Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

Unreferenced BLPs

Hi all. During my removal of the Template:Transfermarkt, I have come across a number of now fully-unreferenced biographies.

• Hannes Anier
• Timo Brauer
• Vasili Chernitsyn
• Igor Chernyshov
• Dmitri Anatolyevich Davydov
• Steven De Petter
• Vojislav Dragović
• Roberto Insigne
• Enrico Kulovits
• Kristian Kuzmanović
• Leonardo Manzi
• Hiroshi Nakano (footballer)
• Gregor Pötscher
• Giovanni Proietti
• Gerhard Struber
• Marco Villaseca
• Leon Vlemmings
• Michael Winsauer

Your help would be appreciated in finding reliable sources to support any of these. Thanks, C679 16:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done with basic referencing, thanks to @Struway2: and @Jmorrison230582: and everyone else for their assistance. GiantSnowman 19:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

someone should check this list and this list. otherwise we are just removing the ones that were using the template (scroll down in the lists to the spieler section). there may be others, e.g., transfermarkt.it, etc. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, I think @Cloudz679: was already planning to work his way through them... GiantSnowman 16:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wartime League appearances in infobox

I've just done a bit of an expansion to the article on George Gladwin, during which I've managed to find his Wartime League records. I've included the club-by-club stats in the infobox, but in the "totalcaps" and "totalgoals" parameters I've only totalled his Football League stats. Is this right or should the Wartime League appearances be included too? – PeeJay 16:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for two reasons - firstly it makes sense to have the 'total' reflect the figures in the infobox. Secondly we don't exclude Southern Football League, Isthmian, Conference etc. etc. if those are available, do we? I don't see why the Wartime League should be any different, even if it is more unusual. GiantSnowman 18:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree, although there is the significant difference that wartime appearances are regarded as unofficial, unlike the Isthmian, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel like GS they should be treated like any other and included, unofficial or not.Blethering Scot 23:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But if ChrisTheDude is right and the Wartime League matches are as official as friendly matches, maybe they shouldn't be included? – PeeJay 00:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the Wartime League to comment comprehensiely - that article is in need of improvement and sources - but if this was an organised competition, sanctioned by a governing body, then it's more akin to normal league football as opposed to friendlies. GiantSnowman 13:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Bits of info here, here and here..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would not include wartime matches in statistics, simply because that is the usual practice of the Association of Football Statisticians. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elvedin Škrijelj

Hi again. Another old stale Afc submission. Is it a keeper, or should it be let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

With 14 appearances in the Serbian Super Liga in 2011-12, the article meets WP:NSPORT and should stay. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Took a look and it's not a keeper at all but a defender! Please move to main space. Thanks, C679 05:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin please move it to mainspace, the title looks like it has been salted. Thanks, C679 10:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for figuring out what the problem is. I tried to accept it using the Afc script, but it just said "done" and didn't leave me an error message. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have left a message for Causa sui, who salted it. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Kits in tournament articles

Why is this permitted to happen See 1998 FIFA World Cup Group E as an example. Two separate issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced kits

The kits are generally unreferenced and so like starting positions, etc. they should be avoided. The only argument I've seen for their inclusion is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The 1998 FIFA World Cup Group E even saw a "correction" due to incorrect sock colours. No way to confirm that the original or changed kit is correct though so WTF. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The website 'Historical Football Kits' has an ever-increasing history of World Cup kits. GiantSnowman 12:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Although they are not a reliable source, as we saw in this deletion discussion in November 2013. C679 17:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There was no mention, in that AFD, of HFK being non-RS. The issue was notability of that article, not the reliability of one source. From my experience HFK is extremely well researched. GiantSnowman 18:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

But are there references to it? No. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes they cite sources, although not everywhere. GiantSnowman 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And so back to the heading, what if they don't cite sources? Do we tag them with CNs, remove, find sources, (or is that the job of the person adding the kits) or some other option? The example above, 1998 FIFA World Cup Group E, doesn't have sources. And how does one reference a kit? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would remove anything unreferenced, others prefer to tag with {{cn}}. If you can find sources, even better. To reference, simply add a ref tag next to the country name in the |title= parameter. GiantSnowman 19:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Then someone other than me needs to do that with the kits from that group, and all the others. They were recently added by an anon and kept in place without refs by an established editor and I do not wish to be accused of edit warring over this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

