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.

Champions League tables[edit]

Hi, I have tried to ask about the Champions League tables at Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League without any response. I know that the group stage tables (and the fixtures belonging to table) has been in templates in the past and I have made such templates for Champions Hockey league recently and I can easily make new ones for CL and EL this season. They would look exactly the same as current only that it is template instead. The positive side I believe is that you edit one template that is used on many articles (all team have the table and also main cl/el article as well as group stage article). Instead of editing all those article you can make one edit to the template (six edits in one). Also it is easier to spot vandalism as you need to watch the template and not all of the individual team articles and vandals may not even edit a template in the first place (of they dont know how). The negative side is that template is not needed after season/group stage ends but then it can be susbsituted and deleted. What do you think? QED237 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

They should be in templates. The templates can be deleted after the group stage. Kingjeff (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I recommend doing something similar to the way the guys at WP:NFL work, i.e. embedding a regular wikitable in a template. To see what I'm talking about, have a look at Template:2014 NFC North standings. There's no need to make the table out of templates, just put it in the "Template:" namespace so that it can be transcluded onto multiple pages. It doesn't even have to be subst'ed afterwards, provided we create new ones each year with the season in the page title, e.g. Template:2014–15 UEFA Champions League group A table. – PeeJay 22:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, great. Soon it is finished. Should a redirect with the "wrong dash" be created as well, pointing to correct template page? QED237 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with using such templates. I do not see the need to remove those per se after the season is over. Why not make a redirect for the - instead of –, so people don't accidentally create an already existing table. CRwikiCA talk 00:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Just as a quick question what name should we have for the template? I saw suggestion from PeeJay2K3 above and it seemed very reasonable, then I saw current UEFA Euro 2016 with names {{UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group B}} and so on. They dont have the name "table" (it also has the fixtures) and the "g" in group is capitalized. Looking at 2014 FIFA World Cup I see both like {{2014 FIFA World Cup Group E table}}, with big "G" and table but for qualifying {{2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group A}}. We should try and be consistent. Capitalized "g/G" seems common but "table" or not? QED237 (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether to go for a capital G either, but I recommend that the title be as descriptive as possible, and that means including the word "table" or "standings" (I'd probably go for "table"). – PeeJay 15:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agrre it should be descriptive, but in this case it is fixtures as well as the pure table (which I guess is why the other examples I provided dont have "table"). In cases were it is table only I always use table, such as {{2014–15 Premier League table}}. QED237 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Created and now in use with names {{2014–15 UEFA Champions League Group A}}, {{2014–15 UEFA Champions League Group B}} ... and {{2014–15 UEFA Europa League Group A}}, {{2014–15 UEFA Europa League Group B}} ... and so on. Inserted at CL and EL articles and I will look at club articles later to insert template. QED237 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Color key[edit]

Since this template can be used on club season articles, how do we do with the colorkey for the table? I saw 2014 Malmö FF season has the key and I believe the key is good on all articles to explain the colors. However this colorkey changes during the tournament (at least it has in the past) when new colors are needed. At beginning of tournament (and after it is finished) there is one color for advancing to "CL knockout stage" and one color for advancing to "EL knockout stage", but during tournament two colors are added, one for team is "eliminated" and one for "team can not go to CL but has chance of third place and EL".

As this colorkey may be useful (I think it is) to explain all colors for the table should it be a template to, or perhaps incorporated in standings table somehow? Since they key will change, adding it to all articles will not make sure they are updated when colors expand, so thats why I am wondering about template. QED237 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a good point and a reason to discuss the colour schemes more broadly. There is a difference in the way league tables and group tables are formatted. League tables always have the relevant colours and denote qualification etc. by boldface letters next to the club name. Group table on the other hand use a solid line and use colour only to indicate qualification. I do not see why there should be formatting differences like that between league and group tables. As for the specifics of the key, it can be a separate template which lists all the different colours that would be used throughout the season. CRwikiCA talk 18:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the difference between tables is a discussion we should take separate from this, but personally I dont have a problem with the difference. QED237 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@CRwikiCA: Regarding this key for the group tables (that will change during group stage) are you saying it should be a separate template? QED237 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Test template created at User:Qed237/sandbox2 and is ready for use. QED237 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
When it is a template, it can be inserted on all relevant articles without the need to copy/paste. I would be okay with including a red eliminated bar as well while the group is ongoing to indicate team that are eliminated from contention. Including that in the legend, and having no team in red, would mean no one is eliminated yet.
The issue I have with the different formats of group and league table is that one page, typically a club-season article, can have a league table (with one format) and a group table (with the other format). We can hold that discussion for now, until a Lua implementation would be ready to incorporate the results from such a discussion. CRwikiCA talk 22:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Templates {{2014–15 UEFA Champions League group stage key}} and {{2014–15 UEFA Europa League group stage key}} is now created and is inserted on champions league and europa league articles. I will go through all clubs later and insert key and table. QED237 (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

First use of goal nets[edit]

I read in the latest edition of When Saturday Comes that the first proper football match to feature goal nets was a league match between Bolton and Nottingham Forest on 1 January 1891, and thought I might add this to the Pike's Lane article (where I assumed it was scored). However, when I researched it a bit more to confirm the venue, I found this book, which gives the date of the match as 1 January 1890.

