Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Video evidence in football (soccer)

I don't know whether I'm just doing a poor job of searching for it, but I can't find an article discussing the use of video evidence for making decisions in football. There is an article called Instant replay that has discussion of its use in other sports, but surely there's been sufficient debate about this in football to warrant an article? I don't really have the time to write one properly myself right now; hopefully someone else will step up. (There should be plenty of material available, given this: Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off).) Stevvers (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is this little snippet: Hawk-Eye#Further developments chandler 14:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'd forgotten about goal-line technology; maybe the article title needs to be a bit broader. (Perhaps Use of technology by officials in football, if that's not too wordy.) Stevvers (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the key reasons that we don't have much coverage of it is that the esteemed Mr Blatter has rather opposed its introduction. It's difficult to discuss things which don't exist or which are rarely deployed. As you say, with last night's shenanigans it may lead to changes in that regard, but we are followers and not leaders by definition: we need other reliable sources upon which to base our coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there are enough sources for an article about the subject. It seems some manager or player is demanding the use of technology every week these days and I'm sure I saw a piece on a company designing goal-line technology for football, although I cannot remember where (football focus maybe?). If it is widely demanded by people at (or near) the top of football and discussed by various journalists and regularly ruled out my Mr Blatter it should be easy to find enough sources. It would be important to ensure the article avoids speculation about exactly how the rules should be changed. King of the North East 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Jnestorius for adding something on this subject to Instant replay. Stevvers (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning flagicons and leagues in US Open Cup articles

Is there any reason for having flagicons for the states the teams come from, or the leagues they play in, in the articles for the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, such as for 2009? Digirami (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who hates these flagicons with a vengeance, my response is "No - there is no valid reason". Articles like the 2009 one should come with a free pair of sunglasses and a packet of paracetamol to deal with the headache caused by the over-use of coloured symbols. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have always thought those state flags were needless decoration, but I don't think it will be easy to gain concensus to remove them. Jogurney (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The flags that is removed violated WP:MOSFLAG. Rettetast (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that in the amateur era they served a purpose because the players on each team were actually from the indicated state. For example, a team from near my home, the Harmarville Hurricanes S.C. won the Cup twice in the 1950s, and everyone on those teams was from Harmarville and worked together at a local steel mill; they were representative of Pennsylvania during that era. I also think that they have no place on articles since professional or semiprofessional teams began playing in it, which I believe began happening in 1995. I like the flags, but I also realize that they are unnecessary and violate MOSFLAG, and I would agree to removing them, especially so since the beginning of the professional era. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I had removed flag icons that identify team locations from several articles such as USL First Division, but some (not all) of them (e.g. USL Premier Development League) were reverted with an explanation that these flags are not superfluous; PDL is a muti-regional league with a defined geographic specificity; the flags indicate the states of each team and provide important info on each division's makeup. Additional opinions would be helpful. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted the deletions in the PDL, NPSL, W-League and WPSL pages. This was my more detailed rationale: "Hi, thanks for your message. I completely understand why you think removing these flags is a useful thing, and having read the guideline I agree that on the single-division leagues (USL1, USL2 etc), the flags serve no purpose as the leagues are nation-wide and the state of each team is immaterial. However, the PDL, NPSL, WPSL and W-League are different; the states in which each team is located is very important because each division within the league covers a specific geographical area. Having the flags and names indicating the states in which teams are located gives readers an at-a-glance overview of the makeup of each division, and provides a geographical context that allows the span of the league to be quickly conveyed without going into detailed prose that could otherwise confuse readers. I know you may think it is "just for decoration", but it's really not; it's valuable information which followers of the league need to know." --JonBroxton (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I should also point out that on those four articles mentioned above the flags are not used alone; each of them is listed alongside the name of the state in text form, and as such will not confuse readers in any way about the meaning of the flag or what it represents. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I lean towards removing them also. I remember looking at them sometime ago and wondering why the city flags weren't used. That kind of shows in my mind that it is not necessary and is distracting from the primary content.Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not every city has a flag. And, besides, in 90% of the teams the city appears in the team's name. The state in which the city is located - which is important for readers to know as it illustrates the geograpbical makeup of the divisions - is not always apparent, and is therefore shown by the state flag and it's standard 2-letter abbreviation. I really don't understand why there's this witch-hunt on flags right now, especially with regard to articles such as these where the flags are conveying incredibly useful information. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be surprised to find out that they don't actually (I haven't checked all of them) (All cities in the MLS do have flags. San Jose and Kansas City's Wikipedia pages need updating). Some city's just don't have famous flags (Chicago's is seen throughout the city while Seattle's isn't). The city flag would show the geography but then there would be confusion with teams like Colorado, New England, Chivas and teams who represent a city but play in the larger metro region out in the burbs. To much confusion so both choices bug me. Furthermore, geographical location is shown in their name, the article, and sometimes the conference template. It just isn't needed and for whatever the reason, there is not a universal acceptance of flags on Wikipedia. Why create a concern when it doesn't out weigh the benefits. Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We were'nt talking about MLS though. I actually agree with Andrwsc with regard to the MLS, USL1 and USL2 pages, because these are nationwide leagues where knowing the location of the state isn't important. For PDL, NPSL, W-League and WPSL, however, I am arguing that showing the *state* flag *is* important, because each division is aligned along geographical lines, and having an at-a-glance overview of the states in which these teams are located allows the geographical split/distribution of leagues to be conveyed quickly to readers. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a Western Conference and an Eastern Conference (is this 1800? The Mississippi hasn't been the dividing line for quite awhile now). There is a template mentioning it. The also are not flags aren't relevant for domestic or international competitions. They appear to be purely decorative me at least. The Sounders won the Open Cup (with a Washington flag in the article) so got a slot at the 2010–11 CONCACAF Champions League (with a US flag). The US flag is relevent since only x amount of teams from each country are allowed. Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about the Mississippi, so I'll ignore that for the time being. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the flags are there to pretty up the article. They are NOT. On the PDL, NPSL, W-League and WPSL league pages they provide important geographical information about the location of teams which cannot be conveyed easily with a map or with prose. I agree - they are NOT really relevant on MLS, USL1 or USL2 pages, because these are leagues which play regular season games across conference boundaries so, in effect, they are nationwide leagues. The teams all play each other anyway, so the state in which they are located is immaterial. However, with one or two minor exceptions, PDL, NPSL, W-League and WPSL teams from different divisions do NOT play each other in regular season play, so having the flag/states showing provides readers with an easily-understandable shorthand which conveys the geographical split of divisions, and provides an at-a-glance overview of the league's makeup. It's important. I don't know how to make this any clearer. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I am only taking about the top-level league pages here, not the results part of season articles or US Open Cup articles, which I agree don't need the flags. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Mississippi comment was in regards to Houston being in the "Western" Conference (not really related so don't worry about it). I did totally fail to mention the lower leagues, though. Teams from the MLS, USL-1m USL-2 make up a sizeable portion of the matches played. It seems weird to cause confusion when the state has no bearing on the understanding of the team or the leagues they play in.

