Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:20, 29 June 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Football page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166: 10 days

Football Project‑class

	Association football portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WPF navigation

Nominated English football champions as FLRC

I have nominated List of English football champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinFK (talk • contribs) 19:39, June 5, 2009 (UTC)

United States Confederations Cup templates

Should Template:United States squad 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup be deleted? Since Template:United States Squad 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup was created a day earlier. Go here to discuss.

Ukraine national football team 1992

Is this the sort of article that we should have on Wikipedia? Isn't this just too much in terms of unnecessary data. I could understand listing all of the national team's results, broken down by decade, but appearance/goals info for each player?! – Pee Jay 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, there's also this one. – Pee Jay 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any relevant info should be merged into the 'History' section of the national team article, and then these two articles should be deleted. Giant Snowman 18:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention that there are Ukraine season articles up to 1996 too. – Pee Jay 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My original suggestion remains :P Giant Snowman 20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've got whole categories of season articles for clubs (Example: Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2009-10 season), why can't there be a season article for a national team? Surely they are just as noteworthy! EA210269 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start deleting like a typical admin, why dont you confer with the wiki group that update Ukrainian Football and/or the original author who provided all the details and work effort?Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wartime guest players in World War I

As far as I was aware, wartime guesting didn't happen in WWI. However, Chesterfield's Roll of Honour confirms that Sheff Utd player Jimmy Revill guested for them in WWI, while James McCrae guested for Clyde, Rangers & West Ham according to Ye Olde Tree & Crown. So, are these two sources incorrect, or just me :) ? Giant Snowman 14:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Who's Who of Sheffield United says that Revill guested for Sutton Town and New Hucknall Colliery during the war but doesn't mention Chesterfield. It also gives conflicting details of his death to the one on the Chesterfield site, suggesting he was only injured in France and died in hospital back in England from his wounds. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Revill died on 9 April 1917 and was buried at Bethune - see [1]. Do you have a date of birth for him - if so, I'll try to put together an article. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just you, sorry :-) My BCFC book lists wartime players with a star against guests, and there are plenty. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Southampton had several - about a dozen at a rough count. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi, you may be unaware that the Scottish League continued through the First World War, so McCrae wasn't a wartime guest for his Scottish clubs" - Struway2 on my talk page... Giant Snowman 15:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi... "I'll rephrase that :-) They were official league appearances, though the registration rules may have been rather more fluid than in peacetime..." - also Struway2 on your talk page 4 minutes after the other post. And last time I looked, Chesterfield, West Ham, Birmingham and Southampton weren't in the Scottish League. (Tongue-sticking-out smiley) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I ws just checking! Keeping you on your toes, y'know...Giant Snowman 16:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Rodgers vandalism

The article on Brendan Rodgers is undergoing a fair bit of light vandalism - POV segments about his abilities (or lack of) as a manager, from what appears to be bitter Watford fans. Can people keep an eye if possible? Cheers, Giant Snowman 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for the page to be protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Giant Snowman 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Champions League brackets

As a new template has been introduced, please help for change the unsuitable bracket template in UEFA Champions League i.e. before 2002-03 season as the Final has held for one leg only. The new template introduced is Template:8TeamBracket-2legsExceptFinal Raymond Giggs 14:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messi's importance

Is Lionel Messi a mid importance or a high importance? Surely he's world class enough to be high. Spiderone (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much about it, the importance classification isn't really used for anything significant. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International transfer windows

FIFA status stated that international transfer windows (summer) should normally last for 12 weeks. As summer transfer windows normally end at 1 September, the player contract seems normally end at 30 June, let them able to be free before the windows open. And the point is, when Spanish transfer windows does not open until 1 July, should we change the player club, likes Kaka transfer has "completed". someone start ass edit war on Raúl Bobadilla current club, said that his new club is effective in July so should not change the infobox. Matthew_hk t c 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that far too much time is devoted to attempting to stop people from updating team information which will be current in two weeks' time anyway. If a transfer has been confirmed, then we should just let people edit and leave it at that. The only time there's a genuine problem is where people are editing based on rumour or pending agreements which might not happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19th Century Scottish Clubs

I'm looking for some help regarding creating/editing/disambiguating articles related to 19th Century Scottish Clubs.

I'm currently working on creating articles on Scottish Cup seasons (eg. Scottish Cup 1876–77), and have found that there is very little information on the early participants (which there are many!). Furthermore, (possibly unrelated) clubs have similar names, and I am sure some links direct to these pages rather to the actual club. Moreover, there is little information on the evolution of some of these clubs to a present-day club (for example, Ayr Thistle merged to form Ayr F.C., and merged again to Ayr United F.C.).

I'm looking for help with people with knowledge of this era to help clean up existing articles, create new articles, and disambiguate some of the links.

Does anyone have any idea of good resources for this niche? Macarism (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm waiting for this to arrive, so I might be able to pitch in with Ayr... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Kits has a few bits & bobs about Victorian teams, could be helpful for creating a stub at least. Giant Snowman 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The The Scottish Football Historical Archive has a good Club Directory.

Thanks for the advice so far, particularly the SFHA site! - I notice that site has been suggested by someone who also works on these articles too! Macarism (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching duties

Hi there teammates, happy week all!

Matter of discussion, infobox notes on coaching spells. My doubt is: when is it merited to note that a player is coaching a team? In my views, either as a head or assistant manager, it should only be noted from the U21 sides upwards (club or country).

However, check this case: should it be noted that the player is head coach of the U-17? I think not, but have not touched it, before the end of this "discussion". I do think it should only be noted in storyline, not INFOBOX. What are your views?

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As he is only a youth-team coach for his club, this does not meet the requirements to be included in the infobox. The Infobox instructions say: Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch-Caribbean football

I edit a lot of CONCACAF articles, and there are, as I'm sure some of you know, several countries in the Caribbean whose primary or official language is Dutch – Aruba, Netherlands Antilles (Curaçao, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, Saba and Sint Maarten), and Suriname. A lot of football articles related to those nations are in serious need of improvement, and in many cases there are important articles that are stubs or have not been created. Being that the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are each a dependency of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, should those football articles be tagged "Netherlands=yes" in {{Football}} on talk pages? I realize that Suriname is no longer a territory or dependency, but what about pre-independence (pre-1975) Surinamese football articles? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dual sport infobox?

