Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 49

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

→

Template: Football venues in the Netherlands

In Template:Football venues in the Netherlands I noticed that all but one of the Stadium links are English Wikipedia pages. The other link goes to a Dutch Wikipedia page. Is linking to a Wikipedia page in another language in such a situation acceptable? If so, I'll add other Dutch links as well.66.56.3.9 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah, no good linking to a page that 95% of people cannot read.--Echetus Xe 23:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

German club names

Hi there! I guess, as Groucho Marx would put it, that someone would have to explain this to me like i'm a five-year old, because i can't make any out of it:

about German club names compression (or lack of it), which has been defended with the WP:KARLSRUHER approach, i'll only say this: if you look for instance at Felix Magath, why are most clubs in box unpiped to the fullest, being FC Bayern Munich and FC Schalke 04 compressed? Can someone please enlighten me on this one? Because if the commonname of Saarbrücken is 1.FC Saarbrücken, then the commonname of Bayern Munich is FC Bayern Munich, or is it not?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't require full names, as long as it's not simply a town name. Where the team has a name like "Borussia...", that's enough, but if it doesn't, you need to include the FC/SC/etc. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. You don't need to include things like 1.FC - the difference between Köln and Fortuna Köln is very clear. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To ART: yes, but why not leave that (full name) to storyline, compressing box? To NUMBER57: i could not agree more. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is usually no need to compress the box, I don't know why this is such an issue for you. You have it the wrong way around - the 'storyline' is the place for casual language, whereas the infobox uses propernames. And even if "Köln" is clear enough, it's simply not the club's name. It doesn't work like in England. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

About Köln and Fortuna Köln: why is it clear for the reader that Köln disambiguates to 1. FC Köln and not to SC Fortuna Köln? In some cases you need to have a quite a bit of background knowledge to guess the club correctly. If a footballer for example plays for Frankfurt, which club should I expect? --Jaellee (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Jaellee on this. Compression like that can often lead to ambiguity, especially with lower league clubs. In the specific example of Köln, 1. FC Köln's nickname is Der FC (the FC) which means that leaving the 1. FC part out, in addition to being ambiguous, seems a little silly, in my opnion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Because if he plays for Fortuna, we will write FORTUNA KOLN in box, KOLN (or FC KOLN, but not 1. FC KOLN) if he plays for the other team in the city - in the other example provided, of course we should write "Eintracht Frankfurt" and/or "FSV Frankfurt", not just "Frankfurt", agree 100%. As i have said over and over again, the full name appears in storyline, so i'll never understand this beef with the German clubs (solely German clubs and not all!) names. Keeping in mind JAELLEE's approach, what about Wolfsburg? If i see for example Diego Benaglio's page - before my edits were reverted, i have given up! - won't it be clear by reading "WOLFSBURG" that he plays for VfL Wolfsburg? Could Sir Sputnik elaborate on why does a mere "1." remotion in the infobox (not storyline, in my opinion boxes are for quick informative purposes only) constitute a SILLY edit? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What fail to understand why the question is "Why should FC's, SC's etc. be included?" and not "Why shuould they be excluded?". Quite frankly, I see no value in removing these extensions. In most instances including them means adding a few characters, and in doing so reducing ambiguity and many cases not requiring a piped link. Granted in some cases, like Borussia Mönchengladbach, the full name is excessively long, but they the exception rather than the rule. As to the silly edit comment, I was referring to the reduction of 1. FC Köln to Köln, where one would be removing the nickname as included in the actual name. With regards Vasco's other comments, I would argue that precisely because a club name appear in the infobox the extensions should be included. In prose, it may be worth while to remove an unpronounceable series of letters to make reading flow better, but in the infobox where the club name doesn't fit into a sentence or a paragraph why not add that extra precision? Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

One way, Vasco, of thinking about the userbox: Treat is as a kind of CV. If you listed the full club names there then you needn't do it in the text body. Now I've never been the chairman of British Telecom, but if I were, then I'd definitely list it on my CV as "Chairman of the BT Group plc." I'd list the complete name. This isn't as necessary in the text, however. As for infobox spacing, if Borussia Mönchengladbach is too long, it could be abbreviated to Borussia M'gladbach, but simply "Mönchengladbach" is as ambiguous as "Borussia". But if there is a section about a player's career for Borussia Mönchengladbach, then you could theoretically just use "Borussia" or "M'gladbach" in the text, as it is clear from the infobox which team is being written about. Jared Preston (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate all your kind comments and replies, but the main reason for my approach is the following (and i still say there is no consensus, as i have heard in several discussions all kinds of approaches and "techniques"): infobox is shorter than storyline in space right? Hence, i thought it would be nicer to compress box and insert fullnames of clubs in storylines, i have nothing but the utmost respect for the approaches of well intended users, such as yourselves (and i have never insulted anyone - and have been so! - just for disagreeing on a/this given subject). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to address the different questions one by one:

Fortuna Köln versus Köln: Yes, Fortuna Köln is different from Köln. But you know the "decision" that Köln defaults to 1. FC Köln, I know it, and probably all the editors that hang around at WT:FOOTY know it. But think of the unsuspecting reader who is searching information about a specific footballer and Google has directed him to the Wikipedia article about this player. How is he to know that "Köln" means 1. FC Köln? Especially if we list the full names for the clubs from Frankfurt. We have inconsistency then, too.
Especially for Köln: Could anyone please explain to me, why it is deemed acceptable to include the FC, but not the 1.? For me, this is just an arbitrary mangling of a club's name. The 1. and the FC just belong together. Same for Nuremberg, Kaiserslautern, Saarbrücken, etc.

As a German native, the reason is that there is no such thing as 2. FC Anytown. The number only indicates a presumed prominence of the club named 1. FC Anytown over all others from Anytown. Presumed or perceived by the founders of 1. FC Anytown. It is quite common to refer to 1. FC Köln as FC Köln in every day language. However, in infoboxes - as argued below - it provides no significant gain in terms of preserving space and therefore should be included as part of the club name. In terms of shortening, 1. FC should be regarded as one word - either it should be present or not.

As for dropping it from 1. FC Köln, I would suggest that it is highly illogical to treat "Köln" as definitely meaning 1. FC Köln, while "Fortuna Köln" must be included completely. If there is ambiguity, both (or all) terms that invite or are subject to this ambiguity must be changed so that the ambiguity vanishes. In this instance it means that both 1. FC Köln and Fortuna Köln should be presented fully in the infobox. HTH. --Madcynic (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dropping of FC/SC/TSV etc.: I, personally, would prefer to list the whole name of a club in the infobox. This avoids ambiguity and provides information at a glance. Some editors have repeatedly said (at the moment I can remember only Vasco, but I'm sure there were others, too) that they want to prevent the infoboxes from becoming overly wide. So in my opinion, the FC can be removed from FC Bayern Munich in order to make the inbox smaller without losing information. I see this as a compromise. I'm not in favor of it, but I can live with it. But except for Borussia Mönchengladbach, most infoboxes do not become even 1 pt smaller by changing 1. FC Köln to Köln. For me, this just means removing information without gaining any benefit at all.
Full names in infoboxes versus full names in storylines: I can't remember any discussion about this. I don't know if there is any guideline about this. But I have the impression that in most articles the full name of the club is mentioned at most once if it is mentioned at all. In order to find an acceptable solution about the German clubs names for all parties, maybe we should define the goal of an infobox is.

I notice that Vasco has responded to people's responses to his queries by angrily reverting several infoboxes to piped names. You may think there's no consensus, but consider this: every user in this project with a direct interest in German football appears to agree with the project of WP:KARLSRUHER. It's a cultural thing, and it's something that WP should reflect. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree given my statement above. I may not edit many German football articles, but I certainly have a direct interest in it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you are the only person in this discussion to have opposed the inclusion of FC/SC/SV etc., perhaps you could explain why. I would also disagree with the assessment that there is no consensus. With exceptions of Vasco and 57, all users who have posted here agree with the WP:KARLSRUHER, and those two have so far failed to explain why exclusion is preferable to inclusion, or even why they are opposed WP:KARLSRUHER in the first place. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To ART (and also in general): yes, i reverted it again, i apologize if i sounded angry, but i did not mean it that way (and i don't think i have used any of the words you once "threw" at me over this subject, did i? Just a reminder). If i reverted them and that is pointed out, can i not also say that everybody else (JAELLEE, ART, SPUTNIK, etc) has re-reverted them, doing the exact same thing as me, albeit with better manners? Continuing with the matter at hand, i did it because there still seems to be no consensus, and i'll repeat it again: why can't there be room for both (compression in BOX, fullname in storyline)? I think everybody would get their "fair share" that way. Obviously, if/when a consensus is reached, if it concludes the fullnames are for the box and compression in storyline, obviously i will comply, without hesitation.

Again, i apologize for any incovenience - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people have tried to explain to you why the names are written this way, but you're not engaging with these explanations at all. It's just the way things are done in Germany - teams are not formally referred to by a mere place name, the rules that we apply in England don't fit there. I've tried writing this up, providing real-world examples, and I don't know quite what else I can do to explain, but I've followed German football for 20 years, and seeing just "Bochum" in a list just looks wrong, and I'm clearly not alone in that experience. It's just not what they club is called, and while that might be used in less formal text (i.e. the storyline), it just doesn't belong in the infobox. It's analogous to referring to Manchester United as "United" - it's common enough, and you could fit it into an article's prose to vary the language, but in an infobox or a table it would be inappropriate. And You still haven't explained why there is a particular need for compression of the infoboxes. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think - and it may look ridiculous to you, i don't have a problem with that - that infoboxes may get "ugly" if big names like many German clubs are written in full in boxes, as opposed to storyline. And i also might add that writing in an encyclopedia is not, as you have put it - i respect it though - "casual conversation", so the names might appear in full in storylines of a given player/team. Also, no one has explained the need for the "1" attached to the FC's in box. Does that identify the club(s) better? It does not. One user above said it "looks silly" without the "1.FC". What kind of technical explanation is that?

Let's continue to exchange ideas. I am sorry, maybe it's my problem getting the general idea, could be that. If general consensus is reached - you are not alone, but neither am i i believe, and there is even one guy, User:GiantSnowman, who says clubs should be piped BOTH in box and storyline - i promise i will comply, "no questions asked".

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Art here. You could well be talking about the Thomas Ernst example. Simply having "Bochum" just isn't right. And what about "Stuttgart"? Yet another example where my very first thought is "Huh, VfB or Kickers???" As for compression, even if a long club name makes the infobox slightly wider, I don't think that gives anyone a reason to start chopping the name up. German names aren't comparable to those in England, where it's quite OK to drop the "FC". But then there are examples such as Bradford City/Bradford Park Avenue, and the same reason why you wouldn't simply write "Bradford" in the infobox is because it is ambiguous, like "Köln", which has now been explained at length. And yes, as Madcynic and Jaellee write, it is 1. FC Köln, not just FC Köln. Removing three characters for what reason? I don't understand it. Vasco, the "1. FC" doesn't indicate the club is better, it usually simply means it was the first club in the town to be established. It is the official name of the club, and can be seen in the club's badge – have a look at that, or the club's website. Sir Sputnik, who wrote "it looks silly", might not have offered a technical explanation, but how technical or clear can one be, apart from "it is the official name of the club"? Jared Preston (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this again. After looking at what you are doing in the Bochum article, I think I understand where you're coming from with the infobox piping. From my point of view, you seem to have something backwards in a way. Link piping is encouraged in the prose section of the article, but much less so in the infobox. The reasoning is that people who want to assess quickly when a certain player has played where, for example, they will look at the box and will expect to find exactly that information there without need to resort to the prose part of the article, nor to click through to the club article (people never have any time these days, you know?). I hope this clears up a bit of the confusion as to why members of this project have reverted piped links in the infobox before. Madcynic (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's exactly what most people are trying to get at. I'm a statistics person, even though I have the time to read the articles, I like to have the infobox correct and precise – games, goals and the teams the player has played for; without having to hover over the blue link to see which club is meant by the abbreviation. If clubs' names aren't abbreviated, then the information is there and I don't need to search any further. Jared Preston (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

First thing: i will stop reverting any actions you "engage" in those boxes, so you can rest assured on that one, i want things to go smoothly and not roughly, word of honour. About the doubt expressed by Jared, i don't know how much more clear can i be in my approach: in the case of the clubs in Stuttgart, i write "Stuttgart" and "Stuttgarter Kickers", as you can see no need there for the "VfB", same goes for "Frankfurt" ("Eintracht" or "FSV" - i would NEVER write only "Frankfurt" in an infobox, much more when the club's main name is "Eintracht"). About the "official club name" of Barcelona is FC Barcelona, of Espanyol RCD Espanyol, so why are these boxes allowed to be compressed? Really confusing stuff to me...

Switching to "conclusion mode" (on my part that is), i will respect the input of the vast majority of the users in this issue (even though i still repeat there is no consensus yet), will focus my energies elsewhere in the beautiful world of soccer. Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right Vasco. If Stuttgart and Stuttgarter Kickers are together, then one can be pretty certain that "Stuttgart" refers to VfB. Right now I'm looking at Fredi Bobic though, and I really don't see the harm of having the full name of both clubs in the infobox. As for Spanish clubs, in all honesty, I don't edit so many Spanish football biographies – but I must say, abbreviating FC Barcelona and RCD Espanyol seems just as pointless. I don't know who thinks it's OK to do that, but I don't like it either, for all the reasons given above with German club names. It makes no sense to me to chop the FC from FC Barcelona, and for what reason? To save two characters of text? When it results in having to pipe the name, it is even more silly. Jared Preston (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference between the way Spanish names and German names are written is cultural - the rules of WP:KARLSRUHER apply in Germany (and again, there are plenty of examples on the page) - I don't know enough about Spanish football to say with confidence what the rules are there, but it appears to be different. Again, this isn't an arbitrary Wikipedia rule, it comes from reality, and you can't apply a one-size-fitz-all rule. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

List of first association football internationals per country

I came across this article while I was on new page patrol. I've tidied up what was there, but before I spend any more time on it, can we decide whether it has any merit? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First match is a standard field in the infobox on national team articles, so the info is there (though not necessarily the most reliably sourced bit of data in these articles): quite who would want or need an article listing them is another question, but I can't think of formal grounds to delete. Kevin McE (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it shows how each nation got to grips with football over time.--Echetus Xe 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems ok. But how do you sort it for the ToC? Chronologically? By country? If the latter, what if two countries' first international are the same match? Digirami (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be easiest to sort it in chronological order; undoubtedly, some nations will receive more than one mention. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, how you have sorted it now is great.--Echetus Xe 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing that I have noticed on adding information to this article is how few of the country national team articles have referenced the first international match as shown in the infobox. Several (e.g. Argentina, Uruguay & South Africa) gave details of an unofficial match rather the first "Official" match involving the country. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Season article task force

I have started a new thread at the season article task force page concerning club season articles. Please can I get some feedback there. Thanks. 03 md 13:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

2011 Football League Cup Final

Resolved

Bit busy at the moment but I noticed this has just been created to a very low standard.--Echetus Xe 14:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User has also created 2011–12 Football League Cup. —Half Price 14:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted both. Clearly no useful information available for either. ~ mazca ^talk 14:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Parma F.C.

I put a good deal of work into significantly improving the mentioned article with a good result in the form of a much more informative piece. I'm trying to get it up to B-class standard and am aware that more referencing needs to be done. This is a bit of a tiresome job and will likely take some time to carry out. In the meantime, is there any advice that could be given to improve the article? I'm particularly unhappy with this part of the article because it looks messy with links to non-existent articles; lists roles which probably are of no great relevance (e.g. legal advisor); and, particularly in the case of management history, the tables are horribly aligned. Any thoughts or suggestions on how best to fix these issues and indeed any other things which spring to mind? Thanks. Omgosh30 (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mongolia Premier League season articles

Nameless User (talk · contribs) recently created season articles for the Mongolia Premier League, the highest football league of the country. Unfortunately, his overall choice of sources is very thin; he currently relies only on a single RSSSF page listing the winners of each season, which is usually not sufficient enough to warrant separate season articles. Thus, in a request for support, could members point Nameless User and other interested editors to additional sources for at least the most recent seasons? Otherwise, as it now stands, these articles would be deleted on grounds of WP:CFORK. For the record, I have also requested help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia/Mongolia work group, but it remains to be seen if and how much assistance will come from there. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Players' club categories

What's the view on whether a footballer should only be added to a club category (e.g. Category:Darlington F.C. players) if there is evidence that he has played for them, as opposed to just being on their books? And if he needs to have played a game for them, would we say that youth and reserve games would not be enough to count? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I take the view that if a player has a professional contract with a club, he should be included in that club's player category even if he never makes a senior appearance; e.g. Anthony Pulis who signed for Southampton in 2008 but has never got further than the bench. As for players who never get past the youth team, I wouldn't include them, although I'm not sure that there is a particular "rule" to that effect. All my own opinions, of course. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree 'Players' in this case means registered, contracted players, it doesn't matter whether they got on the pitch or not. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was silly when I was new to WP:FOOTY, but I think it makes a lot of sense categorising them if they had a contract for the club. I'd only say stop when it comes to international teams. A player can only be categorised as an "international footballer" if he has played for his country, and not just sat on a bench during a friendly. Jared Preston (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Many player signed for a few days and re-sold, or even Brazilian football clubs willing to help investment company to sign player and loaned aboard. i.e. they were de facto owned by the investment company but on the FA record is for the football clubs. In Italy many player from lower division were signed by Serie A clubs and immediately loaned back to lower division. These cases differ from they had played for the team as unused bench. Matthew_hk t c 18:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

David Butler(s) DOB

Can anyone with the knowledge (i.e. a copy of Joyce or similar) please find date of births for the follwing players so I can disambiguate from two others already in existence (1945 & 1953):

Butler who played for Wolves & Torquay in the early 80s;
Butler who played for Arbroath in the late 90s;
Butler who played for Stirling Albion in the early 2000s.

