Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Template:WPF navigation

Preston North End F.C. seasons

Could some one help me with the seasons of this club or find some who supports the club who could help me with some infomation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 January 2009

Otto Barić

What is this managers nationality? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As neither the talk page nor the edit summaries contain any attempt at explanation by Hubschrauber nor the editor with whom he is in dispute, it is difficult to say. Of the three links provided, the only one in English is unavailable, my on-line translator does not handle Slovak, and a Polish reference describes him in passing as Croatian. Managing a national team neither requires nor confers nationality (otherwise Bora Milutinović would have at least 8 passports), surname is no real proof (otherwise only very few people would be described as being of the Western Hemisphere), and although place of birth usually indicates eligibility to a citizenship, that option is not always taken up, and is not always a reflection of the person's sense of identity (if Cruz Beckham ever attains notability, I don't think many of us will argue that he should be regarded as Spanish), and one passing reference by a journalist whose evidence is not known to us is scarcely compelling. The passport that somebody holds is not usually in the public forum. So in the lack of incontrovertible evidence either way, and with a personal history that could imply a sense of belonging in both places, why the hurry to designate? Could the first sentence not accurately, verifiable and in an NPOV way read Otto Barić (born 19 June 1932 in Klagenfurt, Austria) is a retired football player and manager, who was head coach of the Austrian, Croatian and Albanian national teams. Frankly, the obviously second-language text, the ridiculous over emphasis on one match against England reflecting systemic bias, the unsupported opinions, the passing over of his playing career, and the total lack of sources other than in the recent nationality debate would all be better areas of attention for anyone wanting to improve the article. Kevin McE (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This link [1] states he was born in Zagreb in 1933...--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And this one in 1932 [2].--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He is definitely considered Croatian in Croatia, he is a native speaker of Croatian and regularly appears on football tv programs as well as in print commenting on events in Croatian football. Although most sources say he was botn in Plasnice near Klagenfurt, he played for Dinamo Zagreb's youth selections, as well as for Metalac and Lokomotiva, which are all Croatian clubs based in Zagreb. After retiring as a player he managed Dinamo outh school, a number of Croatian clubs and also served as assistent manager of Croatia. Based on all this, and in addition to the fact that FIFA defines nationality as player's eligibility to represent a certain association, and that Baric spent his whole playing career in Croatian (at that time Yugoslavian) clubs, I would certainly call him Croatian although he definitely holds Austrian citizenship. Timbouctou (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Last Updated" notation at bottom of Classifications

When we read Last updated:January 28, what does that mean? Does it mean the classification was last updated on January 28 or has been updated to games played to that date? What if the last game(s) was(were) played on January 26 and the classification is updated 2 days later? Should the editor write 26 or 28? What if on February 1 (with no new games having been played) another editor fixes a previously unseen error, does he leave the date as Jan 26 or 28, or change it to February 1? The point of all this is that I suggest that the notation at the bottom of the classifications should read Updated to games played January 26 so there is no ambiguity. Right now the use of dates is NOT consistent and so the reader and/or editor does not know if recently played games are included in the classifations. A chanage in the template controlling the classificatioins is needed. AntropovNikki (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I really have no idea why you changed those templates because now they do not seem very nice. Plus, you could at least fix the grammar ("updated to games played on January 26"). As for your questions, here are the answers. I don't think you understood this matter very well. "Last updated: January 26" can only denote the date when the matches were played, and the whole point of that templates is to show when the last updated matches were played, so there is no confusion between the editors. Actually, 95% (or more) of the games are updated on the same day. Yes, sometimes there are mistakes that only get visible a day after, but it is a common practice (what is obvious in only a couple of days of editing) to write the date when last game was played, no matter when it was updated or fixed. I don't know what inconsistency are you talking about, but when readers/editors see the date, they must know that the match is updated in the classification.

To conclude, I understand that it is basically the same thing, and that your way specifies it better. However, people got used to the old way and there is no need to change that. The date should always be the one when the last match was played.

P.S. We NEVER update it two days later (max. 4-5 hours later). SonjiCeli (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So you don't want to admit that my edit eliminates all ambiguity, and you insist that "Last updated" is better. Please let the rest of us improve the templates and STOP protecting them as if you own them outright. 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntropovNikki (talk • contribs)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I was going to suggest we sign up for every 5 FA and FL articles and every 10 GA articles, or every 10 FA/FL, and 20 GAs. Would anyone suggest something otherwise or object to either of those two alternatives? Peanut4 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Personaly i think the 5 FA/FL and 10 GA suggestion would be a good idea, although the 10-20 suggestion is also s sensible option. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Peanut! GiantSnowman 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea, but have no preference on actual numbers. Go with whatever is sensible. --Jameboy (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we add Did You Knows or are they a pain to add up? Also Featured Topics, though as they don't come along very often you might say every one of those is a milestone. --Jameboy (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added them for every 5th FA and FL and every 10th GA since it seems reasonable at the current levels. I'm not sure how to add DYKs or FTs since it seems to be done by category. Peanut4 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It'd be extra nice if it updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Milestones too. Nanonic (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave Anderson (football)

Only possible claim to notability seems to be having played in Northern Ireland - does that pass muster....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Former manager of A.F.C. Wimbledon, I would say it passes. DeMoN2009 17:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can remember ever seeing notability guidelines for managers, but I doubt it would stretch down to the Isthmian League. Kevin McE (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Were they that far down? Sorry, then it's probably not notable. DeMoN2009 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would go for NN - he hasn't passed WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I thought guidelines for managers were the same as players - fully-pro league...GiantSnowman 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What's going on with the references?

• eg 1 Dean Shiels (using <ref> format)
• eg 2 Chris Hogg (using cite web)

Is it just me, or are the references going haywire? They're wikilinking to the wrong things, picking up words and phrases from elsewhere in the article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean though I do can make a guess. All the numbers link both backwards and forwards correctly for me. Is this what you meant? Peanut4 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a thread at WP:VPT about this. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Grella

This kid has been resurrected (probably prematurely) from a recent AfD deletion (and subsequent speedy deletion. The only thing that has actually changed in his life is that he has apparently signed a contract for Leeds this week. Granted there is a high likelihood he will soon get a game, restoration should probably have waited until that actually happens. Crystal balls aside, this prompts the question... what controls / systems are in place to prevent recreation of articles that still fail notability? and how much has to change, or how much time must pass before Speedy G4 is not a realistic option and the whole thing needs to go back through AfD? --ClubOranje^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since this article was deleted and re-created, I did a bit of snooping around, and it seems like he played a game for Long Island Rough Riders in 2006, when they were still in the USL Second Division, which would constitute one pro appearance. That's why I've actually added a bit of info to this article today, and think it should probably be kept. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like? Not entirely convincing. Where is the verifiable evidence. Reference provided shows he was still with Duke Blue Devils until and including 2007, article clearly states Long Island Rough Riders are in the fourth division USL Premier Development League which is non-professional, and other sources back that up. We are currently finding consensus that merely signing for a Premier League club is not enough, signing for 3rd level Leeds rates right down there below that. Maybe he will real soon, but I believe this person still fails WP:ATHLETE and should not have been recreated following AfD until such time as he actually does. Hence my question regarding G4speedy. --ClubOranje^T 10:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the Long Island Rough Riders are now in a non-professional league. If they were in a pro league when Grella made his appearance for them (and provided that appearance can be verified), then he's notable. – PeeJay 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm bad at reading. I didn't realise that you'd found that he was with Duke Blue Devils when he allegedly made his appearance for the Rough Riders. – PeeJay 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the WP article he played for the Rough Riders during the "off-season" from college, so it could well be true. That still leaves the question, though, of whether the game was in a fully pro league..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely if he was signed with a pro-club, he'd have lost all NCAA eligibility to play for Duke, so, when did he make his last apppearance for ther Blue Devils? - fchd (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Rough Riders - in 2006 they playes in the USL Second Division, which was (and still is) fully professional. They then dropped down to the semi-pro PDL for the 2007 season, and have been there ever since. Therefore, if Grella did make an appearance for them in the 2006 season, he passes WP:ATHLETE. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't provide the info in a link, because there isn't one - it was in an e-mail press release I got from Gerald Barnhart at USL HQ in Tampa, listing each new draftee's USL history. I'm looking at it now, and it clearly says that Grella made one appearance for the Rough Riders in '06, but I'm actually wondering if it's a typo, because had that been the case, as people have rightly pointed out, he would have lost his NCAA eligbility and not been able to play for Duke in '07. To be honest, if it goes to AfD and gets deleted, I wouldn't be too worried as it will be easy to re-create the article if and when he makes his Leeds first team debut. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer the thread's original question: nothing. Articles can be salted if recreation is persistent. Given that it is impossible to write a decent football biography on a player who hasn't actually played yet, we're not losing anything by deleting these and then resurrecting them as they become keep-worthy. As for the question of "how much time must pass" - we're not on a time limit. If there's a high likelihood that said player is going to get a game soon, then let's not go discouraging editors with excessive bureaucracy. WP:ATHLETE isn't so fragile that it'll collapse if a few articles remain non-deleted for a while. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIFA World Cup finals

