Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Flags in club player lists: three questions

Two questions should be raised about the inclusion of a flags column in Template:Football squad player: to what end, and on what grounds.

To what end? Not only is it entirely incidental to a player's membership of a team and his role, it is, in many instances, largely incidental to the player: Adam Miller has always lived in England, and always played for English clubs, but on account of a grandmother from Norn Iron, and an U18 call-up, he is shown as being N Irish: this is of no relevance to his club, but appears on that club's article. Far more relevant to a player's role in a team are his experience, age, height, salary, pace etc, but we don't mention those (most are unverifiable in most cases, or not easy to describe succinctly: I am not proposing their inclusion).

And on what grounds? Apart from the fact that displaying flags without the name of the country, contrary to what is mandated at MOS:Flag, any regular visitor to these pages will know that it can be a contentious issue, involving sensitive ethnic issues and the pride of many contributors, difficulties when a player declares for another country or countries change their boundaries, and much uncertainty (and many editwars) where a player takes out a new passport, plays in unofficial internationals, or is selected for a squad but doesn't get onto the pitch (among other scenarios).

So a widely used template presents, in a prohibited manner, an image that (often unclearly) represents information that in the vast majority of cases is irrelevant to the key subject matter of the article, and is often contentious. Which leads me to my third question: can we really defend that state of affairs? Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have always felt that the only legitimate use of flag icons is to represent national teams. Not to represent player/coach/manager nationalities, and not to represent team locations (or leagues?) such as Real Madrid C.F.. But I dare say that the largest "consumer" of flag templates in Wikipedia just might be this particular WikiProject, for those types of instances... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's informative to the reader to see the nationality of club players and coaches. Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it more informative than all sorts of information that we don't give? What difference does it make whether Carlisle United's left back is English or Scottish? Kevin McE (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If reliable external sources routinely used flag icons like this, then I'd be happy to see the same on Wikipedia. That's why I have no problem with flags used for Olympic, golf, and tennis results, for example. But are they routinely used for football team squads? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll re-state my comment from another topic: why is there a witch-hunt on flags all of a sudden? Flags in the team templates convey at-a-glance very useful information about a team's international makeup, which a lot of people find very informative. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"why is there a witch-hunt on flags all of a sudden?" - because the problems are not being addressed, particulary those related to WP:OR and WP:V. Knepflerle (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is only informative if it is undoubtedly correct. Cases such as that in the discussion immediately preceding this one illustrate that often it is not uncontrovertible.

Is it at a glance info? Would you confidently distinguish the flags of Netherlands and Luxembourg, or those of Slovenia and Slovakia? If you see the flag of Moldova or Armenia, do you instinctively recognise it as such? Many people wouldn't: that is why MOS:FLAG insists that country names should accompany flags.

Yes, I could, and if I couldn't I'd move my mouse over the flag and watch the country name pop up. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone uses Wikipedia from computers with a mouse. There is a massively growing mobile internet readership, where this facility is not always possible, for example. Knepflerle (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it relevant, useful info? If a player is nowhere near his national squad, then where he was born is no more relevant to his role in the team than is whether he was born as the oldest child in his family. Kevin McE (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant to leagues where there is a quota on foreign players. Players who don't play for international teams are still counted as foreign players if they were born elsewhere. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mouseover gives the country name if there is any confusion over which country is being represented. Removing the flags from squads would not add any utility to the encyclopaedia and would remove at-a-glance information that many people (including myself) find useful, especially in South American football where there are quotas on foreign players. King of the North East 13:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing unsourced original research based on hidden, non-standard criteria which oversimplifies complex issues is increasing the encyclopaedia's utility. Knepflerle (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The case of Adam Miller above is far from isolated, and is a clear case of where we are misleading readers. We have oversimplified this person's nationality status with the use of one flag, when the reality is more complicated and cannot be reduced to an "at-a-glance" colourful box.

The only excuse we ever hear for the misuse of flags is their "at-a-glance" nature, when actually we need to acknowledge that complex issues such as nationality can not be explained "at-a-glance".

In most instances more worryingly, these flags are actually examples of WP:OR - they claim a "sporting nationality" for players who have never played for a country, against this project's guidelines. Editors are coming to their own conclusions on a player's "sporting nationality" based on a birthplace in an almanac or a mention of a parent's nationality in a newspaper article. However, this player may have other national eligibilities we do not know about, or may choose a country of heritage over that of birth, or may naturalise to another country in the future, or... the possibilities are manifold, and yet Wikipedia editors feel able to decide for them by slapping a flag next to their name based on their own whim. This widespread plague of original research must stop. Knepflerle (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Miller's sporting nationality be English anyway, as the last representative team he featured for was England National Game XI? --Jimbo^[online] 15:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are we inventing criteria anyway? How are our readers even supposed to know what our criteria are? Knepflerle (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are we creating criteria? MOS:FLAG states; "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality". Is this not just a case of defining Miller's sporting nationality? --Jimbo^[online] 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Do our readers know that a flag represents "sporting nationality" and not anything else?

Do our readers know how Wikipedia determines "sporting nationality" when they read an article?

Do any reliable sources define "sporting nationality" in this way, using the same criteria (England C appearances etc)?

Can readers find out what sources we've used to determine someone's "sporting nationality", particularly when they haven't played for a national representative team?

Do readers even realise that in most cases no sources have been used?

Do they realise that in most cases of complex nationality, editors just pick the flag according to their own criteria and whims?

In summary: in the vast majority of cases, a flag slapped next to a player's name is an unsourced oversimplification based on unrecorded criteria, often not even satisfying our own concept of "sporting nationality" - a criterion our readers don't even know we use.

This is an encyclopaedia - we cannot dump WP:V by the wayside just so our articles look a bit more like Football Manager Knepflerle (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not unrecorded criteria though as the majority of the articles written on footballers have some sort of reference stating who they have played for, especially those born of one nation, representing another national team which differs to that of their birth. What's so unverifiable about that? --Jimbo^[online] 03:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Miller case is completelly right the way it is. He has choused to represent N.Ireland on international level, so he should have a NIR flag, if he decides to represent another nation, the flag would be changed, despite having all other ties linking him with England... I agree with KingoftheNorth about flags, they are allways used in all football websites (the ones that don´t use them are much penalised because of that), and I think, despite all debate about the meaning of sports nationallity, that most, if not all, people know what they represent. And it is not thru that they are not relevant for clubs, couse the main competitions in wich the clubs compete have usually a foreign players limits, so it is very usefull to know their nationalities. Removing the flags would be a major minus, just as having to add the country name next to it... FkpCascais (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a player's international career can be relevant at club/national level. When you add a sporting nationality to a player you can no longer see if a player is foreign or not at clublevel or if he has an EU passport. It doesn't matter which country a player represents at international level for EU labourlaw. How many South Americans and Africans would there be playing football in the EU if non of them had an EU passport? Aren't these EU passports much more important for clubs and players at clublevel? A few years ago the minimumwage for non-EU players older than 23 years in the Dutch Eredivisie was ca. 340.000 Euro a year, for EU players of the same age it was ca. 16.000/17.000 Euro, the minimum wage.... User:Cattivi|Cattivi]] (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Place of birth isn't always relevant for a player's nationality. Jus Sanguinis versus Jus soli Cattivi (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Both last opinions are right. But, for instance, Siniša Mihajlović allways had a Serbian flag next to him despite being comunitarian (he was a holder of both Italian, making him UE citizen, and Serbian) and being born in what is today Croatia. But, the flag was right, because he was Serbian, and played internationally for Serbia. I don´t agree about making the "birth place role" for non international players because people today are much mobile and there are more and more possibilities of other nationalities being born in different countries (without talking about national minorities...), so there must be some flexibility about it, but this is another debate.

I think that this discussion would be reasonable somwhere where editors don´t know much about football, but here I see so many excellent editors that the flags are 99% (if not 100%) correct, having a hands countable number of wrong (or discussible) flags in a thousands of players. I am in favour of making some roles about this (some club pages indicate separately the non national, or comunitarian, players after the squad list, or with *), but I still think their removal would be a major minus. FkpCascais (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you believe that club articles should be exempt from the principles of WP:FLAG? Kevin McE (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

...or more pressingly in most examples, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Knepflerle (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying say that I agree with all JonBroxton, KingOfTheNorthEast and Jimbo say. It pretty much covers completely your first question: "On what purpose?". You are wright about the WP:FLAG principle, I do remember the recent national teams debate here. If adding the flag country name next to it would be the only solution, then, what else can we do? Because, not having the nationality of the players in the squad lists would be "unbeleveable". FkpCascais (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of Kevin McE's points above, and in general I'd be happy to excise flags altogether from footy bios if that's what it'll take to end this. The value gained is limited compared to the potential for confusion and the constant need for original research to ensure "completeness" when it comes to flagging people by "footballing nationality" even where that's never been a consideration for a given player professionally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFC time? This needs deciding once and for all. Most of the flags in current use are unsourced, ignoring WP:V, and the invention of our own in-house concept of "sporting nationality" (unused elsewhere, so probably WP:OR) is leading to editors trying to give every player one, single nationality, no matter how complex the situation, according to their own syntheses of nationality law and sources.