David Moor, the bloke behind HFK, has had at least one book on football kits published by a mainstream publisher, so I would think his site passes WP:SPS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

HFK is a tertiary source, from what I have seen Moor essentially uses it to collect information from other places. C679 22:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Logos on the kits

We don't permit it in league articles, but it does happen there as well, why for national teams? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What logos? Nike ticks etc. and/or national emblems? No, they should not be used on any clubs or countries or anything in between. GiantSnowman 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Adidas stripes, Umbro diamond, Nike swooshes, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The only reason they are in use is because they are the only versions we have. If we had logo-free versions, I think we would implement them, but we don't, and the only people who appear willing to put in the time and effort required to make the kit graphics seem to be hell-bent on including the logos. – PeeJay 20:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How about intricate design elements? How would this kit be rendered? Hack (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ideally we're not supposed to have "intricate" designs, we just need to show basic design and colour. If an editor was to create a template showing a fancier design, there is no need to add logos of club or sponsor(s). GiantSnowman 12:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Chris Maxwell (footballer)

Hi, I recently formatted the career stats table at Chris Maxwell (footballer) so it meets the layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics. However, I have twice been partially reverted by an IP who insists on including clean sheet columns. I have tried explaining to the individual that this is discouraged. Would appreciate if it anyone can help keep an eye on this article, or if anyone could help explaining to the user why they're being reverted. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Took a look at those watermarks on some of the pictures, have sent to commons copyvio team for a closer look! Thanks, C679 22:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the clean sheet stats from Fleetwood onwards aren't in the listed source, so should go regardless of formatting etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Cup winners in Honours sections

How should cup wins be shown in players' honours sections? For a player who wins the FA Cup this year, should the win be shown as:

FA Cup: 2014

or

FA Cup: 2013–14

As a secondary question, should the year be linked to the 2014 FA Cup Final or 2013–14 FA Cup?

Of four Featured player articles I have checked John Wark has the full season for all cup wins in his honours section, whereas Bert Trautmann, Gilberto Silva and Thierry Henry (except the Copa del Rey) have just the year in which the Cup Final was played. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. I have no real opinion either way (though perhaps siding slightly with the 2013–14 style). The main thing here is consistency - therefore if we have '2014' we should link to the 'Final' page, and if we have '2013–14' we should link to the 'season' page. Same goes for any/all tournaments played over the course of a season, I suppose. GiantSnowman 19:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say regardless of the link being targeted, the displayed text should be of the season (i.e. 2013–14, not just 2014), except for competitions like the Community Shield, the UEFA Super Cup and the like. After all, you don't win the 2014 FA Cup, you win the 2013–14 FA Cup. – PeeJay 20:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

First one for me, linking to to the final.--EchetusXe 22:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Supplementary question

As a supplementary to the above, what is the point of the silly numbers in the Thierry Henry honours section? As there is no-one reading Wikipedia who can't count to 3, they seem pointless and slightly insulting to me. For a club or player who has won the same honour many times, there may be some point, I guess, but IMHO they are totally unnecessary here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose for someone like Ryan Giggs, who has won the PL 13 times, it's useful. GiantSnowman 22:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you there, but there are so many players with (1) after their sole achievement, which is bl##dy ridiculous. But where to draw the line? I guess that will always be too subjective to agree any guidelines. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree they are pointless at best and silly at worst. I would say at least five of the same honour are needed before numbers are justified.--EchetusXe 22:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest three, but 5 seems like a nice round number. Once consensus is reached we can update the relevant player MOS. GiantSnowman 12:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd go for 3, personally. After all, three league titles would mean that after the competition name you already have six figures (20xx-xx, 20xx-xx, 20xx-xx) and that does have a tendency to become confusing to people very quickly. Madcynic (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to update the MOS could we update the format as well? FA Cup (x5) would at least indicate more recognisably that it's a cumulative figure. And I'd say it's easy enough to count up to three, if they're going to stay then 5 should be the absolute baseline. Also - this limit should apply to honours on club pages as well. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that five is a suitable minimum - it avoids having to use more than one hand to count on! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