And again with the MLS, I also wanted to mention that New England having MAs flag could cause confusion. It looks like someone changed it, by the way.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I'm confused. I'm talking about the US Open Cup article as a whole.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm talking about these pages: USL Premier Development League, National Premier Soccer League, W-League and Women's Premier Soccer League. What are you talking about? --JonBroxton (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap. I was talking about the US Open Cup page. I wasn't even looking at those. Nevermind!Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat my reply to JonBroxton (on my talk page) here, and add to it: PDL teams do not represent the states/provinces they are located in, which is why they are inappropriate. Also, tiny decorative flag images (many of which are unfamiliar to most readers) will not convey the geographical context you claim. I would say that a much better solution would be something like File:MLS map team locations.png. That would be an extremely obvious way to indicate the geographical area covered by each division. I dispute that something like ON is "easily-understandable shorthand", or that it helps the reader understand the geography of the league (especially since Ontario-based teams appear in three different divisions). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the notion that the flag indicates the state they represent. The flag/statename combo indicates *geographical location*, not any kind of statement of ownership or official representation, and has never claimed otherwise. And, there is already a map like the one you mention at File:North America USL Premier League Map 2010.png, which shows the locations of the states in which teams are located on a natiowide scale. However, as the PDL has 68 teams, and the other leagues only have a few fewer, showing the specific location of each team in a way you suggest is impractical, and would make the map almost impossible to read. The only other solution would be to have a map for each division, which increases the workload of keeping them all up to date enormously, and would overrun the page with maps. Really, I don't know why you're on such a crusade with this. The pages under discussion are absolutely fine the way they are, present most pertinent information in way which is both easy to understand and easy to maintain. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an assumption here that sub-national flags and abbreviations are widely recognised outside the country they refer to: I don't believe that this is the case. And similarly, 2009_Lamar_Hunt_U.S._Open_Cup#Goal_scorers should use (if anything) flagathlete, not flagicon, and give the name of the scorers' clubs, not an arcane abbreviation of such. Kevin McE (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We need a separate discussion for the city codes at 2009_Lamar_Hunt_U.S._Open_Cup#Goal_scorers. I will start one right now.Cptnono (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"There seems to be an assumption here that sub-national flags and abbreviations are widely recognised outside the country they refer to: I don't believe that this is the case" - one simple click tells anyone unfamiliar with state flags and abbreviations all they need to know. As for your other point about the goalscorers part on the US Open Cup page; I wasn't responsible for that, so I don't really have an opinion either way. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But what advantage is there in adding logos and codes that will only lead non-US readers (and recognition of these flags will be very, very low outside the US) away from the article? Would it not be equally valid to say that if anyone really wishes to know what state a team is in that they can click on the link for that team? Kevin McE (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about now? The US Open Cup page, or the league pages? --JonBroxton (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The assumption that "one simple click" will help the reader is a false one; the English Wikipedia is not just this website, but paper content as well. I re-assert my statement that the average reader (regardless of medium) will not be able to make the geographic connection for the Great Lakes Division by seeing IL, OH, ON, IN etc. The best image to use to describe that division would be a map. For text, it is much better to display the full names for Illinois, Ohio, Ontario, Indiana, etc. The flag icons are totally superfluous in that context. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You honestly think that having ten tiny maps that will need at minimum annual updating provides a more user-friendly way of presenting information on soccer team locations? If we're taking 'paper content' into consideration as well as online content, having ten maps will be utterly useless as clicking on them to make them bigger will not be an option, and having them big enough to read when printed will make the online page look ridiculous. Just leave it as it is. There's nothing wrong with it. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As a life-long US resident, I certainly agree with Andrwsc about the lack of recognition of state flags. Few people know what their state's flag looks like unless it is one that unusually prominent or heavily used (e.g., Texas). To place the flag of Illinois in front of a team from Rockford, Illinois (along with IL) won't immediately conjure thoughts of Illinois for most US residents, let alone most Wikipedia users. Much better to use the full state name if the geographic information is truly importance (but I don't think it is). Jogurney (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Kit details

Can someone explain to me why kits featured in infoboxes or in Template:Football kit should not be an accurate drawing of the actual kit? When I look at other sports (like my home town teams the Miami Dolphins, Miami Heat, Florida Marlins, Florida Panthers, and the Miami Hurricanes football), they have accurate drawings of their uniforms. So, why shouldn't any football team have accurate drawing of their kits?

I'm not saying that every team should have an accurate drawing of the kits, but if it is available, why not use it. Digirami (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues maybe? GiantSnowman 22:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus we'd have to change them every season to take into account the microscopic changes in trim/detail which kit manufacturers feel the need to introduce every year, along with changes of shirt sponsor. Take a look at Liverpool's kits - every one since 1995 is eseentially just all-red, but if we went with the "accurate drawing" approach, we'd have had to create a new image seven times to take into account the tiny changes in the white trim. AFAIK it's different with American teams in that they don't feel the need to roll out new uniforms every year or two with tiny changes from the previous year's...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The standard templates have the advantage of being transferable between articles, easier to maintain and over large sets of articles and are less susceptible to year-to-year changes (they go out of date less quickly). We don't have high-profile teams looking out of date every time a new competition-specific kit comes out or the sponsor changes, and we don't have to have editors looking up the sometimes hard-to-find details of lower league kit designs to stop them looking like poor cousins to the well-maintained higher-profile clubs' articles. Knepflerle (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Knepflerle. Although it irritates me that there is one rule for football, and another for popcorn sports. WFCforLife (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the ridiculous details that some editors add to the kits in the infoboxes really annoying. Additionally, the Template:Football kit/pattern list page is not updated when editors create new kits, naming their new file something along the lines of "chelseaaway0910" rather than a generic name. Some of the new kit images created are suitable for general use, and should be readily available for all editors to deploy. Not sure how to address this all, though. Dancarney (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, which "popcorn sports" are you referring to? I know from experience that football is far and away the sports whose infoboxes are best maintained, but I've done work on most other sports infoboxes and it's rare that they've got kits at all... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

St. Mirren's club records error

St. Mirren F.C.#Club records claims that David McCrae is the club record goalscorer - scoring 221 League goals between 1923 and 1924...it is obviously a typo, but does someone know the correct detail? Thanks, GiantSnowman 22:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.stmirren.info/id45.html cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Played for them until 1934 per RSSSF, [1] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Super. One ref shows he scored 221, one shows he scored 222. Only fitting I guess that St. Mirren F.C.#Club records and David McCrae show different things too.--ClubOranje^T 23:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers guys! GiantSnowman 15:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pat Molloy

