Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won[edit]

Should this be deleted? List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What would be the reason for deletion? Kingjeff (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems like WP:OR to me... how do I verify the info? JMHamo (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I would say delete. No source at all. I am also thinking about template at the bottom only consisting of redlinks (2 or 3 blue) to same type of pages. QED237 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, this subject isn't discussed in German media. -Koppapa (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This kind of subject is here for example Football records in France#Total titles won (1918–present), Football records in Germany#Most successful clubs overall (1902–present) or Football records in England#Total titles won (1871–present). The template is Template:Association football records. For references, you have the work of an rsssf user Domestic National Rankings by Raúl Torre [1]
I think each country add or don't add trophies. Koppapa says they don't add in Germany but in France we add trophies. For example, we say Olympique de Marseille is the greatest football club because we have won 28 domestic trophies. When we won the 2012 League Cup, newspapers said l'OM is the first football club to have 30 trophies (28 domestic + an UEFA Champion's League and an Intertoto Cup).
These new lists & Total titles won sections have same contents. Delete lists, don't delete sections. --Guiggz (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I was talking about {{Football clubs listed by honours won}} with almost only redlinks. QED237 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
(Yes, I understood you speak about it. Me, I just want to show the template who reffers to the Total titles won sections).
I just want to say, we have twice same contents. So, if you delete List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won for reasons : Original research & no source, it's logical to also delete the Most successful clubs overall (1902–present) section in Football records in Germany for same reasons. That's why I said this kind of subject (add trophies and make a ranking) it's not WP:OR because we have a work of an rsssf user.
I think WP:OR is not the good reason to delete {{Football clubs listed by honours won}} and the specific articles. I think the good reason is just : twice same contents, so stay the older (Total titles won sections), delete the newest (these specifics articles). --Guiggz (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won isn't WP:OR because the information is a summary, probably other WP articles, and appears to be correct. I've tagged the article for lack of sources and citations. I'm not sure {{Football clubs listed by honours won}} is much use or has much potential. GnGn (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But who says what to include? Why not include List of East German football champions, or the Fuji-Cup which had more prestige than the official super cup some years. It doesn't even match the only RSSSF source because international competitions were added. -Koppapa (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Flags should be removed. SLBedit (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusion in naming of championships[edit]

What can we do with it? Maiō T. (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We could move. -Koppapa (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Can it be this way?
South American Youth ChampionshipSouth American Youth Football Championship
South American Under-17 Women's ChampionshipSouth American Under-17 Women's Football Championship
South American U-20 Women's ChampionshipSouth American Under-20 Women's Football Championship
Maiō T. (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok. -Koppapa (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Maiō T. (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Long name[edit]

Harrisburg City Islanders should be displayed as City Islanders in infoboxes. SLBedit (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, why? We don't shorten Wolverhampton Wanderers to just Wolverhampton or Wolves, so why would we do it for Harrisburg City Islanders? – PeeJay 00:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The club is referred to as City Islanders in its article. SLBedit (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I still don't see your point. Wolverhampton Wanderers are consistently referred to as "Wolves" in their article, but we still don't shorten their name in player infoboxes. I think what we have here is a similar case to most American sports teams, where the team may be referred to either by their nickname or the city name in lieu of the full team name. – PeeJay 19:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sturt Lions FC[edit]

Hello all, is Sturt Lions FC notable and why? My PROD was contested and I just want to know if I should take this to AfD? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the club isn't playing, or have played, in a fully professional league. Have the club ever played in a national cup (simmilar to FA-cup for England)? If yes, then the club is notable. If not, the next question should be if the club could be notable because of WP:GNG. It is a win-win to try AfD. If the article is notable, it would most likely be added references to prove the notability, and the article is improved. If the club isn't relevant, an article that shouldn't be there, is removed. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The club did play in the qualifying rounds of the FFA Cup this year, so it does qualify. However, this is the first season of the FFA Cup, so if hadn't been for it starting this year, it wouldn't have met that criteria. Nevertheless, I think playing in the third tier in Australia is probably sufficient to achieve notability. Number 57 22:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Just as a general clarification: playing in qualifying rounds = "playing in the national cup"? Have seen this interpreted both ways in various places. Macosal (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, per precedent of numerous AfDs on English clubs that have only played in the qualifying rounds. Number 57 13:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
So are deleted articles such as this incorrectly decided given that the club played in the 2014 FFA Cup Qualifying Rounds? Macosal (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Number 57 14:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
As a person who grew up in the town where this club plays, what you really need to do is really do is get some references about this club. Back in the in 1950s when Dutch immigrants formed this club did play in competitions of the state federation. I see a lot of club from England that compete in Level 7 or lower that have entries. Are they also notable? Probably not but they exist. To give the club credence and a reason to have an entry I think could help by having some references. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Orlando City Soccer Club[edit]

The usage of Orlando City Soccer Club (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) is under discussion, see talk:Orlando City Soccer Club (2015) -- (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Same club with two articles. SLBedit (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Hey, User:Berni2k is creating and importing banners with logos that are placed into articles. I think the logos are not really needed in articles like the 2014–15 Bundesliga and think that was also the consensus, or? Kante4 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Many of them (but not all) are non-free images that should only be used on the club articles, so they definitely shouldn't be used in articles like this. Number 57 15:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't see them. SLBedit (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Another editor and myself removed them, that's why. Kante4 (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The templates should be listed for deletion since there is no use for them (copyright issues as 57 mentioned). LRD 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No use? There was a single use why I did all this work, file names. I agree there is no need to place them everywhere but the templates are of great use if you do mot want to look up all the different file names. plz keep my work, and do not delete the template I will add docs later and add them to the temp lists, thx. You could help create team template pages for the open source team logos. Berni2k (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The images are in violation of the copyright policy so they should not be added to articles outside their main club page (infobox). Since that is the case, there is no use for the templates themselves. LRD 15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The templates won't be used like LRD said, so no need for having them. Kante4 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I only used team logos which were uploaded to wikimedia for my template data pages, how can be non-free? You can still use my templates for free banners/logos (not only sport), the flags templates would be a bad place to link them ... Berni2k (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