For clubs that have won their league 38 times, then fair enough, but there are very few players with uncountable numbers of wins. If we must have them, then I'd prefer to wait till double figures, but 5 at an absolute minimum. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Struway2 to be honest _ I don't think they server any purpose below double figures. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Supplementary question #2

Is it necessary for the entries in the Honours section to be separately referenced, assuming that they are already mentioned and referenced in the main text? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes - unless a reader reads the entire article, they are not to know it is referenced. Explicitly referencing the honours does no harm and an awful lot of good. GiantSnowman 11:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary for the entries in the senior career section of the infobox to be separately referenced, assuming that they are already mentioned and referenced in the club statistics section? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That's slightly different, as the stats don't really run the risk of being 'lost' in paragraphs of prose. GiantSnowman 12:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Football League Championship Top Transfers

I removed the Top Transfers section before from Football League Championship and it was reverted. I don't think the given sources are adequate and the section should be deleted. Agree? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If the sources aren't up to scratch, it should go. Plus I think this is more the sort of thing that official stats organisations should be recording for clubs to trot out every time they make a big signing, not an encyclopaedia. – PeeJay 21:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The refs confirm the transfers happened. They do not confirm they were the biggest or anything else within an order of monetary value.--Egghead06 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it has been removed now. Let's hope it won't be re-added again. JMHamo (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On a vaguely related note, we have an article entitled Football League Championship Top Scorer, and the capitalised title and general tone of the prose make it sound like this is an official award handed out each season? Is it? I'm pretty sure it's not, in which case the list of top scorers already present in the Football League Championship article more than suffices and we don't need a whole separate article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It probably is an official award, but I don't think it is independently notable. GiantSnowman 12:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hulme Athenaeum

Does the Hulme Athenaeum club warrant an article? It was apparently the oldest football club in the Manchester area (founded November 1863) but it pre-dates the league as it folded in the 1870s. There are not many articles available that mention it:

• Manchester Evening News
• National Football Museum
• BBC History Magazine

TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that's essentially one source, as they are all just re-postings of the same article. Is anything else known about this club? At the moment I don't really see the potential for anything more than a two or three-sentence stub....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You might want to create a Football in Manchester artice, mention the club there, and have it as a redirect. GiantSnowman 12:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Cardiff

Category:English football chairmen and investors... isn't Cardiff in Wales? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The club is part of the English football pyramid, so the categorisation is correct even if geographically it is wrong. Fenix down (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there's an argument to put Cardiff in either category, since they play in the English football pyramid, but they are registered with the Football Association of Wales. – PeeJay 11:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought Vincent Tan was Malaysian. Or is the category just badly named? Number 57 12:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The category is either poorly named, or is being mis-used. The current name of 'English football chairmen and investors' implies football chairmen and investors who are English. The name might need changing to 'English football club chairmen and investors'. GiantSnowman 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Even that could be miscontrued as football club chairmen who are English. Perhaps "Chairmen of football clubs in England", or preferably "Chairpersons of football clubs in England" given that not only men can hold the position (e.g. Torquay United's Thea Bristow). Number 57 12:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. This should be discussed further at a CFD. GiantSnowman 13:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 23#Category:English football chairmen and investors. Number 57 21:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Double squad template

Move {{LdB FC Malmö squad}} to {{FC Rosengård squad}} (and delete this template) to keep the history. --Fredde (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You need WP:TFD. GiantSnowman 12:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well those templates have not much history anyway. I'd just just tag the first for speedy deletion as housekeeping. -Koppapa (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, deleted. The two articles that were using it now have {{FC Rosengård squad}} in its place. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

2015 MLS SuperDraft

The title 2015 MLS SuperDraft is currently salted because it was repeatedly recreated after consensus to delete was established at AfD in February 2013. An editor has recently submitted an Articles for creation draft for the title; however, I had to decline it because it is salted. My question: would this draft about a future MLS SuperDraft be considered acceptable as it stands now? I'm not very knowledgeable about football so guidance would be appreciated. :) If the draft does not fix any of the concerns raised in the AfD, it may be eligible for speedy deletion under section G4. Mz7 (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that all the references are press releases from teams directly involved would suggest there is not sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Thanks, C679 07:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Please note that the creator has resubmitted the draft without modifying anything, asking "Please have someone familiar with American sports drafts review this page". Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aaron Jones (Footballer)