I doubt the two Scottish players are notable, but the first Butler is. Cheers, Giant Snowman 21:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You want someone with the Hugman book for the Torquay one. The Arbroath one's birthdate is on his Soccerbase page and the Stirling Albion one is on his profile on the club website. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I tried searching Soccerbase but could only find the Stirling player's profile, which has no DOB. Either way they don't meet ATHLETE. Cheers again, Giant Snowman 00:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got Hugman's 80s book, if nobody else pops up with the answer first I'll look him up in there tonight...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Born in Wolverhampton on 1 September 1962. Source: {{cite book | first=Barry J.|last= Hugman | title=Canon League Football Players' Records 1946–1984| publisher=Newnes Books | year=1984| id=ISBN 0-6003-7318-5|page=65}} -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks very much! Giant Snowman 14:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ghost players?

Seems there is a fake Tiago Pires and Everton Bilher was hired by Gloria Buzău in 2008-09 season. I found a news that they were fired in November 2008 due to alcoholic and "chick", but in fact the real Tiago Pires was loaned to Potenza! Match Report [1][2] For Everton Bilher, normally there would be a record on CBF contract archive for international transfer but i had not yet dig the match report of Brazilian Serie B 2008 to confirm. But at least the real Tiago cannot be played for the Romanian.

Would the Romanian hired a namesake or a player stole the name to get a contract? As football-lineups.com and worldfootball Put Gloria Buzău to Tiago Pires's career. Matthew_hk t c 18:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone understand this? Troubling... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiago Pires was playing for Potenza in 2008–09 season. Another Thiago/Tiago/Tao was playing for Gloria Buzău in the first half of 2008-09 season. User:Bine Mai and later news reporter claimed that Thiago/Tiago/Tao was Tiago Filipe dos Santos Pires, but it is impossible.

one of these may possible

a. User:Bine Mai made a wrong research, as he did for Fábio Lima (wrong POB, nationality) and other site use wikipedia as reference

b. Gloria Buzău claimed that Thiago/Tiago/Tao was Tiago Filipe dos Santos Pires

i'm not sure Everton Bilher did or did not went to Romania, but i'm sure Tiago Pires can't. Matthew_hk t c 21:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

~~Could someone find out that the full name of this Tiago? Matthew_hk t c 01:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)~~

This Tiago dos Santos Roberto [3] seems match this [4]. Seems User:Bine Mai and many news reporter went wrong. the website of his agent confirmed he is that Tiago in Romania Matthew_hk t c 19:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Persecution

Again, user Active Banana is after me, reverting stuff after i contributed to articles, now in Alan Osório da Costa Silva. This player is known by his first name, and the user insists he should not be referred to like that, but as "Osório da Costa Silva", what on earth is this? Is Ronaldinho, in his storyline, referred to as "Assis Moreira"?!? Is the Portuguese goalkeeper Quim known as "Sampaio da Silva"? Or - more specifically when players are known by first name - is Eduardo Carvalho referred to as "Carvalho" or "dos Reis"?

This is clearly getting out of hand, all because some uncivil summaries i incurred in, also having promptly apologized for my stupid behaviour. I also see this user does not work on soccer, he only does so in stuff i contribute in, so why is he acting like that? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Persecution? You'd have to prove that. Stalking behaviour would also have to be proven. However, Active Banana appears to have made a series of un-commented changes, which is not unusual. You also have made some uncited additions, particularly in the naming of Alan Osório da Costa Silva. If you had a WP:V source for it, you could argue that what was done was incorrect. However, as it stands it's just one editor against another. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i was beginning to worry that - as USUAL - i would get no reply. Why do you say i have not provided one source his footballing name is "Alan"? Everybody familiar with the world of soccer knows that his "working" name is his first, and all the LINKS and REFS in the article refer to the player as "Alan", not "Osório" and other shenanigans (please keep in mind what i wrote in the beginning of my report).

About the other matter, i also don't have to prove anything, all i know is that this user does not edit in soccer, AT ALL, then everytime i have an uncivil summary - which i should not - picks out one article from my contributions and starts reverting everything and filling the article with "citation needed" tags, also adding false info - in this case a player's name (if Zinedine Zidane was known as "Zinedine" why should the "playername" field read "Zinedine Zidane"? Because Active Banana said so?) Also, keep in mind that after his changes, both the "playername" and the "fullname" were the same.

If he is not familiar with the topic, why must he interfere unless it's vandalism (that stuff concerns us all)? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not all of the four sources provided refer to the player's name as "Alan". One has no reference at all and should be improved. Two are from the same source, although three references clearly indicate "Alan". However, it would be best to have a reference that clearly states this in the way that the article does.

Being familiar with a topic is not grounds for participation in fixing an article. Ideally, unless it's controversial information, the editor should request a citation rather than remove it. However, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia encourages bold editing. Find a reference and you're safe. If he's Wikipedia:Stalking you, prove it and you can request that he stop. From the looks of it, he seems to have some very broad interests and at first glance, it doesn't look like stalking. Just offer some WP:V proof and neither he nor anyone else can revert your changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mehmet Ekici

A bit of back-and-forth at Mehmet Ekici. Three Turkish reports have him electing to play for the Turkish national men's side. FIFA hasn't updated his bio. Nor has EUFA. ~~Nor has his club team.~~ As a result there has been some nationality issues in the lede. Would like a few eyes on it in light of WP:MOSBIO. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My view is that whether FIFA confirm the nationality or not, he clearly has claim to both Turkish or German nationality - otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue - and this should be reflected (and is cited). He may not be able to play for Turkey, but that's because he has represented Germany, not a lack of Turkish heritage. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I must correct club team. The bio page http://www.fcn.de/team/spieler/profil/ekici/ indicates his nationality as German. On the right-hand side, under the player's photo is a 2. When you click on the 2 and then on the image you can see that the club has indicated that his nationality is German (deutsch) and Turkish (türkisch). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, German media confirms his decision to represent Turkey as well (see this report from kicker, which also cites this report from the TFF website as a source (which in turn is also used as a source in the Ekici article). The current wording regarding his heritage and nationality seems to be fine, so everything should be okay and stay that way until Guus Hiddink throws him into a competitive fixture. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also the question as to whether FIFA will allow it as he played his junior years for the Germans. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the rule was you could switch over if you're under 21? Invisibletr (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The rule is that players who are eligible for multiple countries may freely decide for which country they will play for at senior level until they appeared in an official FIFA match. See Jermaine Jones, who collected three caps for Germany before switching to the United States. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The age limit has been removed so long as you meet other criteria specified in article 18 (i.e. have not played for senior side). Change of association (art. 18 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes). This was the rule that allowed Rory Fallon, Tommy smith Winston Reid Michael McGlinchey to go the the WC with New Zealand after playing for other countries at age group level.--ClubOranje^T 09:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify - it's not whether they have played for the senior side - Jermaine Jones certainly has - but whether those matches were competitive or not. Madcynic (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth is this brought here when there has been absolutely no attempt to resolve it on the talk page of the article in question? As on so many previous occasions, the issue of describing nationality is only a problem if one considers it necessary to use national adjectives. Kevin McE (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It was brought here because no one was watching the article. We discussed it on our own talk pages and the result was arrived-at there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WDL error

I don't think this has been brought up, but if the wins, draws and losses in the {{WDL}} template don't add up correctly, [[Category:WDL error]] appears in the relevant location in the article. There are fourteen articles in the category at present. - Dudesleeper talk 22:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry. I originally implemented Category:WDL error to check I wasn't making mistakes; I couldn't fix most (all?) of those listed as a lack of available source means I don't know which of the numbers are erroneous so hadn't changed them. I then forgot about it and hadn't documented it. Sorry if any confusion was caused. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

John Reames

I am having an issue at the John Reames article with Tomreames (talk · contribs), the person in question's son. My case is that Tom is adding unreferenced info that he won't/can't verify, despite my requests he does. He is also adding his own point of view by saying, for example, "arguably the most important"; there is also the obvious conflict of interest element as well. Can someone please advise - I don't want to bite the newcomer, but I also don't want to let the article quality slip. Thanks and regards, Giant Snowman 10:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that any statements of opinion are removed unless they can be supported by third party evidence. Any unverified statements of fact should be tagged {{fact}}. After all, what would Wikipedia be without uncited facts. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm the first part of the addition (selling the ground to the city council for 225000 pound in 1982, the 125 year lease) Lincoln City the official history by Ian and Donald Nannestad page 63. ISBN 1 874427 47 X. Yore Publications. Nothing in this book about Reames buying it back in 2000 (book was published in 1997) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattivi (talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Would this work? —W F C— 07:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

AGAIN IM NOT SURE HOW TO USE THIS SO PLEASE FORGIVE: You seem to have sourced the sale of the ground from Donald Nannestad's book and the second part can be referenced from http://www.redimps.co.uk/page/History/0,,10440~546466,00.html Can I add that I have always tried to be as helpful as possible but am not Wikipedia savvy and I have always referenced both Lincoln City Football Club and Council as reference points if you need to check the facts. Sorry and thank you. Additionally I would be really grateful if you could post the latest image I added to the page as I am the owner and if there is a problem could I beg that another photo is sourced and added. I am very grateful and hope we've clarified matters if we have misunderstood each other previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomreames (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tidied the article up, added a new reference - looks much better now I think. Giant Snowman 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Reid(s) DOB

Can anyone please locate the DOBs for the following players by the name of Bobby Reid:

Reid active in the 1930s and 1940s for Brentford, Sheffield United & Bury.
Reid active in 1970s for St Mirren.

There was also a Reid who played international football for Scotland, I think it's the same player as Brentford one but I'm not 100%. Cheers, Giant Snowman 15:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't help with date of birth, but the Scotland player played for Brentford while winning two caps in 1937/38. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are two pages for Bobby Reid's international career [5] [6]. Neither give DOB though. Brad78 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Brentford etc/Scotland international was born 19 Feb 1911, died 1987. Joyce p. 218. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much, article started. Giant Snowman 17:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The other one was born 9 October 1955 3 Scotland U-21 caps (Source John Litster's CDROM Record of postwar Scottish League Players) More can be found in the Glasgow Herald and Evening Times [7] Cattivi (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much! Giant Snowman 20:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Histon F.C infobox crest picture

Resolved

Hello everyone, was just wondering whether someone would be able to help me with the infobox picture on the Histon F.C. article. A fellow a couple of weeks ago with the old crest managed to void the background (if thats what it's called) and it looked a lot smarter as it didn't have that white box around the actual image.

The way I am explaining it is really bad, but I hope someone realises what I'm on about when they see the crest image. There is a really dodgey yellow bit around the crest, just wondering whether someone could sort it out? Cheers. Jazza5 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - the background needs to be made transparent. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done this and uploaded a PNG file here as jpeg doesn't support transparency. I also reduced the size of the image to better comply with fair use restrictions, but it is fine for infobox use. Camw (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Magic. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Quick as well, didn't expect someone to reply that quickly. Cheers, looks a lot better now! Jazza5 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Help with a reference

I've come across João Dickson Carvalho while doing sourcing with the WP:URBLPR project and have hit a wall with regard to verifying the information in the article. He certainly sounds notable, but sources are really needed for verification. Could someone kindly assist in finding a citation or two? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I found two Japanese-language references which verify that he played in Japan for Fujita and was leading goalscorer in 1977 and 1978 (with 77 goals overall during his spell in Japan) which I've added to the article. I'd say he easily passes our notability standards, but my google translate skills aren't good enough to find many other sources (and I can't find any in English). Jogurney (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. The notability is definitely there, adding the sources certainly helps avoid any possible deletion due to complete lack of sources. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Teamwork required (?)

Two things about this player, Georges Parfait Mbida Messi: he played several years in Portugal, so i retrieved both links to his article. However, the Polish club he (arguably) played for is different in ZEROZEROFOOTBALL.COM and FORADEJOGO.NET. To "add insult to injury", reliable user Oleola seems to be 100% sure this player did not play in either, can anyone find the club he played for in 2004-05, if any?

Second, i have the distinct feeling that "Messi" is not part of his name, but a nick, can anyone vouch for this? Thanks in advance!

Another subject: i vastly improved Borja Criado's page, with references and all, a very interesting and bizarre case i tell you, can anyone check for technical or language errors in storyline? Double thanks, play on! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea about Messi's club for that season (maybe both?), but all the external links provided include it in his 'full name', so I assume it is not a nickname. Giant Snowman 16:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All I can tell is that he played for Sporting Lokeren from 2002 to 2004, not from 2003 to 2004. See [8] Lokeren official site. According to this [9] (In Polish) he never played for Wisla. It looks like he was on trial [10] but was not signed. I don't feel Messi is a nickname, it's just a coincidence.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a native Polish speaker and I agree with Latouffedisco. PS. (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys! However, he did play for Lokeren from 2003-04 and not 2002-04, as he signed in January 2003. Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that he likely never played for Wisla. 90minut.pl is a good source and has no record of him playing for the club. Also, TFF.org typically reports a person's full name, so I think Messi is part of his full name, not a nick name. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Alberto Puppo

Researching information about the futbalistic carreer of Carlos Alberto Puppo who played in several clubs in Uruguay, o/w National Futball Club in the 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.182.244 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I found that he made at least one appearance for the Uruguay national football team in a "A" international friendy against Colombia in October 1976 here. He should be notable enough for an article, but I'm struggling to find online sources about him. Jogurney (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea for MOS:FLAG compliance

I know this has been a thorn in our side within the past year. I think I have come up with a way to more closer to compliance in certain goalscorers tables (and maybe any other personnel tables). If you look at the goalscorers, team information, and managerial changes table in Ecuatoriano de Fútbol Serie A, you will see what I have done. I have gone ahead and implemented it in the current South American league season articles (the continental tournament already comply), but have encountered resistance with the Brazilian league. Hopefully we can adopt my new method (or a modified variation) to better comply with MOS:FLAG. Opinions and thoughts are welcomed, which is why I'm writing now. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the use of a demonym for nationality; the name of the country is sufficient. There may not be a big difference between "Argentine" and "Argentina", but some countries have awkward or controversial demonyms. 23:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the article needs all those flags. In a league summary article is it that important to list the nationality of the manager, never mind to use a flag? The managerial changes section in particular looks a bit messy. Eldumpo (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree about the demonym have you seen the trouble over Northern Irish and I know it will cause untold drama if it is used on players who fit this. Mo ainm~Talk 18:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm up for ways to comply with MOS:FLAG in these tables because as it stands, most tables do not... and they should. Stick with the country name, and not the demonym? Digirami (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Back on deaf ears? Ok, I see how demonyms maybe a bad idea all-around and it might make tables messy. Maybe we should abandon the use of flagicons in these types of tables then? Digirami (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallelujah! That's exactly what we should do. That MOS:FLAG guideline is self-deprecating really - if we have to have the name of the country alongside the flag, there's no point having the flag because it doesn't add anything. BigDom More tea, vicar? 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well. The flags are just decorative and, aside from that, a frequent source of reverts and re-reverts in some articles. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nationality is vastly over-reported in our lists of player stats for their clubs, and it is not relevant to details of the league. If anyone wants to know any of the biographical details of the seventh highest scorer in the Ecuadorian league, whether it is his previous club history, age, nationality, famous relatives or whatever is available on the linked article. Kevin McE (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of flagicons

I gotta admit, this isn't the kind of thing that can just go away easily. Flagicons are everywhere within the scope of the project. Eliminating them won't be easy. I also think it would be prudent to codify when and where flagicons can be used. Digirami (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, this is how the above article looks without flags. Digirami (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty terrible to be honest. I agree flags can be overused and we need to agree where they should and shouldn't be used, not using them in the infobox for example. But there is a reason why they are used universally, both across sports and on every foreign language Wikipedia. Without flags some articles can look like somebody collapsed whilst using Microsoft Excel.

Also, you might disagree with me, but it is a tragedy that internet sites seem to feel the need to all look the same. Dismiss them merely as "decorative" if you will, but flags are a subtle, yet strong indicator of the Wikipedia brand in sport information and data. I feel it would be a sad day when the 'war on flags' is won/lost. Without the helpful little flags placed strategically across articles we can end up looking exactly like Soccerbase, and countless other football websites.

I really fail to see the point in striving to comply with guidelines just for the sake of it. The flags have been around for years, and for good reason, I just don't buy the arguments that the odd revert war is a significant problem or that nationality is over-emphasised.--Echetus Xe 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

1. FC Kattowitz

If someone with better knowledge of the subject could look at the dispute in this article and help to resolve it, I would appreciate it. European football isn't my field. I've had an extended discussion with one side on my talkpage, but this should really go back to the article talkpage, as I'm not taking administrative action on this issue. Acroterion _(talk) 17:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The page should get full protection in the meantime to prevent any ongoing reverts.--iGeM iN ix 18:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally, editwar concerns intro of article. The history of this club is complicated (Germany-Poland, Germany-Poland). This is the same club, although the country has changed. I think that this version is best and neutral:

"1. FC Kattowitz also 1. FC Katowice - football club based in Katowice. The club formed in 1905 in Germany, where played in years 1905-1922 and 1939-1945. In the 1920s, 1930s (when the two countries struggled over control of the region) and today played in Poland."