To sum it up I think wikipedia misses an easy way to post all the free banners/logos available on wikimedia in wikipedia pages. Mainly because these images have bad filenames like: My-picture-5.svg. I wanted to let them out of their cages and bring them to use for everyone with an easy template syntax like the country flags one. So this it commonly not wanted by all of the admins? If yes I will stop my work of course, with some sad face :( Berni2k (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not all logos uploaded to wikimedia are copyright-free, and those including football club logos/crests should not be used outside the club page infobox. That's why football kit images/templates do not contain club crests, manufacturer and sponsor logos either. Outside of copyright policy, those images add no value to the articles and logo clutter only serves to distract from content. LRD 16:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the templates for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Banner. Thank you. LRD 16:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


user:LRD just destroyed my table 2014-15_Bundesliga#Results_by_Matchday without posting any reason, may I change it back now or am I then as bad as him? Not only me thinks this table is useful. But I will not put any more work in it and the templates behind it because LRD will just put it up for deletion anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berni2k (talkcontribs) 06:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Berni2k (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Which specific template are you taking about, since there are too many listed at TfD to follow. And the reasons behind the TfD nominations are sufficiently explained here and here. LRD 06:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have temporarily removed the TfD tags for the four templates so that they may display properly. If those templates did not violate any copyright policy, they would be removed from the TfD nominations. LRD 06:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The nominations have been removed from TfD since they do not fall under the category of copyvios. I'll leave it to others to decide if the tables are useful. LRD 06:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Kevin-Prince Boateng[edit]

Hello, could anyone have look at Boateng's article? I'm worried about Mesling (talk · contribs)'s edits. A lot of his edits are okay, but some of his edits are not backed up by the references he adds, for example the claim that "Boateng is in possession of by purchasing for himself 2 biological Caucasoid male designer babies". I've removed the stuff but he re-added it and I don't want to start an edit war. I've warned him on his talk page about other additions of factual errors like the "Indictments" section when Mesling claimed that Boateng sabotaged brakes and engines of 13 vehicles and that he had to pay a "bribe" to the judiciary panel and that he faced prison time when the available sources say that he broke the outer mirrors of the cars, demolished a motorbike and had to pay a fine for this. --Jaellee (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, have removed any factual errors from Boateng's article: "Boateng is in possession of by purchasing for himself 2 biological Caucasoid male designer babies". Prevented edit war. Received and read warning on talk page from Jaellee. --Mesling (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I don't understand why these errors have been added in the first place. As this has happened repeatedly, I don't believe in editing mistakes anymore. --Jaellee (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
And whatis with the overlinking?. Every third word is linked in that article: sexy, legend, son, car, strength, footspeed, etc... I was reverted though and don't bother with that article anymore. -Koppapa (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I've cleaned up some of it. The Attributes section was pretty much copyvio-ed from its cited source, and the amusing bit was that one lifted sentence referred to Kaká, who was also discussed in the source, and not to Boateng. I've removed anything from the Personal section that wasn't reliably sourced, which was most of it, and the long unencyclopedic list of what he spent his money on. Unfortunately I'm not about much tomorrow, but if the editor starts restoring anything copied from its source, or anything contentious e.g. family stuff, money, possessions, not explicitly verifiable from a reliable cited source i.e. not blogs and gossip columns, they're violating the WP:COPYVIO rules or the WP:BLP policy, and reverting such violations isn't edit-warring. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fran O'Leary[edit]

The article is up for deletion here. Is there a consensus about assistant coaches in fully professional league who have never played in a fully professional league? He played what he calls a "decent level in Ireland," but I doubt that it is fully professional. Kingjeff (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Table harmonization[edit]

Currently 20+ different templates exist to build tables for both leagues and groups. To build one such table, at least three distinct templates are currently needed. There has been a current drive to extend the display possibilities of such tables, which includes highlighting a team on its season page in a smaller part of the table. This can all be setup centrally from one Lua-module. For this reason I have started to create such a Lua module to eventually replace the complex template structure that currently exists.
Currently it seems that the formatting for both group tables and league tables has evolved independently. Creating a Lua-module is the ideal moment to harmonize the appearance of these tables. Note that both a league table and a group table can exist on the same page, for example on club season articles that participate in both the domestic league and a continental cup. The current format is generally as follows (scroll sideways to see everything):

During season After season is over
Group table
Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
 Iceland 1 1 0 0 3 0 +3 3
 Czech Republic 1 1 0 0 2 1 +1 3
 Kazakhstan 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
 Latvia 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
 Netherlands 1 0 0 1 1 2 −1 0
 Turkey 1 0 0 1 0 3 −3 0

Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
 Belgium 10 8 2 0 18 4 +14 26
 Croatia 10 5 2 3 12 9 +3 17
 Serbia 10 4 2 4 18 11 +7 14
 Scotland 10 3 2 5 8 12 −4 11
 Wales 10 3 1 6 9 20 −11 10
 Macedonia 10 2 1 7 7 16 −9 7
League table
Promotion or relegation
1 Heart of Midlothian 6 5 1 0 17 4 +13 16 Promotion to the 2015–16 Scottish Premiership
2 Rangers 6 4 1 1 16 6 +10 13 Qualification to Scottish Premiership play-offs
3 Raith Rovers 6 4 0 2 8 10 −2 12
4 Queen of the South 6 3 2 1 11 6 +5 11
5 Livingston 6 2 1 3 8 6 +2 7
6 Alloa Athletic 6 2 1 3 6 9 −3 7
7 Hibernian 6 2 0 4 7 9 −2 6
8 Falkirk 6 1 3 2 6 10 −4 6
9 Dumbarton 6 1 2 3 4 12 −8 5 Scottish Championship play-offs
10 Cowdenbeath 6 0 1 5 7 18 −11 1 Relegation to 2015–16 Scottish League One

Updated to games played on 20 September 2014.
Source: BBC Sport
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored
(C) = Champion; (R) = Relegated; (P) = Promoted; (E) = Eliminated; (O) = Play-off winner; (A) = Advances to a further round.
Only applicable when the season is not finished:
(Q) = Qualified to the phase of tournament indicated; (TQ) = Qualified to tournament, but not yet to the particular phase indicated; (RQ) = Qualified to the relegation tournament indicated; (DQ) = Disqualified from tournament.

Promotion or relegation
1 Dundee (C) (P) 36 21 6 9 54 26 +28 69 Promotion to the 2014–15 Scottish Premiership
2 Hamilton Academical (P) 36 19 10 7 68 41 +27 67 Qualification to Scottish Premiership play-offs
3 Falkirk 36 19 9 8 59 33 +26 66
4 Queen of the South 36 16 7 13 53 39 +14 55
5 Dumbarton 36 15 6 15 65 64 +1 51
6 Livingston 36 13 7 16 51 56 −5 46
7 Raith Rovers 36 11 9 16 48 61 −13 42
8 Alloa Athletic 36 11 7 18 34 51 −17 40
9 Cowdenbeath (O) 36 11 7 18 50 72 −22 40 Scottish Championship play-offs
10 Greenock Morton (R) 36 6 8 22 32 71 −39 26 Relegation to 2014–15 Scottish League One

Updated to games played on 18 May 2014.
Source: SPFL
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored
(C) = Champion; (R) = Relegated; (P) = Promoted; (E) = Eliminated; (O) = Play-off winner; (A) = Advances to a further round.
Only applicable when the season is not finished:
(Q) = Qualified to the phase of tournament indicated; (TQ) = Qualified to tournament, but not yet to the particular phase indicated; (RQ) = Qualified to the relegation tournament indicated; (DQ) = Disqualified from tournament.

