Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final

This article was deleted a month or two ago and it has now been created again. It appears again as a collection of quotes from players, does not describe the events of the match, as articles on matches should do and is not notable enough to be an article in its own right. I was wondering what other members thought of the article, personally I don't think we should have it. NapHit (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly not worth of an article all for itself, in my opinion, that also sets a "dangerous" precedent. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article was userfied following the AfD, and then had various edits and was put up for review at AfC (not come across this before), and someone has reviewed it. Eldumpo (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

have you got a link for this please? would be interesting to read the review. NapHit (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about a link, I looked through that WikiProjects archives and only found a link to the articles talk page which has nothing on it apart from the WP banner. The, User:Jprw, who wrote the article in all likliness wasn't aware of the fact the article had been deleted or that our notability guidelines and unfortunately has done alot of hard work on an article which should be deleted. Adam4267 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The creator made their opinion known at the article's AfD in September, as did the person who has "reviewed" the recreation. As Vasco said, if it's allowed to stay then it sets a dangerous precedent. There is nothing there that sets it apart from any other semi-final. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you there Argyle. This is an incredibly nondescript match. I did not realise that the creator of the article had known it had previously been deleted. Surely he should have checked here before re-creating the article. Adam4267 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ye it should be deleted, but as I nominated the article last time and have had a few run ins with Jrpw who also edits this article which is currently at FAC, I don't want to nominate the article this time in case he starts editing the LFC in Europe article disruptively as he did last time. Would greatly appreciate someone taking the matter to AFD, seeing as it was deleted before I'm fairly certain it will be deleted again, especially as it is essentially just a load of quotes from autobiographies! NapHit (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, I will nominate the article later tonight then. Make sure that if he is disruptive you come here immediately and don't try and deal with it on your own. Sabotaging someones hard work because of a disagreement on another article is IMO, one of the worst things you can do on WP and I've had it happen to me before. Adam4267 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've Afd'd it. Adam4267 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, greatly appreciated. NapHit (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently this is all part of some gigantic anti-Graeme Souness conspiracy amongst fans of teams who don't like Rangers. Sheesh. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I like how people who give valid reasons for deleting the article are rounded on by the creator, who accuses them of being biased and uncivil. This should've been G4'd when it was found, but the AfD has been open for a week now and there is clear consensus, so let's end this farce. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Clayton Donaldson

Hi, I've had a disagreement with User:Pointer1 at Clayton Donaldson and would appreciate any feedback on the best way forward. I've left him a message on his talkpage but he's yet to reply so thought I'd bring it up here. I'm arguing that the title of reference number two should be "First Team" rather than "First Team - Clayton Donaldson", so as it more closely reflects what the webpage actually gives the title as (only a minor point really, but nonetheless). Also, I'm saying references published by clubs should end with "F.C" rather than "FC", so it reflects what clubs' articles are actually titled as (e.g. the Wikipedia article for Crewe Alexandra is "Crewe Alexandra F.C." rather than "Crewe Alexandra FC"). Finally, I say that references published by The Press should be called that, as it's the newspaper's name, rather than York Press, which doesn't exist. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

1. If it was me, I'd call ref#2 "First Team: Clayton Donaldson". The webpage title bar has "Crewe Alexandra | Team | First Team | Clayton Donaldson", and the page content doesn't really have a title. But if a dash is preferred as a separator, it needs to be an endash rather than a hyphen, per MOS:DASH;
2. I use "Crewe Alexandra F.C", with a full stop after the F but not after the C, thus keeping the dots, which are still common usage (or we'd be changing the names of all the football club articles) but avoiding the double full stop in the reference list;
3. newspaper=The Press is unquestionably correct. We're citing newspapers which happen to have a convenience link on a website, so we use the name of the newspaper, not an invention based on the domain name. See WP:CITE#Newspaper articles. Including location=York would be helpful, and encouraged by WP:CITE.

You'd best let him know you've raised the matter here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

For 1&3 I always use the same approach as that taken by Struway. For number 2 I tend to leave out the full stops but I have never really considered it, and if someone came in and put full stops in all the refs I wouldn't revert it. Adam4267 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, there's some really wacky linking in that article. "....and was [[education|educated]] at a school in the [[city]]" is seriously excessive, and piping "relationship" to Human sexuality is just bizarre...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably me going linking crazy during my noob days. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Also, what about the publishers that have been added e.g. Newsquest Media Group; is it particularly important for the readers of this article to know who publishes these newspapers? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, we've all been there. I agree with Struway on what you should do. Including the publisher depends on the editor really, if you do then it needs to be uniform, which it appears to be. It's disappointing that you have been reverted; the York Press isn't a newspaper. Great article, by the way. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to play a little of devil's advocate here; or perhaps be a pedant. However, taking reference 3 for example, it says the newspaper is "The Press". However, The Press was called York Evening Press or was it The Evening Press, but certainly not "The Press" at the time that story was printed. Brad78 (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Inter-league representative games

