Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Template:WPF navigation

Flagicon in infobox, again

Someone told me that the use of smaller flag is reviewing in MOS, but where the discussion? AND why the discussion has not yet closed, they already adding flags, again?! Matthew_hk tc 08:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are discussions at WT:FLAG, but the active discussion seems to be about the meaning of flags in squad lists, not about use in infoboxes. This discussion raised the matter of infoboxes but came to no conclusion and the last posting was three weeks ago. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote

Seeing as you've been previously removing flagicons from footballers' infoboxes, I would like to inform you that we have come to a consensus regarding the use of 15px flagicons in footballers' infoboxes, so please don't remove them in the future. Cheers! BanRay 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He told me, do something, watch him. Matthew_hk tc 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

List of football players with dual nationality (yes, again...)

While I still think having such a page is a great addition to Wikipedia, the page is vastly under referenced and repeats itself all the time. Therefore over this coming weekend I shall embark on a major overhaul of the page, which will include the following changes:

1. Merger of all the sub pages into the main page
2. Removal of ALL unfeferenced players
3. Change in format (see talk page)

If there any major objections or suggestions then please let me know ASAP. Many thanks, GiantSnowman (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you gonna list EVERY Angolan-Portuguese player or EVERY Italian-Argentinan player?? That's crazy...A virtually endless list. --necronudist (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If they have dual nationality than can be referenced then yes. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And it needs to concentrate on what the article title (and lead) states, players with "dual nationality". Not just players who happened to be born in one country and play in (or for) another. Look at Dale Tempest - listed under Hong Kong - but the sucession box at the bottom of his article says he won the best foreign player in HK award. - fchd (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, which is why only players who have a second nationality referenced will be included. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And the flags are going, right? - Dudesleeper Talk 11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you want them to go? If so then I'll delete them, although I would personally prefer them to remain next to the second country, but not the primary nationality. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, flags should go - the proliferation of them on all sorts of articles is ridiculous. - fchd (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me what this list is supposed to be of? I've had a look at discussions on the talk page, and they don't help.

If it means List of footballers qualified to play for more than one national team, it should be called that, and then, so long as every inclusion was referenced, there's no problem, although the list would go on for ever.

On the other hand, if it really means nationality, there's no such thing as English, Scottish or Welsh nationality, being born in one country doesn't automatically give you nationality of that country, etc, etc, etc. yours confusedly, Struway2 (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This page seems like an endless list of confusing information: surely in Britain alone there could be thousands of British players with parents/grandparents of Scottish/English nationality, etc. I don't think this page adds any value - why not simply include a trivia section in relevant national FA pages of players who have been capped despite being born in a different country, i.e., actually playing for their second nationality? This must be one of the longest pages on Wikipedia. Fedgin | Talk 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And officially (I mean outside football), no-one has English or Scottish nationality, their citizenship would be British (or if there is a suitable adjective meaning "of the United Kingdom" that would be even better!) - fchd (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have now completed a major purge of the page, the only players who remain on the page now are those whose qualification for a second or even third nation are from a reliable, third-party source - mainly BBC, UEFA, FIFA etc. Any additions would be more than welcome. GiantSnowman (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It needs to explain what the two countries mean. I guess, it's born in one (or nationality of one) but plays for another, but I'm not sure as to the exact meaning of the former bit, and it doesn't say which way round the two are. Peanut4 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have some queries regarding this list. Does a footballer have to be an international to have dual nationality? I guess not. How would they appear on the list? Second, do players have to have dual nationality to end up playing for another country? I guess so but I don't fully understand the nationality issue regarding footballers. Peanut4 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The BBC Source used for a lot of the examples still makes no reference to the concept of dual nationality - merely that the players have African descent. Is it verifiable that Carlton Cole has Nigerian or Sierra Leonan nationality rather than African ancestors? - fchd (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you've summed up my concerns perfectly there. It's been too long a day for me!!! If you're right, then I'm not sure this list is manageable properly. Especially if my above concern, that this is really a list of international footballers, not all footballers, is right. Peanut4 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of your issues, the BBC source is just a temporary source until I find better ones which state that they have a second nationality, not just are of African origin. I shall also add some more info re:inclusion into the introduction. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Crest?

Can I make a point which may appear pedantic, but really is not? A lot of articles have sections called "Colours and crest". Yet the use of crest here is not strictly the proper use of the term crest, as set out in Crest (heraldry). Now, no biggie, you might say, and maybe this is a pedantic point; EXCEPT that Aberdeen F.C. has recently been failed as a GA and one of the numerous points made was that in order for it to be improved was that the section titled "Colours and badge" should be renamed "Colours and crest". Now, generally I would think that it is splitting hairs to ask editors of Aberdeen F.C. to make such a change. BUT when I strongly suspect that we're not using the term "crest" properly, and so we're asking somebody to say something wrong to improve something to GA standard, I feel the push to standardise articles and make them all have the same headings and look just like Arsenal F.C. (which is a very good article, I admit) has gone too far. Robotforaday (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't know what is wrong with the term badge. I'd say crest is also correct, but I don't see what's wrong with badge. Secondly, I was quite surprised to read some of the comments at that GA Review anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I think this area needs looking at, and the guidelines could be improved. Badges/crests can get complicated for a number of reasons:

• Several clubs have at some point adopted their town or city's crest as the badge for the shirts.
• The club badge and the shirt badge may not always be the same.
• The terms "Club badge" and "Club crest" may be used interchangeably in sources.e.g. here

These were some of the things I came across when writing the Crest section of West Bromwich Albion F.C. (which I'm now thinking should have been called "Club badge" section!) --Jameboy (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points - the crest is the official symbol of the club, the badge is what the team wear on their shirts. The two are not always the same - e.g. Arsenal used to have an AFC logo on the shirt, and later a simple cannon, before adopting the badge around 1990 or so. The Arsenal F.C. article could do with clarification on this matter, actually - lemme find some sources and I'll update it. Qwghlm (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminiscent of the pitch/field debate a few days ago... :-) Fedgin | Talk 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanaka (talk • contribs)

Did you know...

• ...that WikiProject Football has been in existence for 19 years, 61 days (original page)?
• ...that as well as being our first FA; IFK Göteborg was also our first article to appear on the Main page?
• ...that Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. was the 30th FA?
• ...that Gillingham F.C. was the 1st featured topic?
• ...that we currently have 71 items of featured content (30 FA's, 39 FL's, 1 FP and 1 FT)?
• ...that we only need a Featured portal and a Featured sound to complete the whole set?
• ...that on average, 2.258 items are promoted to featured status every month?
• ...that we've had more than 10 articles featured on the main page?
• ...that we've had nearly 100 entries in Did you know? on the main page?
• ...that we support over 20,000 articles?
• ...that we have over 350 members actively working on Association football articles?
• ...that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Milestones exists?

Well now you do! Foxhill (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly learnt something there - I didn't even know Featured Sounds existed! Now, what could we get for one of those.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that too. I suppose if we got a recording of a football chant or something... – PeeJay 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although it would probably have to be a very well-known chant such as YNWA. I'm not sure the wider WP community is ready to give FS status to a hearty chorus of "the referee's a w*nker" :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Rainham End could be persuaded to rouse up a chorus of The Last Waltz that could be raised to FS and added to the topic :@) Kevin McE (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Well, quite. – PeeJay 08:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the world's oldest football song? --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Being pernickety, I assume Gillingham was football's 1st FT, but not the project's? --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SUFC and WP:SWFC