Where colour can indicate either that qualification has been achieved (group table) or that it merely indicates what happens with that position (league table). (In the first case this is accompanied by a legend explaining the colours.) This disparity can be confusing to casual readers on Wikipedia. This led me to the following sub questions for one central table format, which I will list below. What are your opinions about this? Just to ping some people that have previously been involved in table discussion (@Qed237, 97rob, Spudgfsh, Brudder Andrusha, Number 57:). CRwikiCA talk 16:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Q1: Legend or inline[edit]

There are two options here to explain the colours: Legend, use a legend/ key above/below/next to table to explain tables (as in current group tables) or Inline to have it listed inline next to the position in a separate qualification/promotion/relegation column in the table (current league table format).

  • Inline. I think the legend is pointless if we have the meaning spelt out in the rows. Number 57 17:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Both. I think both sorts of tables (group and league) dont have to be the same. When it is a league table with up to 20-24 teams the table gets long and "thin" and the extra column is good as width and explanation. When it is a group however it is often maximum 6 teams and then table gets short and wide with the extra column and it may look weird with a group stage table with one extra column on first team and not on the others. Maybe that is just me being conservative, but I think the current solution for the different types works and it is what the readers are used to watching. The coding may be worse but a parameter like league=yes when using the league format could work? QED237 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Qed237: I understand conservatism, but it is also best to keep novice readers in mind and not the regulars that have become used to differences. Also note that {{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - CONMEBOL}} and {{2014–15 Scottish Championship table}} have the same number of teams but are a group table and league table respectively. Does it make sense to you to have two different meanings associated with colours in different tables on a single page? CRwikiCA talk 17:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Q2: When to colour[edit]

What should be used to indicate the qualification/promotion/relegation status? Border, use a border when position is not ensured and colour only when a certain stage is achieved (current group table format), or Letters, always use colour and indicate qualification status with bold letters (current league table format).

  • I don't have a problem with row colouring being used all through the season/qualification campaign and then the lettering when it's confirmed. Number 57 17:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As per my comment above I like how it is now with group tables in one way and league tables the other way for variuos reasons, but I am always bit conservative. QED237 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Q3: Classification rules or not[edit]

Should the table or key explicitly explain (or link to) the classification rules/tiebreaker rules? Yes or No

  • Yes, as it's not immediately clear otherwise. Number 57 17:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but perhaps a parameter for when not to include it. They are in most cases very useful and should be explained, especially under league tables, but when a tournament with many group tables listed together it could be good to have alternative to not list under every table as same information wil be repeated everytime. Then the rules and tiebreakers are often already listed in a special section in that article. QED237 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
How about having a wikilink to that section anyway (so in effect not repeating the whole story for every table, but still including a wikilink as an easy referral for lazy readers). CRwikiCA talk 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@CRwikiCA: That might be a goood idea, I am all for at least testing that to see how it looks. QED237 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]


Rokko1994 (talk · contribs) has been going through changing lots of players' nationalities to Cornwall. Why does the {{fs player}} template even support the Cornish flag when Cornish is not a nationality............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd imagine it supports anything that has {{country data}}. Number 57 21:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Plus based on this, I'd say he's just a vandal. Number 57 21:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

TPE/ROC national team[edit]

I want to know when precisely the Taiwanese team competed under what name ("Taiwan", "Republic of China", "Chinese Taipei") and under what flag (this one, this one, this one, or something else). This isn't adequately explained at Chinese Taipei national football team. --Theurgist (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, what's happened to the latter two flags since I linked to them? They seem to have been deleted, but why? There are a lot of red links now where flags are meant to be displayed. --Theurgist (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but the two files in question were deleted on Commons as copyright violations. Jared Preston (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's too bad. Can we not still use the flags even if they're copyrighted? If not, the options would be either to use incorrect flags or placeholder flags for Chinese Taipei, which would be quite unsatisfactory. Aside, I still need some information on the original question, it'll be much appreciated. --Theurgist (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Major League Soccer[edit]

For some reason, MLS decided it would be a good idea to release the 2015 season's logo two months before the end of the 2014 season. I think it's going to cause problems as people will replace the current logo with next season's ahead of time. It's already happened once. Can the article be semi-protected? TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Inactive player in current squad[edit]

Michel is listed in Benfica squad but he is not registered to play in any competition be it national or international. Should the player be removed from the squad or not? SLBedit (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think you could care less about my opinion, but he should stay in the squad, only without a number. Attentively -- (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is he still contracted to the club? Is that confirmed by reliable sources? If so he should remain listed, as the IP says without a squad number. GiantSnowman 19:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • He is. SLBedit (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Is that confirmed by reliable sources?" No, but there isn't any reliable source proving that is out of the club. SLBedit (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Then leave him in, until there is a source confirming he has left can be found. GiantSnowman 19:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories / WP guidelines[edit]

1 - What do you people think of the new category CATALONIA INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALLERS? Methinks it's a little far fetched, especially because of the word "interNATIONal", Catalonia is not a nation

2 - Yes my friend User:GiantSnowman, i know you are only enforcing the rules, and more power to you for that, but in the case of honours and/or international goals the rules need to be changed in my opinion, i know the current status quo says both have to be directly sourced, but maybe it could be changed. I found mind-boggling when, last year, the storyline said Jordi Alba had scored in the UEFA Euro 2012 Final and you removed both the int'l goal and the honour, something needs to be adjusted i think.

