Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FOOTY)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Repairing dead links[edit]

I originally asked about this at WT:WikiProject Football/Australia task force#Repairing dead embedded links, but was advised by two editors that it would be better to ask here.

I was looking at 2009–10 A-League National Youth League and found that all of the links to match reports were dead and are redirecting to I've already found archived versions for all of the dead links and have them formated using {{cite web}}, so the only thing left to do is add them to the article. The match report links were originally embedded into the article; This is a style that may have been OK in the past, but is one that is no longer considered acceptable per Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources. I am not suggesting that the templates be scrapped; I am only suggesting that the embedded links be converted to footnotes. The working of the template will not be affected (as far as I can tell) and the only difference will be as to how the links appear in the article: Instead of appearing as "Report", they will appear as "Report[1]". Using citation templates will also allow more information about the source to be provided besides its url. I am not asking others to stop whatever they are doing and help me do any of this. I realize it's an old article, but old articles are typically where links go dead and I think its better to repair the dead links per WP:DEADREF than simply leave things as is or just adding {{dead link}}. Normally, I would discuss something like this on the article's talk page, but since the same problem affects other individual season articles and since it is involving a template, I thought I'd ask for input here. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't see why not, personally. Fixing dead links is a good thing, and we shouldn't be encouraging a bare-link format. If it were me, I'd be inclined to go a step further and omit the word "Report" entirely. Most readers of Wikipedia are used to the idea that a little number in square brackets tells you where the information came from, and not displaying the word "Report" might encourage editors to think of the parameter as a reference. Might be a step too far, though.
Three years ago, the deadlink problem was raised unanswered at Template talk:Football box#Broken links in the |report= parameter? – trialling a solution at a carefully selected low-profile target such as 2009–10 A-League National Youth League seems like a good way to proceed... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said on the WikiFootball Australia page, I think it's a good idea. I can't imagine anyone having any reason to object this, but it will probably be a herculean task at times. I think Struway2 has hit the nail on the head by suggesting to utilise the lower traffic pages as a bit of a testbed for this. - J man708 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Struway2 and J man708 for the input. Embedded links seem like the perfect one-click approach when everything is working fine. When they go dead, however, you're only left with a bare url to work with which can make it a bit harder to find an appropriate archived version of the link. Even if you do find an archive version, repairing the dead link can be problematic because you either have to simply embed the archived link or add it using templates (e.g., {{cite web}}) as pointed out in Broken links in the |report= parameter?, neither of which is a very good option. Using footnotes (e.g., <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>), however, allows the text in the article body to remain essentially unchanged and only affects how the citation appears in the references section. This does mean a reader has to click one more time to see the actual source, but I think this is a minor inconvenience that is far outweighed by the additional information that can be provided about the source. Anyway, I'm not advocating the across-the-board immediate replacement of all embedded links in all of the article's under the purview of this project. I just felt it would be fairly easy to convert the embedded links to footnotes while repairing the dead links for this one particular article. Perfectly fine with this being a test case to see how things look and use as a basis for future reference. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
After doing a few practice edits, I kinda agree with Struway2's above comment about the word "Report". Simply adding <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> to "Report" gives us "Report[1]" which seems sort of pointless when the citation can just as easily be added to the final score like "1-0<ref>{{cite web}}</ref>" to give us "1-0[1]". The end result is the same I guess, but for some reason the latter seems better to me. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Marchjuly: I wouldn't move away from using |report= to hold the reference. Logically, that is the reference parameter, and attaching the ref specifically to the score carries an implication (to me, anyway) that all it's sourcing is the score, not the whole row. And if it stays in the position where the word "Report" normally goes, below the score, then visually it'll be only a minimal change from the expected format. So, using |report=<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=Ref title |publisher=A-League |accessdate=19 May 2015}}</ref>,

11 September 2009
Adelaide United 1 – 1 Central Coast Mariners
Monterosso Goal 78' [1] D'Apuzzo Goal 90+4'

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Ref title". A-League. Retrieved 19 May 2015. 
Thanks for taking the time to add that example Struway2. I can understand what you're saying about citing the score instead of the report. A bare footnote marker does seem a little strange to me, but it is another option to consider. Maybe others will chime in and have their say. Regardless, I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus is since either way the dead lnks get repaired. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this and have reverted to my original suggestion of citing the game score. The |report= entry is only visible to the reader if there's something added for it. My guess is embedding links was considered standard back when the template was created, so having a report entry for the infobox seemed perfectly logical at the time because you could embed a link and call it "Report". Embedded links, however, have been deprecated, so a report entry does not seem to be as essential as it once was and putting the footnote after the score is better in my opinion, at least better than simply trying to fill up the parameter with a bare footnote marker or by "Report"[1]. For reference, the entries for |attendance= and |referee= are not filled in for each match and infoboxes often have entries that are left blank. Once again, the only way a reader would know that there could be a "report" entry would be if they looked at the edit page markup. Anyway, I've just repaired the dead links for Rd. 1 so that others can see and assess, but I think "score"[1] would be better here. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Well the first thing that comes to mind that "1–1[1]" makes the score less clear. Putting the reference anywhere away from the score itself , including underneath, is fine in my opinion. C679 08:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Validity of photographs of museum exhibits as sources?[edit]

