA World Cup on 8 July 1990 should be different from the one used for games after 3 October 1990. Germany did not perform a vanishing act in the 1940s only to reappear from nowhere in 1990. I understand, though, that some people were happy about the lack of a single Germany, and preferred to have two or more of them to play with. "The English-speaking world" supported partitions of Germany, in 1919 and 1949, and partly opposed the idea of reunification in 1989, Margaret Thatcher's "We've beaten the Germans twice and now they're back!" being an example. The ongoing use of West Germany fits in that pattern, even though the "we've beaten the Germans twice" has yet to happen in World Cups or Euro Cups. Call the GDR East Germany, if you want, but don't name Germany according to "millions of flies can't be wrong". -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"There is no reason why the name of the team which won the 1990 FIFA World Cup on 8 July 1990 should be different from the one used for games after 3 October 1990." - Yes there is - on July 8, they represented the more Western of two parts of Germany, and afterwards they represented all of Germany. There is nothing political about the use of "West Germany", it is purely practical, and frankly, the rest of your post is ridiculous. You are never going to win this argument, because you can't overturn decades of common usage, and nor can you pretend that Germany was not partitioned. ArtVandelay13 17:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

National team pages

What articles should & shouldn't we have for national teams? Obviously the main team for both men's and women's, and well as 'B' sides, but what about youth teams - I think we should only have Under-21. Any other thoughts? GiantSnowman 23:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a general Youth article for levels under-21 would be useful. But not one each. ArtVandelay13 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:04:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

We now have England national under-20 football team, England national under-19 football team, England national under-18 football team, England national under-17 football team and England national under-16 football team, and I can't say I like it. Punkmorten 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn between merge tags and prod tags. Oldelpaso 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is satisfied by most of these teams, for example England U18. Similarly, seeing as there are entire websites dedicated to describing youth team results, having articles on the teams themselves is no worse than having articles on reserve teams, especially seeing as your average youth international match is actually more notable than your average reserve team match (have you ever seen a reserve team match broadcast on Eurosport?) ugen64 16:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Hey, guys, I'm tracking several articles regarding youth players and I'm planning to list them all for deletion as per WP:BIO (beginning with these and these). Is there an easy way to list that amount of articles or do I really have to list one by one? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 00:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You can list multiple pages under one nomination during the AfD process, see How to list multiple related pages for deletion. Just make sure the articles you list together are similar. For example, you could have one nomination for non-notable youth team members of one club, another nomination for another club's, and so on. A recent example of a multi-article AfD is the Ryan Serrant nomination. --Scottmsg 02:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Using common names of football clubs?

Sporting Lisbon

Sporting Clube de Portugal is generallly known in the English press as Sporting Lisbon. On Wikipedia we use common names not necessarily the strictly correct names to enable people to understand what is going on. Miguelzinho is going through many articles changing Sporting Lisbon to Sporting Portugal. Does the project have any views on this, please? TerriersFan 14:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert it, as you say - common names should be used. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Being "common name" does not make it right. Outside the UK, clubs are often referred to as "Arsenal London" or "Everton Liverpool". These are not right either. Sporting Clube de Portugal would be the most appropriate name to use. Let's not perpetuate others' errors. - fchd 18:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - Sporting Lisbon is used by an overwhelming majority of English language media, and thus should be the term we use. Oldelpaso 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia and the common name as used by the English language media should be used. I do not see that can be denied that 'Sporting Lisbon' is the name used by English language media for this club. --Malcolmxl5 05:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with fchd here. I dislike seeing "Sporting Lisbon" written in articles. "Sporting CP" or even just "Sporting" would be more appropriate. - PeeJay 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard Everton or Arsenal being referred to that way, so its not "often" thats just a lie. Chandlertalk 00:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I know Arsenal London is used quite often in Germany - [9]. ugen64 16:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Inter Milan vs Internazionale

FC Internazionale Milano is well-known as Inter Milan or Internazionale. However, Internazionale is common used by UEFA, so what do you think using Internazionale in UEFA article, and Inter Milan at other article, or should we merge it? KyleRGiggs 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Use Internazionale in Italian and European Cup related articles. But for example if they're mentioned in an article which purely has nothing to do with Italy (say Oxford United Stars F.C. article) then use "Inter Milan". - The Daddy 11:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say use Internazionale in all instances. Hardly anyone in Italy refers to the club as Inter Milan, and IMO we should try to phase out the usage of that name. - PeeJay 12:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I would also say that the usage of the name "Inter" by itself would be OK, but never "Inter Milan". - PeeJay 12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely we should use the most commonly used name, per WP:COMMONNAME, and in the English-speaking world the most commonly used name (even if it's technically wrong) is "Inter Milan". Even the BBC use it..... ChrisTheDude 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid Wikiproject

Now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Real_Madrid. I've suggested the creator makes some links with WP:Football.