The project needs its priorities in order, and these articles brought under the same policies as any other article. This is an encyclopaedia - everything is secondary to information integrity. Real people do not come with one single flag attached to them à la Football Manager, and articles should not pretend otherwise. Knepflerle (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're making an ENORMOUS mistake if you do this. Most of the flags in current use are NOT unsourced, because the source is either 1) the place of birth, or 2) the country the player represents internationally, if it is different from his place of birth. For the tiny percentage of articles where there is some kind of difficulty or point of contention, then that player's article will go into the necessary detail. It's really not that hard. As I have said repeatedly on numerous topics, the nationality of players is VERY important in terms of indicating a team's makeup, showing the percentage of non-domestic players in leagues where there are quotas on such things, and so on and so forth. I think this entire argument is utterly absurd, and will be a significant backwards step on soccer articles in terms of the information provided to readers, not an improvement. --JonBroxton (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS specifically says not to use flags simply to indicate place of birth, and only a tiny fraction of the footballers we cover have played for a national side. Furthermore, in the modern game (at least in Europe post-Bosman) the nationality of the players therein is actually of no consequence to the running of the club, any more than in any other profession. It's rather a throwback to the days of quotas that it's even a consideration, really. In cases where squads are diverse and this is notable then we should actually say so in the article body and give it reliable sourcing, rather than simply hoping that people infer this from all the pretty colours in the squad lists. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace is neither sufficient nor necessary for nationality - read ius sanguinis (for example, being born in Switzerland does not give you Swiss nationality - read Swiss nationality law), so straight away we are using a false criterion and misleading readers by assigning nationalities we have no true evidence for. Most flags in articles are unsourced - where's the link to the source on 99.999% of these "nationalities"? In difficult cases the player's article may go into detail, but everywhere else in Wikipedia he will appear with just one flag next to him, assigned by some editor's original synthesis, and readers are being misled. "Information" is only of value if it is sourced and correct. Knepflerle (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"In cases where squads are diverse and this is notable then we should actually say so in the article body and give it reliable sourcing, rather than simply hoping that people infer this from all the pretty colours in the squad lists." - exactly. Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Has an RFC been opened yet? If so, please provide a link. FWIW, I agree with the removal of these flags. Most of them are indeed a violation of WP:OR. The arguments for at-a-glance value are ignoring this fact. It's not useful, even at-a-glance, if it's not correct and verifiable. The bigger reason that I support their removal is to end all of the wasted time bickering about them. I've only been working on soccer related articles for 6 months or so, but I've already been involved in a few spats where some editor decided to change a flag based on a technicality I wasn't aware of. Near edit wars usually erupt at that point and we end up creating a new topic here to "have it out" over the matter. Let's just get rid of them. In at least 90% of the cases they're used, they're not verifiable at all. They need to go. Please point me to the RFC so I can add my thoughts there. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the opponents of flags are overstating the case somewhat. The vast majority of players have unambiguous nationality and to pretend otherwise would illustrate a willingness to ignore reality in pursuit of a specific objective (eradication of flags, or "all the pretty colours in the squad lists" in rhetorical language). I don't know (or care) much about obscure 4th tier players in any country but I do know and care about football in South America. The claim that the use of a flagicon to denote nationality (of South American players) is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH is verifiably false. The argument that we need to remove flags that are not accompanied by text is countered by mouseover.

As I said before the use of flags allow the reader to quickly identify the foreign quota players in a squad without having to click through the whole squad list to find them. The problems of duel/ambiguous nationality could be easily overcome through improvement of the current squad template to allow the display of 2 flags or allowing it to display footnotes. Eradication of this useful at-a-glance information because of a very small percentage of ambiguous cases, instead of finding a practical solution would be a classic case of chucking the baby out with the bathwater. King of the North East 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with King of the North East. Removing valuable information such as this is counter-productive to the entire project and will be enormously detrimental to the many, many people who find this information useful. I mean, really, out of all the thousands and thousands of soccer players who have a flag icon by their name, what percentage of them has any kind of controversy. 5%? 10%? Even at the most, you're still removing 90% of the unambiguous, non-controversial information on the page, which to me is unneccessarily draconian and akin to cuttng your nose off to spite your face. Also, can the editors who repeatedly accuse pro-flag editors of simply wanting "pretty colors" on the page knock it off. It's demeaning to those of us who work VERY hard on keeping soccer articles up to date. We just think it's pointless to remove useful, informative, important information because there are a few controversies here and there which, in reality, don't take that much effort to work around. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC

It's not "valuable information" or "useful, informative, important information" when it's unsourced, based on incorrect assumptions and original research. It really, really isn't - it's misleading. Knepflerle (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You've pretty much missed the point entirely there.

The use of flags is not the problem per se - it's this Wikipedia-only invention of "sporting nationality" (and then ignoring this definition and inventing others on a whim, as in the Paraguayan/Ecuadorean case above), the lack of sourcing for 99.999% of assigned nationalities, the misuse of criteria such as birthplace as an ersatz nationality, the compulsion to assign one nationality to players eligible for several... the problems are manifold, and arise whenever you try and simplify these issues to one flag, one word, one country, one whatever. The WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues come from trying to boil down birthplace and team representation information into one definitive nationality - the information can be sourced, but the "Wikipedia nationality" invented from it is often not.

The claim that this is a "uncommon" problem is bogus on two accounts - it appears on these pages with disturbing regularity, and a lot of cases only fail to arise because they've never been properly researched anyway. Very, very few players with a flag have represented a national team, and for the vast majority of those we know nothing more about their nationality than their birthplace - which in many cases tells us nothing anyway (see ius sanguinis).

This constant appeal to needing "at-a-glance" information is void and destructive - but "information" is only of value if it is sourced and correct. Nationality is just not reducible to "at-a-glance". Mark players who are counted as foreign quota for a given competition with a ¹ or * or something, if you like. Knepflerle (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept that using Jonathan Santana when Jonathan Santana would be more accurate is not right, that why I suggested modifying the template to allow more than one flag. The fact that you want rid of flag usage is clearly demostrated by your refusal to even consider the concept of allowing the template to display dual nationality or to display footnotes to resolve ambiguous cases. Its not up to you to proscribe what I can and can't do, it's not up to me to use ¹ or * or something, if I like. There is a high level of flag usage throughout a whole range of sports (detailed below), trying to force the removal of all of these flags because it is hard to determine a small minority of ambiguous cases, refusing to accept that some/many people find them useful and refusing to consider alternatives to widescale removal looks a lot like an agenda driven position. King of the North East 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• "your refusal to even consider the concept of allowing the template to display dual nationality or to display footnotes to resolve ambiguous cases" - unfortunately, you've now even started ascribing positions to people which they don't even hold - I've never even said that. Improving the template would alleviate some, but not all, of the problems.
• "Its not up to you to proscribe what I can and can't do" - that's why I brought the discussion here so that a community consensus could be found. WP:V and WP:OR are non-negotiables though for all editors.
• "it's not up to me to use ¹ or * or something, if I like" - now there's a genuine example of a simple suggestion being rejected without due consideration.
• "There is a high level of flag usage throughout a whole range of sports" - I am at WT:FOOTY, which sport should I be talking about?
• "trying to force the removal of all of these flags because it is hard to determine a small minority of ambiguous cases" - this is not the only reason, as is crystal-clear to anyone else reading what I've written.
• "refusing to consider alternatives" - I'm not - none have been presented yet, just the same old claims about needing "at-a-glance" information (be it sourced or not)
• "looks a lot like an agenda driven position." - I'd love to know what subvertive "agenda" you believe could be some sort of hidden motive. My motive is improving the articles by making sure the information they contain is reliable, sourced and unambiguous. Knepflerle (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- and it should be pointed out that your unfortunate and unwarranted personalisation of the issue in your last post is inaccurate - I am hardly alone in having reservations on this matter: [1], [2], [3], etc. Knepflerle (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- You accuse me of personalising the issue, but I'm not the one constantly using rhetorical language like "bogus", "void and destructive", "same old claims", "pretty colours" to diminish other peoples point of view and making suggestions in the language of personal advice, neither did I suggest that you were alone in having reservations. In my post yesterday I showed that nationality can be sourced in reliable publications such as BDFA, and that it would be fairly simple to amend the squad template to clarify ambiguous cases. You did not respond to either of these points and carried on going on about WP:OR. It's clearly not an OR issue if nationality can be easily sourced in reliable publications. King of the North East (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between using language which dismisses or diminishes the arguments of others and simply making up arguments for one's opponents. I would note that you've done that again here. It has been repeatedly stated that nobody on the "source or die" side of the nationality argument is proposing that the issue of nationality be banned from inclusion in articles: the point is that current convention on football articles is to ascribe everyone a nationality regardless of how valid or well-referenced said nationality might be. And indeed, because this applies to the vast majority of the articles that we cover, simply amending the template isn't enough. We should be discouraging the default inclusion of nationality in these templates, and our guidelines should be amended to specifically specify where and when nationality is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will overlook the accusation that I am "simply making up arguments for one's opponents...that you've done...again here". I think I've remained pretty calm in discourse with the guy and it is not unfair to accuse him of going on about WP:OR, he's linked to it 7 times so far in the discussion. As for your points about the issue we are on pretty similar ground. I agree that "the convention on football articles is to ascribe everyone a nationality regardless of how valid or well-referenced said nationality might be" and would say that the statement accurately describes the rest of the encyclopaedia too. The issue is clearly visible in virtually any Wikipedia biography. Even the Manual of style for footballers promotes the use of an unsourced assertion of nationality:

• Adrián Hernán González (born 20 November, 1976) is an Argentine football midfielder...