Another old Afc submission (there sure are a lot of these football players). Is this one notable? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne, thanks for bringing this to our attention. The player in question seems only to have played in the New Zealand league which is not fully professional, so there is not sufficient notability. Thanks, C679 07:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the submission is gone now. Thanks for your analysis. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Dominic Adiyiah -

Are we sure that Dominic Adiyiah is a Levski Sofia player?--Lglukgl (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't see any evidence, have reverted to an earlier version. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the project. C679 20:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio / copy-paste move

Zaquan Adha looks to have been re-created, although I cannot find an on-Wikipedia source. There is of course this external link with identical content, which predates the Wikipedia article. Article author has removed copyvio tags. C679 19:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The original article is Mohd Zaquan Adha Abdul Radzak, I have reverted the C&P move. GiantSnowman 19:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

José Manuel Flores

His full name is "JOSÉ MANUEL FLORES MORENO", his sporting name is "CHICO". "CHICO FLORES" is a name/nickname compound, thus wrong, does not matter that BBC names him like this, yes BBC is 100% reliable, but in this case they got it wrong, his sporting name is NOT "Chico Flores", it's "Chico", period.

I have already composed the article (which by the way has been severely and repeatedly vandalized after his diving, article could not be bothered with one edit except for mine and little else when he played in Spain!), was reverted then re-reverted, i give up it stays "Chico Flores" in intro, but you have been briefed.

Attentively --AL (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME - if the most sources use 'Chico Flores', then that is what we use. I don't particularly like it, as we end up with articles called Inter Milan, but them's the rules. GiantSnowman 21:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean the article should be moved? The Almightey Drill (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll support any changes that result in Inter Milan being moved back to F.C. Internazionale Milano. – PeeJay 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giorgos Loizou

Hello again - another old Afc submission - thumbs up or down on this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Has not made a first-team appearance yet, so not notable and can be deleted. JMHamo (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability of players competing in the League Of Ireland

I would like to ask if there is any particular reason why players competing in the League Of Ireland (LOI) should not be notable enough to have their own pages?

The LOI is not a fully-professional league and likely never will be, yet many players have wiki pages that are tolerated, while others are deleted, despite having good sources.

I would like to help improve the League Of Ireland information on Wikipedia, but it is incredibly disheartening when content is deleted on the basis of it not meeting notability criteria. I'm not just talking about recently. I racked up a large amount of edits on an old account I had a number of years ago that I have lost access to.

Ireland has two senior divisions. I am of the opinion that excluding players who compete in them is incredibly arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOI Statistics (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How would you suggest we define notability for footballers then? If we simply go on media coverage, we'll end up with articles on nobodies like these kids. If we limit ourselves to players in fully professional leagues, however, we ensure that all the players are notable for being full-time, professional footballers. – PeeJay 00:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Too Late!.--Egghead06 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I give up! – PeeJay 01:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Pike article was created in December 2007 by our good friend GiantSnowman and edited by various high profile members of this forum, including (dare I say it), one PeeJay2K3! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate Pike for deletion, I am confident he would met GNG (hence why I created it). GiantSnowman 13:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem lies in the notability guideline for footballers equating a person being likely to have received enough "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to pass the general notability guideline, with playing in a fully professional league. Although that was originally intended to provide a bright-line yes-or-no criterion to ensure, as PeeJay says above, that people satisfying it were being written about because they'd achieved something as footballers, it's become increasingly messy for several reasons:

• the difficulty of sourcing the concept of "fully professional";
• the failure to recognise that there are leagues which either aren't fully pro or aren't provably fully pro, but whose players have massive media coverage;
• in contrast, the acceptance of certain leagues (the Scottish second tier and the Finnish league, for two) as honorary fully-pro even though they're not;
• and, unfortunately, the general problem of availability of online sources in a language we can read.