So that gives us Real Madrid,Bayern Munich,Sheffield Wednesday, and Sheffield United.

Do they need more consistency? Does it matter? Paulbrock 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I really cannot see the point of these club-like projects, especially with the smaller clubs. Theres only gonna be five or six members for the main teams and two or three for the smaller teams, and nethertheless after a few months they just become inactive. What is the point? Davnel03 19:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Could we not encourage them to make merge into taskforces instead. This has been done in the past by the WP:MILHIST project and it has been successful. It keeps everything centralised. Thats my two cents anyway. Woodym555 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Woodym555, there is no point having small wikiprojects that in all fairness not get much attention. Sometimes they can be more like a personal crusade --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixture lists

Someone has added this fixture list to the Blyth Spartans article and is updating it with results. MoS issues aside, is this copyright violation? Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it, but it is blatant recentism in a club article. This content should be included in a Blyth Spartans A.F.C 2007-08 season article, if at all.

A similar list appeared in Chasetown F.C. last season. I stripped it out into a separate article, which promptly got put up for AfD and deleted in a snowball vote..... ChrisTheDude 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixture lists are in fact copyright of the league that produced them. I emailed the Football League about this quite recently. The reply was quite informative:

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.

--Jameboy 17:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know what the situation is for Spain? If it is the same as in Britain, then La Liga 2007/2008 schedule is a copyvio. Oldelpaso 17:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't be certain on this but I don't think Spain's fixture lists are copyrighted. World Soccer Magazine publishes a list of fixtures from the Spanish league every year, but they may have paid to use them, rather than the fixtures being free to use. - PeeJay 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Project banner

When articles are given the NA rating there is now a large gap between the next piece of text on that page as shown on the top of this page and on the Talk:List of Aston Villa captains page. I think this is a result of the change linked here. I think this is a worthwhile addition though so does someone know how to fix it? Thanks Woodym555 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote further up the Template talk:Football page, I think it's to do with the syntax box, but nothing was ever done about it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice User:Ebyabe is attempting fixes, the large space is annoying! Was your problem above or below, currently there is a large space, big enough to put another banner in, underneath the template. I can't see what the problem is though. There are no rogue spaces or gaps. Woodym555 18:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Below. I'll ask for input on the Template:Intricate template talk page. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I know WHAT is causing it, if not why. This change seems to have fixed the problem. Paulbrock 20:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, seems to have fixed it. I just hope there is no knock-on effect of removing it. We will have to wait and see i suppose. Thanks!! Woodym555 20:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

List class

Quite unrelated, but whats this "list class" all about? What is a featured list; does it come under list or FA class on the rating? Mattythewhite 18:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I had never come across the list class before i reverted it on the captains page. I think featured lists use the FA class at the moment. Some projects judge lists along the same lines as articles and so it depends i think. As far as i am aware there is no standardisation across projects. Woodym555 19:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"list" class is unofficial (not part of the WP1.0 Assessment Scheme) but commonly used in Wikiprojects, presumably because it is difficult to apply Stub/Start/B class criteria to a list. Featured lists are based on the featured list criteria. Personally I think it's messy and would stick to Stub/Start/B, then make it FA-class when it passes either the standard FA criteria or the Featured list criteria. Paulbrock 19:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is my prefered system, and the one we run at the moment, is it not? Currently the FA banner is used for featured lists as well. There is no specific parameter for featured lists. Woodym555 19:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Season-by-season articles

Hi, You're doing great stuff but I'm wondering why there are (still) no season-by-season articles about soccer clubs? It doesn't seem forbidden as we can see here : 2007 Indianapolis Colts season... 40 articles a season! In football, there is so much other than statistics to write out... I can help!

82.240.207.81 09:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? There's dozens of them! West Ham United alone have over 30. Check out Category:English football club seasons ChrisTheDude 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangina2

The user Orangina2 is really trying my patience. He/she has removed valid, licensed images from articles (such as Kieran Richardson) for no good reason, has persistently updated stats without updating "pcupdate" (Chris Kirkland just one of many examples) and hardly ever uses an edit summary to explain what they are doing. They have been told about all of these things on their talk page, in some cases on multiple occasions, but they rarely respond to talk messages. Is there anything that can be done? Not sure if WPFOOTY is the right place for my complaint, but as this person mostly updates footy articles it seemed a good place to start. Cheers. --Jameboy 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Every time they do it make sure that you add a warning template, this is for every instance because it acts as a record. Then go here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and report them and an admin will issue and appropriate length of time to block them. The vandal template are all on ma user page. happy huntin =] --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems not so much vandalism, more cack-handedness and/or ignorance. But then again, if they persistently ignore reasonable requests, they do need warning, so thanks for the tip. --Jameboy 12:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Its no problem but off what you're sayin you are right, they do need warning, they are vandals. One of the joys of wikipedia putting up with people like that... :p Childzy ¤ Talk 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Andy Gray