Kind regards to all (that matter), happy editing -- (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We have a page called Catalonia national football team and the statistics of those players is listed under the international heading in the infobox, just as for Kosovo, the Basque Country or any other non-registered national team. The argument that it is not a nation is not valid, as neither are England, Wales, or for at least the next 12 hours Scotland. This category is no different really to the category for MLS All-Star players - players who have been selected to a notable representative team. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Karim Bellarabi[edit]

This source claims Bellarabi has a Moroccan mother and a Ghanaian father. This source claims Bellarabi has a German mother and a Moroccan father. Any idea which is correct? GiantSnowman 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Rheinische Post also writes that his mother is Moroccan and father Ghanaian (Nun will[…] der Sohn einer Marokkanerin und eines Ghanaers…). Bild (to be taken with a pinch of salt), says his mother is German, father Moroccan, and step-father Ghanaian. as well as Der Tagesspiegel also support the Moroccan mother and Ghanaian father theory, but the Süddeutsche Zeitung says the same as Bild. Very strange! Jared Preston (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Most sources seem to state he has a Moroccan mother/Ghanaian father theory, so we'll go with that, thanks. GiantSnowman 07:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ziggy Gordon[edit]

Soccerbase, and therefore our article, say that Gordon has 99 appearances for Hamilton Academical. The club say he has 100. Any idea who is right? GiantSnowman 19:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

He's not the only Hamilton player whose appearances don't seem to match the club's own totals. After their match on 13 September, the club said on twitter that as well as being Gordon's 100th appearance, it was a 127th appearance for Grant Gillespie, but according to Soccerway (which includes cup appearances not recorded on Soccerbase), he only made his 127th appearance today. A Well Fan (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that both totals are different by one suggests they might be counting one match which other sources do not. Is there any obscure county cup-type competition which they might be counting as a first team game but nobody else does.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

UEFA Europa League goalscorers' names[edit]

Please someone can change these two players' articles' names so that they include all accents and diacritics? You can confirm the names at the Spanish and Romanian Wikipedias respectively.

Thank you for your attention. (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 12:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei Flag[edit]

The Chinese Taipei football flag is not displaying. I can't edit the flag template to at least replace the football flag with the standard Chinese Taipei flag.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#TPE/ROC national team discussion.EddieV2003 (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

More obsolete editnotices[edit]

Hi WikiProject Football. FYI, I've nominated another batch of obsolete editnotices for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox information[edit]

I keep re-addeding FC Barcelona to Rubén Miño and Sergi Gómez's infobox as they both played cup games for the club, although it shows as 0 (0). Also, I changed Sergi Roberto's date from 2011 to 2010, as his debut was in a cup game in 2010.

An IP user keeps reverting without commenting. Just checking this is correct protocol before I try to get the pages protected. Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 10:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're correct in both cases. Even if a player makes zero appearances (at all) for a club, it should still be in the infobox. Number 57 10:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. GiantSnowman 11:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Zeroes should be used. SLBedit (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Runner up medals in club honours section[edit]

Should they be included or not? I believe they should - for example runner-up in a national cup competition. @Rupert1904: [Rupert1904 disagrees], stating that "Runners-up medals are included for international competitions but not club competitions"... GiantSnowman 08:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they should be included.--EchetusXe 12:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: then maybe you should go to every footballer who only has the medals they won in their honours section and include the runners up. My edits were not silly and I was cleaning up the page. Go to footballers' pages like Frank Lampard, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Andrea Pirlo, etc the runners-up medals are not included. Furthermore go to the pages of clubs that have won many trophies, like Basel, so for instance Bayern Munich, Juventus, etc, runners up medals are not included in those pages. I was simply cleaning up the page to make it align and conform with these football pages. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is perhaps one of the weakest arguments around...! GiantSnowman 08:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
For the last time, I am not invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS! I am invoking Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Honours, where it says that after a large number of trophies, you do not need to include runners-up medals. Just as with the players I have cited above and their clubs, you can see that my argument is valid and holds up.Rupert1904 (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
What is a "large" number of "major" honours? Does that apply to this player? The MOS clearly states that it should be "Achievements of the club including wins and second places" - so why are you removing runner-up places? GiantSnowman 15:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Rupert1904: - I'll repeat, what is a "large" number of "major" honours, as the MOS now says? Why are you ignoring the element of that phrase which says "it may be appropriate to omit"? GiantSnowman 15:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman:, you have to be able to make a conscious decision about what consists a "large number." I did not create the format, I am simply going by what previous Wikipedia editors have decided. Clearly if a player has no medals or one or two then runners-up medals should be included. But at the time of writing this, Gaston Sauro has at least five major club honours and so the runners-up medals from the Swiss Cup do not need to be counted.Rupert1904 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Further input welcome, this is turning into a LAME editwar... GiantSnowman 15:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Rupert continues to remove this referenced honour, contrary to the very MOS he is using to back up his disruptive edits!!! GiantSnowman 15:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
We had this discussion before and it was agreed that runner-up is notible. I will have to search the Archive to find the consensus. JMHamo (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not contradicting myself. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Honours, it clearly states "For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." This is also used with footballers. Thus since, Gaston Sauro has multiple trophies, I do not believe we need to include the runners-up medals from the Swiss Cup. Furthermore GiantSnowman continues to remove this sentence from WikiProject so that he wins this "LAME editwar". GiantSnowman needs to stop vandalizing wiki project and my edits and I hope others agree.Rupert1904 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, it says may be appropriate. Secondly, what is a "a large number of major trophies"? How are you defining that? Seems like personal preference to me. I think that line needs to be removed from the MOS, it's far too vague. Thirdly please don't make false accusations of vandalism, by doing so you simply negate your own position. GiantSnowman 15:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Clearly if a player has no medals or one or two then runners-up medals should be included. But at the time of writing this, Gaston Sauro has at least five major club honours and so the runners-up medals from the Swiss Cup do not need to be counted. And I did not make false accusations of vandalism. All people have to do is go to the View History pages of the wikiproject page that I referenced and the history of this page to see that you deleted the template for honours sections for clubs and you have also deleted my comments on here.Rupert1904 (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, you haven't defined what "major" is, and the 'five' mark is your personal preference, not that of the community. Please post diffs of me deleting your talk page posts, or else retract your accusations. GiantSnowman 15:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Major has been defined by others in the past. For instance, Premier League Asia Trophy isn't a major trophy and shouldn't be included. And if we are talking about personal preferences over community, your edits on it clearly show a personal preference. Because it is your opinion, you chose to revert my edits and include the runners-up medals even though their is no consensus for what you did. And I will not retract my accusations. Because they are not accusations. You deleted a sentence from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Honours so that it would convey your opinions instead of the general consensus and I had to revert it. Go to the "View History" page of this talk section, you reverted one of my posts and I had to re-post it.Rupert1904 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Saying "major has been defined by others in the past" is such a cop out - I am asking you now please. I re-added the runner-up honour per a) consensus here (so far every editor has supported its inclusion) and b) per the MOS which states "Achievements of the club including wins and second places." I'll also repeat my request for an actual diff of me deleting your talk page post please. Here's 1 and 2 of you deleting my posts...! GiantSnowman 15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a cop out. I just gave you a reference for a trophy that is not a major trophy. Furthermore, one person is not a consensus so don't say "every" editor. I ask that you visit the pages of Real Madrid and Manchester City players that were part of their clubs' run to their domestic cup finals in 2013. Since these players have multiple trophies, the runners-up medal they received for reaching their respective cup finals are not included in their honours sections. Likewise the same should be done in Gaston Sauro's honours section and other footballers with multiple trophies. That is the consensus decided upon by the wiki community and not me or you.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Again you are repeating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I don't care what other articles are like, that is irrelevant - and especially if they are wrong. When I say "every editor" I am being 100% accurate - two editors other than me and you have contributed to this discussion so far and they both have said that runner-up medals should be included. If that is the consensus then the MOS needs to be changed to reflect that, not the other way around. There is no support at all for your removal of 'minor' and/or 'runner-up' honours. GiantSnowman 16:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the edit that I had to re-add because you deleted it. 1 and here is where you deleted the sentence so that it conformed to your opinion, 2.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
There is support for my argument so don't say you don't care what other articles are like. They are completely relevant, so if they are wrong, you should go and change all of them instead of wasting everyone's time to try and win this "LAME editwar." How can you say they are irrelevant? They are completely relevant for this discussion and you disregard them because they don't agree with your opinion.Rupert1904 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Where is this support for your argument? Based on this discussion it is currently 3-1 against you i.e. there is clear consensus to include runner-up honours. Have you even read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?! Oh and those diffs don't actually show any edits...? GiantSnowman 16:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I previously wrote on your talk page that I had discussions with others. Your friends above even stated that they didn't know the consensus and would check the archives to see what it is. So don't try to claim that you have a consensus. And once again, you are forgetting to remember that pesky sentence that you hate that supports my argument so I will include this diff again and maybe you will remember that you deleted the sentence and maybe you can look at the history page of it and see that you deleted it because it didn't adhere to your opinions. 1Rupert1904 (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Rupert1904 and I spoke on this subject some time ago. I said then that as far as I knew, there was no consensus, that many people felt strongly that coming second wasn't an honour, others felt strongly that it was, and others felt that although coming second was an honour, for players with large numbers of winners' medals, including runners-ups as well might be too much detail. This was and probably still is my personal view, although I think there'd have to be a lot of winners' medals to justify leaving out runners-ups. Mr Sauro only has five, so personally I don't see the need to remove the runners-ups.