Does it not bother anyone that these are the only two WikiProjects solely devoted to individual football clubs? Personally, I find it quite divisive that we have two projects that fit perfectly well under the WP:FOOTY banner working towards their own ends. What happens if there is a conflict on a Sheffield United or Sheffield Wednesday page? Do we default to standards set by their own projects or he ones set here on WikiProject Football? – PeeJay 21:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to wait and see if any conflict actually occurs? And can WikiProjects annex each other anyway? Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are any conflicts then the WikiProject Council can help resolve them. As to annexation, a proposal to push projects towards taskforces and banner sharing has been kicking around for a while at Wikipedia:WikiProject reform. There still has to be a consensus from both the main project and the sub-project (or the wider community if necessary) that annexation would be a good idea. There was also a rejected proposal to turn WikiProject Sheffield United into a WP:FOOTY taskforce earlier this year (see here), which is a pity as it'd help structure the Project better as per the rationale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects. As to standards, we have our own tried and tested methods and style that are applied to a very wide range of articles and know that sticking to these (with their occasional tweaks etc) help us in the attainment of producing high quality content, whether any other non WPF:MOS/precedent/styles/standards will stand up during PR or FAC is something we'll have to see in the future. Foxhill (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what value they add. I mean, Gillingham F.C. achieved Featured Topic status without having its own taskforce or project. If you have a project or task force for every club, the parameters for the main footy project's talk page template would become unmanageable. Also I have left messages on the SWFC project talk page before and not received a response. --Jameboy (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. A WikiProject is supposed to bring Wikipedians together to work on a wide range of related articles, such as articles on Star Wars or Harry Potter. I fail to see how WP:SUFC and WP:SWFC, with their combined total of 20 non-unique members, fit in with those criteria. Even Football in England by only a taskforce, so why are these two clubs worthy of an entire WikiProject? To be honest, I'd be happier promoting the English football taskforce to sub-project status, and demoting WP:SUFC and WP:SWFC to taskforce status. – PeeJay 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned when someone suggested demoting WP: Sheffield United on the discussion page - I for one am not interested in contributing to a 'wide range of articles' on Football - only those directly relating to SUFC. Therefore I would not join WP: Football or any England Taskforce. If a project is the way the members of those two existing projects wish to organise themselves surely that is up to them and not for people outside that area to demand changes? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because you're a member of a particular WikiProject doesn't mean you have to contribute to articles across the entire range of the project's scope. Hell, I'm a member here at WP:FOOTY, but I mostly contribute to articles about my own club, Man Utd. Basically, I don't have a problem with WP:SUFC or WP:SWFC, per sé. I just think that, just like you can have over-categorisation, it's also possible to have over-projectification, and these two seem to fall into that bracket. – PeeJay 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have a problem with them why start a discussion asking if their existance "bothers anyone" and suggesting they're devisive? As I said I would not join WP football as I'm not interested in 'Football' and have no views on the merits of articles about Leeds United seasons, football chants or FC Limburg - so therefore I would never look at the discussions on these pages and as such not input into any discussions relevant to my area of interest requiring consensus. - and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. What I am interested in is working on articles about Sheffield United FC and (like others in the project) feel that having a project page is a useful way to keep abreast of the area of my interest. I see no difference between a WP Sheffield United and WP Star Wars as someone mentioned - surely by the logic espoused here WP Star Wars should be annexed by WP: Film? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are twisting my words. When I said I don't have a problem with either project, I meant that I think the work done by each sub-project is good. However, I do think that their status as sub-projects is undeserved, and somewhat divisive, as I feel that there could be double- or even triple-standards issues creeping in, due to the individual style guidelines set down by WP:FOOTY, WP:SHEFF and the sub-projects themselves. Like I said, you don't have to be active in other areas of WP:FOOTY to make a significant contribution in one particular area. Anyway, I realise you may feel threatened that a project you are strongly involved in could face some drastic changes. However, it is my personal belief that both WP:SUFC and WP:SWFC should be demoted to become taskforces of both WP:SHEFF and WP:FOOTY. Whether other people agree with me or not remains to be seen, but this is my opinion and I stand by it. – PeeJay 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you belive then that WP Star Wars should be annexed by WP film? I repeat my asertation that Sheffield United exists as a notable entity in it's own right and not merely a footnote in football and as such editors with a particular desire to work on articles pertaining to it should be allowed to organise themselves and do so in the manner they see fit. What editors who work on other clubs choose to do is up to them.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that WP:STARWARS should be "annexed" by WP:FILM as it has a very broad scope, covering an entire in-universe. The number of articles pertaining specifically to Sheffield United F.C. pales in comparison to the number of articles that are uniquely related to Star Wars. – PeeJay 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's six films. OK - they're popular ones and have generated a lot of spin off merchandise but it's still just six films. Compared to the sum total of filmic output in history it's miniscule. So surely by your own argument it should be subsumed by WP Film. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, both sub-projects seem to regard themselves more as daughter projects of WP:SHEFF than WP:FOOTY, hence their reluctance to become taskforces of WP:FOOTY. – PeeJay 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Excactly - they were set up as sub-projects of Sheffield so if anything fall within it's bounds. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of Sheffield Wednesday, does anyone think the Sheffield Wednesday F.C. page is worthy of FA anymore? The lead doesn't seem long enough, the history section quite short, perhaps lacking in references and not up to the current style. I reckon it could do with a bit of work on it. Peanut4 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead must have been hacked at some point as the paragraph on the stadium went missing so i've reinstated it. I'm not sure what you mean by history section being too short. It had to be cut down to get the article up to FA status. josh (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the view of PeeJay in this debate - they would be more likely to fall under the remit of the city project rather than the footy project, IMO. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have no preference for whether the projects fall under WP:SHEFF or WP:FOOTY. I was merely bringing an element of the discussion at WP:SUFC that I had noticed to this discussion. – PeeJay 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a member of the SUFC wikiproject. I see that Category:WikiProject Football contains 3 club wikiprojects - SUFC, SWFC and Real Madrid. This seems entirely appropriate. Seriously, though, I see no problem with the present set-up. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to post my 2p here - there is nothing wrong with a project having more than one parent or a taskforce being part of two related projects, this has been used by us for the FC Bayern Munich taskforce which is a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Munich and football (soccer) in Australia which is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian sports. This type of Inter-WikiProject co-ordination can help bring more editors and interested parties to assist in collaborations.

As to the subsumation of active projects, I believe that without consensus from the proposed subsumee that this not be a welcome move - this was why when I suggested that WP:SU (which I believed to be inactive at the time) become a taskforce that I stated "I will not do this if there are any disagreements" and eventually didn't. As per the guideline at WP:COUNCIL - "Talk to the potential child WikiProjects about co-ordination, and see what sort of response you get. Be careful not to try to dictate to them; they could be sensitive about you appearing out of nowhere and wanting to assimilate them.", the guideline also allows Parent projects to adopt/usurp inactive projects and turn them into taskforces.

The main reasoning behind Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects was as follows (quoted from the page which I'm sure you've all read)

As the majority of spin-off's and other collaborations relating to association football will be using the same stub templates, talk page banners and manual of style - a separate project is not needed. In fact, a separate project that uses so much of WP:FOOTY's infrastructure would be a task force in all but name.

By creating task forces and integrating them into the projects talk page banner, {{football}}, the amount of clutter on talk pages is also minimised.

Another good reason for the preference of task forces over projects is that of communication. Projects on Wikipedia frequently fail to let others know what they are doing, what proposals are being made, what consensus has changed. Sometimes this can cause a lot of conflict, especially over notability or manual of style changes. By bringing everyone together and providing them with a centralised discussion point we hope to avoid this and help to keep everyone informed and aware of what's happening in our field of interest. We wish to avoid the 'them and us' feeling that can exist between large projects and their children.

There is a large amount of background discussion that led to this statement, including the appearance and quick stagnation of a number of projects, disagreements over the amount of banner templates placed on talk pages (Imagine if all sub-projects had their own individual banners and a female player from Ireland who went on to appear for Sunderland, an American team and finished her playing career in Australia before coming back to England to manage a non-league team - that's seven different possible football related tags on a talk page), some projects using WP:1.0 assessments and others not.

The recommendation that all new focus groups take on the taskforce role relates to the past stagnation and, in some cases, eventual deletion of projects that had a ill-considered scope or lack of interest. It also took into account the longterm proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject reform to eventually restructure all projects into superproject/subproject/taskforce format.

Ideally, all football related projects would be located under one umbrella, this way we could provide statistics for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects to assist them in Wikipedia CD and DVD releases (of which there were 18 football related articles in the last release and selection for the next is currently underway).

We don't want to force others to write on "all association football topics", you join a project because it's goals are the ones you want to help achieve. We have however identified that other projects come under our scope and work towards a subset of our subject, it would make sense to link them together in some way so that when an article is removed from your scope - WP:FOOTBALL will continue to work on it. Also, if someone has a problem or issue with an article they'll usually come here first as this is main collaboration point for all football/soccer topics.

I don't suggest or mean to imply that you become a taskforce just so it looks nice on WikiProject Footballs stats-sheet, if you don't want to, don't. Whatever happens you will still be marked as a football related sub-project purely due to the reasoning above.

Please do continue to use our Manual of Style and other tools/templates/resources, please do use our featured content as guides when improving articles and most importantly - please do keep this page watchlisted, doing this will help to keep you informed of other discussions (including deletions and notability issues) that may affect you.

Hopefully, all that explains my take on all of this (probably badly and very wordily). Nanonic (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Projects on Wikipedia frequently fail to let others know what they are doing, what proposals are being made, what consensus has changed. - like having a discussion on a completely different project page that the users of another project probably never visit and then turn up wanting to make unilateral decisions you mean? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be a long 'rant' but it's pretty much spot on. The most concern for me about a separate project is they adopt different styles, etc, some of which would cause conflict with the main project. Peanut4 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of a Sheffield football taskforce replacing the two projects. Communication is already good between editors of each club making the projects redundent at times. With a combined taskforce efforts can be combined on articles such as Steel City derby and Bramall Lane that hold an interest to both sets of editors. Some of the more minor articles on Sheffield football would also benefit from the combined taskforce. josh (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

These "more minor articles" are doing very well without a combined Steel City Football taskforce. Take a look at Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. - FA without even the sniff of a footy project. Or maybe template:Football in Sheffield, created off your own back without the need discuss in a project. I set up WP:SUFC as a sub-project primarily of WP:Sheff, and used this and WP:SWFC as the template. I do not particularly want to be absorbed into WP:FOOTY as I think the current set-up works well. I created a seasons page based on the Wednesday page. I'm working on a list of players based on what we saw at Aston Villa, so there is already standardisation and intercollaboration, I just think that placing WP:SUFC as a WP:FOOTY taskforce could divorce it somewhat from WP:Sheff. Just as a mark of how little I care about WP:FOOTY (and no offence intended to what you guys are trying to do here) is that I was only made aware of this discussion here by a user on my talk page - if there's a threat to discussion of whether to annex WP:SUFC, shouldn't a comment be left on WPT:SUFC? Or did PeeJay2K3 want to try to sneak it through against the wishes of the sub-project in spite of Nanonic asking and getting an answer in the negative? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point - as far as I'm aware there have been no conflicts of interest or style because of the existance of either WP Blades or Owls so it seems to me that people are trying to create a problem that doesn't exist. And as I will keep saying until I'm blue in the face the point of projects is to bring together users with a shared interest and enthusiasm for a particular subject and as far as I'm concerned Sheffield United is a subject in it's own right and not merely an aside of football. I'm pretty sure that most people who edit football related articles never visit WP football or look at the discussions and therefore are never going to pay attention to your style guides etc - but I'm sure a lot more would engage with projects based around their own club and therefore be more likely to work within an overarching 'brand'. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair regarding Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C., I contributed to the PR and FAC only because I'm a member of WP:FOOTY and they were listed on the project page. They would have probably passed anyway, but without the project, my input would likely have been absent. Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of WP:SWFC I feel that I should add my opinion to the discussion. Firstly, some people have mentioned that they have posted comments on the project's talk page and not receoved responses. I believe that the main reason for this is that the project has become neglected due to unconstructive edits made by Wikipedians who for some unknown reason had a problem with a project (as an example, someone went and removed Template:WPSWFC from the talk pages of all the related articles, and at the time I did not have the time or inclination to go around restoring them all again).

Secondly, I am with Josh, and believe that forming a Sheffield Football taskforce or wikiproject to replace the existing ones would be a good idea, however I would only agree to this if there was a concensus between all members of the two existing projects, and at present this looks unlikely. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an important point - it sounds like the WP Owls was seriously damaged by the interference of people from outside of it who wanted to steam roller their own views of the world. The list of sub projects on the WP Football pages reads like a hit list - with the word deleted proudly displayed against many of them. All these projects will have been instigated by people who had an enthusiasm for a subject and wanted to work together to improve that content. I wonder how many of them still retain the enthusiasm for writing on that subject for Wikipedia now they've been told their interest is unimportant and worthy of deletion? It sounds like the actions taken against WP owls have actually adversely affected the quality of content on that club - which sort of goes against your stated intentions doesn't it? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my point exactly Bladeboy. I was so angered and demoralised by the attack on WP:SWFC that I stopped editing Wikipedia altogether for several months and have only recently started contributing again; now the witch hunt seems to have started again (I notice that a link to this discussion has not been added to the talk page on either of the Wikiprojects - one could be forgiven for thinking that there was an intention to exclude members of the two projects from this discussion!).

