Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Template:WPF navigation

Similar pages

The pages European football records and List of UEFA club competition winners ‎are similar (European club ranking for number of titles won). As only the second article is based in UEFA resolutions (the main source for an encyclopedia), IMHO the first must be deleted. --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The first article covers a different set of data from the second one, and includes data on top scorers in UEFA competitions, etc. In my opinion, both articles should be kept and the first article should be expanded to cover other records, such as top appearance makers in the various European competitions, etc. – PeeJay 12:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The table for top goalscorers, apparances, and other list in UEFA club competitions are available in UEFA club competition records (Records and Statistics ACCORDING to UEFA resolutions in UEFA OFFICIAL tournaments). If exist a ranking for European competition won (in List of...) why exist another ranking with only UCL-UCWC-UC (In European competition...)? Is correct,for that, write and third European ranking including the Intercontinental Cup (football) as in the UEFA official website? --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the existence of UEFA club competition records. In that case, European football records should be deleted. Feel free to take it to AfD. – PeeJay 20:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the box/template for delection? --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at WP:AfD. – PeeJay 06:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely a merge & redirect is the easier (and quicker) solution? Qwghlm (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't delete European football records, it is the only page which (correctly in my view) includes the Fairs Cup along with the UEFA Cup. the UEFA one was started as a content fork, but there's no reason not to have both articles covering similar, but different, ground. - fchd (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If exist a ranking for UEFA competitions, why exist a ranking only for UCL-UCWC-UC? --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed the article European football records for delection, thanks. --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Which I've removed. It's certainly most definitely not an uncontroversial deletion. - fchd (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Footbo.com

Can someone explain to me what this site is? It has player profiles on it and those are being added to the external links of various articles here. Some of them only tell the birthdate, nationality and the club the player plays for. Is that useful at all? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's crap. It's a Social Football Network, and therefore not acceptable as per WP:EL. -- Alexf⁴² 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, remove links to player profiles as they serve no point. This is a list of offending articles. Qwghlm (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What, if anything, do we do about people adding player profiles to that site that are unattributed copy-and-pastes of the corresponding Wikipedia article? e.g. Pedro Pelé [1] --Jameboy (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You can report it at WP:GFDLC. I'm about to I've requested the site be blacklisted at WP:SBL for both that and the spamming. Qwghlm (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that two German links are added to an English profile doesnt make much sense to me (all i see are words i don't understand with numbers next to them), nor the fact that fussballdaten.de is adding links to player profiles. In fact, there are lots of football sites adding links to football player profiles. The Footbo page gives much more information than just birthdate, nationality and the club the player plays for, and there is also a community rating, viewers can get a feel for how the player has been performing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiredminds (talk • contribs) 06:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I put some links to Footbo as the site is gaining much traction in the football community. According to Alexa.com and compete it is growing very fast. Also some stars are involved. I put the links to some player profiles, because the content is like Wikipedia very much driven by users. I was not aware of WP:EL and social networks as an unaccptable source for citation. In any case it is a great site and I think we will hear about it much more in the near future. Soccerbabe23 (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggest to keep the references within Michael Ballack and Alexandre Song, because they are valuable. These players actually blog on Footbo. In general there are worse external links than Footbo, so I tend to agree with Inspiredminds. I saw some articles on Footbo recently, so I assume there community is expanding and this is why we saw many external links in the last days. Striker2008 (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what is happening here. These three users that support footbo.com have no idea how to use Wikipedia and are probably the same person, or at least some types of sponsors of the site (All three posts are within 15 mins of eachother). What is this called? Sock-puppetry or something? I don't know if you've noticed but all the links to Fussballdaten.de have Template:De icon beside it so if you don't understand German, don't click the link. Pretty basic stuff here. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what is happening here. I get up in the morning, log into my wikipedia account and get accused of posting with different aliases. The fact is Hubschrauber729 that I tried adding a profile page for Footbo after I started using the site. I will admit, I'm no wikipedia expert. But i found that the laws that bind your little virtual world together are being enforced with some kind of corruption. I have one person who patrols the profile and tells me there is nothing wrong with it, and another who doesnt like it, so just deletes it. What is this called? Do you really want me to say "sock-puppetry"?? You, who posts for some German soccer site, are clearly not wanting another football site that might actually be better than Fussballdaten, to be mentioned on relevant pages. So tell me Im wrong. You see, you are not the only one who can make splendid accusations. Oh, and its great to have a Template:De icon next to it...but i think it is of relevance on the german page, not the english one. That's why there is a seperation of languages no? Inspiredminds (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I do speak some German and the links to Fussballdaten.de are really useless. Much deeper information is for example given by Kicker.de , but it seems the real interest in it comes from Hubschrauber in having them. Also I did not know one is not allowed to contribute in less than 15 minutes after someone else without being accused of being the same person. Soccerbabe23 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking of dates

As I understand it, there has been a movement of late to avoid the overlinking of dates. This got me thinking, therefore, about which dates it would be OK to link to from a player/club article. From a player's article, I would say that their dates of birth/death ought to be linked, but nothing else, while the date of a club's formation/dissolution should be linked too. Opinions? – PeeJay 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINK#Dates says that "The use of full date formatting is now deprecated." As I understand it, dates should hardly ever be linked any more. I wouldn't even link the date of birth or date of formation. You'll notice that templates such as Template:birth date and age no longer produce links for example. There are still some templates that have yet to catch up with this (e.g. some citation templates still have linked dates) but I believe they are being worked on. WP:MOSLINK also advises on how and when to use "year in (subject)" links, e.g. "1966 in football (soccer)". --Jameboy (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I just think that the player's date of birth is vital information and it can be quite useful to be able to click on the link to the article about that date to see what else has happened on that date. – PeeJay 22:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, but not sure what could be done. Someone made a similar point to yours at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Wikilinked_dates, i.e. saying that it would be useful to link birth and death dates only, but it appears that _all_ dates are now unlinked. I'm trying to locate any discussion that led up to the change. --Jameboy (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:MOSNUM - scroll right to the bottom where there is a footnote containing two relevant links: the archived discussion leading to the change and a more recent proposal. Both threads are great for curing insomnia. --Jameboy (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update - there is now a request for consensus re: wikilinking birth and death dates in bios at: Wikipedia talk:MOSNUM#RfC: Linking of dates of birth and death. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Name change people

Does anyone know offhand what we do in the case of a player who changes their name after they become notable? Case in point Simone Ferrara who married and is now Simone Carmichael, as evidenced (more or less) by this link. I have created the page under her original name as that is what she used when 1st notable and FIFA records only show that. I figured on making a Simone Carmichael as a redirect, but should something also be included in the article?--ClubOranje^Talk 01:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Unfortunately I don't have a good answer. Actually I don't have any kind of answer. Why did I even write this? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gökçek Vederson and Kaan Dobra are two I ran across recently. Jogurney (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the name by which a person is most commonly known changes permanently then I think the page should be moved to the new name. Obviously mention should be made of the former name and the change -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd change "Simone Ferrara also known as Simone Carmichael" to..."Simone Carmichael, neé Ferrara...", as it sounds almost like a pseudonym. In the infobox, keep her player name as Simone Ferrara, but change the fullname to her married name, and mention the fact she kept her maiden name for her football career in the main article. --Jimbo^[online] 09:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin Miles and Gary Taylor-Fletcher are a couple more examples of this. Using the current name works best, with the former name mentioned and with a redirect. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the current name is best as long as that's what the person is commonly/publicly known by. We don't have an article entitled Katie Cruise, hence if the female player mentioned above has chosen to continue to publicly use her maiden name, that's what the article should stay as, albeit with mention made of her married name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be "Simone Carmichael, neé Ferrara", "... born Ferrara" etc. Punkmorten (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Another question is what name should be in squad listings and templates if a player changes his/hers name during his/hers career. I think I prefer to use the name used during the tournament and not retro-actively change squads, as in the Tomas Antonelius article. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you would old names in historical articles, just as you would use former nationalities. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another example - Rune Berger, formerly known as Rune Johansen. GiantSnowman 14:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF Gold Cup navboxes

User:BlueRed has unilaterally removed all CONCACAF Gold Cup navboxes from player articles going against recent community consensus not to delete the templates (TfD). Perhaps someone could roll back the disruptive edits? EP 10:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another notability question...

Are players who've played in the Football League Trophy, whilst their team was in the Conference notable? Example being, Martin Rice. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 12:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. Under WP:ATHLETE, a player must have played in a fully professional league to be considered notable, but we usually extend this to cover cup competitions. It is my understanding that, in cup competitions, both teams must play in a fully professional league for the match to confer notability upon a player, so players from the Conference would not count. – PeeJay 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Which just goes to show how daft the current situation is - a game between two teams, a player making his debut for the home side can become notable by stepping over the white line, but a player for the away side will remain un-notable despite performing the same act. - fchd (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This bizarre situation would not be possible if WP:BIO folk accepted WP:FOOTYN, which clearly states that to be notable for his cup exploits a player must have "played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional national level clubs". EP 16:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would, it would just shift to be a debating point in FA Cup matches instead. WP:FOOTYN is as flawed, if not more so, than WP:ATHLETE, and no, I haven't got any better ideas to hand. I'd certainly be less inclusive than either of the above criteria though. - fchd (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A team in the conference doesn't play in the Football League Trophy it is a fully professional competition, you may be thinking of the F.A. Trophy. Skitzo (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

They did, for several years quite recently. See Football League Trophy#History. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not under the current format, so it wasn't fully professional back then and so for notability POV was a different competition. Skitzo (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

MarshallN20

It seems MarshallN20 is pushing a very dubious point of view that Lima Cricket and Football Club is the oldest football club in the world (predating Sheffield F.C. by 12 years) using sources in an extremely dubious way to support his POV (he has also hijacked Bicycle Kick adding a huge rambling section full of irrelevant and misleading sources claiming it was invented in Callao, Peru. The Peruvian claim certainly deserves a mention, but 7.5 kb is a bit much) This is a dangerous development for two reasons:

1. Lazy journalism, some idiot journalist will come along read Marshalls POV that the bicycle Kick and even the concept of the football club were invented in Peru, publish it in a newspaper without citing Wikipedia, then it will become a reliable source to support the minority POV that modern football was invented in Peru.
2. Credibility - Everyone who knows the slightest bit about the history of football knows that the game in its current form was invented in the U.K. Claims that suggest it was invented in Peru damage the credability of Wikipedia.