Pat Molloy managed Galatasaray and the Turkish national side in the late 1940s and early 1950s. A 'Peter Molley' managed Fenerbahce in the same period; any sources to show that these people are one and the same, as I suspect? GiantSnowman 15:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This [2] would probably help you.Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's great, cheers, I'm willing to say that they are the same person now. Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The best way is probably to find his full name and his complete career. He may have played in the Football League, no? But, yes they could only but be one person. --Latouffedisco (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He played for Bristol Rovers in 1933-34, making six appearanaces in the Football Leaague - but that's all I can find about his playing career. Any help guys? GiantSnowman 19:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this the same person? 91.106.123.39 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so - I would have thought that if they were the same player, there would have been talk about the Irish player playing in England or the English player playing in Ireland - but there's nothing. GiantSnowman 00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There's zero proof on the Pat Molloy page that he's English either though. A quick google search on "Pat Molloy" or "Peter Molloy" seems to suggest that the Turkish manager was referred to Peter Molloy not Pat. 93.174.8.253 (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

RSSSF confirms the Molloy who managed the Turkish national side was English. It seems likely Pat Molloy's real name was Peter; but I am still confident that we are discussing two different players.

Having a quicksearch (I don't have registration) at http://www.allfootballers.com/ there is one Peter Molloy who played in the football league from 1930 to 1945. Pat should be a nickname. Anyone would confirm this?--Latouffedisco (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription, but the free bit of the website confirms that a Peter Molloy did play for Bristol Rovers in 1933, just like Pat Molloy did...GiantSnowman 14:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

They are the same bloke. Joyce's book confirms a Peter (Paddy) Molloy b.20.4.1909 in Athlone, d.1993, playing for Bristol Rovers and a string of other clubs from 1930 through to Notts County after the war, including Bohemians during the war. Ireland was part of the UK when he was born, so he was both British and Irish. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Neil Brown confirms Paddy Molloy made one League app in 47-48, having previously played for Bradford City (!) and Kettering Town. GiantSnowman 14:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks for all your research guys. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move the Pat Molloy page to Paddy Molloy and turn Peter Molloy into a redirect...any opposition? GiantSnowman 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

According to allfootballers.com there were 2 players called Peter (Paddy) Molloy: an Irish one born ca. 1921 in Athlone who played for several clubs in Ireland (like Bohemians) and Notts county and an English one born 20-4-09 in Rossendale (last clubs in England Bradford, Accrington 1944-45, Kettering) . In old editions of Hugman the were thought to be the same player.According to the latest edition they are different players Cattivi (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cattivi and all of us. I also found this [3] where he is noted as Northern Irish! And born 20-4-08 (should be 20-4-09?) in Rossendale.--Latouffedisco (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

1908 could be a typing error I can only find 1909 in my books (and 1911 in old sources, footballers often lied about their age in the past), He died in St Albans 16-2-1993 During WW 2 he played for Bradford City (last match in 1943)Cattivi (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking about a typing error in that page.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So there are two players called Peter Molloy after all?! Jeez, looks like I've opened up Pandora's box here! I'll create new two articles later tonight on Peter Molloy (footballer born 1909) and Peter Molloy (footballer born 1921), and hopefully attribute the right clubs to each person, I'm pretty sure who played for who now...GiantSnowman 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, with a dab created at Peter Molloy, and with 'Pat' and 'Paddy' redirecting there seeing as both players seemed to be nicknamed that. Hopefully I've got the careers spot on! GiantSnowman 21:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work. I like it when someone open some Pandora's boxes. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nelson F.C. seasons/archive1

Hi guys, would anyone mind having a look at this FL nomination? There's been a few comments, but they've all been resolved now (even though some haven't yet been marked as such) so we'll be looking for some votes on this soon... Thanks, -- BigDom 08:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 allegations of tapping up in English football

Does this warrant an article? Not only is the title awful, but nothing has really come of it other than Chelsea's transfer ban, which may yet be lifted. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was first suggested in this AfD. GiantSnowman 18:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Book-Class

Since several Wikipedia-Books are football related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WikiProject Football people can oversee books like York City F.C. much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. However, while we're on the subject, has anyone noticed Wikipedia:Books/The premier league 08-09? Candidate for deletion, I'd say! – PeeJay 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think turning the book into "The Premier League" (and cover all years, perhaps divided into in two sections "current clubs" and "former clubs") would be the better option. But I don't know what The Premier Leage even is so here's a good example of where WP Football's clue > WP Wikipedia-Books' clue :P. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. From a quick look, there are 5 books (I've tagged them, see Category:Book-Class football articles) related to football. Obviously it wouldn't be too hard to create others (or expand these books). An easy way to create books are to use the book creator ("Create a book" on the print/export toolbox on the left) and add all the pages in a category like Category:Manchester United F.C. (click "add this category to book"), and order them in a sane way. [And of course check for ommision, or irrelevant stuff]. Anyway, if you have questions, just ask me. Have fun. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

National teams' wins

Hi! I think that we should reach a compromise about the tables and the templates of the international tournaments winning teams such as FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro etc, regarding the presentation of the former countries and the modern states that emerged. There is a dispute for example about the Template:UEFA Euro winners. Please, have a look at the latter and let's decide what the general and common policy would be. - Sthenel (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Russian Premier League#Statistics

Opinions on the content, please... --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh my word! The attention to detail is great but it's a case of WP:NOTSTATS surely? GiantSnowman 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's my opinion as well, just wanted to reassure. The stuff will be gone within the next hour, if no one opposes. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Club officials

Am I correct in thinking that all of the following are not needed to be listed in a club article;

• Manager:
• Assistant first team manager:
• Player/Coach:
• Reserve manager:
• Physiotherapist:
• Chairman:
• Vice Chairman:
• President:
• Directors:
• Commercial Team:
• Financial Manager:
• Company Secretary:
• Assistant Match Day Secretary:
• Reserve Fixture Secretary:
• Head of Football Development:
• Football In The Community Officer:
• Youth Development Officer:
• Club Doctor:
• Kit manager:
• Club Shop:
• Programme Editor:
• Website Editor:

I personally think everything below the "Directors" is complete overkill. Is there any previous consensus on what should be listed? Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Kill these list. Unnecessary recentism and a lot of work to keep updated. Rettetast (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You cannot be serious! I demand that we also research and publish the names of every turnstile operator, programme seller, purveyor of slightly reheated pies and knitter of bobble hats. Kevin McE (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't list the vice-chairman and directors as they generally don't play a notable part in the club. Also, I would be ever-so-slightly inclined to list the club secretary as they generally do play a big role in the club. Just my tuppence worth. Bettia (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which items I would include. However, in the Man Utd article, I tend to include anyone who is included in the annual team photo, as well as the most senior club directors. I would even include United's kit man, Albert Morgan - you may remember him from a recent Nike TV advert in which he showed of his "silky skills"! – PeeJay 20:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that makes a kit manager notable enough to be worthy of inclusion. Dancarney (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeat after me, folks: "non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources". Any and all of these could be notable, but are not worth including simply because they exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

There has been a lot of work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs in the seven months it has existed. Especially User:Jogurney have done a lot of work in adding references. Since July we have gone from 7767 unreferenced BLPs to 5919. Since September the total has been cut with about 500 articles a month.