A number of early footballers also played cricket and rugby; any thoughts on adding parameters to the Football Biography 2 infobox to include such details? Giant Snowman 17:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's unnecessary cluttering of the infobox. Not sure though. Madcynic (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking LOADS of info - just years, club & caps. Giant Snowman 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second GiantSnowman's suggestion. Some Brazilian football players are also former futsal players, so a dual sport infobox would be very useful. --Carioca (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but there we have it, then. Cricket, rugby, futsal - all possible "second" sports with as far as I can tell different requirements as to what the infobox should look like, no? Madcynic (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Futsal would have the same info as football; rugby has caps & points rather than apps & goals; and for cricket, we can just include tests or something. I'm only talking basic info here. Giant Snowman 19:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Irish players who stayed in Ireland to adulthood will have played Gaelic Football (less often Hurling) to a high level. But the issue of level in the second sport would be my fear for this feature: Craig Phillips (hope there is no-one by that name) reaches notability by virtue of his occasional performances for Macclesfield, but his local paper in Congleton then digs out the fact that he played for Cheshire U14 Hockey team, or that he was fastest U11 breast-stroker at Biddulph Dolphins Swimming Club, and an editor insists on adding it. Kevin McE (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that only senior appearances should be included. Giant Snowman 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this might seem like a good idea, it assumes that the football infobox is most important. For many players, however, football was a diversion from their main sporting career such as cricket. It's a pity that the creators of the various infoboxes couldn't get together to agree a standard layout, to avoid repeating basic info; ideally it should be possible to combine the football, cricket, rugby etc. infoboxes into one for multi-sportsman (& women). --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or upmerge them all into {{Infobox person}}? Nanonic (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An unified template is possible, I suppose, but you'd always have people who would warrant even more merging (athletes who are also scientists et cetera). For now, making sure that infobox templates look consistent means we can easily include more than one in an article if need be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a member of this and the cricket WikiProject, it's a very bad idea for cricket, as the cricket infoboxes are enormous and every cricketer who played in a major game should have a cricket infobox. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the cricket infobox works really well as a primary or a secondary infobox - it has been coded (primarily by me) so that if necessary the personal information can be omitted entirely, so that it just slots under another infobox. If the infoboxes for other sports (football etc) could be coded so that any information which is likely to be duplicated can be omitted without breaking stuff, then which ever is the primary sport can include the personal (duplicate) information, and the secondary sport can omit it. Here is one example cricket (secondary) in action: Rob Andrew; (there may be others, but I can't remember where they are). Denis Compton would be an example of the reverse. If the football infobox could omit the name/place of birth etc (i.e. start as "playing position: outside left") then what you hope to achieve will work, without the need for a super one-box-fits-all solution.—MDCollins (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the infoboxes on the Denis Compton and Victor Norbury (see earlier discussion) articles to delete the duplicated personal information - my initial thoughts are that perhaps the cricket and football boxes should have headings something similar to the rugby one on the Rob Andrew article, e.g. "Cricket career", "Football career". Also can they be coded so that they have the same width? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current sport template removed - Why?

The 2009 FIFA Confederation Cup is a sporting event which runs from June 14 until June 28. Shouldn't the following template be in the article until its completion???

Please leave my post as originally entered.

Or are the admins only instituting their own guidelines for the editing of this article?Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, {{current sport}} is intended only to be used when the event is happening at this very moment, not just from its start date to its end date without exception. There are no Confederations Cup matches being played right now, so the template should not be added. That's my understanding of the documentation anyway. – Pee Jay 19:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a very narrow interpretation to me, presumably of the phrase '"This template is for articles which involve an article about an evolving current sports-related event which is either changing rapidly or about which understanding is rapidly evolving. This is an advisory to readers that the article may be incomplete and subject to change."' The Confederation Cup is underway in S Africa: it started just over a week ago and finishes next weekend: that seems current to me, whether or not a match is being played at this instant. We have thousands of articles out there saying "Albert Rimmington is an English footballer currently playing for Hobbleton Rovers", and we don't delete the currently at 4:50 every Saturday afternoon, only to replace it at 3pm the following week. Kevin McE (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin's take, personally. Information can rapidly change outside of game time as well. matt91486 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the whistle is blown for the end of the game there is alot of editing still going on. Standings, reports, statistics, references added etc. To me it looks like that the admins are trying not have this template shown because it gives them leeway to strike out editors who are doing in progress edits.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia setting in much? First, I'm not an admin. Second, I removed the template as I was following the example of User:Conti, who has removed a lot of "current" templates from articles recently. Oh, and User:Conti is an admin, so take it up with them. – Pee Jay 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only paranoia is the inconsistancy that you subject other editors. During the previous ECLeague and UEFA Cup season the updates were correct and did not deter the final posting. As far as Conti removing current templates - Maybe he should be here to answer these questions. But AFAIC the 2009 FIFA Confederation Cup is a {{current sport}} and should be displayed as such.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that we should not add live scores to articles as Wikipedia is supposed to report things that have happened and that can be referenced. We are not a news service, i.e. things should only be added here once they have become news/part of history. If, for example, we reported a goal being scored in the 25th minute of a match, but it was abandoned a minute later, we would be incorrect as that goal would not show up in official records. Hope I'm making myself clear. – Pee Jay 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in that case the wiki editors would surely update the entry correctly and provide references if necessary when it is available. Or do you doubt the ability of those who want to contribute here?Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:current sport#Adding & applying guidelines. Rettetast (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding live scores

From the article history of the 2009 Confed Cup, I suspect this is the nub of the matter that lead to this thread. Brudder Andrusha has been one of the people enthusiastic to post live updates of scores; PeeJay2K3 has been resolutely trying to ensure that such ephemeral details are held back until the match is over. I have sympathy for PJ's position: I also used to try to keep it blank until the final whistle until I was advised here (prob in archive around time of 2006 WC if anyone really wants to look it up) that it was probably a futile task. But the problem remains of goals being added and then deleted as the ref spots the linesman's flag (I've seen it happen), of trying to turn Wikipedia into something it is not, and the increased likelihood of double entry of goals into stats tables. The principle obviously applies to other sports: do we know how they handle it? It seems to me that either we give in trying to hold back the updates, or we try to get it raised to a policy of which a reminder can be placed pre-emptively on articles likely to be subject to premature edits. In the latter case, we might end up with something like this:

24 June 2009

20:30

Spain	v	United States
	In progress

Free State Stadium, Bloemfontein

rendered thus: {{footballbox |date=24 June 2009 |time=20:30 |team1={{fb-rt|ESP}} |score= |report='''''In progress''''' |team2={{fb|USA}} |goals1= |goals2= |stadium=[[Free State Stadium]], [[Bloemfontein]] |attendance= |referee= }}

It would be good to get this sorted once and for all, so that whatever is decided, edit wars are avoided in the 2010WC. Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, while it annoys me personally when people clamour over each other to make articles current to that very minute it doesn't actually harm the encyclopedia. We waste energy in trying to prevent people from doing it. The only issue is that minute-by-minute updates don't, by their nature, get accompanied by reliable secondary sources (as the match reports haven't actually been written yet). Might as well officially discourage it while acknowledging that it will happen and just letting it be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These area (during an event that is in progress) is a center of interest for contributors to Wikipedia. By the very nature of Wiki and that it attracts folks for the confirmation of knowledge is a blessing in disguise. Things get done here and the post event cleanup of adding references, correction of formats, syntax is just another extention of the desire by most contributors to get it right here. Hence by having the {{current sport}} template through the duration of the sport means that output like the following is understood that it is in progess and that edits will follow to confirm the actuality of the post.

24 June 2009

20:30

Spain	0 – 0	United States

Free State Stadium, Bloemfontein

rendered thus: {{footballbox |date=24 June 2009 |time=20:30 |team1={{fb-rt|ESP}} |score=''0 – 0''  |report= |team2={{fb|USA}} |goals1= |goals2= |stadium=[[Free State Stadium]], [[Bloemfontein]] |attendance= |referee= }} Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why would a visitor to the page know that italicised scores mean that the game is in progress? We should be providing what is useful to the reader, not catering to a "center of interest for contributors". Kevin McE (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the left hand side of the infobox is the scheduled time of the game. If the game is in progress then the scoreline would set apart information that is has concluded or yet to start. How do you propose to differentiate the two instances. In either case the information of italic information is proving something useful and supposedly (99.99999...%) correct and at the same time not slapping the contributor on the wrist because they are to eager to post... Or do you want even more information so as not to confuse? Like...

24 June 2009

20:30

Spain	0 – 0	United States
	In progress ^{[note 1]}

Free State Stadium, Bloemfontein

Template:Fnb Italics indicate that the game is in progress

rendered thus: {{footballbox |date=24 June 2009 |time=20:30 |team1={{fb-rt|ESP}} |score=''0 – 0'' |report='''''In progress''''' [[#fn 1|''<sup>[note 1]''</sup>]] |team2={{fb|USA}} |goals1= |goals2= |stadium=[[Free State Stadium]], [[Bloemfontein]] |attendance= |referee= }} *{{fnb|1}} Italics indicate that the game is in progress Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American soccer players by state

Is this appropriate? Seems like a triple intersection to me (American people, Football (soccer) players and People from [state]). We don't have Category:Footballers from County Durham or Category:Footballers from Gwynedd, so what makes Category:Soccer players from Alabama and Category:Soccer players from New Jersey any more appropriate? – Pee Jay 23:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a great waste of resources. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having the categories, or me complaining about them? :-P – Pee Jay 23:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most US states are orders of magnitude bigger than the entire United Kingdom, for one thing. If they're reasonably sourced then let them be. If they aren't then they can be deleted on that basis. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I can't let that pass. The only relevant measure is population, and precisely zero states have a population bigger than that of the UK, 1 has a population more than half that of the UK, and 4 are not outnumbered by at least 4:1. If you are looking for a country of which that statement can be made (more than half the states have at least twice the population) then it would appear that you are thinking of Lesotho. Kevin McE (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. So let's just assume that I said "Scotland" instead of "United Kingdom", as we sub-divide plenty of athlete categories between the home nations. Plenty of states with a greater population than Scotland. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a part of the larger Category:American sportspeople by state.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a triple intersection because People from [state] is a subset of American people. --Jameboy (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could still be considered a trivial intersection though (WP:OVERCAT#Intersection by location). I guess it depends whether you consider Category:American soccer players (1,125 pages, avg. 22.5 members per subcategory if all were subcategorised by state) to be large enough to warrant subcategorisation, and if it does then whether "by state" is the most useful way to do it. --Jameboy (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridha Antar

Some guy has moved the page for Roda Antar, former FC Koeln player, a couple of times, first to Reda Antar and then to Ridha Antar. Can someone confirm the correct spelling is Roda?The Hack 10:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't confirm the correct spelling, but FIFA, Sky and ESPN spell him Roda, so per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) his name would seem to be Roda. And I see from Talk:Ridha Antar that the suggested new spelling is because of the name's Arabic spelling and pronunciation; on the English WP, there's no justification for moving him to someone's Roman-alphabet version of the Arabic transliteration of his name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be moved back to Roda Antar, that is the common spelling. Giant Snowman 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Ref Desk

Can anyone confirm or refute what I wrote at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#FIFA_tiebreakers? --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

confirmed at refdesk 2009_FIFA_Confederations_Cup#Tie-breaking_criteria Article 23.6 in the referenced document.--ClubOranje^T 11:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Vujičević nationality

At least four (!) different nationalities for this chap are mentioned in various soucres:

Croatian - the FC Twente article has a Croatian flag icon.
Bosnian - Voetbal International & Soccerway
German - Irish Times, although it says he was born in Croatia.
Dutch - Goal.com

The Dutch Wiki article desribes him as Bosnian, yet has him in the 'Croatian footallers' category. The German Wiki article describes him as German and born in Germany!