-EP 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's User:MarshalN20 (one l, not two). x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Made some further fixes - the sources look sound but clearly state the first game of football in Peru wasn't until 1892. Qwghlm (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote that the Lima Cricket and Football Club was the oldest club in the world. I wrote that in 1845 a club under the name of "Salon de Comercio" was formed, and that in 1859 the Lima Cricket Club was founded from that past club. Everybody who knows about football knows that Sheffield F.C. is the oldest football club, because that's what FIFA certifies as the oldest club. Next, about the bicycle kick, the section is supposed to promote the idea that the kick was invented in Peru; just like the sections related to Chile, Brazil, and Italy also mean to promote the same idea. Nations such as Ecuador, Colombia, and Panama also call the move in the same way Peruvians call it; in other words, it's not something I'm making up. Please do not post lies about me or misleading things related to what I write English Peasant.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Current squad

According to the manual of style regarding club articels, squad list are suppost to look like

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
30	GK	Template:Country data Earth	Tom Templateo
31	DF	Template:Country data Earth	Tim Template
32	DF	Template:Country data Earth	Tommy Templatius (on loan to Template City FC)

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
33	MF	Template:Country data Earth	Tom Template senior
34	FW	Template:Country data Earth	Templaldo (on loan from MediaWiki AFC)
35	MF	Template:Country data Earth	Timmy Templaton

However some pages uses

No.	Nat.	Player name	DoB	With PSV	Former club	Fee	Detailed position	Notes	Deal until
Goalkeepers
1	Template:Country data Earth	Tom Templateo	October 33333	July 33333	Wikipedia City	€2,800,000	GK	European Union player	July 44444
Defenders
1	Template:Country data Earth	Tim Template	October 33333	July 33333	Wikipedia City	€100	DF	European Union player	July 44444
Midfielders
1	Template:Country data Earth	Tom Template senior	October 33333	July 33333	Wikipedia FC	€100,800,000	MF	European Union player	July 44444
Forwards
1	Template:Country data Earth	Templaldo	October 33333	July 33333	Wikipedia United	free transfer	FW	European Union player	July 44444

I added the second one to Halmstads BK, with some changes to fite the club, however it was later changed back to the first one by another user, wonder if the first one is the only to be used or if the second one can be used or if there is something else i have missed ? --> Halmstad, Talk to me 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have only seen the 1st 1 used for club sides and something similar to the second for internationals. Skitzo (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the second one is awful and should be avoided. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is a popularity contest, I must say I prefer the second one since it can show basic information on players that don't merit their own article (as shown above), something that can be useful for clubs where there are a lot of talk about players that haven't débuted yet. It's also more similar to the way the squad is presented on most official club sites. However, I recognize that the first template is used in the MoS, so I maybe wouldn't advise people to use it, or use it myself. Sebisthlm (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Did first see the second one on PSV Eindhoven and recently on AIK Fotboll, was mostly wonder if second one wasnt allowed or similar. --> Halmstad, Talk to me 21:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs for the manual of style on club articles - the first one is used. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditch the second, it's properly fugly. Qwghlm (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea with the second, but far too much information to hold, and verify. The first is simple, works and although looks a little on the amateur side, it does the job. No reason to stop trying to take a step forwards though. I'd recommend to any creative template editors out there 'keep it simple' as a motto or directive. Anything too radical or remotely complicated will immediately be shot down. I'd say fine-tune the current standard, look elsewhere with those proposed at other projects such as rugby union. Look at those in place for rugby league, AFL, American Football, NHL, cricket, etc to see how they are doing things. There is a way forwards, sadly this option does not appear to be the solution. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:FC X players

Are categories like [[Category:Chemnitzer FC players]] for anyone that has played at any level of the club or just for the first team? Asking this question because this cat was added to Ralf Fährmann, who only played for their youth system. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think if should be there for people who were only at the club as children. Remove it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree. If the player had a formal association with the club as a junior, then I would categorise them as that club's player. Though whatever the merits of including kids, there's certainly no requirement for them to have played first-team football. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How about including if they were full-time players but never played, e.g., on a full-time youth contract in the under-19s or something? I don't think including players who played for a club's under-14 side is worth including. •Oranje•·Talk 09:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't think they have to have played first-team football. But I think there is a difference between young players who play in reserve and under-18 teams, and are under contract, who are considered part of the (wider) playing staff, and kids, who aren't particularly tied to the club, and don't play in the usual competitve competition structures. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Romani Footballers

I have recently come across the category [[Category:Romani footballers]]. I don't really understand why this is a category since there is no Romani nation that these players were born in, nor is there a FIFA recognized national team. Apparently there is a Romani national team but there is no evidence that most of the players in the category have played for it. I'm thinking of nominating it for a CfD. Any thoughts? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Romani people is a subcat of Category:People by race or ethnicity, not related to any particular country of birth, like Arab or Jewish, and it's pretty normal to then sub-categorise by occupation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's a valid subcategory. On the national team, I would say that the more prominent footballer, the smaller chance that he/she has ever played for a non-FIFA national team, since they're usually made up of amateurs. The notable exceptions are of course the regional Spanish "National teams". Sebisthlm (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Kinnear

Not sure how to go about getting an article protected but Joe Kinnear is being vandelised following appointment at Newcastle Natcong (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of vandalism going on. I've removed a load and semi-protected. If logged-in editors can't behave, I'll put it up to full protection. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you protect Dennis Wise as well for a short time until tempers cool down? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, you should go to RFPP to request page protection. -- Alexf⁴² 00:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Killoran

Can an admin please delete this article, I created it back when he was playing professionally in Japan but he has since left without making a first-team appearance, and doesn't look to have signed for a new club - especially a notable one - since. As the author (but not only contributor) I'm unsure if it passes Wikipedia:CSD#G7...either way he fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 14:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

AfDed Kevin McE (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

General notability discussion

I'm not sure if you guys have looked at the general request for comment on notability yet. It seems as though the second section of discussion will have significant implications on this, and other WP:ATHLETE based, WikiProjects. It would be worth taking a look at. I'm pretty sure this can't fall under WP:CANVASS since Wikipedia is posting the heading to every member! matt91486 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking or where specifically you are asking us to read. Fronsdorf (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) this, specifically this, it is one of the two messages at the top of your watchlist. EP 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a link to the discussion would be helpful - unfortunately I dismissed the note when it arrived, without too much thought. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, EP's link is correct: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise is the issue at hand, specifically issue B, dealing with (not explicitly, but really) WP:ATHLETE and other sub guidelines. matt91486 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a standard we can push all those who believe in the status quo to go along. Fronsdorf (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neil Ruddock

Decent free-use images might be difficult to come by, but surely we can do better than the distinctly unflattering one used in Neil Ruddock. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that definitely him? You're right though, it is hard to get decent free photos. Emanuel Pogatetz blinked when I snapped him yesterday and therefore looks like he is asleep, but I figured it was better than nothing. --Jameboy (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Razor Ruddock. Football isn't one for openly accepting people taking pictures during games, so the best we can hope for on a large scale is warm-up pictures, pre-game pics and truly big-game pics where real fans want to take a picture to say I was there. Fronsdorf (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blimey. Better to have no photo than that photo. Beve (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it, sums him up to a T. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases, any picture is better than no picture, but I really doubt that is the case with Ruddock. Peanut4 (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Mattock

Resolved

 – I have moved it accross as per WP:MOSNAME Skitzo (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

when i 1st created this article i moved it to Joseph Mattock, how ever he usually just goes by Joe, in fact I have never heard him being referred to as Joseph, so I'm looking to get a consensus on weather I should revert it back to the original title... Skitzo (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, per WP:MOSNAME, it should be Joe Mattock, with Joseph Mattock redirecting to Joe Mattock. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox dates

Just a quick question; if a player signed for a club at the start of the 2007–2008 season, and made his first-team debut at the end of that same season (i.e. in the year 2008), how should his infobox be represented as his pro career starting in 2007 or 2008? Many thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but I would say that his pro career began in 2008. – PeeJay 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur - that's how I've always done it. matt91486 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree too. -- Alexf⁴² 00:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. His pro career started when he signed pro for the club, therefore 2007. If you do it the other way, the infobox would be misleading, making it look like he was without a club between leaving a previous one in 2007 and playing again in 2008. Take reserve keepers, who often move around without playing much. You could get several apparent gaps in their infobox, so it'd look like they had no club, but where they would in fact have been sat on the new club's bench every match since signing.

The documentation for {{Infobox Football biography}} says the years are "A <br /> delimited list of years that the player has been contracted at each professional club." (my italics) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his wikipedia notability may start with his first game, but his pro career started when he signed his first contract. Beve (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Struway. Jason Brown left Gillingham in 2006, but made only one sub appearance for Blackburn Rovers between then and the start of this season. If he hadn't made that one brief cameo and we gave 2008 in the infobox as the start of his Blackburn career, it would look like he was unattached for two years -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the infobox only for actual appearances though? If he didn't appear in 2007, why should it show up under that year? We can include contract length in prose. matt91486 (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is a breakdown of a player's career, the appearances info is just a part of that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all, I'll update the article I was thinking about (Sean Morrison) as starting in 2007. Cheers, GiantSnowman 11:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a players first game of their career aren't we, not first game for every new club? GarethHolteDavies (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Career statistics tables

Could some kind soul pretty please improve my (pardon my French) piss-poor attempt at creating a career statistics table at Sean Morrison? Cheers, GiantSnowman 11:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bash at it. What do you think? – PeeJay 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers man, you're a star! GiantSnowman 13:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Scillonian football clubs

Garrison Gunners and Woolpack Wanderers - are they at all notable? They're essentially little more than pub sides which people have only heard of because journalists occasionally write "novelty" pieces about how the Isles of Scilly have "the smallest league in the world". Would it be better to merge both into one article about the league, as that's what has the (marginal) notability......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking yes. The Guardian article isn't even about the league - it just mentions it as an answer to a question posed by a reader. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say merge the two into an article about the league, with seperate sections on each team which cover titles, any famous players etc. GiantSnowman 13:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and redirected both to Isles of Scilly Football League and I'm cooking something up there (Isles of Scilly Football League actually redirected to Garrison Gunners). x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rob Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of IP vandalism following his recent erroneous penalty award. Could do with semi-protection. Am I ok to request it here rather than official channels? Seems to get a faster response here. Beve (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! Article needs some work and TLC, especially with weasel words. Qwghlm (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hasan mede

I noticed the creation of the above article, which at the moment is just an infobox, if the stats in it check out then he's notable enough for an article but it needs moving to the correct capitalisation the addition of at least a short bit of prose and checking of his appearance stats. I'd fix this myself but i'm a bit busy and i'm not sure what stub or project templates you guys would use for it so i thought it best to mention it here. Cheers Basement12 (T.C) 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think that is a real person. I searched his name in Google and there was only 6 sites in total and none which linked him to any type of football let alone Fenerbahce. He isn't on the Fenerbahce.org's squad list. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and as such, have prodded it as a hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree; a player just 17 with first-team appearances would be menioned somewhere, so almost definitely a hoax. GiantSnowman

Given the author and only other contributor blanked the page as soon as the PROD appeared I'm surprised it gets to hang around for 5 more days. --ClubOranje^Talk 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, him blanking it meant that I could speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G7. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good-oh. I thought there was a page blank by author thing somewhere, but couldn't easily find it this morning. Thanks --ClubOranje^Talk 23:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Referee notability?

Hi, what are the notability criteria for referees? Jonny Ditlefsen refereed in the Norwegian Premier League (first tier), but is up for AFD. The league itself is professional, but referees in Norway are only semi-professional. Punkmorten (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never been good at formulating notability criteria, but from a European perspective, I would say that referees who officiated at a World Cup or European Championship or in the Champions League or UEFA Cup are notable, as are fully professional referees in a country's top-level league. That would mean that Jonny Ditlefsen is not notable and worthy of deletion. – PeeJay 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We can always fall back on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:N. If there are none (and I see none) then he is not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

SK Schwadorf

Bit of assistance from someone in the know, please. SK Schwadorf, formerly based in Schwadorf, Austria, have just relocated to Südstadt and have been renamed Trenkwalder Admira in the process. Should the SK Schwadorf article stay as-is (minus the "current squad" section), and just create the relevant new article, or redirect to the new article and carry the contents over? - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we know anything about it? Did they keep history, league place, etc? matt91486 (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The description page on www.bundesliga.at cites 1906 as the year the club was founded, which is indeed the foundation year of Admira Vienna. The official club page also begins its historic review with the beginnings as Admira Vienna. There is no word about a merger with SK Schwadorf, though. So, I would propose to keep the SK Schwadorf article minus the current squad section and integrate any other changes into VfB Admira Wacker Mödling. A title change might also be useful, but I strongly oppose the name "Trenkwalder Admira" because Trenkwalder is the name of the company of Admira chairman Richard Trenkwalder. What about FC Admira as a simple replacement instead? This is the most common name for the club in Austria anyway, and Soccerway does also refer to the club by this name. Hockey-holic (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jarnail Singh

Could I request semi-protection of Jarnail Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well, please? (another referee under fire) Beve (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. Drop me a line if there are any other problems. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the article is almost entirely negative - it seems that whenever he has made a controversial (in heavily biased fans' views anyway) decision, that details about it have been added - should we remove all this rubbish? пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea FA review