I've come across the stub Scottish League XI article, which I am going to work on mainly using Bob Crampsey's centenary history of the Scottish Football League. I was just wondering how we would name a category for players who played in these matches, as obviously "Scottish Football League players" or "The Football League players" are already used by the general categories for anyone who has played in a match in the relevant competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How about Category:Scottish Football League representative players and Category:The Football League representative players? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there need for a category? Those are just friendlies, right? -Koppapa (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Daemonic Kangaroo Category:Scottish Football League representative players and Category:The Football League representative players would be appropriate. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, they were proper games and caps were awarded. For a long time they were effectively treated as trial international matches, before the nations had "B" or youth international teams. Some pretty significant figures in the history of the game received their only international honours in inter-league matches (e.g. Jock Stein). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How about just simply Scottish football league XI players? Adam4267 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't need the "The" in "The Football League Players" - it's ungrammatical; makes them sound like a theatre troupe. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

hehe.--EchetusXe 00:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ArtVandelay except that this would not be consistent with other categories such as Category:The Football League players, Category:The Football League managers and Category:The Football League seasons. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Then they ought to be corrected, I think - it's a mistake to add incorrectness on top of incorrectness in the name of consistency. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

On a vaguely related note, is Denmark League XI national football team correctly named? Surely by definition a "league XI" is not a national team? Having said that, though, the article claims that the Danish League XI can include players not playing in the Danish League....!??!!?! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note of blargh

I wanted to make a note here of my disappointment and frustration with editors in the footy project for what I see as the tendency to assume new articles about players should be deleted. I understand that some of you are frustrated that so many clearly nonnotable players have articles created. But sometimes it actually swings the other way. Bradden Inman was recreated after a mention on this very project's talk page.[1] It was given the go ahead but it was requested that an admin take a look. A look at the deletion log for the article shows that an admin did review and pull the trigger on allowing the article. While many young and maybe "promising" players receive some coverage, Inman received in-depth coverage from global sources discussing everything from his childhood to present day. Unfortunately, the first two versions of the article did not have those sources and I assume that swayed some people's assumptions. I spent the 10 minutes to find the sources and created something that was at least a little better than a stub while not being a fan page. That is what editors are supposed to do, right? An argument could also be made that FOOTY is met are damn close with him being on the bench for a premier league match and a Carling Cup tie. At the time the article was recreated, the guy was even shown as a first team player at NUFC's webpage. I feel a little bad for ranting but wanted to throw it out there since so many editors are bent towards being deletionist since so many poor articles are written about nonnotable players. The recent version that was just deleted was meant to be much better than those and it sucks that editors here have become so jaded that they won't even consider it (well, four editors if you include me thought it might be OK but we didn't pay enough attention to make comments at the deletion discussion while it was poo pooed). Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that in this case, there's certainly sufficient claim to notability GNG-wise in the revision which went to AfD. However, the simple fact is that this project is almost uniquely burdened by BLP and that it's hard enough to keep on top of that for players whom we can guarantee will be in the news every week (through NFOOTBALL); simply put, it doesn't really make sense to work on article for players who aren't at that level yet in mainspace because they're always going to be subject to deletion nominations from editors with a particularly strict approach to bio notability. It makes sense to work on these in userspace and move them once NFOOTBALL is met. Another good example is Paul Pogba, whose (very good) article was deleted again not long before he made a Champions League appearance. It was then worked on in userspace and recreated when there was no chance of it being re-nominated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Inman]], the last AfD had zero keep votes, even from you Cptnono. If you're still upset, then WP:DRV is your best bet. GiantSnowman 15:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For starters, I'd just like to apologize again to the OP for not making you aware of the AfD, I usually have no problems with Twinkle informing users but for whatever reason it didn't do so that time. As for the player in question, I would have to disagree with you. For me, if he's going to be notable on Wikipedia for being a football player, the bare minimum is for him to be playing at a notable level. There's tons of articles, interviews, reports, etc. done with youth team players that have huge potential but as you probably know, not all go on to become professional players, for whatever reason. Using your logic, every single one of them should have his own article .. and for what? For being good at the amateur/youth level? It would mean guys that might have quit football and gone on to study in university or work some odd job having an article, without being notable (as per our definition) for what the article is about. Now, if the player was a youth team player and went to have a huge showing at say the FIFA U17 or U20 World Cup (like Souleymane Coulibaly), then I'd have absolutely no problem with them having an article .. but a youth/reserve team player with 0 professional appearances is pushing it for me. That's just my opinion, I'm sure some will agree while others will disagree. Take care. TonyStarks (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential sock alert