The nominator is claiming that, in the event of a match going to penalties, the "score" of the shoot-out becomes the winning match score. When I pointed out under the Laws of the Game this is not the case, he merely stated "we are not bound by the laws of football". Thoughts.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to know how to respond to something like that. But if you can't list the result of the match as it officially stood, then the list is useless, so how can it be featured? Wikipedia is a very strange place at times. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear-cut to me - the results in the table should be shown as 0-0 (1994) and 1-1 (2006), with the shoot-out "score" in a footnote. He seems to disagree, however.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What does he mean "we are not bound by the laws of football"? Penalty shootout scores should probably be listed, but not at the expense of the result of the actual match. What really irritates me is when people add the penalty shootout score to the score from the actual match. That's just bloody silly. – PeeJay 09:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Up until this season, that's how the Football Association of Wales did it - thier view was that penalty shoot-out goals were just as relevant as goals in the 90/120 minutes so were included in the final score. I think they were also recorded in lists of topscorers goals etc. Happy to say, they've now reversed that view. - fchd (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The German football media also lists regular and PSO goals cumulatively, but it's very much the exception rather than the rule. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I totally agree with you. His claim "we're not bound by the laws of football" is a clear breach of WP:OR. Peanut4 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right place for it: I agree that media and football associations always show the full time score of a match in a knock-out tournament. Switzerland v Ukraine at the 2006 FIFA World Cup round of 16 ended in 0-0, not in 0-3. But I haven't found anything about this in the Laws of the Game. Law 7 says that "The match lasts two equal periods of 45 minutes ..." and the Procedures to determine the winner of a match state: "Away goals, extra time and kicks from the penalty mark are the three methods approved for determining the winning team where competition rules require there to be a winning team after a match has been drawn", but it doesn't say anywhere that the full time score is the official match result, afaict. Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Page 54 of the current Laws document covers shoot-outs and states "Away goals, extra time and taking kicks from the penalty mark are methods of determining the winning team where competition rules require there to be a winning team after a match has been drawn", which is a bit inconclusive, as it implies that the match is considered over and a draw before the kicks are taken, but also before extra time occurs?!?! I think common usage (most news reports, record books, etc), though, indicates that the result of the match is as it stood at the end of open play, and that the shootout itseld does not form part of the match itself.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I see you'd already flagged that up. D'oh! Anyway, it looks like the FLC is going to be put on hold due to other issues entirely, so it's not such a big deal now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On the more general matter, a horrible thought has just occured - if the FAW released Welsh Cup and Welsh Trophy scores including the penalties, is to split the scores back out Original Research? Putting it another way, I guess in the Knock-Out stage of a competition, the actual result of the game is of secondary importance - all that really matters to the organisers (and I guess the teams involved) is who wins and loses, whether after 90/120 minutes or after any other method to split drawn sides. - fchd (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange bug?

Can anyone else see a red high-risk template padlock on Javier Macherano? Strangely, I can't find any instance of the pp-template. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's something to do with a recent change to Template:Proseline. Someone's raised a request to have it fixed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cvitanich and Croatia

According to this newspaper article, Argentina-born Ajax player Darío Cvitanich is not eligible to play for Croatia, the country of his great-grandparents, because FIFA doesn't recognize great-grandparents as sufficiently close kinship. In other words, he is too remotely related to Croatia to play for the national team of Croatia. I haven't been able to find any such rule in the FIFA regulations. As far as I was aware, a player only needed a passport of the country in order to play for its national team. Can anyone help? See also Talk:AFC Ajax#Darío Cvitanich: Croatia or Argentina?. Aecis·(away) ^talk 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

FIFA accept any country's qualification for citizenship unless that is earned only through residence, in which case FIFA stipulate their own minimum period of 5 years to qualify for eligibility "Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country" (Article 15 in Regulation VII of FIFA Statute). So it is not FIFA who would be ruling this out, but Croatian citizenship regulations may well do so. I suspect a lazy journo who has heard a summary of passport regs for Fooland in relation to a footballer and ascribed it to FIFA Kevin McE (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. And since Cvitanich received his Croatian passport in August 2008, I see no reason why he wouldn't be eligible to play for Croatia. Aecis·(away) ^talk 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to have these speculations on players' feelings, FIFA's rules and interpretations of various countries' citizenship law in various combinations every time someone with slightly non-trivial nationality comes up?

Nationality is complex and can't be simplified down into one twee graphic to make your tables look pretty.

Don't include the flag at all - ultimately, we just don't need it. We have a primary duty to reliability over prettiness, and when it comes down to it this flag is primarily decoration. When the decoration oversimplifies a complicated nationality situation, and thus becomes misleading - bin it. Ultimately it's completely unnecessary, and shouldn't be a substitute for accurate prose. Just write what is verifiable and nothing more. No original synthesis, and no misleading by oversimplification. Knepflerle (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think we should get rid of flags and nationalities altogether, feel free to suggest it. That would require removing the nationality from {{Fs player}} and changing our manual of style for Current squad sections to get rid of nationalities and flagicons, as well as changing the thousands of articles we have on football clubs, all while trying to avoid an edit war. But until that proposal has been accepted, we have to make sure that whatever we do show is verifiable and correct, regardless of deeper sociological considerations of identity and nationality. If you wish to comment on the nationality of Darío Cvitanich, feel free to comment. But this thread is not the proper venue for a debate on the way we list nationalities. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Read what I wrote more carefully - I said no such thing. Where nationality is fully described by one word or one flag, describe it as one word or one flag. If it is too complicated to describe in one word or one flag (as here), we cannot reduce it to one word or flag. You're trying to make a binary black or white decision where the answer is a subtle shade of grey. Knepflerle (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And what subtle shade of grey is it in this particular case? Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's probably better to continue the discussion about Cvitanich at Talk:AFC Ajax. Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a common problem and should be discussed here. He was born in Argentina and has a Croatian passport, and hasn't played for either. That much is verifiable, but that's as simple as it goes. He's not just Argentinian. He's not just Croatian. He doesn't fit into either convenient little simple box or description. Knepflerle (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the "nationality" entry on football players usually has everything to do with the country that player played for in matches sanctioned by FIFA, UEFA or other football governing bodies, and nothing to do with his citizenship or ethnicity. As far as FIFA is concerned Cvitanich can have 20 different passports, but his nationality will be determined once and for all as soon as he accepts a call-up for Argentina (or some other) squad. However, since FIFA has rules concerning the player's eligibility to be called upon for a national side in the first place, it is very unlikely that the Croatian football federation will be able to call Cvitanich to play for Croatia to begin with, since Croatian FA president Vlatko Marković said that the key issue surroundng Cvitanich is that only his great-grandfather was Croatian. Here is an interview with Marković as it appeared in print in Croatian sports daily Sportske novosti. It is in Croatian so let me translate what he said exactly in January 2009: "We consulted FIFA's officials about Cvitanich, and the truth is that circumstances aren't so good. We knew all along that there would be problems since Dario is nothing like Ivan Rakitić, who was greenlighted by FIFA only two months after our request [to allow him to play for Croatia] because Ivan's father Luka was born in Croatia. The regulations have been tightened since, and they really take into account the rule which stipulates that permission to play for a national team other than the player's home country team would be allowed only to players whose ancestors have been born in that country, up to the second generation, meaning his parents or grandparents. And Santiago, who was originally named Jakov in Croatian, is only Cvitanich's great-grandfather, who emigrated to Argentina from the island of Brač in the beginning of the 20th century." So what Marković says is in direct contradiction with user Kevin McE's interpretation, mainly because Kevin is citing article 15 which concerns players with a single nationality, but Marković is clearly talking about the issue governed by articles 16 and 17 in that same rulebook (titled "Acquisition of new nationality" and "Nationality entitling players to represent more than one Association"). Long story short - since Cvitanich wasn't born in Croatia, his parents weren't born there, his grandparents weren't born in Croatia, and he never lived there, it is next to impossible for him to represent Croatia as far as FIFA is concerned. The slim chance of him appearing for Croatia now largely depends on his willingness to do so, since he and the Croatian FA must file a special appeal asking FIFA to make an exception for his case, but since Maradona allegedly noticed Cvitanich as a prospect for Argentina, I doubt that Dario would pursue this further. Timbouctou (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The important thing here, Knepflerle, is that our article is not about the person Darío Cvitanich, but about the football player Darío Cvitanich. Cvitanich is a difficult case, because he hasn't played for either Argentina or Croatia, but for the sake of the argument Khalid Boulahrouz is a better example. He was born in the Netherlands as the son of Moroccan immigrants. He holds dual citizenship. But because he has played for the Dutch national team, we show him with a Dutch flag. Even though his Moroccan background may play an important part in his personal life, it is not related to the football player Boulahrouz, because he has chosen not to do anything with his Moroccan passport as a football player. Khalid Sinouh is the opposite. He was born in the Netherlands as the son of Moroccan immigrants, like Boulahrouz, but unlike Boulahrouz, Sinouh has chosen to represent Morocco instead of the Netherlands. That's why we show him with the Moroccan flag. Because he is eligible to the Moroccan national team, he counts as a Moroccan football player. What we show is not the nationality of the individual person, but the nationality of the football player. Back to Cvitanich: Croatia may obviously have a special place in the heart of Cvitanich, but that is not important to us. Since we describe the football player and not the person, we have to deal with the fact that he is currently eligible for Argentina and that his chances to ever become eligible for Croatia are minimal at best. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Now you're confusing national team representation with nationality, and national team representation with eligibility. If you want to base it just on representation fair enough, but in this case you're speculating on most-probable future represenatation with a synthesis of crystal-ball original researc - definitely not en.wp material. Knepflerle (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, under FIFA rules you have to have the citizenship (nationality) of the country in order to play for the national team. You can only represent France if you're a French citizen, only German citizens can represent Germany. Using the national team to indicate nationality is very reasonable imo. With Cvitanich, we should go by what we know, which is: 1) he was born and raised in Argentina, has Argentinean citizenship and is eligible for the Argentina national football team; 2) he has received Croatian citizenship in August 2008 and has expressed the wish to represent Croatia; 3) FIFA have not (yet?) given Cvitanich permission to switch to Croatia. So at the moment he is an Argentinean footballer who might one day become Croatian. Calling him Croatian as a football player is crystalballing, calling him Argentinean is not. Aecis·(away) ^talk 07:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If he hasn't played for any Argentinian national teams, he does not need FIFA permission to switch to Croatia. Do both Argentina and Croatia allow dual-nationality? If not, he may have renounced his Argentinian citizenship to become a Croatian. - fchd (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He needs FIFA permission to switch to Croatia because he was over 21 when he received his Croatian passport. Also, under FIFA rules, Cvitanich only qualifies for Croatia if he "has lived in the country for at least two years" (not the case) or "has a parent or grandparent who was born there" (not the case, his great-grandfather was Croatian). See also [3] and [4]. The Croatian football federation have indicated that they will request an exemption from these rules, and FIFA may grant them that. But only when FIFA grants the exemption does he become eligible for Croatia. Until then, he is only eligible for Argentina. Aecis·(away) ^talk 07:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aecis. Cvitanich doesn't meet any of the requirements stated in FIFA articles 16 or 17, which renders his Croatian passport and citizenship completely irrelevant. Timbouctou (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The guy is a dual Argentine and Croatian citizen, but right now he might represent only the former. So he's Argentine in terms of football nationality. Plain simple. --Angelo (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the discussion both here and on Talk:AFC Ajax, I see a consensus to change the flags from Croatia to Argentina. This will involve the articles Eredivisie 2008–09 and AFC Ajax. Cvitanich is already shown as an Argentinean player on the List of Dutch football transfers summer 2008. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and change the flags later today or tomorrow. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mirko Kokotović = Miroslav Kokotović?