Chelsea F.C. has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Template fix required possibly

Could someone who fully understands such things investigate why Template:National football squad player which hasn't been edited in the last month produces odd results now in pages such as this (well, pretty much any page that uses it actually). Didn't do that last week. Seems to have shunted things over a column. Perhaps one of the sub templates has made it skewy. Thanks--ClubOranje^Talk 10:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the problem. Some pillock decided that it would be a good idea to remove the "No." column from Template:nat fs start and replace it with a "Goals" column. The change has now been reverted. – PeeJay 10:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy King - Leicester player

Mattythewhite he is welsh as he plays for their U21 side so please don't undo the move. Skitzo (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I moved his article to "(footballer born 1988)" rather than "(Welsh footballer)" is because it is uneven to have three Andy King articles that read "(footballer born 1956)", "(footballer born 1970)" and "(Welsh footballer)". Keeping them consistent across the board would make more sense. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

no that was done because there was more then 1 english andy king, he is welsh so having that in the name is a better disambiguation, we don't need to have them all named in the same style unless there is more then 1 of the same nationality. Skitzo (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

also the 3rd 1 has only just been created, by you, and to be honest it should probably be afd'd as there is so little content as work-in-progress articles like that should probably stay in the sand box until you have more info. Skitzo (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the article suitably passes WP:N and WP:BIO, so I don't see any problem with it. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the primary differentiator should be, but if it is nationality, then I would have thought Andy King (Welsh footballer), Andy King (English footballer born 1956) and Andy King (English footballer born 1970) would be correct. If the primary differentiator is year of birth then we would have Andy King (footballer born 1956), Andy King (footballer born 1970) and Andy King (footballer born 1988). Do we have any disambig guidelines or precedent we can refer to? --Jameboy (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that the primary disambiguator was the year of birth. A player's nationality can change, provided that they haven't already played for a national team, and is therefore not an ideal disambiguator compared to year of birth, which will never change. – PeeJay 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and it has in this case taking him from English to Welsh, in every other case I've seen, nationality has been the primary differentiator, so move the other 2 articles to include the word English, seeing as they are retired so their nationality isn't going to change, nor can this Andy King as he has played at U21 level. Skitzo (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would opt for Andy King (footballer born 1956), Andy King (footballer born 1970) and Andy King (footballer born 1988) on more common precedence. However there are plenty of differentiations between the two naming options. Peanut4 (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Leeds United A.F.C. Reserves and Youth Team season 2008-09

Surely this isn't notable? Peanut4 (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. We already have people who dislike senior teams' season articles, so surely reserve teams are a step too far. – PeeJay 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable, deffo a candidate for deletion. GiantSnowman 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Peanut4 (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Cheesebrough

I have declined a speedy request for this article, apparently about a footballer who played for Burnley, Leicester City, Port Vale and Mansfield Town in the 1950s. Would anyone would like to lend a helping hand with it? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added an infobox and an external link. Peanut4 (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added quite a bit more after a quick Google search. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Bruce @ FAC

Anyone from the project want to take a look before it expires......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam links?

User 78.105.4.86 (talk · contribs) is adding external links to the "official PFA team page" for various clubs. These club links seem to add little value, although I'd say there may be an argument for keeping the player profile and interview links that he's also added, as these seem to offer a little more info. What do people think? --Jameboy (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just took a look at the official PFA page for Gillingham, and under the heading "Gillingham interviews" is a link to an interview with Junior Agogo. They've also got Derek Stillie still in the squad list and Sean Clohessy with squad number 189. If they're all that accurate then I can't really what having them as xlinks adds..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

hmmm. I'm less sure about the player profiles now that I've realised they want Joe Public to write them. --Jameboy (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say the player profiles looked okay till I read that above addendum. I don't think the interviews add much per WP:EL but would probably be fine as a source for any general addition to the article. Peanut4 (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an admin has reverted the whole lot. Oh well. --Jameboy (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Cup 2005-06

I don't feel it is necessary to have the year shown in every footballbox when the year is obvious as it is with this article, but I thought I better check here as to whether it is okay or should I change it back. Darryl.matheson (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would keep the years in match dates, for completeness. A non-football fan landing on the article may look at the title and assume that the competition ran from January 2005 to December 2006, for example, so I think it is best to make these things clear. --Jameboy (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Scottish Cup articles, what do people think of the table format being used in Scottish Cup 2008-09? I can't decide whether it's a good thing or not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In my browser at least, the date/kick-off/stadium stuff doesn't line up correctly. Here's a screen shot:

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the screen shot, I assume that you are running on a 800x600 resolution. Since the template looks fine for higher resolutions, I will have a look at the code and see if compatibility with the minimum recommended resolution can be achieved.Hockey-holic (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

According to a colleague more in the know than me, my screen is 1024 by 768 pixels..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you did not cut off any sidebars on the right side of your screen on your screenshot (e.g. Instant Messengers), this should be 800x600. Anyway. The main problem with the template is that its creator formatted the column width by using absolute values instead of relative ones, which causes the incorrect display. I can try to fix it, but I make no promises that it will look better afterwards... Hockey-holic (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like that style anyway. Looks rubbish, and the show/hide function is gimmicky. – PeeJay 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually like this template (Fb match) for the first rounds, because it points out the key information (the result of the game) and reveals additional information to those who are interested. See also DFB Cup 2008–09. ;-) Nevertheless, the footballbox-template is the first choice for the more important games (Quarterfinals and further). Hockey-holic (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Austrian Football Bundesliga

This article seems a bit confused. It appears to be about the top division of Austrian football, called the "Bundesliga", and at the same time about the association that runs the top 2 divisions in Austrian football, apparently also called the "Bundesliga". How can this be cleared up? Dancarney (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar problem with this article. Although the vast majority of people refer to Spain's Primera División as "La Liga", "La Liga" technically refers to both of Spain's top two divisions. This would be analogous to The Football League only covering the Football League Championship or Football League First Division. I suggest that separate articles be created for both Spain and Austria's top divisions, and that Austrian Football Bundesliga and La Liga be changed to cover all of the divisions that those terms encompass. – PeeJay 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but what should the articles be called? For the Spanish set we should have Primera División de España and La Liga, but I'm not sure with the Austrian - Fußball-Bundesliga (Austria) and what? Dancarney (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Clubs with sponsored names

I know we normally keep grounds and leagues at their "unsponsored" names, but what about clubs? Connah's Quay Nomads have been moved to Gap Connah's Quay, should we now move Welshpool Town to their new name, Technogroup Welshpool Town? - fchd (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What are said teams' common names? It seems that Connah's Quay have completely dropped the "Nomads" moniker, but Welshpool Town are still Welshpool Town with a sponsor's name at the beginning, so I would personally agree with moving the Connah's Quay article but not the Welshpool Town one. However, looking at the BBC website, it seems that they have taken to referring to Welshpool Town as Technogroup Welshpool Town. – PeeJay 18:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether "common" names have much to do with it - NEWI Cefn Druids are commonly known to most people as just "Druids", how many times do you hear or see these days "Wolverhampton Wanderers" etc. - fchd (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For information, the football team FC Red Bull Salzburg is situated at its new sponsored name. As is its ice hockey equivalent at EC Red Bull Salzburg. And I'd say they were the correct places. Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, one of the main reasons for avoiding sponsored names of leagues/grounds is that they're likely to change every couple of years and thereby result in chaotic article moves, broken links, etc. According to the Connah's Quay article, however, the club has actually been taken over by the "GAP" company (rather than them simply paying a few bob to add their name), which would seem to suggest that the new name will have a greater chance of remaining in place for the foreseeable future..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with sponsored team names in general is that they can change in a second if the sponsor decides to withdraw for some reason like bankruptcy, decline of interest or whatsoever. Take Austria's teams for example (and not just the professional teams). Most of them change their sponsor anually. Do you really want to move those articles every time the company changes? Other examples are mainly to be found in Eastern Europe, e.g. in the Czech Republic (Tescoma Zlin) or Slovenia (Interblock Ljubljana). As for said Welsh clubs, they have a grown history and thus should be referred by their "old" names (Cefn Druids and Welshpool Town). In general, sponsor names within a club's name should be omitted unless it is a historic part of it (e.g. Bayer 04 Leverkusen or Skoda Xanthi. Hockey-holic (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thiago Jotta da Silva and notability

I'm posting this here rather than the article's talk page to reach a larger audience...

According to the article (and news reports), Da Silva is a former Vasco da Gama player. However, I have not been able to find any stats on the web for this player, so my gut feeling is that he fails both WP:N and WP:FOOTYN. Does anyone know if the guy actually played for Vasco in any senior competition, or if he only was a youth/reserve player? As far as I can tell, his last club Club Estácio de Sá plays on the third tier of Brazilian football and is not a professional club (correct me if I'm wrong). No article existed before his tragic death, and as we all know, Wikipedia is not a news outlet or a memorial. So, again: does anyone know if Da Silva actually did play for Vasco in senior competition? --Badmotorfinger (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no mention of him at SambaFoot.co.uk, which lists a vast majority of Brazilian players...GiantSnowman 10:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Football

Hey, I've updated the code of this template after a request to incorporate Template:WPBannerMeta. Please change anything I've missed. The code is at Template:Football/sandbox with the test page at Template:Football/testcases. This will make it easier to update in the future as well when you add new task forces or subprojects, you can simply add several lines of code to incorporate a new task force. —Borgarde^talk 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Association football

Does anyone know why Association football appears as an "unassessed" article and not a "featured" article to those users logged on and with the assessment gadget turned on? Peanut4 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the assessment is in a subpage, at Talk:Association football/Header. Don't know why it is though. —Borgarde^talk 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good spot. Is there any need for the transclusion page though? Talk:Association football is the only page it is transcluded to. Peanut4 (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think there is at all, it looks like it's been done to reduce clutter on the talk page. —Borgarde^talk 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:North American club football competitions

Greetings. Bit of help please, some users are removing the North American SuperLiga link from the template and shows no reason of such change. JC 07:22, 02 Octuber 2008 (PST)

Örjans Vall

Halmstads BK and its supporters are currently trying to get a new stadium built for the club, at the present it appears like one will be built, if its built Örjans Vall will be demolized and replaced by appartments, if this is to happen should the articel regarding Örjans Vall remain, deleted or rewritten?, 2 matches durring 1958 FIFA World Cup where played there. --> Halmstad, Talk to me 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you just need to re-write the first line to say it was a former stadium, etc, and add some information later on about what the stadium becomes. There is no need to delete the article. Peanut4 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peanut4. There is a category for defunct stadiums here. --Carioca (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Goal.Com reliability - a heads up.

For those that use goal.com as a source, be aware that the statistics they give for player _include_ unused substitute appearances (which we don't count!). For example, Goal.com shows Javi Varas as having Played 5 Liga and 2 UEFA (which shows they update quickly because the 2nd UEFA was today's game) but zerozero.pt clearly states he was an unused substitute in 5 Liga games and 1 UEFA game (not updated with today's game yet)--ClubOranje^Talk 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if goal.com is reliable at all. At best, it seems like a tabloid with sensationalist views of things. x42bn6 Talk Mess 08:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is also written by fans, from previous discussions. I would only use it if there are no other sources, or for player interviews. Peanut4 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it a reliable source for that reason (some parts written by fans, non-pro sports journalists), therefore closer to a blog and POV. This was discussed before here. -- Alexf⁴² 11:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF Champions League 2009–10

A head-up that there is edit warring over a prod going on at CONCACAF Champions League 2009–10. This seems to mostly be by User:SuperSonicx1986, who has been clearly advised on his talk page that the prod has been contested and that if he wishes to pursue this, he should now go to WP:AfD. He has received a 'final' warning and a final 'final' warning (as three weeks elapsed since the last one) but an IP has waded in too now. I have no opinion on whether there should be an article on this subject. The contention seems to be that there has been no official announcement of the tournament other than a statement in 1.4 on page 3 here that the tournament will be organised every year but whatever, WP:AfD is the next step not edit warring over the prod. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF is not a reliable source in this. The same thing happened for the Cup Winners Cup, the Giants Cup, and the Champions Cup of 16 teams which CONCACAF created documents of similar status as the above one and we all know how it ended up. Not to mention, there are media elements talking of a change of slot allocation.