I think that the arguments that have been made against these two projects are very weak indeed and as you say, both projects have been created in good faith with the aim of improving related articles. I am personally very proud of the work that has been done on Sheffield Wednesday related articles (such as the main article gaining FA status) and believe that the Wikiproject has played an important role in these improvements. Who is to say that they should not exist because no other English clubs have one (nobody is stopping Man Utd creating a Wikiproject if they so wish) or because there are only a handful of members? The point is that these projects and their members have done some important work for Wikipedia that probably wouldn’t otherwise have been done.

Finally, it is worth noting that the scope of both projects is HUGE - including current and former players and managers there are literally thousands of related articles - and there is still loads of work to be done. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why both cannot and should not remain. Yes, some articles will be in multiple projects - Derek Geary as an example could be in WP Blades, WP Owls, WP Footy, WP Ireland, WP Sheffield, WP Yorkshire and WP Biographies, but there have been no style debates. By the logic of many of the arguers here, WP Footy should be disbanded, as the players articles go to WP Bio, the clubs to individual cities, the stadia to WP geography/WP Buildings&Structures etc. Nobody is proposing that now there is a WP Yorkshire, we should remove WP Sheffield, WP Leeds and WP Bradford! Why SUFC/SWFC? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Leeds seasons FL

Hello everyone, just a quick note to say that this article was promoted last night to featured status following an excellent collaboration of WP:FOOTBALL contributors. Thanks to everyone involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Football chant

I came across this article the other day, and it was in a terrible, terrible state. I've attempted to clean it up and give it some structure, but perhaps some other editors could also have a go. I think the Club-specific songs section needs particular attention. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job! On that note, I've tried to cleanup Michael Mifsud and have added a load of references to the Coventry part of the article, but cannot find anything for his career before Coventry. D.M.N. (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

wp:flag discussion

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the use of 15px flagicons in footballers' infoboxes, please feel free to throw in your opinion, cheers. BanRay 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment over there, but I simply hate the proliferation of them in infoboxes. Peanut4 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jason Dozzell

I just read his article!! Two things there, not sure if it true or not, or if it is vandalism! First being: He was recognised as being useless without Chris Kiwomya. The next: He is generally reckoned to have wasted his football career, and now runs a market stall. I mean!! Is that vandalism or not?? Govvy (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism so I reverted it. Woody (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also taken the bit about the Spider-Monkey. It might be true (though I seriously doubt it) and no references and nothing on google. Peanut4 (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he was useless without Chris K, but it was still vandalism! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ritchie Jones

82.17.183.68 (talk · contribs) has recently been editing this article to state that Jones has been allowed to leave Manchester United on a free transfer, and that this was corroborated by MUTV. Unfortunately, MUTV is not a channel that many people subscribe to, and so it could be quite hard to verify this claim. When I reverted the edit to the Ritchie Jones article, the aforementioned anon reverted my own revert, stating that he was Jones' agent and that I was vandalising the page. I have therefore reverted his revert and explained to him that since the information is not verifiable, it cannot be included. Can anyone recommend a further course of action? – PeeJay 10:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack, the fact that no-one watches it does not stop it from being verifiable, with enough information about it - interested parties could request tapes - but it would need to be cited correctly using {{cite episode}}, {{cite video}} or another. The line "Jones has just been granted a free transfer by Sir Alex Ferguson and has been confirmed on United`s own tv channel MUTV." is useless without a cited source giving the date and time or show that this was announced on not to mention written in a very newsy tone. The fact that there is no announcement on the club website or any other news source would lead me to think it was dubious too.

You are correct to remove the quote under WP:BLP - "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (see also here).

You may find that reminding them that no-one WP:OWNs a particular article and - if they continue to say they are his agent - that they should avoid editing articles in which they have a Conflict of interest helpful (as well as using {{Uw-coi}}) and link the to the Business FAQ. Not that I believe for a second it is his agent mind you. Nanonic (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You should not have kept reverting repeatedly. Neither of you have been vandalising, but you have been edit warring and both of you have broken 3RR. Endeavour to keep it to the talk page. A proper handwritten explanation of your actions is far more productive in this sort of situation than a revert or templated warning.

I buy the agent thing, what with ~70 edits to the article over the course of year when the player is a low profile reserve, but our threshold is verifiability, not truth. If he is to leave the club I would expect it to be in the Manchester Evening News in the next couple of days. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I took the issue to WP:AN/3RR, and the anon was blocked for 24 hours. During that time, another anon (123.242.230.168 (talk · contribs)), edited the article, stating that Jones' release had been reported on givemefootball.com, the PFA's official website. However, I ran a quick search of that website for any info I could find about it, but none could be found. I therefore reverted the new anon's edit, explaining my reasoning in the edit summary. This morning, Jones' "agent"'s block apparently expired, and they have made an edit exactly the same as the other anon's edit. What should my next course of action be? Can I report it as vandalism yet? – PeeJay 10:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On givemefootball there is a link in the left navbar to Player Transfer Directory. You probably have to register to access it, but registration is free. I searched in there, and Jones comes up as Trainee-YT Currently on Transfer List, but doesn't come up in the Free Transfer class. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Matthieu Bochu

I'd appreciate some guidance as to whether this is genuine, a hoax, or a typo version of an existing article. Or something else I didn't think of! --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He does seem to exist, although the details seems to be a bit, ahem, all over the place..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like someone is adding bogus details to FC Istres players (see Nordine Assami). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed Bochu's article. Now I'm after the vandal. Thanks guys. --Dweller (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He exists, and played for Fiorentina during their Serie C2 stint a few of years ago. --Angelo (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Updates during matches

Is there a definitive consensus or policy about in-match updates, to prevent the unseemly race to post goals during events such as the present ACN tournament. My opinion is that this project is an encyclopaedia, not a live news service, and that latest scores in a results section are a projection, not a fact, but many editors just ignore any attempt to revert to the pre-match situation, no matter how argued. Kevin McE (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Total waste of time but I can't see any way of preventing it from happening unless you (semi)-protect all active pages (such as the African Cup of Nations pages)... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to updating match summaries with live scores, especially as I don't really see how it can be stopped. Even I've been guilty(?) of it in the past. I am, however, opposed to updating league tables and goalscoring charts while matches are still ongoing, not least because it can be quite confusing when it comes to updating the tables after the game. – PeeJay 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While I can't understand the motivation for anyone to update articles rather than watch the football, it seems more hassle than its worth to do anything other than ignore it. They're not really hurting anyone, just being a bit sad. Robotforaday (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a laptop it's very easy to do :) That said I don't see the point in worrying - matches only last 90/120 minutes and the effort to police them would very quickly be of no use whatsoever. Plus, it detracts from our own enjoyment of the game. Qwghlm (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Updating league tables and goalscoring charts is a big big no-no. What happens if they game gets abandoned? The goals will be chalked off a players record and the result obviously not count. However, it can't be stopped unfortunately. The same as people updating players when they're about to leave to another club, etc, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion - it's probably unhelpful but ultimately harmless and (beyond page protection) impossible to prevent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You remind me of the chaos that descended on Zinedine Zidane and its talk page during a certain match. What astonished me was that so many contributors (while the match was still in play) were obviously Italian or French. If England ever made it to another World Cup Final, I doubt I'd even blink before the final whistle. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Wright (English footballer)

Please move Mark Wright (English footballer) to Mark Wright (footballer born 1982), since the other Mark Wright (footballer), is also, um, English. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to the way this has been done - this should have been done requested on WP:RM. As a result of that unilateral move there is now pre-merge article history which has been deleted which is a breach of GFDL - see here if you're an admin. All requested moves should be done through Wikipedia:Requested Moves and not here. Qwghlm (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Apologies. Early morning. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've requested a move there. Chanheigeorge (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

International notability

Would a player who is on the books of an established Premiership side, but hasn't yet made a first-team appearance, and has also played for Wales Under-21s be notable? GiantSnowman (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, Under-21 caps make a player notable. Daniel Parslow was recently nominated for deletion and passed because he has Welsh Under-21 caps. Jimbo^[online] 15:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good - in that case how would I got about getting an article un-deleted? GiantSnowman (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No idea, don't think you can. What player were you talking about anyway? Jimbo^[online] 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhys Williams of M'boro who had four Welsh Under-21 caps. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to take it to deletion review........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, will give it a go! GiantSnowman (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:DRV#Rhys_Williams_.28footballer.29. I'm also going to refer them here ;-) --Dweller (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Dweller! GiantSnowman (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If the deletion is overturned, would this mean that South American U-20 players are notable?(since they dont have U-21,making U-20 the highest level of youth football on the continent) King of the NorthEast 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on that rationale, then yes. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Role of infobox

I thought that an infobox has a backup role of duplicating information from the article in the interests of reader. And, therefore, presence of information in infobox is not a valid reason for removal of this information from the article itself. Is that so?   Jhony  |  Talk   15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends, really. If there is just a bulleted list of clubs, then I'd say the infobox supercedes that. But obviously it shouldn't replace prose describing a player's career. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the infobox should summarise information which is already present in the main article. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies!   Jhony  |  Talk   18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Jhony is refering to this edit of mine, specifically the section on Trencin; and I agree that in general it should only be a backup for prose, but in the case like this, where the information is simply a duplication of the infobox, with no additional information about his time at the club, it doesn't add anything to the article. It is simply the stats which are already on the page. If there was some additional prose, for example based on a source which had some information about his time there, then I would be happy to include it again. John Hayes^talk 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have removed that section - while simply describing the infobox isn't great, it's OK, I think. Also, if there is a section for Zenit, having a Trencin section makes sense, however brief, if only for completeness. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Surely I didn't expect that such a minor issue as a removal of two or three sentences would be discussed at WPF. I was going to ask about infobox anyway, not depending on your edits, Jrphayes.
In this particular case, the problem is that I don't understand Slovak language and therefore I can't promise that I'll find a pile of information about Škrtel's Slovak career.   Jhony  |  Talk   20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case I will re-instate it. Nonetheless for arguments sake (I know doing something on one article doesn't mean it should be done on all others) would this mean that ideally a similar section should be added for every club for every player where one doesn't exist? Because if not why do it in this case? John Hayes^talk 20:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Squad changes 2007/08 season

What are people's opinions on such sections in club articles? GiantSnowman (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete on sight, especially if the club has a separate article about their current season. – PeeJay 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a news service. In five years time, who will care which player went out on loan in 2008? The only place for them is the individual season articles. Woody (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

PFC CSKA Sofia

The article is just poor in grammar and orthography.Maybe someone has the time to revise it..-Lemmy- (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks or blacktext?