Here we are: Mirko Kokotović was a Yugoslav/Croatian football managers...It is said at the Serbian football federation official site that he coached in Turkey, Greece and Cyprus [5] here... Sorry, it's in Serbian... If you look here: List of Fenerbahçe S.K. managers or List of AEK Athens F.C. managers you have Miroslav Kokotović or simply Kokotovic... The question is: is it the same guy?? --Latouffedisco (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My knowledge of Serbian names is rubbish, but 'Mirko' sounds lkike it could well be a derivative of Miroslav. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, too...But our intuitions are not backed up with a reliable source...--Latouffedisco (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Mirko" is used to cut "Miroslav", see for example the great Miroslav Votava, but I can't say it's the same guy. Obviously at 90% it is. --necronudist (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask some Croatian editors to confirm this.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou who is Croatian has the same opinion...They are one and the same. I think I'll add the information on Kokotovic's page unless some editors oppose as there are no reliable sources who back up our opinions...--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

International Goals Sections

I recently added international goals sections to Emile Heskey's and Robbie Fowler's articles, but as Heskey's has been removed by MattytheWhite, I was wondering if there was consensus on the topic. Matty pointed me to a discussion last March, but it seemed no agreement was made. I personally think it adds usual and relevant information to the articles in question, but points made in the discussion about overloading the page should be taken into consideration. Any thoughts? Eastlygod (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of these sections. I think they're useful and notable enough to include. I don't really think any decision has been made either way to be honest. Peanut4 (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Peanut. I think these sections add to the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a section is required for international goals scored. Would a footballers written biography go into so much detail? He would perhaps, but only for goals scored that were of major importance to him. Could they not be added to an infobox with short details such as when, where and against whom they scored against? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"When, where and against whom" describes perfectly what these sections generally are. Peanut4 (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the problem with having a table of international goals added to a player article - many players already have them e.g. Peter Crouch or Alan Shearer. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen. We had discussion above, at #Football club seasons, about undue emphasis on forwards. I doubt the concept will be rolled back in time much, leading to imbalance between present players and those of an earlier era: it will probably increase imbalance between players of high profile Anglophone countries and others, and not all goals are of equivalent merit: do we want a table with 13 goals from one game on Archie Thompson's page. The identity of the bloke who finally tapped the ball over the line is a statistical footnote: teams score goals. Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments against international goals sections. How does it place undue emphasis on forwards? Because forwards score more goals? If we do place emphasis, it's on the people who scored, not on their position on the pitch. I don't see how listing goal scorers violates WP:UNDUE. And yes, due to the systemic bias of Wikipedia, players from top countries are more likely to have an international goals section than players from smaller countries. The answer is to add the sections to players from smaller countries, the answer is not to bar them from players from top countries. Aecis·(away) ^talk 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It can be rolled back as much as editors require. Stats and goal scorers for every international game in history are available at http://www.rsssf.com/, so there is nothing stopping editors rolling back through time. As for circumstances such as Archie Thompson's, many such current examples, such as Michael Owen, have multiple goals in one game in one line. Teams score goals, yes, but to say the player is irrelevant is pushing it a little. Should Pelé's stats be recorded as how many goals Brazil scored while he was playing? Eastlygod (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention any notable goals in the normal prose. These are encyclopaedia articles, not player pages in a statistics almanac, and articles are written in prose. If you can't fit mentions of the goals into the normal text, then it's probably not particularly notable in that player's career. Knepflerle (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If only RSSSF really was complete. I'm generally against these but can't get too worked up about it. If a player has only scored one or two then they will (or should be) included in the prose, with context. On the other end of the scale, if it is someone prolific then it gets unwieldy. I remember doing some work on Ferenc Puskas, which briefly had such a list, but it looked ridiculous and unbalanced the whole thing. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you just mention their international career in general, not every single goal. DeMoN2009 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tables like this can get information like this across a lot better than normal prose. And when they do, they are more suitable for what we want to achieve, which is encyclopedic content, than general prose. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. If you can't fit mentions of the goals into normal prose, then it's probably not particularly notable in that player's career. Knepflerle (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to put it into normal prose: "Player <name> scored <amount> goals, including <amount> during the <year> World Cup." But it doesn't come close to the amount of information we can quickly and accessible show in a table. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that details of all goals scored should be mentioned in the prose and thus a table is not required, is rather like saying that we don't need an infobox because everything that is in the infobox should be in narrative form in the article. The idea of the table is to show the goals scored "at a glance". And to say that this places too much emphasis on goal-scorers is nonsense. Emile Heskey, Robbie Fowler et al are goal-scorers - that's their job, so it's not unreasonable to concentrate on that aspect of their career. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the question is why do we need detail of all goals scored in the first place. Important goals go in the prose, unnotable ones don't go in the article. It's an encyclopadia, not a statistics almanac. Knepflerle (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SPL captains

Someone has added a list of captains of Scottish Premier League clubs to the Scottish Premier League article. Is this notable? In any case different players are captains at different times, if a captain is injured or is simply not played would that have to be changed just until the regular captain returns, seems like more trouble than it's worth to me.

Also, does anyone know where I can find a list of all-time SPL top scorers? Darryl.matheson (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You can find it here at our SPL page. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know that, I was looking for a reliable source, two sources are shown there one is a dead link and the other is for soccerbase and I can't find a list on there. Darryl.matheson (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a general article on the league over all time. Can you give a full picture of what the SPL is without saying or knowing who the current captain of Motherwell is? Of course you can - the table is not required. The list of current managers is superfluous too for the same reason. It might be useful information to a more detailed article on this season, but for a generalist article like this it is out of place. Knepflerle (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not mention the captains in the SPL page, only in the team's page. If it changes during the season, or it mentions the person who is captain when the captain is injured, the table will become messy and difficult to understand. DeMoN2009 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, does anyone even care who the teams' captains are? I'm not even bothered who my own team's captain is (for the record it's Barry Fuller, at least when he hasn't got pneumonia), let alone who captains other teams..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say remove them for the reasons listed above. --Jameboy (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Real Madrid injured players

Should or should not long time injured players be given their own list in club articel or stil remain in squad list?