I'm not sure yet, but I'm worried 123bogdan123 (talk · contribs) might be a sock of a user we've had problems with before:

. bogdan began editing about a month after dragosh's block went into effect. He/she has created four articles, all four of which were previously created by dragosh and subsequently deleted. (Note: Sergiu Muth has since achieved notability per WP:NSPORT.) Just wanted to give the project a heads up. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• SOCK, no conversations with the "folks" whatsoever (DRAGOSH that is), recreating articles which have been deleted? Maybe another BLOCK (not that they'll learn anything)?! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Amazed

No talk here about Gary Speed's untimely demise? Would have been a good thing to collaborate on and feature as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, count me in. Happy to start by tidying up the Everton section. U+003F^? 20:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service. That people did not immediately clamber over each other to report this is a massive positive in my book. The same applies to any other tragic death, or indeed any other current news article at all. If people want to be journalists / eulogists they should write to their local newspapers inquiring about open positions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps you misread, I think it would make a really good featured article. If you want to promote some other point of view, go for it. This is about an opportunity for us to shine as a project, you clearly see it another way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't misread: you miswrote. The subject of your first sentence is "Gary Speed's untimely demise". Your second sentence refers implicitly to that subject. Leaving that aside, the article in question certainly could be WP:ITN-worthy. On a different note, I've been numb for most of the day after this news: utterly tragic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris, get off the high horse and start assuming the good faith that maybe my six-odd years of contributions warrant. Perhaps I should have been more overt: let's get Gary Speed to WP:FAC as soon as possible. I regret the fact that you thought anything different and anything clamourous or eulogistic. Let's do the article and him justice. It's already been ITN-screwed (it's not a US-article) so we should focus on getting it fixed up and featured. I'm very proud to be a member of this project community and I think it would be amazing if we could all pull together and get his article to featured quality. Putting it plainly, a modern footballer has many easily accessible references and with the sad and ongoing coverage, we should be able to make a good attempt to cover his life as best we can. Note, this is not a plea for a memorial, it's merely a request that such a good and able project take on the idea of working together to get this article up to featured status. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be a fitting tribute from members of this wikiproject to expand his article. I'm kinda amazed about the quality of his article, only 4 sentences each about his Leeds and Newcastle career. He is surely more notable than that and his wikipedia article doesn't reflect that. I'll be happy to help, but I wasn't into football until the 2000s so I know almost nothing about his early career. RIP Gary Speed. — MT (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• All the best folks with that project! RIP Gary Speed! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• We need to concentrate on his wonderful career, not his tragic death. GiantSnowman 10:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Had a go at expanding the section on his time at Everton. Whilst I think it's a great idea to get the article to WP:FAC, is that likely given its instability now? U+003F^? 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect it'll take a good couple of months before we could get it to FAC, so not a real problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy of the Veigar Pall Gunnarson transfer

Hi there.

I need some guidance on what to do. We have a anon user (85.166.141.247 and 85.166.141.237 same user), that is somewhat obsessed on Norwegian news, and adds irrelevant info to a lot of articles here on Wikipedia. Since this is WP:Football, I'm only going to concentrate on the Veigar Páll Gunnarsson transfer, where two Norwegian clubs have swindled the French club Nancy.

This is something that in my opinion is suitable for an own article, due to having huge media coverage in Norway, but I feel it's wrong when adding one section about it on Transfer (association football), which is an article about transfers in general, not specific transfer, and another section about it on Football Association of Norway. I tried to undo his edits on the Transfer-article, since I feel it doesn't belong there, and I would undo his edit on Norwegian FA aswell, but I don't feel like starting a edit-war without having a second opinion on this. What do you guys think? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the complete lack of English-language sources right now, it certainly doesn't belong anywhere outside of the player's own article. If the IP continues to edit war over it the pages will end up getting protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Would we expect many English-language sources regarding an Icelandic player in France and Norway? No. Plus, per WP:NONENG, reliable foreign-language sources are fine. GiantSnowman 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If this event is claimed to be of more than local importance then there certainly should be English-language sources. These are hardly small clubs and it is hardly a small sum of money. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a middle ground between "local news" and it being splashed across the front page of English-language papers. GiantSnowman 15:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually understand what happened in the transfer. How does the clubs negotiating a fee for another player deprive Nancy of their transfer fee? Adam4267 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a sell-on clause, so Nancy would be eligible to a percentage of the Stabæk-Vålerenga transfer fee. Stabæk artifically deflated their asking price for this player to Vålerenga, while increasing their asking price for a second player, so that the same amount was paid overall. GiantSnowman 15:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I get it now. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday the two officials of the clubs involved was arrested by Norwegian police, and even though they were released after questioning they are charged with breach of trust. American, German, French and Danish media have some coverage on this case, while the coverage in Norway is HUGE. My question now isn't if such an article should be created, but what the correct plural of such an article title should be. I have a draft for this article in my Userspace, but will improve it more before I "broadcast" it. Any help would be much appreciated. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Uploading non-free files with fair-use reationales