There is still a lot of work left to do. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by country you'll find articles sorted by country. You are more likely to find articles you are interested in helping with there than in some dated category. Do anyone have ideas for what we could do speed up the process? Rettetast (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is to monitor new article creation and warn editors to add references to new footballer BLPs. There are several people working through the backlog, but keeping the backlog from growing with new articles will be the biggest help. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I have been trying to work through the huge number of new articles adding references, adding proper categorisation and correcting glaring errors, etc, but the archive of new articles is growing quicker than I can work through it, I'm still going through new articles from August. Even if I devoted all of my editing time to this task I'd be left behind. I think we could design some kind of friendly footy specific warning template with instructions on how to create a good footballer biography directing people to WP:FOOTY, the footy MOS for players, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:CAT, MOS:DATE etc. When we see someone create a low standard unreferenced article it would be an easy way to help them do better next time. King of the North East 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup schedule

This article seems unneccessary, but I like the chronological overview of everything. Perhaps it should be categorized as subsequently re-titled as a list-class article? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationality of football (soccer) players

Hi there,

I have a dispute with some guy who considers a wikipedia page as his own. But this dispute is concerning a more general issue: The nationality of football players. My oppinion is that tha nationality of a football player is given by the National team who plays for. This is the way FIFA (the world football/soccer governing body) dealt this thing, as one player cannot play for more than one senior national football team.

Now, the player in cause is Carlos Espínola. He played four times for the Paraguayan National Football team, so, in my opinion, he should be considered a Paraguayan. But, since he has acquired the Ecuadorian citizenship, some guy who thinks he owns the Liga Deportiva Universitaria de Quito page, changes everytime the page, considering that Espinola is ecuadorian.

To support my affirmation, I can tell you that many southamerican football players have EU passports, but all are playing fot their original national teams, so they are considered Argentineans or Uruguayans. It was even a big scandal regarding some fake EU passports for those footballers playing in Argentina, as you can read here: http://www.journallive.co.uk/newcastle-sports/football-news/2008/07/14/raids-linked-to-italian-passport-probe-61634-21334569/

Thank you very much,

Andrei.besutiu (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He is clearly Paraguayan, as we use sporting nationality.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We record the nationality of footballers as country of birth unless he/she has played internationally for another team, in which case we list the most recently represented (contrary to your assertion, currently, as in the past, players can be permitted to play for more than one national team) or the players' recognised nationality if the birth occurred away from the family's country of citizenship was due to a temporary relocation to a place where the parents had no intention of settling (I doubt Cruz Beckham will ever be considered Spanish). As to the assertion that all South American players represent South American nations, perhaps someone should tell Deco. Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

While Espinola has played for Paraguay, his sporting nationality is officially Ecuadorian. He is registered by the Ecuadorian FA as an Ecuadorian and also with CONMEBOL as an Ecuadorian. Digirami (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to the many South American internationals with European passports, including Messi and Ronaldinho, being considered EU players. Their holding of European citizenships does not negate their football nationality.Hack (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. UEFA considers Messi as Argentine, even if he holds a EU passport. His EU passport allows him to play in Euorpe, but doesn't define his sporting nationality. But in the case of Carlos Espinola, not only did he adopt a new nationality (Ecuador), but it superceded his previous one since his new one now defines his sporting nationality in the eyes of the Ecuadorian FA and CONMEBOL, even if he played for Paraguay at some point. And since he is officially considered Ecuadorian, any flagicon should not indicate otherwise. Digirami (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are we picking one nationality for this person, when it is clear that the situation is more complex? Why do we have to oversimplify everything into one flag? How are our readers supposed to know what criteria we used, so as not to be misled as to what this one flag actually "means"? Do we have any sources to support picking this single nationality for him? Knepflerle (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently, he is registered as an Ecuadorian by both the Ecuadorian FF and CONMEBOL. That is why I have maintained his nationality has primarily has Ecuadorian, despite his past. Digirami (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles are not to be written solely from the perspective of the present day. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But if we are talking which flag to display to indicate their sporting nationality under a "Current squad" list, then yes, it has to be from the perspective of the present day. Digirami (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"That is why I have maintained his nationality has primarily has Ecuadorian" - exactly. That is merely your judgement call, and this is why it is invalid, per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It is not your job as an editor to make final proclamations or decisive interpretations of evidence - you report which sources say what and leave it at that - and that is why in this case it can't be summarised into just one flag. Knepflerle (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it has to be summarized into one flag because the template doesn't support two. Trust me, if the template could support two flags, this would be a non-issue. Since it doesn't, it should display the nationality mentioned on official records and squad lists, which in this case is Ecuadorian. Digirami (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you're putting the cart before the horse. If the template is stopping you giving the correct or full information, either correct the template or don't use it at all. This is an encyclopaedia - giving the correct information comes before anything else. Knepflerle (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The correct info is that he is officially Ecuadorian. Plain and simple. Digirami (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That is merely your judgement call, and this is why it is invalid, per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It is not your job as an editor to make final proclamations or decisive interpretations of evidence - you report which sources say what and leave it at that - and that is why in this case it can't be summarised into just one flag. Knepflerle (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Flags in club player lists: three questions

Two questions should be raised about the inclusion of a flags column in Template:Football squad player: to what end, and on what grounds.

To what end? Not only is it entirely incidental to a player's membership of a team and his role, it is, in many instances, largely incidental to the player: Adam Miller has always lived in England, and always played for English clubs, but on account of a grandmother from Norn Iron, and an U18 call-up, he is shown as being N Irish: this is of no relevance to his club, but appears on that club's article. Far more relevant to a player's role in a team are his experience, age, height, salary, pace etc, but we don't mention those (most are unverifiable in most cases, or not easy to describe succinctly: I am not proposing their inclusion).

And on what grounds? Apart from the fact that displaying flags without the name of the country, contrary to what is mandated at MOS:Flag, any regular visitor to these pages will know that it can be a contentious issue, involving sensitive ethnic issues and the pride of many contributors, difficulties when a player declares for another country or countries change their boundaries, and much uncertainty (and many editwars) where a player takes out a new passport, plays in unofficial internationals, or is selected for a squad but doesn't get onto the pitch (among other scenarios).