The category structure is also based on inferred nationality which could be seen as a violation of WP:EGRS. None of the "source or die" side (as you call them) would suggest amending the manual of style to take the form of Argentine born<ref></ref>, Argentine registered<ref></ref> and nobody is suggesting the replacement of Category:Argentine footballers with Category:Footballers for articles that are not meticulously sourced. Although it would be easily possible to argue for these positions using our myriad policies and guidelines. You would admit that the player positions (DF, MF, FW) are often ambiguous (in the case of wing backs, utility players etc), are never meticulously sourced and far less self-explanatory to the casual observer than the use of flagicons. Using similar arguments the current squads could be stripped down to a list of names and squad numbers. I believe that the alternatives to wide scale removal of information from squad summaries should at least be considered. Improved display capacity, use of footnotes or textual rendering instead of/or alongside Vexillological. I would have no great opposition to the replacement with text (as long as it is done in a way that is accessibly displayed), although even this step would not address any of the "source or die" issues. If we come out of this discussion with a clearer, sortable and multifunction template using text without/text alongside flagicons, at least we would be improving the encyclopaedia rather than endlessly debating the wide scale removal of content. King of the North East 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would note as the last editor to the bio MoS that I am in fact strongly opposed to the "Xian footballer" designation without a concrete reliable source. I used "source or die" as a nickname deliberately to present my own side in a self-deprecating manner so as to not necessarily favour this approach. I do not consider the category argument to be a reinforcement of your position; rather, it is simply one which has yet to be properly resolved (as with the "other sports" argument below). The "widescale removal of content" argument has already been lost: project-wide consensus is that we do not keep unsourced biographical detail indefinitely while it waits on reliable sourcing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How can you use a source like BDFA on nationality issues, when their definition of nationality is clearly different from Wikipedia. (Espinola, previous subject on this page has 2 flags) In my opinion all flags should be added (There could be a lot of them in theory, this will be very difficult if you want it to be reliable) or non Cattivi (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Sports

The idea that flags denoting sporting nationality is a football specific "problem" is easy to counter. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and thats just a selection of team sports, there are also individual sports such as tennis and golf and motorsports to consider. King of the North East 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Where has anyone said this is football specific? Knepflerle (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was countering the statement that "I dare say that the largest "consumer" of flag templates in Wikipedia just might be this particular WikiProject, for those types of instances" from the 2nd post in this section. This is clearly not a football specific issue with at least 8 other team sports using flagicons to denote nationality in current squad templates. The issue should be raised elsewhere as it clearly goes beyond the scope of WP:FOOTY King of the North East 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, the issue already has been raised centrally, which led to the current state of WP:FLAG. Lots of projects are in outright violation of that guideline, but the people here may or may not be interested in fixing articles outside of the football domain. The issue is not whether the current WP:FOOTY convention is wrong (it is): it's coordinating the work to fix it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Would using the word Ex: Mexican in the squad templates instead of solve the problem about WP:FLAG? FkpCascais (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all of them, by any distance. Flags are just an indication of the larger problem we have with ascribed nationalities, something which takes up roughly 50% of all WT:FOOTY discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's a bit of an overstatement, what with 50% of this page being used to discuss the problems with WP:ATHLETE and all! King of the North East 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the chatter about individual articles and the friendly banter about Irishmen who may or may not have played for Honved in 1911 makes up the margin of error. :) But seriously, this is far and away the biggest unresolved problem discussed here. ATHLETE discussion basically always ends with someone pointing at the GNG. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whither now?

A week has passed since the last comment, but clearly several people do not believe that the current position is tenable. So do we simply allow the issue to drift away, eventually be archived and forgotten about, or is there enough groundswell of opinion here to formally propose that some change be made? Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a formal declaration is necessary. Right now, a lot of articles over-use and misuse flags. This should be addressed directly on our most high-profile articles, and the guidelines and examples set out by the WikiProject should be looked over to ensure that they don't recommend such things. The only really problematic thing in my mind right now is that the squad template still expects flags; it's maybe worth formally proposing (by RfC) a change to that template to drop the nationality parameter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd comment on an RFC in favor of the removal of the flags from the template. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 02:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And I would vehemently disagree with that proposal. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I want to commend Kevin McE for being especially bold and removing the flags from the infoboxs (not the squad lists, just the infobox... calm down) of well over 250+ club articles. Given that work, I'd at least like to drive for a consensus now that this is the way it should be done in the infoboxes across the board (again, not the squad lists, just the infoboxes... stay calm everyone). Can we at least agree on that one and put that point to rest? If we agree on this one, we can update the club template with some clarifying text not to use flags in the infobox. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that had been agreed a long time ago? Flags in infoboxes next to places of birth and clubs have never been acceptable, not only for violation of WP:MOSFLAG, but also because it screws with the row alignment in the tables? --JonBroxton (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean removing nationality flags next to managers names in club infoboxes. Well, he certainly worked hard, but I still completely disagree with it. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that we introduce a key similar to 1, or the more subtle 2. In a perfect world this key would be built into the template, so that it automatically updates to reflect the nationalities used.

There is a legitimate question as to if and where nationality should be used. However, in some leagues nationality directly affects eligibility to play. Therefore this change would continue to be useful, even if the consensus is that clubs not in such a league should not reference nationality at all. WFCforLife (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) -Can't be bothered to log in (it's Matt91486), but I'd definitely say that the second of the two is preferable if we feel like a key needs to be included. 24.118.120.150 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Both are fine. FkpCascais (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I have made some test changes to {{Fs2}} (documentation) to display like this. We could request the same changes to {{Football squad}} or start rolling out the superior multifunction Fs2 template. King of the North East 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the basic idea, but that's going to cause a formatting/layout nightmare when you get to players from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Can't we use the FIFA Trigramme? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Can easily be done. I'll try it out. King of the North East 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just swap the word in the navbox to change the display like this. King of the North East 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Much better. I like it. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the triagramme as a method of "explaining" the flag. Some are okay, some are useless. If we're going to expand on the flag icon (which I'm weakly opposed to, with aesthetic preference for a key but not really being bothered), it should be done fully, i.e. in England format. Tough cases make for bad law. I'm sure the half a dozen sentence-long countries can be dealt with appropriately. WFCforLife (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Useless how? They are FIFA-approved abbreviations, not some random three-letter code plucked from thin air. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So what if they're official. If I don't know what the flag means, how is a three letter acronym I don't understand going to help? Either the flag is good enough alone, or its not. But if it's not, we shouldn't introduce a second thing that may or may not communicate the information. WFCforLife (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In summary, strong preference for the Barcelona variant of {{Fs2}} over the Banfield one, weak preference for a key instead of that. WFCforLife (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (edited WFCforLife (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

None of these satisfy WP:V and therefore, IMO are non-starters. Yes, they're elegant solutions to one of the problems being discussed (WP:MOSFLAG), but they don't even approach satisfying the other (WP:V and WP:OR). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A Third Proposal

Adding a key or adding text for the country name or abreviation doesn't address the problems stated above which were: 1) edit wars when there is disagreement over the nationality of a player, 2) the fact that "sporting nationality" is a Wikipedia invention, 3) the fact that there's no way to provide inline citations for these "sporting nationalities", and 4) the fact that readers have no idea that the flag represents their "sporting nationality" and not necessarily their actual country of birth.

I propose a more direct solution to the problem. Remove them. We can slay this beast in one shot by modifying {{Fs2}} to ignore the "nat" parameter. I tried this out on a club page (by removing all of the "nat" parameters myself) and it looked fine. One ironic thing I noticed in my experiement is that all of the columns are labeled except the "sporting nationality" column, so when you remove it, the table actually looks natural still. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose an outright ban. In countries or competitions where nationality is relevant to eligibility, it must be displayed, even if the eligibility rules are a figment of FIFA's imagination.