Version by user Wiggy! have false (and POV) term "German" and makes a fuss in the intro and removes the sources. LUCPOL (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Petty nationalistic editing that has no place on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the original German club called '1. FC Kattowitz' was disbanded in 1945; the new Polish club called '1. FC Katowice', founded in 2007, is completely unrelated except by name and certainly not notable. Therefore the logical solution is to remove all mention of the new Polish club, and to let the article concentrate on the historical German club ONLY. Giant Snowman 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you wrong. From 1922 to 1939 Katowice city this is city in Poland and 1. FC Kattowitz (as 1. FC Katowice) is Polish club. Please, see: The club formed in 1905 in Germany, where played in years 1905-1922 and 1939-1945. In the 1920s, 1930s (when the two countries struggled over control of the region) and today played in Poland." This is both Polish and German club. You mistake. Second: reactivation of club, this in not problem and reason for edit-war. Generally, editwar concerns intro of article. LUCPOL (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss at the relevant article talkpage: I have asked about the notability of the new club as well - Polish A-class ("5th or 6th level" according to LUCPOL) seems unlikely to be notable, but I defer to those who are more conversant with league structure. Acroterion _(talk) 18:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the intro to be more neutral, and removed mention of the modern club, which isn't notable or linked except by name. Giant Snowman 19:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There is actually an article for the modern club at 1. FC Katowice. Given that the women's team of said club plays in the highest Polish league, I would also say that it meets WP:N; however, that's just my EUR 0,02. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Undent. I've spent some time with my source material and cleaned up the article as best I can to this point. Additional (sourced) material has been added and some mistakes corrected. I'm sorry, LUCPOL, but the enthically-German identity of this club is core to its history and anyone bothering to read the article should get a proper sense of that. I understand this was even an issue when the club was "re-activated" (whatever that means). It's inappropriate to whitewash the thing to suit your oft-stated desire to defend all things Silesian (which seems to land you in the sheep-dip often enough). There is a separate article on the current day Polish club which is acknowledged in the article on the historical club. I have left additional comments on the article talk page. For folks following this, I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at the article (before LUCPOL reverts it?) and provide any useful comments/insights. Note that there have been important corrections/additions made with respect to the club's name and the clubs place in German football during World War II. Sorry for the drama. Wiggy! (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

China - international football

Can anyone help me disentangle the official status of the various matches involving the China national football team prior to 1948. I am slowly building the List of first association football internationals per country and have had some problems identifying the first "official" match for each particular country; hopefully, I've got it right so far. But I am hitting a wall with the Chinese. The article for the China PR national football team (People's Republic) lists their first match as taking place on 1 February 1913, with an alternative as 4 August 1952, whereas the article for Chinese Taipei national football team (Taiwan) also claims the 1 February 1913 match, with an alternative of 1 May 1954.

For Taiwan I have gone with the latter but for the People's Republic I have gone with the Olympic Games match on 2 August 1948, as per the RSSSF article[11]. RSSSF list three matches played in Hong Kong in 1949, 1950 and 1953 between "China" and South Korea which don't seem to have official status. The ELO website (which shows how the FIFA rankings are arrived at) lists the first Taiwan match as that on 1 May 1954[12] but for the People's Republic it shows all the matches from February 1913[13].

RSSSF does not list any of the "pre-war" matches for either country and for the earlier matches (from 1913 to 1921) in the Far Eastern Games, says that China was represented by a club side, South China A.A..[14]. China also played in the 1936 Olympics; and the FIFA match summary shows them as "China PR".[15]

Another website[16] lists all the matches from 1913, but attributes those up to 1927 as Republic of China, those from 1930 to 1949 as Republic of China Including both the 1936 and 1948 Olympic Games matches) with the first China match as being that on 4 August 1952.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Zero Zero website

Has anyone got any views on whether the Zero Zero Football site is regarded as being reliable for its statistics? Eldumpo (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, for Portuguese footballers especially, or imports of many many seasons - if you want to remove it in players, at least leave it in those two cases. This site and WWW.FORADEJOGO.NET should always be present in the cases i mentioned and, furthermore, ZEROZERO has detailed match-by-match lineups (at least from 2003-04 onwards) in players pages.

Obviously, inserting that link for Wayne Rooney, for example, is a bit useless when you have WWW.SOCCERBASE.COM, but leave it be in the cases referred to in the line above, please. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

New template

I've just created a new template, {{footballer}}, that automatically adds the (footballer) disambiguation to save time when writing links to footballers who share their names with other notable folk. The template can also add (... born xxxx) using an optional second parameter. Hopefully some lazy beggars like me will find this useful, because it means you don't have to write out the player's name twice! Cheers, BigDom talk 21:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone can work out how to get it to substitute properly, that would be great! BigDom talk 22:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, but are most people not aware of the pipe trick? Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

^^ Good point. Digirami (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotta love syntactic sugar.^^ I guess this makes the template obsolete... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake. I always copied and pasted the left of the pipe onto the right hand side. I had no idea that it would have done it by itself!!!--Echetus Xe 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure pages with templates load slower, and isn't there an upper limit of the amount of templates a page can have? Some templates are useful and save an abundance of otherwise laborious work. Really not sure about the point of this template, similar to {{fc}} or {{afc}} templates. Brad78 (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the pipe trick. I've wasted years of my life writing the name out twice! BigDom talk 07:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I don't know whether to feel guilty or smug.... Excuse my ignorance, but what does ^^ indicate? Refering to the above? Eyebrows arched in surprise? Kevin McE (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It means "referring to the above". By the way, permission to feel smug granted. I can't believe I've been here the best part of 5 years and never knew that all this time I could have written each name out once. Has the pipe trick always been around or is it a new thing? Either way, don't feel guilty - the template only took me about 10-15 minutes so it's not a massive deal if it gets deleted (which it may as well). In fact, I may delete it myself later. BigDom talk 08:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The help page for it was created in July 2005: how long it was possible before it had its own help page I wouldn't know. Kevin McE (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Its a small tool but it feels like I've just discovered that every time I tie my shoelaces I'm entitled to claim 20p off the government or something. You are entitled to feel smug. ^^ can also mean arched eyebrows, and in fact it usually does. Generally a happy, smug face, e.g. "I found your wife to be extremely friendly ^^". A strange and extreme example perhaps, but there we are.--Echetus Xe 17:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I've just thought of something extra. Can we add football teams to the pipetrick list so adding in for example [[Manchester United F.C.|]] would generate a link to Manchester United F.C. but display Manchester United? Brad78 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm: if only there were something like {{fc|Gillingham}} that would do that. (Sorry: my keyboard doesn't type Manchessrt.. no good, just won't do it...) Kevin McE (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a template for that, as shown above. Jared Preston (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kevin. That's the point. The pipe trick means you don't need any template which just slows down the loading of a page anyway. Brad78 (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Belgian Cup

belgian cup 1883 i have a silver and gold bullion badge with this embroidered on it with a lion rampant snf the belgian flag in the back ground according to all sources i have found the cup didnt start til 1911 . if anybody can help i would be grateful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.16.246 (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Wiki, of the 7 clubs in the first Belgian league, only two had been in existence in 1883: Royal Antwerp F.C. and R. Léopold Uccle Forestoise, but this Belgian site suggests that othe clubs founded in/before 1883 are "Cercle des Regates", "Rapiditas FC de Molenbeek", "Antwerp Bicycle Club", "Athletic & Running Club Brussel", : it's plausible that there was a cup organised between 6 clubs, but the Royal Belgian Football Association was not yet formed, so it's unclear as to who would have arranged it: one of the clubs perhaps. Is the embroidery in English? Is there anything to identify it as pertaining to football? Kevin McE (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another idea to solve the mystery would be that said badge could simply depict the logo of one of these teams. In any case, a link to an image (if available, that is, possibly via an uploaded photo or a scan) would be very helpful. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

footballfancast.com reliability

Seen a few articles lately using this site as a source. While it seems to have a fair amount of useful info on it, there isn't much evidence of the much-loved "editorial oversight". Reliable or not? Alzarian16 (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The About us page says it's "fan generated podcasts, blogs, news and forums." That does not suggest something that would pass as a reliable source. Brad78 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hakan Şükür

Teammates,

this risks of becoming a major edit war, and i would really hate it, so i bring this to your attention: in this footballer's article, which version is more accurate in display, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hakan_%C5%9E%C3%BCk%C3%BCr&diff=395575688&oldid=395525252 mine) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hakan_%C5%9E%C3%BCk%C3%BCr&diff=395525252&oldid=395518068, presented by User:Redman19)? Whatever is decided by the members of the project - some admin output would also be appreciated, preferably if the person has any "connection" to football articles - i will abide by.

Last edit, i composed everything, from references display, language, redirects - Turkish Cup has replaced "Turkiye Kupasi" here at the site - etc. Redman reverted EVERY single word i wrote, everything, then accused me of removing major info. I thought WP was about teamwork - every (well-intended) user has something good to offer - not revert everything just because (while i admit i did it once in the article, reverting to my storyline, i have stopped doing that and have tried to reach a compromise between my inputs and Redman's, but he does not allow!)...Help please!

P.S. The other user referred to here has already been notified about the discussion. For more details, please see article's talkpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hakan_%C5%9E%C3%BCk%C3%BCr here). Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If nobody else has a chance to investigate it, I'll have a look when I get home from work tonight. Camw (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please keep in mind i want to "mix" both storylines, he won't allow ONE SINGLE word from my version to be input, including the correction of redirects! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This topic isn't covered

Sports-related outlines currently under development include:

But there is no Outline of association football.

Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?

To create an outline on football, click on the redlink above and add this line:

{{subst:BLT|association football|Association football}}

Then press Save page and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

Here are some examples of developed outlines:

The Transhumanist 00:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick pernickety postscript - wouldn't it be Outline of association football, with a lower-case A? Away of the start of sentences, when mentioned on the article for association football, it is referred to with a lower-case A. Bobo . 00:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Typo fixed. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Honours / Major League Soccer

I looked at a few player profiles on wikipedia. And the LA Galaxy player pages showed that the 2010 Western Conference Championship from the Regular season was listed as one of the honours, but the problem is I look at other pages like Robbie Findley and he has the Eastern Conference Championship, which was won last season by Real Salt Lake via the MLS Cup playoffs, listed as one of his honours. OK, that's just downright confusing, I think we should add the Conference championships to the player profiles if they win it in the playoffs, cause what we have right now with the regular season is just throwing me off and I'm trying to correct that while I'm adding in extra honours just to get a better understanding. What do you guys think, should the conference championship honour take affect in the playoffs rather than the regular season? – Michael (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael is right, we need to come to one decision or the other. I have to admit, I was under the impression that the regular season conference champions were the ones who recieved the Conference Championship and not the playoff conference champions (I have a t-shirt with "LA Galaxy - 2009 Western Conference Champions" from when they won the regular season conference last year!), but I'm not worried which way we do it, so long as we're consistent. The only issue now is that all the MLS honors stats on player articles will need to be checked to make sure we're using the right ones. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

FA Amateur Cup seasons

Would it be worthwhile to write articles on individual FA Amateur Cup seasons, modeled on those of the FA Cup? Besides possible non-reliability, there is the issue of sources; the complete results are not available anywhere on web, but in my research I managed to unearth considerable amount of data from the pages of the The Times and Manchester Guardian (rounds proper only, I won't touch qualifying). So far I have seasons 1955-69 complete, all results with dates. But they would have to be checked against that book [17] - unlike leagues, printing errors may go undetected if they do not affect the result of a tie. 109.173.212.187 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Amateur Cup season articles are a great idea. That competition had basically the same sort of recognition as the FA Trophy does now, and that has season articles. I advise you to get an account first though! —Half Price 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement. Currently I do not have enough time to gather the results at a regular pace, let alone work on Wikipedia pages. Things might get easier for me around March. Therefore I am not registering an account yet. 109.173.212.187 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to help whenever you need it. —Half Price 16:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As would I. I've got the book the IP mentions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Grandview Park Bapitst Defenders Football

Grandview Park Baptist Defenders Football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cboozle (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, thanks? Giant Snowman 02:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject American football. I have added a hatnote here to match the one on the project page...it is not the first time a user has come directly to the talk page looking for American football. --ClubOranje^T 10:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Bradden Inman

I was considering recreating Bradden Inmann along with some disambig work). Poor versions before more sources were found were previously deleted. I believe he meets the GNG with significant coverage now.[18][19][20][21] Along with trivial mentions in match reports, he has received other coverage that is not solely based on him but still more than a blurb. It appears to be ongoing and on an international scale. I think he still fails the athlete specific criteria (which is subservient to GNG) but wanted to double check to see if there were any objections.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you create the page in userspace so we can see a physical article rather than a hypothetical one? Giant Snowman 14:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Coverage in national newspapers is certainly notable, so I think he satisfies the GNG, but that's just my opinion. It looks like you'd have to get the page de-salted as well. Considering he's likely to pass WP:ATHLETE in the future you could always create the article on your user page first as GiantSnowman says. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Football player infobox

I've come across a number of recent instances where bots (e.g. user:Yobot) are making minor edits in articles to the original Template:infobox football biography. Given this is superseded by Template:infobox football biography 2, and I understand there is a plan for a bot to do this conversion, can this not be prioritised in some way, rather than these bots making changes to an infobox that is supposed to be replaced? Eldumpo (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting approach

Here i am again, with another offensive attempt :)

Could anyone be so kind as to explain me why is Nikola Žigić's name in box referenced? Did not know you needed refs for those...His height (or any height that seems "suspicious" in soccer, like Peter Crouch, Jan Koller or Stefan Brasas) i can see why, but why the name? Thanks in advance, keep it up. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it is supporting the fact that his name is simply Nikola Žigić, without any middle/extra names..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - it was added in this edit a few days ago. I'm not convinced the "full name" field needs to be filled in at all in this case, given that his commonly-used name and his full name are apparently the same. ~ mazca ^talk 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of full names, see this thread from about a month ago. It was decided that the full name parameter should be used even if it is the same as the commonly used name. BigDom talk 18:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, and I suppose using the full-name parameter to basically declare that yes, that is their full name, makes this kind of asshattery a lot more obvious. ~ mazca ^talk 21:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Grimsby Town F.C.

Hi. I seem to be getting into a bit of an edit war on Grimsby Town F.C. In my opinion the history section is full of unref'd POV, heavily recentist, and in need of some major trimming back. but another editor disagrees and pretty much just undoes my edits, often removing tags. There's also a bunch of other (in my opinion) needless stuff, like the youth team squad, but the history needs enough help as it is. The views of others would be appreciated. Cheers! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Phil Jevons hit a wonderous 35 yard strike" - You may have a point Ilikeatingwaffles. I'm more or less a noob to conflict resolution, what happens now? Darigan (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"League standings for last 11 seasons" is one of the more random sections I've seen in an article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I just removed that section as unencyclopedic. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Mutsuhiko Nomura

Hello. I am a member of Wikiproject Unreferenced BLP Rescue. I am trying to provide some basic sourcing for Mutsuhiko Nomura. I've found this page but that does not appear to qualify as a reliable source. I was wondering if any project members here would be able to assist. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has managed to managed to dig up Japanese language sources for this, so its referenced now. Please consider this request closed. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Template cleanup

Would someone cleanup the Template:Lfpfr? LFP upgraded the site and all link were dead. For the newsite, please use Template:Lfpfr2. Matthew_hk t c 19:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Identical brackets

Template:8TeamBracket-2Leg & Template:LiguillaBracket. Why? --MicroX (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably because the creator of whichever template was created later was unaware of the other one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be OK if I replace the Liguilla Bracket with the 8TeamBracket in the only 4 articles they are used in and nominate Liguilla Bracket for deletion? --MicroX (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and go for it! Giant Snowman 13:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Done - TfD - However sometimes when we are bold, edit wars ensue. --MicroX (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to the project

Resolved

– Original editor requested deletion of template. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On its usual diligence. Consensus has been claimed to make informative edits such as this. —W F C— 14:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for context. It was requested this template be tested universally and when WFC pointed out the pointlessness of this my reply was [22] Gnevin (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What the...? Digirami (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Christ on a bike. BigDom talk 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is such a stupid argument. I don't see what they have to gain from this. A big banner saying "The word football refers to the game of association football, durrrrr" doesn't benefit their project at all, it just makes Wikipedia look stupid. The article 'Football' is already shared by all 'codes' of the name. Is this some big rouse to get us to change our name to 'WikiProject Association Football'? That wouldn't bother me, what would bother me would be asinine hatnotes and unnecessary attempts at disambiguation. What next? "Robbie Earle is a former professional association football (soccer) player who is most well known, but not exclusively known, for his time at Wimbledon (not the town but the club named for the town). He also played internationally for Jamaica (the country, not the city in Iowa or the USS Cruiser)." Its crazy!--Echetus Xe 18:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair. Who would have known before that an article entitled 'association football' would contain information about association football? —Half Price 18:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a valid point actually. I got half way through it before I realised it wasn't about Aussie rules. BigDom talk 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, the serious problem is the proposal at Talk:Football#Hatnote that EVERY football article should have a hatnote saying "The primary meaning of the word football in this article refers to association football. Other codes will be disambiguated as required." Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How often is more than one code of football mentioned in an article about a player?! Giant Snowman 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I contested this unsanctioned introduction of pointless hatnotes. Issue is now closed I think, although I doubt it's the last we'll hear of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of sarcasm, very little helpful input. How about suggesting a decent solution to the issue or even taking part in the discussion? Gnevin (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see there even being an issue, so a solution is not required. We have piped links for those who are confused, and it's not Simple English Wikipedia. We don't need to patronise our readers. This kind of hand-holding would set a truly awful precedent for the project and the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please delete that useless "footballword" template? Jared Preston (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The only reason there isn't a major issue every other football code has the common sense to dab the word football. If every other code was to do the same it would be madness. The majority of members hear/read football and assume soccer. The is not the case for many others Gnevin (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Every time I write about a footballer or a football team I say football. It's very clear and is the complete purpose of a piped link. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is intended to be printed. Also having the user have to click to find out the code isn't really best practice, why not just say Association football? Gnevin (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to make a universal proposal to delete piped links then. As in my previous example, if you wish to expand "football" then you should expand "Irish", if, as you say, Wiki is intended to be printed (which is news to me... considering WP:NOTPAPER)... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Piped links are fine when the context has been established, football can mean several things. If you wish to make the case Irish should be expanded I am willing to listen to it. Printing Gnevin (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a bigger fight on your hands. We aren't Simple English Wikipedia. Context can be clearly established if someone is prepared to read the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How far should some have to read and know much knowledge of the code do expect a user to have? Gnevin (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as they need. This doesn't need some panacea. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better for our readers to have it clear in the intro and then forget about it? Gnevin (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)::

No. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Where do you draw the line? Any term which is pipelinked, in your world, would need similar treatment. Let's not treat our audience like fools. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia must consider its reads fools so . You draw the line where as other codes do, by introducing the code in a clear way Gnevin (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this point has probably already been made, but surely the term "association football" would create more confusion than the current convention? Unlike other codes, I don't think I've ever seen or heard "association football" used outside of Wikipedia. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right as most of the world refers to it as soccer. But not, in general, in England (for example). Perhaps the hatnote would need to go as far as "association football (soccer)"? Really not neat. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That point has been made, repeatedly, among other points about universally applying a term that a significant portion of the English speaking world has probably never heard. Digirami (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What on earth?