Is currently involved in a minor edit dispute regarding Real Madrid long time injured players Rubén de la Red, Mahamadou Diarra and Ruud van Nistelrooy, since they are now injured rest of the season several IP nr. think they should be be given their own separate list instead of current squad. User:CCHDR claimed that they where no longer registerd due to injuries. However i dont see any significens with the list seeing its just temporary and have no direct historical significens and adding it makes it more like a fan page. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 20:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

When they are on the payroll of the club and have played in the main squad, I think they should be included. Some club articles use a red cross sign to indicate that a player is injured. I prefer that over pretending that a player is not in the squad because he's injured. Aecis·(away) ^talk 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, however i stil dont see any historical significens with it, to make it so you would be recuired to add something like every injured player in the club history. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 20:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I, I think they should just be included in the Main squad section, among the non-injured players. Aecis·(away) ^talk 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a squad list system in Spanish domestic football, similar to that of European competition? For instance it was publicised on Monday that Beckham had been included in Milan's list for the second half of the European season, even though he is supposed to be going back to Los Angeles in early March. If he hadn't been included in that list he wouldn't have been able to play in their European matches[6]. If there is a similar system within Spain, those players wouldn't be part of the current squad as such. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Some American sports, baseball springs to mind, have an injured list on the roster. Football doesn't so they should be included in the main squad. Who is to say they are actually injured? A manager can play a half-fit player if he so wants. I don't think we should have any separate list or mention of injured players. Peanut4 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For a team in England or Scotland, that would be correct. I think though there are rules in Spain that you can only name 25 players in the active squad list, so it is possible that a player who is long term injured would be taken off that list. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of such a rule. However, if that does exist, then it is possibly appropriate to have an "active list" part of the squad lists and place the rest elsewhere as appropriate. Peanut4 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Peanut4 i wasnt aware of it either, is it possibal so read about it somewhere? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course! You can read about it right here!, duly unreferenced in the true spirit of Wikipedia. A bit about Champions League squads is here.--ClubOranje^T 09:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you keep the injured players in the squad, as smaller clubs with less fans might not get updated very often and we won't know who's injured. DeMoN2009 12:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense ClubOranje^T, but the spanish part isnt sourced and i was refering to a alternate internet page then Wikipedia. Otherwise i agree with DeMoN, but also since giving them their own list while injured and then remove it feel abit like a fan page to me. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 16:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No offence taken, I did say it was unreferenced. I spent about 1/2 an hour looking for something definitive for my own interest, and that was the best I could find, although there were multiple Football Manager blog and forum posts indicating that Football Manager limits you to 25 squad players in the Spanish league implied it was because as that is how it is in La Liga.--ClubOranje^T 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed the "unref." part when i read your earlier statment, however i stil havent got any directly clear answer if they should have their own list at the side or not, perhaps should ask for a consensus regarding the matter. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My 2cents worth is... if the clubs in question list a current squad that is what should be recorded here under WP:NOR whether that includes long term injured or not. It is not up to us to differentiate, only record what is elsewhere differentiated. If they publish a separate injured list, that may also be recorded. HTH --ClubOranje^T 05:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

West German categories

Matthead (talk · contribs) is removing categories relating to West German footballers from a number of player articles. The categories are currently under discussion for deletion (see here for the discussion) and it is my belief that the categories, which are relevant, should remain on the articles UNTIL said categories are deleted. Regards, GiantSnowman 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As I told you, these categories are nonsense. And, as you put my name in the headline, I put yours in.-- Matthead  Discuß   23:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Giant Snowman. It's not one individual editor's decision to decide to remove the categories while a CfD is ongoing. Peanut4 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

One - the categories are not nonsense at the minute, they exist and are relevant to the players. However, if they are deleted, then I have no problem in removing them. However, if they are kept, then they should be kept on player's articles as well. Removing the categories which are part of an ongoing discussion is poor form really. Two - apologies for putting your name in the headline, I copied & pasted into the incorrect area, I have corrected it now. GiantSnowman 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with the snowman too. The CfD notice explicitly says: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To pick some (not all) of the categories applied to one player:

• Category:Expatriate footballers in the Netherlands
• Category:Expatriate soccer players in Canada
• Category:Expatriate football (soccer) players in South Africa
• Category:Expatriate soccer players in the United States
• Category:German expatriate footballers
• Category:German expatriates in Canada
• Category:German expatriates in South Africa
• Category:German expatriates in the Netherlands
• Category:German footballers
• Category:Germany international footballers
• Category:West German expatriate footballers
• Category:West German expatriates in Canada
• Category:West German expatriates in South Africa
• Category:West German expatriates in the Netherlands
• Category:West German expatriates in the United States

To repeat it once more, there was no such thing as "West Germany". This is just an informal and misleading term applied to a part of the history of Germany. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not the issue. It should be discussed at the CfD. This is about your deletion of the categories against the instructions issued. Peanut4 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If you think these categories should be deleted, argue your case at the CfD, as you are doing. When there is a consensus that the categories should be deleted, a bot will clear them out for you. Do not empty categories during a CfD discussion. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you have make a case why such categories can be created and applied in the first place. See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and Wikipedia:Content forking. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that, mainly because the existence of some "West German" and "West Germany" categories has been agreed to by consensus at CfD in the past. CfD would be the appropriate route here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the categories should remain on the articles until the CfD discussions have been concluded. Camw (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What should be done though is to clear the redundant categories. IE Only need International Footballer which includes Footballer. Agathoclea (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that the category West German footballers should be removed if a person is also listed in Category:West Germany international footballers? In that case, I would disagree. One category sorts all football players with a certain nationality, the other sorts those football players who played for the national team. They are separate, they are certainly not redundant. Aecis·(away) ^talk 11:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In the above case I was thinking of German footballers and Category:Germany international footballers, but equally applies to the ones you mentioned. If your comment were to stand then

German footballers

Footballers by state in Germany

German footballers by populated place

East German footballers

West German footballers

German men's footballers

German women's footballers

German expatriate footballers

German LGBTQ footballers

Olympic footballers for Germany

Olympic footballers for the United Team of Germany

would need to be totally rearranged. Agathoclea (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Aecis that players should remain in both 'player' and 'international player' categories - after all, a German international player is still a German footballer. Regards, GiantSnowman 13:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Result of the CfD was Keep. Madcynic (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Swiss Challenge League

Is the Swiss Challenge League (2nd tier) fully professional? I am asking because I have some doubts regarding the notability of this subject. --Angelo (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where to look to see if leagues are professional or not, the impression I get from looking at the club pages and the huge numbers of redlinks for players that are not on loan makes me think it's not too notable. My advice is to just take the top league as notable, and delete that article unless someone proves otherwise, or the player actually makes a start for Roma, which, considering he's on loan, shouldn't happen very soon. DeMoN2009 19:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Leicester City captaincy

Stephen Clemence is the club captain but is out injured therefore Matt Oakley is vice-captain, unless you find a source to say otherwise please can users ensure that ip's don't (in good faith) make unhelpful edits. Skitzo (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Will try my best. DeMoN2009 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for Football kit

English	French

I was looking around and found my self at the French wikiepdia and noticed that they have a little difference in their standard {{Football kit}} (fr:Modèle:Football kit) where the standard socks are instead of which I think can represent socks much better (as they usually are longer than can be represented by the later). One other thing with the french one, because the standard size is larger, you can still use the old images. Perhaps one change to the standard could be removing the black vertical lines at the top. The reason I'm taking his up here to begin with is because it would be such a big change too many articles. So what about it, would it perhaps be a good change for the English wikipedia as well? — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

They look like a couple of medicine bottles:-) If you could taper them and remove the stripes they'd probably look more like socks.--ClubOranje^T 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Our one looks much better - if anything, we should be persuading the people at the French WikiProject Football to change to ours, since they don't look like medicine bottles. DeMoN2009 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they look like medicine bottles ;P but perhaps that isn't the style needed... I mostly just feel they should be longer because socks usually are pretty long right? Might even be possible to just use the old style but extend it's height? — CHANDLER^#10 — 23:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've tried to make a different one, so it won't look like bottles, i hope. The socks are now 30px long (from the upper black border too the bottom) from the current standard at 16px. Better? — CHANDLER^#10 — 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats not too bad - I like it! DeMoN2009 11:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see any reason to change it. If it is changed, I would prefer some gap between the bottom of the image and the socks. Peanut4 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the revised version has the socks in better proportion to the other components. - fchd (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're fixing the display of this template, can we do it properly by antialiasing it? Or doing a proper migration to SVG? Are there any particular holdups on this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't used that word, now I've got horrible mental images of footballers wearing holdups :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in making the standard svg, the problem with that though is that almost all images are in png... What could be done is what the italian wp has, they use svg images over the png (see here for example) which at least gives all sides AA. — CHANDLER^#10 — 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the long socks in svg form, seen to the right. In this sandbox here I've used the code from the italian template, with current sock styles with png, under. — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. What's still to be done before this can be deployed? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

i think it's ready to go, if the italian code is used I think it will integrate with things like the infoboxes and stuff — CHANDLER^#10 — 08:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Chandler/Sandbox7/doc There I've just switched in the new code for the infobox and it seems to work right, the only perhaps problem that is the same at the italian can be seen at the Barcelona kit, where it looks great imo at the Milan it does perhaps look a bit out of touch on Barcelona. This can perhaps only be fixed by changing the .png styles by removing the top white thing on kits that have the neck like that, as the overlaying svg would still be the border — CHANDLER^#10 — 09:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybody speak Hungarian?