And no, I don't know what the solution is, either. In the past, people have suggested taking a random set of players from any given league and seeing if GNG-satisfying coverage can generally be found. But that's a lot of work, it'd be difficult to gain agreement for anything unless the relevant sources were online and in a language a trusted editor can read, it sounds like original research (although no more so than the fully professional league concept), and it'd have to be agreed to outside the football project as well as in it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as being arbitrary at all, all the players inherently fail NFOOTY as they do not play in an FPL, unless they have competed at a senior international level. GNG is the only guideline that needs to be satisfied. In my view that requires a number of substantial interviews with the player or articles specifically and in most instances exclusively about the player. Instead, what we see in many of the AfDs recently are links to routine match reports and very brief articles that tend to mention a player rather than discuss him in depth. I personally, use this article as a benchmark for such players. Not saying everyone has to get an OBE, but it is a prime example of a player who has had so much more than a normal career in football without playing in an FPL or playing internationally. Fenix down (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not every player has to play to be notable, they can meet GNG and be considered notable that way. See, for example Sonny Pike (already mentioned) as well as Lauri Dalla Valle (again created my me, clearly met GNG before he made his pro debut). These, however, are rare examples, and in the vast majority of cases most players are not considered notable until they play in a fully-professional league, or at international level. WP:NFOOTBALL may not be perfect, but I have yet to see a better suggestion despite the numerous times this issue has been raised. GiantSnowman 13:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: LOI players with Europa League or Champions League appearances, do you agree this provides them with some degree of notability and should not be deleted? JMHamo (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that playing in the Champions League proper is a strong indicator of notability, but that's about it. Same goes for any country - Ireland or Andorra or San Marino. GiantSnowman 13:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of WP:NSEASONS

WP:NSEASONS is being used as a justification for the deletion of league season articles. Are we all in agreement that NSEASONS covers "sports team seasons" not "league seasons". The word "league" is not even mentioned in the Individual Seasons paragraphs with the exception of " individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues". League Octopus 12:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It applies to leagues as much as it does to teams; the wording just needs changing slightly. GiantSnowman 13:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that it applies to leagues please? League Octopus 13:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE and AFD precedent. GiantSnowman 13:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Common sense exactly, if you can't have a season article on a team because they are not competing in a top professional league. why would you need a load of stats forming a season article for the league itself. Also NSEASONS is not being used to justify deletion on its own. The most important point, which is within NSEASONS as well, is that such articles should not be stat dumps. If an article provides a summary of the season with a significant amount of reliable sourced prose from multiple sources, then the NSEASONS point is moot, since the sourced prose will indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The deletion process is fundamentally flawed when you are using NSEASONS as a main reason for deletion when clearly NSEASONS does not make any reference to "league seasons". The more you try to counter this issue the more the project loses credibility. It is bemusing that an experienced administrator is using as his justification that "the wording just needs changing slightly" when NSEASONS makes no reference whatsoever to "league seasons". League Octopus 14:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What does NSEASONS hinge upon? GNG. That applies to club seasons and league seasons and everything else. If you cannot show it meets GNG, you cannot show notability. GiantSnowman 18:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Say 2012–13 Welsh Premier League (women), notable? Or most other women's league season articles, Category:2012–13 domestic women's association football leagues. Surely the team's seasons are not notable though. -Koppapa (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say that Welsh one is, mostly due to the team that withdrew from the division. If they're a top-flight division in a country with a fairly major women's game, then I would say they should be considered notable (they'll likely meet GNG if this is the case). The W-League one is definitely notable (that league gets a lot of coverage), for example. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To underline the point re the W-League, both the men's and women's national leagues in Australia have one match televised each week on free-to-air TV and usually the W-League outrates the A-League. Hack (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Friendship Trophy

A bit obscure this, but Wikipedia's article on the Friendship Trophy, contested between Norwich City and Sunderland whenever they are in the same division, implies it's awarded on each of the two occasions they play each other. Currently it says "Norwich are the current holders of the trophy, having beaten Sunderland 2–1 at Carrow Road on 2 December 2012". This is obviously out-of-date but what I really want to know is - is it contested twice a season, as Wikipedia implies, or is it a two-legged contest, as Jonathan Wilson of the Guardian says here [1]? --93.152.14.46 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that notable anyway? -Koppapa (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember it ever being mentioned by either Norwich or the local press in Norfolk. I'd AfD it.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendship Trophy. GiantSnowman 18:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've always understood it to be as our text implies, one-off. There is logic in support of this, because the original instance and at least one subsequent occasion was a cup game. Where did you get the "whenever they are in the same division" bit from? --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sheffield Wednesday 2012/13 season article(s)