So a widely used template presents, in a prohibited manner, an image that (often unclearly) represents information that in the vast majority of cases is irrelevant to the key subject matter of the article, and is often contentious. Which leads me to my third question: can we really defend that state of affairs? Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have always felt that the only legitimate use of flag icons is to represent national teams. Not to represent player/coach/manager nationalities, and not to represent team locations (or leagues?) such as Real Madrid C.F.. But I dare say that the largest "consumer" of flag templates in Wikipedia just might be this particular WikiProject, for those types of instances... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's informative to the reader to see the nationality of club players and coaches. Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it more informative than all sorts of information that we don't give? What difference does it make whether Carlisle United's left back is English or Scottish? Kevin McE (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If reliable external sources routinely used flag icons like this, then I'd be happy to see the same on Wikipedia. That's why I have no problem with flags used for Olympic, golf, and tennis results, for example. But are they routinely used for football team squads? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll re-state my comment from another topic: why is there a witch-hunt on flags all of a sudden? Flags in the team templates convey at-a-glance very useful information about a team's international makeup, which a lot of people find very informative. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"why is there a witch-hunt on flags all of a sudden?" - because the problems are not being addressed, particulary those related to WP:OR and WP:V. Knepflerle (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is only informative if it is undoubtedly correct. Cases such as that in the discussion immediately preceding this one illustrate that often it is not uncontrovertible.

Is it at a glance info? Would you confidently distinguish the flags of Netherlands and Luxembourg, or those of Slovenia and Slovakia? If you see the flag of Moldova or Armenia, do you instinctively recognise it as such? Many people wouldn't: that is why MOS:FLAG insists that country names should accompany flags.

Yes, I could, and if I couldn't I'd move my mouse over the flag and watch the country name pop up. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone uses Wikipedia from computers with a mouse. There is a massively growing mobile internet readership, where this facility is not always possible, for example. Knepflerle (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it relevant, useful info? If a player is nowhere near his national squad, then where he was born is no more relevant to his role in the team than is whether he was born as the oldest child in his family. Kevin McE (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant to leagues where there is a quota on foreign players. Players who don't play for international teams are still counted as foreign players if they were born elsewhere. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mouseover gives the country name if there is any confusion over which country is being represented. Removing the flags from squads would not add any utility to the encyclopaedia and would remove at-a-glance information that many people (including myself) find useful, especially in South American football where there are quotas on foreign players. King of the North East 13:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing unsourced original research based on hidden, non-standard criteria which oversimplifies complex issues is increasing the encyclopaedia's utility. Knepflerle (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The case of Adam Miller above is far from isolated, and is a clear case of where we are misleading readers. We have oversimplified this person's nationality status with the use of one flag, when the reality is more complicated and cannot be reduced to an "at-a-glance" colourful box.

The only excuse we ever hear for the misuse of flags is their "at-a-glance" nature, when actually we need to acknowledge that complex issues such as nationality can not be explained "at-a-glance".

In most instances more worryingly, these flags are actually examples of WP:OR - they claim a "sporting nationality" for players who have never played for a country, against this project's guidelines. Editors are coming to their own conclusions on a player's "sporting nationality" based on a birthplace in an almanac or a mention of a parent's nationality in a newspaper article. However, this player may have other national eligibilities we do not know about, or may choose a country of heritage over that of birth, or may naturalise to another country in the future, or... the possibilities are manifold, and yet Wikipedia editors feel able to decide for them by slapping a flag next to their name based on their own whim. This widespread plague of original research must stop. Knepflerle (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Miller's sporting nationality be English anyway, as the last representative team he featured for was England National Game XI? --Jimbo^[online] 15:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are we inventing criteria anyway? How are our readers even supposed to know what our criteria are? Knepflerle (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are we creating criteria? MOS:FLAG states; "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality". Is this not just a case of defining Miller's sporting nationality? --Jimbo^[online] 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Do our readers know that a flag represents "sporting nationality" and not anything else?

Do our readers know how Wikipedia determines "sporting nationality" when they read an article?

Do any reliable sources define "sporting nationality" in this way, using the same criteria (England C appearances etc)?

Can readers find out what sources we've used to determine someone's "sporting nationality", particularly when they haven't played for a national representative team?

Do readers even realise that in most cases no sources have been used?

Do they realise that in most cases of complex nationality, editors just pick the flag according to their own criteria and whims?

In summary: in the vast majority of cases, a flag slapped next to a player's name is an unsourced oversimplification based on unrecorded criteria, often not even satisfying our own concept of "sporting nationality" - a criterion our readers don't even know we use.

This is an encyclopaedia - we cannot dump WP:V by the wayside just so our articles look a bit more like Football Manager Knepflerle (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not unrecorded criteria though as the majority of the articles written on footballers have some sort of reference stating who they have played for, especially those born of one nation, representing another national team which differs to that of their birth. What's so unverifiable about that? --Jimbo^[online] 03:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Miller case is completelly right the way it is. He has choused to represent N.Ireland on international level, so he should have a NIR flag, if he decides to represent another nation, the flag would be changed, despite having all other ties linking him with England... I agree with KingoftheNorth about flags, they are allways used in all football websites (the ones that don´t use them are much penalised because of that), and I think, despite all debate about the meaning of sports nationallity, that most, if not all, people know what they represent. And it is not thru that they are not relevant for clubs, couse the main competitions in wich the clubs compete have usually a foreign players limits, so it is very usefull to know their nationalities. Removing the flags would be a major minus, just as having to add the country name next to it... FkpCascais (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a player's international career can be relevant at club/national level. When you add a sporting nationality to a player you can no longer see if a player is foreign or not at clublevel or if he has an EU passport. It doesn't matter which country a player represents at international level for EU labourlaw. How many South Americans and Africans would there be playing football in the EU if non of them had an EU passport? Aren't these EU passports much more important for clubs and players at clublevel? A few years ago the minimumwage for non-EU players older than 23 years in the Dutch Eredivisie was ca. 340.000 Euro a year, for EU players of the same age it was ca. 16.000/17.000 Euro, the minimum wage.... User:Cattivi|Cattivi]] (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Place of birth isn't always relevant for a player's nationality. Jus Sanguinis versus Jus soli Cattivi (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Both last opinions are right. But, for instance, Siniša Mihajlović allways had a Serbian flag next to him despite being comunitarian (he was a holder of both Italian, making him UE citizen, and Serbian) and being born in what is today Croatia. But, the flag was right, because he was Serbian, and played internationally for Serbia. I don´t agree about making the "birth place role" for non international players because people today are much mobile and there are more and more possibilities of other nationalities being born in different countries (without talking about national minorities...), so there must be some flexibility about it, but this is another debate.