I am trying to upload this [2] picture, (1967 European Cup Final programme) and I can't seem to do it the normal way on Wikimedia commons. Anyone know how to do it? Adam4267 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on images and Wikimedia Commons so I might be wrong on this but from what I understand, you can't upload non-free stuff on Commons. You have to upload them to the English Wikipedia using fair-use rationale. Click on the Upload file button on the left menu and just select fair-use rationale and fill in all the information as required. TonyStarks (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that worked. Adam4267 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

African Youth Championship/African U-20 Championship

There is an ongoing move war between Faycal.09 (talk · contribs) and Eldumpo (talk · contribs) over the title of this tournament and its 2011, 2013 and 2015 versions. There is now a requested move on the master article but neither side has produced much evidence. As I am getting rather tired of messages on my talk page about the whole issue (and am not inclined to get involved as I am currently busy with the very important issue of 19th century elections in Belgium), I invite everyone else to pile in and try and work out who is (more) right (this ref refers to it by both names...). Cheers, Number 57 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well there is plenty of evidence at 2011 African Youth Championship that the most recent tournament was referred to in sources as AYC. It may be that the 2013 tournament will end up getting referred to as u 20, and if that happens there will be justification for a move. Eldumpo (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick lede question: footballer or association footballer?

I noteced User:Jojhutton has done a series of edits where he removes the pipe from football to Association football. I beleave we had agreed a long time ago to use the extensive form (association football) only for players that have links with countries where other types of football are popular. As I noteced, the user is American so for him it makes sense, however the articles he made this edit have no relation to USA, Australia or any country where that situation could exist. Exemples: Pál Dárdai, Kostas Eleftherakis, Harold Dean, etc. I reverted him at Pál Dárdai but I will like to consult you all to see if I proceded well. FkpCascais (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should just pipe to football unless the article has a strong connection to a country where other codes of football are prominent. Eldumpo (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Who uses the term 'association footballer'? No-one. It is either 'footballer' or 'soccer player', depending on where you come from. Have you directed the editor in question here? GiantSnowman 11:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I wanted to check it with you all first. FkpCascais (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the goose and the gander are not are not on the same page. Mostly this comment: The general consensus with most football codes is has been to list the full name of the code, and thus the full link, at its first mention in an article, and then to use the unlinked "football" in the remainder of the article, per ENGVAR. I don't see any reason to change that approach here. by user BilCat. There is also a year old discussion here: Talk:Football/Archive 16#Naming Standardization In Different Codes, about the same thing. Really I don't care which way this goes, but for consistencies sake, it would be nice to have it be either one way or another. Either simply state Football, or use the entire code. But one type of football should not own the term football over another.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I definitelly support your call for consistancy and understand your view. I apologise for not notecing you about my post here. FkpCascais (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The consensus on the discussion that you yourself have linked to is that we should use ENGVAR. The fact that "American football" is a commonly used phrase is a red herring – note the prevalence of phrases such as "English footballer" or "English football club" in articles under this project's banner. —WFC— 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not quite the same reference when English is used to describe the person's nationality, and American is used to describe the sport. Whole different ballgame.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Iranian futsal clubs in 2010–11 season

I just wanted to share this interesting list. A 09-10 version exists as well. Perhaps a little too crufty since league articles exist? Vanadus (talk | contribs) 10:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes. -Koppapa (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and nominate it for deletion. GiantSnowman 09:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Also lists of football clubs in each season exist too. See List of Iranian football clubs in 2011–12 season, List of Iranian football clubs in 2010–11 season, List of Iranian football clubs in 2009–10 season. Although they repeat information given in the main articles, they do provide an organized and clear results summary of every club in a season. In other words, each one is essentially a synthesis of the league page, the cup page, and international competition page. Still appears a little crufty though... Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