Neutral on the suggestion that they're removed from clubs where this isn't relevant- I have strong conflicting views for and against it.

Regardless, editors must agree refrain from petty disputes such as the one which derailed the first Seattle Sounders FC FAC while we are discussing the matter. There is a clear willingness to do something, but without a bit of goodwill, there will be no consensus. WFCforLife (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as well. It's a huge part of the sport. It seems like burying one's head in the sand to ignore it. matt91486 (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is a huge part of Wikipedia. It seems like burying one's head in the sand to ignore it. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose an outright ban. There has to be a way of presenting this valuable information properly without resorting to a blanket removal. Taking this information away will be a massive step backwards in terms of the useful information provided to readers. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose an outright ban. 1) isn't even a reason for removing basic data. 2) No it is not. 3) The reason for these anomalies are painfully obvious. 4) I think the average reader has more intelligence than you give them credit for.--EchetusXe 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Support, with the rider that a simple, keyed, indicator of those players whose eligibility is restricted is included. In essence, whether a player is French or Malian makes no difference per se to his playing rights, it is whether he holds EU nationality. Showing the holder of a French passport as Malian (because of having been capped by that country) detracts from the understanding of the selection issues in a league where a limit is placed on use of non EU nationals. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the final solution (i.e. even if flags are kept), the suggestion of adding a key for EU passport holders in those circumstances is a very good one.WFCforLife (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

They have that here. It is a good idea for leagues with that rule in place.--EchetusXe 17:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ARE YOU PEOPLE SERIOUS?!? You want to remove flags from squad lists? WHY? How is that possible justifiable? Eightball (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I care less that 0.5% of contentious flags might lead to debate than that 99.5% are clear cut and add valuable information. Leaky Caldron 09:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

<sigh/> Exactly 0% would lead to debate if we could focus on enforcing verifiability. I don't see how the information can be considered valuable if it's not verifiable. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - removing flags from squad infoboxes is nonsense! GiantSnowman 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you think verifiability is nonsense as well and that original research makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? Of course you don't. Please defend your opposition with something more than "it's nonsense". --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what a lot of people - including me - are feeling is that this whole discussion is unneccesarily draconian. The wholesale removal of information from Wiki in this way is not the way to go. You talk about verifiability; when I say that a person's nationality is verified either from his place or birth or the country he represents internationally, someone comes in with something about something in Swiss law about jus sanguis (I don't remember the term). OK, that's Switzerland, but what about the other 211 countries where that is not a law? It seems that every time someone comes up with a good reason to keep the nationality indicators, someone shifts the goalposts again. It seems to be me to be very simple; you have the nationality of the country in which you were born, unless there is a clear, verifiable source that the player has a different nationality, or has subsequently played for another nation at international level (like, say, Preki). What's OR about that? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Skotywa but you sound like a broken record; how do you intend on verifying player's nationalities? Demanding certified copies of their passports to be sent through? GiantSnowman 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make this about me. Is your point that it is okay to have some unverified information on Wikipedia because it's hard to verify? Good luck getting anything like that past WP:FA review. My motivation here is based on experience. The bar for WP:FA is going up, and these squad lists with unverifiable nationalities listed will stand in the way of articles being promoted. Why does it seem like I'm the only one who cares about article quality here? (I'm not, here are some examples from above: [4] and [5]) --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making this about you at all - but you have presented a "problem" with no solution. 99.99% of nationalities are completely uncontentious, I don't see the issue here to be honest. GiantSnowman 20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. I started this section "A Third Proposal" with a (gasp) proposed solution. I even gave reasons for why I thought it was a legitimate solution to the problems raised in the conversation above. Please stop trying to guess my motives or what I'm thinking. It's fine if you disagree with the proposal, but how about suggesting a different solution to the identified problems rather than ignoring them. It may be that 99% are uncontentious now, but that will only be true until they go for WP:GA or WP:FA promotion. That's when Wikipedia as a whole has the opportunity to enforce verifiability. It's currently true that 100% are unverified, whether they're contentious or not. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Finding sources for player's nationalitis isn't an issue - club profiles, stats websites etc. etc. - so I'm still struggling to see what the problem is here...GiantSnowman 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash the entire discussion here for you now because you've chosen not to read it. Please start at the top with Kevin McE's comment that started this off and catch yourself up before repeating again, "I don't understand". --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Miller is English - as confirmed by a reliable source... GiantSnowman 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, you've got it all sorted out. Awesome. Thanks. I'm not sure what all the fuss was about then. Oh wait... Gillingham F.C. still says he's from Northern Ireland (with no source). If I change it back to England with no source, whoever wanted it to be Northern Ireland will come here complaining or start an edit war. It should be obvious that the problem is bigger than Miller. Other examples of contentious player nationalities have been discussed. Please, don't stop reading after the first comment. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Um no, the source I have provided is from Gillingham F.C. and quite clearly states he is English...GiantSnowman 22:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I don't understand this sourcing rationale. Squad lists should always have the club's official site verifying them. If that club gives a nationality, you would assume it's correct because they, y'know, actually employ the bloke. I do quite a bit of work with featured lists. If you use the book to source 40 entries, on 40 consecutive pages, you don't inline cite each page seperately. WP:V is about ensuring that everything that is potentially contentious is verified. It does not mandate that we insult the reader's intelligence. WFCforLife (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, and honestly, I'd say that simply sourcing the club once at the top of the squad list is sufficient. However, when facts are challenged (as they often are on this very talk page), what should be the prescribed solution? What if the club page doesn't specify? Should inline citations be required then? What if another source contradicts the club? Should a third party source be favored over the club website? These are the types of things I'd really like to see solved with this discussion rather than calling it all nonsense and we'll talk about it again in 1-2 months (that is not an exageration). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to make the same point. I picked a random Prem team - Everton - and went to their official site. John Heitinga is confirmed as being Dutch[6]. Seamus Coleman is confirmed as being Irish[7]. John Ruddy - who is nowhere near his national team - is confirmed as being English[8]. Let's jump to League 2. Torquay United. Elliot Benyon, confirmed as English[9]. Mustapha Carayol confirmed as English[10]. And so on and so on. This is why I absolutely disagree with a blanket ban, because most of this information is NOT just pulled from thin air. Rather than deleting it, we need to come up with a way of adding citations for nationality to the squad templates, which will then remove all the problems. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source more suitable than his club which contradicts it, for instance the national assocation of a country he has played for, or a reliable source directly quoting him as saying he is B rather than A, then we should go with that. If no nationality is given, you are correct to say that we should not make one up, and therefore shouldn't give one at all. I'm simply saying that if the club gives a nationality, that satisfies WP:V. WFCforLife (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are people voting, this is very simple lads....

Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here . Quote from Five pillars

WP:RU removed a the "Irish flag" (see WP:RUIRLFLAG) against WP:CON to keep as it was against WP:OI Gnevin (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's because it was Original Research. Are you suggesting that wikipedia have invented Ireland, Northern Ireland, and 200+ others?

(correction), actually, that simply isn't true. They removed it per copyvio, and correctly do not use the flags I have given because for rugby it WOULD be original research. WFCforLife (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the official flag of the IRFU can not be use as per copyvio, WP:RU were using an invented flag for Ireland which was removed as per WP:OI and against the WP:CON at the time, an invented Pacific Islanders rugby union team flag also fell to the same sword. If WP:V and WP:OR can't be met here then the flags should go, CON or no CON. WP:5P is very clear! Gnevin (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time or patience to scroll through this massive debate, but has nobody noticed that when you scroll over a nation's flag in the squad templates, it tells you what nation that is? GiantSnowman 19:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Several people brought that up earlier (including me), but were told that it wasn't a valid point because some people don't use mice. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How do they scroll around the screen then? GiantSnowman 20:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

They might be browsing around the site with a mobile phone (as I do from time to time). Nevertheless, even clicking on the flag takes you to the correct nation, so I think I'm in the same camp as GiantSnowman on this issue. – PeeJay 21:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd like to suggest that {{Football squad player}} be changed to included a field called reference. If the reference field is left blank the nat field will not display. A third optional parameter could be added to make these changes optional but include the pages in a hidden category Gnevin (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ajax Academy "famed" or not

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blanchardb#Ajax_Academy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.200.70 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not about whether the Ajax Academy is famous or not, but rather whether or not a peacock term to that effect should be included in an article. I believe that the addition of the word "famed" would violate the spirit of the WP:PEACOCK guideline regardless of whether or not it is deserved. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I get that, however I disagree with your interpretation of WP:PEACOCK. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Footballer articles moved

A number of footballer articles were moved by a user recently (see [11]). Some of them involve adding a comma to the 'footballer born in ...' dabs that are added, which I take to be against the general consensus of the naming format. Not sure about some of the other moves, perhaps they're all fine, but does someone else want to take a look? Please note the user is marked as semi-retired. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