I took a few photos while I was on a tour of Old Trafford a few years ago, but I forgot to refer back to them for use here. Some of the info on the exhibits in the museum doesn't seem to have been replicated anywhere else (such as the fact that tennis player Suzanne Lenglen played an exhibition match at Old Trafford in 1927). How valid is this as a source, and if valid, how would I go about adding a reference to it to an article? – PeeJay 18:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You could reference the exhibition itself, rather than a photograph of it? Maybe use {{Cite press release}}, or even {{Cite journal}} if there was a programme/guide which accompanied it? GiantSnowman 19:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no problem in principle with citing item descriptions from exhibitions. But whether individual ones would be acceptable would fall under the standard definition of RS: would the exhibition and its curator(s) have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? The British Museum would; the average seaside-resort museum to entertain the kids when it's wet probably wouldn't. Where would an Old Trafford stadium tour come on that scale? Or alternatively, ask at WP:RS/N, which is what it's there for. In terms of how to cite, it'd probably be best to say the facts come from the label description of whatever it is, at Old Trafford's museum, date viewed etc; might be easier to write freehand than try to shoehorn it into a cite template.
Or alternatively, on Ms Lenglen's exhibition match specifically: Do you have access to old newspapers via your library or via one of the WP access programmes? if so, you can source it easily enough from the Manchester Guardian. Or if you haven't, I could email you a screenshot of their report (you'd have to send me your email address, the WP email facility doesn't allow the sending of attachments). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
{{Cite AV media}} (for the actual image) and {{Cite sign}} (for museum plaques) to the rescue. Hack (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Concacaf Task Force?[edit]

Is anyone interested in creating a task force for the CONCACAF? We would need a few willing members to help build the page and make articles for it. I'm gonna begin making templates and the layout for it soon in my sandbox as well. So what do you guys think? Da Drewster (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We already have a USA/Canada task force, not sure how much more useful a CONACAF-specific one will be, to be honest... GiantSnowman 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not a good use of your time to make the templates, etc. before interest is established here. C679 08:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hoax Articles[edit]

Declan Martin, a relatively new user seems to be engaged in creating nothing but relativley detailed hoax articles. I already speedied Johan Jamaza as an obvious hoax, but am less sure about:

I mean, I am pretty sure they are hoaxes, but just didn't think they were so blatant as to definitely be G3'able. I have Prodded two and one was alreayd BLPPRODed. Does anyone have anything to indicate these are real people / clubs (even if the article contains misinformation)? Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Blatant, blatant hoaxes. No Blanco played in Benfica, no Suharabat is international for Bangladesh, and no CD Bilbao played in Segunda B... FkpCascais (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. GiantSnowman 20:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


Someone just added newly created F.C.S.B. to the top Romanian league table at 2014–15 Liga I instead of Steaua Bucharest, which I reverted. The article claims Steaua is defunct, but I know they got UEFA license a few days ago. Is this true or a hoax? Qed237 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's still Steaua. They uses FCSB sometimes to not get in legal trouble, as much as i know. -Koppapa (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted/redirected. GiantSnowman 20:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Club Football Elo Ranking[edit]

Please check Club Football Elo Ranking. Is it notable? SLBedit (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Most likely not. -Koppapa (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Non-notable, please take to WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 20:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Football Elo Ranking SLBedit (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

On loan doubt[edit]

Is a player on loan until the club's season ends or until loan period expires? See Rochinha. SLBedit (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say until loan period expires (often 30 June). Qed237 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, and we don't know if the player will stay at the club we was loaned to, unless there's some reference. I'm going to restore the page. SLBedit (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
A domestic loan expires once the club's playing season is over, which for Bolton was the day after their last matchday of 2 May. International loans might be different, but I see no reason or evidence why they should be. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, the references only say the loan would be until the end of the season. SLBedit (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Struway2 here, I normally remove loans after the last game of the season. GiantSnowman 16:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hull United A.F.C.[edit]

A page for this club was created around a year ago, and it was rightly deleted as at that time it wasn't notable - having never played in a national competition or at Step 6 of the National League System.

The club has recently won promotion to the Northern Counties East League, and playing at this level has usually been enough to show notability, so I re-created a page for the club this week.

However, a deletion tag was soon placed on it based on the previous deletion argument and, despite my contest, the page has been deleted for a second time.