Daresay it was me that made the comparison with the longstanding and, as far as I was aware, well-accepted wording at the club page MoS. I didn't suggest it applied to players, nor do I think it particularly constructive to boldly remove it mid-editwar. The point of the advice (and the comparison) is to remind editors that if the article they're working on is getting overwhelmed by lists of trophies won and lost, they may use their discretion to exclude the losses. The same advice can be taken with players. If the number of wins is overwhelming the article, then leave out the runners-up. Five isn't overwhelming.

This discussion isn't particularly edifying, and I'd advise you both to leave it and the article alone for a bit.

On another tack, what does overwhelm honours sections is a long list of "individual" honours without any context as to what they are or why they're worth including. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say if you won a league or cup twice, no need to mention second places. Media will go for he is a two time winner of xxx' instead of mentioning his number of runner-up finishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koppapa (talkcontribs)
Why not? Runner-ups are still mentioned by media, see this for a recent example which includes both runner-up awards and 'minor' trophies! GiantSnowman 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your level headed input Struway2 and Koppapa and think you both are correct on the matter. Let's hope cooler heads prevail now. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You think they are correct because they support your view - well actually Struway doesn't, seeing as Sauro's honours section is certainly not overwhelmed. GiantSnowman 17:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Calm down GS. You throw in one reference about a little-known footballer. Check out this obituary by UEFA on Eusebio's recent death. The first sentence is that he won the European Cup in 1962, won the Ballon d'Or and also mentions that he helped his side to the semi-finals of the World Cup in 1966. And if you can recall, I said that for international level competitios, runners-up medals or Third and Fourth place at a major tournament like the World Cup were okay to include. Furthermore it only mentions that he was a beaten finalist in the 1968 final in the last section of the article and it is much of an after thought as it is referring to him showing sportsmanship to an opposing player. And I appreciate Struway's input because he is actually shedding constructive light onto the conversation instead of attacking everything I say and degrading my arguments as second class, which you seem to love to do.Rupert1904 (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore here is an obituary article from the BBC regarding the death of Alfredo di Stefano this summer. You can see that they mention about how he won straight five European Cups immediately after informing us about his death. Then if you scroll down further through the article, the writer even included a table with all the honours that di Stefano won and they did not include the runners up medals.Rupert1904 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Eusebio - runner-ups mentioned (sorry it's DM). Di Stefano - runner-ups mentioned. Furthermore are you really comparing the achievements of those greats with Sauro's honours? Show some perspective please. GiantSnowman 17:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I can argue the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum as you included a reference to a Scottish player that about 99% of football fans and wikipedia editors have never heard of. And yes it's the DM, exactly, which isn't a very reputable publication. But it even includes a table with all of Eusebio's honours, about midway through the article just under the picture of the "A Bola" headline after his death. And this table, like Di Stefano's on the BBC, doesn't include the runners up medals he received at club level for Benfica. And the BBC article that I put up to show di Stefano's honors, which you just used also, refers to the runners up medals he received as a manager NOT as a player. That is a completely different discussion and irrelevant to his playing career honors, as you seem to disregard the honours table above that section in the article. No one is arguing that you can't mention the runners-up titles in the body of a wikipedia profile for a footballer but when a player has won multiple championships it is redundant and unnecessary to include runners up medals. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
But Sauro hasn't won a heap of trophies, so why do you insist on removing the runner-ups? And how many is too many i.e. when should runner-ups be removed? GiantSnowman 17:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a set in stone number, have you read anything on the football template or what Struway replied? It's not just when the footballer hits three trophies or thirty three that you stop including runners up trophies. It's on a case by case basis and I decided to remove them because he has won multiple trophies at the club level and felt that it was redundant to include the runners up medals because of what has been stated before on wikiproject and the guidelines for how to include trophies. Why is it that you attack me for removing his runners-up sections but do not attack other editors for removing runners up medals from other players?Rupert1904 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, yet again. Have you read it yet? I'm also not attacking you. You say it is redundant in this article - I disagree, as do numerous other editors (EchetusXe and JMHamo). Why do you insist on repeatedly removing it? GiantSnowman 18:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You tend to disregard parts that don't agree with your opinion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS clearly states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." In regards to this, I am using it correctly, to streamline the honours section of Sauro and make it adhere and be consistent with the honours sections of other footballers with multiple trophies. And multiple people have agreed with me and disagreed with you, so there is no consensus for your opinion. And yes you have repeatedly attacked me in the last month, first over Esteban Cambiasso, accusing me of adding in large sections without references (when I in fact was adding in references sentence by sentence) and now this with Sauro. What is your problem with me. Clearly editors have disagreed with you but still that is not enough for you. You have to try to smash me and make everything I say sound incompetent, silly and second class. Please I ask you to calm down again if you want to discuss this properly.Rupert1904 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes; we get this article right/the MOS cleaned up and then use that on the other articles, and not the other way around. You state that "multiple people" have agreed with you - who? Reverting a few of your edits which do not meet policy and/or guidelines is not an attack. Where have I tried to "smash" you? I don't even know what that means. GiantSnowman 18:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
In this tab, Struway2 and Koppapa, have both said that runners up medals don't always need to be included. Koppapa was fully against it and Struway said that when a player or a club has won many honors and the section becomes congested that runners-up medals don't need to be included. Obviously as I have tried to explain to you, there isn't an exaxt number of trophies that determine when runners-up medals are included or are not included but it should be determined on a case by case basis. And you didn't revert any edits that didn't meet guidelines or policy, you just blindly deleted sections without references (which were written by other editors and not by me) and I was adding in references and asked you to restore the section. You initially refused to do this and accused me of being a bad editor who doesn't include references. And then you called me a silly editor who edits based on an "assumed community consensus" when in fact it seems that you are the one who is editing and reverting sections based on an assumed community consensus. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
We're talking about the Sauro article only (for now) - which Struway doesn't specifically express an opinion about says should include the runner-up medals! Is the Sauro section "congested", to use your term? No, not even nearly! It's easily readable with the TWO runner-up honours included! Re:Cambiasso - I never called you a "bad editor", I didn't call you anything. All that happened was that I told you not to add unreferenced content about a living person, in line with WP:BLP policy. Re:Sauro - I didn't call you silly, I said your edits were silly; that is a major difference. GiantSnowman 18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Struway did, actually, quite explicitly: "I think there'd have to be a lot of winners' medals to justify leaving out runners-ups. Mr Sauro only has five, so personally I don't see the need to remove the runners-ups" and "Five isn't overwhelming". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is exactly what Struway said, "for players with large numbers of winners' medals, including runners-ups as well might be too much detail. This was and probably still is my personal view." He was the one who first used the word "congested", so it is not my term. He obviously stated that he does not believe that the Sauro's honors section is congested and made a good argument for why the runners-up medals should be included so I respect and honor his opinion and input. Because of this I will restore the runners up for now, until if and when he wins more titles. But I kindly ask you @GiantSnowman: to NEVER contact me again on here or I will report you. All you do is bully me and intimidate me into changing my edits. And you don't need to tell me about WP:BLP policy and adding unreferenced content because clearly I add references to the edits I make. Lastly to reference the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that you have brought up against me again and again, here is another example to support the guidelines and my argument. James Milner and Samir Nasri's club honours section are certainly not congested or overcrowded but neither section mentions that the players finished as a runner up in the FA Cup or Premier League in 2013. So by my silly edits I am just trying to adhere to a community consensus on the issue. Again I used the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that you used against me and remind you that it states: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Rupert1904 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Struway has just said above that "I think there'd have to be a lot of winners' medals to justify leaving out runners-ups. Mr Sauro only has five, so personally I don't see the need to remove the runners-ups" and "Five isn't overwhelming" - there is clear consensus here that runner-up awards should be included in the Sauro article. Do you disagree or not? I will re-add them at some point later today, after you have had chance to review this post - and if you remove them again, contrary to community consensus, then I will report you. GiantSnowman 11:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Edit - I've just seen that you have already re-added the runner-up honours to the Sauro article, thank you for that. I assure you this is nothing personal/maclicious as you assume; hopefully we can move on and work co-operatively and constructively in future. GiantSnowman 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Former Benfica player in the 1910's and 1920's name[edit]