I have a particular aversion to redlinks, so, in a fit of being bold, I removed the square brackets from the names of those at Gillingham_F.C.#Current_squad who, according to earlier discussions here, should be listed as squad members, because they have been issued numbers (and in the case of Chris Kiely, has been on the bench) but who are not considered sufficiently notable to have an article, because they haven't (yet) made a first team appearance. So, is this a sound practice? Kevin McE (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, as it avoids giving the temptation to create an article which will be AfD'd. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

MLS Draft and AfD

I've just discovered that loads of players that were in the MLS draft, but have not played in a fully pro league have articles. I've put a few up for deletion here and here (and prodded about another 15). However, American contributors seem to think that they should be kept as being in the draft makes them notable. Opinions? пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the AfD discussion, and you'll see there is some serious misinterpretation of what "American contributors" think. Please take all relevant opinions to that discussion please (and if you could lower the tone of condescension by, for starters, not referring to us "American contributors" in the third person like we're the ugly cousins in the family, that would be wonderful). Thanks! --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation? Perhaps you need to read the discussion. What I saw was:

• "obviously, these players were all drafted in the first round"
• "Being drafted in the first round signifies notability"
• "was drafted in the MLS"
• "Although what a player being drafted means in respect to Wikipedia notability has not been specifically defined (AFAIK), common sense should dictate that it falls under the same criteria".

And what is condescending about calling you American? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Treating us as one bloc of editors with a singular mind is condescending. There are any number of rationales that have been expressed in the AfD, and just picking one and using that to stereotype one group is ridiculous. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the evidence presented above speaks for itself. Perhaps some other members of WP:Football would care to comment? пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that MLS draftees ARE notable - they would have enjoyed a college career, the signed for a professional league. We must also remember that MLS sides have restricted squad numbers (about 25ish) so it's not like Europe where young players will spend years in the Youth and Reserve sides. GiantSnowman (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reason being suggested for keeping them is that they have played at the highest level of amateur competition. If the AfDs are unsuccessful, this might also mean that there is a precedent to keep articles on players from the Football Conference... пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My own verdict would be that they fail WP:BIO. I see GiantSnowman's view that squad numbers are small and players will probably play. But it's only probably. If for some reason, their careers were to end before they made the side, then I doubt they would be notable enough. I'd only create once they play a game. Peanut4 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think it's unfair that players who have never played professionally can have an article because they played for their university yet full-time professionals, potentially of many years standing, can't have an article because they play in the Football Conference which is only partially pro..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BIO. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed WP:BIO in detail in the AfD. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not using the interpretation that this Wikiproject uses. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I hurting your feelings by not playing according to your dictates? I don't see any absolutes defined in WP:PROJGUIDE where I must do this or that because of some pre-arranged dogma. Furthermore, I'm taking a line from that article: "A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct; its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal." As far as I'm concerned, conversely, if there is no cohesion among editors on a given issue, said WikiProject has no force to begin with.

This is actually good for this WikiProject. The AfD legitimately challenges the pre-arranged status quo, and "This AfD will create so much more work if the result is Keep" is not nearly a valid argument to quash an article. As far as I know, this can be a potentially necessary evolution in the criteria that should at least be considered. Policy and guidelines are not static, they must be developed when things not previously and seriously considered enter the realm of discussion. Be bold! --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not hurting my feelings, but by making comments like that, you are beginning to push WP:DICK. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOBY --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not answer the points I've raised. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already answered - there is cohesion within the project on this issue - see Rambling Man's comment below. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't stipulate to that either. The American system is clearly not something anyone had in mind when reaching prior consensus. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And on the other hand a college soccer player in the US is far more likely to have media exposure than a Conference player, therefore making them more notable. John Hayes^talk 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Except when it comes to Conference players playing at Anfield/Old Trafford in the FA Cup who are watched around the world. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And I would suggest (if you are refering to the example of Havant & Waterlooville players) that if they have been given a lot of coverage in the media (which some have), and therefore are covered by the "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." in WP:N then they are notable outside of the rules of this project anyway. Surely the football notability rules only cover cases where the players are only notable for having played professional football. For example Freddy Adu was notable before he even kicked a ball in professional soccer, and David Beckham is notable for many things other than football, if you deleted all his footballing history he would still qualify for an article. What I am trying to say is just because a player doesn't qualify under football rules doesn't mean he doesn't under normal notability rules anyway. John Hayes^talk 15:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You could say the same about Rhain Davies, but his AfD ended in deletion. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, i don't know the details of that case, but as someone mentioned WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just because something is done one way in one article, doesn't mean it should be done that way in every other article, every article should be considered on it's own merits. John Hayes^talk 15:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Chill out arbitrary break

Okay, just before this ignites into an us versus them scenario, can I suggest we all chill out a bit, and examine the issues at hand.

• WP:FOOTY have clearly stated their position - without a professional game under their belt, they don't qualify under the project's interpretation of WP:BIO.
• Those who believe draftees are inherently notable need to justify it with the relevant policy. I think this is where the discussion over notability as an amateur becomes the issue.

Now let's play nicely and resolve this! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say something very similar. I think this sums the debate up perfectly. To keep WP:N, the MLS draft and its associated notability and coverage in the media, needs to validate some other policy. Peanut4 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just waiting until notability gets so watered down that I get an article. Let the good times roll. Robotforaday (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk about a biased and slanted summary of the debate at hand. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so the chillout didn't work too well. If you dispute this summary, kindly provide one of your own so that instead of sarcastically digging at the project, we can actually progress the discussion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing sarcastic about it, as there's no irony involved. You're leaving out those of us who are not focusing on the notion that they're draftees, but rather have previously played college soccer, a point that clearly fits WP:BIO, just as clearly as whatever it is you're going on. So let's not get the idea that one side "clearly" has all their ducks in a row while the other side has yet to put on a case. It's disingenuous and condescending and that is where people need to "chill out." --Roehl Sybing (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how they pass WP:BIO. At its highest level, football is a professional sport, so you can't claim they pass WP:BIO because they have played at the highest amateur level, (with the exception of playing in the Olympics), when they haven't played at the higher professional level. If the draft process gives them WP:N then fair play. Peanut4 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

College basketball, College football, College soccer, and College baseball are all amateur sports, even though in all four cases, people somewhere make money playing the same game. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." To say that a soccer player cannot meet this criterion without a full year of MLS under their belt is silly. Patrick Nyarko was the runner up for soccer's version of the Heisman Trophy and has been the subject of profiles in the Washington Post and Roanoke Times. Both of these major newspapers are independent of Nyarko or his school. He is considered to be the greatest player in the history of Virginia Tech and is unquestionably notable. --B (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've just realised that the USL Premier Development League is the highest level of amateur football in the USA, so this argument is completely irrelevant for college players. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that people are misinterpreting the guideline on amateur sports. That is there to ensure that people who play at the highest level of their sport can be included when that sport is not played professionally (e.g. Gaelic football; there are no fully professional leagues in that sport, yet county footballers are notable because they play that sport at its highest level). It is not an "add on" so that fans of sports that are professional can say "not only are our professional athletes notable, but even the ones who haven't made it professionally should be counted as notable as well". That's extending things far too far. Saying that a purely amateur sport is notable at its higher level is very, very different to saying that professional sports are so notable that even people who haven't made it professionally are notable. Robotforaday (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How many of their games are on TV? College sports in America is far more significant than elsewhere - it's on a par with pro sports. We get 100K+ to show up to college football games, but I think there's only one pro stadium that seats over 70K. American businesses shut down for 3 weeks during the college basketball tournament. People who don't otherwise follow sports watch the tournament and participate in "pools" where you fill out a bracket and try to predict the game winners. College soccer obviously isn't as big as the big two, but all of our games are on the radio and a handful are on national TV, including the NCAA final four, in which Virginia Tech played. But the point is, if a player distinguishes themselves in college soccer and the news media takes note beyond merely reporting the results of their games, that's significant. College sports may not be as big outside America, but in America, college sports are big. --B (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As an English person I have to agree with this. College sports (including soccer) are a million miles away from amateur divisions in other sports where there is a pro league. As mentioned above it is on the same level as the pro versions, the only difference the participants are not paid and attend universities. I think an acception should be made in this case for an amateur league. I'm not saying all college soccer players should have articles, but if they are notable players (in the US) they shouldn't not have articles just because of the league they are in. John Hayes^talk 17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

←Actually, I think the project has gone through this sort of thing more times than I care to mention. So to that end the project members are all in alignment as to how a footballer would meet the project's interpretation of WP:BIO. And note that I never said it was necessarily correct, just clear. Also, presumably this money that amateurs are making is from sponsorship, not from their sport per se? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Taylor (again)

I notice Andrew Taylor (footballer born in Hartlepool) has been moved to Andrew Taylor (footballer born 1986) and Andy Taylor (footballer born in Blackburn) to Andy Taylor (footballer born 1986). I know this was discussed a while ago but have these moves been properly ratified? Peanut4 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them being disambiguated by year of birth. The names they commonly go by are different enough, even if they are two forms of the same name, so a hatnote should be enough to direct people to the correct page if they happen to stumble on the wrong one. – PeeJay 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think dabing by birth place is not a good idea, that's why I move them, given they do have different names. Birth places are not as commonly available as birth date, and who in the right mind would check whether other Andrew Taylors or Andy Taylors are born in the same place. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Club statistics and records articles

Hello project. As some of you are aware, I'm in the process of following in the footsteps of project-legend ChrisTheDude, and trying to get our second featured topic, namely Ipswich Town F.C. Although I say so myself, it's going rather well and based on Chris' recent success I need only two more articles to make a comprehensive set, one of which is the List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records. Now Chris just had the Gills version peer reviewed and that was fine over at FT.