That is why it is best to wait and see what does CONCACAF say FROM THEIR MOUTH, not some online book.

Okay, first, indent your comments so that we can distinguish them by using one or more colons like this ":," and also please sign your posts with four tildes like this "~~~~," so that we can tell who says what. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the competition won't take place next season, and even if we grant that you are right about it, there is still no excuse for your behavior over the last several months with regard to CONCACAF articles. You've engaged in a number of edit wars, refuse to be part of constructive discussion, and are generally a pain in the ass about everything. Please stop being a dick. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a final warning and removed the prod again. However, I have to say that I would vote for delete in any AfD because there is no concrete information on the tournament whatsoever (no final venue or anything). пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you know the final venue? It's a home and away series between the semi-finalists. Teams have already qualified for 2009-2010 (DC United already winning the US Open, and Columbus Crew will win the Supporters Shield in a few days). Ticket sales have already started for the preliminary round - [2]. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• User:SuperSonicx1986 received a 72-hour block for still doing this, but while blocked, once again blanked and prodded CONCACAF Champions League 2009–10 using IP account User:206.209.102.178, an account he has used previously. In addition to this obvious violation of procedures he has continued to edit war on pages Template:North American club football competitions, CONCACAF Champions League, Template:CONCACAF Champions League, Copa Interclubes UNCAF, and Copa Sudamericana, making changes that are consistently reverted by various other users. Nfitz (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • More vandalism by this user, this time using User:206.209.102.182. Are there any admins out there who can block the user, and the IP range? And perhaps semi-protect the page? Nfitz (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism remains by User:SuperSonicx1986 using several IP accounts 68.215.154.112, 206.209.102.178, 206.209.102.182, 68.218.61.252 and 67.34.2.41. I request for a semi-protection to the pages mentioned above, atleast to anonymous users. JC 16:34, 22 Octuber 2008 (PST)

Scottish Football League articles

A few months ago someone created a page for each season of the Scottish Football League which would be fair enough if all of that information was not already on wikipedia on the seasons in Scottish football articles, in almost all cases the information has just been copied and pasted onto these newer pages (Scottish Football League 1982-83, 1982–83 in Scottish football). To compllicate matters further pages have been created for the old Scottish Premier Division, these articles do add a lot of information but I am not sure what should be done with them how should they be categorised? for example should all articles before the current Scottish Premier League be treated the same (i.e. in the same category, template etc) or should a new cataegory and perhaps template be created for every time the top division changed name, which is not that many times but it could still be very confusing. Darryl.matheson (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

SPD and SPL should be treated differently because they are different entities, as with The Football League First Division and the FA Premier League. Seasons up to and including 1997-98 should be in the same format as The Football League 1974-75, all the SFL divisions should be shown together. So from what you are saying, I think the SPD season articles should be deleted and the information moved to the relevant SFL article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the premier Division articles should be deleted and the information put into the SFL articles, seems you could just be trying to find a reason for those SFL season articles to exist in the first place. The premier Division articles add a lot of detail and that would not be practical to place in a SFL season article or Scottish football season article. Darryl.matheson (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Find a reason??? I've never seen or edited those articles before. Please assume good faith. What I'm talking about is consistency with the English league articles. The old league structure was clearly divisions within the same league. It should be relatively straightforward to move the information from the division season article into the main article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jmorrison230582 - the individual league articles should be merged into the Scottish Football League articles in the same way that the Football League articles are organised. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the football kit images is broken

Image:Kit body blackcenterstripe.png isn't displaying properly, the only thing that can be seen in the links is a red boxed "X" with the color input, can someone familiar wth the format please fix it? 24.138.250.39 (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the image at my end. It's probably a problem with your ISP. – PeeJay 19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. In my computer the image loaded without problems. --Carioca (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have it cached, though? Because I get the same error as the IP. Black Kite 19:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Even after purging my cache, the image still shows up for me. – PeeJay 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just purged my cache, and the image showed up for me. --Carioca (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not getting it either, would someone who can see the image mind re-uploading it? That might rectify the issue. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly non-notable footballers

Did this guy ever actually play a game for anyone of note? Also do any of the players on the {{Honduras Squad 2007 FIFA U-17 World Cup}} template have any claim to notability, most of the articles don't seem to assert any. EP 21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many articles about Cristian Martínez, Johnny Leverón and Alfredo Mejía and their exploits with the Honduran U-17 and U-20 squads. Also there are some articles about their troubles getting visas to join Udinese (two of them were arrested) this spring. However, none of it indicates they have played at a professional level yet. Jogurney (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo online's GAC

Over at GAC, Wizardman pointed out that Jimbo online had gone on a long wikibreak as he travelled, his GAC Curtis Woodhouse is still listed there. I was wondering what would happen here, would some adopt it and work on it if held. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind keeping an eye on it, if no-one else wants it, he was one of ours for a time. Though I know naff all about the boxing side of it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll also help out at the GA review, he was sort of one of mine... but I could help anyway. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's now been put on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Now passed. And I've updated Jimbo online's userboxes accordingly, hope that's OK. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd stop by. Cheers for the help guys, nice one. --Jimbo^[online] 08:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hierarchy of leagues in American soccer

Anyone want to contribute to this discussion? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed on {{Infobox football club}}

See Template talk:Infobox football club#add a caption. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

High-quality kits in infoboxen

Before I revert this, did I miss a change in our guidelines which would result in edits like this? Not that the result isn't pretty, but it's evidently nonstandard. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss anything. Those are definitely non-standard. For the record, IMO the standard style of kits is better as anyone can make them, which is the objective of Wikipedia. These textured ones are much too complex for Joe Public to make himself. – PeeJay 10:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Club notability

Do we need to update WP:FOOTYN to include club notability? (currently it only includes player notability) I'm sure we have reached consensus on club notability in the past (for the English game at least), but I can't remember what it was. I specifically wish to know if Cleator Moor Celtic F.C. (who play in the Wearside Football League - step 7 / level 11) are notable enough for an article. --Jameboy (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know exactly where the join comes, but I'm fairly sure that having reached the first round proper of the FA Cup on one occasion (see FCHD) is good enough to make them notable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The generally accepted criteria for English clubs is to have played at Step 6 or above, or in the FA Cup or FA Vase. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, as WP:FOOTYN has been rejected by the wider community, is there much point updating it......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say ignored rather than rejected, I dont recall seeing any consensus against it. EP 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall there was firm consensus against it when, as soon as it was finalised, people rushed a bunch of deleted articles on Conference players to DRV saying "they're OK now because they meet FOOTYN". Multiple editors responded to say that the project had no authority to create its own notability guideline. That sounds like rejection to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that was more of an understandable quickfire response from poeple working at DRV who were snowed under as you described (rather than a formal consensus). The idea that individual projects have no authority to establish their own guidelines is contradicted by the existence of Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines (SNGs) such as Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and many others. The proposal that such guidelines are not needed during the recent WP:Notability review was pretty strongly rejected. Considering the huge number of football articles I can't understand the opposition to formalising and maintaining our own guidelines and totally reject the idea that the concept is somehow unauthorised. EP 23:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be useful to do so. If there is consensus then it would give people some guidance without having to trawl through the talk archives. If our notability criteria are superceded by wider Wikipedia guidelines or consensus then perhaps those could be linked to and/or a caveat added to the WPFOOTYN page? --Jameboy (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just use the standard notability criteria of requiring multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources. If it's good enough for a bridge, or a politican or an ancient battle, why isn't it good enough for football clubs, be they from England or elsewhere? - fchd (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Primarily because sports journalism is so robotically easy that merely existing at a certain level on a ladder is sufficient to generate multiple independent reports on a subject from reliable sources. Having a separate guide is simply a shortcut, as the level at which such sources are generated at a sufficient level to warrant an article has been established experimentally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the fb template

How can we make it so that when you do United States, instead of getting "USA," you get "United States?" I don't think that it is right that the default name be "USA," especially since the article is located at United States men's national football team and not USA men's national football team. I think the same thing could also be done for the "fbw" template as well. Most Americans refer to the team as the "U.S. (men's) national team" or the "United States," not as the "USA" or "USA (men's) national team," and I think that should be respected and/or reflected by the template. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't easily, as the fb template uses the templates made by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template to display the correct flags. The actual data setting is held in Template:Country data United States with the following lines -

| name alias-football = USA
| link alias-football = United States {{{mw|men's}}} national soccer team

You may find that asking there for an addition to be made along the lines of the following might be useful to you -

| name alias-footballalt = United States
| link alias-footballalt = United States {{{mw|men's}}} national soccer team

Please note that I only glanced over the template so have no idea if this will really work. Also note that if you do change the default, this may impact on a number of tables with respect to width etc. Nanonic (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is trivially easy to fix: simply remove the name alias-football = USA line from the template, and do not add anything else (especially all that "footballalt" stuff which would have no effect whatsoever). As I posted on WT:WikiProject Flag Template, the original {{USAf}} and {{USAf2}} templates (which I obsoleted and deleted after creating {{fb}}) used "USA" because there was consensus here to use the same name that FIFA uses. Has consensus changed? Either way, it's trivial to change. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Reserves and youth teams

Is Rangers F.C. Reserve and Youth squads notable enough for its own article? Surely it would be best served as a much smaller entry in the main Rangers F.C. page? •Oranje•·Talk 09:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I generally feel like reserves and youth teams still get a reasonable amount of media coverage and are worth being an article split to properly cover them. matt91486 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The article is already pushing it lengthwise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

League listing

Does anyone remember the subpage link for our list of leagues that are the benchmarks for notability? I think we should include a link to it off FOOTYN, even if it is merely a project essay, since that's the most logical place to look for it. It's in fact where I looked for it just now. (Once found, I'm going to note the precedent AfD for the Honduran league as a resource in case something else comes up in AfD). matt91486 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Nanonic (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I've added several leagues to it: Honduras (per last AfD), Saudi Arabia (WP article says fully pro since 1990), India (BBC ref), and Qatar (Australian ref). If anyone has sources for Honduras or Saudi Arabia, those would be nice, but India and Qatar are officially eligible for player articles. matt91486 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay's WP article also says it's fully professional in unambiguous terms, so I'll include that as well. A RS would be preferable. matt91486 (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Henrik Jørgensen

Can somebody with membership access to www.playerhistory.com visit this page and verify/correct details for Henrik Jørgensen (footballer)? Some of it is a bit sketchy: I only know his two league games for Dundee United in the early part of the 1994-95 season are correct. Cheers. •Oranje•·Talk 13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Copycat of AC Omonia vandalism

Today's UEFA Cup draw appears to have sparked copycats of the AC Omonia / Daily Mirror vandalism. Best keep an eye on all UEFA Cup participants' articles. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question re: notability

Does a player who has not made a senior league appearance but has played for the U21 national squad meet the notability criteria? JACOPLANE • 2008-10-8 23:32

I would say not, but others might disagree. IIRC, Rhys Williams was denied an article until he played for Middlesbrough, despite having previously played for the Wales U-21 team. – PeeJay 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let's take as an example the second goalkeeper of Ajax, Kenneth Vermeer. He was the Dutch goalkeeper (played all their games) at the 2008 Olympics. He was a member of the Dutch squad that won the UEFA U-21 Championship in 2006 and 2007. He's never actually played a senior league match for Ajax, so the only reason he meets the notability criteria is because he was loaned out to Willem II last season, where he played a few games. Shouldn't someone who plays for a (UEFA) U21 national squad be notable even though they have not appeared in any league matches? JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 03:52