April Phumo

Recently deceased, first ever manager of the Lesotho national team, per this - could be a potential DYK if people are willing to help out (my time is limted these days I'm afraid). GiantSnowman 11:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to add some information from a few sources, but there is limited coverage before 2000 except in the South African press. I am confused that a few sources report him as Lesotho's first manager, yet other sources indicate he first managed the team in 1979 (despite the country participating in a 10 internationals from 1970 through 1973 according to FIFA's records). Jogurney (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions. Were the 10 internationals 'official'? I presume so if FIFA has a record of them. Did they have a 'manager' (by modern standards) back then? GiantSnowman 15:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the matches were official since FIFA lists them on its website, but perhaps the team didn't have an official manager at that time. I think we should stick with the source that directly states he managed the team from 1979 to 1995 until something surfaces that indicates he managed the team beginning in 1970. Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there could have been a committee, just as England had prior to Walter Winterbottom taking over in 1946. They were playing matches looong before that! GiantSnowman 16:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Terry Smith (football)

This well known figure in the history of Chester City cropped up on my watchlist, but I don't have the appetite to deal with a BLP matter alone at this point in time. None of the material added to the article since 27 February is sourced, indeed reliable sources have been lost since. Also, a lot of it is POV – "almost defeated Manchester City as the score was 1-1 with 11 minutes left" is certainly one way to describe a late 4-1 defeat.

There is no question that the 27 February version is a stronger base than the 30 November one, in terms of POV and sourcing. I have reverted on those grounds, but a few things make me uneasy about leaving it at that. The first is that however blatant the POV I have removed, and however solid the sourcing I have restored, the version I have reverted to could reasonably be perceived as being negative. The second is the fact that I was heavily involved with the version I reverted to (how it looked before I got involved). The third is that however clear-cut the POV appears to be, I haven't looked into whether the things written about his American football career were factually correct, and indeed some of the material added about Chester might also have been true.

Thanks in advance to anyone who has looked at it. —WFC— 01:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the line 'Barrow managed a respectable ninth place and won the Conference Trophy in the 2000-2001 season' had me stumped for a minute. I'll change that sentence, heh.--EchetusXe 11:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I like how losing 6-0 to Villa becomes 'lost only 1-0 to Aston Villa on a late handball penalty kick in the 2nd Round of the Worthington Cup'.--EchetusXe 11:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did Salamurai remove six reliable sources? Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Salamurai was trying to tidy up the mess that User:GB Lions left behind in his attempts to re-write the article and big-up Mr Smith. Perhaps "GB Lions" is Smith's agent; it wouldn't be the first time an agent has tried to sanitise his client's article on Wikipedia; e.g. Michael Wilde (User:212.9.31.246) and Michael Knighton (User:Factmaster07) are two that come to mind. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, just read that there. What a guy, if only the current American owners in the Premier League took a leaf out of his book. It would be much more entertaining. Adam4267 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Soriano

Can someone please have a look at his statistics chart? The last entry (2009-10 ONLY for the cup) does not merit "its own" section, it has to be inserted in the previous entry for the 2009-10 season.

Attentively, ty in advance, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it should remain seperate - one 2009-10 section is for Barca, the other for Barca B; they are two different clubs. GiantSnowman 09:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How come i did not notice that?! Silly me, sorry to have bothered "the commission" with that... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Suicide/depression/addiction