I was wondering if it'd be possible to get this article to GA/FA/FL with some rework? Right now it's a pretty long article with little or no prose and quite a massive stat-attack. I've brought up from 1Kb to 28Kb yesterday and still consider it work in progress but I'd like to hear from the project whether this sort of article can ever make featured. For comparison we have Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records and List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records and peer review with Gillingham F.C. records having completed a peer review. I'm more than happy to rework it entirely - now almost all the statistics have been researched it just a simple matter of making it read well and look good! I'd appreciate your thoughts. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason whatsoever, in my opinion. FL seems most appropriate aim and it's eminently achievable. There's very little discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records/archive1, but there are a couple of nuggets worth bearing in mind. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've launched a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records and would really welcome advice from the project on how best to get this to featured status (if possible)...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Footballers with an unknown status

I'm reminded by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Category:Unattached footballers that I created Category:Footballers with an unknown status and posted in in late August 2007, with the idea for others to list footballers who it was hard to find info on the internet and for others to help update. It hasn't happened, despite some early enthusiasm, so would it be better to to have a stub/template message on the player articles instead? Might attract more attention and serve more purpose, as the category is buried away. Altenertaively, it may be better to discontinue this if there is not suitable interest. Wanaka | Talk 12:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not create a template to go on the article that ALSO automatically adds the article to Category:Footballers with an unknown status. This way you can bring more attention to the problem AND have an easy way of tracking affected articles. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made Template:Footballer-unknown-status but not sure how to use a standard football icon...can somebody make sure this has been made correctly (I based it on Template:England-footy-defender-1980s-stub)? Thanks Wanaka | Talk 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this OK? I have one question for you though - was it always your intention to create a stub template? I would imagine that there are plenty of non-stub articles that fall in to this category, in fact I think I came across one recently. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I meant or what I did...just copied from an existing template. I simply want to 'highlight' these pages as needing updating, in the same way a stub highlights a needed expansion. Wanaka | Talk 15:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought. Because you have copied a stub template, the template that you have produced is also a stub template, which isn't ideal. Not to worry, I'll have a look at it and try to convert it to a normal template without changing the appearance. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How's this? I've added the template to Emmanuel Omoyinmi so that you can see how it looks in an article. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Magic, that's much better. Wanaka | Talk 16:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay v Brazil (World Cup 1950)

The article details the build up to the match the aftermath of the match and what happened during the match yet doesn't actually give the final score. Where would be the most appropriate place to put in it, the lead, the section on the match, both? Guest9999 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd put it in the opening sentence of the lead and then in the main section on the match as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the title of this article, I would have expected it to be at Maracanazo, which is a redirect. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was previously named Maracanazo, but on September 6, 2006 the article was moved by Djln. I prefer the name Maracanazo, as this is the term commonly used to refer to this match. --Carioca (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TBH, I have never heard of the term Maracanazo. Might this be due to its usage being perdominant in South America? Then I'd humbly suggest to keep it at the current title, as more people will know what is meant by the match-up. The term could be added in the lead, certainly? --Madcynic (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing you may wish to do is to show the game info using the {{footballbox}} template (or one of the others available), an pre-completed example is shown below -

1950-07-16

Uruguay	2 – 1	Brazil
Schiaffino 66' Ghiggia 79'	(Report)	Friaça 47'

Estádio do Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro

Attendance: 180-200,000 (est)

Referee: George Reader (England)

You can look at the other World Cup Final articles linked at the bottom of the page to see how it's located within articles. Nanonic (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added in the information as text in the lead and in the template (thank you) in the match section. Guest9999 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

F.C. Internazionale Milano#Managerial history

Should the flag for Austria coach Tony Cargnelli be the flag of Nazi Germany? When he was coach, Austria was controlled by Germany. michfan2123 (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a Nazi flag next to a football coach could have negative connotations; I'd personally keep the Austrian flag. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I do not like it either but I think the flag format says it should be like that. Austria's official flag while he was coach was sadly that flag. michfan2123 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

When Cargnelli was born, Austria had not been annexed by Nazi Germany, so the Austrian flag could well apply too. Which one do you pick? Here's a question along the same lines - would someone who fled the Nazis (or some other oppressive regime) to avoid persecution, but had yet to be naturalised by another country, would they have that oppressive state's by their name? Of course not, it would not make sense. WP:FLAG states where any ambiguity may lie, it is best not to bother with a flag, and it is clearly ambiguous here - the swastika was not just part of the flag of a nation state but the symbol of a particular political belief, and to display it alongside Cargnelli's name could erroneously lead the reader to think he adhered to those beliefs as well. It's best to avoid - either choose the (non-political) Austrian flag or none at all. Qwghlm (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea I agree, I was just wondering what Wiki thought about it. michfan2123 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the most elegant solution is to use the Austrian flag and footnote a comment about the Anschluss. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Entertainers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shouldn't the article The Entertainers (NUFC) be merged into the history of Newcastle United F.C. rather than have its own stand alone entry? Peanut4 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a surprisingly full article, but yes, it should be merged with the Kevin Keegan section. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a subjective term and it should only really exist within the context of the NUFC article, as the big icy one says, in the Keegan section. I wonder if we'll eventually be treated to such fun again once KK works his "magic"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started an AfD. I would find it funnier if King Kev failed miserably at Newcastle. I reckon the Geordie public would have been calling for Big Sam's head if he'd have made the same as Keegan. Or is that WP:POV? Peanut4 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm no fan of KK but those NUFC vs Liverpool games were best ever... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral, he's absolutely mint because at least, as suggested above (!), you're generally guaranteed a bit of entertainment. Just the entires story of his appointment unfurling was captivating viewing. Anyway, my mrs is a Boro fan, and

I'm under orders not to like Newcastle! Peanut4 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you find it so funny to have someone Afd an article you spent time to create without any initial recourse to normal discussion, placement of any tags, review of the appropriate policies, or even the common deceny to include you in a discussion such as this one? MickMacNee (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag HAS been placed on the article, and the AfD page is for the discussion, where you can discuss what merits you think the article has, and why it should remain. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with a basic understanding of policies would see that statement as nonsense, Afd is not just a tag like {bias} or {cite}. The deletion policy page lists all appropriate steps to take if concerns are present, the nominated ones of merge or POV are explicitly listed. Further, none of the reasons stated bar possibly whether it deserves an article at all (notability) are listed as reasons to list an Afd, at least not as a starting point. Can you not see from the ensuing mess and divergent impossible to follow debate that arbitrarily closes in 5 days that has followed, that Afd was not appropriate as a start point in this case, even ignoring the nominators proven bad faith here. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As the article is now at AfD, let's keep things calm and not speculate on why it is there. Also, we can better keep the conversation in one place if we close this thread. Especially as there's a good-faith move underway to end the AfD with consensus. I ask you all very nicely not to reopen or continue this. Thanks in advance. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Brazilian player sorting

What should Brazilian players be sorted under - their fullname, or their surname, or their nickname? And what about players whose name and a nickname form their footballing name e.g. Alexandre Pato or Eduardo Ratinho - should they be listed under their firstname or their nickname? GiantSnowman (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I think there are similar players from other countries, but the Brazilians are the key ones. My gut feeling would be to list under their commonname, whether that be nickname or their natural surname. Peanut4 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The same is true of Portuguese and, to a lesser extent, Spanish players as well. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My take on this is whether the player's name may be shortened even further in the media. For example, the sortkey of Cristiano Ronaldo is "Ronaldo, Cristiano", even though Ronaldo isn't his surname. Same for Alexandre Pato, given that he's also rather commonly referred to as just "Pato". However, Rui Costa is never just called "Costa", and Gilberto Silva is never just called "Silva", even though those are their surnames, and should be sorted under "R" and "G" respectively. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. So Eduardo Ratinho should be sorted under "Ratinho, Eduardo".  Jhony   04:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoax?

Is this a hoax? I can't find any record of him. Yet another AfD... пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it to me...a quick Google search doesn't bring up any results about a Livingstone football player of that name. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is. But check out this bebo page and cross check with the page's author. He certainly hasn't played yet and could be PROD-ded anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I already prodded it, but it was removed... пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If he is real, then he is not notable anyway. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Thomson. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm getting a bit tired of creating them! пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the Chris Thomson article creator has another one. Michael Garrett, he would probably be notable if there was actually any evidence that he existed. --Scottmsg (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought all new pages had to be verified. Who has verified this? No references, no external links, nothing on google. Peanut4 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It must have slipped through: [1]. Woody (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded it. Peanut4 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Our January archive is the biggest one yet. I think it is some sort of Christmas hangover. Woody (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how did you find this article.  Jhony   04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was on the bot results list - very handy for picking up crap like this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Useful, thanks!  Jhony   19:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another AfD. Why do people contest these prods?!?! пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Howard Foringdale

Is this article a hoax? Google hits = zero, no mention on the Sutton United website or in the external link included. Created by apparent SPA Matttythewhite, who seems to be spoofing our own Mattythewhite for some reason............ ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be a hoax, no Google hits at all is odd, even for a fake player. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fake. And I'm quite flattered to be honest! Mattythewhite (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Defining country of birth

User:Maracana is changing literally hundreds of football articles to reflect people being born in countries that existed at the time, rather than countries that exist now. Examples would include Mart Poom, Estonia changed to Soviet Union, Gabriel Zakuani, DR Congo changed to Zaire, and Ivan Leko, Croatia changed to SFR Yugoslavia.
What I'm asking is, what are our policies about this? Is there any consensus for this either way? Should this user's changes be reverted? I see that a few already have been, and I even reverted one to Mart Poom, before realising he was doing this on a large scale. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding to this message due to a posting by Dreaded Walrus at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)". In my view, the country of a person's birth should be indicated as it was at the time of birth, like this: "Tallinn, Estonia, Soviet Union". If it is not clear what country the village, town or city of birth is in now, then this should be added in parentheses, like this: "Prague, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic)". There's less of an issue in the case of Mart Poom as Tallinn and Estonia both still exist, though Estonia is no longer part of the Soviet Union, but it would be inaccurate to say that Jan Kaplický was born in Prague, Czech Republic, when the political entity now known as the "Czech Republic" did not exist in 1937. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Poom was born in the Soviet Union, Zakuani born in Zaire and Leko in Yugoslavia. The current countries didn't exist at the time, or certainly not as recognised countries. I certainly remember Graeme Hick (cricketer I know!) was always quoted as being born in Rhodesia and that's what his wikipedia entry does say.