Hi there teammates,

for the second time in this year, it has happened: anon user inserts stuff about the footballer Nuno Miguel Prata Coelho, claiming he has East Timor and Maori roots - which he has not, 100% guaranteed, i am Portuguese i know that - then proceeding to make stuff up about his international career.

The user then proceeds to back his "additions" with "refs". Why the quotation marks? Because the refs belong to FIFA.com, but that's it! Once you click on them, they don't lead you to the matter at hand, AT ALL! I am almost 100% sure that this is sheer vandalism, but i would like to know from other users, especially Portuguese or connected to Portuguese football, so we can straigthen this out. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP did not claim he has Māori roots; the IP claimed his mother was of New Zealand descent. It is plausible enough that one should not be too hasty to hang big vandalism signs on it. That aside, I have not found reliable sources to back that up, so your removal of the statement is valid.--ClubOranje^T 10:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hendrie, Jnr.

Lee's little brother (who looks ridiculously like his sibling) - but how do we spell his name? I've seen it spelt both "Stuart" and "Stewart"...Giant Snowman 17:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Stewart seems to be the most common spelling. The club's site there shows it and so does the BBC report of the match where he got his first league app. You would think the BBC would use official sources for that. —Half Price 17:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not a definitive source, but findmypast appears to show Stuart Hendrie. Brad78 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And the BBC isn't always accurate; for example it spells McLaughin as "McLaughlan"...Giant Snowman 18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PLUS the Beeb has also spelt it "Stuart" in the past...Giant Snowman 18:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

BBC and PFA use both spellings. SkySports goes with Stuart. Total G-hits for "Stuart Hendrie" Morecambe is 3,440. For "Stewart Hendrie" Morecambe it's 1,310. Even the Morecambe FC website uses both - Stewart 76 times and Stuart 13. Brad78 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick check given some recent discussions: the two names definitely refer to only one player, right? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, only one player. Giant Snowman 18:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but apparently there's also a Stewart Hendry in the squad. Could some of the "Stewart" reports have been confusing Hendrie with him? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That Hendry is clearly the same player, but spelt incorrectly. Look at the squad numbers. BigDom talk 19:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it's spelt right! :D —Half Price 19:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

His old club, Atherstone Town, on their website, use Stuart every time, never Stewart. At the moment, I think Stuart is the better option to use. The sources are too split to be conclusive, his old club uses "Stuart" exclusively, findmypast has him down as "Stuart", and the local paper in Morecambe uses Stuart, but his new club is split, with his profile as "Stewart". To be honest, I think you can ignore every other source which will only use affiliated copy anyway. Brad78 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange indeed

What a strange way to name an article about a football club, Tadamon, Kuwait, with commas an all, is there a possibility the page's name be changed? I think it would be better. Inputs please. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it has been changed to Tadamon (Kuwait). GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Association Sportive du Faso-Yennenga

Resolved

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now added several references so this issue is now resolved. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, most of the other articles on members of the Burkinabé Premier League are also unreferenced, so there is still plenty of work required. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Check this out: User_talk:Daemonic_Kangaroo#The_small_barnstar.2C_for_gnomish_work GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FC Timişoara

The article FC Timişoara has just been the subject of a c&P move to FC Politehnica Timişoara. This is a slightly complex situation that I don't fully understand, because clubs have been moved, renamed, merged, that kind of thing. This is similar to the kerfuffle regarding FC Bohemians Praha. This move has been made with no discussion, which I don't think is appropriate for a potentially controversial step. Does anyone have better knowledge of the situation? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike Smith

Does anyone know the date of birth for Mike Smith (football manager) ? Finding a date of birth for a John Smith isn't easy! TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Enakarhire

Does anyone have any info on this footballer? It seems strange that he has not found a club in two years, given that performed very well in Belgium and Portugal, also being an established Nigerian international. Could he have "pulled a Shane Supple"? Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems he trialled with OB Odense and Energie Cottbus last month but didn't get a deal at either. This article mentions that he "proved that he was back to his best and back to full fitness." - maybe a bad injury has kept him out? Camw (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

International appearances in infoboxes

Is there general consensus to add their national stats when they actually make their debut? For example Lee Hodson shows Northern Ireland with 0 (0) despite having not actually played for them. --Jimbo^[online] 17:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed a few weeks back - see here. The consensus was that an entry should only be made in the infobox and category when an international appearance had actually been made; and that doesn't include just sitting on the bench. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, even Andrés Palop, who was crowned UEFA Euro 2008 champion, and has that competition inserted in honours, also having his due squad template, has his "International career" bit in infobox empty. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A similar situation existed for several French players: Benoît Cheyrou, Benoît Trémoulinas, Younes Kaboul and Cédric Carrasso and for Marc Wilson (Irish footballer) for the Irish Republic. I have deleted their fledgling international "career" from the infobox, but no doubt some will be reverted. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise for Matthew Gilks and Paul Caddis for Scotland and Rhoys Wiggins for Wales. Some editors seem to have a desperate desire to "big up" their subjects. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Way to come to that personal conclusion without actually consulting these editors with "desperate desires". I'll admit I added the national team in the infobox for Benoît Cheyrou and Benoît Trémoulinas, but, at the time, this did not exist. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dolf Kessler(s)?

There was a Dutch footballer called Geldolph Adriaan Kessler and a Dutch industrialist called Geldolph Adriaan Kessler who lived at the same time. Were they the same person or not? - there is a lot of confusion here! Giant Snowman 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If my Google translation is right, this article (which has been added to the article for the footballer) says that they are the same person; as do the Dutch and German Wikipedias. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah they look the same person to me, thanks very much. Giant Snowman 14:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

National football squad start template suggestion

Please see here: Template talk:National football squad start#Suggestion. I'd like to see the header introduce sorting for columns. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Anybody fancy passing an opinion at my edit war...

? Not really mine, it's been going on slowly for ages, I just turned up by accident and got involved. Please see Talk:Vinny Faherty#Galway stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Kansas City name change

Yet another MLS franchise has rebranded itself, this time as Sporting Kansas City; can an admin please rename Category:Kansas City Wizards and subcategories accordingly. Thanks, Giant Snowman 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Frank Rawcliffe

he was english and he played in Italy, at Alessandria, in 1949, do you have some news about him? On italian wikipedia we want see if we can create him but there are doubts about his surname, maybe it was Rawcliffe, maybe Ratcliff, maybe Rawcliff and we ignore what he did before relocating in Italy.. 93.33.11.47 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rawcliffe is correct. Brief info here, played for Tranmere Rovers, Wolves, Colchester, Notts County, Newport County, Swansea, Aldershot, Allessandria, South Liverpool and Allessandria again.--ClubOranje^T 09:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

His playing career details can be found on the various Neil Brown pages: Newport County[23], Swansea Town[24] and Aldershot[25], from where he moved to Alessandria. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Stub created. Giant Snowman 16:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

do you know if he played 5 or more matches in a major league or 100 or more matches in a second league? Then if there is italophone here, I can show some enlarged voices on italian wikipedia.. thanks for everything!! 93.33.9.38 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In this template there should be a reference about 3 season which Barça did not play because of the Spanish Civil War. Catalaalatac: My name in the Catalan Wikipedia --Catalaalatac (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Navboxes are just there to get people to articles. They aren't meant to be timelines. The article already explains why Barcelona did not compete in those years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Football did not stop completely in Spain because of civil war, see Mediterranean League article. Barça continued to play during these seasons Djln Djln (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Juventude (Sal)

The article Juventude (Sal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced in 3 languages, a search for references did not find support for the article as written, Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Karamoko Kéïta name order

I've seen this player called both 'Karamoko Kéïta' and 'Kéïta Karamoko' - anyone know called the correct name order? Giant Snowman 19:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's Karamoko Kéïta. Some French sources display names as Surname Firstname so it can be confusing. TheBigJagielka (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Some cultures, such as Hungary, list names as "Family Name, Personal Name" rather then the other way around. Djln Djln (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Whitecaps FC

There is yet another proposal to merge Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) to Vancouver Whitecaps FC. The main argument opposed to the merge in the past (see Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#Merge Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) into this article was that the MLS didn't allow franchises to keep their history. Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC#It is time to merge the articles states that the MLS Whitecaps site has retained their history continuing to 1974. Please discuss there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to mention WP:LENGTH.Cptnono (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues

Some issues have been raised at [26] regarding the appropriateness of the current wording of FPL and its application, particularly with respect to AfD's. Please comment at that thread if you have views on this matter. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Players in the Welsh Premier League RM

I have put in an 'uncontroversial' move request for Category:Players in the Welsh Premier League → Category:Welsh Premier League players; should anyone disagree, please say so here before an admin goes ahead and makes the move. Many thanks, Giant Snowman 15:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it from WP:RM, which was the wrong place as cat renames should be listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. However, you may be unaware that it was named like that because of the possibly ambiguity, as "Welsh Premier League players" could easily be (mis)interpreted as "Premier League players of Welsh nationality". See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 20#Welsh Premier League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks very much for pointing me in the right direction. The possible ambiguity never really crossed my mind before...Giant Snowman 17:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't seem to be a problem for Category:Russian Premier League players or Category:Scottish Premier League players. --ClubOranje^T 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that the RPL and SPL are both high-profile fully professional leagues, which means that there is little or no ambiguity. Whereas the WPL is semi-professional and almost all of the professional Welsh players play in the English structure (some for Welsh clubs in that structure). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

..and since I am living on a different part of the planet I am not privy to that local knowledge, so I would equally think that Welsh Premier League players play in the Welsh Premier League, just as I think Scottish Premier League Players play in the Scottish Premier Leagueand ditto for 20 other natioanl premier leagues. Or perhaps I'd think that Welsh Premier League Players and Scottish Premier League Players and Russian Premier League players all play in the English Premier league because that is the centre of the football universe. To me they have equal ~~ambiguity~~ non-ambiguity. --ClubOranje^T 10:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind a different part of the planet, you'd have to live in a different part of the universe to be daft enough to think that Welsh Premier League players referred to Welsh players in the English Premier League. BigDom talk 10:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks 15th, with 13911 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Same editor has been posting this message all over the higher density talk page, apparently unaware of NOTPAPER, ~~that the max recommended size is 32K (which we are well below), and the automated archiving process.~~ Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would we have to be more efficient with kilobytes? BigDom talk 11:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely you should have said Y on erth wd w hve 2b mre eff'nt w/ kb's? Kevin McE (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Tru. BigDom talk 11:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The database reports page actually states the total size of all talk pages, including archives, and is 13.9 megabytes, not kilobytes. The current talk page size is not considered. All this tells us is what we already knew - this is one of the busiest WikiProject talk pages, with only Military History and Videogames being more active. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Nothing to see here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

New template versions to show Current Squad and Recent Callups for a National Team

A few days ago, I created and implemented a new version 2 and version 3 of the original {{nat fs g start}} and {{nat fs r start}} template, that we previously preferred to use for a national team, when showing Current Squad (with a Goals coloumn) and Recent Callups (with a Latest Callup coloumn). After a carefull thought, I think we need the coexistence of all 3 versions of both the "g template" and "r template". However, with the option that the new version 2 perhaps at some point of time, can replace the original version in case the wikiproject reach a consensus for that. Right below, all 3 versions of the "r template" has been listed to show an example of how they look, and why each of them are important to maintain.

Original version: {{nat fs r start}}

Pos.	Player	Date of birth (age)	Caps	Goals	Club	Latest call-up

Argument to keep the original version: Because all current national team articles are using it. Meaning they are already written with the "bda template", to show each players full Birth date + Age.

Version 2: {{nat fs r2 start}} {{nat fs r2 start}} {{nat fs end}}

Argument to keep version 2: The original coloumn showing "Date of Birth (age)" received a format change, with the new version 2 only showing the calculated current Age, due to a need of keeping the shown player info as short as possible (and realising that a calculated "Age" was more important to show, rather than "Date of Birth"). The most important and relevant info is to show the players current Age (calculated by the "age template"), while also listing the "Date of Birth" appear a little too ambitious in most occations. If the "Date of Birth" is also listed, the template tend to appear as overloaded with informations of low relevance. Therefore it seem to be more appropriate (at least for all new articles), only to list the calculated Age.

Version 3: {{nat fs r3 start}} {{nat fs r3 start}} {{nat fs end}}

Argument to keep version 3: The new version 3 include an extra dedicated coloumn, to show the players exact field position, while at the same time keeping the coloumn to show the more general "Type of position" -ie GK/DF/MF/FW (to comply with this standard, reported both by other Wikipedia articles and by most national federations). The rationale behind the change, is that we for some national teams, are lucky to have a verifiable source to display the exact field position of the selected football players. Denmark is perhaps the best example, where version 3 of the template has now been implemented in the article. Each time the Danish national Federation (DBU) report the selection for the upcoming match, they are not only showing a box with the names, but also publish an article with a short description of the role each player is supposed to play. This make it possible for our Wikipedia template to also show this info (while fully complying with the strict criteria of "no original research"). If this info was not published by DBU, I would not have opted to add the coloumn, as it -in my opinion- would be inappropriate to report the field position the player posses at his club team. When the info about the players field position at the national team is available, this however is both a relevant and important information to add. In those occations, we should therefor opt to use version 3 of the template.

All this being said, it is of course important to keep in mind, that the position of the player might change from match to match. But when a national federation, like DBU, happen to report all "position changes", as they publish an article with information of the exact position each player was selected for, ahead of each and every match, then we also have a verifiable source and a good reason to show it in the article. It is however important to note, that the data standard for the new "field position" coloumn in version 3 of the template, is to show the "field position the player was selected for ahead of the most recent match". If the player was selected as a "central midfielder" ahead of the match -but actualy played the majority of the match as "offensive"/"defensive" midfielder, the template should still show his position for the match as "central midfielder" -as the coach initially had selected the player to work in that position. This is first of all to comply with the Wikipedia rule of adding "no original research", but perhaps the info is also more valuable to the reader, when being reported this way. Due to the fact, that most of us normally are more interested to learn "how the coach intended to use the player ahead of the match", rather than "how he perhaps was forced during the match, to change the roles/positions due to injuries or tactical changes, depending on the development of the game".

After this detailed review of the three "nat fs r start" versions, being in principle identical with the three parallel versions of "nat fs g start" (as they share the same template structure -except for the "Latest Callup" coloumn), I hope most of you will appreciate the two new optional versions, now also being available. But of course we should only start to use version 3, in those few articles where it will be appropriate, with verifiable information at hand. Danish Expert (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Version 2 I don't mind - in fact I see it as preferable to Version 1 as a:) it is more easily sortable (guessing, haven't looked into it), and b:) who cares the exact DOB in the context of the team, one only really wants to see the general age makeup of the team. To find a players DOB it is simply a matter of following through to the player's page.

Version 3 I don't see the point of, particularly in light of your full description (good thinking BTW, full wordy descriptions like that will help us climb up into the top 10 in talk-page-bytes;-)note the smiley for the humour impaired as it is generally meaningless. Who publishes the field position the player was selected for? Does the manager state it exactly, "I have selected Lars and Kris for the left back position, Andreas and Piet for the right back position", or does some pundit extrapolate. It isn't cricket - generalising positions to FW, MF DF and GK is good enough, which incidentally is all the references for current squad indicate on the Denmark article, and is probably an extrapolation by a sports writer anyway.--ClubOranje^T 06:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Question - how are the two new alternatives being suggested above linking in with the request for comment that Big Jagielka posted further up the page [27]. Are they alternatives to that approach? I must admit I liked the relative simplicity of the table he linked. I don't see that you need to list player goals, and agree with Club Oranje that the exact player position is too much info and will not normally be sufficiently sourced, and I'm not sure whether we need to know the last call up date? Eldumpo (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! that is where I saw the sortable version. --ClubOranje^T 10:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer 1: In March 2006, the two original templates {{nat fs start}} and {{nat fs g start}} were created by PkChan and Poulsen. They agreed both versions were needed. The version with a Goals coloumn, to be preferred by all "National Team articles". The version without a Goals coloumn, to sometimes be preferred by articles showing all squads for World Cup or Continental Championship. Based on a transclusion count, we currently have 279 Wikipedia articles using the {{{nat fs start}}} and 463 Wikipedia articles using the {{{nat fs g start}}}. In January 2009, Conscious decided to add the {{nat fs r start}} template, as we had an apparent need also to show "recent callups" for the "national team" articles (due to the fact that players listed as "recent callups" within the last 12 months, in practical terms also often can be considered a part of the "current team"; decided by the logic thought, that just because you are not chosen to play the most recent match -perhaps because of an injury-, it doesnt necessarily mean you are no longer a part of the current national team). Therefor we now have an established consensus at the English version of Wikipedia, both to use the {{{nat fs g start}}} and {{{nat fs r start}}} in "national football team" articles. Thus, according to statistics for the {{{nat fs r start}}} template, it has so far now been added, in a total of 75 Wikipedia articles.