The problem with both is that Bolton and Forest were not in the same division in either season - Forest were still in the Football Alliance until 1892, whilst Bolton were in the Football League. It doesn't appear to have been an FA Cup match either.

Can anyone else help me get to the bottom of this mystery? It would be a nice fact to add to the Pike Lane article - it was also the first ground where a both a Football League goal and Football League hat-trick were scored for the first time. Number 57 22:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember there's something about the first use of nets in Keith Warsop's book "The Early FA Cup Finals and the Southern Amateurs" but I don't have it to hand at the moment - I'll try to remember to dig it later. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
We have an article on John Alexander Brodie, who patented the idea. There was an earlier trial in a match in Stanley Park, Liverpool, around Christmas 1890, see e.g. [1], [2]. And then the match Bolton v Forest, 1 January 1891, at Pike's Lane, was used as a further trial, but it was a friendly, not a competitive game. The Nottingham Evening Post of 3 January says:
"During the match between Notts. Forest and the Bolton Wanderers on Thursday, Mr. Brodie, of Liverpool, was allowed try his patent netting arrangement with the object of saving disputes as to whether the ball passed through the required goal space. Netting extended from the posts at a slight angle backwards for about one and a half yards, while another net was fastened to the bar and drawn backwards like roof. By this arrangement the goal resembled an open box, and it was certain that the ball could only pass through the allotted space. The plan is certainly effective and simple, but the nets had better be so arranged that the ball striking those at the side cannot rebound into play. The nets should be used on a ground where there is plenty of room behind the goal, whereas there is very little to spare at Bolton."
Nets were used in the North v. South international trial at Nottingham Forest's Town Ground on 12 January, which appears to be recognised as the first official use: see the links above, and [3]. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for that - I've just realised that when I wrote Town Ground (Nottingham), I included the goal net issue. An additional claim is that the WSC article gives the "first player to hit the back of the net" accolade to Bolton player Dave "Di" Jones, whilst the Brown book above gives it to Fred Geary (not currently mentioned in his article). Are we agreed that the Town Ground/Geary claim is perhaps the stronger as it was an official match? Number 57 09:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd give it to Town Ground/Geary, but qualify with "in an official match". I'd definitely add mention of an early trial of goal nets to the Pike's Lane article, and perhaps add the goal as an interesting incident to Di Jones's page. I'm disappointed with WSC: they clearly don't do much in the way of fact-checking if they've let through a claim that Bolton v Forest in 1891 was a League match. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your comments about WSC. Maybe someone should write a letter for next month's edition! Number 57 10:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting to note the use of "the Bolton Wanderers" in that report, something which if we heard it today we'd probably regard as a horrendously misinformed Americanism ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Step 7 clubs[edit]

Hi all. I have recently been creating articles for notable clubs in my local area (South Yorkshire) and improving the page - Sheffield and Hallamshire County Senior Football League.

Under club notability rules here, I have been able to create articles for Frecheville Community Association F.C., Houghton Main F.C., Swallownest Miners Welfare F.C., Wombwell Main F.C., South Kirkby Colliery F.C., Thorpe Hesley F.C., Denaby United F.C. and Kiveton Park F.C. as those clubs have played in the FA Cup in the past. None of the other clubs in the league however would be eligible to have an article under those rules.

However I have found another page here which states that clubs playing at step 7 (Premier Division of the County Senior League) might well be eligible to have an article if it is a well sourced one.

Does that mean I can create articles for those clubs currently at step 7 if I can find enough sources etc...? (Everest F.C., Joker F.C., Jubilee Sports F.C., Millmoor Juniors F.C., Oughtibridge War Memorial F.C., Swinton Athletic F.C. and Wickersley F.C.) How about those that have previously played at step 7 but no longer do? (Davy F.C., High Green Villa F.C., Caribbean Sports F.C. etc...)

Thought I'd ask here before wasting my time creating them and then seeing them deleted! Kivo (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Anything that passes WP:GNG can have an article. However, I'd imagine it would be rather difficult to find enough material for the clubs in question, and I can't think of any articles on step 7 clubs that have ever survived an AfD on the GNG basis. The only clubs I'm aware of in England that have articles for reasons other than the FA Cup/Vase/Trophy participation are Wallsend Boys Club and Senrab F.C., both of which are notable for producing silly amounts of professional footballers rather than playing at level 7. Number 57 15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with the above comment, but clarify local news match / result reporting and the like, though undoubtedly reasonably widespread would not really help towards GNG as current consensus would be that this would fall under the category of WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I wrong here? (Indian Super League)[edit]

I just need to know if I am wrong here. The Indian Super League has so far managed to have reports come out of many papers that we would usually deem reliable like Sky Sports or the Times of India. However, lately I have seen examples of these sources just being wrong... like plain wrong. When Sky Sports reported that Peter Reid had signed as head coach of Mumbai City FC they actually said Mumbai FC which lead to confusion over who he signed for. Meanwhile, the Times of India had reported that both Robert Pirès and Fredrik Ljungberg will be signed as marquees for Goa and Mumbai City respectively. This lead to many edits on the ISL, Goa, and Mumbai City page in which people added those two players... a few days later then the same exact paper said that an unknown player were being looked at by Goa and that Nicolas Anelka had signed with Mumbai City... there was no report that Fredrick would not be signed... just that, magically, Anelka will sign.