I've just noticed that the article on one of the UK's first million-pound players is at Andy Gray (commentator). Personally I think it should be at Andy Gray (footballer born 1955), in the same way that Sammy Lee (footballer) hasn't suddenly been moved to Sammy Lee (football manager) just because that's what he now does. Any thoughts......? ChrisTheDude 12:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is he is very well known as a commentator now so maybe its okay? Think a consensus needs to be reached here, im neutral --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually i support the merge/move it makes disambiguation a lot neater. To be honest you should just go ahead and do it per WP:MOS --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Which merge/move....? ChrisTheDude 12:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As Andy Gray (footballer born 1955) already exists it wont move so just gotta copy text from Andy Gray (commentator) paste it in Andy Gray (footballer born 1955) and redirect Andy Gray (commentator) to Andy Gray (footballer born 1955) then check for double redirects. i'll do if you want? --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• You never ever move a page by doing a copy-and-paste, that's a massive WP no-no. Pages must only ever be moved via the "move" tab at the top. The fact that the redirect page already exists is irrelevant, the two would simply "swap places" ChrisTheDude 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Last time i tried to move a page to one that already existed it wouldnt let me... strange, i'll let you sort it oooout =] --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's edit histories at both locations, the move won't work. It will need an admin to sort out. - fchd 14:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to go to WP:RM and list it there although a discussion should take place on the talk page first. Cut and paste mergers should never be done and if you find one list it at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Cutting and pasting separates the page history from the text of the article. Woodym555 14:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it. Incidentally, the part of the article about his punditry needs some serious cleanup. Oldelpaso 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Darlington F.C.

Can somebody can keep an eye on the players of Darlington F.C., somebody has deleted all of the SoccerBase links. 84.67.205.147 18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Again? That happened before. I'll revert them. Mattythewhite 18:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Player career statistics section

There seems to be some inconsistency with the Career Statistics section in player articles (I'm talking about the section that comes after the prose, showing performance in all competitions, rather than the top-right infobox). Adam Boyd and Emile Heskey are both designated Good Articles, but Boyd has most recent season first while Heskey's is oldest season first. Are we OK to freestyle with these sections? Wouldn't it be better to have a standard? I'd favour oldest first to match the Infobox, although the other way up would facilitate comparison with Soccerbase. --Jameboy 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the oldest season should come first. And tbqh, who cares about comparing it with Soccerbase? That site is often wrong and incomplete anyway, in my experience. - PeeJay 22:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Blgeoverlord

Hey, guys! Would you please take a look at Blgeoverlord (talk · contribs) edits? Despite the fact he'd already been told by me and admin Carioca, he just won't follow wikipolicies like WP:NAMING and WP:BIO. Besides, his edits are reckless, he is constantly moving articles and don't fix double redirects or template links. I've warned him about it but he simply ignores messages in his talk page. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 22:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Transfers in/out on team pages

Should they be included or not? It seems as if there is no given standard, some pages have them and some don't. Some clubs have their own article on transfers, like Real Madrid. I, for one, think they help to clarify squad changes and help to keep track of players, who in some cases don't have an article of their own and otherwise can be hard to find. I have twice added a Transfer in/out paragraph in the Levante UD article only to have had it reverted. Is that really necessary? And if such sections shouldn't be included I think it is necessary to link to the transfer pages in the club pages. Sebisthlm 02:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They do assist the transition between chronological club-season articles. Raymond Cruise — King Capitals, it seems — who reverted your additions, doesn't seem to give reasons for doing so. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He was asked here about similar actions, but failed to respond on either his own or the other editor's talk page. If he continues, warn and then report him for vandalism. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a favour of them at all on main club pages. A clear-cut case of recentism in my book. I know I've deleted them from the Fulham F.C. page a few times. - fchd 06:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Richard/fchd, such things should only be on season-by-season articles, not the main club page ChrisTheDude 07:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Should be on season articles. Mattythewhite 10:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and made them as subtle as possible when I created Dundee United F.C. season 2007-08. Fedgin | Talk 11:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Listing transfers in season articles is all very well on British clubs which contain alot of information spread out on several articles. The problem is that even articles on Spanish Primera clubs (not to mention Segunda clubs or most South American clubs) don't contain a lot of information, let alone a seperate season article. In these cases I think a Transfers in/out paragraph adequatly replaces an otherwise empty season article. Sebisthlm 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with Sebisthlm on this point. King of the North East 12:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The transfers from the current season is a very important information, because it deals directly with the most important thing for a football club, their current players. Also, it's very notable since the media talk so much about it. So, a section about it should exist in the club's main article.--ClaudioMB 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I delete "transfers for season x" sections from club articles on sight. That sort of thing falls under the remit of Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Oldelpaso 16:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems I've seen is what Sebisthlm alluded to: team pages aren't updated adequately or with the correct information due to the seeming lack of information available (whether that is because EPL clubs are further ahead of the curve or because EN Wikipedians don't bother to search out foreign language info, I don't know). The in-out section provides a way to assure readers, via a reference, that a player actually was transfered in or out of a club. There certainly are questions about whether certain players on Levante are still on the squad and with an in-out section it would be possible to document who was transfered. I completely understand Oldelpaso's concerns about recentism as it would suggest Wikipedia is a news source rather than an encyclopedia, but if the football(soccer) pages are to be considered encyclopedic, they must provide sources for who is on the squad and the best way I can think of doing that is to include transfer sections. Isaiah 20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I have never understood why transfers in/out on a club article is concidered news. The current squad is vital information, former players also important information, then why not combine this information? Obviously squad changes have an enormous impact on how the season is going to unfold for a certain club, not to mention financial and other impacts. To understand the current events of a competition, knowledge of player moves is extremely important. If transfers are just news, what of all the different transfer pages. If they merit own articles then surely they can be added to the clubs in question, or should all of these transfer pages also be deleted? There is a problem with a lot of people posting transfer rumours and speculation though, but that I think is a completely different question. Sebisthlm 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For serious fans, I think that the transfer issue is very important, but for casual fans, it's only necessary to know who is on the squad at the moment. I have to assume that these pages are aimed at both, so information that is good for one and not detrimental to the other seems perfectly reasonable to include. This would fall under that category in my book. Perhaps Oldelpaso has a different viewpoint, so I'll wait until he/she or someone with his/her viewpoint responds before jumping to conclusions about reasoning. Isaiah 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