I want to know if Scott Malone, on loan at Újpest FC from Wolves, has made his debut yet. Thanks, GiantSnowman 18:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but Google translator does. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's cheating! What I really need is someone who knows Hungarian football to find and have a look at some match reports for me, something which the otherwise-omnipotent Google can't do...GiantSnowman 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And, however, Google translation of Hungarian is pretty sick... --necronudist (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

HLSZ says no. Jogurney (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! GiantSnowman 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Adem Ljajić

It has again come up. The page is currently fully protected due to the ongoing dispute as to which club he is at. Help is fully appreciated figuring out the situation at the talk page. Dispute really needs to be solved once and for all. –  LATICS  talk  18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Aïmen Demai

A source on this player's article confirms that he made an international appearance for Algeria in 2003, against Qatar. No problems, except that the BBC confirms he has just been called up for Tunisia...GiantSnowman 22:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The source only seems to confirm that he was on the bench, not that he actually played. Maybe he's doing a Stuart McCall.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably, although what with those pesky FIFA regulations, is he even eligible for Tunisia, having previously been part of the Algerian national set up...? GiantSnowman 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He is as long as he hasn't played an official match for Algeria. The match against Qatar was probably a friendly, so that doesn't count. Driss Boussatta did the same: he first played three friendlies for the Netherlands and then three matches for Morocco. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be that, as long as a player is uncapped, even if he's on the bench he's allowed to change. For example, would Jimmy Bullard still be technically able to play for Germany? — CHANDLER^#10 — 23:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He can be capped, as long as it's not an official FIFA or confederation match. Bullard can make his debut for England in the friendly against Spain this Wednesday and he would still be able to play for Germany. As long as he is a German citizen, ofcourse. Simply being the grandson of a German citizen is not enough. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have, or would anyone be brave enough to enter the quagmire that could be, an Eligibility criteria for international football (soccer)? It would be a useful link from many articles, we should be able to get a clearer phrasing than FIFA documentation, and could be a place of reference when such questions arrive. Kevin McE (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, although I don't have the knowledge or time to start it! I also think the article should be located at Eligibility criteria for international association football. GiantSnowman 12:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the concept, and I agree with GiantSnowman on the location. matt91486 (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the "association" qualifier is needed in this case. There's no international american football, and international gaelic/aussie rules is called "International rules football", so none of the others use "international football". Oldelpaso (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:European football (soccer) players

I've just come across the category European football (soccer) players. Do we really need this? It is a subcategory of Football (soccer) players by nationality, which implies that European is a nationality. This is obviously not the case. It doesn't clear out "Category:Football (soccer) players by nationality" either, because all the subcategories of "Category:European football (soccer) players" are also in "Football (soccer) players by nationality". And if we do sort the categories this way, we should be consistent and do it for every continent or confederation. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to delete, personally. matt91486 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, doesn't seem to serve any real purpose. GiantSnowman 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. DeMoN2009 11:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland national football team (1882–1950)

I've being dome some clean up of Irish sporting flags. The only one I haven't found evidence for either way is Ireland , {{fb|Ireland}}. Can some one provide a reference to this flags usage by the IFA during the period 1882 to 1950 Gnevin (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam Cronin AfD article - help!

Someone is vandalising the AfD page for this soccer player beyond all recognition, using lots of curse words, and verbally abusing the people taking part in the debate. I've never come across anyone doing this before; and someone (I forget who) actually seems to think that it is Cronin himself doing this. Can anyone help? Is it considered poor form to revert the article to where it was before all the unpleasantness started at the expense of losing some potentially useful comments in the interim? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Full protection on the page would destroy the integrity of the AfD, so that would be difficult. It's a weird situation to be sure. I would think it better to not completely revert, as there were some valid comments in the interim, many of which were away from the predominant view up until that point, and it would definitely skew the results. matt91486 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely the closing admin will be able to differentiate between the vandalism and genuine arguments, and judge accordingly...GiantSnowman 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that he has replaced the text of the genuine arguments with his ranting, and now it's all so mixed up it would take forever to restore. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Have an admin revert to the last good (i.e. non-vandalised) version, and then contact all the genuine editors and get them to rewrite their views on the matter...that's the only way to solve it, I think. GiantSnowman 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's best too. Admins? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe contact them directly...GiantSnowman 20:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Partial reverts and additional comments inbetween make it a mess, but I've removed the worst of the abuse manually and added the {{afdanons}} template. The main protaganist had already been blocked. Looks like a Toronto FC forum is responsible. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Toronto FC fan forum thing is interesting. How do we deal with things like this? --JonBroxton (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply by letting the AfD run its course, reverting comments that are pure abuse and keeping ones which are not. The afdanons template pretty much explains it. It isn't a majority vote; the closing admin will weigh up the merits of the arguments. A contribution of "Stop being WIKI NAZI's and keep tha page" isn't going to count for much. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Partly my fault, as I mentioned it on a fan forum - we've discussed Wikipedia articles in the past, I kind of suspected the original poster was also there - as they were. This abuse is inexcusable though. What I don't get is how one IP could consistently make edit after edit without getting blocked. It took about 4-hours before anyone even posted anything on their talk page - let alone blocked them! The bigger problem is why are we even trying to remove content like this. At this time of year, a whole series of 22 to 23-year olds have been drafted by MLS. Those that are drafted highly, and signed, always end up playing with their teams (you find me the last top-ten draft pick who was signed, but didn't play in the next season). They all have lots of media coverage, and significant University or College records. This one in particular is particularily bizarre, as he was the number 2 draft pick in the entire draft! I can't fathom why that alone isn't enough to make him notable! Surely the best thing to do is leave articles in place for the top draft picks - they can be easily deleted in a few weeks, if they get run over by a bus, and don't actually make an appearance. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mentioned it on the forum? That looks like a clear case of canvassing to me. Definately NOT the way to go about things. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a bit borderline. Initally it was quite neutral ... but it was clear the vandalism was coming from there, so I then tried to discourage the vandalism, and indicate how to do it properly ... which I guess does cross a line, but at that point, it seemed the lesser of two evils ... not to say that forum would actually be supportive, I've already voted to remove another of this years draft picks on the same team, who didn't seem to be very likely to be playing there this season. I'll handle differently next time. Nfitz (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was sourced, it would probably escape an AFD through the 'lots of different sources from different people about different things' thing that I can never quote properly. As it is at the moment the only hard evidence to go on is that he hasn't played a game professionally. Nanonic (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just went back and looked at the article Sam Cronin, his previous achievements seem quite well sourced to me - for an article only a few days old. Nfitz (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But only one of the sources listed does give him anything more than a passing mention, and even that I wouldn't class as significant coverage. If he is notable, there must be better out there, surely? - fchd (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The NCAA article certainly is significant coverage, but I agree that the Hermann award coverage is fairly trivial (although the award is not trivial, nor is his third place finish). I didn't bother to look for better sources yet. Jogurney (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kind of sickens me, I don't get an article and I have accomplished a lot more in youth team football than this guy! Mind you I never got a full contract for Stevenage so that sucked! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve Gardner in England

Based on the info currently in the article, Gardner began his career at the age of 25 in Sweden, but surely he played in England first...anyone know who for? I've had a look at Neil Brown's site for Gardner's hometown club of Barnsley, but he never made a league appearance for them. Thanks, GiantSnowman 20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of the two sources used, one does not give a place of birth, the second states Berusley and not Barnsley. Though I have to admit, I've never heard nor cannot find Berusley. Peanut4 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Neil Brown lists a Steve Gardner who played for Oldham from 1977 to 1981, and then moved to Karlskrona. [7] For this sort of thing starting a Google search with "site:" is useful - I searched using site:neilbrown.newcastlefans.com "gardner steve" Oldelpaso (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a Steve Gardner who played for Ipswich then Oldham before moving to Karlskrona in Sweden in 1981. Might be your man. Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) He played for Ipswich Town and Oldham Athletic, which I've added into the article, using The PFA Premier & Football League Players' Records 1946-2005. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

http://footballdatabase.eu/football.joueurs.steve.gardner.54534.en.html lists him as being born in Hemsworth and starting at Oldham in 1977 too. Nanonic (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony Adams

Wikipedia sources show Tony Adams is expected to be subject of untold amounts of poorly made edits thanks to more SSN rubbish. Peanut4 (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As Google News hits are multiplying and Betfair has suspended the "next Premier League manager to be sacked" betting, it might be a mercifully brief period of waiting. Which is a shame as I was rather hoping he'd be in charge for their game against Manchester City next week. Oldelpaso (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon he has been sacked by the looks of things. Though until it's concrete then the article shouldn't say as such. And some of the rubbish I had to change was laughable. Peanut4 (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"some of the rubbish I had to change was laughable" - I reckon their next manager will be saying much the same thing! Beve (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Portsmouth confirm Adams sacking - this is why the BBC is the only news site I trust; no rumours or speculation , just fact. GiantSnowman 12:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that last night the BBC were running "The BBC understands that Portsmouth are to sack..." just like Sky were, and at the same URL that today says Portsmouth confirm Adams sacking. In general I also prefer the BBC to Sky, but their practice of repeatedly changing a breaking story without changing the URL they publish it on can be very misleading. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I hate them using the same URL too. It sometimes means match reports appear to have been written before a match even happened (since they use the preview) and also updates don't appear in the correct place on the NewsNow feed. Anyway, I digress. Anyway, it's not really up to BBC or Sky to sack him, surely we should wait on Adams or any other manager until a definitive statement has been released by the club? Read the Daily Mail's "authorative" and "exclusive" version of the Adams sacking last night, without a single quote from anyone at the club. Peanut4 (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, keep eyes on Luiz Felipe Scolari - breaking news that Chelsea have sacked him; cue IP vandalism. D.M.N. (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Blunsdon United F.C.