Can anyone shed any light on this? Cheers, Giant Snowman 13:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His club lists him as born in Bosnia, which probably isn't any help. – Toon 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, now we have four different nationalities and three different birth places! Giant Snowman 13:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Google-translation discusses people not wanting to play for Bosnia-Herzegovina despite being eligible, and describes Vujicevic as Sarajevo-born but having said he wants to play for Croatia. Sarajevo's now in Bosnia, though I wouldn't like to offer an opinion on what country it was in when Vujicevic was born there. The goal.com page just isn't filled in, and they default to Dutch rather than blank. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume, based on the above, that he is a Bosnian Croat. If he was born in Sarajevo in 1990, he was born in Yugoslavia like Edin Dzeko. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it getting into anyone's skulls yet why "such and such is an Xian footballer" is a construction to be avoided if at all possible? (that goes double, of course, if any of the Balkan nations are involved.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this clear: he was born in Sarajevo, Bosnia (that is why some sources define him as Bosnian); his family then moved to Gronau, Germany during the Yugoslav War (that is why some source claim he is German); and now he plays for FC Twente, Netherlands. However, he declared himself for Croatia: [2], so he should be listed as Croatia, at least in terms of sports nationality. --Angelo (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has he played any international games? No? Then he doesn't have a sports nationality. End of story. Honestly, the amount of grief caused by this ridiculous insistence on labelling people as being of one nationality or the other is unreal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he's declared himself as Crotian, then that's what he is. Giant Snowman 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crotian? You jest? How about just a Croat.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, not any more than it makes Aiden McGeady Irish. If someone says "I will play for the Xian national team" then we should write "such-and-such plays for the Xian national team", not "such-and-such is Xian". That is of course unless he's actually said that he is Croatian (my Dutch isn't really up to ascertaining that from the source). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the provided source in Dutch (coming from FC Twente official website), he confirms he declared himself for Croatia after he had talks with the Croatian federation. So we should list him as Croatian in terms of football nationality, especially if such choice comes after having reached an agreement with the local federation. Also, he states he does not really feel German, and his parents are Croatian (father) and Serb (mother) respectively, so I think he has the right to define himself as Croatian. --Angelo (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he has specifically described his nationality as Croatian (not his "footballing nationality") then we should repeat precisely what is sourced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is Croatian by his father, and he has Croatian nationality, and both things are sourced and confirmed directly by the subject in an interview. Is that enough? --Angelo (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes. In that case, there was never any doubt as regards this thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital letters or not capital letters?

Hi, everybody. I’ve a little disagreement here with Filipão on how we should write Dutch names. I couldn't find any previous discussion on this matter, so I post it here. I think we should write them with capital letters since that’s how we begin phrases in English. But, on the other hand there’s Filipao’s opinion, that since the name goes without capital letters, it should be written like that. I’m not interested in any editing war on this, since I think it quite a minor difference, so if no one here supports my point of view, I’ll let Filipao’s opinion. But I think this is something that should be clear for future similar cases. Thanks.Ipsumesse (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsumesse, you are indeed correct. It would be "Ruud van Nistelrooy", but "Mr. Van Nistelrooy". – Pee Jay 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes It's Ruud van Nistelrooy, Mr. Van Nistelrooy and also Mr. R. van Nistelrooy. It's different for people from Belgium (nearly always capital letters)Cattivi (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for the least efficient presentation of information award

There are many tables around like this:

World Cup record
Year	Round	Position	GP	W	D*	L	GS	GA
1930	Did not enter	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1934	Did not enter	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1938	Did not enter	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1950	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1954	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1958	Quarter-finals	7/16	5	1	3	1	4	4
1962	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1966	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1970	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1974	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1978	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1982	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1986	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1990	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1994	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
1998	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
2002	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
2006	Did not qualify	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
2010	Qualification	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Total	1/18	1 Quarter-final	5	1	3	1	4	4

22 lines to present bare results from matches played in the course of 11 days. Does this have any real advantage over the alternative?:

1930 to 1938 - Did not enter
1950 to 1954 - Did not qualify
1958 - Quarterfinals
1962 to 2006 - Did not qualify

Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kill with fire, for the flagcruft as much as for anything else. Ideally we should only present information in a table if it cannot be presented clearly in a more prosaic format. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree, a complete waste of space. Giant Snowman 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get a bonus point for guessing that this table refers to Wales? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, definitely! Giant Snowman 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giovani Dos Santos

User:Bruninho is adding FC Barcelona B stats to Giovani Dos Santos, it was removed last time having been classed as reserve team statistics. But the guy seems to keep reverting it back. As a project a few said to have it removed as they can't be promoted or play full competition football in Spain. But I can't find the conversation in the project history to show him. Some help needed on the situation please. Govvy (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Barca B are techically a reserve side for Barcelona, they compete as a professional team in the same pyramid as the A team. If he's played full games for them then they should be listed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Chris - Barcelona B actually play in the pyramid, so his stats are senior appearances. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But last time it was said that Segunda División B 2006-07 Group 3, other players don't get recognised or get given stats, why Gio? Also they can't get promoted, play in the cups, and should reserve football even in the league structure should be recognised when it's equivalent to non-league? Govvy (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "don't get recognised"? If you're referring to articles on players being deleted, that's because they don't pass WP:ATHLETE if the only play at that level, but I don't see why appearances at that level (and they are league appearances) don't count once they move up to something higher. I certainly include non-League stats for players who have gone on to play in the Football League where I can find them. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If they only ever play for Barcelona B, or a club at the same level of the Spanish pyramid, then they shouldn't have an article anyway. Once they become eligible for an article, then their stats at all senior levels should be included. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if they have an article by playing in one of the top two divisions, their stats for any teams count if they're in the pyramid, even in the Tercera División, etc. matt91486 (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a related matter, User:Bruninho has a really bad case of WP:OWN when it comes to anything related to Barcelona. I have repeatedly attempted to cleanup several pages, notably Albert Celades, and the piping of the team as Barcelona instead of FC Barcelona, but he reverts any change on sight, despite the link piping being agreed upon by this group. He also never engages in any discussion... probably because he doesn't speak English. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bruninho, looks like he knows English to quote his last edit note on Gio "Spanish reserve team in the league is not like the English league.Their departures are official". But I didn't really understand that. Govvy (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an issue for a long time. Normally we just ask Vasco to talk to him, but if he's really not willing to play by our rules on en-WP then further action may need to be taken. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention inquiry

So I have been a little curious lately to some naming conventions this project has. For example, the NFL (and pretty much every major sports league except football) names their season like this: 2009 NFL season; but for football league seasons, we use this convention: Premier League 2008–09.