One solution I've used in the past is a line beneath the squad saying For recent transfers, see [season] in [country] football. (or wherever). Could've sworn some "list of transfers" articles were either deleted or merged to the article about that league season following AfDs, maybe my memory is wrong. The likes of La Liga 2007-08 etc. would seem to me the logical place for such information.

For main club articles, their job is to give an overview of the club as a whole, which frequently encompasses more than 100 years. In that context somebody who transferred away from the club last month is no more relevant than someone who did so in 1962. To reference who is or isn't in a particular squad, citing something like the squadlist on the club's website should suffice. There's some archived discussion on the subject of transfer sections here. Oldelpaso 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the archived discussion. I just note that much of it concerned British clubs which we know have gazillion sub-pages. When it comes to club articles that aren't that comprehensive, is it really necessary to keep club history and current season apart by creating sub pages with 'Club X 2007-08 season' when perhaps all they would contain would be the transfers in/out section? One option is to link to 'list of transfers' pages (as in the case of Levante) as you suggest, but many smaller countries as well as lower level leagues in the bigger countries don't have those. I would suggest we keep transfers in/out sections when there are no 'club season' or 'transfer lists' to link to. Sebisthlm 23:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Season transfer category

I would like a "Category:2007-08 Football transfers" or something, so you would be able to jump between transfer pages for different leagues. Is there someone else who think that would be a good idea? Sebisthlm 12:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing squad "boxes"

Sorry to bother everybody again, but it seems there are a lot of squad boxes (or whatever they´re called) at the bottom of player pages that aren't up to date, and I don't seem able to update them. I have searched for some sort of guide on how to do it, but I can't find any. Cheers! Sebisthlm 12:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They're located at Template:(Club name) squad, e.g. Template:Arsenal F.C. squad. Dave101→talk  12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You may find this useful: Category:Football squad templates, regards,King of the North East 12:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you select Edit from the top link, you get a list of templates under the edit box, and you can click to the squad template from there. ArtVandelay13 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all the tips. I'll have to give it a go. Sebisthlm 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aldershot et al

When a club goes out of business, their league record is expunged from the record books. Does this apply to a player's goals against the club too? For example, Tony Rodwell scored a hat-trick against Aldershot in 1991, and a(n unsourced) note in his article states that this too was expunged from the record books. If anyone has a definitive answer, please let me know, because it would mean a few statistical changed around 'pedia. Thanks. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it really true that a club's league record is expunged when they go out of business? I find it hard to believe that the FA would go to such lengths and make it look like the club never existed, tbh. - PeeJay 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the games already played during the season that the club goes out of business (if it happens mid-season) that are often wiped from the record. Not a club's entire existence. ArtVandelay13 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that makes sense then. And also answers the question above. - PeeJay 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all league matches involving that club and thus goals scored in them are considered void. Alluded to here for Phil Stant. Could be worse. Denis Law once scored six in a cup match only for it to be abandoned. To add insult to injury he finished on the losing side when the match was replayed. Oldelpaso 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Help requested on Olympic football articles