As far as I'm aware, Olympic appearances confer notability under special circumstances since all Olympic athletes are considered notable on WP. matt91486 (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Allright, forget about the Olympics then, is someone who won the UEFA U-21 Championship in 2006 and 2007 but was not in the Olympic squad and has not played a senior league match notable? JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 04:34

In the case of Kenneth Vermeer, which competitions did he play in when he was with Willem II? – PeeJay 06:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He played in the Eredivisie for Willem II, but if he had not been loaned out by Ajax he would have exactly zero senior league appearences. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 07:44

Surely international inclusion (under-21 and even under-19?) is notability enough? Selected to represent your country at the level immediately below full national level? The Scotland under-21 squad is regularly full of Old Firm players who have never been near their respective first teams, yet would more than likely star for other Scottish Premier League sides. •Oranje•·Talk 08:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Speculating that Vermeer would have zero appearances in the Eredivisie if he hadn't been loaned out is irrelevant. He was loaned out and he did play, so he's notable. Can you not think of a better example? – PeeJay 09:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What, you don't enjoy discussing hypothetical situations? Silly person :P JACOPLANE • 2008-10-12 20:01

Stevan Bates

To my eyes a not-very Serbian surname, anyone know if this player has any British/American blood - father, grandfather etc.? GiantSnowman 14:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's more likely that "Bates" should be pronounced "BAH-tess" or "BAH-tesh" in this case. Of course, he could have some British/American blood in him, but the former is equally as possible. – PeeJay 15:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I was thinking that that was a possibility...GiantSnowman 15:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This came up a few years ago on another soccer message board. Bates has no British or American ancestry and Bates is Hungarian surname, and there are many ethnic Hungarians in Serbia. Jogurney (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I confirm he is Serbian, that's all French sources state.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bicycle Kick

Please could some uninvolved editors look into the content dispute over this article. I have reported the incivility of MarshalN20 at WP:Wikiquette over his personal attacks. I came across the edit warring between user:MarshalN20 and User:Selecciones de la Vida ([3]) and heated dispute on the talkpage and became embroiled in the debate. Both myself and User:Marianocecowski have attempted to improve and clarify the section by removing content related to the general history of football in Peru that makes no mention of the the technique or its development, but MarshalN20 has reverted the changes and treated them as personal attacks. I have also asked him to stop including links to the article Lima Cricket and Football Club, unless he can provide reliable sources that the club had a specific role to play in the invention of the move rather than a general role in the history of Peruvian football.

Mariano summed up my feelings when he stated "There are several things that I believe should be removed and other things to improve, but I feel it would be useless to take any action if you are going to take it as a personal attack and revert it to your liking." I would continue to attempt to improve the section myself, but as nearly all of my attempts to reason with MarshalN20 have caused him to resort to personal attacks and allegations of bias and aggression against me I feel it is time to step aside and request that other members of the community atempt to improve the section. EP 23:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered the same problem with MarshalN20 while working on the Bicycle kick article. This occurred prior to the contributions from neutral editors such as English Peasant and Marianocecowski. Objectivity, neutrality, and arbitration from other fellow Wikipedia editors is greatly needed. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good reader of this page. I am also in favor of an actual "Third-person" opinion on this matter in order find a reasonable solution to the problem at hand. As you can see by the above two comments, the users "English peasant" and "Selecciones de la Vida" simply want to make me look bad. Yet, as far as it goes for my defense, all that I have done is defended the Peruvian section from barbarous edits that wanted to truncate it to the most minimal amount of information. As you can see in this list of "evidences" that I provided, [4], user "English peasant" has come into the article with the main purpose of making the Peruvian section shorter (not better). As I have stated in past discussions, I have read that one of Wikipedia's policies is that this is not a "Paper Encyclopedia": [5]. Therefore, just as long as the information in the Peruvian section pertains to the topics discussed, which are the bicycle kick, the introduction of football in Peru by the English in relation to the bicycle kick, and the port of Callao, there is no reason to further truncate the Peruvian section.

Here is a good example of what "English peasant" and "Selecciones de la Vida" support. User:Marianocecowski did this edit not so long ago in the article (take a specific look at how much he deleted and what the end result was): [6]. At the end, the whole section was reduced to the statement made by Jorge Barraza. How exactly does this improve the Peruvian section?

I have been attempting to find a fair compromise to the problem with the other side, but they simply keep on attacking me and commonly point toward "Concensus" by stating that my opinion is a "minority position" and that therefore they as the "majority" and with their self-given status of "respected editors" have a right to edit the article to their liking. This is highly unfair and unethical. I have also been trying to get a third opinion on this, but thus far have proven fruitless in this situation. For instance, I contacted user "Victor12" for assistance [7] and also sought to find a review of the article in the FOOTY assessment page: [8].

English Peasant has not been a neutral editor. As you can read in my 5 points of evidence that I wrote in the bicycle kick discussion page, "English Peasant" has simply sought to make the Peruvian section shorter, pointing that the Peruvian claim was backed up by "misleading and irrelevant sources" (which is a complete falsity, further verified by User: Qwghlm), and showing a complete misunderstanding of the point of the "Attributions of Invention" section of the article.

English Peasant seems to think that the article should focus on making one point stronger than the other. For instance, he wrote to user "Mariano" the following: "Was it invented in Peru or Chile?" [9] Even though that question might sound silly, it really shows that English Peasant does not seem to understand that the place of birth of the bicycle kick is a disputed issue. Therefore, there is no concrete answer, by this point and time, to such a question as the one he asks. Some people say it was invented in Peru and some others say it was invented in Chile; and some others say it was invented in Brazil or in Italy. The whole point of the article is to present points with the strongest amount of evidence that can be found. He seems to think that every section in this article should be the same size, because for some strange reason he believes that the length of the Peruvian section makes the argument sound better than the other arguments. Yet, my stance is that instead of focusing on making the Peruvian section shorter, they should be focusing on how to make other sections larger and more accurate (and certainly better written).

Finally, both of these users accuse of being aggresive towards them. Yet, they both conveniently ignore their many provocations and equally aggressive behaviors towards me. No, I won't deny that I let my heart carry me away in parts of the discussion. In other words, I do admit that I did become aggresive in the article, and you can certainly see that by yourselves if you read the whole discussion. Yet, you must also take into account that these two users, specially user "Selecciones de la Vida," have also been as equally rude and have constantly been making pointless arguments for the sake of getting me angry. Nonetheless, after holding a discussion with User: Alexf about civility, I have completely calmed down and let my tone become less aggresive. Yet, on the contrary, User: English peasant seems to be highly frustrated and angry, and that can easily be proven by the following confession he made: "The guy is driving me up the wall, he wont address the issue I'm trying to discuss without trying to wind me up." He keeps on attacking me, and keeps on threatening me with reporting me to Wikipedia for civility and whatnot. Yet, he does not seem to understand that I already had a discussion with User: Alexf about this "civility" problem. Thereupon, this problem should no longer be seen from my part.

As a final note, please be aware that user "Selecciones de la Vida" is just as involved in the article as I am. Both of us have been discussing this issues for quite a long time by now, and he is an avid supporter of the "Chilean Claim." Now, this does not mean that whatever he says should not be taken into account. His opinion is still just as important as that of any other user. Yet, please be careful with taking his opinion as neutral. Just as I can state that I am in favor of the Peruvian claim and that my opinion should not be taken as completely neutral on this matter, you should also take note that "Selecciones de la Vida"'s opinion is not neutral and he only seeks to push forth his personal interests and beliefs in order to make the "Chilean Claim" section sound as the most reasonable.

Thank you in advance for any contributions on this matter. I repeat once again, I'm completely in favor of a fair third opinion that can devise a compromise. Remember that my stance on this matter is that the Peruvian section does not need to be further shortened. Thank you for taking the time to read this message.--MarshalN20 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the article does indeed suggest that the length of the Pervian section is disproportionaltely long and needs cutting down a bit per WP:UNDUE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Everything in the Peruvian section is relevant to the claim of invention and the bicycle kick. That is, unless you want to do away with the section discussing Alejandro Villanueva; but then that would take away from the whole article a person whom was famous for his bicycle kicks (which would be ironic since the whole point of the article is the bicycle kick). Also, after taking a more careful read at the WP:UNDUE section, it should be taken into account that the "Peruvian claim" is by no means a "minority view." Countries outside of Peru, including Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, and Bolivia, also call the move "chalaca" (which is the name that symbolizes the move's origin in Callao, Peru). On the other hand, an actual "minority view" would be the "Brazilian claim" and the "Italian claim," both of which don't get out of their respective countries. I hope you understand what I mean. Thanks in advance for your suggestion.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article contains a famous games section that infringes NPOV so a tag was added. The addition of a strikers section with info has been condenced since it's open to repeat content. Info can already be found within the article or on the players individual biographical articles. No additional information such as the inclusion of other sections by MarshalN20 or myself should be made until a consensus is reached by other editors for reasons of arbitration. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have notified a veteran editor of Wikipedia of your aggressive edits against me. The "famous games" section is meant to show important games in which the bicycle kick was done (Remember that only a few have been able to do this move in actual major and important competitions). The "strikers" section is meant to show a small (bicycle kick related) description of the player. If the people want to learn more about the player (aside from the bicycle kick), then they can simply click on the wikilink. Why do you so violently delete everything that I add? I've been doing these corrections as a way to improve the article. I've discussed things with User: GiantSnowman and User: Beve in order to keep things descent and non-POV. Yet, you aggressively come into the article and accuse me of POV, delete information, and state that I should no longer make edits on the article. What is your problem? I thought you had already calmed down, but apparently you have not.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem Solved: Bicycle kick section was shortened according to suggestion by User: Number 57. User: Beve, User: Peanut4, and User: GiantSnowman also made neutral contributions to the article.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Crazy template

This needs fixing Template talk:Argentina Squad 1996 Summer Olympics or deleting, I'm not sure which? It has been added to a number of articles EP 00:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need fixing? It looks just the same as the other templates.--MarshalN20 (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's in template TALK space. I might go through and fix it now. —Borgarde^talk 07:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

All fixed now. —Borgarde^talk 07:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The old "famous players" problem

Albedo Piazzolla has been adding famous/notable player sections to articles without providing an accompanying criteria. Should I be removing the sections (as I have done to a couple of articles), or slapping a {{Famous players}} tag at the top of the sections? I'd be inclined to do the latter if someone would actually take the time to build the list according to the criteria stated, but I don't think it is likely to happen. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, would criteria be needed for a "Notable former players" section in a non-League club's article? If the player has become notable (i.e., he has a Wikipedia article) since leaving the club, shouldn't this suffice? - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with Notable former players sections is that it is at best imprecise as to the chronology of that notability. For example, should Teddy Sheringham be considered as a "notable past player" at Colchester: notable among English players of his era, but his few months at Layer Road were entirely forgettable: Ian Wright is notable, but was he anything more than a bit better than other Kent League players while at Greenwich Borough?

As regards your idea about an article being sufficient notability, it would very much depend on which non-league club you have in mind: if applied to Cambridge United, we'd see every one of their players from 1970-2005: applied to Brett Sports it would be sufficient grounds. This variety of criteria as to how high the threshold might be set is why it should be justified on each talk page.

As a {{Famous players}} tag slapper-on, I would be say slap away on Sr Piazzolla's contributions, but given that the template includes the words "If no criteria is forthcoming, the section is liable to deletion", how long should the tag be in place before an axe falls? Kevin McE (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. He's re-added the list to SC Freiburg's article, listing players' caps for their respective countries. Some of them didn't receive caps whilst with the club, but it's better than nowt, I suppose. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion - players should only be considered 'notable' on the club page if the club itself (or acceptable local media) considers them notable - for example, Bradford City's notable players are those who have been voted by the Telegraph & Argus, the local paper. GiantSnowman 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if a player gained international caps whilst at the club, or started his career there (and actually played for their 1st team) and went on to become a top class player after leaving, then they can be added to that list, or if they made a significant contribution to the team, ie scoring the winner in a cup final Skitzo (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And how would you define a "top class player"? GiantSnowman 10:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

dates and dating in articles.