These issues are increasingly affecting footballers - the deaths of Gary Speed, Robert Enke, Dave Clement, Alan Davies and Justin Fashanu, as well as the large number of players using the Sporting Chance clinic for gambling + other addictions. Are they worth of an article (or articles), and if so, what should we title them? We already have articles on other issues - Racism in association football and Homosexuality in association football. GiantSnowman 13:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say not. The two existing topics deal with the particular relevance to football of the social issues of racism and homophobia. Suicide, depression and addiction are personal issues with no relevance to football other than that footballers suffer from them just like people from all other walks of life. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But then again Struway, racism and homophobia can also afflict non-footballers, and in fact it does. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say otherwise. The existing articles are supposed to deal with the effects of racism and homophobia on and within football, although they do seem to be turning into lists of incidents more than a discussion of the problem(s). Depression and addiction affect the sufferer, who may be a footballer, and have knock-on effects on their friends and colleagues, who may be footballers, but I don't see that they have particular effects on and within football as a sport. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally Struway I disagree, these issues affect ordinary people, usually more than footballers. I don't think there is enough coverage on suicide/depression for it to warrant it's own article. Maybe a category could be created for "Footballers who have admitted to having suffered from depression" or a more elegantly worded equivalent (Not "Footballers who have suffered from depression", though, because we only know the ones who admit it) there is already one for suicides as well. I definitely think there should be one for addictions; gambling, alcohol, drugs, prostitutes. There are LOTS of footballers who have had any one of these vices and there is an extremely large amount of coverage whenever it is found out. One suggestion though, why not call it "Addictions (There could probably be a page for each vice) in association football in the UK". Because, lets face it, apart from a few high profile foreign incidents. That is what it is going to be. Adam4267 (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Adding: i do not feel an OWN article is warranted, but the mention of the personal situation being inserted in the player's article individually instead (i.e. George Best, or as i once did in Omar Oreste Corbatta). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Struway, I see where you're coming from - but what about the Sporting Chance clinic, set up to deal wholly with these issues? GiantSnowman 15:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Found this article on depression in football [3]. Maybe there could be enough coverage to have an article on that as well. Or we could just have one "Mental illnesses in football" which could cover addictions, depression etc. Adam4267 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mental illness" sounds a bit iffy re:BLP, and also doesn't cover gambling addiction. Something to do with 'Psychological issues in association football' would be better perhaps? GiantSnowman 16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(Not sure where to indent to, replying to several bits)... The existence of the Sporting Chance clinic allows sportspeople to receive treatment for their problems tailored to their needs, in the same way as the Priory does for other celebrities, and the NHS and others attempt to for the rest of us. Its existence doesn't mean that the issues have any special relevance to football. But that's just my opinion. If multiple reliable sources for the subject "<insert issue name here> in football" exist, then it may (but not necessarily should) have an article. But we need to be very careful that we don't end up with a list of sportspeople with little or no encyclopedic value under the guise of an article on "<insert issue name here> in football". The second paragraph of the WP:BLP policy is worth a look (or 3rd, the one that begins "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively"). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with a list, in theory, (although there would be a fair amount of prose as well I'd think). When the media reports on these things they rarely take an in-depth look at the social problems faced by footballers. They usually just say something along the lines of "Gazza's booze binge". Adam4267 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But we'd need an in-depth look in order to justify the existence of the article. GiantSnowman 16:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we could quite easily establish an overview of these issues. But what I was saying was that the media tend to report these things as a "list of incidents". Adam4267 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well Freddie Steele took some years out of the game due to depression and came back to be a great player and manager. Tommy McLaren killed himself after he was released by Port Vale. Gary Roberts has had great difficulty controlling his alcohol and gambling addictions. I see the concerns are probably correct. All I can do is list examples, I cannot offer any explanations or anything worthy of putting into prose.--EchetusXe 16:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Also Brian Hill. GiantSnowman 16:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Players' names being written using non-English lettering

I recently came across Guðjón Þórðarson, who also has three sons that are footballers; Bjarni Guðjónsson, Þórður Guðjónsson, Joey Guðjónsson. According to WP:USEENGLISH, well it's rather self-explanatory. While it does say that use of accents or other diacritics in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged these hardly fall under that category, they are using Nordic lettering as opposed to English letters which makes some of these words unreadable to the average English speaker. Should they be moved, or is there a reason for why they are at those titles. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

We tend to allow European ones because there isn't a will to deal with β in German articles. Wiki-politics, in short. —WFC— 01:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

They should really be moved according to what the English-language sources call them. Eldumpo (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I say keep them as they are; show a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE, and strive for accuracy. GiantSnowman 09:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So long as, for instance, Bjarni Gudjonsson redirects to the right place, what's the problem? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. If someone's name is written in their native language in the Latin alphabet, we should write it the same way they do, rather than dumb down for the reader like the media do. Number 57 11:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone here gets too excited by this, please read the lengthy chat at Talk:Marek Zidlicky. This is a bone of contention throughout Wikipedia. Frankly, if a redirect works and points to the diacritic'ed version, great, no-one gets killed, and everyone gets to the article in one move. If someone has a diacritic'ed keyboard and wants to type in the factually accurate name, they don't get redirected and get the factually accurately named article. Again, no-one gets killed and everyone gets to the article in one move. Can't we focus on adding content rather than quibbling about this sort of thing which will never please all the people all the time? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season

I started a deletion review 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season here. Anyone can join the discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Caps: FIFA vs. FA

This player has 15 official FIFA sanctioned caps, and 23 in total if you include unofficial matches, as the Norwegian FA does. Who should we go with on this, and other, articles? GiantSnowman 14:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely, in cases like this there should be a note added to to the infobox to explain, with a detailed explanation in the body of the article. As the "unofficial" matches appear to be Olympic qualifiers/Olympics matches, maybe they should be shown separately in the infobox. Perhaps a full table of his international appearances would be helpful. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This page explains why.