It's a tough one though. Peanut4 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the historical perspective, for consistency across the encyclopedia. If you think about historical figures, it'd be nonsense to say that Trajan was born in Spain, as the concept didn't exist yet. However, where there may be ambiguity (Poom's a good example, as the former Soviet Union covers such a huge land mass) so the situation could be clarified, perhaps with a footnote? --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the historical perspective. --necronudist (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the changes. This is how I have done it with Israeli politicians, and then in the text of the article itself written "born in Tallinn, Soviet Union (today in Estonia)". пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the changes and suggest wording like Number57s. Woody (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. - fchd (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this is all good with me. I've reverted myself. I wasn't sure either way at first, hence why I stopped after the first revert, and brought it here for discussion. Is there a way that adding in the "new" countries can be done via AutoWikiBrowser or a bot, or such? Manually it would be quite a tedious task. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think manually is the only way. You could ask Maracana to do it when he edits from now on. Having a look at a few articles, most of them state in the prose that they were born in Soviet Union (now Estonia). As long as the contemporary name is listed somewhere in the prose, it should be alright. Woody (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am glad somebody has taken the initative to do this, because it's essential if we want to have any accuracy. He probably deserves a barnstar for it... Robotforaday (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(re-indent)I completely agree that this was neccessary. I also think that it would be helpful if we had a link to the current form of the country somewherer in the text as well. Woody (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any mention of this in policy anywhere? If not, perhaps it would be good be a good idea to start a discussion on the relevant talk page about including it, as it would be good to point people in its direction in case anyone starts making good-faith edits changing it back. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to go against the flow here, but I can't agree with the consensus. A country such as Latvia did not cease to exist for the period during which it became part of the Soviet Union; whilst it might be technically correct to say that someone born in Riga in the 1970s was born in the Soviet Union, it's also correct to say that they were born in Latvia. Indeed it's equally correct to say that they were born in the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic. As we are discussing articles about football & footballers, should we not leave the history to the historians. Most of the changes made by User:Maracana were to the country of birth in the player's infobox. To give the country of birth as "Riga, Soviet Union (today in Latvia" seems rather long-winded to me. To use a rather over-used expression, I think we are in danger of trying to be too politically correct. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is PC to go with the contemporary country to be honest. If someone was born in Rhodesia, they were born in Rhodesia as Zimbabwe did not exist. The Soviet Union issue is different. It is the equivalent of saying "Born in the UK", not England, Wales etc. I agree that it can get longwinded in the infobox, which is why I advocated the use of the contemporary status in the prose instead. It is not political correctness in the derogatory form, more a question of accuracy. Woody (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should say "Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union" (for example) in these cases. Apart from that, I agree that the country as it was when they were born should be put there. Woody, I'm not sure I understand your UK example; Soviet Union is a former country, the UK still exists… - MTC (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It was in regards to calling it Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic Latvia instead of Soviet Union because it was still technically "latvia" as an entity. In terms of international discussions it was the Soviet Union, in much the same way that it is UK. (Though it is complicated for sports due to individual teams, so not really a good working example). Woody (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Picking up on some things that Daemonic Kangaroo mentioned, I have a few suggestions:

• If there is an article on the specific political entity that was in existence at the time of the person's birth, perhaps that should be linked to like this: "[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]], [[Soviet Union]] (now the [[Latvia|Republic of Latvia]])".
• If a shortened phraseology is required for infoboxes, it should be the original country rather than the new one, otherwise there is simply a factual inaccuracy. Thus I would suggest either "Riga, Latvia" (note the piped link to "Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic"), or "Riga, Soviet Union". The present political status can be mentioned as indicated in the first point in the introductory paragraph.

I don't think we can simply "leave the history to the historians". This is an encyclopedia; facts should be stated accurately. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of longer infobox, 'cause a simple <br> tag can avoid this. See Aron Winter. --necronudist (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the latter; whatever that person's passport would have said at the time is where they were born (i.e. USSR in the case of Riga). пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, consensus should be reached and probably policies should be changed to reflect it, just to avoid countless and meaningless edit wars like this.  Jhony   15:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The temporary Occupation of Baltic States (1940-1991) by Soviet Union was illegal and not generally recognised, these countries were free before and after that (some of the changes to "Soviet Union" have been made to people born before 1940 too). Overall, changing country of birth to Soviet Union is both confusing and political. What if a person in Estonia was born between 1941 and 1944, what would be the country of birth, Reichskommissariat Ostland? But OK, I did some reverts before I realised the scale of these edits. Feel free to re-revert, if consesus is of different spirit. Oth (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My view is that the general rule across Wikipedia as a whole should be that a person's country of birth should be reflected as it was at the time of birth. However, it sounds like particular issues arise over people from the former Soviet Union as there is the additional complication of whether the occupation of certain countries was legal or not. The issue may well arise in connection with other places as well (Taiwan, for instance, which is not recognized as an independent nation by many countries but as part of the People's Republic of China). This matter may need to be discussed at greater length and by more people in a forum that is not limited to football, possibly back at the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like this should be created? In reply to Oth, I'd say such controversial cases should be treated separately. Surely while changing country of birth to Soviet Union is both confusing and political for some, reverting it back to Estonia is both confusing and political for others.  Jhony   23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion resurfaces in various forms all the time, see for example Talk:Andriy_Shevchenko#Country_of_birth_edit_war. My view remains unchanged from that discussion - it is important to put useful and relevant information, not just stick to a legal definition. For someone born in an empire it is clearly important and relevant to include the constituent country/nation/republic rather than the empire. This is particularly the case if that person's legacy is associated with the constituent entity rather than with the empire. Dkua (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Soviet Union was a country, not an empire; its parliament was "elected" from the entire area. With an empire, the colonies do not elect members to the parliament of the ruling nation. Therefore, someone born in colonial Nigeria should have their place of birth as Nigeria, but someone born in Kiev in 1970 should have it as Soviet Union (now Ukraine). пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would favour: "... Riga, Latvia (then part of the Soviet Union)... ". But if someone was born in say Moscow, Russia, I don't think any reference to the Soviet Union is needed personally. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dkua, who decide on what information is useful and relevant?  Jhony   00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor(s). Dkua (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting definition of an empire you have come up with. Anyway, please don't try to draw me into a semantical discussion on what constitutes an empire (you can just read it here). That was not my point. The point was about providing useful and relevant information. For example, you may not care whether Sergey Korolyov was born in Ukraine or Uzbekistan - his legacy is that of a Soviet rocket engineer. The opposite is the case for Andriy Shevchenko and particularly someone like Oleksandr Hladky. That the latter was born in the Soviet Union is nothing more than an odd curiosity, but you absolutely want to know whether he was born in Ukraine. Dkua (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so. You "absolutely want to know" whether his nationalty is Ukrainian and maybe whether his city of birth is Dvirkivschyna. A possible resolution is to add citizenship to template (definitely Ukrainian in Sheva's case) and then to remove country of birth from Andriy Shevchenko article at all.  Jhony   00:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not "absolutely" but relatively for sure (if you were to choose between knowing that he was born in USSR and that he was born in Ukraine). Nationality is good to know but also not "absolutely" - as you know it can be acquired (eg Serhiy Serebrennikov or Oleg Iachtchouk). Dkua (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that a reader can make one additional click to learn that Dvirkivschyna is in Ukraine.  Jhony   01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would hope so (apart from when someone prints an article to read it at a different time, which people do). The question is why you would want to make it more difficult for the reader by presenting the less useful information and leaving out the more useful one on the grounds that the reader can find the more useful one by making an additional click? Dkua (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're still using the let's help the reader by making it less accurate thing, I see. At least with this thread, and more so with proposed centralised discussion, we'll now have a reference point for future corrections to Shevchenko's article. - Dudesleeper Talk 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think we should be more accurate rather than less accurate. Using the name of the larger entity is less accurate than using the name of the constituent entity, particularly if the larger entity is meaningless to the legacy of the person in question. Dkua (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

JHONY's suggestion of creating a centralized discussion on the matter is a good one. I'd support that. The issues could be more clearly defined so that participants in the discussion can express their views on each one. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. This is not really an issue that affects only footballers, even though the original edits in question were done only to footballers (a fact which I realised soon after posting, hence my crossposting to WT:MOSBIO). Getting a wider discussion going on this would probably be good, especially if it can end with something solid being stated in a policy, to help prevent edit wars in future like those mentioned on the Shevchenko page. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to go ahead and start a centralized discussion and define some of the issues? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm really the best person to summarise these issues, especially as a lot of the discussion above kinda flies straight over my head. If someone else was to volunteer themselves to start the discussion there, I would greatly appreciate it, but otherwise I will probably give it a go in a day or so. Not promising any aptitude when it comes to summarising it, though... Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if you or someone else who isn't WP:COI-accuseable will start a discussion.  Jhony   10:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do appearances in the League Cup make a player notable?

Yay or nay Jimbo^[online] 14:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why not. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. – PeeJay 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. - Dudesleeper Talk 14:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd think so as well, although not strictly meeting the defined criteria, but it's a point worth stretching in my opinion. - fchd (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be different and original and say 'yes' GiantSnowman (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we are talking countries with a League Cup that's worthy of notice. In Germany, the "League Cup" is a joke, compared to the English one. So, yes, with a but. --Madcynic (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the DFB Liga-Pokal would definitely count, as it's a first team competition for top-flight clubs only. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, as there is no competition scheduled for 2008, the issue is not as pressing ;) --Madcynic (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from WikiProject Football/Players

Hi. I posted the following recently at WikiProject Football/Players talk page, but have received no response. Is it possible to get an answer from here?

Hi. I am currently in discussions with another editor over representation of player loan details in infoboxes. I am quite sure that, after a loan arrangement has been agreed, due to the contractual arrangements of a player, his displayed Current club should still be that which holds his registration.

Case in point is Greg Halford, Sunderland A.F.C.→Charlton Athletic F.C., January 31 2008. The editor has altered my edit to show Charlton as the dominant Current club (with the adjunct on loan from Sunderland placed below it), even though his Senior clubs record clearly shows the loan arrangement as being acknowledged. In a loan arrangement (not "transfer", as that is taken to mean full transfer of registration with the appropriate FA from one club to another), the player's contract still belongs to the parent club, and the player can be recalled at any time, without any legal regard to the loan club, who cannot protest or withhold the player from returning.

It's therefore my belief that Wikipedia should follow the legal standpoint, and still show the contract holder as the Current club. I also believe that the squad template on the player's page should be that of his parent club, with the loan club's template below it. In the case illustrated above, the Sunderland template has been wiped. A quick reply would be appreciated, including any previous test cases where consensus was established either way. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An early reply would be appreciated. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd make it explicit that it is only a loan arrangement but show the loan club - after all, that's where the player will be for the defined future. I always do what you've described above, showing (on loan from x) below and displaying the loan club's squad list template. You'll usually see the parent club's squad list showing 'Players out on loan' too. Wanaka | Talk 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Of course the current club field should contain the club a player is on loan with - because that's the club he's currently with. They hold his registration, they are the club he can play for at that moment in time (NB - not all loans can be recalled, and when they can, there's usually notice). Leaving it out is hugely misleading - it makes the loan lower down in the infobox look like it's elapsed. Think of what is useful - someone glancing a player's infobox wants to see the club a player is currently at. Too much of WP:FOOTY is let down by overly literal readings like this, with no thought for what's actually happening, or what's useful. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys have confused what User:Refsworldlee is asking. I was under the impression that he was asking whether we should put "Current club: Sunderland (on loan to Charlton Athletic)" or "Current club: Charlton Athletic (on loan from Sunderland)". Personally, I'd go for the latter. – PeeJay 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary 'case in point' suggests otherwise. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant just "Current club: Sunderland", with the only reference to the loan being in the Senior clubs record underneath. I have already noticed that my viewpoint is in the minority, so I will not be reverting any of the instances I have found, even if I don't agree with it. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I guess I should have read the question properly. However, I stand by my opinion that the loan club should be included in the Current club field, and in that order. – PeeJay 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Stats for B/C sides in infoboxes...