Along with references and dates within the articles. Why are we using the American format? Shouldn't we be using a more international format which was set by British English? Govvy (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The date format used is set by the person who wrote the article. I've seen no standards set by WP:FOOTY about the date format that should be used. – PeeJay 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The date format used should be the format with which the subject of the article has strong ties. So, all articles about English footballers/leagues/Cups should follow the International format ie 11 October 2008. Only those articles with strong links to the US should use October 11, 2008. Woody (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're using the birth date/birth date and age templates, remember to add the |df=yes parameter to make it display the day ahead of the month. Why the templates are still set to the American date format as default is beyond me... пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

k, the |df=yes should help. Maybe a bot can fix that. And references? Govvy (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

New Articles for Origins of Bicycle Kick

User: Beve and I agree that there is currently enough information in the Bicycle Kick article for the different origin claims of the bicycle kick. Now, you may ask yourselves why such a thing would be needed. Well, by creating the article a series of things would be improved:

• First, it would allow for the bicycle kick article to solely focus on the kick and not the origin of the kick. Currently, all of the "Attributions of Invention" in the article make up more than half of the article.
• Second, it would allow for the different "Attributions of Invention" to have more in-depth information dedicated to them without having to worry about "undue weight" in the article.
• Third, it would allow the Academic Community that would be interested in learning more about a particular subject (in this case the "Attribution of Invention") to read an encyclopedic article. Of course, as me and User: Beve agreed, these individual articles would solely include factual information that has valid sources and no original research.
• Fourth, there is enough information for these claims in order for an article to sustain itself.

Nonetheless, both of us would like to receive the approval of the Wikipedia football community before this project is continued. Also, we would need some suggestions as to what the name of the article should be. Per se, one suggestion would be to call them things such as (regarding the two major ideas): "Bycicle Kick Origin: Chile" and "Bicycle Kick Origin: Peru." I hope this receives a positive approval from the community. We will take a 24 hour no-reply as a "fly-by" that will allow us to continue, but even after that you'll be able to judge whether the article should stay or be deleted. Also, if you have any more questions that you would like to personally ask me, feel free to contact me through my talk page. Thank you for taking the time to read this message.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for any branch off articles, any claims of origin could and should be made on the current Bicycle kick article. GiantSnowman 12:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with User:GiantSnowman. Normal course of practice over an edit war is to obtain consensus by discussion, not to fork off another article. There is already far too much detail on the claims and counter claims about the origin of this move. Trim it down by about 50%, then we might have a good article on our hands. - fchd (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Richard Rundle. Given the recent discussion here, I would be worried that, at this time anyway, the new article would be a content fork rather than the correct reason for a new article. I would rather the issues be discussed and agreed properly before any new article be created. Peanut4 (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Giant Snowman, I would like to hear a more practical reason as to why a new article on the matter should not be needed. Richard Rundle, you state the reason as to why such an article would be needed by writing: "There is already far too much detail on the claims and counter claims about the origin of this move." It is because of this detail, which by the way is factual (with no original research) and properly sourced, that such a new article would be needed. By "trimming it down" we would be "discarding" factual information from the encyclopedia. Just imagine if the people from the encyclopedia Brittanica were to discard an entire section of factual information because they wanted to "trim it down." If there is enough information in order to sustain an article, then why should it not be allowed a page in Wikipedia? If you would allow me to create the article, and thereby demonstrate to you that it would not be a "content fork," I would be most content to allow you to check it yourselves. In other words, let me create the article and if by the time I finish creating it you still do not approve it, then by all means you can erase it. Just one chance to prove to you that it would not be a "fork," that's all I ask.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Because any information you put on the new article will simply be a repeat of what should be on the old one...as a compromise why not create the new article in a sandbox, so that we can review it to see if it is acceptable? GiantSnowman 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been moving around some things in the bicycle kick article. I could really write an article on the matter in the sandbox, but before I do such a thing I would like for you, or any of the neutral editors here, to check out the new things I've done in the bicycle kick article. Here's a list of things I have done:

• Shortened the "Peruvian claim" by about 50% like "Richard Rundle" suggested.
• Created two new sections: "Notable bicycle kicks" and "Famous bicycle kickers."
• Created subsections for "Famous bicycle kickers" in alphabetical order: "Alejandro Villanueva," "David Arellano," and "Pele."

I would like to know if these things are alright with the standards. I am aware that the information on the new sections currently mainly feature Peruvian people and events, but that is because those are the things that I know most about. That does not mean other Wikipedists can't come in there and expand the sections with their knowledge. I am deeply interested in your opinions because you are, without doubt, more knowledgeable on these things than me and, most importantly, you hold a sincere neutral thought on the idea. Thank you.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would merge the sections on "Notable bicycle kicks" and "Famous bicycle kickers", and provide some references to say why they atre notable/famous. GiantSnowman 14:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I've tried to do this according to what you suggested. I hope it's what you were thinking. Thank you very much for your help. You're basically fixing the whole problem.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've stated my concern with the addition on the Bicycle kick section of this talk page. The list of strikers with content is a repeat of information already mentioned. The famous games section is open for infringements of NPOV. As of now there are three examples include a Peruvian POV and are unverifiable to note whether they are famous or not on a global perspective. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The list of strikers is not a repeat of "already mentioned" information. I wish I could understand why you have to be so aggressive. The strikers section was meant only to include information related to the bicycle kick. Yet you delete an entire paragraph, paste it into the Alejandro Villanueva article, delete the Alejandro Villanueva picture I added, and then claim that the information there is repeating. Seriously, you must have no conscience. Also, the Copa Libertadores and the Copa America are continental tournaments of global perspectives. lol. Of course they are important you silly person! Now, please, chill out buddy.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What does it take for you to be WP:CIVIL during discussion. You have been advised by User:Alexf to restrain yourself from using terms such as silly person and should be past that. There's a reason you have been reported to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts by User:English peasant. The list is open to be overly extensive and eventually to become unmanageable while also infringing NPOV. Any drastic changes should be made through consensus. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So now you're threatening me? That's really cute Selecciones, now do you want a lolipop and a cookie? You are not some Nostradamus that can see the future. All of the changes that have been done have been under the monitoring of users such as User: Beve, User: GiantSnowman, and now User: Peanut4. Of course, since now there are actually neutral editors in the article, you're beginning to squeal out in fear. Let the neutral editors (not you or English peasant) decide on whether the edits I or anybody else makes are correct and fair, for they know best.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop making invalid assumptions because there were no threats made. Stop bringing up irrelevant subjects and items such as Nostradamus, lolipops, and cookies when the discussion involves consensus from neutral editors. I will report you're ongoing incivility. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"I will report you're ongoing incivility." You should be reported for ongoing attacks at me. If lolipops and cookies are not to your appeal, then you might as well go eat lemons.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have severe reservations about the list of strikers. You could make a case for a good majority of any footballer who has played since the bicycle kick became used. It could easily end up with a list thousands of names long. Peanut4 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could write this in a better and friendlier way, but since the English language limits me to such things: You're incorrect. Even Pele has stated that not many people have actually been able to make bicycle kicks due to the move's dangerous motion. The list obviously would need evidence (sources) in order to prove that such a person is famous for the bicycle kick. Seriously, there is no way the list could expand greater than 15 names. I even doubt it could expand beyond 10 names. I mean, I can't make a bicycle kick, much less would I be able to make the bicycle kick in a major tournament where I cannot afford to make a silly move in which I could get hurt or simply miss the winning goal. Considering football players are human beings like me, they obviously face similar restrictions to my own. Please think about what I've just written.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to say only 10-15 players have ever done it? I've seen three this season. Peanut4 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm trying to say that only a handful of players have been able to do the bicycle kick and actually achieved widespread fame. Now, you might have seen three bicycle kicks somewhere, but I have not even heard of those kicks. In other words, those kicks were certainly unimportant. On the other hand, take a look at actually "bicycle kick famous" people. In Peru, Alejandro Villanueva has almost its own cult of people that see the guy as a hero and the majority of Peruvians, and even people outside of Peru, remember this guy for his skills with the football; among these "skills" being the bicycle kick. In Mexico, Hugo Sanchez did the bicycle kick in important events and so often that in Mexico the move is also known as "Huguiña." In Chile, David Arellano is widely known for his amazing skills as a football player and, not in coincidence, for his bicycle kicks.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But how do you define "widespread fame"? Of the current list of six strikers on the page, I've never heard of five of the players. And I don't see Pele as famous for his bicycle kicks either. The whole list is WP:NPOV in my opinion. Peanut4 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not my fault that you do not know about these people. Also, it's not about how "I" define "widespread fame." For such an idea to be made the person needs sources backing them up, obviously; and that's Wikipedia policy, not something I'm making up. Pele is famous for a series of things, among them his bicycle kicks (Some even call it his "Signature move"). Have you never seen these videos of his? Take a look: [10] and [11]. There are some more. That's certainly being famous for the bicycle kick. The second video, if I remember correctly, is taken from a "bicycle kick training video" of Pele.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"It's not my fault that you do not know about these people." You fail to see the point though. You, yourself said "I have not even heard of those kicks." Hence it is impossible to define how famous X player or Y player is for bicycle kicks. I simply feel such a list is blatantly WP:NPOV. I could add various players to the list which you may not have heard of, and we'd be probably past the 10 names you've already said you expect it wouldn't get past. Get another 10 members of the project, countless number of driveby readers, and the list will be unmanageable. How do you propose to define whether X player or Y player should or should not be on the list? Peanut4 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just stated that the best way to know if these people are "bicycle kick famous" is to have sources backing up such a claim. You're obviously not understanding the point of this, and I really do hope you're just not arguing for the sake of nothing. Important things to note would be: Have these people done several (more than just "some") bicycle kicks? Are these people famously known for their bicycle kicks? Have these people done the bicycle kick in important situations (continental cups, international games, etc.)? These are just some of the things to look for, obviously. Those three people you mention, who are they? You say you've seen three people done the move this week, but you have failed to give any names or sources. Added that if the move really makes them famous, then it should be something people talk about for years to come. Pele, Villanueva, Arellano, and Sanchez are to this day known in the football world for their bicycle kicks. This doesn't mean this is the only important thing they ever did, but it does give them a certain degree of fame. If other players cannot match their standards, then they obviously do not need to be in the list. And yet again, if you do not know these people, it's never too late to learn something new.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hugo Sanchez, yet he isn't even named in the article. Two of the three I mention are merely one-offs, one was in a reserve game, but that shows how many people can do it. Add to that and I'll add Peter Crouch, Mark Hughes, Klaas Jan Huntelaar, Rivaldo and maybe Beni Carbone and Ronaldinho, straight off the top off my head for numerous bicycle kicks. I've not heard of five of the six currently on the list, and there is nothing in the article to say why they should be there. To me, this is very similar of the problems regarding WP:NOTED PLAYER. Peanut4 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(indent back in for sake of easier reading) - I'm glad to see Klaus Fischer listed there, as to me he was the king of the bicycle kick when I was growing up. I don't really remember it as a signature move for the likes of Pele though. - fchd (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's impossible to do the bicycle kick, but it's simply a hard move to achieve. Now, these three people you mention are obviously not widespread famous for their bicycle kicks, otherwise (with the current fast world information media) I would have for the least heard about them. Feel free to add Crouch, Hughes, Rivaldo, and whatever other person you want just as long as there is enough information (most importantly: Sources) in order to certify these people as famous for their bicycle kicks. The reason as to why there is nothing certifying these people in the list comes from User: Selecciones de la Vida constantly deleting the things I write. If you can somehow prevent this user from editing what I input in the article, then you'll see one of the options I'm proposing. Also, for "Pele's signature move," simply go to google and type in those words and you'll find that people consider his signature move to be the bicycle kick.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Now, these three people you mention are obviously not widespread famous for their bicycle kicks, otherwise (with the current fast world information media) I would have for the least heard about them." Yet when I said I'd not heard of your players, you simply said: "It's not my fault that you do not know about these people."
• "Feel free to add Crouch, Hughes, Rivaldo, and whatever other person you want just as long as there is enough information (most importantly: Sources)" As far as I can see there isn't a single source on the strikers section currently. How about you add some to the current list, never mind the ones I might / might not add.