Why is that? How did that convention, which obviously isn't isolated to league seasons (like cups, continental tournaments, and team seasons), get started? I've tried looking and I can't find the answer in the archives. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL used to run from September to December, so it made sense for it to be called after the year it starts in, even though it now runs into the following year. The English football season runs from August to May, and even when it first started it ran from autumn (September-ish) of one year to spring (March-April) of the next, so it makes sense for it to be called after the year range it covers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Digirami is referring to the placement of the year and adding of "season" rather than 2009-10? On that I'm gonna guess it's a split with American usage/European usage. cha ndl er 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, not very bright tonight, must be past my bedtime :-( cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question, Digirami. For matches or single-year tournaments we seem to put the year at the front (2006 FIFA World Cup, 2007 FA Cup Final), but for split-year competitions or seasons the years go at the end. It just "looks right" is all I can think of. On a related note, why is it Arsenal F.C. season 2008–09 et al, not Arsenal F.C. 2008–09 season? --Jameboy (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well not really, Allsvenskan 2009 and other leagues that only span one season. cha ndl er 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it was a difference between American usage and European usage, wouldn't an English rugby league season (2008–09 Guinness Premiership) follow the same pattern? Or a French one (2008–09 Top 14 season)?

As for it looking better... I dunno. It looks odd, especially since the years are adjectives and they go in the front grammatically. Digirami (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've disagreed with this naming convention for ages. For the longest time, the FA Cup Final articles were located at "FA Cup Final [year]" until I got them all changed to "[year] FA Cup Final" for the simple reason that no one says "Did you see the FA Cup Final 2009?"; they would say "Did you see the 2009 FA Cup Final?" A similar argument could be made for league seasons, in that conventional speech would tend to put the year before the name of the competition, e.g. the 2008–09 Magners League (to cite a rugby union example that exists here on Wikipedia). It's all well and good saying that we do things a certain way because that's the convention, but if we don't ever examine the conventions then we'd be doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. – Pee Jay 22:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of changing the naming conventions to the "[year(s)] competition" format (ditto for team seasons). Adding "season" at the end is debatable, and if used, should apply to league seasons. Digirami (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, no one really says "Remember the 1973-74 season?" anyway. Mostly people I know refer to the results, suh as titles or "when we were almost relegated" or something. So I don't think there's much to be made off this argument. Madcynic (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think people would be more likely to say "Do you remember the 1992–93 Premier League?" than "Do you remember the Premier League 1992–93?", so there's more to be made of the argument than you might have thought. – Pee Jay 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal petition to change the naming conventions

I would hereby like to make a formal petition to change the naming conventions of seasons and yearly competitions to have the year placed in the front of the name of the competition/league as per typical rules of English grammar, ex: 2009 Copa Libertadores, 2008-09 Premier League, etc. The addition of "season", as found in other sporting examples such as 2008–09 NBA season, could be considered, but if decided to be used, should be added to league seasons, i.e. 2008-09 Premier League season, but not 2009 Copa Libertadores season.

I know this would affect A LOT of article, but it makes more sense this way, and it far more practical when placing the articles' title in the prose of other articles. Digirami (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I also agree that it should be "2008–09 Premier League season", but not "2009 Copa Libertadores season". – Pee Jay 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too inconsistant - Either both are ok or none. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well one is a league, the other is tournament. The idea, if accepted, would be to have "season" added just to league seasons, and not annual tournaments. Digirami (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I dont see the reason for having to add season to article titles, it will also be "harder" to find uncategorised articles, such as searching for prefixes. chandler 23:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects would still be in place for the articles, so searching for the old prefixes shouldn't be a problem. Regardless, the proposed changes would bring us in line with WP:COMMONNAME, which is more important. Do people actually search for "Premier League 2008-09" instead of "2008-09 Premier League"? – PeeJay 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think most search "Premier League 2008-09", which is the most usage format I see on the net [3] for example (just google search "Premier League 2008-09 " vs "2008-09 Premier League"). chandler 00:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well the most common usage would go along the lines of "2008-09 Premier League", not "Premier League 2008-09" because heck that's how people talk and it goes with the rules of grammar (adjective, being the year, in front of the noun, being the league/competition name). Adding season to the end is a purely optional idea for now, but I primarily strongly petitioning on having the year in the front. Digirami (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Other examples in WP, and some of them not sports related are as follows: 2008–09 Australian region cyclone season, 2009 Atlantic hurricane season, 2009 Kentucky Derby. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support According to the naming convention we should use the most easily recognizable name. I'm not a native speaker, but you tell me "200x league season" is the format everybody expects. If that's so we should obviously use that name, too. On the other hand creators of articles have some degree of freedom in naming them and as everybody would recognize "League season 200x", I find this somewhat academic. OdinFK (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You could argue back at me and tell me that this is what piping links is for, but changing the article titles to "200x league season" would make it easier to link to these pages from other articles, without needing to pipe; so it's not as academic as you might think. – Pee Jay 11:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Lopez

Some over-zealous editor created a re-direct page for Claudio López, and moved the original player page to Claudio López "El Piojo", which completely ignores the naming convention for footballers. I moved the page again to Claudio López (footballer) and left the editor a note - but we now have a double re-direct situation with dozens and dozens of links to Lopez's article having to go through "El Piojo". Anyone know how to fix this easily? --JonBroxton (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The only page that links to Claudio López "El Piojo" is this one... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article could be easily moved under Claudio López instead. Currently, Claudio López is a disambiguation page for two subject, the Argentine footballer and a Catalan philanthropist in the early 1900s whose name is "Claudio Lopez Bru" with only three pages linking to it. --Angelo (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sturridge

Can you please keep an eye on the Daniel Sturridge page please (and possibly semi protect it). It is getting a lot of IP related vandalism and IP related transfer speculation. Thanks Paul Bradbury 10:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mahon and Jack Mahon

Mega long shot I realise, but does anyone have any source that confirms that these two players were father and son? It seems highly likely given that Jack the younger was born in Gillingham at a time when Jack the elder was playing for the Gills, but I haven't found a source that actually confirms it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sebwe "brothers"