They seem to have a problem with the use of "English". In one or two of the moved articles, they've changed English to British in the prose as well. The ones moved to (footballer, born xxxx) are fine, just need the comma removing, if it hasn't been done already. But certainly some of the ones moved from (English footballer) to just (footballer) are wrong. E.g. John Charles is the Welsh legend and obvious primary topic, but they've moved John Charles (English footballer), so called because he's not the Welsh footballer, to just John Charles (footballer), which clearly doesn't disambig at all, either from the Welsh or the gridiron footballer of that name. And one which I should have noticed on my watchlist (oops), Steve Bryant (English footballer), was so called because the Steve Bryant article is about an American footballer, so again, Steve Bryant (footballer) doesn't distinguish. Fortunately (from the point of view of clearing up after it) all they've done is move the pages, not changed the dab pages or double redirects if any. I'll go through them and move back those that need it, and leave a note on the user's talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Done that. Wonder if one or two of them who only need distinguishing from a player of American football, like Steve Bryant (English footballer) and Joe Carter (English footballer), might be better at just (association footballer) rather than including the sporting nationality? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work! I'm still a proponent of the school of thought that says that DOB should be primary disambiguator, followed by nationality. As I have learnt recently, 'association footballer' is rarely used. GiantSnowman 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right about use of 'association footballer', more's the pity, and DOB is a reasonable enough disambiguator between similar association footballers, at least from an editorial point of view. And if you start from the disambiguation page, it doesn't matter what the pages are called so long as they're described clearly. But from the point of view of the reader of Wikipedia typing into that little search box on the left and seeing what drops down, (English footballer) distinguishes an English association footballer from a player of Aussie rules or gridiron rather better than (footballer born 1963) would. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at those Struway. I did manage to move one page! Eldumpo (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing them out. The Stephen Hugheses looked fun... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for doing the Stephen Hughes dab changes - it was on my list. Eldumpo (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Total Football

Someone keeps adding Doncaster Rovers to the article about Total Football, which is crazy unless I've missed something. I've removed it twice already. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories of national footballers

Further to the interesting thread above, which was primarily about the use of flags, but also discussed wider issues of 'what is nationality', I was wondering if Footy should agree some text to be added to each of the Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality category pages? I checked the English, Scottish, German, Brazilian and Italian pages and none have any kind of intro text to clarify exactly what the category is for. If some agreed text were added, then if it were felt people were being added inappropriately to the category, it could be challenged.

Or should this issue of nationality firstly be dealt with at a much higher level in Wikipedia, as it applies to a number of other sports (as pointed out above by King of the North East). Eldumpo (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• It also applies to painters, politicians, architects and every other sub category of Category:People by nationality and occupation. I only raised this issue to show how the inferred nationality problem (cited as a reason to remove flags from current squads) is much bigger than the use of flagicons in current squad sections of football clubs. If it is considered thoroughly rather than just as a stand alone argument to remove flags, the problem of widespread use of inferred nationality runs far deeper than the flag issue. Even if the solution were to require a single reliabe source per article this would involve a vast amount of work considering the backlog of completely unsourced footballer articles and the scale of new football article creation. King of the North East 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With regards to categorisation, if for instance a footballer is French but of Algerian descent, there is no problem with him being in both categories. John Barnes' sporting nationality is unquestionably English, but no good-faith editor would attempt to suggest that he cannot be categorised as Jamaican, where appropriate categories exist (rather than simply being created for his benefit, such as Category:Jamaican managers of Tranmere Rovers). Another good example is Owen Hargreaves. I understand what you're saying about inferred nationality King of the North East, but if you are born in a country that nationality can be inferred. Whether it should be assumed to be your primary one is another matter. WFCforLife (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"but if you are born in a country that nationality can be inferred.": no, it really, really can't - read ius sanguinis for a very clear explanation why. This common misconception is one of the problems with nationality proclamations. Extrapolating birthplace data to nationality is unsound and should be avoided.

More often than not the list of nationalities given for a person is incomplete and based on the unsound application of sources, if sources are used at all. Then we have the common mix-up between entitlement to nationality and assumption of nationality - I imagine it will be very unpopular amongst some people to flag up unassumed entitlement to Irish nationality on many articles of people from Northern Ireland, say.

If someone is born in country X and played for Y, just say that they were born in country X and played for Y. Knepflerle (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the overall view then - that no guidance is required at the Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality pages, because it is a much wider problem, and that it should be continued practice for now that someone born in x land is categorised as an x ish footballer, unless there is other evidence Or perhaps if someone wants to add them to a country category not of their birth, then a suitable reference should be provided? Is anything being done at a Wikipedia level regarding nationality? Eldumpo (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"it should be continued practice for now that someone born in x land is categorised as an x ish footballer, unless there is other evidence" - no, because (yet again) one does not imply the other. Convenience doesn't make it true.

How about categories "Footballer born in X" and "Footballer for Y national football team", since both are verifiable and indisputable?

"if someone wants to add them to a country category not of their birth, then a suitable reference should be provided?" - yes, per WP:V and WP:BLPCAT ("Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text. Articles must state the facts that support each category tag, and these facts must be sourced.")

"Is anything being done at a Wikipedia level regarding nationality?": not that I am aware of - and not that that means that we shouldn't. Knepflerle (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been practice "that someone born in x land is categorised as an x ish footballer, unless there is other evidence", that the guidlines suggest a different method is not the issue. Established editors tend to include sources or external links to verify nationality claims, but there are thousands of other editors creating unsourced or poorly sourced articles using the "common sense" method of categorisation. There are many more that insist on using Category:People by ethnic or national origin categories without even citing sources. Inferring nationality by birthplace seems pretty sensible in comparison to inferring ethnic origin by surname.

Everyone that knows about such things accepts that biographies should be sourced as per WP:V and WP:BLPCAT and they tend to use sources. The real problem is what to do about the backlog of thousands of footballer biographies like Pejman Jamshidi (random pick, there are many worse than this) and the dozens of new unsourced football biographies that are created every day. King of the North East 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on which country you are talking about. An example: As far as I know there isn't a single professional footballplayer in the Netherlands born in Suriname or of Surinamese descent with a Surinamese passport. Surinamese law doesn't allow double nationalities, they are all Dutch. The moment these players became Dutch citizens they lost their Surinamese nationality. This explains why there aren't Dutch based played in the Surinamese national team. I used to be an editor of a 'reliable' website and I can tell you that not all editors of this site can be bothered to add accurate nationalities. Most of these major databases are wikipedia like projects facing the same problems as wikipedia.. Cattivi (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I allways say something to this discussions because I use to edit a lot of articles from ex-Yugoslavia, where I found all this questions you guys are dealing here. The problem there is that you have 6 1/2 new countries (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia&H., Montenegro, Macedonia (country), counting Kosovo as 1/2 cause it´s still unclear), and also as many nationalities. But things would be easy if it was this simple (6 countries, 6 nationalities). The problem is that you have: Serbs of Serbia, Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs of Croatia, Serbs of Montenegro, Serbs of Macedonia, Croats of Croatia, Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croats of the Republic of Macedonia, Croats of Slovenia, Croats of Serbia, Croats of Montenegro, Bosnians of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosniaks of Serbia, Bosniaks of Montenegro, Slovenians from Slovenia, Montenegrins of Montenegro, Montenegrins of Serbia, Montenegrins of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegrins of Slovenia, Montenegrins of Croatia, Macedonians of Macedonia (country), Macedonians in Serbia, Macedonians in Slovenia annd the latest incorporation Kosovar Albanians, Serbs of Kosovo... and this all only between the 6 1/2 countries, without counting the Hungarians in Vojvodina, Italians of Dalmatia, Albanians of the Republic of Macedonia, Albanians of Montenegro, Banat Swabians, Serbian Jews just to name some.

Even so, with all this dificulties, I can say that, because of enough good editors, at lest 90% of the biographies are corect despite all difficulties.

But, I had to chose in the categories to consider Abdulah Gegić in Category:Serbian football managers, when he is clearly a Bosnian from Serbia, more Serb than for exemple Nemanja Bilbija a Serb, but from Bosnia, wich receves the Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina footballers.

Where it does hert most is when for exemple, I had some time ago a debate with Necronudist about the list he made with the List of foreign La Liga players where he insists in putting Ratomir Dujković under Croatia, being him clearly a Serb of Croatia, even coaching currently the Serbia U-21 team. The reason he gave me, and you guys here generally aproved, was that since he didn´t play for any National team, he MUST be placed in his birthplace, "couse it would be too much work otherwise"...