The user here seems convinced that Hull United A.F.C. have to play in a national cup competition to be eligible for a Wikipedia page, and won't accept that playing at Step 6 also confers notability, as shown here. I would appreciate it if someone could enter the debate and help get this page undeleted. Kivo (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the team pass WP:GNG? (i.e. has the team "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"?). I'd say WP:GNG trumps an essay by a user. Delsion23 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I understood that consensus here was that playing at Step 6 was enough, although I'd say satisfying GNG is also necessary. Does anyone know where the Step 6 notability consensus is? I don't fancy trawling through the archives to find it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The consensus is via many, many AfDs over the years. See an example here, which also contains links to several others. Number 57 13:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to wait until it actually meets the consensus criteria by playing at that level, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That's precisely what I said on JamesBWatson's talk page. As Hull United haven't yet played at either a league in the 6th step, or in the FA Vase, they don't yet satisfy notability on that grounds. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

New Sporting Kansas City 3rd Kit[edit]

I'm looking for help on doing the new Sporting Kansas City 3rd kit in the club & season template for the team. I don't know how to make it. The design is here. Elisfkc (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Alert to bogus link to commercial website[edit]

The link to "summary" just below the score of the 1966/67 League Cup final between QPR and WBA is a link to a betting website. There is no summary of the match as the link suggests. If there was a true original link to a match summary, it has been invaded by a commercial interest or a company is just adding "pretend" summary links. Please could someone with Wikipedia oversight privileges look into this abuse. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's fine. Soccerbase was bought by the RacingPost some years ago. The target URLs have changed (and in some cases are quite hard to find) and it looks like the link was never updated. I can see the stats here for instance. This is the kind of irritant that FIFA and UEFA give us now and then when they redesign their websites and break all of our references. Nanonic (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Next season[edit]

Hi, I was wondering when we consider next season to start?

On some articles like Premier League and Template:Premier League some editors put 2015-16 as current season but I think it is too soon? Okay, the 2014–15 Premier League ended sunday, but the domestic cup is still playing (final on sunday) and Champions League is also still playing. Also transfer window opens officially 1 July (domestic transfer can happen before), so does it not feel like new season starts then, when clubs can start buying players for next season? We could at least let all clubs finish their matches first or what do you think?. Qed237 (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it can depend on the league/country. for English competitions the season is not considered over until the last domestic match has been played (the FA cup final this season) which would make it end at the end of may. after this we are in the 'off-season' (or post season or pre season). I could be convinced that it should include the european or international competitions but as a bare minimum it shouldn't switch until at least the last domestic match has been played. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 13:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Image in trophy list[edit]

What do we say about these edits adding trophies. If I remember correctly it is not allowed? I have removed them but need input if I am right or wrong. Qed237 (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That was the wrong edit with the HUGE image of the cup. I redid it to make it the 20px size. But anyway, User:Qed237 is saying that there may be a copyvio, however they are images with the code from the wiki commons. I think they should be allowed, just my two cents, open to more input. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
See e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 18#Euro cup icons and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 19#European Cup logos... again for previous discussions. And e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FIFA World Cup (Rimet).svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coppacoppe2.png for deletion of similar images at Commons as derivative works of copyright trophies. I'd guess the current ones have been created since the last batch of deletions and they're still on Commons because no-one's nominated them for deletion yet. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:ICONDECORATION says icons shouldn't just be used for decorative purposes. That's exactly what these icons are for, and therefore they should be avoided. – PeeJay 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Gareth Bale and the transfer fee record[edit]

This was brought to my attention to by Adnan n2, but Gareth Bale's transfer fee to Real Madrid is listed as the highest in several articles, but the fee was actually lower than Ronaldo's, even without inflation adjustment. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and edit the lists in these articles:

But a couple of things: it seems List of most expensive association football transfers should be renamed to something like List of most highest association football transfers List of highest association football transfer fees, since I've seen news discuss "most expensive" in terms of the value and not the absolute amount of the fees. And is there any way to make sure the fees in these tables are correct, considering reported fees are often wrong? Mosmof (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No way to tell really, if sources differ. -Koppapa (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "List of most highest association football transfers" is nowhere near grammatically correct. The current title is infinitely better than that option. I really don't follow your logic on that point. Also, we can't do anything if reported fees are "wrong", as that would be original research. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I've edited the suggested article name - better? It seems we should still differentiate between reported figures on undisclosed fees vs fees published by clubs (assuming there aren't conflicting numbers). Mosmof (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
As for the "most expensive" verbiage, there's the argument that Neymar was the most expensive because of clauses in the transfer in addition to the fee, or that even at 100 million, Ronaldo's transfer was still more expensive because of inflation. "Highest transfer fee" (which would be limited to the basic fee minus escalator clauses and sell-on fees) is more specific than "most expensive transfer". Mosmof (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
first point

..I have asked for mergin for List of most expensive association football transfers & World football transfer record both of them talking about the same topic which is transfer record and even one of them stopped being updated since 2013 . and then both articles seem an extended edition for this section at this article [[1]] especially if you go down to the [[2]] do you agree guys ? what do you think ?