User:SndrAndrss, who is indefinitely banned from editing on Wikipedia for past disruptive behaviour, has asked: Can you add the new match reports for all the olympic football matches from 1984 to 2004 that would have been fine. I am posting the request here on his/her behalf in case anybody wants to take up this task. Andrwsc 00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish first team squads

Spanish roster rules restricts any Primera side to register a maximum of 25 (including a maximum of 3 non-EU players) players in the first team squad (as explained on the Real Madrid talkpage). Players with 26 and onwards are therefore not technically members of the first team but are primarily registered to a reserve or youth team. These roster restrictions have important effects on the Spanish club squads in the way that only players registered during registration periods during the transfer windows are elligable to play in the league. E.g. Motta and Ezquerro of Barca have not been registered and if neither of them is transfered at least one of them won't play during the fall since only one place is open in the squad (no. 13). To reflect this I think the Spanish first team squad lists should only include players with numbers 1-25, and reserve team players with first team numbers (26-) should be listed under Notable reserve team players. Any thoughts? Sebisthlm 16:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My point of view is not only for Spanish clubs, but for any football club. A club defines its own first team squad, not the media, Wikipedia, league, UEFA or FIFA. So, Wikipedia should use the club as source for that, unless there is a good reason to believe the team is providing a outdated information. In the Real Madrid example, the team has its list with 28 players. But some players don't have number yet. I think that should be followed. Why they have 28, not 25? I don't know, maybe they are trying to negotiate some players before transfer window close, and depend on that, define their squad. I believe sooner than later they will have a final list.--ClaudioMB 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is true then I think it's an excellent system for managing the squad lists. In other countries, where this doesn't apply, it's best to restrict it to squad numbered players - anyone without a squad number can't play for the first team, and when they do, they will get a number. ArtVandelay13 07:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good articles

Hello everyone. This is a plea for more player articles to be driven to WP:GA. I've become a regular at WP:GAC and I'm sick of seeing six American wrestlers for every one footballer article nominated, and having looked at Mido (footballer) and now James Milner I'm pretty sure there are dozens of articles which are close enough to be tinkered into GA status. I urge you all to take a player to GA, it's quite straight forward. The Rambling Man 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As a member of both WP:PW and WP:FOOTY does it really matter whether there's six wrestlers on there? Anyway, yeah there are severak articles pretty close to GA. Davnel03 18:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think The Rambling Man was just trying to say how there should be more football GA's. And may I nudge people here for possible GA's? Mattythewhite 12:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Robson

Hello all, sorry to canvass for attention but I've just put Our Bobby up for peer review with a view to getting him to FA. Now I know some people will tell me to just update the table on the main project page, I've done that, but I wanted to draw some attention to it here. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 16:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

More, I need more comment!! The Rambling Man 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, he's now at FAC - all comments welcome! The Rambling Man 10:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Aston Villa F.C. managers

Just to ask if anyone is available to comment on the Featured List candidacy. We need some more comments either way to meet the threshold. Thanks Woodym555 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Category for players whose current status is unknown

I've had a look but can't find a decent category, and I think this could have a potential for a 'clean-up project' - I've been trying to update former Dundee United F.C. players for what they are doing now, whether it be their club, if they are manager somewhere, retired, etc. and it's sometimes difficult after exhausting Google. Perhaps other Wikipedians can update pages like these if there was a stub/category of players with unknown statuses? Something like Category:Footballers with an unknown status? Fedgin | Talk 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea, I'd certainly be happy to go through and add ex-Gillingham players to such a category ChrisTheDude 09:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think it is a good idea. I think WP:BIO have some categories at the moment such as Category:Possibly living people which i found out when i created Dick Taylor (football manager).v This has several related categories which might be of interest. I will echo Chris's sentiments in that i will do it for Aston Villa players. Woodym555 10:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability criteria for English teams

I note that this Project's notability criteria still seem unresolved, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Presumably, at least the top 5 levels of English football are notable, but is an 8th level English team automatically n? 7th? 9th? --Dweller 12:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the agreement is down to the 10th level, but I'm not certain. Mattythewhite 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be down to Step 7 (i.e. the 11th level) - top divisions of leagues such as the Manchester Football League or the third division of the Sussex County League. Number 57 12:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the newly created Waldon Athletic F.C. article, would be notable? --Dweller 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Normally it needs to have played at Step 6/Level 10 to pass AfD - Waldon fails by two divisions. - fchd 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Where can I see an explanation of the levels? Also, would someone else try to have "a word" with the newbie originator, as he's ignoring me and putting a lot of effort into an article that may end up binned. --Dweller 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

See English football league system for a table of the verious levels. - fchd 13:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have prodded Waldon Athletic F.C.. I suspect the author will contest it, but if that happens I will take it to AfD next week (currently I don't have internet access at home...). Number 57 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it not right though that playing at Step 6 upwards is *one* way to pass the Notability requirements? Lower clubs may be notable if they are subject to significant coverage in secondary sources (I'm thinking the like of AFC Wimbledon and F.C. United, even though they entered at a 'notable' level) Paulbrock 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Notability can be obtained by meeting the usual criteria e.g. multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources. - fchd 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tamworth FC in need of some serious editing.