This issues can be sensible, remember, there was war between Serbs and Croats there, so this issue may be sensible, like calling an Israeli a Palestinian, and saying it doesn´t mather, he was born in Gaza, so he must be Palestinian, despite his family being Jewish since Abraham... FkpCascais (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I´m not saying Dujković cares, I don´t know (despite he allways stated clearly as being Serb), maybe it is not even important to him, but maybe he had family killed... We should anyway use the nationality as people desire (if possible, as here is) so this way we avoid any missunderstandings. FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It has certainly been practice that we lump people into "category: Xian footballers" by the simple assumption of their nationalities, but that doesn't make it good practice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said that it was "good practice", but it has clearly been established practice. If people feel that the "Xian footballer" category structure needs to be addressed it is going to take a huge amount of tedious work considering the amount of work needed to find sources just for the unsourced footballer biographies, let alone all the ones without specific references for nationality.

I believe there are much bigger problems to do with nationality. Specifically the plague of unsourced "Xians of Yian descent" categories that have descended on thousands of football biographies based on no more evidence than inferral of ethnic origin by surname, in clear violation of WP:CATGRS. King of the North East 21:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

COSAFA U-20 Challenge

Is anybody able to provide a helping hand with the 2009 COSAFA U-20 Cup article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Supporters Groups

I have some concerns with the new article: Supporters Groups. I have made a quick mention on the tlak page and wasn't sure what the best follow-up would be so thought I would bring it up here.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the poor grammar (it should surely be supporters' groups), it seems to be largely copied from ultras: merge back into that? Kevin McE (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't ultra-style groups be a sub-section of supporters' groups? Hack (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Blogs and fansites as external links

An IP has been repeatedly adding blogs and fan chat sites to the Valencia CF article. I've reverted twice but is there any policy or previous discussion against this? Blogs like this Macedonian one don't seem encyclopedic and don't appear on other articles. Valenciano (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:RS. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines on external links can be found at WP:EL, and more specifically what should be avoided at WP:ELNO. Hope this helps, --Jimbo^[online] 14:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But what makes any of the fansites linked to here any more reliable than any other? In many cases omissions will most likely be due to nobody bothering to add their clubs' one, but as a more general question where should the line be drawn? WFCforLife (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Romani Footballers

Is this, [12], a reliable source for Romani Ancestry? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Other sources are needed Spiderone 09:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence?

I created Bill Findlay (footballer) a couple of months ago, and more recently have done some work on it, now that I actually have my Watford book back. Anyway, when cleaned up the disambiguation page I came across William Findlay (s*cc*r) (and I must say, as much as I hate that word there's a lesson on good disambiguation if ever I've seen one).

Anyway, the Findlay I've worked on played for the Scottish junior club Musselburgh Bruntonians. The other Findlay was born in Musselburgh. Furthermore, they were born four years apart, and while I don't know the precise dates that the American international player was at Third Lanark, it seems to be in a similar period to the Watford one. Clearly these are two different people, as they both have differing and verified dates and places of birth and death, but does anyone know how I can try to work out whether one has been mistaken for the other somewhere down the line? WFCforLife (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Emms/Wells book mentions a William Findlay playing for Third Lanark in the 1920/21-1924/25 seasons 93 league matches 6 goals, this is the American one. Nothing about the other Findlay in this source, it's possible that, at least, some of the 23 league matches from the 1923-24 season should be credited to the 'Watford' Findlay, The Emms/Wells book is not always reliable. Players with the same name, playing for the same club at the same time always cause problems.. This was certainly the case in the 1920's. The American Findlay is supposed to have played for Musselburgh as well.. The American Findlay played for Galicia in 1924 Maybe he returned to Scotland to play for Third Lanark in 1924-25 (23 league matches 5 goals) and being born in Musselburgh , he could be the Musselburgh Bruntonians player as well. The Watford Findlay could be the 1920-24 Third Lanark player (70 league matches 1 goal) , would Liverpool pay 2500 pounds for a player with 0 league appearances (August 1924, not 1925 according to my copy of Trefor Jones book) ? In my opinion a mistake is very likely but this is all speculation Cattivi (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've corrected the Liverpool date (the infobox was correct). I assume that Jones is probably mistaken about Musselburgh Bruntonians; it seems so unlikely that they both played for such a small club. Not sure what to do really. Perhaps it is worth mentioning on both players' articles that both played for Third Lanark in the 1923-24 season, and perhaps using your source to help reflect what you have just said in a non-OR way, i.e. that there is only a record of one William Findlay making appearances, but that both were on the books at the club? WFCforLife (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There was also a Billy Findlay who played for Killie and Hibs in the 1990s. I have added him to the William Findlay (disambiguation) page and added links from the other footballer articles to that disam page. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A good edit. Based on this discussion (and indeed, the apparent confusion in reliable sources), I've added {{Distinguish|William Findlay (soccer)}}. Feel free to add the Killie and Hibs player if you consider it appropriate.

@WFCforlife I wouldn't change the Scottish career of the Watford Findlay, at least it is well referenced now. It could be wrong, but I can't give a good reference for the complete Scottish league career of both Findlay's with stats, maybe in the future when the Litster CD Rom of pre-war Scottish players is ready. The only thing that seems to be certain is that the Findlay playing for Third Lanark in 1924-25 was the American one Cattivi (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The career of the Watford Findlay according to the Fossils and Foxes book by Paul Taylor and Dave Smith is similar to the one in Trefor Jones book. According to this source he played for Preston Grange Athletic until 1922 and Musselburgh in 1922-23. All 1923-24 appearances for Third Lanark are credited to the Watford Findlay in this source. (at least a little bit of support for my theory) He played 0 league matches for Liverpool, but he played for them in a friendly match against an international South African touring side. 100 league appearances 0 goals for Leicester He was a qualified physiotherapist and a religious man (an elder of the Presbyterian Church) Cattivi (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's some fantastic research. I've made an edit to reflect his appearances for the English club, which I can't imagine being incorrect. Would you be able to make a brief edit to add your source to the references, and perhaps the detail about his personal life to the prose? WFCforLife (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Fred Eyre

This chap is fascinating, and I've sent him to DYK. It passes (but only just!) the 1500-characters of prose minimum, so if anyone has anymore details about any of the twenty non-league clubs he managed to appear for, it'd be much appreciated! Thanks, GiantSnowman 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyre summarises Manchester City matches on local radio. While he has great appeal to listeners of a certain age, he is the most relentlessly negative summariser I have ever heard; when I get in the car I pray to hear Nigel Gleghorn or Andy Hinchcliffe instead – we jokingly have a theory that Fred Eyre co-commentary is a bad omen for the match ahead. As a result, his book is unfortunately one of the few to prominently feature Manchester City that I do not own. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading one of his books and thinking it was very good, but that was over 20 years ago..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Artur Łaciak

I would like to point out that this player is not notable and should be deleted. He has never played higher than third division (certainly an amateur level in Poland), and being a GK coach even at a major club does not confer notability. I tried to initiate the AfD procedure, but the article author reverted my edits. Please help. 85.221.240.201 (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You actually initiated deletion procedure with PROD, not AfD, which is the correct way to do things in the first instance in this case, (wasn't a candidate for SPEEDY deletion as it made an assertion of notability) but the author is quite within his rights to contest the PROD, which is done simply by deleting the notice. The next step, if you still believe the player to be non-notable, is to nominate it for AfD. Read the information at AfD and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Sing out if you have any difficulty, but looking at your brief edit history I think you'll work it out. ps, thanks for your contributions, why not consider registering an account, it is free and as anonymous as you wish it to be, makes it easier for others to communicate on Wiki things, and WP:FOOTY could always use another member who has an interest in and knowledge of Polish players. --ClubOranje^T 07:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have dug out my old account and nominated the article according to the procedure. Hope for this issue to be speedily resolved, as the evidence is overwhelming. Silvermane (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Hollydays for all!!!