2nd point the problem about transfers usually sources differ from eachother.. but I think we should take the newest source about it especially in Ronaldo's case, since it is published after several months from the transfer and the article clearly stats it is revealed and then we should go with the club official website about the value of the website regardless of other sources if it is existed , what d you think also guys ?

Adnan (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The thing though, while Real Madrid claim that Bale cost 91 million euro, Tottenham claim he cost 100. There might be some accounting trickery or a hidden agent fee somewhere in there, but it's not exactly a settled matter, and everyone has an interest in quoting their own figure. Mosmof (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes a fee can be clarified when it appears in the club accounts for that financial year. Or more specifically, when a reliable secondary source reports on those accounts. Unfortunately in this case the Spurs accounts only quoted total profit due to player trading. Fees are normally more transparent when one of the clubs is listed on a stock exchange, but neither Spurs nor Real Madrid are. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The proposed title is still worse than the existing one, and you're quibbling over things that mean exactly the same damn thing. Yes, there are conflicting figures for transfers, but that's the same for most of them... and always will be, due to the nature of the beast (because we pretty much never know exactly what makes up the transfer fees) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinking in A-League National Youth League season pages[edit]

I've noticed that template's such as {{ALeague AU}}, etc. are being used for |team1= and |team2= in the {{footballbox}} templates used in for the round-by-round results in articles such as 2009–10 A-League National Youth League. The "ALeague" templates wikilink to the parent clubs which seems unusual to me since the articles are about YL teams. Doesn't it make more sense to wikilink to the relevant YL team instead, e.g., linking to Adelaide United FC Youth instead of Adelaide United FC, per WP:SPECIFICLINK? According to National Youth League (Australia)#Clubs, there are stand-alone Wikipedia articles for almost all of the YL teams, so it shouldn't be a major hassle to fix the link markup.

I came across something similar in the results table in 2014–15 A-League National Youth League#Positions by round where the |t= for {{Fb rbr t pos}} are all set to the parent clubs. Looking at Template:Fb rbr t pos/doc#Usage, it appears there's a way to linking directly to YL pages using |tl=. There are also some YL templates listed in Category:Fb team templates Australia such as Template:Fb team Adelaide United Youth and Template:Fb team Brisbane Roar Youth which can be used with |t=.

I'm not asking anyone do any of the above. I can easily be bold and "fix" the wikilinks while repairing dead links. I'm just curious as to whether this type of linking is a WP:WPF guideline or preference. If linking via templates is preferred over direct links, then I think I should have no problem creating new YL team short-cut templates (ala Category:A-League team shortcut templates) such as {{AYLeague AU}}, etc. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Makes sence to link to the youth teams, if they have articles. Using new templates is not optimal, especially for completed seasons, just use nomal wikilinks. Why are there 10 teams in the table in 2009/10, but only 9 have played? There is no explanation. -Koppapa (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed about linking to the youth teams directly, and also agreed that you definitely don't need to do it using templates. Just use plain wikilinks. – PeeJay 08:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Koppapa: I'm not sure why the Western Sydney Wanderers FC Youth are in that table since they seem to have not been founded until 2012. My guess is that somebody was using a later season's article for reference and just copy-and-pasted the table markup into the 2009-2010 season's article without giving it much thought. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You should definately use wikilinks ahead of the templates, and if possible wikilink to the youth team. Qed237 (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Order of infoboxes[edit]

Keith Barker is a former footballer of little repute, but a cricketer of growing reputation. Given his burgeoning career with bat and ball already vastly exceeds that with ball alone, would you chaps support me in putting the cricket infobox first? --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that he's already played more than 150 county matches, I'd say his cricket career definitely takes precedence over his football career. That said, he played football first so we ought to retain the chronology of the article. However, I don't see a problem with putting the cricket infobox at the very top with a pared-down football infobox in the appropriate place below. – PeeJay 12:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally I'd say have a section on football career and a section on cricket career, and include the relevant infoboxes in each section. This does not necessarily have to be chronological if there is consensus that he is better known as a cricketer than a footballer, regardless of what made him technically notable first. GiantSnowman 12:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Could both be embedded in {{Infobox person}}? Hack (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Now that's a fine idea, Hack. Agreed on chronology of text. Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Erm... no idea how to do that. Can anyone help? --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: I'll mock it up on the talk page of the article. Hack (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Smashing, ta. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)