NOTE: The following is copied from WP:NLF as it isn't getting any response.

Can anyone help out with this horribly long and news-like Tamworth F.C. article?

I don't know where to start! It needs a serious surgeons knife taking too it. --Gavinio 09:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a serious mess, what is wikiFootballs standing on having full match reports like that? They all need removing, its absurd but i can think of any rationale to delete all of the reports --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Absurdity is quite sufficient for a rationale. Oldelpaso 14:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mario Balotelli vs Mario Barwuah

I am currently involved in a dispute regarding the article name for Mario Balotelli Barwuah (full name), an Inter Milan player born in Italy to Ghanaian parents, and then adopted by a Lombardian family. The article was previously stored under Mario Balotelli, however a user moved it under Mario Barwuah citing "incorrect surname". I moved it back citing WP:COMMON but he moved it back once again. I might lastly move it back and possibly set a move protection for it, but I need some consensus in support of keeping the article under Mario Balotelli. Can you please discuss the issue in its talk page? Thanks in advance. --Angelo 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Use Mario Balotelli-Barwuah?. It should be case by case, but Christian Manfredini never used his original name, and Shaun Wright-Phillips should be the common practice. Balotelli were known in Italy, but Barwuah is in Africa. Matthew_hk tc 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's much closer to the Manfredini case rather than Wright-Phillips's. In any case, the discussion is on Talk:Mario Balotelli :) --Angelo 22:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam referencing?

I've just removed an unnecessary reference from Fernando Torres - I've never heard of www.abcgoal.com. I thought it must be some kind of spam, so I checked the user's contributions... see here aLii 07:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish football squads

Quick question. Is there a limit of 25 first team players in a Spanish clubs squad? I've read this but just wanted to ask here to make sure. I'm wandering as an anon is exceeding this amount on Real Madrid. Thanks, Mattythewhite 21:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Football Manager is a definitive source, but on that game, you can only register 25 players for your first team, using squad numbers 1 to 25, and you can only select a maximum of three non-EU players. I assume it's the same in real life. - PeeJay 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've adressed this question a couple of posts above. It's true that the squad is restricted to 25 players (that's why Ezquerro and Motta have been stripped of their shirts and left out of the Barça squad making them illegible to play in the league). Numbers 26 and above have to be registered to a reserve team. As for RM I have twice removed the players 26 and above and put them under "prominent reserve team players" only for some anonymous IP number to move them back to the first team squad (and added to the "transfer in" table, even if Codina and Torres are the only Castilla players to actually have been promoted to the first team). Now I can't be bothered to start an edit war over it. Sebisthlm 22:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

League Notability

I was told that players in nonprofessional leagues are not allowed articles on wikipedia. However, I think we should make an exception for Conference north, Conference national, and Conference South. Because they are semi-professional leagues, and most of the clubs in their are fully professional clubs that have played in leagues before. However these leagues are notable at a national level at least. The sunder king 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've been misinformed. AFAIK, Conference National, Conference North and Conference South teams do meet notability standards on Wikipedia. Anything lower, though, and you'd be pushing it. - PeeJay 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The sunder king is arguing, I think, that players who have played in Conference National, Conference North and Conference South are inherently notable because the leagues are notable. That not the case. Players are not notable unless they "...have played in a fully professional league..." per WP:BIO, i.e. the Premier League, Championship, League One and Two. --Malcolmxl5 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that I think those leagues are professional leagues, and I am arguing against this, and that just players in leagues below these shouldn't have articles. The sunder king 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all clubs in even Conference National are professional, never mind the lower level. Literally dozens of players with no experience above Conference National have been deleted via AfD in the past, so clear precedent says that such players do not meet the requirements..... ChrisTheDude 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated template for under-21 etc. teams

I have updated the old Template:fbu21, and moved it to Template:fbu, to support any of the "under-NN" team articles. The age limit is now specified as the first parameter. For example, the old {{fbu21|name}} now works as follows:

• {{fbu|21|NED}} → Netherlands
• {{fbu|20|BRA}} → Brazil
• {{fbu|18|ENG}} → England

All old transclusions of fbu21 have been updated. Andrwsc 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic work, my friend. KUTGW. - PeeJay 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I still have several other sports on my work list: tennis (using {{davis}} and {{fed}}), rugby union ({{ru}}), cricket ({{cr}}), and if the (ice) hockey folks can get their act together and rename their national team articles to the same format as every other sport (see discussion here), then I can use {{ih}} for them. When all this is done, I estimate that about 2000 flag templates will have been replaced by about 40! Andrwsc 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like quite a task. I've supported the poll at the hockey team page, but let us know if there's anything else that I or anyone else can do to help. - PeeJay 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Clubs which have folded/been re-formed