What are people's opinions on having stats for B/C sides (e.g. for players in Spain) or II sides (e.g. in Germany) in the infobox? Examples include Bojan Krkić and Stefan Markolf. GiantSnowman (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Include it if you can find it (and it's comprehensive). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When the B team plays in a professional league, as FC Barcelona B and FC Bayern Munich II do, then the stats are pretty much essential. In other cases, I would say Reserve team stats are useless except in the prose. – PeeJay 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Could someone take a look at Ireland national football team (1882-1950), I think it is ready for submission to the good article review (although one image still needs fixed), but if someone with a fresh perspective could have a look at it, it would be appreciated, thanks in advance Fasach Nua (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming of football league seasons

What is the consensus on the naming of football league seeason? I notice that we currently have The Football League 1888–89 whilst the remaining 10 seasons that have articles so far are named in the The Football League 1889-90 convention (note the use of en-dash rather that hyphen in the former).

Also, The Football League 1888–89 has previously been moved from The Football League 1888-89.

What is everone's opinion on this? We should use the same system for all seasons (i.e. Premier League etc, etc.), but which one? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, my vote would be for the en-dash version, but we would need to make sure that there are redirects from all "-" versions and maybe even "/" versions too. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Arguez AfD

Hi all, the above article has been up for deletion for a number of days on grounds of non-notability (lack of first-team club appearances); it now seems like he made his debut today for Hertha Berlin, earning notability. Don't know if this affects anyone's vote, but thought I'd let you know. Cheers, GiantSnowman (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. He entered as a 63rd minute substitute in the Bundesliga's 18th round for Hertha. No question of notability now. Jogurney (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good spot. Amended my vote. But can people please stop creating articles before players play? Well I suppose that's a rhetorical question and I know someone will always jump in. I'm not sure there's much we can do to stop this. Peanut4 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've modified my !vote as well. It really is this simple, play a pro game, get an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The surprising thing is that the article was originally created on 1 February 2007, so it's taken exactly a year for him to become noteworthy. It's amazing how it wasn't an "afd" earlier. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This however doesn't answer the question of whether 1st round draft picks in the US are notable or not. I can partly see the POV of American editors, who probably rightly say the draft is a big thing - I don't really know how big. However the lad never even played for the club who drafted him in during the first round draft. So are first round draft picks notable or not if they get sold before playing? Peanut4 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but you have to draw an objective line. Appearance in the professional game should supersede "notability via draft" (which is meaningless to most of us lot...) and it's easy to verify without this continually subjective "draft makes them inherently notable" nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My own personal view (as the Arguez article creator - and yes I am suitably embarrased!) is that 1st Round Draft Picks ARE notable; in Europe I don't think we can fathom just how big a thing the draft is over there. However, as The Rambling Man says, if in doubt, go with professional appearances. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And my concern is this draft is a little bit "shock and awe". If the players never make it, so what if they were draftees? Disappointing I'm sure but not notable. Unless we're thinking of List of draftees who "never made it"....! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact we have FLs for NFL draft picks makes me think the draft process is notable. But is it notable for football? I simply don't know either way. I'm sure this situation will arise again (if it isn't already a bone of contention in other AfDs) and we need to work out if the first round MLS draft makes a player notable whether they end up playing or not.

Let's be honest, Arguez was the 11th pick. That means he was the 11th best youngster breaking through that season. That doesn't seem to be that notable myself. And I expect there were others further down the list. Peanut4 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced that makes him the 11th best youngster. What about the marketing angle? Beckham's not the best player in the MLS but he's the biggest transfer deal by a mile. Why? So LA Galaxy sell tickets and merchandise. Notability of draftees (to me) seems to hinge on subjectivity and nothing else. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point...while the vast majority of draftees (as Arguez illustrates) do become notable, or are indeed already notable, with appearances for the US Under-20 side, there is a risk that an article is created for a player whose career ends abruptly, and so we should say that draftees are NOT notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree regarding the subjectivity to the draft system. But if the overall system is notable then maybe we can add in a line to the Football Wp:BIO criteria. I.e. All first round picks / top X picks are all notable. If the draft system isn't in itself all too notable then just wait till they play, because let's be honest, if they're good enough to be picked first, they're good enough to end up playing. Can a player be notable however if he's picked first, and for whatever reason doesn't ever play? Peanut4 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well for me it's all about playing. I would accept that a player who's a sub, say, 100 times but never gets on the pitch may become notable as a super-non-sub, but other than that it's on the field that counts for me, not subjective off-the-field criteria.. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

'Subjective off-the-field criteria' sums it up to me. You've 100% convinced me a player is NN until he plays a game or is notable for other career aspects rather than anything else. Peanut4 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figure I'd better play the American PoV card even though you're thoroughly convinced ;). Anyway, the draft process in sports in the US generally is well covered and provides a degree of notoriety for at least the early picks. I'd be perfectly willing to support a 1st Round of MLS Draftees are notable before playing, others aren't, etc. rule. I don't think that every player in the NFL Draft should immediately get an article after being drafted, but I do think that the first round picks definitely should. Certainly the MLS SuperDraft is less well covered than the NFL Draft, which has multiple television channels dedicating several days to the coverage. But I think the principle holds true. If something were to happen to a first round pick to prevent him from playing, that would be notable in the American eyes moreso than if he did play. Being a first round pick is a certainty, of sorts. And when it doesn't work out (see Len Bias), there is still generally a notability conferred because the media attention for the failure will meet general bio requirements for notability. I fully appreciate the point of view of an appearance equaling notability, I honestly do, and I'd agree with it in 99% of cases; however, I think that first round draft picks in any sport in the American system have a notability because of that status conferred upon them by the clubs that they are soon to play for. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well, so I'll be more than happy to answer any questions/debates. I imagine the tone over here will be a little less heated than in the current AfD, ha. And also, just for the record, I don't know if I'm technically signed up for this WikiProject or not, but I do plenty of work on articles for footballers, feel free to look at my user page or edit history, so I'm not coming at this cold, and I do generally stay completely within the bounds of the project guidelines. I just feel like in this case, they are a little too restrictive. It might not be worthwhile to put a full caveat in the bio for first round picks because I believe it's only valid for MLS teams, but the status conferred by that position, in coupled with their coverage in the college athletics system - another very American institution commercialized college athletics - helps to make them notable before they satisfy the standard one appearance rule. matt91486 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In some ways I agree with you. But Brian Arguez has been sold on without playing for the side who picked him in the draft. Which would now imply he's notable in America for not playing for DC United. Is it really possible to be notable for not doing something? Peanut4 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In extreme cases I would say yes, like perhaps being notable for being a sub 100 times without playing (there just may be the odd keeper that fulfils that criterion!), but in this case, being a draftee and then not playing isn't woefully non-notable. How many Academy players in the UK go through the same thing? Ok, so he went on to bigger and better things in Europe but how many draftees and other Euro-Academy kids don't? Too many... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you guys are coming from. I'm just saying that being a first round pick makes someone notable in the American system, it's a certain status and generally brings about a level of demonstrable media attention regardless of whether or not they make the appearance that they are presumed to do so. It's not the fact that they could fail that makes them notable...I don't know, I can't figure out how to phrase it exactly. It's a completely different system than the youth academy system. College athletics also play a big role in making them notable, too, from an American point of view. As I said before, I know you guys don't want thousands of articles on youth team players that can't make their first appearance for Luton Town, and I completely understand. I don't want to see that either. But I just think in the case of MLS first round draft picks, a rigidity on the one appearance rule is a little unnecessary because the media coverage they receive generally allows them to meet the primary criteria of WP:BIO which should supersede project guidelines. So rather than having a conflict between the two every spring, it might be conducive to setting an exceptional case rule in regards to ONLY the first round picks of the MLS SuperDraft. That's where the line can be drawn; I know that's a concern, about opening the floodgates; this draws the line quite clearly. matt91486 (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I too understand your point. Which is why I began to suggest certain draft picks be allowed. I'm aware of the NFL draft system, but don't know if the MLS really has the same notierity. If you can garnish me with some news reports then I might be convinced to back up my original suggestion. Peanut4 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't have the same notoriety as the NFL Draft, but it has some nonetheless. Here's the ESPN home page for it, dedicated to just the draft and previous drafts. Here's some Chicago Tribune pre draft analysis. Just going from my current perspective as an attendee of the University of Tulsa, the Tulsa World profiled our university's draft pick, and he was one of the later ones in the round, and we don't have an MLS team in town. Fox Sports coverage is here. The Washington Post held a blog for the draft, and noted that the first hour of the draft was televised on ESPN 2 here and here. I can find more coverage if I need to, but I figure this is a pretty decent cross section of some of the coverage of the draft process. Even the MLS draft, hardly a big deal compared to the NFL or NBA Drafts (which have all rounds of the draft televised without length requirements), was partially televised in the US. matt91486 (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be of any use to do a survey of the past 8 drafts to see how many of them made it anywhere? I see the current draft roster has virtually zero player articles. 56 (I think) players most of whom don't have even a stub.. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have a suspicion that people are waiting to see how the current AfD turns out with many articles in it before they create any more articles on current draftees. matt91486 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. So how many of the 2007 draft would meet the current project guidelines of notability? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to tell without going through all of them individually. It looks like there are articles for all bout about 10. I'd guess not all the articles there meet the one appearance guideline of notability, though. At the moment all but one of the first round pick articles do, which is my main argument for first round pick notability. I'd be fine with all rounds being notable, but I definitely am in favor of first-round pick notability before appearances. matt91486 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that he played a game so as to solve the AfD question on this article, but I think it may cover up some of the wider issues of hand. I simply don't believe that playing 30 minutes of professional football has really made him that much more notable than he was before. I realise that this project's rules for notability are pretty good in most cases, but in my view the number of sources on him before he had even played that game made him notable by the general standards set outside this project, which after all this project isn't meant to overrule. I just feel that many people simply looked at his lack of appearances and didn't look any further, and I believe that every article should be looked at on a case by case basis with the no appearences rule only being a guideline. John Hayes^talk 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Huge number of WP:BIO failures at Danish clubs