Now, both the Indian Super League, FC Goa, and Mumbai City FC have their own facebook and twitter pages, as do all the other ISL teams and these pages are regularly updated. The Indian Super League also has a website and they do update the news section with big news all the time so after seeing the mistakes made by the Times of India and Sky Sports I decided that the best course of action was to do what we do with Major League Soccer and player articles on transfers, which is just wait till official confirmation is given. I have however already been criticized off wikipedia for that so I am wondering, am I wrong in wanting to wait for official confirmation from the league and teams before added the edit? I think I am justified. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not wrong. Waiting for official confirmation of transfers has been standard practice for some time, and just in the MLS. It may not strictly be in line with policy, but it is common sense when you consider how much transfer speculation is out there, even in otherwise reputable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean "not" just in the MLS? Britmax (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for catching that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
A transfer may fail at various stages and for various reasons, like it did with Loïc Rémy and his proposed move to Liverpool. So an agreed fee, discussion of personal terms or pending medical is not conclusive nor sufficient for encyclopedic standards. Nor is wikipedia a crystal ball. Considering that most of the media tend to jump in on transfer news prematurely, official confirmation from the club(s) or associations should be used as definitive proof that the payer has signed the legally-binding contract. LRD 00:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! Okay, so I shall wait till these things are officially confirmed. I shall also inform the other regular Indian football editors. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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 [4]
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)

Assist statistics in career tables[edit]

I seem to recall that there were discussions about this in the past and the conclusion that assists should not be included in Career statistics tables (as they are hard/impossible to source?). What is the consensus today? For example in the case of James Troisi#Career statistics should I delete the assists columns? --SuperJew (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Get rid. Where can you source them? Sure, some leagues keep assists recorded but most leagues don't at all and sometimes places like will show assist stats but they will be wrong (listing assists for certain games instead of all games). There is no reason to add assists. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
No assists, no red/yellow cards. Just games and goals. GiantSnowman 08:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Indian Super League fixtures[edit]

Do I need to explain why I am bringing this to the attention of WP:Football? So, should we bring this to AfD or PROD or is this fine. Keep in mind that while this league is short-term for now the league is expected to expand as the years go on to eventually be a proper length league. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever future may hold for ISL, for now the league remains a short-duration tournament with 8 teams and 60-odd fixtures. While it's typical to not include fixtures in a league season page, Indian Super League is far from a full-fledged league at this stage. If it indeed turns into a full season league, we can stop having fixtures page. This being a short tournament, it probably won't include team wise pages either, so that way it makes sense having a fixture page as well. Coderzombie (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
We can create team pages if we want... and we should. Other than the length, this league is basically the same as the Premier League in terms of things that you would find on a Premier League team season article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Definitely delete. Regardless of the future of the league, we don't need a page listing every single fixture in minute detail. International competitions like the Champions League are different in that respect as they garner a lot more interest than a league in a single country, which, IMO, should never have individual {{footballbox}} templates for each game. – PeeJay 10:32, 14 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)

Game of reverting at FIFA World Cup records[edit]

This is just the latest one of a whole series of edits, spanning over a couple of months, by a username and several IP addresses geolocating to Iran that stubbornly list West Germany as a World Cup debutant in 1954, which is contradictory to the generally accepted statistical conventions which regard West Germany to be the inheritor of pre-war Germany. What measures could be taken against that? --Theurgist (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You might want to seek page protection in this case. LRD 02:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think page protection will do in this case. Page protection is usually applied for short terms, and the reverting game has now lasted for months already. It would be counterproductive to give IPs a long-term prohibition from editing any part of the page if the likelihood is that the problem will be back whenever it is lifted. --Theurgist (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
When semi-protected several times you can ask for indefinate semi-protection, or if you want "pending changes"-protection. QED237 (talk) 09:59, 15 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)

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 5 4 1 0 12 3 +9 13 Promotion to the 2015–16 Scottish Premiership
2 Rangers 5 4 0 1 15 5 +10 12 Qualification to Scottish Premiership play-offs
3 Raith Rovers 5 3 0 2 7 10 −3 9
4 Queen of the South 5 2 2 1 10 6 +4 8
5 Livingston 5 2 1 2 8 5 +3 7
6 Hibernian 5 2 0 3 7 8 −1 6
7 Alloa Athletic 5 2 0 3 5 8 −3 6
8 Falkirk 5 1 2 2 5 9 −4 5
9 Dumbarton 5 1 1 3 3 11 −8 4 Scottish Championship play-offs
10 Cowdenbeath 5 0 1 4 6 13 −7 1 Relegation to 2015–16 Scottish League One

Updated to games played on 13 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)