Has there ever been any discussion about a definitive way to handle this situation? I ask because I've noticed that Scarborough and Scarborough Athletic are two separate articles, as are Aldershot and Aldershot Town, but Maidstone United covers both versions of the club in one article, as do Milton Keynes City and Wellingborough Town 2004, and in the case of the Wellingborough article when I questioned this on the talk page I was specifically told that both versions should be covered by one article. Is it simply that if the new club adopts a new name they get a new article but if they continue the old name they get rolled into the old club's article.....? ChrisTheDude 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the Maidstone article, the two clubs are the same. When they had to pull out of the Football League, they maintained affiliation to the Kent FA as Maidstone Invicta (playing juniors only for the first season I believe), and purchased the Maidstone United name back as soon as they legally could. - fchd 12:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't realise that ChrisTheDude 12:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Antonio Puerta

I know this is not a forum, but in case you don't know Puera died this afternoon after he collapsed in Sevilla's game on Saturday. I'm not going to be on Wikipedia for a few hours, so the page will almost certainly need to be watched or semi-protected in light of recent events as IP's are already attacking the page. R.I.P. Puerta. Davnel03 14:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RIP indeed. Poor bloke. - PeeJay 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Best thing you could have done would be to post a message on an Admins page or WP:RPP. Which gets me thinking, we could do with a list of Admins to go to that are part of this wikiproject, if there are any. Would be good keeping things close and local. --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Cup / Fairs Cup dispute

As mentioned quite a bit further up the page, there is a long running dispute over whether the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup should be included in lists of UEFA Cup results. Editors are requested to give their opinion at Talk:European football records. Oldelpaso 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Could you express your opinion in this survey/discussion on the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and UEFA Cup? Any input would be helpful. -- BestEditorEver 12:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it's only mentioned one other time on this page, but the link in the previous post links to the most recent archive, where it's mentioned two more times. It's getting a little old now. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Dudesleeper

I noticed you removed my comment notifying other football editors of a survey on talk:WikiProject Football. I do not appreciate this. No repetition took place. My previous comment had nothing to do with the survey. -- BestEditorEver 13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep comments on the relevant talk page. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am. Please stop reverting my relevant comment on talk:WikiProject Football. -- BestEditorEver 13:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you're currently the only one in opposition on the survey, this couldn't be seen as canvassing at all, could it? - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since (a) he is not advocating a position and (b) this is obviously the best place to put a request for comment, then no. Number 57 13:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The survey has only begun this morning, not many people have been able to respond. Hopefully more will. But what a strange accusation from Dudesleeper. I do not believe I have encountered you before. May I ask, why the hostility? -- BestEditorEver 13:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note that I posted my comment on talk:WikiProject Football nine minutes before other editors started to participate in the survey. My vote was the only one submitted. It wasn't trailing and I wasn't "canvassing" for votes. -- BestEditorEver 13:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from your overriding my request to not post about the same topic several times, nope, no reason. The discussion, involving yourself, has been going on since mid-July. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to qualify yourself. If you say you're not canvassing, I'll take your word for it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Surrey Senior League

This article states that the Surrey Senior League existed until 2003 when it merged into the Combined Counties League, and that the Surrey County Senior League is still active. This wildly differs from the Combined Counties League page, which says that the Surrey Senior League became the Combined Counties League in the late 1970s, and that it was the Surrey County Senior League merged into the CCL in 2003, with both "Surrey" leagues now therefore defunct - which is correct....? ChrisTheDude 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of a single game - AfD

I refer all of the knowledgable people here to contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayern Munich 1 - 2 Norwich City. I think that the WikiProject's notability criteria could do with some formalising/wordsmithing. --Dweller 14:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe the game should be historically significant and be reported by independant sources as being so. Or the final of an important cup event. --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spencer Trewethy

I'm planning on starting a page on this 'tycoon' ex-Aldershot owner, jailed for fraud. Could I have anyone's support on what to write and/or references? Porterjoh 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:CITE, thats a pretty good guide. As for what to write, try and set it out as a general Bio article explaining his life etc and then get on to the things he is notable for, in this case the whole fraud business. Just reference this bit well and you are on to a winner. If you need anymore help just message me =] --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

after a quick google search i didnt find anything, is the name right? --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Porterjoh, find sources, lots of them, then write the article. Here are a few trivial mentions[10][11][12][13](pay-per-view) Looking at it though, I don't think he's going to pass the [WP:BIO notability] test, particularly as he seems to be known for just the one event, a fraud involving Aldershot. Your best bet, I think, is to integrate the info into the Aldershot article. --Malcolmxl5 00:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. That's what I'll do. Porterjoh 17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)

Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Template Help

I would like to use Template:Round16-CLformat in UEFA Champions League articles, but the ranking let the template could not be used. Could someone help for deleting those ranking, thanks. Raymond Giggs 04:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the seedings and changed the final to only one leg. However, the lines leading to the semi-finals and the final don't quite line up. Still, I don't think that matters too much. - PeeJay 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories on player's religion - relevance?