In my opinion, we should go for the Norwegian FA numbers. Erik Thorstvedt for instance, got 97 caps in most sources and not the 89 that FIFA states is official. And is it our job to decide that John Arne Riise is the Norwegian with most caps when he has 103 caps, since Thorbjørn Svenssen got 2 unofficial matches, instead of the 105 caps every other sources states that he needs to be the Norwegian with most international appearences ? Mentoz86 (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

We are listing how many caps he got for Norway, not how many were recognised by FIFA. But it should be said somewhere how many were recognised by FIFA, I think. Adam4267 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Olympic/qualifiers are NOT official senior-matches; they are under-23 team. I believe that they should be given a seperate row in the infobox. GiantSnowman 14:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Olympic matches being under-23 is a relatively recent introduction. I'd be inclined to agree they should be listed separately in the infobox. Though I'd agree with Mentoz86 that the article should give the Norwegian FA's figure as his number of Norway caps – after all, they awarded them – and explain the differences in the prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK then, how about this? Have 'Norway' (15) and 'Norway Olympic' (8) in the infobox, and explain the difference in the prose? GiantSnowman 15:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

When Norway FA states that he has 23 caps, the infobox should have 'Norway' 23 caps, and the text states "Berg has 23 appearences for Norway, even though FIFA only considers 15 of them as full caps" or something similar. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

See, I think the complete opposite of this. I reckon the infobox should say 15 caps, with text in the article saying something like "Berg has won 15 caps for Norway, also appearing in 8 unofficial international matches." Surely FIFA's number is more reliable since they are the ones who decide which games are full internationals. BigDom 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Big's suggestion is in my eyes a better suggestion then Giant's (Norway Olympic is just wrong, as 1/3 of the olympic matches are official senior matches, 1/3 are unofficial senior matches and 1/3 are U-23 matches), but either way you'll have to change all the other players on this list the same way. Another effect of this, would be that Norway national football_team#Individual all-time records and List of Norway international footballers should be removed from wikipedia since such lists aren't available with only "FIFA's official caps" and original research shouldn't be included in articles... Mentoz86 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This guy played in the 80s, remember. Adam4267 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@Mentoz - why is 'Norway Olympics' team wrong? What evidence do you have about your 1/3 splits?

@Adam - why does playing in the 80s affect him? GiantSnowman 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no evidence that it's one third each, but both NFF and FIFA counts Olympic matches before 1975 or 1960 (unsure on the exact date) as official caps. Norwegian Olympic matches between 1975 and 1988, where removed from FIFA's record in 1999 while NFF still counts them as official caps. And after 1988 the olympic matches are not counted as official caps by NFF, and at some point the U-23 team takes over the olympic matches. When I mean 'Norway Olympic' is wrong, it's because it way to imprecise or inaccurate.Mentoz86 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's as accurate and concise as it can be - he represented Norway in Olympic qualifiers, did he not, and because the status of the team is unknown, it does the job nicely. GiantSnowman 17:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My comment was aimed at Mentoz, meaning that the Olympics were not the same then as they are now. Adam4267 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with BigDom and GiantSnowman on this. We had before cases similar to this, and we allways agreed to use FIFA official caps. FkpCascais (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like we have a consensus to say that Jan Berg had 14 caps for the Norway national team (even though there is only one single source that says that he has 14 caps for Norway), but then we have to change all the other articles on this page aswell. And Jan Berg is a nobody (unless you are a Molde-fan) so noone cares about his caps, but I'm more curious on what will happen when you change Thorbjørn Svenssen caps from 104 to 102, Rune Bratseth from 60 to 55, Erik Thorstvedt from 97 to 89 and so on. Then you'll get reactions, and you'll get a lot of people wondering where you found your sources. Because we, the editors of wikipedia, might agree on this and that, but we cannot violate WP:OR. I looked around for sources on Thorbjørn Svenssen, and all states that he has played 104 matches (except one that say 108), noone states 102. This page is the only source we have for what we are discussing, and at the end of the day - is that a reliable source when all the other sources states something else? And as I've asked before, if we do it like this - what do we do with lists like Norway national football_team#Individual all-time records and List of Norway international footballers? Mentoz86 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bologna F.C. 1909

Please check club foundation year. --KungFuDuck (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You are able to edit yourself you know... GiantSnowman 19:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sócrates

Just a note, he's not doing too well in hospital, we should be keeping an eye on his article (which is rubbish right now by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll "bring out the sweeping broom", if not today, tomorrow, cheers! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And now he is gone. RIP.--EchetusXe 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I gave some shape to the article but the stats are wrong, the playing career consists of six sentences and a paragraph on Garforth Town.--EchetusXe 11:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That'll be because he did, for a short time, coach Garforth Town, and played for them once. Kevin McE (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The article on his brother could also do with a tidy up; I'm busy today if anyone else fancies having a go...? GiantSnowman 12:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll kill two birds with one stone SNOWMAN, have a go at his brother's article too! RIP Sócrates (what a midfield with Toninho Cerezo and Falcão my dear god)!! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Raí's done, boy did it "hurt the eye"... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Vasco, good work! GiantSnowman 09:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sergio Luteca Martinéz

Interesting, after i AFD'd several Valencia CF Mestalla players (one was 16 years old and merited a WP article already!), voilá! Another one has been created, and it's a "terrific" candidate for deletion:

1 - refs are bogus, as you can clearly (not) see; 2 - box is a LIE (has never played with Valencia CF's first team officially; 3 - PLAYING STYLE section is as poetic as can be; 4 - just checked this now: visited Spanish football site WWW.FUTBOLME.COM, entered "Luteca" (part of the subject's name) in the search engine, it yielded nothing (ladies and gentlemen, we may be facing a false article).