Anyway, as I've said, I feel such a list breaches WP:NPOV and would grow to be unmanageable. Peanut4 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you compare those three unknown players with people with an actual historical background to their names??? I'm working on finding the sources, but I'm also doing about 3 other things. If you or anybody else can provide the sources, then by all means go ahead. How about instead of whining how this section "breaches WP:NPOV" people actually do something to source the information? Being constructive > arguing and whining.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be only because he's in the current domain, but I don't call Peter Crouch "unknown". He is well-known for his overhead kicks despite his height. I'm not trying to be unconstructive, I'm merely making my feelings known about the problems you may encounter about putting such a list in there. Myself and Richard Rundle have queried Pele. It's the very essence of the problem of the list - a player I feel is warranted in the list, you have said is "unknown". A player myself and another user have queried, you have put in. In the end, the list will always be incomplete, or suffer from WP:POV problems. Peanut4 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

When did I say Crouch was unknown???? I'm refering to the three bicycle kicks that you said: "Two of the three I mention are merely one-offs, one was in a reserve game, but that shows how many people can do it." In other words, stop taking my words out of context, it's not cool. You and Richard can "queer" Pele as much as you want, but just give me some time to gather all the sources (since you apparently can't go to look for them yourself). The list won't be incomplete just as long as the person in there has a source attached to it confirming his fame for his bicycle kicks.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Peter Crouch was one of the three this season. Peanut4 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. I'll add the sources that you ask when I have some more time. Nonetheless, I will add them.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Mendes - expansion needed

This article currently takes a rather outrageously pro-UK bias to the subject, considering that he won the most prestigious medal in the sport with Porto. Anyone interested, please help expand the section currently titled "Early career" (which includes 60% of his professional career thus far). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could start by translating the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia. I tried translating it using Google and the result was impenetrable - it needs someone who speaks the language. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I know of a good translator who could do it... --Jameboy (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Emile Heskey under GA review

Hello there, the article Emile Heskey which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Northern Irish club notability

Does anyone have an opinion on whether clubs in the Ballymena & Provincial Intermediate League (Kilbride Swifts FC, Ballynure Old Boys and Mosside FC) are notable or not? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a tough one. I'm leaning towards No here, only because the league they play in doesn't seem to form part of the Northern Irish league system (as far as I can tell, the only promotion/relegation seems to be between the top two or three levels). Compared with the English football scene, they appear to be equivalent to sunday league teams. Perhaps someone who's a bit more familiar with footy in Northern Ireland could shed a bit more light here. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

More notable than Belmont Soccer Club , but not much. If you are on a bit of a club clean-up, feel free to add Belmont next time you are doing some AfDs. I have PRODed before, but was contested.--ClubOranje^Talk 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For the artistic amongst you

Someone with an eye for drawing may like to make the (really quite glaringly obvious) corrections to Image:Flopass3.jpg as detailed on the talk page. Knepflerle (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What article do you propose to use the image on? - fchd (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The image is already used on three articles, IIRC. At least it was earlier today... – PeeJay 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was on Striker, Tore André Flo and Long ball; I removed it pending the correction. Knepflerle (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Biggest defeat

What is the consensus on "biggest defeat" on the National Teams info box? Since I seem to be in an edit war with DoddiDi (talk), about which is the biggest defeat in the Argentina national football team article. The article had 3 biggest defeats which are as follows: Czechoslovakia 6 - 1 Argentina (Helsingborg, Sweden; 15 June 1958), Uruguay 5 - 0 Argentina (Guayaquil, Ecuador; 16 December 1959), Argentina 0 - 5 Colombia (Buenos Aires, Argentina; 5 September 1993). He believes only the 1st one merrits mention, but I think that the article shouldn't be change, since all the 3 loses have a 5 goal differential. Who is right? Bocafan76 (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we must mention only the biggest defeat, as the title says, and I think that the 1-6 agianst Czechoslovakia is the biggest because Argentina recived 6 goals... It´s true that the goal difference is the same among this result and the others (0-5 against Uruguay and Colombia), but on that match Argentina recived more goals (6). The same difference, but more goals recived. This rule is applicated in the whole qualification rules of FIFA: at the same goal difference, goal scored/recived must have prevalence.--Ultracanalla (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think all the 5-goal defeats should be listed. I also think 0–5 is a (slightly) bigger defeat than 1–6. MTC (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All of them should be mentioned, and they should be listed chronologically to avoid the philosophical question of whether losing 6-1 is better or worse than losing 5-0. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, keep all three defeats, as they all had a 5-goal difference. GiantSnowman 11:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both User:Grant.Alpaugh and User:GiantSnowman. - fchd (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Several other articles also list their defeats based on goal difference. Hence, for the sake of keeping things in a standard manner, all the results by 5 goals of differen should be kept.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Previously deleted category

Has cropped up again: Category:Unattached football (soccer) players

Can an Administrator delete.

Out of curiosity, what is the argument against this category? matt91486 (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unmaintainable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.184.130 (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unmaintainable, and also (in my opinion) unnecessary. Do we have categories for free agents in other sports, or for unemployed people in other fields? --Badmotorfinger (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but we also don't list every employer that people in other fields have worked for. matt91486 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is alot of work, and when a player drifts out of the spotlight and off radar they may remain in that category whilst other famous players may remain in the category for only a few weeks. Hard to maintain, but I'm not actually in favour of deletion. GarethHolteDavies (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

stadium succession box

Recently, a succession box was added to Saitama Stadium, for its use in the final round of the AFC Champions League last year. There's a slight problem, though; since the AFC has a home/away final series, and, unlike UEFA, the final games are not chosen to be played in a specific stadium ahead of time. So, this box causes two issues in my mind – one strictly technical, and the other more of a general notability nature. First of all, none of the succession box templates seem to have a way to list coinciding stadiums. That is, there's no way in the box on Saitama Stadium to list Foolad Shahr Stadium, where half of the final round also took place. (The preceding/succeeding boxes also suffer from this, but, at least there is a workaround I think). But, as for the second issue, is the hosting of a home match for a team in the finals a worthy topic for a succession box like that? Since Luzhniki Stadium, Olympic Stadium (Athens), etc, were chosen to host a final, the inherent notability of the stadium-hosting-an-event is pretty clear cut. But, I'm not convinced that home/away series hosting is on the same level – Despite the fact that we should treat the AFC, CAF, UEFA, and all other confederations equally. I don't see this as an issue with the confederation, so much as with the way the venue is decided. Anyway, enough rambling. I'm interested to see if there are any opinions about this. Neier (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that hosting finals that are contested on a home and away basis should not require an infobox. The UEFA Cup used to have such a format, but I wouldn't want to see such a template on Portman Road. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Zsolt Limperger

An IP editor has edited this article to say that the player was 2.11 (6ft 11in) tall - is this true or is it vandalism? GiantSnowman 09:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This reference backs up your original number. Reverted as uncited.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! GiantSnowman 10:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Germany international footballers

I'm currently working on this: User:ArtVandelay13/DFB, but I'm at a bit of a quandary - I don't know whether to include everyone [12], thus making the list (unmanageably?) large, or to set a critiera (20 caps), and have to omit players. I don't really want to break it up into sections either, as one sortable list is more useful. Any thoughts? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the complete list would become unmanageably large. However, I would set the border at a lower mark because there are still some notable players like Abramczik or Immel with less than 20 caps. Either 10 or 15 seems a good mark to be. By the way, I see that you have listed Thom and Doll with their number of DFB caps and left a notice for their DFV caps in the right-hand column. The official DFB list sums up all caps and leaves a note how many caps the player has made for each association, so I would list them in that way as well. ---- Hockey-holic (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I added Doll and Thom before I considered the idea of a limit - they were high up on the DFB's list because of their DDR caps, but if there is a limit and they fall below it, I'll get rid of them. This list is for the DFB - East Germany internationals have their own list. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Another option for the limit is 20 caps or inclusion in a tournament squad. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is goals scored - what if a player never played in a tournament, only won 5-10 caps, but scored 10-15 goals? GiantSnowman 10:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be more inclined to include players who won at least one cap in a competitive fixture, as 'List of Germany international footballers' is immediately misleading if it excludes those who only won, say, 19 caps. •Oranje•·Talk 10:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ACT Premier League

Hi.

A user merged several teams into the main article, because some of the clubs are and always have been amateur. But there are hundreds of amateur clubs, with similar historys, and there is no thought about their notability... The user also didnt respect the GNU FDL... --89.56.93.122 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

With the way the articles are merged in, I'm against it personally. Are there other thoughts? matt91486 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

UEFA elite stadium

I should welcome any members of this Project interested in stadium categorisation taking a look at this page. The recent radical revision [13] appears to make the categories Category:UEFA 4 star stadiums and Category:UEFA 5 star stadiums, and the templates Template:UEFA5Star and Template:UEFA4Star redundant unless they can simply be renamed 'Category 3' and 'Elite'. I'm out of my depth and would like an expert to take a look. TerriersFan (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move of Striker to Forward (association football)

This requested move is looking like defaulting to "no consensus", but it's only had five !votes so far. I would appreciate some more comments from the more established members of this project. – PeeJay 10:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gavin McCallum

Doesn't appear to have ever played professionally, but has U-20 international caps - is this notable enough......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No. We have dealt with a lot of other similar subjects, and current consensus is youth caps do not confer notability. --Angelo (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbase says he played for Yeovil Town in a League match (a 2-0 win over Gillingham as it happens!). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't acknowledge such things as having occurred :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Article for U-20, U-18, etc. age classifications?

I have been reworking articles and index pages for U-boats and have come across several links to U-20, U-18, etc. (mostly redirects to submarines) where the editor's intent is to link to age classifications in sport, often in football/soccer. Is there a single article about age classifications that I could point some of these articles to so that someone reading about a, say, U-20 league won't get redirected to German submarine U-20, an index page for German submarines? If there's an appropriate article, I'll be happy to convert some of the current U-boat redirects into disambiguation pages to help. (The German Wikipedia has an article here, but there's no link to an English-language article.) Any suggestions? — Bellhalla (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lathaniel Rowe-Turner

has just gone on loan from Leicester City to Cheltenham, so be on the look out for articles being made about him before he actually debuts and becomes notable. Skitzo (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's wikilink the player - if it goes blue then some eager beaver must have created the article. GiantSnowman 20:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Stokes

Any reason why Anthony Stokes redirects to Anthony Stokes (footballer) - an unnecessary disambiguation, surely? GiantSnowman 13:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've restored the old disambig page instead. Peanut4 (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have a disambiguation page, IMO the article at Anthony Stokes should be about the ex-Arsenal footballer - there aren't any other people called Anthony Stokes on Wikipedia! GiantSnowman 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree to an extent, but it could be argued that someone could look up Anthony Stokes to find Tony Stokes. Though in that case, I suppose Anthony Stokes (footballer) should redirect to Anthony Stokes and stick a hatnote on the top to mention Tony Stokes. Peanut4 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an ideal solution. GiantSnowman 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would take an admin to make the page move. It seems I can't do it because of moving a page over another page. Peanut4 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the disambiguation is there is because there was a Anthony Stokes (entertainer) article (now deleted following AfD). I have now done the move as this is effectively a WP:RM discussion here and consensus is for it, it seems. Qwghlm (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions for national B teams