Hi footy lossing time on wiki lovers! Since I´ve seen people are starting to send individual messages wishing marry Christmas to others, I don´t wan´t to bother, so I´ll send it to you all from HERE!!! I really wish you all have nice presents, and I hope we have an excited transfer window. (Sorry, exciting, not excited, but it can work too...). Well, since I saw many of you are complaining about the unsourced articles, I started 2 days ago working on the Serbian players list. I already did more than 50 (I think, maybe more, I´m about the half of the initial list...) and my fingers are hurting me already!!! I just want to ask the so many editors that are adding caps(goals) to those pages, since they obviously care about those players, could they by the way add some sources to the pages? I also wan´t to ask you guys, how many pages do I need to fix to deserve some medal, or something? Wishing you all the best, yours FkpCascais (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You deserve an award, so I've given you a barnstar. Happy holidays. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:First Bundesliga footballers

I am not sure I like the titling of the category, shouldn't it be renamed? Like a name with a date range? Govvy (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

what is the list meant to be, players playing in the german first division or the first players to play in bundesliga?(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Rename to Category:Fußball-Bundesliga players, per naming conventions. GiantSnowman 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, shouldn't categories with names such as "football (soccer) xxx" in the name be moved en masse to "association football xxx"? WFCforLife (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eriterian national team goes AWOL

There are numerous media reports that the entire Eriterian national football team has gone AWOL/ will probably claim asylum in Kenya. I was just wondering if the tournament they were playing in is full international level? Steve-Ho (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The tournament in question is the 2009 CECAFA Cup Steve-Ho (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

PROD: Kristjan Gauti Emilsson

I proposed deletion for Kristjan Gauti Emilsson which expires on 18 December. It doesn't seem to have turned up in the proposed deletion section for the WikiProject Football. For those who aren't aware, Emilsson agreed to join Liverpool from 1 Jan 2010 from the Icelandic champions. He has played three matches for them. My reason for PROD is that the Icelandic league is not fully professional according to the project list. I just wanted to be sure before the PROD expires - is it the case that the Icelandic league is not fully professional? Steve-Ho (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. You are correct, the Icelandic league is not fully professional as confirmed by the reference given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. I've added this PROD to the table. Bettia (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

International youth tournament squad templates

I know this has been discussed before but cannot find the converstation. Are templates such as these deemed notable? --Jimbo^[online] 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Youth championships like that, no. If I remember correctly, the only ones which were deemed notable were the World Cup, the various Continental championships (Euro Champs, African Cup of Nations, CONCACAF Gold Cup), the Confed Cup, the Olympics, and the major FIFA international youth tourneys (like the U17 World Cup, U20 World Cup etc.) --JonBroxton (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Prior concensus was that only senior and Olympic competitions at international or confederation level needed such navboxes. In the case of the Bolivian youth side, it's apparent that very few of the participants are notable and the navbox is mostly a list of redlinks for non-notable players. Jogurney (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

India U-23 national football team results or India national under-23 football team results

India U-23 national football team results and India national under-23 football team results both exist. Are they both about the same thing? Thanks. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.--EchetusXe 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Stadiums

Can someone help me out with Vale Park? I can't seem to be able to make much progress with stadium articles. If anyone has any books/websites or just advice then that would be much appreciated.--EchetusXe 16:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed a little bit about the hight above sea-level section, but that is all I can do to help really. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thnx.--EchetusXe 17:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nottingham 2018 FIFA World Cup Bid

Does this warrant a separate article from the England bid page? The individual city bids are kind of theoretical, dependent on England winning the main bid. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why Nottingham warrant a separate article from the England bid page. The Nottingham bid page should be merged into the main England bid page. --Carioca (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Carioca is spot on, I would merge it. GiantSnowman 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Merge on. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mitchel Hahn

This article was deleted back in the spring after an AfD, but has now been recreated, with the addition of information about him taking part in the 2009 Maccabiah Games - is this sufficient claim to notability to save the article from being deleted again.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

By no means. The list of the UK silver medal squad shows that it is certainly not composed of fully professional players, and we've been here before. I'm intrigued that the GB (sic) team were the first team to reach the final in 50 years: presumably several teams shared bronze in previous editions. Venue of final, according to its article, has capacity of 14,000, casting some doubt on claim in Hahn's article of 60,000 attendance. Kevin McE (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This article appears to be about a player with a claim to notability in that they play football at a level less than fully pro and that they are Jewish. Take away his involvement with the Maccabiah Games and you are left with just another non-notable player with a history of playing for clubs outside the Football League. He is also the only one of the 20 strong squad, Football at the 2009 Maccabiah Games, which appeared in this final in 2009 to have an article created (other than Sam Sloma who has played pro football). --Egghead06 (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Have re-nominated it for deletion here. -- BigDom 09:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to delete this page, semi pro doesn't count here. – Michael (talk) 17:21, 18 Devember 2009 (UTC)

Landon Donovan

The announcement of Landon Donovan's move to Everton in January has lead to repeated disruption at Landon Donovan, Everton F.C., Los Angeles Galaxy and the squad templates for both clubs. Donovan cannot join Everton until the transfer window opens, but IP and registered editors keep putting him as playing for the Blues already. Is it worth semi-protecting any of these pages? Dancarney (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit overly-pedantic. The move has now been formally announced on multiple major news sources, so no-one is jumping the gun. It's fairly standard practice for confirmed, non-controversial transfers to be added to infoboxes etc. once the deal is finalized, even if the player hasn't physically moved yet. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

BBC etc report that Donovan 'has signed' for Everton. No he can't play until January but he has signed a contract with Everton so for the sake of about 2 weeks perhaps not worth vexing over?--Egghead06 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits should not anticipate events. It might be standard practice in other WPs for infobox updates to precede events, but we, properly, try to avoid it here. Some might not consider it worth "vexing over", but does anyone really consider it to be a good encyclopaedic practice? Kevin McE (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's questionable practise. But in cases where it is absolutely certain, I see fighting against good faith, harmless edits as a waste of good editor's time. Indeed semi protection, however quick, takes up admin time that could arguably be put to better use. WFCforLife (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Landon Donovan has signed a loan deal with Everton: FACT. Players who have signed for teams have that team shown in their infobox, even if they are not contractually allowed to play until after a certain date: FACT. How is this anticipating events? These events have already happened. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that anything that happens in 2010 can be described as a fact today, you need to reconsider your definition of the word fact. Whether players have data placed in their infobox is a decision depending on the discretion of editors, and whether that is considered acceptable is a matter of policy and consensus. To say that it is a fact that his infobox had already been edited is indeed a statement of fact, but whether that historical event was desirable in this project is what is being discussed here. If you can refer to a policy of wikipedia, or a discussion wherein this practice gained consensus, please direct us to it. If not, I refer you again to my question: does anyone really consider it to be a good encyclopaedic practice? Kevin McE (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for breaking in late here. The answer is no, I do not consider it good practise. But I simply do not see the benefit to wikipedia of pedantism in instances where we know the information is correct in practise, if not in law. By all means, take action as you consider it appropriate. The purpose of my previous post was simply to point out that discouraging or entirely undoing good faith, true but procedurally questionable edits is not necessarily a constructive thing. One of my first edits as an IP was of a similar nature, and without meaning to blow my own trumpet I would consider the outcome to have been a net positive. WFCforLife (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a good encyclopaedic practice to report the fact that Landon Donovan has signed a contract to play with Everton (or that any other player has signed for any other team), and that he will be eligible to play with the team in January 2010. Infoboxes should reflect these facts. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The article already states that he has signed a contract with Everton, but the field in the infobox is Current Club. He is not currently an Everton player, and cannot be until the transfer window opens. Dancarney (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the text should state that he has signed such a deal: the infobox does not have the flexibility to explain such subtleties, and is better suited to reporting historical fact after the event. A comparable discussion was recently aired at WT:NOT. The appalling alternative is found in infoboxes such as this, giving a date span of 2010-present. Kevin McE (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See also David Beckham for future dated infoboxes.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it's more trouble than it's worth to keep reverting "done deals" over and over. When the player has been in the papers holding the new scarf over his head then unless he's Mo Johnston we might as well just let people edit the article; anything which attracts new editors is good. In cases where the transfer isn't actually confirmed and is just rumour then we have to remain vigilant, however. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. WFCforLife (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry / Henry Abbott

It appears that these two articles, Henry Abbott (footballer), and Harry Abbott (footballer born 1895) are about the same person. In fact, the latter one was created just today, so I was wondering what should be done about this? -- NelsonD92 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge any relevant content into Henry Abbott (footballer) then turn Harry Abbott (footballer born 1895) into a redirect. – PeeJay 22:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The other way round, I'd suggest. Harry Abbott is how the player was known, according to the source used in both articles. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Copa Libertadores 2009 - points v aggregate

2009 Copa Libertadores has reference to 'points' in the knockout tables as the means of illustrating the winner of the 2-legged ties, rather than the usual aggregate. This is explained in the talk pages as due to the fact that Conmebol make no reference to 'aggregate' in the official rules. Is this a common-usage issue though, whereby aggrregate is generally quoted not total points. Had a quick look and here's a couple of sources showing the aggregate. [13] [14].