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

More, also from FUTBOLME.COM: please, have a look at the Mestalla squad for this season (please see here http://www.futbolme.com/com/equipo.asp?idtorneo=5&id_equipo=794&modo=fichajes), be my guest and try to find Sergio Luteca "Wally" Martínez... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And there it was . . . gone! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Kang! LOL! Only just now noticed this: the "storyline" had a great giveaway to see what an utter crap it was: it read he played against RSD Alcalá and Coruxo FC, Valencia B does not even play in that group, the team is in the group of (of course) Valencian and Catalan clubs in Segunda División B!! Pityful... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick pic question

Is this OK? I doubt... FkpCascais (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK to me.--EchetusXe 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean whether it's free to use? I've not found any non-wiki copies of the image on Google Images so I'd assume good faith. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no, apologies for not being explicit... I meant the image size, which makes the page look like cut in half. FkpCascais (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Far too big. I've taken it down to 280px, which is big enough to see but doesn't really stretch the infobox. Hope that's OK. Perhaps the editor who added it didn't know how to adjust the size? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, problem solved. I´ll conclude that the pic should not be bigger than the usual infobox size, so from now on I´ll do as you did in those cases. FkpCascais (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Queen's Park

"The club are currently the only amateur club in the Scottish League" - surely not true, given the fullu-professional nature (or lack of it) of SFL2/3? GiantSnowman 12:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, ignore me, just realised what it means. Sorry. Not enough sleep. GiantSnowman 12:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources in BLP articles

Even if this is maybe not the correct place to ask, I'd like to know how this is done in footballers' articles: According to WP:BLPPROD, any unsourced article about a living person created after 18 March 2010 may be deleted. But what exactly qualifies as source? Does it have to be an inline citation (as WP:BLPSOURCES suggests) or is a link in the section "External links" sufficient? I have often added an inline reference to BLP articles which only had external links and I'd like to know if this is necessary to avoid WP:BLPPROD. I've searched in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and I've come across this but it doesn't really answer my question. --Jaellee (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

External links by definition aren't meant to support article content. The thing is, many people don't know that and title the section "External links" when they really mean "References" or something similar. As far as BLPPROD goes, I think it's just a matter of checking out the link and determining whether or not it's actually being used as a source rather than for further reading or whatever, and then moving it to an inline cite if necessary to save any further confusion. BigDom 14:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Irawan

Thinking it was A LIE as the one i reported above, i clicked on the ref, turns out it's true, the person exists (please see here http://www.rcdespanyol.com/ingles/index.php?modulo=detalleNoticia&idnoticia=729&idseccion=7&idlinkchk=0&Amenu=detalleNoticia&idmenu=&idsubmenu=). The important matter of discussion is now:

1 - does he merit a WP article (18 years of age, no pro football played)? I think not; 2 - also, the box refers to him having played football with Preston North End, any truth in that (i mean did he play youth football there - cause SENIOR he certainly has not, as the box shows!)?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Schickeria

Is anyone else seeing edits like this that are pushing the concept of "Schickeria"? I left it in the first time, but when it was added back in I realized that all of the sources are self-published and as such may not be particularly notable. Any comments? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

I am writing to about my edits in the article about Bayern München that you reverted (2011-12-05).

There is no doubt that the Schickeria München exists and its political positions are no secrets. Officially, the group describes itself as anti-racist and against "Modern football". The anti-racist stance can also be seen on numerous flags and banners and the group has participated in public demonstrations against the commcercialization of football. As a third party opinion, I would like to bring up Gabriel Kuhn, writer on the subject of football and politics. I met him during the Göteborg Book Fair and I intended to discuss the supporters of St Pauli with him, but instead he pointed at the Schickeria München as an example of the growing number of "progressive" ultra groups in Germany. He also did this in the interview that I posted as source. What concerns the "notability" of Schickeria München, I can not really say. ´What is notability in this sense? I do not know the exact answer to the question, but I think that the actions against Manuel Neuer (whether regarded as an act of sheer stupidity or as an legitimate protest against the clubs politics) and the fuss it created, the group does not pass entierly unnoted.

Best regards, Erik EriFr (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)