I think that this discussion would be reasonable somwhere where editors don´t know much about football, but here I see so many excellent editors that the flags are 99% (if not 100%) correct, having a hands countable number of wrong (or discussible) flags in a thousands of players. I am in favour of making some roles about this (some club pages indicate separately the non national, or comunitarian, players after the squad list, or with *), but I still think their removal would be a major minus. FkpCascais (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you believe that club articles should be exempt from the principles of WP:FLAG? Kevin McE (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

...or more pressingly in most examples, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Knepflerle (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying say that I agree with all JonBroxton, KingOfTheNorthEast and Jimbo say. It pretty much covers completely your first question: "On what purpose?". You are wright about the WP:FLAG principle, I do remember the recent national teams debate here. If adding the flag country name next to it would be the only solution, then, what else can we do? Because, not having the nationality of the players in the squad lists would be "unbeleveable". FkpCascais (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of Kevin McE's points above, and in general I'd be happy to excise flags altogether from footy bios if that's what it'll take to end this. The value gained is limited compared to the potential for confusion and the constant need for original research to ensure "completeness" when it comes to flagging people by "footballing nationality" even where that's never been a consideration for a given player professionally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFC time? This needs deciding once and for all. Most of the flags in current use are unsourced, ignoring WP:V, and the invention of our own in-house concept of "sporting nationality" (unused elsewhere, so probably WP:OR) is leading to editors trying to give every player one, single nationality, no matter how complex the situation, according to their own syntheses of nationality law and sources.

The project needs its priorities in order, and these articles brought under the same policies as any other article. This is an encyclopaedia - everything is secondary to information integrity. Real people do not come with one single flag attached to them à la Football Manager, and articles should not pretend otherwise. Knepflerle (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're making an ENORMOUS mistake if you do this. Most of the flags in current use are NOT unsourced, because the source is either 1) the place of birth, or 2) the country the player represents internationally, if it is different from his place of birth. For the tiny percentage of articles where there is some kind of difficulty or point of contention, then that player's article will go into the necessary detail. It's really not that hard. As I have said repeatedly on numerous topics, the nationality of players is VERY important in terms of indicating a team's makeup, showing the percentage of non-domestic players in leagues where there are quotas on such things, and so on and so forth. I think this entire argument is utterly absurd, and will be a significant backwards step on soccer articles in terms of the information provided to readers, not an improvement. --JonBroxton (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS specifically says not to use flags simply to indicate place of birth, and only a tiny fraction of the footballers we cover have played for a national side. Furthermore, in the modern game (at least in Europe post-Bosman) the nationality of the players therein is actually of no consequence to the running of the club, any more than in any other profession. It's rather a throwback to the days of quotas that it's even a consideration, really. In cases where squads are diverse and this is notable then we should actually say so in the article body and give it reliable sourcing, rather than simply hoping that people infer this from all the pretty colours in the squad lists. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace is neither sufficient nor necessary for nationality - read ius sanguinis (for example, being born in Switzerland does not give you Swiss nationality - read Swiss nationality law), so straight away we are using a false criterion and misleading readers by assigning nationalities we have no true evidence for. Most flags in articles are unsourced - where's the link to the source on 99.999% of these "nationalities"? In difficult cases the player's article may go into detail, but everywhere else in Wikipedia he will appear with just one flag next to him, assigned by some editor's original synthesis, and readers are being misled. "Information" is only of value if it is sourced and correct. Knepflerle (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"In cases where squads are diverse and this is notable then we should actually say so in the article body and give it reliable sourcing, rather than simply hoping that people infer this from all the pretty colours in the squad lists." - exactly. Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Has an RFC been opened yet? If so, please provide a link. FWIW, I agree with the removal of these flags. Most of them are indeed a violation of WP:OR. The arguments for at-a-glance value are ignoring this fact. It's not useful, even at-a-glance, if it's not correct and verifiable. The bigger reason that I support their removal is to end all of the wasted time bickering about them. I've only been working on soccer related articles for 6 months or so, but I've already been involved in a few spats where some editor decided to change a flag based on a technicality I wasn't aware of. Near edit wars usually erupt at that point and we end up creating a new topic here to "have it out" over the matter. Let's just get rid of them. In at least 90% of the cases they're used, they're not verifiable at all. They need to go. Please point me to the RFC so I can add my thoughts there. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the opponents of flags are overstating the case somewhat. The vast majority of players have unambiguous nationality and to pretend otherwise would illustrate a willingness to ignore reality in pursuit of a specific objective (eradication of flags, or "all the pretty colours in the squad lists" in rhetorical language). I don't know (or care) much about obscure 4th tier players in any country but I do know and care about football in South America. The claim that the use of a flagicon to denote nationality (of South American players) is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH is verifiably false. The argument that we need to remove flags that are not accompanied by text is countered by mouseover.

As I said before the use of flags allow the reader to quickly identify the foreign quota players in a squad without having to click through the whole squad list to find them. The problems of duel/ambiguous nationality could be easily overcome through improvement of the current squad template to allow the display of 2 flags or allowing it to display footnotes. Eradication of this useful at-a-glance information because of a very small percentage of ambiguous cases, instead of finding a practical solution would be a classic case of chucking the baby out with the bathwater. King of the North East 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with King of the North East. Removing valuable information such as this is counter-productive to the entire project and will be enormously detrimental to the many, many people who find this information useful. I mean, really, out of all the thousands and thousands of soccer players who have a flag icon by their name, what percentage of them has any kind of controversy. 5%? 10%? Even at the most, you're still removing 90% of the unambiguous, non-controversial information on the page, which to me is unneccessarily draconian and akin to cuttng your nose off to spite your face. Also, can the editors who repeatedly accuse pro-flag editors of simply wanting "pretty colors" on the page knock it off. It's demeaning to those of us who work VERY hard on keeping soccer articles up to date. We just think it's pointless to remove useful, informative, important information because there are a few controversies here and there which, in reality, don't take that much effort to work around. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC

It's not "valuable information" or "useful, informative, important information" when it's unsourced, based on incorrect assumptions and original research. It really, really isn't - it's misleading. Knepflerle (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You've pretty much missed the point entirely there.

The use of flags is not the problem per se - it's this Wikipedia-only invention of "sporting nationality" (and then ignoring this definition and inventing others on a whim, as in the Paraguayan/Ecuadorean case above), the lack of sourcing for 99.999% of assigned nationalities, the misuse of criteria such as birthplace as an ersatz nationality, the compulsion to assign one nationality to players eligible for several... the problems are manifold, and arise whenever you try and simplify these issues to one flag, one word, one country, one whatever. The WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues come from trying to boil down birthplace and team representation information into one definitive nationality - the information can be sourced, but the "Wikipedia nationality" invented from it is often not.