How about the notability of this football "club"? If this happens to be notable, then I think we should make a massive cleanup out of it... --Angelo (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks non-notable to me. The only other teams in their league with entries are reserve sides. It's far too far down the football ladder. Peanut4 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We've seen this one before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 16#Swindon League. TRM speedied it last time [8]. Nanonic (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've PROD'ed it, although I fully expect the PROD template to be removed inside the next 24 hours. See you at AfD I guess..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

" 'I think eating kebabs would help the players be big and strong' - Dr Heng Ratchonchaiya on his ideology for improving the team." It should be kept just for that :) GiantSnowman 12:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is rather funny, I can't find them on thefa.com. I assume they aren't registered for the FA cup prim rounds. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They're about three levels too far down to get in to the F.A. Cup (they play in the Wiltshire League rather than the Swindon League as the text says, although the infobox is correct). I'd start a major tidyup but it hardly seems worthwhile, this article is doomed. - fchd (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

USMNT edit war on naming conventions... again

We're having a dispute over on Talk:United States men's national soccer team over naming conventions again. I realize that this comes up every now and again on whether or not to anglicize the names of teams. This one involves Stade Rennais F.C. and whether or not to pipe is as "Rennes". Those who support such a presentation of the name primarily cite the prominent use of "Rennes" in the media when referring to the club and also that most WP references to the club also use "Rennes". I'd like to resolve the issue on our own without requesting outside assistance, but many of us over there are getting weary of these bimonthly edit wars; some users are getting rather testy. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why "Rennes" wouldn't do. I suppose the most notable club commonly referred to by a given name should suffice, so Rennes is perfectly fine when talking about Stade Rennais F.C, the same way "Arsenal" is fine for Arsenal F.C. IMO other bits of the club's official name should be included only to avoid confusion. And since "Rennes" brings to mind the one and only Stade Rennais we all know and love, I see no reason to complicate things :-) Timbouctou (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The essence of the problem seems to be one editor's conviction that if the article is at Stade Rennais, then this must be the WP:COMMONNAME; the reality is that the common name is the name of the town, so is not available, and the usual solution to this clash (adding F.C. or a similar disambiguating words or letters) would be simply inaccurate. If some people are going to think that the article name determines the common name, rather than imperfectly refelecting it, then maybe a name change is needed: see the proposal at Talk:Stade Rennais F.C.. Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, how many times do we have to do this? It's EN.wikipedia.org, so we should be using the 'most common' ENGLISH names for the teams - Bayern Munich rather than Bayern München, Lyon rather than Olympique Lyonnais, Rennes rather than Stade Rennais, Inter Milan rather than Internazionale Milano etc. I get the feeling that no matter how many times we establish consensus, we're still going to get the "everybody else is wrong and I'm right" mentality. Beve (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with the actual name of the article, as Stade Rennais is clearly the full name of the club. Piping it as Rennes, however, seems perfectly logical, as one could do with Hearts, Wolves, Lyon, Bordeaux and dozens of other similar examples. It's just a matter of common sense. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:FC Example players

Do we add these categories to players who have only played for the youth team, or do they have to be part of the first team to include this? I am asking this because User:Andrej.yo is adding the categories to players who have just been part of a clubs youth system. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that the categories only contained articles of people who actually played in the first team. This could include those who played in cup matches, but not if they only played for the reserves or youth sides. Jogurney (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I argue the opposite point of view. The rule I apply for Category:Arsenal F.C. players and which seems to have been copied by a lot of categories, is that all they have to be is registered to the club as a player eligible to play. Otherwise this creates slightly silly situations when a player has joined a club but has not played for them yet, or if they got given a squad number, made the substitutes' bench but never got on the pitch. For example, Andrey Arshavin won't play for Arsenal until February 21 at least, but I defy anyone to say he is not currently 'an Arsenal player' and should not be categorised as such. Qwghlm (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with that sentiment. And it's neatly summed up on the cat page:

This category is for footballers who are or were on the books of Arsenal (or Royal Arsenal or Woolwich Arsenal, as the club used to be known). They do not necessarily have to have played a first-team match for the club, though.. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I can understand that approach. Does it only apply to players who have contracts with the senior squad, or would youth players qualify for the categories as well? Jogurney (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would read it as youth players as well since they were "on the books" of X F.C. That is, as long as a verifiable source can be found. Peanut4 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I go with youth players as well - trialists I would have a problem with, but any player that has agreed a contract with the club (apprenticeship or professional) I would say yes to, youth or not. Qwghlm (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, that seems spot on. Peanut4 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

MLS Draft

Yet another MLS Draft, yat another batch of prematurely created articles - the MLS season doesn't begin until March. Some players meet non-foootball notability - media appearances etc. - but the vast majority fail any kind of notability. How to we solve this problem? Is there a way to protect redlinks from being created? GiantSnowman 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the red links if you find them. Part of the problem, is that there are some here, trying to delete articles for otherwise notable draftees, simply because they don't meet WP:ATHLETE; we even had some people trying to delete an article for the number 2 draft pick! There's even a warning on 2009 MLS SuperDraft that falsely claims that Please do NOT create articles for new draft picks until they make either their MLS or US Open Cup debut, as doing do contravenes the guidelines agreed by WP:FOOTY, and the policies at WP:ATHLETE and WP:N, ignoring that articles can be created if they meet WP:GNG. These actions by some, clearly violate Wikipedia guidelines, and weaken the whole process, as it becomes unclear and confusing to many people about which draftees articles should be created for, and for which they shouldn't. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• The notability of these players is confusing, mainly because they fail some things but pass another, meaning people that go by WP:FOOTY don't notice WP:GNG. Above Nfitz mentions four policies that govern our articles - can't we just say what WP:ATHLETE, WP:N and WP:GNG say at WP:FOOTY? It would solve a lot of Afds, and mean that this doesn't happen again. (I actually supported the deletion there, I was wrong) - DeMoN2009 20:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if anyone remembers, but I asked for a "period of leniency" between the MLS Draft and one month after the start of the MLS season, in order to stop this very situation happening, which would allow for the creation of articles on new draftees, and those who had not made their MLS debut within, say, 5-6 games, would then go to AfD. I was voted down for being a violation of policy in that ALL new draftees were considered non-notable until they actually 'crossed the white line', and have therefore been applying the consensus decision since then. Personally, I think we should have a clause in WP:FOOTYN which specifically deals with new MLS draftees (but ONLY MLS draftees, not players who are still in college) and recognizes the fact that US collegiate athletes are very different from amateur athletes everywhere else in the world, and can be the subject of lots and lots of non-trivial coverage, as Nfitz has rightly stated. There has to be some way around this. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But where exactly is the non-trivial coverage for Cronin for example? At least two of the four sources in the article are completely trivial, while a third requires registration that I can't be bothered to perform. - fchd (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The ones I cited earlier were CBC News- [9], The Globe and Mail - [10], and Winston-Salem Journal - [11] all of which are primarily about Cronin. The first is the Canadian equivalent of BBC, the second is Canada's largest national paper, and the third is a local newspaper in North Carolina. Nfitz (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say those sources constitute notability. But I've seen WP:Athlete supersede general notability before. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you from those sources, but those aren't the ones that are linked from the article, or at least they weren't when the AfD was going on. - fchd (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but they were raised in the AFD. Perhaps people should spent more time adding to the article, than trying to AFD everything that fails WP:ATHLETE but passes other criteria. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that general notability can't supercede WP:ATHLETE, and if that was the finding, then the AfD should go to DRV. WP:ATHLETE is merely an additional criteria listed in WP:BIO where it notes that Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. As WP:GNG is part of WP:N it must trump WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And STILL people create articles - O'Brian White. What can we do about this? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote for the "period of leniency" exactly as written Morry32 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And STILL people complain about people creating perfectly valid articles! He's the 2007 Hermann Trophy! That made him the best amateur soccer player in Canada and the United States. A bigger question is how did the article for the 2008 winner Marcus Tracy get deleted, with absolutely no comment from anyone of his win. Nfitz (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The "best amateur player" still seems pretty minor to me, and without significant external coverage would get a 'Delete' vote from me. - fchd (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to assume you aren't that familiar with American College sports- This isn't like a youth academy, these players have their games shown on television, they appear in numerous newspapers and web articles, draw crowds and give interviews. Winning an award as best amateur player in the US is a big deal and note worthy enough to never have it's page considered for deletion so why would the winner of such an award risk the same problem? Morry32 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good grief - I'm completely shocked that the same person who did Articles for deletion/Sam Cronin has now gone and done the same for a player drafted almost as high, but better known, having won more awards, and with more media coverage - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Brian White. This seems to make no sense to me. Nfitz (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why are we even trying to take this case by case? This entire thing seems to be completely counter productive- If I come across a new draftee I am probably not going to do anything for a while regardless of the rules because that is how I feel it should be handled. It is just silly to have to debate on a daily basis who qualifies for what and then argue which basis trumps the others. We would be better off just deciding to do nothing for a period of time, and I mean nothing- no creating, editing, or removing- and give the articles and players a chance to right themselves in a period of weeks or month after the season has begun. Morry32 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith Spurgeon