Answer 2: The earlier request for comment made by The Big Jagielka, was only to give some feedback, if it would be a good/bad idea to add sort options into the coloums of the {{nat fs start}} template. While the two new versions I recently created: {{nat fs g2 start}} and {{nat fs r2 start}} OR {{nat fs g3 start}} and {{nat fs r3 start}}, instead should be considered as new "optional alternatives", to be used instead of the original set of templates: {{nat fs g start}} and {{nat fs r start}}. The reason why I posted the new versions here at the discussion page, was first and foremost, to announce they now had been created as optional alternatives. As I mentioned above, we in Denmark have the special situation, that our National Football Association ahead of each match publish an article, where they present the exact field positions the selected players have been selected for (with the national manager briefing the author of the article), ahead of the upcoming match. With this verifiable source at hand, I consider it fully justified, that we now also have the option to show it with a special version 3 of the templates, in the Denmark article. As long as it is an optional version, it mean that all other articles are left undisturbed. At the moment, all other articles are free to choose between the original version and version 2 of the template, if they have no verifiable info about "field position" at hand.

Danish Expert (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A push in the right direction (?)

Does anyone have clean info on which Austrian club did José Julián de la Cuesta play, if any? First time i came across the article, it read FK Austria Wien, his CADISTAS1910 bio mentions FC Red Bull Salzburg - he spent several years with Cádiz CF - and NATIONAL-FOOTBALL-TEAMS.com link does not mention any, the former two or other.

Inputs please? Some Colombian users, as this is not a very known player, would be highly welcome here, but the rest are also welcome ;) Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this page, he played one game for FK Austria Wien during the 2001–02 season and was loaned to the former club SC Untersiebenbrunn the following season. Jared Preston (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a million Jared!! Will add due stuff to the player's article, with pertinent corrections and/or additions! Regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Community Shield matches

I have recently created the above article by cutting out the table from the main FA Community Shield article in order to improve the readability of that page, and in line with lists done for a number of other tournaments. The only change I have made is to add a column for the venue, but having done that for two of the seasons, it occurs to be that the table is in very much a 'non-standard' format compared to some of the other football list articles. Has anyone got any views on the table as it stands, and whether it should undergo some improvements/format changes, preferably those that do not cause too much work given the list is already done. I wanted to get some feedback on this prior to inserting all the venues by year. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the article name to 'List of Community Shield winners' so as to be more in keeping with List of FA Cup winners, List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners and so on.--Echetus Xe 10:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I did consider the name before creating, and did note the other article names, but felt it was the best description. Perhaps some of the other articles should really change names, as the FA Cup list is not a list of winners but a list of finals. Eldumpo (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not specifically a football issue, though - see for example List of Super Bowl champions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe not, although there is also List of FIFA World Cup finals. Anyway, I'm happy to leave it at the new article location if that's the consensus, and would also appreicate any comments on the table as per the original question. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim Steel (footballer)

Can somebody help me out at the Jim Steel article please? I don't seem to be able to get through to an IP and I don't want an edit war to break out. I thought I dealt with the issue last night on the article's talk page but apparently not. I have a funeral to go to today so I won't be able to constantly dialogue with this guy in a vain attempt to get him to stop reverting me.--Echetus Xe 10:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I have added comments to the talk page of the article in question.

On that very point can I ask for assistance please on anyone who has time by taking a look at the very same comments that I have added to this page please?

All help is much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.183.52 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again,

I should have said. Can anyone advise me of a template that I can add to Jim Steel (footballer) requesting that any prospective editors in the short term take a look at the comment I have added to the discussion page on the said article? The reason I say this is hopefully clear from the comment I added to the discussion page in question.

Any questions, please ask, preferably on the Jim Steel (footballer) discussion page.

Cheers everybody.

Mário João

Hello! Do you know the full name of this Portuguese football player? Many sources adfirm Mário Rodrigues João, while other ones state only Mário João. If you know something more, plese, write!here. --VAN ZANT (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Deportivo Italia and Deportivo Petare

User:Gabox11 is repeatedly reverting the name change of the club Deportivo Italia to Deportivo Petare, and vandalising the two pages. See correct version, history and history. Please deal with it properly. Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to provide some external sources to show exactly what the problem is? It looks like an owner has changed the name of the team but this is being resisted and possibly is not being accepted by the footballing authorities, but I'm not familiar with the situation. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to select a new "super template", for showing all current/seasonal/tournament related National Team Squads

I am sorry for the many words about the "National Team" templates. But after I worked with the various versions for a while, and had time to check the previous use in several articles, I have now arrived at the final conclusion, that the best decision for all Wikipedia articles would probably be, if we agree to only keep 1 common version of the template alive, to show a current/seasonal/tournament related National Team. Today I have therefor launched a counter proposal, to the earlier proposal launched by TheBigJagielka, that we pick the newly improved {{{nat fs g2}}} template as a new common standard to be used for all Wikipedia articles -being both sortable and with a goals coloumn. You can find one example of this new "super template" and the 3 other available template versions, right here. And you are more than welcome, to also post your comment about the new proposal to select {{{nat fs g2}}} as a new common standard, at this discussion page, where we started to discuss the proposal from TheBigJagielka -and today have started also to discuss my new counter proposal. Danish Expert (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Oleola and Kamil Glik

Hi all, I had made edits weeks ago about Kamil Glik's career profile, taking information from the club's official website. Such edits were reverted by User:Oleola under his claims that they were wrong, however he never provided reliable sources for his claims. As I re-included such data, also including the source directly infobox, he kept reverting my changes and specified a source that doesn't really look as reliable as US Palermo website. Could some third-party user have a look at such issue? Thanks in advance. --Angelo (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Polish RSSSF less reliable then Palermo website? That's interesting...--Oleola (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

RSSSF hasn't been used as a source...and yes, I'd say the official website of a club would have first-hand knowledge, as opposed to another website with second-hand news. Giant Snowman 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

RSSSF Poland website is 90minut, check rsss.com and click on the link RSSSF Poland.--Oleola (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Club xyz qualifies for competition abc if...

Please take a look at 2010 Russian Premier League#League table, more exactly at the amount of text below the table. Any opinions? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Screams out RECENTIST to me. —Half Price 19:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is not acceptable here, are we going to try to remove it when the equivalent (albeit more concise) appears in the group stages of World Cups and regional/continental championships? We should be consistent on the principle of whether permutation of results as a league reaches its conclusion is acceptable, not make such a choice contingent on a subjective sudgement as to how confusing it seems. I suppose it is recentist, in as much as it is likely to be deleted in a week, but by the same token, any table for an ongoing league is largely overhauled once or twice a week, so is that not equally RECENTIST? Kevin McE (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Giant Snowman 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds? Are we to apply the same to all tables as a league reaches resolution? Kevin McE (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should delete these, and we should also cut these from any higher-interest season articles such as Euro or World Cup qualifying articles as well. These what-if scenarios are merely pub trivia, usually only important until after the next matchday, and of no importance otherwise. If this is not recentism, than what else is? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, so long as there is going to be consistency about it, but I think you'll find enormous resistence on higher profile articles: do you want to apply this at 2010–11 UEFA Champions League group stage now? And it is equally true that league tables are only relevant until the next matchday: fancy testing out the reaction if you remove this? Kevin McE (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the 2010 Russian Premier League as the similar sections were always included in the higher-profile competitions like the FIFA World Cup or Champions League etc. etc. If everybody else agrees it should be deleted everywhere else, including Champions League, I'll delete it from the Russian League as well, but I don't really see the huge harm in having it. Considering the current league tables or current top scorers list themselves are only relevant for a few days, I don't see the reason to go all legalistic in this particular case. Geregen2 (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps the current Russian Premier League example is rather large, I don't see any particular problem with these if-then summaries - they're no more "recentist" than simply having an up-to-date table. It is simply presenting the up-to-date information in a way more useful for the reader. ~ mazca ^talk 00:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, to answer your first question in a single word: Yes. Regarding your second question, I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. Especially in league competitions, the table is the most important statistic one is usually looking for and as such always citable from a multiple number of sources. In contrast, the scenarios are usually not published in any reliable sources at all, except for the odd occurance at the last matchday in close title or relegation races. Because these are usually not published, almost all scenarios added to any articles are solely consisting of original research. If the scenarios would be retrievable, the whole case might probably look different, but they are not; even if they should miraculously avoid to get deleted on grounds of WP:RECENT, they got to go on terms of WP:V and WP:NOR. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your argument was on the grounds of recentism, not WP:V or WP:OR, and while I admit that my comment on league tables was not a serious proposal for their deletion, it demonstrates that we do publish info of temporary relevance. While the entire list of possibilities might not be often published, I could virtually guarantee that pretty much every match preview for (eg) Tottenham ve Werder Bremen will feature the information that "Tottenham Hotspur will qualify for the knockout phase if they defeat Werder Bremen", and verification can be acheived by a simple mathematical calculation. Kevin McE (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but WP:V clearly states:

All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

As it has now been challenged - by both GiantSnowman and Soccer-holic - please provide a source as required by policy before re-instating these scenarios.--ClubOranje^T 09:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that "challenge" in the quote above would refer to a "I don't believe this is true" challenge, and I don't think anybody disputes that the scenarios are factually correct. Otherwise, we could add four references to every one of those scenarios sections: rules of the competition (which are already included and referenced anyway), current standings (ditto), schedule (ditto) and basic math. That seems counter-productive and legalistic to me, following rules to the detriment of common sense. Geregen2 (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are probably misunderstanding something. No one disputes that the things you have mentioned are already reliably sourced. However, you combine these three items with a little math and thus reach a conclusion which is "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (see WP:SYN for the full text). In other words: If you can find a reliable source which exactly states that, for example, Spartak Moscow qualify for the UEL with a win in any case or a draw if any of Lokomotiv Moscow or Spartak Nalchik do not win their matches, the WP:V thing would not be a problem at all. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Still seems to me that finding outside sources for this is overkill. If every bit of simple math has to be sourced, then, by this logic, Template:Birth date and age should be removed ("of course, your source says that Leonardo Di Caprio is born November 11, 1974, but do you have a source saying his current age is 36? No? Well, you can't use math"). The math involved in calculating these scenarios is not any more complicated than the math involved in the "current age" calculation. (I know this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but I just wanted to illustrate my point). Also, if we only included referenced scenarios, then some of them will be included just because they happened to be mentioned in some reliable sources, and some will not be included because they weren't mentioned, and that is pretty arbitrary. In any case, if most people here agree the scenarios should not be there for these reasons, that's alright with me. Geregen2 (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to fulfil the function of an encyclopaedia (that is, provide useful summarised information), not to obey the rules of an encyclopaedia. No-one disputes the veracity of the comments, and it is not unreasonable for editors to do what sports journalists will be doing in writing their articles: puting two and two together to get four. Are football journalists really worth citing as a RS for basic sums? Elements of the scenarios are retrieveable, but the media tend to take a piecemeal approach: why should an encyclopaedia, that quite properly tries to see the bigger picture rather than only a particular perspective, not provide that to its readers? Kevin McE (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is something so temporary and at times trivial worth this kind of dispute? Brad78 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been no new arguments here for the last day and there was no consensus reached either. So what do we do? Restore those sections or just forget about them? Geregen2 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In strict terms of policies, we should forget about them. However, as a compromise... if there is a suitable amount of outcome possibilites for the very last matchday only, it might be borderline okay, especially since the chance of finding a source for these special occasions might be more successful due to increased media coverage. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is that there was no policy established as a result of this here discussion. Some people, including me, think they should be kept. Some people, including you, think they should be deleted. Some people say "who cares, why are you wasting your time discussing it". I don't think the fact they contradict any general Wiki policies in a meaningful way has been definitely established here. Geregen2 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a great fan of such temporary information, but there is the argument it is done for World Cups tournaments and the like, so why not leagues. In my opinion it should not be added unless sourced, and per Soccer-holic above I don't think it should be included until the permutations are manageable without confusing the reader --ClubOranje^T 09:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: we keep them for the World Cup/Champions League/Euro and other major international competitions (the groups in most of these only have 4 teams, so scenarios are rarely unwieldy and unmanageable, it's all rather straightforward and very very simple mathematically). For league competition we only keep: "this team wins the league if/this team qualifies for European Competition if/this team is relegated if". A lot of the original scenarios in the Russian League article that brought this discussion about were "this team is safe from relegation if" or "this team loses the chance to qualify for European competition if". If we get rid of these, that would simplify it and make it less verbose and confusing. Geregen2 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It could also be a solution to keep this kind of information on a 4-team-league basis only. That way it would be possible to keep the information there for the high-profile turnaments, without having to deal with all other leagues. These lists gives valuable information that cannot easily be found anywhere else, which is very nice thing about Wikipedia. It is true that there is no direct source to cite, but as it has already been stated, these scenarios can be calculated directly from other information available on the page. So instead of every single user having to do his own math, why not just keep it? It is temporary, yes, but it is still usefull and correct information. Having it only on the last matchday seems like a strange solution to me, it is not less correct on the second last matchday, and in my eyes the "news" that we are gonna cite could just as well have gotten there information from Wiki in the first place. Citation is important, yes, but lets try not to go beyond reason--Lars Ransborg (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In general, I think we need to remember that the name of the article, will always help to define what we should consider to be relevant to post, or what type of info that clearly falls short of the wikipedia rule of no Recentism. If the name of the article is "History of the Russian Premier League" it would clearly be "Recentism" to post all the results in that article. But when the name of the article is "2010 Russian Premier League", the scope of the article is to provide details about the 2010 season, and this allow for all match results to be posted in this particular article without being "Recentism". Finally I will also vote against, the suggestion to delete all scenario informations, where we "only" have "simple math" as a reliable source. In my point of view, whenever we indeed have "simple math" as a source, this mean that the WP:NOR and WP:V no longer require additional sources, due to the fact the info is not "challenged or likely to be challenged" by any readers. Or to say it with different words: Whenever the reader himself will be able to verify the provided information by "simple math", this information should be regarded as a fact, with no need to establish any further verification of the fact. As the scenario info can be considered relevant in the light of the article name, and as the provided source is "simple math", I vote to keep it. Danish Expert (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Runners-up in honours section?

I removed the listing of second-place from the Heart of Midlothian FC article. What do others think about listing "runners-up" in the "honours" section? I know some tournaments (the World Cup for example) award a silver medal to the losing finalist, but as far as I know none of the league competitions (in the UK at least) do this, for whatever difference that makes. If we agree to include second place in the league as an honour, would we want to stop at that or mention every time the club has qualified for Europe (for example)? --John (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I delete them in sight (with the exception of teams being the losing finalist in a cup final). Finishing second in the league, by its vey definition, isn't an honor, because you didn't win! --JonBroxton (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - for successful clubs, finishing as runners-up may not be considered a great achievement, but for a smaller club, this may be the pinnacle of their success. Some articles, like York City are a bit O.T.T. however, listing such achievements as "play-off semi-finalists" and "League Cup quarter-finalists" but, without them, their "Honours" section would list only the 1983–84 Football League Fourth Division championship. Perhaps the section should be titled "Achievements" rather than "Honours". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

p.s. if you really want to improve the Hearts article, perhaps you could improve and tidy up the referencing. It's all a bit of a mess.