Kelvin Sebwe is only a month younger than his "brother" Dionysius Sebwe; so either they're not actually brothers, or Daddy Sebwe was playing around...anyone know the craic here? Giant Snowman 12:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The external link in Dionysius Sebwe gives his year of birth as 1969, not 1972. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Ha, schoolboy error on my part! I'm not thinking straight today, degree results day...Giant Snowman 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you do? or aren't they out yet? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not out yet, and the waiting is killing me :( Giant Snowman 13:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2:1! Been out drinking ever since...Giant Snowman 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish junior footballers

User:Salty1984 has created a Category:Junior footballers. I think this is a reasonable category, but I think a name like Scottish Junior Football Association players would be more accurate. Please comment and move the category if there is a consensus to do this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with a Category:Scottish Junior Football Association players. The wording on the current Category:Junior footballers page, for "players who have played at junior level in the United Kingdom, mainly in the SJFA", is a bit imprecise. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To people not in the know, 'junior football' is probably the same as 'youth football', and so the category should be renamed to avoid such confusion. Giant Snowman 21:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djibril Cissé

FYI, there's been a lot of editing and vandalism recently on this article, due to an announcement. I semi-protected the page for 24hrs. You may want to review it for accuracy, etc. Cenarium (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Icke

The David Icke article contained a football infobox, but this was removed and I was wondering what people felt on the issue. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that given that his personal details are in the main infobox, the article doesn't really need another box to display one youth club and one senior club. But whoever removed the box should have transferred its information into a couple of sentences in the early career section, not just discarded it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He made 37 league appearances or something for Hereford, and it should be mentioned. Giant Snowman 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Neill (footballer)

The above article has been moved to football manager, which goes against the naming conventions - could an admin please reverse this? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved him back, but I'm not an admin. Wouldn't it let you move it? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that you need admin rights to move the page history back across. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only once someone had edited the redirect (which means its history cannot be overwritten). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA Cup Categories

I was thinking it might be useful to add some or all of the below FA Cup categories (assuming they don't already exist). What are people's views on this - a good idea or over-categorisation?

Clubs that have reached the FA Cup Final

Footballers who have won the FA Cup

Footballers who have played in FA Cup Final

Footballers who have scored in an FA Cup Final

FA Cup winning captains

Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's overcategorisation. It will open the floodgates for all other minor tournaments as well. --Jimbo^[online] 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National team yearly articles?

Are the following national team yearly articles notable;

Sweden national football team 1991 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 1992 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 1993 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 1994 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 1995 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 1996 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 1997 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 1998 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweden national football team 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Jimbo^[online] 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion. The vast majority of the matches covered are friendlies, and therefore probably unimportant/non-notable. If Sweden managed to get to the finals of a major tournament (World Cup or European Championships) in any of those years, any useful info should be used to create Sweden at the 1994 FIFA World Cup or Sweden at UEFA Euro 2000 (example titles). – Pee Jay 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. If that is not important then Chelsea F.C. season 2007–08 is not important as well... But that would not work well with those that are Englysh-centric.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish. Chelsea's season is absolutely chock-full of competitive matches (60+, I believe), whereas national teams only play about 15 matches a year, and only a handful are competitive. The two are not comparable. – Pee Jay 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is extremely offensive. I see that all those matches are competitive in respect that players are vying for positions within the team. The team is not a bunch of amateurs but a representation of the National Team. Also just because a team plays 60+ matches or 2 makes no difference in whether the article exists or not. What needs to be done with the articles is references and an introduction that is acceptable by Wiki standards. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood the meaning of the word "competitive" in this context. If Chelsea's season was made up of 55 friendlies and five league matches, would it still be notable? Of course not. It would make much more sense to make an article about Chelsea's involvement in said hypothetical six-team single round robin league and disregard the friendlies as they're just not important. – Pee Jay 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you offensively belittle me by what you think as to what I understand. You're thinking is quite wrong in applying what a "competitive" match is? A friendly international is a competitive football match just because it was not played to garner 3 points or advance to the next round of a knockout competition. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are wrong. A friendly is not regarded as a competitive match for precisely the reasons you mention, regardless of the atmosphere in which it was played or the attitude adopted by the players. Kevin McE (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with you. A "friendly international match" is far more competitive and noteworthly than two local pub teams.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that a friendly international is more noteworthy than a game between two pub teams, but it's still not a competitive fixture. The match may be played in a competitive spirit, but if it's not part of a competition then, by definition, it's not a competitive match. – Pee Jay 16:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you seem to forget that Friendly Internationals are competitive because FIFA counts the results and coefficients are accumulated for wins and ties. Hence the governing body of the game regards these games far more importantly than your interpretation. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you win a trophy for winning friendlies? No, so friendlies aren't competitive. End of. – Pee Jay 17:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By increasing FIFA Coefficient points by winning a Friendly International teams can improve their standing when distrubuted in pots for future tournaments. Hence, again IMO Friendly Internationals are more important than your interpretation. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more you keep disagreeing doesn't make you any more right... – Pee Jay 19:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm right. Its just that you can't accept anyone who disagrees with you. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*blows whistle* It is beginning to get ugly. Save your personal discrepancies for your talk pages and try to participate in a constructive way instead. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too late for that, Wikipedia:WQA#PeeJay2K3, which wasn't needed in my opinion. Uksam88 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is certainly on PeeJay2K3's side here. Brudder Andrusha do you have a Reliable Source indicating that friendly matches are deemed to be "competitive"? National team matches are certainly split between "competitive games" and "friendlies" in the UK at least. - fchd (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are also split by FIFA, but they do have meaning. See the reference section below. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In the form those articles currently are I'd say no. These are just lists of matches in an sports almanac style, which should violate WP:NOT#ALMANAC. The person behind this stuff, User:Darius Dhlomo, has also created quite a bunch of articles for several nations, including the Netherlands, Estonia, Kazakhstan and Ecuador. And the question about notability has nothing to do with being "English-centric" - the information can easily be included in an article named "1994 in Swedish football" or similar. Any stand-alone article for national team matches only would create a redundancy. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user Soccer-holic, which points out that this results should be posted on the "(year) in Swedish football" articles, since that's where other national teams results are usually post it, examples:2008–09 in Argentine football or the 1993–94 in Scottish football, but am puzzle by the last one, since it contains a link to this article: Scotland national football team results and fixtures, should this type of article be the answer or just another problem?--Bocafan76 (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible. In the majority of cases, I think converting to a redirect to "Season in countryish football" would be appropriate. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a cautionary note: the creator of those articles, Darius Dhlomo (talk · contribs), is extremely prolific in sports almanac -like content (almost 120,000 edits) but virtually silent with respect to collaborative work (115 total talk page edits, about 1 per every thousand article edits). I doubt you'll get any input from him when generating consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References for validity