Please someone can change Jesus Munõz Crespo's name to Jesus Muñoz Crespo? The tilde is wrongly placed above the letter O instead of the letter N. Thank you for your attention. (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

An error is produced when I try to move it. SLBedit (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems logic to use ñ but other websites also use õ. SLBedit (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but as it is such an old player from the first quarter of the 20th century that virtually anyone still living remembers him, it is pretty believable those sites just did "copy paste" of the Wikipedia name without questioning this orthographic error. The Replicator (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I have found a blog post (in Portuguese) by Benfica historian Alberto Miguéns in which he uses "õ". But he could have also copy/pasted it. :) SLBedit (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
But if you look closely at it, in the next line it is written Jesus Muñoz Crespo in bold font. Mind-boggling, isn't it? Anyway, I find hard to believe Munõz is the correct form as I never ever saw it and it gives an extremely awkward pronunciation. The Replicator (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I did the change myself. I figured out how to do it. The Replicator (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I've also never seen "nõz". SLBedit (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Line up and sub in club season articles[edit]

I know that in the past we have discussed Starting XI and that it has been consensus to remove it, because player positions changes during matches and are WP:OR. Now I have a question about 2014–15 Swindon Town F.C. season#Matchday squads which is a section that list the entire squad for each match (in wikitables) this for league, fa cup, league cup and league trophy. Section is completely unsourced (but the info can be from matchreports?) and I wonder if it is notable? QED237 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I see positions in the Starting XI as the positions that the player started in the match, not any subsequent that they might have play and if it's sourced, then I don't think it's OR. Also, this paticular table isn't well designed. To start with, I wouldn't include the substitutes that remain on the bench. Kingjeff (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Far too much detail, get rid. And at the same time, get rid of the section listing all their penalties this season, there really is no need for that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That article is a complete mess. This is an encyclopaedia, not a Swindon Town fan site... JMHamo (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I struggle to see what the problem is here. Someone is enthusiastic enough to want to include as much about the current season as they can. It doesn't mean all club season articles have to be like this. Yes it has some formatting issues but surely such enthusiasm should be encouraged and not dismissed?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That article is a huge mess. Too many (useless or/and empty) tables. Lineups should NOT be included. Kante4 (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
An absolute mess. The very reason that WP:NOTSTATS exists, definitely agree with the calls to get rid. Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Clear consensus here - I have removed. GiantSnowman 12:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

While we're talking about that article. is the U18's section notable? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I would say no, remove U18. QED237 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I was only trying to contribute and maintain the page. Sure more experience is required by myself but I don't think it's a 'mess', far from it. I've done exactly the same for three seasons without revision requests. There was little need for the blunt criticisms listed above especially when so many of these pages go for months without updates. Regards. STFCFAN 19:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Everyone involved in maintaining season articles appreciates help from new and enthusiastic editors. There has been a number of discussions over what is considered notable and what falls foul of WP:NOTSTATS (the latest one being here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#Club season articles and match info). Editors who deal with these articles can get a little frustrated that the same discussions happen over and over again. Generally we've been unable to resolve this issue despite many attempts (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88#New MOS needed for club seasons
A few bits of advice for you. On the project page there is a list of featured articles and good articles (WP:FOOTY#Featured content) which are worth a read to see what is considered a good article and what information is included. Even though they are structured differently, you'll find that all of the good articles include text to explain the season and not just raw statistics. That should be the aim for all of these articles. I'd also take a look at these, all of which are good articles.
=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of prose again[edit]

Hi, again. After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88#2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season we decided that the prose added form a user was not good for various reasons. It was very long text and consisted of very much detail not relevant to the article and full of point of view material and so on.