An English football manager whose career seems to begin when he coaches Ajax between 1961 & 1962, at the age of 28/29...did he have a career in England beforehand, either as a player or a coach? Thanks, GiantSnowman 20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

www.allfootballers.com has no-one listed under the surname "Spurgeon" so I guess he never played in the Football League. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Bort08 adding diacritics to lots and lots of MLS player rosters

Is this right? Especially when the articles themselves don't have them? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you give some examples?Hack (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Bort08 --JonBroxton (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots? I can only see one, and that looks to be a correct move. Peanut4 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see at least 33. Take a look through his contribution history. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Francis Belanger to Francis Bélanger is the only one I see. Peanut4 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. Are you on about actual page moves or changes to team pages? Peanut4 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to team pages. I noticed that someone on his talk page had said something about the use of diacritics on pages relating to American Hispanics was not always appropriate, and I wondered if there was any feeling about it here. If it's no biggie, then it's no biggie. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) You might have to provide more exact examples because it's difficult to gauge from the edit contributions exactly which ones we're talking about. On the whole the squad lists should follow the article names. That said, that's not to say the articles are correct and may or may not need diaritics adding. Peanut4 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox football club season

This is just a quick request for comment (with a view to gaining clarification and consensus) regarding Template:Infobox football club season. Specifically, should this template's average attendance, highest attendance and lowest attendance parameters cover just league games or all competitions? Also, whichever option we pick, how do we clarify this to the reader: by adding a caveat that is part of the infobox template (as per the stats in Template:Infobox Football biography), or footnotes in the article itself, or some other way? There's a discussion already ongoing at Template talk:Infobox football club season#Average attendance, so it may be neater for those interested to leave comments there than split it here. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007–08 I used both league and total for top goalscorers and highest/lowest attendances and clarified so. Peanut4 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion please on this book reference inclusion

Could someone please review these Vityabigears contributions with regard to relevance. I removed the original additions to most of these pages under WP:SPAM as they all pointed with reference to online bookshop for purchase - and the Pavlyuchenko edit claimed it had stuff in there about him and his exploits at EURO2008, despite the book being reportedly published a month before the tournament began. I still believe it to be of no encyclopaedic value and simply advertising, but do not wish to start an edit war over it if it is just me that thinks so.--ClubOranje^T 00:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like spam to me—shameless and not even fitting it in an appropriate tone/style/wording. Removal seems fine. Add to "Further reading" if the book is particularly concerning the article's topic. Fleeting mentions are pretty pointless. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Serie B Seasons Template (Italy)

I think the 1945-46 season of Serie B should be listed in its own little section in the template (as are 3 seasons in the Serie A template which are not official Serie A seasons). We are counting only 77 official Serie B seasons, and including the 1945-46 one makes in 78 seasons listed on the template. I would change it myself, but I don't know how to edit that template.Juve2000 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoax articles

Both Copa Toyota de las Americas and Copa de las Americas created by the same user seem to be hoaxes with completely made up matches which have somehow remained for some weeks. Can they be put forward for speedy deletion or do they have to go through AfD? --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged them for speedy deletion as G3 - blatant misinformation. – Toon^(talk) 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicolas Anelka as a Muslim

Hi. This article has constantly flitted about between noting him as a Muslim and categorising him as such and vice versa for some time now. I have obtained reliable sources to affirm the circumstances of his conversion. Just want some editor input as to whether the current version is best (detailing his conversion but avoiding the categorisation per WP:BLP#Categories). Is Anelka's religion pertinent to his public life (as with Nathan Ellington) or not? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would say it's fine as it is - it's concise and doesn't go into any unnecessary detail. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Neill/Grosso Incident fr. Italy vs Australia FIFA 2006

Recently reviewed Youtube tapes and did what I considered an NPOV cleanup of Lucas Neill, including the recommended explanation on the Discussion page. It was altered, without a Discussion entry using obviously POV language. After 2 1/2 years, it's time for the Socceroo partisans to put this stuff aside. I'm changing the article one more time with another explanation. Then I'm going to the Editors to seek a more permanent solution, unless someone from this page has a better idea. If I go to the EDs I'm going to suggest locking down or, at least restricting all related articles.

And by the way , could someone fr/ this Project archive old parts of this discussion? I've never done it before.

05:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs)

You might want to run this past the Australian football WP - there has been a long and painful process of reverting POV edits to that and other related articles.Hack (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tapered (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew "Carter" Brown

Is this guy really existing? It seems like hoaxish to me (and, even if he exists, the subject would fail WP:ATHLETE). --Angelo (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• According to that article, he played in the French second division in 1999/2000. If that can be verified, the he'd make the grade (just). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He appears to exist: he's listed on the Mexican FA site player database, but with no club details (you have to use the search box at the bottom of the page which produces a popup window, so I can't provide a proper link). Someone of that name (Andres Brown) does appear to have played for the right Belizean clubs at the right time. But no-one of that name appears on this list of first-team players used by Louhans in 1999-2000. If the DOB is accurate, he would only have been 15 then. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, he would fail WP:ATHLETE as I'm pretty sure the Belize league is not fully professional. The next question is this: is his non-notability clear-cut enough to PROD this article, or would it better to take it to AfD? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The references are very thin - the first has a name and photo but nothing more, and the second is from playerhistory.com, which is a user-generated site and fails WP:RS. I don't see much reason to keep the article unless his time in the French league can be authoritatively backed up. Qwghlm (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try a PROD and see what happens then. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I already tried a PROD a few days ago, and this was promptly contested by the article creator. I think it's better to put it on AFD instead. --Angelo (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that. Oh well... Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Aiden McGeady

Could an admin please protect this article? Receiving a lot of vandalism, partly due to a "training ground incident" last week, partly due to there being yet another Old Firm game on Sunday. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected for one week -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stade de France location?

OK, I know the origin of this discussion doesn't come under this WikiProject's jurisdiction, but since the Stade de France is also a football stadium, I thought you guys might have some insight into the matter. Anyway, there's a bit of a discussion going on over at 2009 Six Nations Championship about the location of the Stade de France. According to the stadium's official website (http://www.stadefrance.com/), the IRB (http://www.rwc2007.irb.com/destinationFrance/venues/venue=2022/index.html) and FIFA (http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1013/results/matches/match=8788/report.html), it is located in Saint-Denis, but User:Jimmy Pitt, User:Schcambo and User:Nouse4aname think that, because Saint-Denis is (technically) a suburb of Paris, we should describe the Stade de France's location as "Paris". Opinions please. – PeeJay 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a common Frenchism - at work we constantly deal with things which are to be sent to Paris but are labelled by commune rather than with "Paris". As we (English Wikipedia) label locations anywhere else in the world by city, I don't why we should make an exception on account of French convention here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, shouldn't we also take into account the fact that both the International Rugby Board and FIFA refer to the stadium's location as Saint-Denis? – PeeJay 13:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just put Saint Denis, Paris? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good solution in cases like the stadium's own article, but not where a concise location is needed like in tables. PeeJay, no, I don't think we do; its official location is Saint-Denis, but this is a matter of local custom. Using an international standard here is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Saint-Denis appears to have its own City Council (linked from its own article), so I'd go with the fact that the stadium is in Saint-Denis. Just because more people have heard of Paris does not mean we should not strive for accuracy. - fchd (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK guys, I'm French, as you know. In France, there are about 36.000 communes. Saint Denis is a commune in the Seine-Saint-Denis departement, Paris a departement by itself. Every commune has a mayor and a city council. (So, 36.000 mayors in France, I know...). Saint Denis, Paris is incorrect because Saint Denis doesn't belong to Paris.It does belong to Seine-Saint-Denis and Île-de-France.--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should change the wiki article for Saint-Denis then, which opens with "Saint-Denis is a commune in the northern suburbs of Paris, France.". Look at the map of the Paris area, Saint-Denis is within the boundaries of Paris. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Hello there, teammates,

about the title of this "talk", i have an emerging doubt: the composition of the sortkey. Most of the players have only name/surname, so its display is easy (i.e. PLATINI, MICHEL) but, Spanish, Portuguese and Brazilian players often have nicknames or are known by first name (the latter being easy to "adjust"), and now i provide two examples:

Vitor Hugo Gomes Passos, aka Pelé, and Eduardo Fernando Gomes, aka Dady. I think it's an open-and-shut-case, their sortkeys should be their nicknames, even though the names in the articles state a different name because, if you take Dady's case, and consult the random category BELENENSES PLAYERS, he should be in the letter "D", not "G" for Gomes, i believe. User:Matthew hk's only way of enlighten me was to tell me the obvious (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NothingButAGoodNothing#Sortkey), but i need some extra info to be totally wiki-taught...What are the patterns about this, if any?