Surely 2012–13 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season and 2012–13 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season review need to be merged? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, and almost certainly massively trimmed too, the season review is a massive wall of text (all reffed to a single primary source). Not sure I particularly like the "rumours" table in the season article either. Fenix down (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say the latter should be deleted, it adds nothing at all to the former. I suggest you AFD it. GiantSnowman 18:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the text from 2012–13 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season review should be included on 2012–13 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season as it doesn't have any text describing the progression of the season. As it stands 2012–13 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season is just a statistical overview of the season.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The season review was part of the main 2012/13 page, which was 300kB until someone hived off the prose. It'd be good if someone tactful (which lets me out) had a helpful word with the regular editor of the Sheff Wed seasons about the difference between an encyclopedia article and a fanblog. We don't want to drive them away, their enthusiasm is great, but the current season page is heading in the same direction, and 2011/12 is also fairly extreme and almost entirely unsourced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That "rumours" table is absolutely ludicrous! "Danny Batth won't be re-signing for Sheffield Wednesday.", gosh, I'm glad we know that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, someone might want to give him a pointer about overlinking. In the season article, Sheffield Wednesday is wikilinked over 150 times! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The rumours section is no more... => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Source for José Mourinho's managerial record

Hi, I have referenced part of José Mourinho's managerial record, but am struggling to cite his Benfica, União de Leiria and Porto spells. Could anyone direct me to any sources for these? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Always Learning: is your best bet. GiantSnowman 18:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at this one (here http://www.foradejogo.net/manager.php?manager=159&language=2). If you click on the top-left corner, in the stripe that's below "CAREER" and with nothing written on it, it'll chance to his player career, which also shows us (don't know if someone has added the cat or not, just saying) he is not a Primeira Liga player, was part of a Rio Ave F.C. roster but did not play, only competed in Segunda Liga as a player.

Additionally, returning to manager stuff, if you click in the Portuguese clubs and go to the given season, there you can click in a field called "CALENDAR", which will also give you the Taça de Portugal and other cup games. Cheers --AL (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tulsa Roughnecks redux, and hundreds of incoming links may need attention

Tulsa's new USL Pro minor league team will be called the Roughnecks, in homage to the 1978-1983 NASL team that won the last Soccer Bowl in 1983.[2] This is all well and good for the team and for Tulsa, but it leads to some confusion here at Wikipedia. An editor has moved the existing article about the NASL team to Tulsa Roughnecks (1978–1984) and has converted the title Tulsa Roughnecks into a redirect page that leads to Tulsa Roughnecks FC, about the new team. Unfortunately, this leaves hundreds of wikilinks from other articles now pointing to the article for the new minor league team instead of the old NASL team. (Just to confuse things further, there was a third team, in the minor league United Soccer Leagues that also used this name during the 1990s. See Tulsa Roughnecks (disambiguation).)

I myself would be inclined to revert Tulsa Roughnecks back to its former role as the title of the NASL team article, and use Tulsa Roughnecks (disambiguation)(or hatnotes) to direct people to the minor league teams, but I can imagine that others might disagree about which team is now the primary topic. Before laborious steps are taken to deal with this one way or the other, I would like to know if the regulars in this project think that the name change has been handled correctly. I imagine that other similar cases of name reuse must exist in the football world. Opinions are solicited, with thanks in advance. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of those links were generated by three templates and should be resolved automatically. The rest will be simple cleanup. - Dravecky (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: This sort of name re-use (and thus disambiguation) is entirely common for American soccer teams. After finding a bunch of articles (Carlos Alberto Mijangos, Victor Moreland, W-League, 1996 USISL Professional League, 1999 USISL D-3 Pro League, and more) where the link in question was pointing to the wrong article, I had a quiet evening of disambiguation and resolved the issue. (Bonus: it turns out there's a 4th team, a women's pro team, that also used the name for a year in the mid-1990s.) - Dravecky (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Template United F.C. goalkeepers