As I mention every time this comes up :-) the club article MoS does actually suggest the section be called Achievements rather than Honours, and notes that it should contain "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Achievements just sounds bizarre though; most club websites have their trophies under an Honours section. And to reply to the original question, I do not include runners-up in the honours section, although I do mention it in the text when writing the club's history. Number 5 7 10:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument that we should expand it to include achievements raises all sorts of problems, as the entire concept is pretty nebulous: it may be that some team takes great pride in having finished second in the top tier in 1911 (or 2006, as may be the case: there's no "finishing above Rangers" medal), but if we included that as an achievement we'd have to do it for everyone. Far better that we stick to events which resulted in a physical award for the participants. If that means that some clubs don't have honours sections then so be it: we are not here to inflate the prestige of random sporting organisations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely - separate Honours and Records (for e.g. highest-ever league finish) sections covers just about all that is needed. Number 5 7 15:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that putting "highest ever finish" in the records section is appropriate. It's the sort of trivia you see in match reports, but that's what it is: trivia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Chris's suggestion sounds good and I will go with this. --John (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there is yet a consensus to change what has been in the club article MoS for at least four years. Change the Hearts article if you like, but don't start rolling this out universally without a lot more discussion. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

At Vale I called the section 'Honours and achievements'. That way runners-up and promotion successes are included.--Echetus Xe 17:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Runners-up is not really an achievement though, it sounds more like trivia to me. If we include runners up, should we include Euro qualification? Finishing in the top 6 (in the Scottish context)? Where would we draw the line exactly? I think there is a consensus here to change the club article MoS and enact this project-wide. Only awards (ie achievements for which a medal, cup etc is given) should be included under awards. I am happy to give it 24 h or so in case there is any rationale not to make this change. --John (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is inconsistent to list cup second places but not league second places. I think it also depends on what the clubs themselves would define as an "honour". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that runners-up "sounding like trivia" is a rationale for change, and we'd have to differ on whether a runner-up position is an achievement or not. Further, a few hours discussion on a Friday afternoon or even into a weekend is clearly not enough time to establish consensus to make such a change. As to reliable sources, on a sample of two: the club I follow lists runners-up places (and a playoff win) among its honours, where Arsenal doesn't. That's pretty similar to what the current club MoS would expect. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not second place is an "achievement" or not, it is not an "honour" in that you don't get a medal for it. So it doesn't belong in the honours section. if it's an achievement, then you have to ensure that every single second-place finish is recorded in this manner, not just the ones for clubs whose editors think they need to pad out their virtual trophy cabinets. The simplest and most logical way is to use the honours section to count medals, and the club history section to mark achievements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thought this was "solved" a longtime ago...Runner-up do not count only in leagues - i think it was Erik Meijer who once said "There is nothing crappier than second place" - everywhere else, and i think that third-places in Confederations Cup/World Cup/Copa América/CAN/etc should count as well - medals are handed here right? Also i don't think it matters - as some have suggested earlier - that if a player has many many honours, no runner-up should be inserted in his list. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I also think we should have one overall standard for Wikipedia articles; I disagree with Jmorrison230582 as it might be misleading if we follow each individual club's estimation of notability. --John (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. 1. Most cup competitions don't have a third place match. 2. Some leagues do award medals and trophies for finishing below first, eg play-off winners in the English lower divisions. This medal "principle" is a load of nonsense. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  - We don't need a third place match to know who finished second; it's the losing finalist. Play-off winners could be recognized without a blanket acceptance of every "runners-up" mention. --John (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    - Sorry, I think I must have misunderstood something... You're surely not suggesting that finishing 6th in a league and then winning a couple of one-off games in the playoffs is more of an achievement/honour than finishing 2nd in that league, just because the playoff winners get a trophy for it? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
      - It actually is more of an achievement, because it gets the club promoted. And it's more of an honour because it's actually an honour: you get a nice medal for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
        It isn't more of an achievement, in the English lower divisions the second place team (and in League Two the third place team) is also promoted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
        There's certainly lively discussion of that in the real world, where people have pointed out that it seems a little unfair that the team finishing sixth can potentially end up with a lucrative day out at Wembley and a load of nice medals while the team finishing second doesn't. But that's for the authorities to discuss. As far as we're concerned, the playoffs are essentially a mini-tournament resulting in honours for the winner, while second place is just promotion. This may stick in the craw of supporters of teams who finish in second place, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend that second place is an honour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall some discussion on this recently. My view is that a blanket decision on what constitutes an 'honour' is not appropriate as it depends on the relative historical success of the particular club. I also don't think the actual award of a medal is the determinant of whether it is to be viewed as an 'honour' or not, although clearly this can be a guide. The sources should be one of the main decisions as to what constitutes honours, though I realise we need to be careful about listing all honours that a club lists on its website. Eldumpo (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Honour, noun. An objectification of praiseworthiness or respect; something that represents praiseworthiness or respect, such as an award given by the state to a citizen. That "objectification" is what we lay people refer to as a "medal". One can argue over what counts as an achievement, but not what counts as an honour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

With cup runner-ups, the team isn't given an award, but the players are. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And sporting tradition typically suggests that this is treated as an honour, just like third place is in those few tournaments where there's a third place playoff. It's not entirely consistent, but we're here to document the real world rather than set it right. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, yet another Footy editor found a non-problem to solve. Which JonBroxton has already been solving "on sight" even though it is against the current MoS :-) But hey, he must have been solving the said non-problem in articles nobody really cares about (e.g. in articles about clubs the British press doesn't follow) so we'll just ignore his comment and pretend it's alright. For what it's worth I agree with Daemonic Kangaroo, Struway and Jmorrison230582 on this one. I fail to see the "all sorts of problems" Chris Cunningham is predicting, as the issue here is only with second places in league competitions. And no, why would we have to include this for all? And if we did, what's the problem with that? I'd rather see content added to already overblown articles about successful clubs than denying the right to smaller clubs to list second places among their honours. No, I do not think it is misleading if we follow each individual club's estimation of notability - btw isn't that exactly the description of one of the criteria for the "Notable Players" section? Aren't the Hall of Fame and Player of the Year achievements based solely on individual clubs' (and/or their supporters') subjective estimation? Wikipedia is here to report whatever the club thinks is their successful achievement and/or player and leave it to the reader to decide whether that's an overkill or not. The fact that some bigger clubs don't give a toss about their second place finishes is simply because they have better things to brag about, a luxury that the majority of football clubs don't have and therefore "Honours" is a vague term which clubs invariably define themselves in the real world (you know, the world that every encyclopedia claims to be describing) and is not always an easily measurable thing, nor is it our job to measure it for them (another similar situation is with foundation dates, as we simply go with whatever the club officially claims, without really inspecting whether this is based in reality or not). Btw, if medals are a criteria is any medal an "Honour"? Because if so, I'd like to include the Sportske Novosti award into Lampard's and Raul's and Shevcheko's articles. And what about competitions back in the day in which no medals were given even for first place? Is that an honour or not? Timbouctou 11:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Far too many people treat Wikipedia articles as shrines. We're not here to big-up the records of less successful teams; indeed, NPOV demands it. That is also precisely why we don't include things like friendly tournaments and informal awards in the honours section. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Far too many people treat their own views as "encylopedic" and interpret NPOV on a case-by-case bases so that it would suit their own preferences, as evidenced by your comment on the WP:FPL talk page in which you dismissed a perfectly reasonable argument against SPL's fully pro status by saying that the idea to remove it from the list is "ignoring the spirit of the guideline". No such spirit exists my dear friend, and if you're in doubt consult the top of that particular page which described its purpose in very encyclopedic terms. Back to the subject - judging what is informal or not and whether an honour is really an honour on account of tangible object received for it IS very much contrary to NPOV. Do all top goalscorers get a medal for their feat? If that is not always the case, should we remove it from their individual honours sections and perhaps from league articles too? If the league doesn't give an official award for top scoring, does that mean it is in fact an "informal" piece of information (and not even an "honour" as no medal is involved). Point is, the placements at the end of season is a statistic which some clubs may take to mean honours (just like leagues do with scorers) and I don't see no reason why our criteria should differ from the generally accepted convention in real life (just like it doesn't each time we put historic top scoring tables in an article).Timbouctou 11:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Newcastle United's official website "Club Honours... FA Premier League Runners-up, FA Cup Runners-up, Football League Cup Runners-Up..." Either we use the generally accepted definition of club honours, or we use a new revised definition of club honours as proposed by a few editors on here. Or we could just use "Honours" for the elite clubs and "Honours and achievements" for all other clubs and prevent any disambiguation.--Echetus Xe 14:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dictates that we use the same definition for all clubs; it's kind of patronizing to the smaller clubs otherwise. I support restricting honours to cases where a club or its players actually get an "honour" which as Chris says is a physical object like a medal or a cup. --John (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So a club's players receiving a small piece of bronze or silver each is an honour, whereas the club finishing second in the Championship, getting promotion to the Premier League and the £60 million that comes with it isn't worth including? How is promotion not an honour? Why should Crewe Alexandra F.C. have under its 'honours' a Senior cup win, where a reserve team was fielded for the final and not even the local press bothered to report it, a 'Junior section' win in the Milk Cup, two Welsh Cup wins, and literally nothing else. I suppose all the promotions the club have ever achieved pale into insignificance compared to these towering achievements?--Echetus Xe 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Echetus' post above. The reporting of honours needs to be based on what is regarded as notable (but not solely what the club itself regards as an honour), and not an arbitrary one-size-fits-all rule as to what is deemed notable. I don't see why this is against what NPOV is saying. Eldumpo (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Along this line of thought, how dare anyone have a longer honours section than Arsenal over the last five years? After all, consistently finishing in the top four of the Premier League and reaching the later stages of the Champions League is vastly more than most other clubs have done, so why should Raith Rovers be promoting their silly little "Second Division Champions" award? The only way to resolve that would be to do away with the honours section entirely and simply give teams marks out of a hundred for how well they've done recently. Which should hopefully look as ridiculous to everyone else as it does to me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think what is being proposed here is original research - some types of honours count, but others don't. Or even this ludicrous idea that one type of promotion is an honour (winning the playoffs) but another type of promotion - the same achievement(!) - is not. The only fair way is to accept each club's word for what they define as an honour in their publications. It is then up to the reader to decide whether that honour is significant or not. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's misleading to our readers and forces us to use a primary source to establish importance, which we should never do. I'm beginning to think that we're going to need to come up with a firm guideline on exactly what does and doesn't count if this carries on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Standard procedure is to follow reliable published sources independent of the subject. The only one I have access to currently, a 1990s edition of Rothman's, does include runner-up spots in their honours section on each club's page. What approach do other reliable independent sources take? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is misleading here? That we're pretending that an achievement was honoured with a medal and is thus an "Honour" (provided we play dumb and pretend that an average reader of football articles uses a dictionary definition of the term), just like the hundreds, if not thousands, of clubs' websites which are, by your definition, misleading to their readers? Perhaps a List of formal achievements which come with a medal could be created to solve this burning problem? Timbouctou 13:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Clubs, and their websites, are obliged to present their achievements in the best possible light. That's their prerogative. However, if we are to present a neutral point of view we have to look at some other metric than what each club considers to be an achievement, or else the reader is misled into believing that some club is relatively more successful than it is because of the relative size of its list of accomplishments. Right now, well-meaning editors are padding honours sections out with things which aren't "honours" as we native English speakers understand it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to give the readers some credit though that they will not 'rank' clubs in their mind simply based on who has the longest Honours section, without them in any way reading the entries. It would be not be right for say Plymouth Argyle to not have their FA Cup semi-final appearance listed, just because to apply an arbitrary standard, that it would also mean that Arsenal would need to have this honour listed 9 times. I see nothing wrong in these clubs being able to list their Honours according to the comparative reality of how successful they have been over time. Eldumpo (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is safe to assume that above mentioned examples of club websites and published sources which include runner-up spots were in fact written by native English speakers and were targeted at English-speaking audiences and calling them well-meaning but misleading would be a bit of a stretch (I seriously doubt that visitors of club websites and readers of football publications are under the impression that runners-up actually get medals). It is simply a statistic that may be considered an achievement depending on multiple factors and I believe readers of this kind of publications are aware of this. I also never heard of the "list of the subject's accomplishments may appear bigger than the subject deserves" argument. I may be wrong, but as a non-native speaker of English I always assumed that "reader" denotes a human who is blessed with reading capabilities, e.g. the ability to gauge the importance of what is being said regardless of the amount of words used to say it. If the very size of an article or a section is interpreted as part of its meaning (as implied by Chris) than we might as well adopt a rule that no club article should be bigger than Real Madrid's. Timbouctou 21:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This all got a bit TLDR, but my 2 cents is that if a club hasn't won any honours, it shouldn't list any. Same as for players: hasn't played:- no article, hasn't won anything:- no honours list. 1st in something is an honour. Runner-up maybe. Anything else is just celebrating mediocrity. By all means mention it in the prose, but there is no encyclopaedic merit in claiming "5th place in the third division" as an honour.--ClubOranje^T 10:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion is about the "Runner-up maybe" part. Timbouctou 10:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I feel appropriately chastised for not reading it all; I scanned a chunk of that and saw mention of finishing in the top six, play-off semifinalist and lost sight of the original question. I'll go away and think about it now....--ClubOranje^T 11:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is in the title of the section. Could "Honours" sections be reserved for actual club silverware (ie winners only) and a separate "Achievements" category be appropriate for lesser achievements which to smaller clubs may well be noteworthy? I think this could maybe solve the problem. --John (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the best compromise. Given that these "achievements" will typically be statistical trivia, however, I'd still rather they were avoided if possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not just stick with the long existing Manual of Style which has a heading "Achievements", with this footnote: (Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places.) Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The MoS isn't immutable, and if consensus is that it's advocating things which aren't best practice then it should be updated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If reliable published sources independent of the subject tend to include runners-up places as honours, why would it not constitute original research for us to omit them? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

After reading this long discussion, I want to declare a complete support to the proposal by Chris Cunningham, that we need to comply with the heading of the subchapter. If the heading is about "Honours", then we should indeed only list those achievements being honoured with a medal or trophy. The argument, that we find many club websites that fail to provide correct headings to their result database, should not in any way mean, that it is legitimate for us to make the same stupid mistake. We need to be aware about the clear difference between the word "Honours" and "Achievements", and stay true to that. Funny enough, I however agree with the existing MOS, to label the section as "Achievements" instead of "Honours". As I understand the English language, the word "Honours" is indeed a special subcategory of "Achievements" -concerning only the achievements being honoured by a fysical object like a medal or trophy. My point is, that if we consider to add/change something to the current MOS, it should only be to list "Honours" as a special subcategory under the proposed subchapter named "Achievements". To me it doesnt make sence, that we in any way should define a common standard of what is a "notable achievement". On this singular point, I disagree with Chris, because the notability will indeed always depend on which club the wikipedia article is about. We dont need a common wikipedia standard about what sort of achievements should be defined as good enough to be listed as "best achievements". Because its a relative term. A 5th place for Stoke would be a "best achievement", but a 5th place for Arsenal would never be a "best achievement". In any case, it for sure never will be an honour, because no fysical object is awarded. In my point of view, its however fully legitimate to list as a "best achievement" for Stoke. If one should define a general MOS guideline for the results to list in the chapter called "best achievements", I think it should only be: "You are only allowed to list all the very best historic results, achieved in each of the important competitions contested by the club". Danish Expert (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Great point you made there DE, i could not agree more. Regards and happy weekend to all in "the project"! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

William Bradshaw

Is this William Bradshaw the same player as the William "Billy" Bradshaw who earned a couple of caps for England between 1910 and 1913? There is no mention on the various England sites of the England Bradshaw ever playing for Arsenal; however, dates match up and Arsenal Bradshaw has family roots in Burnley, and England Bradshaw was born in Padiham, only 3 miles away...Giant Snowman 23:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No - according to Joyce, William Bradshaw was born in Burnley in 1882 and played for Arsenal, Fulham, Burton United & Burnley, while the England international, Billy Bradshaw was born in Padiham in April 1884 and played most of his career with Blackburn Rovers (with 386 appearances) plus 4 for England, Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I've created a seperate article on the England player. Giant Snowman 14:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict between WP:NFOOTBALL and Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Gaelic games?

Please see the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Conflict between WP:NFOOTBALL and Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Gaelic games?. —J04n(talk page) 00:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Morris Emmerson place of birth

This player was born in Sunniside, a popular place name in my neck of the woods. Does anyone know which Sunniside? Cheers, Giant Snowman 17:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sunniside, Weardale according to this article. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks very much! Giant Snowman 13:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation and those who are above it

It is well established that if one holder of a name is considerably better known than his/her namesakes, then they are elevated beyond the need for a disambiguator, such that typing in Michael Jackson links directly to Quincy Jones' trumpet rather than a beerologist, a Chechen warlord, a former journeyman centre-back, or even the composer of Blame it on the Boogie or several others who share the moniker. However, what should we do when both the famous and the lower profile bearer of the name are in the same trade? When the search box tells me that there is an article called Billy Bingham (footballer), I assume that there must have been a BB even more famous than the former Northern Ireland manager who had slipped below my radar of awareness. But no: Glentoran's finest son is simply at Billy Bingham, and Billy Bingham (footballer) is a 20 year old Dagenham midfielder. Should they be at (footballer born 1931) and (footballer born 1990) respectively? Kevin McE (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the gulf in prominence, the former international should stay where he is, and the Daggers prospect should be at footballer born 1990, with a hatnote to him from Billy Bingham. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't like this idea that one player is more notable than another (except in a very few circumstances), as it reeks of point of view - who are we to decide a footballer born 1950 who won the FA Cup is more notable that footballers born 1900 and 1990 who haven't? The important thing to consider is simply that they are notable, so disambiguate away! Giant Snowman 14:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have disambiguated the Daggers player to Billy Bingham (footballer born 1990) as Billy Bingham (footballer) doesn't actually disambiguated between either of them. Feel free to changed Billy Bingham to Billy Bingham (footballer born 1931).--Echetus Xe 15:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

hmm, it seems that page already exists as in August 2008 Billy Bingham (footballer born 1931) was moved to Billy Bingham.--Echetus Xe 15:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the solution of adding a year of birth to the pretender, but leaving the master's article where it was, seems the sensible way to go, thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

But, considering that Echetusxe has rightly said that Billy Bingham (footballer) doesn't disambiguate, it is odd that he has designated the page to Billy Sr. I've turned that into a disamb between the two. Meanwhile, the notion that a 56 international caps, three spells as an international manager, an MBE, PFA merit award and FIFA centennial order of merit inscription is only more notable than 3 substitute appearances for Dagenham, the earliest of which was in the 77th minute, by virtue of opinion is at best counter-intuitive. Kevin McE (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You have turned Billy Bingham (footballer) into a disambiguation page. I will create Billy Bingham (disambiguation) and have Billy Bingham (footballer) redirect there. We will get there eventually lol.--Echetus Xe 18:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Football League individual division articles by season

A series of articles on the individual Football League divisions by season has recently been created, whereas there is already an overall Football League article for each season e.g. we now have 1983–84 Football League Third Division as well as 1983–84 Football League#Third Division 2. Is it appropriate for all these individual division/season articles as well as the main one for the season? Eldumpo (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't have thought so, in general. If there was enough content for any particular division/season that it was making the Football League season article unbalanced or overly large, then it'd be fine to split that division/season off. But most of the FL season articles have very little prose, and the new division/season articles have only the league table. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The template at the foot of these articles seems rather confused as it links together the old (pre-1992) Third Division and the current League Two (which is the 4th tier). Likewise, the article on the Football League Third Division seems equally muddled, as it begins by referring to the 1992-93 to 2003-04 period, but then gives the history from 1920 onwards. How is anyone supposed to understand the history of the lower echelons of the Football League with this sort of muddle? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely prefer they were merged - I can't see that single articles are required for each division. Number 5 7 13:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The ones I looked at only had the table, which was already present on the parent article, so there's nothing to merge -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Each division has an article for the current season. If they are alright, then so are historical seasons. Brad78 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move needs wider input

See Talk:Netherlands Football League Championship 1888–89. The proposal is to rename with the year at the front of the title. Many other articles in Template:Eredivisie seasons are likewise affected by this issue, so the discussion should consider all of these titles together and gain wider input than current participation (which aside from the nominator is nil). Fences&Windows 11:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This one should be uncontroversial, as there is consensus from this discussion to have the year in front. You may safely go ahead and move all articles. :-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no discussion necessary, all English football articles have had such a move.--Echetus Xe 12:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability through domestic and european cups

What is the current consensus on obtaining notability through domestic and european cups,could somone please update me on this? BanRay 21:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that appearances in cup matches are notable as long as the match is contested by two teams from fully-professional leagues. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FIFA and nationalities

There seems to be a bit of confusion, but I need to point out that FIFA's statistics page is not a useful source for players' current nationalities - it's a historical site with statistics of FIFA-only competitions. For example, Mehmet Ekici is listed there with only his Under-17 caps for Germany in the U-17 World Cup, but his appearance for Turkey's senior team trumps that, and makes him a Turkish player by any useful definition. To list him as German based on this site is misleading. The site does not record friendlies, UEFA matches (including WC qualifiers), and so is not useful other than as a statistical reference for certain competitions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a useful source. If it reliably reports information, it's useful. That we have a perverse understanding of nationality which demands that we attach flags to people's names depending on what country they represented in senior international football doesn't change that. Ekici is German born and raised, so he is hardly "a Turkish player by any useful definition" because he played in a single friendly for that national team. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd pull back from saying it's not a useful source, because it is in a lot of cases (i.e. FIFA compeitions), but it's not entirely useful because it's not up-to-date or fully comprehensive, and nor does it seek to be: it records players' participation in competitions directly run by FIFA, so many changes outside of this should not be reflected. It should not - and this is the issue we've recently had - trump all other reliable sources which are more up-to-date, such as national associations, or reliable media sources of real-life events.