Ty in advance, keep the scoresheet going,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

They should definitely be sorted by their nickname, but they shouldn't be sorted by something not in their article name - that's just as confusing for the majority of people who don't know the player's full name. The articles need to be renamed to include the nickname, e.g. Pelé (footballer born 1987) or Pelé (Vitor Hugo Gomes Passos) or even Vitor Hugo Gomes Passos (Pelé). ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Eduardo Fernando Gomes can simply be named Dady, and I've moved the article. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'd support moving to Pelé (footballer born 1987) as well (although frankly you have to wonder why on Earth another footballer would think that a sensible nickname to adopt). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Savio Nsereko

Should this player be presented as "Savio Nsereko" or just "Savio" on the West Ham United article? I would suggest his full name, as, well, isn't this the standard? I can see the only argument for "Savio" being this is his shirt name. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Full name. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

'Savio Nsereko' is fine on the club article, but on the squad template you should always use shirt names. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nsereko was used as his shirt name with the German U19 team at the U19 Euro last year. So article full name, squad template shirt name, I'd say as well.

In Italy we always used Savio and talking about his shirt... --necronudist (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In Italy he started being called as Savio mainly because his last name is quite uncomfortable to be pronounced by Italians. Same applies for Levan Mchedlidze with Palermo (he has "M. Levan" as name in his shirt). That said, I think we should use his full name in both article and squad list, no matter what name he has in his jersey (otherwise we should indicate only last names...). --Angelo (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That'll be interesting if he ever moves back to Germany. Here you're not allowed nicknames on your shirt, unless you're Brazilian or somesuch. But as he holds German citizenship, he would need a Künstlername - and to obtain this, he needs to produce a work of art, like Andreas Neuendorf did. Madcynic (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the Premier League also had a convention that where possible only surnames were on shorts (dating back to Jordi Cruyff), but that appears to have changed. - fchd (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of articles created

Is there a way to see how many articles a person has created - exlcuding redirects, talk pages etc.? GiantSnowman 23:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[12] - there is a little toolbox at the bottom of everyone's user contributions page. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! 1180! that GiantSnowman is like a virus! :-) for those that need it, since I seem to get bitten a lot lately over innocuous comments --ClubOranje^T 00:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, I knew I'd created a few but not that many! Cheer for the link ArtVandelay13. GiantSnowman 00:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not scoring so well on the deletion stats tho! --ClubOranje^T 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's articles I've nominated for deletion, not articles I've created that have been deleted! GiantSnowman 19:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I wrong or once there was a tool for searching an article in every wikipedias? Like I search for "Pelé" and it provides a list of links of wikipedia entries in various languages where an article called "Pelé" exists... Hope I explained well! --necronudist (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SEARCH doesn't mention any such tool under "Multi-lingual Wikipedia search" other than external engines such as g00gle using wikipedia.org as a domain limiter. There are some 3rd party tools available too, but I don't know what they are like - eg "All Language Wikipedia" widget for Opera--ClubOranje^T 04:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

FA Cup rounds

User:Lucy-marie has been changing the FA Cup articles to remove the word "Proper" from the round titles. Obviously, this is inconsistent with the names for the rounds that are given on the FA's website. Opinions please. – PeeJay 01:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted some myself PeeJay because I fully agree with you. The word "Proper" should be correctly used in all rounds of the proper section of the competition from First to Sixth Round to distinguish it from the qualifying rounds. Peanut4 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussions that have allready been discussed here. The FA is the only thing on the planet to use the word proper the print media don't use it and this is at odds to other articles such as the UEFA CUP years. Also the word proper implies that somehow the qualifying rounds were in some way improper rounds.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally incorrect. That is your view on language and not the terminology used. Peanut4 (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that this is not the FA and while they are used as a source they are not the only source. Common naming throughout Wikipedia association football knock-out competitions does not use the word proper.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the claim "The FA is the only thing on the planet to use the word proper" it's totally wrong. A quick Google news search flags up the BBC, ESPN, various national and regional newspapers and club websites. It might not be the most widely-used term but it is the correct term.

Above all anyway, mass edits should not be made without consensus. Peanut4 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy of Wikipedia is to use the most common name for as subject please see WP:COMMONNAME

"First round proper" is common usage for the FA Cup (regardless of whether it's used in other knockout competitions), to distinguish it from the qualifying rounds. Beve (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand its usage for the First round but only the first round. Things such as sixth round proper or fifth round proper seem ridiculous. IF the word proper is to be used it should only be used on the first round.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While it is frequently used for the First Round, usage in secondary sources dies out to almost nil by the Second Round, let alone any further than that. - fchd (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent, as I'm not sure what I'm answering) Removing it from the First round is pure original research. It's the official name for the round. It may not be in terms of ghits the common name but it's certainly commonly used in all major reliable sources. And, per WP:COMMONNAME, which says "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (my italics), it makes a clear and helpful distinction between the preliminary rounds, the qualifying rounds, and the stage of the competition where the "big" clubs come in. Terminology used in other competitions is irrelevant, and if Lucy-marie feels people might misunderstand the meaning of the word Proper in this context, the answer is to explain it, not remove it.

For rounds after the first, it is used in reliable secondary sources, particularly in context of a "lesser" club reaching the Third round proper for the first time, but I wouldn't have a problem with its removal for rounds after the first. But only if there is a consensus for that removal. Unilateral mass-editing without consensus is wrong. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Football club by competition categories

Category:Premier League clubs says it's "for teams who have ever played in the Premier League", while Category:Football League clubs says it's for "current members of The Football League" (despite which it contains several clubs e.g. Mansfield Town F.C. and Stoke City F.C. which fail that definition). Personally I prefer the "teams who have ever played in" definition, but either way, I can't see any reason for the two categories to be defined differently. Or am I missing something? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could separate into historical Premier League clubs and current ones? Though that seems to open up huge overcategorization problems. matt91486 (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think there's any need for a 'Current Premier League clubs' category, since there is already the template Template:Premier League teamlist on each club's article page. Beve (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, both categories should be for past or present members of either league, just as we don't distinguish between past and present players. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Spot on and sound reasoning. Peanut4 (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Adem Ljajić‎

There is still a lot of confusion regarding Adem Ljajić‎'s transfer to Manchester United. To summarise, most news sources (including Sky Sports and all of the major newspapers) have reported that Ljajić‎ has signed for Manchester United and that there is "an agreement" in place that will see him remain with FK Partizan until January 2010. However, some sources (notably the BBC, Setanta and Eurosport) are reporting that Ljajić‎ has been loaned back to Partizan, despite this being impossible under FIFA regulations regarding the international transfer of under-18s. Therefore, the question is whether we should note on Ljajić‎'s article that he is a Manchester United player on loan to Partizan until January 2010 or a Partizan player due to join Manchester United in January 2010. Please express your opinions on the matter at Talk:Adem Ljajić‎. – PeeJay 15:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Petitions

Is it notable/worthy of mention in a referee's article that a petition or campaign group has been started (on Facebook for example) by disgruntled fans? I've noticed this added to at least two or possibly three articles recently. I doubt it belongs but would like to have a reason to remove it beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cheers, Beve (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can give you at least two reasons: WP:N (lack of significant coverage of these petitions/campaigns) and WP:NPOV (there is no neutrality in saying fans don't like a ref). So just WP:BEBOLD. --Angelo (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If the campaigns receive coverage then they are possibly notable, if not then it is little different to use of an unreliable source. I would say take in on a case-by-case basis but on the large part their inclusion can probably be removed. Peanut4 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Repopulating West German categories

The West German football categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 4#West German footballers were kept at the CfD. Unfortunately, despite requests not to, it seems they were unpopulated before the CfD. How do we go about repopulating them? Peanut4 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(NEW) Football vandal

Folks, don't know if this the right place for this but, being this a football space:

Check out this new contributor, JESSEMON111 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jessemon111), he logged in today. Incredibly, while most vandals seem to almost exclusively edit anonymously, this idiot (don't fret, i know where i'm heading) went through the trouble of registering to write foul language, lies, the whole ordeal.

Here's an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvador_Ballesta&diff=prev&oldid=269917615), hope he can be put offside.

Cheers, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any foul language; crude, but not foul. And I don't think calling them an idiot is appropriate. It's likely just some kid encountering Wikipedia for the first time. Welcome them, warn them, and monitor (and someone has already done). If people don't over react, they could well turn into a positive editor; and if don't become positive, then they won't last long. Nfitz (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Youth tournament templates

Sould this templates be nominated for deletion? BlueRed 04:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:South Korea Squad 1979 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 1981 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 1983 World Youth Championship

Template:Korea Squad 1991 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 1993 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 1997 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 1999 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 2003 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 2005 World Youth Championship

Template:South Korea Squad 2007 U-20 World Cup

Yes 195.171.79.148 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)