After spotting a couple of new articles come up on the bot list, I have uncovered a huge number of articles on players failing WP:BIO at Danish superligen clubs, all created by User:Kalaha. I've been through AaB (6 prods), AGF (2), AC Horsens (1) and Esbjerg (2), but I'm off to bed now so if anyone else would care to go through and tag a bunch more. I've asked Kalaha to comment here before trying to contest the prods. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been through the rest of the clubs and prodded a bunch more. Let's see what happens next... пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does Danish top division is a fully professional league? Matthew_hk tc 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I would say yes based on attendances. Regardless, we do allow articles on players from the top division in countries like Ireland, where it is much less likely to be the case. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See, this is the reason why we need to change the notability criteria and get away from "fully professional". Shouldn't the question be, is the Danish top flight notable, instead of what are the nature of players' contracts in Danish football? Sebisthlm (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course top flight Danish players are notable, that's plain common sense. It's the highest level of football in the country, and Denmark is a nation with a decent footballing pedigree, its not like we're talking San Marino or Vanuatu. AaB recently beat Sampdoria in the UEFA Cup for example. The league receives extensive coverage in Jyllands-Posten, Politiken and the like, and its last TV rights deal was worth DKK 1bn (EUR 140m). Oldelpaso (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As a Swede I hate to admit it, but the Danish league is the best in Scandinavia and I would guess it's 100 percent professional (even the Swedish league is nowadays). The reason why the Danish league is the best in Scandinavia is mainly because of two things; first of all they don't have the same rule as we have in Sweden that says a non-profit athletic club have to control at least 51 percent of a football club wich, allow for the Danish clubs to be run as commercial enterprises (with FCK the leaders of the pack. Second of all, Denmark has a special "foreign expert" tax wich allow foreign footballers to pay only 30 percent tax instead of the 50 or 60 percent that high income earners pay in Denmark as well as in Sweden, wich give the Danish league the same advantage as AS Monaco have in the French league. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability

I checked this out when looking into the above section about danish players. I was disapointed to find that there was no criterea at all, so I made an attempt. As usual I ran out of steam and ended up with half an article. I've left the draft here so feel free to expand/hack/translate the the page so that we can put something decent on the page. josh (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that you want former players to have played 100 games. One game and you're in, regardless of if it was in 1984 or 2008. matt91486 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Scanning over this, I believe that statement is referring to the inclusion of players in club articles under "Notable former players". If this is so, then the 100 game criteria is the most oft used one for both this section and in "List of X F.C. players". As Josh said, it's a half-article/draft so feel free to amend it. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My thinking was that any player that is currently playing professional football can be considered notetable with AFD considered after his career. However, a player who managed one appearence for X F.C. in the third divison 50 years ago should be excluded. The actual number is up for debate. The important thing to remember is that none of the ideas are absolute. There will always be debate over notability but player/clubs/staff meeting the criterea can be generally considered notable. josh (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To put it a bit more clearer I don't think that the guidelines should ever be used to say X is not notable because he doesn't meet Y. The arguement should be X is not considered notable because of Y now prove why (s)he/it is. josh (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think putting people up for AfD once they retire is a clear violation of notability is not temporary; once they've played a professional game, they are thereafter notable. This is pretty standard across other sports WikiProjects as far as I can tell. I know sourcing for footballers articles can be troublesome, especially compared with baseball ones, where you have easy, complete databases so articles about players from the 1920s can be created and verified in about five minutes of work, but if the general consensus is that playing a professional game makes them notable, then it shouldn't matter at all when that happened. Notability is not temporary. matt91486 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it then change it. Its only a first draft. josh (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, notability remains, historically, in football articles, and player notability is gained when the criteria is met through playing just one game to that exact criteria. Why is a change being discussed here, when it should be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability? And inclusion into sections called "Notable former players" is not judged by numbers of games - it is judged (as the title suggests) by notability, measured by how much the player is mentioned in reliable sources connected with or referenced to the club he is being judged as notable for, and through sourceable major achievements with that club. Not a bunch of figures or statistics. Could this thread be transferred to the correct discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability? Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. The criteria should be the same for current or former players. Peanut4 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an equally valid location for the discussion at hand. This is sufficiently important and wide-ranging to talk about it here at the main project talk page (which a lot of people may have on watch lists) rather than on a subpage. - fchd (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; the discussion will probably be easier to have here where everyone can see it and then it could be moved to the notability sub page afterward. I'll go modify the draft now, if it hasn't been done already. matt91486 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I Agree that the discussion should be held here where people will see it on their watchlist, but Novembers discussion about the subject took place on this page and just fizzled out without any apparent consensus. King of the NorthEast 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As per my comment above I am going to attempt to revive discussion on creating a set of formal criteria (probably futile, but I'm still going to try). I have added 1 more suggestion about youth football as the subject needs discussion. Perhaps we can state whether we support each suggested criteria on an individual basis, so as to formalise the ones that everyone supports ASAP and further discuss the more controversial proposals.

Suggested Criteria

1) Has played for a fully professional club at a national level (FPNL club) of the league structure.

2) has played for a "FPNL club" in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) or a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition.

3) Has played senior international football or football at the Olympic games.

4) Has played at the highest level of continental youth football (U-21 international Europe, U-20 elsewhere, or at the U-20 World Cup)

5) Has been included in a squad (squad number) at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League, Copa Libertadores) or the World Club Championships.

6) Has been included in a squad (squad number) for a senior international team in a World Cup/Continental Cup qualifier or the final stages of such tourmaments.

Reasoning

1) Playing for a professional club at the national level allows articles on players for important teams such as Anderlecht who play in a league containing Semi-Pro teams, and helps to avoid the difficult task of establishing whether every team in the Peruvian, Guatemalan, Albanian, Taiwanese.... top flight is professional. It also removes the dependence on the status of other teams in the league when considering whether at player is notable and reduces the (admittedly unlikely) scenario of a semi-pro team gaining promotion to league 2 in England, necessitating the deletion of every player never to have played higher than that level.

2) To allow articles on players who make their debut for a notable enough club, in a competitive game other than the league itself.

3) Already accepted criteria

4) As per several cases like Daniel Parslow who survived AfD on the basis of having played for Wales U-21.

5) As per several cases where the closing admin kept non-playing players despite going against the prior notability standard of actually having played. These articles would provide info on top level squad players who have yet to make their competitive debut and avoid redlinks in Champions League navboxes.

6) To allow articles for international players in important international tournaments who have yet to play for their country and may play for a semi-pro team or at a regional level of club football.

Discussion

• 1)Agree, 2)Agree, 3)Agree, 4)Unsure, would we only allow players who have played at the U-20 World Cup, and continental tournaments, or allow any player to have represented their country at the highest agegroup of youth football 5)Oppose- I strongly believe that footballers must have played at least 1 game before they become notable. 6)Unsure
• 1,2,3) Agree 4,5,6) I don't think these can be set in stone, I think that many of these players are notable, and many aren't. Remember a footballer can be notable before playing a pro game (see Freddy Adu) I think in these cases it needs to be seen if their notability can be established by other means, if it can keep them, if it can't delete them. John Hayes^talk 12:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3) Agree; 4) Oppose I don't think Faroese/Andorran U-21 internationals are notable; 5, 6) Oppose I'll stick with actually playing a game before notability is conferred.

I would also like to add a (1a) qualifier: Has played in the top division of a country that has played at the World Cup. This would allow players who have played in the top division in Ireland and Northern Ireland to have articles, which under the current criteria, they are currently denied (technically, but not in reality) as the leagues are not fully professional. This also gets around the fact that it is very difficult to tell which clubs are professional or not (as we have seen past Conference debates). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Point 4 needs clarification, does it include qualification or not? For example, I'd say every player in the 2007 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship is notable, but not every player in the qualifiers. Points 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are fine. - MTC (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• 1–6 Agree. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Title categories for clubs

For national football teams, we've got categories like Category:UEFA European Football Championship-winning countries, Category:AFC Asian Cup-winning countries and Category:FIFA World Cup-winning countries. Should we do the same for clubs (e.g. Category:Scottish Premier League-winning clubs), or would that be overcategorisation? Aecis^Brievenbus 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the first three are over-categorisation. Peanut4 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Auto-archive time (again)

Just further reduced this page's archive time further to 10 days as the page is getting silly long (nearly 200k!). If anyone objects feel free to revert. Qwghlm (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Woody (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking that. Let it be. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dutch teams in the UEFA Cup

The First Round section of the article UEFA Cup 2008-09 currently states that the third-placed, fourth-placed and fifth-placed teams from the Netherlands (i.e. from the Eredivisie) qualify for the UEFA Cup. Technically speaking, this is not correct, but how should it be reworded? The teams finishing 2nd to 5th qualify for playoffs. The winner of the playoffs qualifies for the Champions League third qualifying round, while the remaining three teams qualify for the UEFA Cup. Two years ago, Ajax finished fourth in the Eredivisie 2005-06 season, but won the playoffs and qualified for the UEFA Champions League 2006-07 third qualifying round. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a change. See what you think. Peanut4 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Club crest sections

Not really a football-specific question per se, but would you say it's necessary to include a reference against a plain statement like "the club's crest depicts a castle, a lion and a horse" if it's obvious just by looking at it.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say a reference would only be necessary in that case if it was ambiguous what one (or more) of the things on the crest was. I mean, if it really was blatantly obvious that it was a castle, a lion and a horse, then of course a reference wouldn't be necessary, but if some people thought the lion was a gryphon or the horse was a unicorn, then it would need a ref. – PeeJay 12:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Well I think in a many cases yes, as often it isn't obvious exactly what is on a crest (can you really tell from the image alone that this is a liverbird) . In theory we probably always should to avoid WP:OR in reality I don't think anyone is going to dispute most of them. John Hayes^talk 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Goal of the Month (England)‎

Last week, I added the note Talk:Goal of the Month (England)#Possible vandalism‎. It has not generated any response (even if the new entry is true, I would expect someone to have fixed the broken links), so I guess that nobody is watching the page. Please can someone from this project check the entry for April 2003. JonH (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)