Also I'd disagree that our idea of nationality is "peverse" - international representation is the main justification, the main reason why players' nationalities are so promiment - without that it would be a less important detail. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the term perverse hits the nail right on the head, especially given the context of this little bit of neo-nationalism; it's all over a German-born player that lives, works, and pays taxes in Germany, but because he played one friendly for a country that offered him a better deal Wikipedia policy dictates that he represents that nation instead. Perverse.Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am English born, I live, work and play taxes in England, but to describe me as English is to tell a small part of the truth about my national identity. My passport, and my choice of national team had I ever had the ability to play at such a level, would not reveal me as English. And frankly, I don't appreciate you considering anyone else in that position, and therefore presumably me, as perverse. Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But nationality in this case means "who he plays for" (or would play for). This is one of the main pieces of info that you need to know about footballers: name, position, club, national team. Perhaps the problem is the word nationality, which is perhaps a misnomer, because real nationality is largely irrelevant. In a way it's a non-nationalist position. I, certainly, am far from a nationalist, and I resent the suggestion. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You have no reason to resent any suggestion, because none exists. I was referring to the policy and the approach Wikipedia is using to determine a footballer's nationality not you or your personal opinion. That being said, I agree that the problem is the word "nationality" and the flags should reflect exactly what you said--who he plays for internationally. Currently, that is not explicit and the flags appear to denote actual nationality. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to use and define the term footballing nationality, with reference to FIFA's statutes [28]. It's all pretty clear there. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I suggested below. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As explained by the note attached to every football squad template, the nationalities shown represent FIFA-eligibility rules, not players' countries of origin or passports. ArtVandelay here is saying that information on FIFA's website is outdated in this particular case as the player switched nationality in a UEFA-organised senior match, which is as such not reported by FIFA's database. However, once he appeared for Turkey at full international level he became ineligible to play for any other team and if Ekici's international career lasts he will inevitably play for Turkey exclusively. This does indeed make him a Turkish player by UEFA's, FIFA's and consequently Wikipedia's definitions. There are very few examples like Ekici's to discard FIFA's website as unreliable in general and I'm sure they will update his status and change his flag as soon as he appears in a FIFA-governed competition. Timbouctou 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't let that one pass. FIFA make no declaration about the nationality of any player who has not appeared internationally. For non internationals it displays one country that they might be eligible for under FIFA rules, but in some cases omits several others: FIFA does not prioritise among those potential representations, so we can't use "FIFA rules" to justify showing one flag rather than several, or any other one of several, for players with multiple eligibility. Kevin McE (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know FIFA actually displayed players who never appeared in an international match at any age level. I also assumed that if it had to display one, it would probably do what UEFA generally does and show players' country of birth as his nationality. Is this generally correct or am I mistaken? Timbouctou 18:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't: that's why the current template header is so inappropriate. We shouldn't assume what FIFA would do were they to do something that they don't, even less so should we declare FIFA's designation (or our assumption of what FIFA's designation would be if they made one) as the justification of our declaration. Kevin McE (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not as if we're inventing something out of the blue. I believe UEFA primarily uses country of birth for filling in the "Country" category in non-international players' profiles in their databases such as UEFA Champions League. Is it not fair to assume that every other continental federation probably does do the same? It is unlikely that we will ever get rid of flags next to players' names so if we have to put one next to a non-international player is it not reasonable to assume that his country of birth is the most likely nation he might play for in case he got called up? I realize that there may be players who might be debatable, but if we had this as a rule probably 95% of all non-international players on Wikipedia would be uncontroversially covered. Timbouctou 00:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My objection is to the template header, not the posting of flag of birthplace in the absence of representative history (on this occasion, anyway): we are attributing our assumption of birthplace as main nationality to FIFA, although they have no comment to make on the nationality of 95% of those we apply the statement to. Kevin McE (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

After some debate, another editor was able to provide me with a WP policy that verified the Art's position. Like I said, I can admit when I am wrong. That being said, I still feel that the flags' intent is very misleading and should be explicit in that it reflects the national team for which the footballer plays, not his country of origin. Thoughts? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris - That was my position as well & I agree with what you're saying 100%, but unfortunately MOS:FLAG doesn't agree with either of us. If you can come up with another policy that supports our position, I'd love to read it. I think one route could be to follow the example at German Wikipedia and include both flags. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On a seperate note, the official Turkish Football Federation profile for Jimmy Dixon says the player is Swedish, even though he has earned 20 caps for Liberia, the nation of his birth!

And I also agree that a new article - maybe called Nationality in association football - should be created as a reference point. Giant Snowman 17:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds to me like the Turkish Football Federation should not be considered a reliable source. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 18:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps no source is 100% reliable. The FIFA database lists how players have related to FIFA (who they represented in FIFA competitions), whereas as far as the TFF are concerned Dixon is Swedish: as a player with a Turkish club, he is registered with his second nationality to fit him into quotas for European players. Where there are competing, reputable sources, you can exercise judgment, and consider which is most relevant to the player's current situation. It would be a lot easier if our templates allowed for dual flags, but then I imagine you'd have the same debate over which was most prominent. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On "footballing nationality"

Let's look at exactly what FIFA say. The relevant FIFA document, in the relevant sections 15 through 18, use two separate concepts:

"Nationality"
Eligibility to play for a representative team

"Nationality" is not actually defined at all. What is defined is that these are separate: one must, in addition to meeting the rules in 16.1, already have a "nationality" as defined in 15.1, and that having a given "nationality" does not necessarily entitle one to play for a representative team.

Section 16.2 suggests that football associations have their own "nationality" and can make up their own rules for eligibility in addition to nationality. This is the "UK clause". The reason for this is that as far as FIFA is concerned, the "nationality" for the FA, SFA, FAW and IFA is British. Also important is what "representative team" means. "Representative teams" do not represent their nations, but their national associations. Again, this is a hack to allow for the United Kingdom (one nation with four different associations) to field four teams.

The document does say that players can "assume a new nationality" in part 17, but quite plainly points out that a player can assume a nationality and yet be inelegible to play for the new representative team. This quite clearly suggests that FIFA consider "nationality" and "representing a national team" to be separate concepts. The latter requires the former.

To clarify exactly what these rules mean for Mehmet Ekici: according to FIFA Ekici has (at least) two "nationalities". He has opted to use his "Turkish nationality" to represent the Turkish national team. However, that does not mean that he is not a "German national", but simply that he is ineligible to represent the German national team due to 15.2.

As such, I'd strongly argue that we stop referring to players as having a unique "footballing nationality" using that terminology, and especially that we avoid using the adjective form for such descriptions if there is any ambiguity. FIFA go out of the way to ensure that they don't use such confusing terminology, and so should we.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a much less ambiguous bit of terminology. The Fs squad hatnote ought to be updated using this kind of language. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We should probably do what ArtVandelay proposed and create an article explaining the nationality in football situation in detail and link to it in an updated Fs hatnote. Timbouctou 11:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

FIFA go out of the way to ensure that they don't use such confusing terminology, and so should we. -- Yes! I believe an entire article is a good idea, but I also think we should consider making the information in each player's infobox as explicit as possible. I also hope we can make sure the flags explicitly demonstrate a player's "national club" and not their nationality. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 02:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree we need to explain the nationality criteria in a dedicated article, ie. with the title FIFA regulations or FIFA statutes. Or perhaps instead of a new article, it might also be possible just to create a subchapter about the nationality regulations at the FIFA article? I clearly oppose to the suggestion, that we should start to show a players nationality by the nationality of his club. That would simply be wrong, and doesnt make sence. In regards of picking a nationality flag for the player in any wikipedia infobox, it only make sence to pick either:

"The players nationality defined as the national team he currently -or at the latest match- chose to represent" or
"The players nationality defined as the nation where he currently has a citizenship".

I tend to be most in favour of Criteria 2 (if we talk about the biography infobox at each players own article). In Denmark we have a governmental rule, that you can only maintain your Danish citizenship as long as this is your one and only citizenship. If a Dane opt to get a New Zealand citizenship, he will right away automaticly also have to withdraw his Danish citizenship. A few other nations in the world, however allow their citizens to carry uptill two citizenships. For those persons, I think we can all agree that Wikipedia articles should mention them as having a shared nationality.

The big question of course is, how should we descripe the nationality of a player, who -lets mention Winston Reid as a great example: carry a Danish citizenship, opted to play for the Denmark Youth National Teams, is a member of the Danish football player association, but then made a decision to only play for the New Zealand senior National Team? The wikipedia "player article" opted to use a new criteria 3 = "to let all the national teams he so far represented define his current nationality", and therefor described him as currently having a shared nationality. The West Ham United football squad infobox, however opted to use "Criteria 1" and descriped him as a New Zealander. I think the best soloution would probably be, that we indeed stick with "Criteria 1" for the football squad infobox (+ a link to a new chapter/article what it means), and then I vote, that we should really pick "Criteria 2" as a new common standard, to be applied by all biography infoboxes. This mean, that Winston Reid should be desribed as a New Zealander only by the "club team infobox", and then he should be descriped as a Dane only in his "current biography infobox", while it of course is perfectly fine that the detailed "player article text" then finally provide the full description: That he lived in New Zealand at the age of 0-10, moved to live in Denmark at the age of 10-22, initially had a New Zealand citizenship at the age of 0-18, and then ever since a Danish citizenship, chose to play all his youth national team matches for Denmark, but finaly opted to only play senior national team matches for New Zealand. Danish Expert (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the "Winston Reid" example, I would also like to highlight the fact, that several Brazilian footballers -ie Ronaldo decide to have a playing football career in Spain, and because of the rule about maximum X foreign players in the start formation of a Spanish club team, many of those players opt to get a Spanish citizenship along their Brazilian citizenship. So this is indeed a great example of players with two citizenships. As I argued above, we in those cases need to note both nationalities in the "player article", to be encyclopedic correct. In regards of the "club team infobox", the best soloution will however be, only to show 1 flag, which according to "Criteria 1" would mean, that we opt to pick the flag of the national team they most recently represented, which for this group of players in most occations will be the Brazilian flag. Danish Expert (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As regards the use of flags: I think the best thing would be to force ourselves to think of the flag as meaning precisely this: "flags, where present, indicate the choice to play for a representative national team as defined by articles 15 through 18 of FIFA's regulations governing the application of their statutes, as of November 2010, and should not be taken as an indication of citizenship or residence". If we could cut that down a bit, it should be used as the disclaimer text on {{fs start}}. As for infoboxes, we should not be using flags in infoboxes under any circumstances. So far as players are concerned, any flags should be used solely in {{fs start}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Having read most of the discussion, it becomes apparent that there are two separate issues at hand, both connected to the problem of non-international players (on whose nationality FIFA remains silent). What we consider a players' "football nationality" at Wikipedia always followed FIFA's regulation anyway so the policy is not a issue here, but merely the disclaimer which explains it to laypeople reading our articles. Secondly, I'm not sure if we currently have a policy regarding non-internationals, although one would assume that in most cases flag of the player's country of birth should be used, as UEFA already does at their Champions League and Europa league websites in profiles of players who had never appeared for any national team. Fact is that FIFA regulations cannot help us in case of a player who has parents from Croatia and Bosnia but was born in Sweden and is thus in theory eligible to play for all three countries but hasn't yet appeared for any of them. The phrase "flags, where present" used by Chris indicates that he may propose that we get rid of flags next to non-international players (which are obviously not covered by FIFA regulations as FIFA does not prioritize among various eligibility criteria) which I think would be misleading as that would imply that players in general have no "football nationality" unless they get called up for a national team (which technically is the case but is widely ignored as we still refer to non-international players as "German", "Danish" or "English" or "Brazilian" regardless whether their grandmother is from Trinidad or Tobago or if they obtained one or more citizenships on account of spending several years playing abroad).

I propose the wording along the lines of: "Flags indicate the choice to play for a national team as defined by FIFA's regulations and should not be taken as an indication of citizenship or residence.", where "FIFA's regulations" would link to a dedicated article about articles 15 through 18 of FIFA's regulations governing the application of their statutes (this would help laypeople understand FIFA's eligibility criteria and help prevent a zillionth discussion about this at WP:FOOTY). If we agree that for non-international players country of birth should be used, then a sentence along the lines of "For non-international players the present-day flag of their country of birth is used." could be added. This of course wouldn't eliminate all controversial cases but it would hugely reduce their number and we would make it clear to anyone interested what we had based our flagicons on. The "present-day" phrase would eliminate cases in which players were born in countries which ceased to exist or were created in the meantime (like FR Yugoslavia or possibly Kosovo in the future provided that Kosovo gets recognized by FIFA) so that that in the end the flags serve as an indication of which country the player appears for in international football, OR which country he is most likely to appear for if he ever gets called up for a national team, as I believed this was their purpose all along. Timbouctou 17:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Players' choices are not defined by FIFA's regulations. They might be limited by those regulations, they are not defined by them. These proposals are going to be difficult to follow, and has been frequently discussed and dropped without resolution. Can I suggest that we take it to a dedicated subpage and seek to resolve this once and for all, in a format where proposals, and the arguments for and against them, are clear and specific. I'll try to get a basic set-up on the page Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Flags, where present, indicate the choice to play for a representative national team as defined by articles 15 through 18 of FIFA's regulations governing the application of their statutes, as of November 2010, and should not be taken as an indication of citizenship or residence". -- That works for me and although Chris didn't say this, I agree with the idea of removing flags from non-international players in football team rosters. Those flags at first glance seem to denote actual nationality and not "football nationality". Erikeltic ^(Talk) 17:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is all about active players, but it might be useful to include retired players as well. What to do with player A, who was born in Yugoslavia, played professional from 1980 to 1991 and later identified as Croatian, And his younger brother B, played professional from 1983 to 1993 and is now Croatian. Of fictional footballer A. T., born in the Soviet Union, became Moldovian in 1992, Ukrainian in 1995, and Belgian in 1998, and retired later to become minister of sports in Moldova. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is already covered by the general Wikipedia MOS:FLAG policy. Here it has be defined, that whenever a flag is used for any professional athlete, it should only be used in order to illustrate the national team he represented at the time, while being a professional athlete. If the athlete at a later point of time will be assigned as staff for a sports club or national team, he will no longer be an athlete, and thus if we need to show any flag for the person, then we should opt to pick the flag that represented the persons citizenship, at the time of working as staff for the club or national team. The wikipedia policy moreover outline, that we should normaly avoid the use of flags to display the nationality of a non-athlete (due to disambiguation between citizenship/birthplace/residence), and that we in no circumstances are allowed to use flags in any of the personal biography articles. If a flag is used for an athlete, the wikipedia policy also made the ruling, that noone is allowed to "rewrite history". This mean, that the flag shown for a specific athlete, should always be the applied historicly correct flag, that were in use for the same specific time frame, that the Wikipedia article/chapter/template has been targeted to describe. Danish Expert (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Subpage created to let the flag debate reach a final consensus

Can we move the discussion forward either here or on the dedicated talk page before it stalls? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Today I had time to fill in the general structure of our latest "flag debate", that Kevin six days ago created a special subpage for. I also added my own argument, why I believe the best solution is to stick with the current flag policy defined by our Club MOS, that flags only indicate the players eligiability of one/several nations. And I presented an argued valid reason, why we should refrain to ever start using birthplace/citizenship as a second subcriteria, to decide which flag we should display for all our Non International Footballers. I hope the debate will continue and soon reach a consensus at our new dedicated subpage.