Note the page is currently protected, but this seems to be for an unrelated dispute. Eldumpo (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the official rules of the Copa Libertadores, the winners of two-legged ties are first determined by points (3 for a win, etc). It makes sense: if you win both legs, who really cares what aggregate is, and if you win one leg and tie the other, aggregate doesn't really matter again since you pulled of a W and the other team didn't. But, if there is a tie in points, the following is officially taken into account according to the rules: 1) goal difference; 2) goals scored; 3) away goals; and 4) penalty shootout. It therefore makes no sense to mentioned aggregate if it is officially never taken into account, although it is common practice in the media anyways. Digirami (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I must also add that the 2009 edition is not isolated in this system. I have the rules going back to 2005 and it is still the same: points, not aggregate. I suspect that this has always officially been the case for the Copa Libertadores since teams in 1960 (the year of the first Copa) advanced on points, not aggregate (but it is something I can't definitely prove). Also remember that newspapers are likely not keeping tabs on the official rules (more so if it is not in the geographical area). And since those are British sources, they are likely to adopt a system that they know for similar circumstances: aggregate. Digirami (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response although the key point I am making is not what the official rules are but what is regularly reported in the media (and noting you say above 'It therefore makes no sense to mentioned aggregate if it is officially never taken into account, although it is common practice in the media anyways.) It's a fair point re sources but I have also found French/American media sources that are referring to aggregates. [15] [16]

Anyone else got a view on this? Eldumpo (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But again, the media is reporting a fact that is never officially taken into account when it comes to two-legged ties in the Copa Libertadores (or any CONMEBOL competition). We should not be posting details that are officially non-existant. Digirami (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

European stats website - spam alert

I got a spam alert when trying to reference a source to the eu-football.info website (can't give a full link to it!) which seems to have a very useful national teams database, including historical line-ups. Anyone know about this spam issue and whether it might be based on a past problem, or can this site just not be linked to for the forseeable? Eldumpo (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Site is on the Global Spam Blacklist (as opposed to just en.wiki) here. Site was added based on this report. You can request removal from the blacklist if appropriate here. Camw (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not temporary. I tried to add a link from this site one or two month ago.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Shoutout

For editors not following the discussion anymore, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Proposal and the preceeding discussion. It would be a shame if the vast discussion does not result in consensus of some sort. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Argentine Browns

I've recently created the article Brown family (Argentina). Does anyone have any good sources that I could use to expand the article? Hack (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bon voyage

Hey guys, I'm going travelling in a week so I'm pretty much going to be off Wikipedia for a whole year - estimated return date is mid-December 2010. The only articles/tasks I consistently update/do are List of Bradford City A.F.C. players, List of Hamilton Academical F.C. players, and the AfD archiving here. If someone could keep an eye on these for me it'd be much appreciated! Oh, and if you need to contact me you can do so by e-mail. Cheers, GiantSnowman 17:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As you say, Bon Voyage. Your contributions will be missed. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a great trip!! Take care en route. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See you later. Will be lots to keep up with in your absence! Cocytus [»talk«] 17:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What they said. Have fun!! cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck :) You have been a fantastic contributor to this project. Enjoy your break! --JonBroxton (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We'll and I'll miss you and your contributions.Bonne chance. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice trip!--EchetusXe 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a great trip! We will miss you and your contributions. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this week came at a good time, you get to acclimatise before you even get there! You'll be missed. WFCforLife (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, enjoy yourself, and see you in a year matt91486 (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words everyone! :) GiantSnowman 12:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Upgraded current squad template

It has been mentioned at WT:FOOTY a few times previously, but I thought I'd mention it again as a lot of editing time can be saved by merging the code for the football squad and the navbox using {{Fs2}}. I have made a blank version which can be found here. When this has been done there is far less work to be carried out per team once the dreaded transfer window opens again (tick, tick, tick...)

I have already upgraded the finest team in the land to the convertable navbox/current squad. King of the North East 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Something must be wrong with Wikipedia....that link goes to 'Boro! --ClubOranje^T 10:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

They put up a good fight against the second best yellow team in the world a few weeks back. WFCforLife (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, although I would suggest making the spacing between the trigramme and the position smaller. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I Agree with JonBroxton. But that is a major improvement in copyediting.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, the three letter code is a complete waste of time. Either go the whole hog and put the country name in, or don't bother. The acroynm is ludicrous and in very clear defiance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations), a guideline that is indeed far less controversial than the one that initiated this entire debate. WFCforLife (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

2002-03 season articles

I am in the process of individual club articles for the 2002-03 season (see Template:2002-03 in English football. I would appreciate some help from editors with filling in results and squads (particularly if it is your team) using the style of the Manchester United F.C. season 2002-03 article. Please let me know if you can help. Thanks. 03md 15:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Watford one is on my to-do list. Although to be honest, they shouldn't be created unless there is an intention to make said article more than a bunch of stats. WFCforLife (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall get started on improving the Plymouth Argyle page, though I must say that I like WFCforLife's layout more! I'll focus on getting the table's done first and then add text with references when I can. David J (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We need to try and establish consensus on the layout of the page at the Season article task force on the layout of the page. I like the Watford page layout but we have different setups on virtually every article in the 2002-03 category. 03md 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the biggest sticking point seems to be that nobody wants to change the way their results are formatted. To be honest I don't think we necessarily need to agree on that one. Where we do need to reach consensus is on what a season article should cover (suspensions? loan deals? seperate stats for goalkeepers? routine coverage of finance, or only in exceptional cases, such as Watford this season and in 2002-03? what should the prose cover? etc). WFCforLife (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm quite comfortable with the collapsible style, but I'm not surprised there are many differences on other club pages because its down to the personal taste of the editor involved. Loan deals are fairly standard, but suspensions would probably be harder to find, especially if we're going way back (60's, 70's, etc). I see no problem covering finance in exceptional circumstances when details are readily available in the public domain, but otherwise its a bit tricky. I'll try to get a bit more done before I call it a night, didn't realise how long it took, but its worthwhile and satisfying. David J (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Cards in Match Results

I'm hoping to achieve a consensus here to defuse a brewing edit war. Namely, should red cards be included in match results? I believe that they should, as they are an important part of a given match, both in terms of play and in terms of statistics. Additionally, while the major argument of opponents that I've run into seems to be that the particular template parameter red cards are entered into is "goals", I think that the parameter's name is simply a useful abstraction of the information that should be included within it and not necessarily an exhaustive list of what's allowed. Again, though, I'm hoping to achieve some sort of consensus on this matter so that a policy can be established for future match result articles and edits. cassius1213 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that red cards should be included as they do not directly contribute to the result of the match. Match results are not determined by the number of red cards suffered by each team, but by the number of goals each team scores. While it is true that a player getting sent off may make it easier for the opposition to score, that is merely an indirect consequence of the sending-off. – PeeJay 23:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of including both red cards and yellow cards in match reports if the editor is willing to put forth the effort to make the whole page consistent. I can't stand pages that have card information for some matches and not for others. It either needs to be all or none for a given page. As long as there is an external link to a match report that includes the card information, there should be no problem with WP:V either. On club season articles in particular it is very useful when trying to determine when and where a player accumulated all of their cards. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the context. If it's a match article, certainly (and yellows and substitutions too). If it's a season article I personally include red cards, but not yellow cards (or indeed substitutions). The fact that one team had nine or ten men may or may not have had an effect on the outcome of the game, and I believe it's up for the reader to interpret. Also, the danger of excluding reds entirely is that red cards against the team are pointed out in the prose, while red cards against the opposition are sometimes not, thus unwittingly introducing POV. WFCforLife (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Red and yellow cards must be included - they are significant events during match play. Leaky Caldron 09:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Just to clarify, this discussion is about {{footballbox}} and {{footballbox_collapsible}} only. It is indisputable that yellow and red cards should be included next to players' names in articles such as UEFA Euro 2008 Final or 2008 UEFA Champions League Final, but the argument here is whether or not they should be included in the match summary templates in the "goals1" and "goals2" parameters. Sorry for the confusion. – PeeJay 10:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is key. If red cards are included for one match then they must be included on all matches.--EchetusXe 17:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Undecided. Adding the cards to match boxes can add helpful additional information, but sometimes – especially if there are a large number of yellows – it seems to add more clutter than additional knowledge. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that adding yellow cards to the match boxes would add unnecessary clutter. However, I still do believe that adding the red cards awarded in a match (when such information is available) would still add helpful information. cassius1213 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield United rogues

I've noticed that two of Sheffield United's current squad, Jordan Robertson and Paddy Kenny, are currently unavailable as they are in jail and suspended for failing a drugs test, respectively. I'm not convince that the current layout of the club's squad section is laid out in the best way for this, but wasn't sure what would be better. Should there be a separate section, such as there is for players out on loan, for players on long-term suspensions? Dancarney (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You could replace the wording in the squad list with just other=unavailable, and then put a reference after the closing }} with an explanation of why they're unavailable and a source to verify it, along the lines of <ref>Serving prison sentence of xx months imposed in month-year for details-of-offence.{{cite news |......}}</ref>

Or alternatively take the wording out of the player line entirely and have sourced footnotes at the bottom of the section, as I did in this version of Birmingham City F.C.

Though from a WP:BLP point of view, it'd be good to add references soon, whatever format you use: it's a bit naughty whoever described them as jailbirds and drugcheats without sources to prove it, even if it is true :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Blew family

Does anyone know if Horace Elford Blew and Frank William Elford Blew are related? Both were born in Wrexham, Horace in 1878 (or 1873, depending on which source you believe; [edit] the 1911 census states that Horace was actually born in 1879, but that shouldn't make any difference) and Frank in 1902. Since Horace was playing football for Wrexham in 1902, I find it entirely likely that they are father and son, but it is entirely possible that they are uncle and nephew. Can anyone confirm either way? – PeeJay 18:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)