Reference: The following is the link to the FIFA website where the ranking of importance of international games and how coefficient points are calculated in the rankings table. Friendly Internationals, as expected are the lowest but nonetheless have a value in calculating those coefficient points. The adjustment by FIFA was in July 2006. FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking Schedule Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: The exact calculation of FIFA Coefficient is in the following pdf. Examples in the pdf explain how many coefficient points were gained from an Friendly International i.e. Brazil v. Argentina (3 September 2006) How are points calculated in the FIFA World Ranking? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter City honorary director dies

As you all will no doubt have heard, Exeter City F.C.'s former honorary director Michael Jackson has died at the age of 50, the BBC has reported. Very talented man, extremely weird, but I hope he will rest in peace. – Pee Jay 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And related to that, just a note that I have semi-protected Michael Jackson (footballer) for 24 hours as he (as have some other namesakes) got a little spillover from the news of the late Mr Jackson's death. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson dead, Spector jailed, Westlife alive and free. 2009 is a bad year for music. Jackson is the most talented musician to die since Johnny Cash back in 2003. In 2005 it was Richard Pryor, 2006 it was Steve Irwin, Mr Jackson will almost certainly prove to be 2009's most famous victim.--EchetusXe (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am listening to some Fats Domino now. Michael Jackson has died of natural causes and Fats Domino is still alive and well (as far as I know). Who could have predicted that one eh? 50 years old and his heart couldn't take it, I guess with all the stresses and strains in his life he would be more vulnerable to a sudden death like that.--EchetusXe (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Burns

Can't help thinking the reporter had a brain fart here. Is it 'Referee Jones' or 'P. Burns'? Answers on a postcard in respect of this article please.--EchetusXe (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll go with Soccerbase's W.C.Burns.--EchetusXe (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Olmo

Is working with adding soruces to the Antonio Olmo article, was wondering if any of these links [4], [5], [6] are seen as reliable? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 01:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Voetbal International link is definitely notable, it's my prime source for Dutch football. Dunno about the other two though...Giant Snowman 01:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Webb (footballer)

I've managed to trace this chap's career from 1969 to 1977...then there's a blank until he re-emerges in Canada between 1980 and 1982. So, does anyone know what he did between 77 and 82? And after 82 as well? Cheers, Giant Snowman 02:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.allfootballers.com shows him playing for "Bolzen (Belgium)" after Tranmere Rovers - no more detail, I'm afraid. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Giant Snowman 12:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He signed for MVV in October 1976, he also played for MVV in 1977-78, 78-79 and 79-80 He played for Bilzerse VV 1983-86 Cattivi (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cattivi - do you have a source for his Dutch career? Giant Snowman 12:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it in online newspaper archives like this one [7] Cattivi (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't read Dutch...Giant Snowman 13:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He apparently joined MVV Maastricht in October 1976, as the source from Cattivi states: "Engelsman voor MVV" (An Englishman for MVV), being signed from U.S. club Chicago Sting. --Angelo (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Angelo! Giant Snowman 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Bolzen is an error, a misspelling of Bilzen. A source for that is this site: [www.bsdb.be ] you need to register but it's free. Cattivi (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bsdb says 1983-86 Bilzerse VV (3e klasse B). --necronudist (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 5 weeks between his last appearance for Tranmere and his first for Chicago Sting, Bilzen was a small amateur club at that time (level 5) Cattivi (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk (footballer)

I'd revert the vandalism but what's the point? I suspect it's a vandalism account. Spiderone (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point, is that if we notice misinformation in any article, but particularly in biographies of living people, it's important to remove it. It's probably just someone messing about, I've reverted and given them a gentle warning. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)#[reply]

Yes but sometimes that means the mods don't see the vandals. Spiderone (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP says that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (their bolding) If the vandalism's bad, then anyone can report it at WP:AIV, the diffs are still in the history so the admins can see what was done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. League 2009 Topscorer rankings

I've been looking at quite some league pages on wikipedia and a big majority of them feature a Topscorer ranking, yet the J. League 2009 doesn't. I've checked at previous editions of the League (J. League 2008 for example) and they do feature such a ranking. So I was wondering if those rankings only get added after the season is finished, or because nobody wasn't interested in making one yet. If it's the latter, I'd be willing to make it if I can find out how to do it. Rhand007 (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better to wait for the season to finish, to ensure accuracy. If you plan to update after every game or whatever, but miss a game, the information would be incorrect. Giant Snowman 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would use the official website of the J. League as a source, and they update it frequently so accuracy shouldn't be a problem. Rhand007 (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine then, as long as you use something like Correct as of... or Last updated... to show when the table was last updated. Giant Snowman 17:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC Bavois

Could someone with a bit more knowledge of Swiss soccer have a look I considered a prod due to notability concerns but decided to ask here for more experienced eyes thanks. BigDunc^Talk 21:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a notable club.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they are notable as (judging by the Swiss FA's website) they've just been promoted to the 1.Liga (level 3 in the Swiss pyramid). However, if they haven't been promoted and would still be playing in the 2.Liga (Amateur Liga) next season, I wouldn't be so sure. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Swiss League system spans over eight steps in total, with only the Super League and Challenge League being professional (and even the CL only to a limited degree). If I would compare it to the English and German systems, this club would possibly play somewhere around level five to seven in England and level four to six in Germany.

A German team is considered notable by Wikipedia:WikiProject German football standards is considered if it has played at the Oberliga level (currently fifth-tier, has been higher in the past) or higher in at least one season in its history. English teams are deemed notable if they are (or have been) in a single-digit level, if I'm correct. So, to sum it all up, we could allow First League team articles, but definitely not below this level. The same would go for Austria and teams in its third-level Regionalliga.