Even if we assume that the outcome of our debate will end with a consensus to maintain the current flag policy standard, we still need to expand and define this current standard a bit further, so that it also answer the question of which flag (or how many flags) to show for the Non International Footballers -who initially are being eligiable to play for several National Teams. We also need one of us to write and present a subchapter/article about "FIFA eligiability rules". And we also need to agree about the exact formulation of a new improved hatnote line, listed at the top of the club squad template. The debate is fully alive, and if we all stick by to leave a comment on the subpage, I believe we are soon able to reach a consensus of how to solve the flag problem -once and for all. Danish Expert (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bradden Inman

This was originally discussed and archived:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was considering recreating Bradden Inmann along with some disambig work). Poor versions before more sources were found were previously deleted. I believe he meets the GNG with significant coverage now.[29][30][31][32] Along with trivial mentions in match reports, he has received other coverage that is not solely based on him but still more than a blurb. It appears to be ongoing and on an international scale. I think he still fails the athlete specific criteria (which is subservient to GNG) but wanted to double check to see if there were any objections.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you create the page in userspace so we can see a physical article rather than a hypothetical one?Giant Snowman 14:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Coverage in national newspapers is certainly notable, so I think he satisfies the GNG, but that's just my opinion. It looks like you'd have to get the page de-salted as well. Considering he's likely to pass WP:ATHLETE in the future you could always create the article on your user page first as GiantSnowman says. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have created a base for the article in my user space: User:Cptnono/Bradden Inman. I was going to request that it be desalted but wanted to run it by editors here first. Although it would benefit from some more info and a copyedit, I believe it is sufficient to go live. Please keep in mind that he still does not meet WP:ATHLETE but does have significant ongoing coverage from reliable sources internationally. Most of this is based on the question as to which national side he will be playing for but sources also point to him being a skilled player who is now on the first team. For consideration:

Detailed story from an Australian paper: [33]
Detailed story from a Scottish paper: [34]
More than a trivial mention in an Australian paper: [35]
Story from an Australian paper: [36]
More than a trivial mention from the BBC: [37]
Story from a Scottish paper: [38]
A blurb from an English paper: [39]
Several mentions that are slightly more than match reports seen at Google News and Google News Archive searches ("brad inman" + Newcastle or "bradden inman")

Any concerns?Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me (although the soccerbase reference doesn't seem to link to the correct page). J Mo 101 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and good catch.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave it where it is until he does pass ATHLETE...Crystalballing I would say that is likely to happen before very long. While there are some articles about him, they are still sports journalism of a general nature and he hasn't actually achieved anything "notable" yet. This is of course my encyclopaedic opinion, others no doubt will argue that newspaper article = notability. --ClubOranje^T 09:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting case this one. He hasn't really done anything to justify the level of coverage, but received it anyway! Leaning towards inclusion since he appears to meet the GNG, but it's not clear cut by any means. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I already successfully put it through a day or so later before ClubOrange's comment. I think it is sufficient and I will continue to assert that, but if you want to bring it up for a deletion discussion it won't bother me at all. Thanks for the comments, though and apologies for being hasty.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

List of 2010-11 Indonesia Super League Foreign Player

Uhm... opinions? I am still too stunned to comment... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The obvious grammatical issues in the title and content aside, it seems excessively arbitrary to me. My suggestion: get rid of it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I was astonished to find, that this sort of List had even been written in first place. Likewise, I would even vote for a deletion of the historic version of the list; as I also believe we should delete the parallel foreign player lists to be found for the top league in England and Norway. I consider the info as some unimportant trivia to show at a dedicated Wikipedia page. Why are foreign players so interesting to list and count? Do we ever visit such a page with a list of foreign players? And why? I think we should trash all of those pages, due to the fact that we already list each players club career at his biography page, and this IMHO should really be sufficient for Wikipedia. Danish Expert (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Past Champions Lge/UEFA Cup seasons at UEFA site

Is any more information on previous UEFA competitions available other than the brief summaries I have found by clicking on the History section of the website e.g. [40] [41]. I seem to recall a while back there was an issue with links being changed on the site, so is it the case that more details are still available somewhere on the site? Eldumpo (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/ and http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/ Matthew_hk t c 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I right in that both of the links you've provided are for details of last year's competitions? Is there some kind of menu page where you can choose which season you want, and also is there any way you can navigate to these pages by clicking from the main menu? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

World Cup bids

Can we have some page protection at FIFA please?--Echetus Xe 16:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Let's see if semi-protection works. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Echetus Xe 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

'Super' squad table

I wonder what people think about the table format now used on a few 'current squad' sections of club articles. A good example is Swindon Town#Current squad, it's also in use at Blyth Spartans#Current squad. Thanks. —Half Price 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

First impression: I don't like it. Centred text is untidy, blocks between groups of positions are ugly, over-specification of position will lead to crazy multiplication of position descriptors a la Championship Manager, previous club irrelevant to their place in the squad (so is nationality, but....), notes section will be empty in most cases: sorry, but I'm not a fan. Kevin McE (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a table. I would rather see a template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My first impression is to ask why this format is being used when the fb squad template exists? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Convert this...*censored* of a table to fb squad as soon as possible. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrible table, should go back to the fb squad template. A player's DOB and former club are not worth including on an article on a football club. Keep it to the single-season articles. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The execution is undoubtedly poor, but I rather like some of the concepts. The notes column needs to go, there's no need to show age as well as date of birth and the blocks between groups of positions look poor, but the general principle of including more info in squad tables isn't necessarily a bad one. That said, I would far rather see it done by editing fb squad rather creating odd splinter tables. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the proper squad list. The alternative version can still be viewed here. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's very poor. The article is after all about the club. The players can have their own article if they warrant it.—Half Price 18:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Another beauty here: Kidderminster_Harriers#Current squad. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Millwall#Current squad. Giant Snowman 22:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And also Watford#Current squad. Ytfc23 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A general comment about all the squad box versions posted above, to show a clubs current squad:

The squad box versions for Watford and Millwall are identical, and in fact very close to match our official template, as the only difference is, that it opted to comply 100% with the general MOS:FLAG policy, by wording out the name of each flag in a seperate coloumn. To be consistent with our WikiProject Football policy, I however think we need to convert all non-template "Current squad" versions to our official template. And after some carefull consideration, I also believe we can claim, that our current standard template in fact comply "good enough" with MOS:FLAG, as the name of the nation behind the flag will always pop-up, when the reader move his mouse courser to point at the flag.

In regards of the squad box version previously used by both Swindon + Blyth Spartans + Kidderminster Harriers, I definately think this version is far too heavy; but at the same time I completely agree with the comment posted above by Alzarian16, that it might be a good idea, if we at some point of time consider to slightly expand the current {{fs start}} template to include more info. I am definately no fan of the 3 last coloums (DOB + Previous Club + Notes) in the Swindon version, and would also trash the ugly grey blocks between the position groups. Yet I disagree with Kevin McE at one point, as I dont think the extra coloumn to show the players exact field position, would be any bad over-specification to the table. Instead I find this additional info both valuable and relevant, as it help to identify the players who compete directly against each other in the squad. When the info at the same time normaly can be extracted directly from the clubs website, we also have a verifiable source directly at hand. So if our {{fs start}} template is expanded only with that coloumn, I would indeed consider it as a nice improvement.

At the end of my long reply, I also couldnt resist to show a third squad box version with the Barcelona squad. In my point of view, this version is again loaded with too many details to ever become a new template standard for showing a clubs "current squad". Straight away, I would delete the 3 coloumns named EU + Transfer fee + Notes. But I have to admit, that I like the additional coloumns to show: Start and End year of contract (could be merged into 1 coloumn), number of App and Goals (could be merged into 1 coloum), and the players age. Finally once again, I also have to admit being quiet happy, that we in this version are feeded with info about the players exact field position, rather than the more general "type of position".

As long as all the "current squad" bastards only exist as non-template versions, we should however kill them by default. But perhaps it would be a good idea, if one of us start to create a new second version of our official "current squad" template for clubs -or just slightly expand the current {{fs start}} version?

Danish Expert (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The "monster" is back!!!

Remember this lengthy discussion about User:Zombie433 (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_45#User:Zombie433)? Well, he's back is business, tracked him down at Baba Sule, it's all there, the overcategorization, he edits from Germany, etc, etc. In one day, 100 edits, all in African football; if i remember it well (i do!), he was accused - amongst various other stuff! - of adding lots of false info on players from that continent.

Hopefully, it's a standard IP, if not, we're in for a lot of trouble i say... Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note on the IP talk. I'm aware that this wasn't an effective method of notifying Zombie433, but we've got to start somewhere. The problem IIRC was not "false" material so much as material cribbed off of unreliable sources like magazine rumours columns and compounded by a complete lack of referencing. Please ping me if this continues unabaited. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This shows extremely similar editing patterns, especially considering that the IP has not made many edits yet. —Half Price 21:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Update on {{fb start}} and {{fb end}}

Hi, just to update people on the removal of the {{fb start}} and {{fb end}} templates.

I think that most, if not all, of the football related articles that included these templates have now had them removed. There is no WikiProject for handball related articles, that were using these templates in addition to {{hb start}} and {{hb end}}. After talking with an editor of these article I have removed uses of these templates as well so they can be included in any deletion exercise.

The remaining uses are mainly from basketball and volleyball articles, I dropped a note to the respective WikiProjects but got no response so have left them at the moment. These can be switched to the appropriate derived template if desired.

Keith D (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote yes for the removal. Didnt knew these templetes existed in advance. The templates only work as a shortcut for lazy "template code creators", to draw the frame around their template (or several templates). The transclusion count reveal they are no longer in use at any important football related wikipedia articles, but however remain in use at a total of 570 pages. I just extracted data from the transclusion count into an excel sheet, in order to digest the 570 pages so far using the template, and this revealed the following composition of the pages:

3 Football articles
288 Basketball/Volleyball/Hockey/Handball articles
16 template/talk pages (of which only 3 relates to a football template)
25 wikipedia project pages (of which only 4 relates to a football template)
238 user pages.

So removing them should really do no harm for WikiProject Football -except towards the user pages. Below I have listed the 7 templates and 3 articles that are related to football, and will need a quick little update after the removal of {{fb start}}:

I would however like to add, that {{fh start}} and {{fh end}} is currently used by around 100 Hockey related wikipedia pages, as they are needed by those pages to display a handfull of hockey templates correctly. If you also opt to remove them, and the equal one being created for Volleyball {{vb start}}, Basketball {{bb start}} and Handball {{hb start}}, then you of course also need at the same time to update the templates in use at those sports disciplines, with the suddenly missing "start code" and "end code" to be found at a lot of articles. Moreover you also need to be aware, that I found 288 Non-football articles, where other sports disciplines accidently used the {{fb start}} instead of using their local sports variant of the template. If you only delete {{fb start}} and {{hb start}}, you should probably at the same time consider, to ask a bot to replace the {{fb start}} with the correct remaining Volleybal/Basketball/Hockey version of the template, in order not to damage the layout of the 288 non-Football articles, which accidently made use of our little wonderfull football template. Or in the alternative, delete all dedicated sports versions of the template, while at the same time including the missing code in the Volleybal/Basketball/Hockey templates -that still are being used in connection with their own sports version of {{fb start}}. Danish Expert (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Keith, I missed the last part of your message -that you already droped a note at WikiProject Basketball and Volleyball, and I was unaware that this for a while had been a long hard ongoing case. I think it would be a good move of us to be WP:bold, and if noone react to our proposal of an all out deletion of the special template version at WikiProject Volleyball/Basketball/Hockey, I think we should push forward, to delete the templete on their behalf. If we dont delete it for all sports, the template will continue to be copied into other sports and flourish at all sort of Wikipedia pages, which would be unfortunate. Keep up the good work -and let me know if you at some point of time could need some additional help, in regards of pushing the case ahead, to also get the Volleyball+Basketball+Hockey version of the template deleted. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks the 3 football articles could be new ones or using the templates in a different way than at the bottom and AWB did not pick them up. I also missed the hockey project so may drop them a note and see what their response is. Keith D (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

2010-11 La Liga templates

Sorry, if I bother the community with yet another request for comment, but 2010–11 La Liga uses Template:2010-11 La Liga Infobox and Template:2010-11 La Liga top goalscorers since a few minutes. Opinions? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dumb idea. Why was a template even needed? Digirami (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good question. These templates are totally senseless unless they are going to be used in more than one place. If there are no objections, I will re-migrate the content into the article and TfD the templates. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm... Looks like someone over at WP:RPP had a plan when he/she implemented the templates. However, I don't think that this is a good idea - especially since the "official" goalscoring list Raul-Reus implemented a few weeks earlier, which basically started the whole dispute, is synthetisized from the various LFP team stats pages. As dumb as it sounds, but I would rather dispose that official list on terms of WP:OR than to deal with these templates. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are better ways to deal with "conflicting" information. Templates should be used for displaying the same info across multiple pages. I personally don't think that synthesized lists counts as OR, but I would much rather have a goalscorer list that isn't synthesized. It's not that hard to find one for this league. Use ESPN's list if you have to. Digirami (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Anderlecht managers

List of R.S.C. Anderlecht managers and {{R.S.C. Anderlecht managers}} don't match up - any idea which is right? Giant Snowman 16:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know. The list looks referenced though. You should ask its creator User:Manneken Pis.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Names template

Me again, teammates,

I don't think names template ("This is a X naming customs...", etc, etc) should be inserted in Portuguese or Brazilian footballers, as some users (notably Matthew HK) tend to do. Why?

Because it has nothing to do (at least the Portuguese, and i think the Brazilian follow the same M.O.) with the Spanish, in fact it's the complete and utter opposite! The first surname in Portuguese is the mother's, the second is the father's, the other way around in Spanish, and for most of the persons, it's common to choose the paternal surname as the "most important". Hence, it's important to stress it in Spanish players, not in the other two cases, methinks.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Presumably this applies to all Portuguese and Brazilian people rather than just footballers, no? If so, it'd be best taking this directly to template talk:Portuguese name or the various naming convention discussions, and ultimately deleting {{portuguese name}} (which Matthew HK wrote) entirely. I've pinged him for input anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It is complicated to explain Brazilian/Portuguese surname. Did wiki had a need to explain the footballer is Mr.X instead of Mr.Y as his name is A X Y or A Y X or A B Y C X or A B X C Y. And i think wiki should briefly explain his composite surnames (but the wording of the Template should change). The Mourinho father and son both had "Felix Mourinho" in his surname in although the jr. commonly refer as Mourinho (may be Felix from jr.'s grandmother nee name).

And if the current info on the early life section is correct, Kaká is Mr. Leite (Portuguese custom) and Dani Alves seems Spanish custom (in although lack of info on his parent). I had read a article about Eduardo da Silva, which he he is Mr. Alves instead of Silva (but i lost the link of the article). I just think should wikipedia refer them as Mr. XY or follow Portuguese culture just refer them as Mr. Y.

Wamberto de Jesus Sousa Campos, and his sons Richard Danilo Maciel Sousa Campos, both had Sousa Campos as surname - Portuguese style.

Elder brother of Gilberto da Silva Melo refer as Mello but his younger brother refer as Silva. Or he is Silva e Melo?

Pelé and Edson were Mr. Nascimento. Roberto Carlos is Mr. Silva and Carlos is a given name? or Roberto is Mr. Carlos?.Matthew_hk t c 16:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic voices to create

In this page on italian wikipedia we have all the players who played 5 or more matches in Serie A: at the moment nobody of us has playerhistory so we haven't enough data to create them. If you're more lucky to have it I give the link.. 93.32.252.218 (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

of course if you need help you have only to ask it, we can help you with some voices, for example with the Vittorio Staccione voice, serie A played killed by nazists in Mauthausen because antifascist.. 93.32.252.218 (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Vittorio Staccione sounds like an interesting life, I'll create an article later. Giant Snowman 14:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

if you need help for translation, ask me it without problems ;)! The italian wiki page for the WikiProject Football is this.. 93.32.252.218 (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article created here. Giant Snowman 15:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Template: Football venues in the Netherlands

German club names

Season article task force

Mongolia Premier League season articles

Players' club categories

David Butler(s) DOB

Ghost players?

Persecution

Mehmet Ekici

WDL error

John Reames

Bobby Reid(s) DOB

Histon F.C infobox crest picture

Help with a reference

Teamwork required (?)

Carlos Alberto Puppo

Idea for MOS:FLAG compliance

Removal of flagicons

China - international football

Zero Zero website

WikiProject cleanup listing

New template

footballfancast.com reliability

This topic isn't covered

Honours / Major League Soccer

FA Amateur Cup seasons

Grandview Park Bapitst Defenders Football

Bradden Inman

Football player infobox

Categories

Interesting approach

Grimsby Town F.C.

Mutsuhiko Nomura

Template cleanup

Identical brackets

Congratulations to the project

What on earth?

Hendrie, Jnr.

Strange indeed

FC Timişoara

Mike Smith

International appearances in infoboxes

Dolf Kessler(s)?

National football squad start template suggestion

Anybody fancy passing an opinion at my edit war...

Kansas City name change

{{FC Barcelona seasons}}

Proposed deletion of Juventude (Sal)

Karamoko Kéïta name order

Whitecaps FC

Category:Players in the Welsh Premier League RM

Talk pages by size

New template versions to show Current Squad and Recent Callups for a National Team

A push in the right direction (?)

Deportivo Italia and Deportivo Petare

Proposal to select a new "super template", for showing all current/seasonal/tournament related National Team Squads

User:Oleola and Kamil Glik

Club xyz qualifies for competition abc if...

Runners-up in honours section?

William Bradshaw

Conflict between WP:NFOOTBALL and Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Gaelic games?

Morris Emmerson place of birth

Disambiguation and those who are above it

Football League individual division articles by season

Requested move needs wider input

Notability through domestic and european cups

FIFA and nationalities

On "footballing nationality"

Subpage created to let the flag debate reach a final consensus

Bradden Inman

Past Champions Lge/UEFA Cup seasons at UEFA site

World Cup bids

'Super' squad table

The "monster" is back!!!

Update on {{fb start}} and {{fb end}}

2010-11 La Liga templates

Anderlecht managers

Names template

Encyclopedic voices to create