I noteced this today: Category:Association football goalkeepers by club. Please tell me we are not going to have this type of categories... FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say we should not have these as will create huge numbers of categories, and player positions may change. Eldumpo (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to see such categories either. As has been said, player positions change and I can see large numbers of journeymen footballers who have played, say both defence and midfield roles having some ten to fifteen categories added. I am not sure how this aids the reader. Maybe it is better to CfD this now and establish the beginnings of a wider consensus? Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not. To CFD we go... GiantSnowman 13:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of Dinamo´s

How about merging this two articles: Dynamo FC and List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs? I mean, everything on the second one is already found in the first one. FkpCascais (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no references in either article! Eldumpo (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd delete the second. The title doesn't seem neutral. And there is no additional info. The first works fine as a disambiguation page.-Koppapa (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree the 2nd is not needed. GiantSnowman 13:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've PRODed List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs JMHamo (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Atanas Kurdov - Botev plovdiv 2011-12

Are we sure that Kurdov has scored 50 goals in 46 caps between 2010-2012? Soccerway doesn't confirm it.--Lglukgl (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC) →http://it.soccerway.com/players/atanas-kurdov/16387/

Not supported by RS - likely vandalism. GiantSnowman 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Figures are genuine. The relevant club season article on bg.wiki was updated week-by-week during the season, and his goals gradually increased to 46 league and 5 cup by the end. Soccerway doesn't cover the Bulgarian third tier, but if you add the 46 goals from 28 games in 2010/11 as per the bg.wiki page to the 4 goals from 18 in 2011/12 per Soccerway, you do get 50 from 46. This page from bulgarian-football.com confirms the number of goals, though not the number of games they came from. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Historical places of birth

As far as I am aware there is no definitive, Wikipedia-wide guidelines on this, but as this will affect many, many player articles I am bringing this here to see if we can resolve before I escalate. I am having a difference of opinion with Indif (talk · contribs) at the Mustapha Zitouni article. Zitouni was born in Algiers in 1928. My opinion is that, at that time, the name of the country was French Algeria; the article I have just linked to reflects that fact, and confirms that is the name it held between 1830–1962. Indif is adamant, however, that the article should show 'Algeria', based on some sources he has found. While I would like to resolve the Zitouni case ASAP, this is obviously a wider issue - it affects players born in Colonial Africa, East/West Germany, former Yugoslavia etc. etc. and so I am seeking further input here. GiantSnowman 13:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. If the country was called French Algeria at the time, then the article should reflect that, perhaps with "now Algeria" in parentheses when the country is mentioned in the prose of the article. The same applies to Nemanja Vidić (whose article shows that he was born in "Titovo Užice, SFR Yugoslavia", not "Užice, Serbia") and Carlos Queiroz ("Nampula, Portuguese Mozambique", not "Nampula, Mozambique"). – PeeJay 14:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need "now Algeria" in parentheses, we don't have that on any other articles. GiantSnowman 17:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignore me, mentioning it in parentheses in the prose (I thought you meant infobox!) makes perfect sense. GiantSnowman 18:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The country of birth should be the name of the country at the time of birth. I also agree with PeeJay that saying "(now Fooland)" in the prose is a good idea (I have always done that when writing about Israel politicians born in pre-WWII Europe). I think there is general consensus for using the name of the country at the time of birth and there was a wider discussion some years ago, but as I recall there is one particular editor (focussed on Estonia and in denial that it was ever part of the USSR) who basically filibusters any debate on the subject until people tire of his behaviour and go away. Number 57 18:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Puma evoPOWER football boots

Do you think Puma evoPOWER should have its own article or should it be redirected to football boot? JMHamo (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether it redirects to football boot or Puma SE is a matter for discussion, though bear in mind the case of Nike Total 90 Tracer, which was redirected after an AFD but then later deleted after an RFD as non-notable. Deletion might be a better route to go down. GiantSnowman 17:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mikel Arteta

Hi. I need some input to a situation regarding the article Mikel Arteta. An IP want to change source for the player height and he has made 4 reverts (I am at three so I have stopped). He insists of adding espn as a source instead of the currently used Premier League source (info gathered from the clubs). This IP is not very polite and uses words like "retard" if you dont agree. If anyone has something to add it would be highly appreciated. QED237 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 48 hours for 4 reverts, and I have formally warned you for edit warring. This is a matter for the article talk page, per WP:BRD. GiantSnowman 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)