Now the editor has moved along to Arsenal players instead with same types of edits and not notable/too much content for example this diff were entire match summary is given for in a player article mentioning players of other team and so on. In previous edeit on same article he adds content like Arsenal seemed to dominate the early proceedings, and Welbeck had his chance after 11 minutes when David Silva's backpass only offered up a perfect through ball. and Welbeck dragged a wonderful chance wide from inside the area after clever play by Arsenal's Player of the Year Aaron Ramsey, and I believe we are not supposed to add every detail to the articles and who says it was "wonderful" (clear POV), it is not a blogg it is a encyclopedia.

Also a habbit of adding a lot of quotations like You learn from playing and training every day with players of this quality,” he said when hearing about his call-up. “It's fantastic for me and I'm gaining confidence game by game. It's with the help from everyone at the club and the players and staff who have welcomed me. That's helped me settle in so quickly." which I dont think is particularly notable.

This editor dont seem to like me so thought I should look here for comments befor reverting him to much. QED237 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The amount of unnecessary detail added by that user is insane. For example: "With Arsenal attacking fluidly, moments later a Kieran Gibbs shot was turned into his own net by Aly Cissokho" - why on earth would that need to be in the article on Danny Welbeck?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I've already warned editors at the Arsenal season article for introducing it, it's full of POV and peacock words and is simply not needed. GiantSnowman 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Vitória de Guimarães B[edit]

Infobox uses "Vitória Guimarães" for main team and "Vitória de Guimarães B" for reserve team. Let's change it to Vitória Guimarães" B? SLBedit (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The Replicator (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else agrees? SLBedit (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like an uncontroversial move, to match a parent article - be WP:BOLD and do it. GiantSnowman 11:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done SLBedit (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica[edit]

User:Stalko added colours to wikitables to match the colours of templates (removing Kit link) but I find it very distractive. What do you think? SLBedit (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Link can be added back but i have no problem with that edit. Kante4 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Link was removed to prevent blue color from appearing (doesn't look good). SLBedit (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea First team squad section on 2014–15 season article[edit]

Hello all, In the past I have removed this Chelsea First team squad section from the Chelsea 2014–15 season article because it violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, specifically Position(s), Games Played and Goals Scored, but it keeps getting re-added. Who says definitively that Nathan Ake plays LB/CB/DM? How can I get all games and goals without adding up from various places? It shouldn't be included.

The source given does not go in to this level of detail, so there is no way of knowing how accurate it is (and don't mention the Captain/Vice Captain icon...) I have started a discussion on the Talk page. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Shane Long[edit]

Hello, does anyone know where I can find a source for Shane Long's Cork City stats? The infobox lists him with two appearances from 2004 to 2005 but there's no reference in the article to support them. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

1 appearance in 2005 according to this. I can't find anything for 2004. GiantSnowman 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the article prose, he made 2 appearances in 2005 - one Cup, one league (both referenced). I'll update the infobox accordingly. GiantSnowman 17:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of color in tables[edit]

Is there a consensus regarding the use of color in tables for Footy articles? More specifically: How much color is too much? I've come across a number of tables, particularly on national team articles, where the table is so loaded with color (and bold text) I find it difficult to read the table. See the examples below from the Brazil national football team and the Costa Rica national football team pages. There are many more like these. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Copa América
Year Round Position Go W D* L GS GA
1975 Third place 3rd 6 5 0 1 16 4
1979 Third place 3rd 6 2 2 2 10 9
1983 Runners-up 2nd 8 2 4 2 8 4
Argentina 1987 Group stage 5th 2 1 0 1 5 4
Brazil 1989 Champions 1st 7 5 2 0 11 1
Chile 1991 Runners-up 2nd 7 4 1 2 12 8
Ecuador 1993 Quarter-finals 5th 4 1 2 1 6 4
Uruguay 1995 Runners-up 2nd 6 4 2 0 10 3
Bolivia 1997 Champions 1st 6 6 0 0 22 3
Paraguay 1999 Champions 1st 6 6 0 0 17 2
Colombia 2001 Quarter-finals 6th 4 2 0 2 5 4
Peru 2004 Champions 1st 6 3 2 1 13 6
Venezuela 2007 Champions 1st 6 4 1 1 15 5
Argentina 2011 Quarter-finals 8th 4 1 3 0 6 4
Chile 2015 TBD
Total 5 titles 14/14 78 46 19 13 156 61
CCCF Championship record
Year Round Position Pld W D* L GF GA
Costa Rica 1941 Champions 1st / 5 teams 4 4 0 0 23 5
El Salvador 1943 Third Place 3rd / 4 teams 6 3 0 3 20 15
Costa Rica 1946 Champions 1st / 6 teams 5 4 0 1 24 6
Guatemala 1948 Champions 1st / 5 teams 8 5 1 2 25 11
Panama 1951 Runners-up 2nd / 3 teams 4 2 1 1 13 5
Costa Rica 1953 Champions 1st / 7 teams 6 6 0 0 19 2
Honduras 1955 Champions 1st / 7 teams 6 6 0 0 19 4
Netherlands Antilles 1957 Did Not Enter
Cuba 1960 Champions 1st / 5 teams 5 3 2 0 14 4
Costa Rica 1961 Champions 1st / 9 teams 7 7 0 0 32 4
Total 7 Titles 9/10 51 40 4 7 191 56
As long as the colours are explained in a key, I'd say they're okay. Not sure why the header and footer rows in the right table are in bright red though. – PeeJay 07:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia-wide consensus, otherwise known as MoS, is at MOS:COLOR. A pertinent bit reads
Even for readers with unimpaired color vision, excessive background shading of table entries impedes readability and recognition of Wikilinks. Background color should be used only as a supplementary visual cue, and should be subtle (consider using lighter, less-dominant pastel hues) rather than a glaring spotlight.
There's nothing wrong with using colour in the way that table does (apart from the decorative red-and-white header/footer) – the "meaning" of the colours is already given in the wording in the Round column, so there's no need for an external key – but the specific colours used are too strong. Personally, I don't find the wikilinks easy to read on several of those background colours. And the bolding is inappropriate: see MOS:BOLD.
The tiny text in the RH table position column is smaller than the minimum permitted by MOS:FONTSIZE, as well as being completely unnecessary: the wording "1st of 5" at normal font size is readable, MoS-compliant, and takes up less width than 1st / 5 teams with small applied as used in the RH table. As demonstrated below. In my experience, the footy project doesn't take much notice of certain aspects of the MoS... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Year Round Position
Costa Rica 1941 Champions 1st / 5 teams
Costa Rica 1941 Champions 1st of 5
if background colouring causes accessibility issues, you can always use border colouring instead
Year Round Position
1941 Champions 1st
1942 Runners-up 2nd
Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Manager honours[edit]