The claim that this is a "uncommon" problem is bogus on two accounts - it appears on these pages with disturbing regularity, and a lot of cases only fail to arise because they've never been properly researched anyway. Very, very few players with a flag have represented a national team, and for the vast majority of those we know nothing more about their nationality than their birthplace - which in many cases tells us nothing anyway (see ius sanguinis).

This constant appeal to needing "at-a-glance" information is void and destructive - but "information" is only of value if it is sourced and correct. Nationality is just not reducible to "at-a-glance". Mark players who are counted as foreign quota for a given competition with a ¹ or * or something, if you like. Knepflerle (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept that using Jonathan Santana when Jonathan Santana would be more accurate is not right, that why I suggested modifying the template to allow more than one flag. The fact that you want rid of flag usage is clearly demostrated by your refusal to even consider the concept of allowing the template to display dual nationality or to display footnotes to resolve ambiguous cases. Its not up to you to proscribe what I can and can't do, it's not up to me to use ¹ or * or something, if I like. There is a high level of flag usage throughout a whole range of sports (detailed below), trying to force the removal of all of these flags because it is hard to determine a small minority of ambiguous cases, refusing to accept that some/many people find them useful and refusing to consider alternatives to widescale removal looks a lot like an agenda driven position. King of the North East 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• "your refusal to even consider the concept of allowing the template to display dual nationality or to display footnotes to resolve ambiguous cases" - unfortunately, you've now even started ascribing positions to people which they don't even hold - I've never even said that. Improving the template would alleviate some, but not all, of the problems.
• "Its not up to you to proscribe what I can and can't do" - that's why I brought the discussion here so that a community consensus could be found. WP:V and WP:OR are non-negotiables though for all editors.
• "it's not up to me to use ¹ or * or something, if I like" - now there's a genuine example of a simple suggestion being rejected without due consideration.
• "There is a high level of flag usage throughout a whole range of sports" - I am at WT:FOOTY, which sport should I be talking about?
• "trying to force the removal of all of these flags because it is hard to determine a small minority of ambiguous cases" - this is not the only reason, as is crystal-clear to anyone else reading what I've written.
• "refusing to consider alternatives" - I'm not - none have been presented yet, just the same old claims about needing "at-a-glance" information (be it sourced or not)
• "looks a lot like an agenda driven position." - I'd love to know what subvertive "agenda" you believe could be some sort of hidden motive. My motive is improving the articles by making sure the information they contain is reliable, sourced and unambiguous. Knepflerle (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- and it should be pointed out that your unfortunate and unwarranted personalisation of the issue in your last post is inaccurate - I am hardly alone in having reservations on this matter: [4], [5], [6], etc. Knepflerle (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- You accuse me of personalising the issue, but I'm not the one constantly using rhetorical language like "bogus", "void and destructive", "same old claims", "pretty colours" to diminish other peoples point of view and making suggestions in the language of personal advice, neither did I suggest that you were alone in having reservations. In my post yesterday I showed that nationality can be sourced in reliable publications such as BDFA, and that it would be fairly simple to amend the squad template to clarify ambiguous cases. You did not respond to either of these points and carried on going on about WP:OR. It's clearly not an OR issue if nationality can be easily sourced in reliable publications. 195.171.79.148 (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Sports

The idea that flags denoting sporting nationality is a football specific "problem" is easy to counter. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and thats just a selection of team sports, there are also individual sports such as tennis and golf and motorsports to consider. King of the North East 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Where has anyone said this is football specific? Knepflerle (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Would using the word Ex: Mexican in the squad templates instead of solve the problem about WP:FLAG? FkpCascais (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all of them, by any distance. Flags are just an indication of the larger problem we have with ascribed nationalities, something which takes up roughly 50% of all WT:FOOTY discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thierry Henry FAR

I have nominated Thierry Henry for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox captions

Wonder if anyone might want to express an opinion at Talk:Jack Wilshere#Caption on a disagreement as to whether infobox image captions including information such as the date the image was taken, or who the player was playing for when the image was taken, are helpful. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Örgryte IS managers

As I created Örgryte IS managers template, I was wondering if Herbert Chapman and Jack Carr did manage the team, but could only find the club page reference. Does anyone know the answer?--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither biography in Graham Betts' excellent book "England: Player by player" mentions a stint at Örgryte. It's highly unlikely, if not impossible for Chapman as he was manager at Arsenal from 1925 until he died in January 1934. Carr's biography stops after his time at Blackburn Rovers ended in 1926, so it is possible. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. According to Örgryte official site [7] Carr has coached the team in 1920. So, before his time at Blackburn. Is it possible? Or is it another Jack Carr (looks like this name is quite common)?--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Carr was assistant-trainer of Newcastle United 1912-1922. It could still be him, the amount of matches played for the championship was very limited. Cattivi (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Len Puddefoot has to be Leonard Frederick Puddefoot born in London ca.1898 who played 1 match for Falkirk in 1921-22 He is Syd Puddefoot's brother Cattivi (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have created a stub on Len Puddefoot. GiantSnowman 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these informations.--Latouffedisco (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Swedish football champions FLRC

I have nominated List of Swedish football champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Russell Green

Hi, can an admin please intervene at Russell Green, I am perilously close to passing 3RR; basically I have removed unreferenced info & POV from this article that an IP and a user called Stuvigreen (possible COI? possibly the same editor?) keep on adding back, despite my directions to WP:POV and WP:V. Thanks, GiantSnowman 22:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Captions

No idea whether this has ever been voiced, but they seem to be on a minority of pages out there; with the percentage of those football pages with images inside the infobox caption being less than 1%. You may well say that this is obviously a very small issue, affecting only a few pages. All true, but for someone such as myself who likes to take a look around footy pages the vulgar addition of worthless material really does become an issue, even if it only effects less than 1% of infobox images in the footy community. I am looking for a broad base consensus on what the feelings are here on the matter, whether that be they belong or do not belong.Stephen Hayes (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The caption parameter was only recently implemented, and (I think) only in the newer infobox, which probably explains why it's not yet widely used. As to its value, I repeat what I said at Talk:Jack Wilshere: that when the picture was taken and whose strip the player is wearing in the picture is information helpful to the reader, who may have little or no prior knowledge of the player or of football in general. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Captions quite clearly establishes that one of the main purposes of captions is to identify the context of the image. In the case of a player, who the player is, when the picture was taken and what club the player was with at the time are exactly what are required from the caption. As for it not displaying in footybio1, I'll get that corrected later. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As stated before a simple caption can show many things which the reader might wish to know; when was that taken, who was he playing for then, what game is that photo from etc. Really don't see how captions are 'vulgar'--Egghead06 (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Captions are also useful when the image cannot be displayed for some reason (mobile browsers, screen readers, text only browsers, etc) to give some idea of the missing content. I can't see the harm in them, even if they occasionally state the obvious. Knepflerle (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's actually the point of alt text, which is quite different from caption text. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, alt text does the job too. That's why I don't see a need to make captions compulsory (although one or other should always be there) - I was just pointing out another small upside to captions as an aside. Knepflerle (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Head-to-head records

Head-to-head records in national teams' articles - for example Poland national football team#Poland versus other countries, Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team#Head-to-Head Records against other countries - do we need or even want these?