Edit: As you can see by following the link above, most of the First League teams have their own articles anyway, so this should be good to go. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to check the history of this club, but looks like they have never played upon the third level.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just had the major brainwave (!) of looking at their website - they have indeed been promoted. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley & Nol de Ruiter

Are Wesley (born 1986) and Nol de Ruiter (born 1940) related? - both footballers and both involved with FC Utrecht, the former as a current player and the latter as a former manager. It could be a long shot though, as nothing is mentioned on either of the Dutch Wiki pages...cheers, Giant Snowman 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are closely related Cattivi (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for checking! Giant Snowman 11:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. United

I'm looking for one of the many editors that have been involved in the numerous FA class articles on a Premiership team. For the last month, I've been trying to get an American team article, D.C. United, to be somewhat presentable compared to its UK counterparts. I'm asking for such an editor to look over D.C. United not as an American team article, but compared to current FA team articles, perhaps Norwich City F.C. or Aston Villa F.C., which I used as my examples. I put D.C. United up for GA, and this could be used to review it, but any advice is appreciated! Understand that this is more than just a request for a single team. Major League Soccer team articles are consistently lower quality, and there's yet to be one GA or even FA. I'd like to get a start on one that could be used as a template for the others.--Patrick «» 22:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References =publisher

I was looking at the publisher tag on references on different pages, but mainly on Spurs articles, but no one is using any main uniform, I mean people put the url, or a full newspaper name, or BBC Sport, bbc.co.uk

What I am trying to say is, shouldn't we have a set way to have the |=publisher tag displayed? So which should it be, name or url? Govvy (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also for official club pages, use the club name or the url? Govvy (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it should be the actual publisher, not the URL. So I use "The Times", "BBC Sport", or "Bradford City A.F.C. official website" as publisher. Giant Snowman 10:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Best to use names rather than urls. For club websites, use publisher=Tottenham Hotspur F.C., for BBC Sport pages, use publisher=BBC Sport. Newspapers are different in that the name of the newspaper goes in the work= parameter, so you'd use work=The Times; that makes it appear in italics, where the publisher doesn't. For major newspapers, you wouldn't normally put the publisher as well. Have a look at the template documentation at {{Cite news}} or {{Cite web}}, see if it helps at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does playing at the Maccabiah Games merit an article?

Um, that's it basically. If a player represented their nation at the 2005 Maccabiah Games - the "Jewish Olympics" - then would said player, regardless of any club notability, be worthy of an article? Cheers, Giant Snowman 13:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I actually had the chance to play at the Maccabiah in field hockey (but one of my friends, who had only ever played ice hockey before did), so it really isn't that big a deal. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, OK thanks. Out of interest, why didn't you play? Giant Snowman 13:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find out about it in time, so couldn't be registered - I was later told that if they'd known about me, I'd have been in the Israeli team (as they only had about 6 players who'd actually ever played the sport before, and I had played it at school), even though I wasn't Israeli or Jewish :) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, my Uncle got a medal in the 150 metres years ago in the games, it would be good to have articles on the games, I don't think you would need player articles know. Govvy (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Clark MLS stats por favor

This souce confirms that Jamie Clark played in 20 consecutive games for the San Jose Earthquakes during the 1999 season; however, I am struggling to find his stats for ALL 2 1/2 season he played in MLS - can anyone help? Cheers, Giant Snowman 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tried MLSnet? Nanonic (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the site earlier, and nothing came up...odd. Thanks though! Giant Snowman 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA Youth Cup Finals of the 1970s

Many of the squad lists of this article are incomplete - some have numerous player ommisions, some have surnames only, and one features a grand total of two players! Anyone got a resource to fatten up the squads? Giant Snowman 19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Smith

I created the page Gordon Smith (footballer born 1954 in Partick) as there was already a Gordon Smith (footballer born 1954). Is the best thing now to move the latter's page to '...born in Kilwinning' in order to be able to differentiate between the two? Eldumpo (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nononono. The article you created should be moved to Gordan Smith (full back) or Gordan Smith (defender); the existing article should be moved to Gordan Smith (striker) or Gordan Smith (forward). Regards, Giant Snowman 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work, as the much more notable Gordon Smith (footballer born 1924) was also a forward. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then disambig the two forwards by date of birth - Gordon Smith (forward born 1924) and Gordon Smith (forward born 1954). Giant Snowman 10:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or Gordon Smith (footballer born July 1954) and Gordon Smith (footballer born December 1954). Whatever you do is going to be messy, just make sure they're all clearly differentiated on the disambiguation page :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, month would be better than position actually. Giant Snowman 10:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Association football penalty shootouts

Discussion moved to Category talk:Association football penalty shootouts#Necessity and name of this Category jnestorius^(talk) 00:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicos Jiapouras

Can somebody find reliable sources as the existence of this guy? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than mirror sites, I can't find anything. Worthy of deletion in my eyes. Giant Snowman 00:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving of talk topics

Can someone check if the current archive is too full to take any more subsections or the archive bot has a malfunction (and delete this thread afterwards)? Given that the bot collected everything older than 10 days, it is well overdue... Thanks, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Misza13#Archiving Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the link... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maps on tournament articles

Articles on international tournaments nearly all carry a map, usually colour coded to show either the stage each team reached or which group they were in for the opening stage. There are often problems with these over consistency and the provision of a key, but a new "feature" has been unveiled on the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup: the map with superimposed flags. I have my own opinions on this, but in the interests of preserving fair discussion, I will simply point out that somebody is trying to establish a vote on the matter here, where some of you may wish to participate. Kevin McE (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help on FK Senica needed - do we have an expert on Slovak soccer among us?

FK Inter Bratislava, former Slovak Superliga champions and recently promoted team from the Slovak First League, have recently "merged" with fourth-division side FK Senica (it was one of those "playing license for money" deals, similar to the one of Poland's Polonia Warsaw last year). However, the merger did not went through without complications. The new club intended to play under its Senica name, but forgot to file in time for the change. As a consequence, the 2009–10 season will be played as Inter Bratislava, but this is pretty much the only thing left from the old club. However, the recently created article for Senica is currently in, let's say, a pretty blank state. So, is there anybody out there who can help to expand the article? I would have done it myself but I don't know jack about Slovak soccer... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]