Should honours also be attributed to an interim coach/manager? SLBedit (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes; if they were manager when the club won an honour, and that is supported by reliable sources, them being a 'caretaker' manager is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 18:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if the 'caretaker' wins 10 league matches? SLBedit (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, the permanence of their position is irrelevant. They either won the honour (as supported by RS) or they didn't. GiantSnowman 08:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the "permanence" I'm questioning the merit.: interim wins 29 matches, new manager wins 1 one. Who gets the credit? Both or only the new manager? SLBedit (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Is winning one or 29 games an honour? An achievement yes, but an honour?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Control IP edits[edit]

Please, anyone control this IP edits mostly in Intercontinental Cup (football) and ‎European association football club records, deleting sourcered info, saying stupid things like "the Intercontinental Cup not organized by UEFA, so not count".--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The latter article is strange with all the Big five or big six records. -Koppapa (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, all that information on the "Big 5" / 6/10, et al leagues should be deleted for obvious POV. A European record involves the entire eurozone, not true mole leagues, which also is not official.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The IP is right. The trophy was organised by Toyota, that's why it was called Toyota Cup. SLBedit (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You say that only because Benfica lost both. UEFA officially organized from 1960-2004.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You are the one saying that. Toyota organised the trophy at least once, in 2004. SLBedit (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In what way was the competition organised by Toyota? They merely sponsored it. The competition was actually co-organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL for the winners of their continental tournaments. – PeeJay 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica in European football[edit]

To avoid an edit war, I open this discussion. User SLBedit, a Benfica fan, has cancelled my previous edition claiming that "Benfica is the most successful Portuguese team in UEFA competitions" also citing alleged first places in the UEFA ranking achieved by the team in the 1960s. Whereas football success is measured exclusively in tems of titles won or "honours", Benfica is second behind Porto, which in Europe has won 7 titles (5 more than Benfica). In addition, that historical info about UEFA ranking is irrelevant having been officially introduced in 1979 and since then, no Portuguese team was ranked 1st. If you were to consider the UEFA ranking in an encyclopedia, at least have to do it from when it was introduced, not on alleged measurements made by another. I will appreciate the views of another Project Football users.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The most successful in terms of ranking; ranking is not irrelevant. They have more 5 trophies but they have the same number of European Cup/UEFA Champions League. Yes and I am a Benfica fan but facts are facts and you are removing them. To me it seems like you are a Porto fan. It should be fixed now. If you are Juventus fan then you share something with Porto fans: shame of (proven) corruption in football. SLBedit (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@SLBedit: There's no need to be offensive to someone because a football club they may or may not support has been guilty of corruption. I suggest you withdraw (cross out) that remark.
We have the same thing regularly come up about the Intercontinental Cup (see above thread for latest) or similar competitions, the IC Fairs Cup, whatever. Unfortunately, people sometimes let their allegiances get the better of their encyclopedia-writing. In an encyclopedia, we should be writing "Benfica has/have taken part in European competition since xxx. It has/they have won xxx European Cups and xxx Cup Winners Cups" or whatever it is. Without all this "my dad's bigger than football club's better than your football club" crap. If the sources say that Benfica or whoever were ranked in a certain position in a certain year, then say that, but produce clear, unambiguous, sources, and don't try and choose a particular source, or way of viewing that source, to draw unwarranted and often unencyclopedic conclusions. It's called original research and synthesis, and we don't do it. Those pages currently linked in the opening paragraph don't verify the facts they come after: or maybe they do if you search the entire sites they link to, but the reader shouldn't have to.
Rant over, I think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dantetheperuvian, a Juventus fan, deleted a reference about Juventus being eliminated at home by Benfica in Europa League. SLBedit (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Struway. In Europe "honest" Benfica has only won 2 European Cups half a century ago and, since them, absolutely nothing else. Numerous club's lost in European finals not count when it comes to be "successful", which is based on titles won. FC Porto (I'm not a fan, nay, Portuguese football does not interest me mostly, but in an Encyclopedia we must be realistic and talk based exclusively on proven facts, not in rumours) also won the same two European Cups, won two Europa Leagues (in prestige is second just after CL) 1 Super Cup and 2 Intercontinental Cups and in all of them is the only Portuguese club to do so. It is obvious which of the two is more successful in Europe and this is not Benfica in the same way you can not say that Porto is the most successful in Portuguese football (which is different from the UEFA competitions) when obviously in that category Benfica has more titles.
The UEFA ranking was introduced in 1979 and since then only Spanish, English, Italian, Dutch and French teams have occupied the 1st place at least once. Now, if in an encyclopedia account the Jerome Fauregas' original work (And who the hell is he?), Here an administrator explicitly stated.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Two consecutive European Cup titles against Barcelona and Real Madrid, doesn't make it easier to win. That's like saying Eusébio wasn't so great because it was "easier back then". Who the hell was Juventus and Porto in that period? Nothing. Why hasn't Juventus won any title since 1996? Juventus has the exact same number of lost European Cup finals as Benfica! European Supercup didn't exist when Benfica was at the top of European football, and it's a irrelevant trophy nowadays. Porto is also the only Portuguese club to have been punished for corruption in football, see Apito Dourado. Benfica have more finals than Porto, Benfica has a better ranking than Porto, overall Benfica is better than Porto in Europe. Your so great Juventus has been punished by corruption in football, just like Porto (fact). If your Juventus is so great then why Benfica prevented them from playing the 2014 Europa League final in their own stadium (against ten-man)?! SLBedit (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Everything you want, but a team that only has 2 European trophies (like Aberdeen) can not be more successful than one that has 7 (like Manchester United), This is an incontestable fact. If you fuck, complain to UEFA.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You insulted me. SLBedit (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You were reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. SLBedit (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Professional footballer[edit]

Should every "known" professional footballer display "professional footballer" or simply "footballer"? SLBedit (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say professional should be used, to differentiate them from semi-pro and amateur players. Number 57 17:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Lots of articles about Premier League players don't use "professional". SLBedit (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)