I have seen today a user adding countless Category: Portuguese Roman Catholics to players (e.g. Ricardo Quaresma) and Category Argentinian Roman Catholics to players (e.g. Gabriel Batistuta). I do not know if this has been discussed before. Is this relevant? Aren't we overcategorizing? Given that most of the population of Portugal and Argentina (in these two examples) are overwhelmingly Catholic, we would be adding categories like this by the thousands. What's the point? Furthermore, what should we care what a player's religion is unless it has a lot to do with the person (on the players article), for example with born-again people like Kaká where it is prominently mentioned. Can we have a consensus here? Thanks. Alexf(t/c) 13:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A player's religion is not relevant, except in the cases of players like Kaká and Linvoy Primus, for whom religion is an important part of their character. Those categories should be removed. - PeeJay 13:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's my opinion too. That makes two votes for removal. Anybody else? Alexf(t/c) 13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that someone's religious views are their own concern and not worthy of a category. To me it's no more relevant than their racial background. Religious views are only worth mentioning where they conflict with the norm for an individual's country/team e.g. catholics playing for Northern Ireland or protestants playing for Everton. As I'm on dangerous ground here I think that I'll stop now. If these categories come up for discussion, I would probably "vote" for deletion. Daemonic Kangaroo 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Daemonic Kangaroo. I am not asking here about deletion of the Categories themselves which is another controversial issue. What I'm asking here is if I should go on and remove the category link in the footy players articles, which I believe is correct and I am given to understand you vote for it too. That makes 3-0 for removal so far. Thanks. Alexf(t/c) 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. An editor was adding the Nationality Muslims category to many footballers in the past, and we removed it on the basis that the player was notable as a footballer not as a Muslim. The same goes for other religions. However, if for some reason a footballer is a notable adherent of a particular faith (like a cleric or theologian) it would be reasonable to give them those categories. Jogurney 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war regarding Dynamo Kyiv/Kiev

At the club articles, redirects and various Champions League articles. Which spelling should be used? I would say Kiev with it being the commonly used English name and the name of the article on the city... WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The club's official name, as registered with UEFA, is "FC Dynamo Kyiv". Here is the proof: [14] - PeeJay 20:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So Spartak Moscow and CSKA Moscow should be Spartak Moskva and CSKA Moskva. But YOU said to use "Moscow" there. Also [15] explained everything. It shows "Kiev, Ukraine", not "Kyiv, Ukraine". Raymond Giggs 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And that very page you linked to shows the name of the club as FC Dynamo Kyiv (repeatedly) even if it shows the name of the city as Kiev. - fchd 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, PeeJay said that he would accept "Spartak Moscow" more than "Spartak Moskva". By his criteria, he would use "Dynamo Kiev", but he did use "Dynamo Kyiv". It is self-contradictory. Raymond Giggs 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyiv. That's the transliteration from the Ukrainian. Kiev, is an outdated spelling, and comes from the transliteration of the Russian. It's like Peking / Beijing or perhaps Bombay / Mumbai. - fchd 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Western Europe accepted the version "Kiev". In most of the wikipedia articles(french, german and so on), they used Kiev instead of Kyiv, although Kyiv is made. Raymond Giggs 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still called Peking Duck isn't it? aLii 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...or Chicken Kiev ;) — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We should be using the most commonly used name in English (see WP:NAME), which is without doubt Kiev. Even the club's official website is at http://www.fcdynamo.kiev.ua/. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who is interested in this, I suggest heading to Talk:Kiev/naming where there are literally hundreds of opinions. That way you can save yourselves some time. The consensus was Kiev. The Rambling Man 07:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many points there; but, not all of them are relevant to this discussion. The name that was decided upon for the city article need not be the same name as the team. For one example, see Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance (the Japanese kanji is Tokyo (or, more appropriately, Tōkyō)), but, since the official name of the company is spelled with the i, it has carried over to the Wikipedia article as well. Neier 08:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Giles Barnes

Please can somebody please keep an eye on the Giles Barnes article as some IP/Vandal thinks that he has moved to West Ham, but Derby have reject an offer from the Hammers[16]. Kingjamie 20:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, already on watchlist. Kingjamie 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sodje family

The Sodje family is a remarkable sporting family with four brothers playing football professionally and a cousin playing Rugby League. A summary can be found at Akpo Sodje. I am thinking of producing an omnibus article. Before I put a lot of work in may I have a view as to whether such an article is likely to have the support of the Project? I am not keen on producing an article that is immediately AfD'd! TerriersFan 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)