I have noticed that articles about national B teams follow the naming structure "[nation] B national football team". However, I do not believe that this is correct grammar/syntax/whatever. I suggest that the structure "[nation] national football B team" be used as it seems to make more sense. Opinions? – PeeJay 19:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like the first option has been chosen because it makes thr {{nft}} template useable. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, maybe we need to create a template for national B teams. I notice there wasn't a problem with giving national women's teams the structure "[nation] national women's football team"... – PeeJay 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right PeeJay. At the moment the pages suggest the country is called England B, France B, etc, rather than say it is the B team. Peanut4 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

KLISF.info

This website appears to have moved or deleted. It was a very helpful source on Soviet-era football (in English) that is used as a reference on probably hundreds of football-related articles. Does anyone know if it moved (and where to) or whether it still exists in Russian? If it's gone, is there some way to get a cached version of the source pages so we don't have to delete all of the broken links? There aren't many alternatives (in fact, national-football-teams clearly uses KLISF as its source) if this site is really dead. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The web archive http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://klisf.info has it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a huge relief. I only wish there was an automated process for redirecting all of the articles to the web archive. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Accrington Stanley managers

I can't help wondering if this is a bit of a waste of time. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

well they have clearly had more managers then that, someone needs to get a list with dates and add them to the template. Skitzo (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I would imagine the vast majority of them will not be linked, as Coleman took over the club when they were in the Northern Premier League - I can't imagine any managers prior to him meeting the notability requirements unless they were former professional players. I guess there is always the option to include managers of the previous Accy Stan though. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly copyvio pov

I have just come across some edits made by Snippysnippy11 (talk · contribs). Following Euro 2008, he has added beautifully poetic opinions about the Croatian squad at the tournament. See for instance Vedran Ćorluka: "At UEFA Euro 2008 he was a star performer, his elegant running style and composed play accentuating his effortlessly stylish ability. ... Corluka provided assurity, quality and a virtually impenetrable wall on the right side of Croatia's defence." Or Danijel Pranjić: "His ability and willingness to get forward was a major feature of Croatia's play as he ably supported the midfield and attack with surging overlapping runs and a skillful ability to retain possession. His partnership with a blossoming Rakitic on the left side will be a cornerstone of Croatia's assault on the World Cup in South Africa." Parts of it may be copyvios of BecomeACroatiaFan.com, as evidenced by this revert. Please help clean this mess up where necessary. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

help please

someone keeps removing 4 players from the Leicester City Current squad list, the 4 players in question, may not have squad numbers but they are apart of the current Leicester City squad on their website, can you please help me keep an eye on this as they shouldn't be removed unless sold or loaned out. Skitzo (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Are some of them out on loan? If so, they should probably be in the "out on loan" section, rather than the main squad list. But they shouldn't be removed completely. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

no, as yet none of the people that keep being remove are out on loan, though 1 was just on trial at Cheltenham.Skitzo (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Robinson

Does Robinson's appearance in an FA Cup Final mean he should be the root Joe Robinson article (currently occupied by an actor-stuntman), or should the three Joe Robinsons all be linked from a central disambiguation page? - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

link all 3 to a disambiguation page and move each to Joe Robinson (footballer), Joe Robinson (Actor) etc. Skitzo (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks for your input. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Manchester City Logo

Someone appears to have deleted the image that is Manchester Citys crest, I can find no discussion of this anywhere, could someone restore the file? Man City is a featured article and the removal of the crest is definatly counter productive. Paul  Bradbury 15:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted with the following rationale -

• 14:19, October 7, 2008 Papa November (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Mcfc.png" ‎ (Deleted because "An article-specific fair use rationale must be provided for at least one article in which the image is used". using TW)

It seems no-one filled out appropriate FUR's for the logo's usage, or that they were removed. It'd be quicker and easier for you to re-upload the image and tag it correctly. Nanonic (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It was left tagged for 17 days by my calculations. I can confirm that there was no FUR in any shape or form on the image page. Woody (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't upload it the first time so I don't have it to upload again. Havn't been around for a while so didn't notice a tag. BTW, how would you know an image has been tagged? Does it show up on a page using the image like a TfD does, or do you actually have to go to the image itself? thanks Paul  Bradbury 15:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not show up automatically on pages though there is an optional tag that can be added to all pages using the image. In this case, that didn't happen. You don't have to re-upload it, an admin can restore it with the proviso that the correct rationale is added. Woody (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have undeleted it and added a basic FUR for Manchester City F.C. but it could do with more details and similar FURs for any other article it has appeared in. Qwghlm (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I deleted the image after the FairuseBot requested its speedy deletion. The request was made by the bot because there was no fair use rationale present for any of the articles in which the image was used. Normally the bot leaves warning messages about its deletion requests, but on this occasion it seems to have forgotten to do so - sorry if the deletion came as a surprise!

There was no discussion about the deletion, because this was one of the limited number of cases where speedy deletion is permitted. If no fair use rationale is provided, then images can be deleted seven days after being tagged. In theory, featured articles should already have been checked for image copyright issues, but this article became featured before the rules were enforced as strictly.

In short, if you want to use a non-free image, then you need to justify on the image description page why the reader needs to see it to understand the article fully. If this isn't done for each specific article, then the image will eventually be removed from the articles or deleted. The other images in the Manchester City F.C. article seem reasonably OK, but If you'd like me to check any other articles for you, then leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a footnote folks - it's a good idea to make sure FU images have the appropriate tags, and to add such images in articles you regularly edit to your watchlist in case someone tags it as a possible violation in good faith. Qwghlm (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye out......

An article just got speedied on a team that plays at the dizzy heights of the Southampton Saturday Football League Junior Division Seven (level 21 of the English league system, allegedly). In an attempt to contest the speedy, the creator had put on the talk page "The aim is for every team in Southampton Saturday Football League to create and maintain pages", so keep an eye out for those potentially popping up, as that wording would suggest that someone has sent a message to all teams in the league suggesting that they create articles about themselves.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Luke Freeman

I have a feeling this has been discussed before...I personally don't like the current infobox set up, with his Arsenal career counting as 'youth years', even though he made his pro debut for Gillingham...any other thoughts? GiantSnowman 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion one way or t'other, but I guess it's based on the fact that he is only part of the academy set-up at Arsenal and is not on a pro contract..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Freeman was still on a schoolboys contract for Gillingham when he played in the FA Cup (not pro) and in any case didn't he only play in the FA Cup? In which case the 1 (0) in his infobox is incorrect. Qwghlm (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he played one League match too, coming on as a sub at home to Hartlepool on 21 November 2007 ([14]) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As he made a pro appearance for the Gills, I feel that that should be classed as the start of his pro career, even if he was/is on a schoolboy contract. GiantSnowman 15:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, anything after a player's debut should be considered his senior career, regardless of his subsequent status. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and make the changes then. GiantSnowman 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Intent of "ma" parameter in results tables

I found something odd in the results table of Liga I 2008–09. When you click on three of FC Argeş' home games, articles like this or this or this pop up. I guess this is clearly not the intent of the ma parameter, is it? Hockey-holic (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Individual games - other than really important ones, such as cup finals - should NOT have articles. All three need deleting. GiantSnowman 18:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and prodded them. They could probably be deleted under CSD A7, but I thought a prod might be safer. – PeeJay 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I share your opinion, but wanted to go sure I'm not alone. Hockey-holic (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronaldo

I'd appreciate it if an admin could temporarily semi-protect Ronaldo's article. An IP user has been adding the same unsourced/non-notable material (career assist totals) to it for a few days now. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rob Styles heavy vandalism

Please could Rob Styles be temporarily semi-protected? Beve (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dropped on WP:RFPP - should be more eyes there. Saw it coming, though... x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Piergiorgio Welby's father

This Italian - who became famous as a right-to-die activist - had a Scottish father (hence the unusual name) who was a player for AS Roma in the 1940s. Does anyone know who his father was? GiantSnowman 12:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on him on the Italian Wikipedia at Alfredo_Welby. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! GiantSnowman 12:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the It version suggests he wasn't in fact Scottish at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that...I presume then that Alfredo's father was the Scot...GiantSnowman 12:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created the article at Alfredo Welby. GiantSnowman 12:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Islington Corinthians

A notable club? Seems not to me. Article was created by a user whose username matches the name of the author of the book listed in the article - possible spam? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely fails the (mostly) agreed-upon club rule for participating in the FA Cup or top ten levels in the football pyramid. Probably fails the more general notability rule of significant coverage in multiple independent sources - there is one self-published source. I did find this BBC London link but it's written by the same guy to promote his book. There is little substantive coverage elsewhere - not even on fchd - just a lot of off-hand mentions. I've flagged the article with these issues and may AfD if they're not resolved in a reasonable time. Qwghlm (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there may have been a lot more coverage, world-wide, in the press during their worldwide tour - it must have been quite a novelty in a lot of places at that time. Has anyone asked the author of the book for sources, or has anyone seen the book and if so is there any list of references in there? I wouldn't expect to find much on the internet about a club from this long ago. They're listed on the tours of the US Soccer Hall of Fame (see http://clubetabanka.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html), google is pointing me to a reference in a Winnpeg paper of 1938 (http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingPage.aspx?type=glp&search=%22islington%20corinthians%22%20%22the%20times%22&img=\\na0009\6786965\40871150_clean.html) but I can't get any deeper than that at the moment. If the club themselves aren't notable, their world tour by itself may well be. - fchd (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If the tour got multiple independent coverage at the time then the club effectively got the same, and I would have no objection to the club's inclusion. I'm about to drop a note on the author's page. Qwghlm (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say if the world tour would be notable, then the club should be, and the world tour's coverage should be in the article about the club. It would be difficult to have an article about a tour of a club and then not acknowledge the club itself. matt91486 (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Wiley

Could do with a hand on Alan Wiley, cheers. Beve (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hat-trick of hat-tricks

I'm not sure exctly how rare this is (hat-ricks in successive matches), nor at what level it would have to be achieved to be considered noteworthy. Charlie Ide completed the feat tonight, for Wivenhoe Town, and I have noted it at his own article and on Hat-trick: fair, or am I getting carried away on behalf of my second team? Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Alex Rhodes (footballer) did it in 2003, and it's not on his page. Not sure if it's on hat-trick page. There's no reason why not to put it on his own page, it certainly should be. But like you, I'm not sure how common it is. Peanut4 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup winners

I notice that in most cases, break-out lists of the winners of a competition follow the naming convention "List of X Cup winners" eg List of UEFA Cup winners, however for the FA Cup it is at FA Cup Final. Should the list be moved to List of FA Cup winners, and, if so, is there a case for the article FA Cup Final to remain in place but be turned into more of an overview of the final and its traditions eg the venues, Abide With Me, 39 Steps, etc.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. The FA Cup Final is an event in itself, and worthy of its own article. – PeeJay 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. GiantSnowman 10:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea as well. - fchd (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a start at lunchtime then :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I've just started on a list of Football League Cup winners. – PeeJay 12:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture plagiarism!

Just been looking at Simon Russell's myspace, and look at where he got some of those photos from! Feel quite flaterred really, whilst also thinking "I took those bloody photos!" Mattythewhite (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's the same as with any text, and it's free to re-use but should be under the GFDL licence? Not that quoting such got me anywhere last time I needed to do. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Matty, who's the girl with the lollipop? --Jameboy (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You should feel honoured mate! GiantSnowman 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiller

I've just created articles on two German internationals of the early 20th Century with the surname Hiller who were uncle & nephew - Arthur and Marius; does anyone know if Franz Hiller, who played in the 1970s, is another relative? Cheers, GiantSnowman 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Expatriate footballers in Norway

What happened here? There are now over 40 subcategories where 1 category would suffice. I thought there was a concensus against developing all of these subcategories for types of expatriates in a specific country. Am I wrong? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive bot

It looks like it isn't working, there are sections at the top that haven't been used in a month and the newest section in the most recent archive is a month old. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)