First things first - as it stands they are completely unsourced, and should be removed from the articles in the very near future if they remain so. WP:V is a non-negotiable.

Second according to WP:NOT (particularly WP:IINFO), Wikipedia is not a statistics almanac - we're treading close to that line with these tables. This are merely context-free and explanation-free long lists of numerical data - bare statistics and nothing more.

Even if we do keep this information somewhere (once it's sourced of course), do we want it in the national teams' articles or would it be better in some sort of secondary list article? WP:SUMMARY would certainly suggest so. Knepflerle (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that once the information is verified that it should go in a separate list which is linked to in the main article. The information is not vital to understanding the national football team of any particular country, but it could be useful information to a user specifically looking for that kind of data in one place. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. Those kind of info is nice to have, when updated and sourced, but in separated articles. FkpCascais (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

eg New Zealand national football team results as a branch from New Zealand national football team.--ClubOranje^T 06:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry Wright in India?

Does anyone know if Harry Wright (footballer born 1900) is the same Harry Wright who managed the Indian national team between 1963 and 1964? GiantSnowman 12:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tool help

Hi, does anyone if there is a tool or anything that can tell me if an article links to two other articles? I want to quickly see if there are any Unsourced BLPs on my subpage...GiantSnowman 15:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

clarify - not 100% sure what you mean? wiki articles LINKED FROM this page? blue links (duh). Wiki articles LINKING TO this page? what links here in the toolbox (left margin). External site linking in? google search link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GiantSnowman/Articles poor example, nothing links there, try link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GiantSnowman. Alternatively, get creative with CatScan, or use something like www.wholinks2me.com (or dozens of others on the web) --ClubOranje^T 07:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I want to see if any articles appear on both User:GiantSnowman/Articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by country. GiantSnowman 08:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Shane Duffy

Shane Duffy (footballer) has been moved to Shane Duffy (soccer player) due to Shane Duffy (Gaelic footballer). I thought soccer was only used in North American DABs? Should this be moved back to "footballer" or different title to avoid confusion? --Jimbo^[online] 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Both soccer and football exist as names for the game in Ireland. Shane Duffy (footballer) is potentially ambiguous with the other sportsman of the same name, so the non-ambiguous form is preferable. Tameamseo (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Shane Duffy (association footballer) is the ideal solution here I feel. Jimbo is corrent in thinking 'soccer' is only used for North America/Australia. GiantSnowman 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overly happy with "association footballer" because it's not really a term used in actuality in Ireland, whereas both "soccer player" and "footballer" are in common usage. It does seem to be on Wikipedia though, for instance "Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers". I'm happy to have the article moved to that if there's some reason why the current "soccer player" is unnaceptable for the disambiguation. However, I don't understand what the objection to "soccer player" is. It's certainly incorrect to claim that it's only used in North America and Australia. Tameamseo (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My experience in Ireland is that "association football" is called "soccer" where there is any grounds for confusion: I don't believe that the phrase "association football" is colloquially used anywhere. Kevin McE (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of precedent already regarding the use of 'footballer' vs. 'soccer player' for Northern Ireland players. On Northern Ireland national football team, three disambiguated names all include 'footballer': David Healy (footballer), Andy Kirk (footballer), and Michael O'Connor (footballer born 1987). Bryan Burgers (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, those examples don't appear especially relevant. The problem here is that Shane Duffy (footballer) is also considered ambiguous hence we need a different disambiguator. We could keep it at the current disambiguator or move to "association footballer". However, I see no reason why the current disambiguator should be unacceptable and "association" preferred: as Kevin McE says, it's a term which is in common use in Ireland, unlike "association footballer". Tameamseo (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Shane Duffy (footballer born 1992)? That seems to disambiguate him, is used for other footballers, and keeps the 'footballer' tag which is, I'm assuming but don't know for sure, is more prevalent in Northern Ireland than 'soccer player'. Bryan Burgers (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that those three examples are relevant since they show common usage for football/soccer players from Northern Ireland. I vote for Shane Duffy (footballer born 1992) as well because of other disambiguation pages (e.g. Jason Williams and the cited Michael O'Connor) that use the birth date in the name. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree that (footballer born 1992) is the best option. In a few other cases I have found they differ somewhat, we need to find a consensual solution, possibly involving the WP:WikiProject Gaelic games members. Bobby Doyle, both gaelic and association have been DABed as (Gaelic footballer) and (footballer), although Thomas Doyle is DABed as (soccer player). --Jimbo^[online] 00:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:National team coaches

What is the point of this category? It seems to exist outside the pre-existing category structure, duplicates the function of Category:Football (soccer) managers poorly and with a very weakly defined inclusion criterium. As it currently stands it is a slightly Brazil-centric but otherwise seemingly random selection of 58 sports managers. Anyone object if I CfD it. King of the North East 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, go right ahead! GiantSnowman 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No. If existing, the national teams coaches category should be divided by countries. FkpCascais (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Peñarol / CURCC

I have recently updated a couple of articles relating to the history of the Uruguayan club C.A. Peñarol. According to the Peñarol club page the Central Uruguay Railway Cricket Club is a former name for C.A. Peñarol while the CURCC page suggests the club is defunct. The lead of the Peñarol article attributes suggestions that the two clubs are separate to Nacional fans, which seems to be a POV argument. If they are the same club it seems that having two separate articles is unnecessary. Any opinions would be appreciated.Hack (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unproductive edit war! I´m fed up!

Can somebody please intervene and finish my edit war with some Matthew hk here? If not, can someone point me out if I´m wrong? He´s giving priority about a text in Croatian wikipedia here(completely unsourced, and based on a transfers forum, by some words of some anonim, I checked. That was the only match with the info found there.) over a perfectly sourced info (I think National-football-teams is considered a source, but I can find more, just don´t see the point of having a list of ext.sources saying the same...), that he insists in deleting! See also mine and his talk pages. FkpCascais (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I just can't see the point here. National-football-teams is quite reliable, but other references should be added.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with National-football-teams being reliable , but in this case they are right. Dusan Kerkez was a used sub in the match vs. Iran He replaced Baljic in the 82th minute (source European Football Yearbook} This means 5 caps not 4 Cattivi (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC) RSSSF agrees [8] Cattivi (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)