Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

Club Notability Tables (and Test)

I have prepared an essay on Club Notability Tables (including a Club Notability Test) but am unfamiliar how we should undertake consultation and feedback on such an essay?

Should it be considered as a personal essay by League Octopus or can it be considered as a possible candidate as an addition to WP:FOOTYN?

Where should comments be left?

(a) The essay's Talk page?

(b) WT:FOOTY?

(c) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability?

Can somebody please advise? Thanks. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC))

How about women's football? That doesn't seem to be included. Overall I think it's a good idea to have this page as a reference point. I'm not sure where a discussion should be held on its accuracy, usefulness, or possible inclusion within club notability guidelines. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that if we can reach general agreement on men's football it will then be time to consider women's football. I sincerely hope that the current essay can provide a reference point and I encourage everyone to start using the Tables. That is the best way to identify any gremlins! Some discussions have started on the essay's Talk page and I hope more will follow. However I do wish that someone can give formal advice on Wikipedia's consultation procedures - there must be some guidance laid down? League Octopus (League Octopus 08:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC))

Some interesting discussions are taking place on the Club Notability Test, India and Iceland - this feedback on the Talk page is very useful. League Octopus (League Octopus 12:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

I have now created two short-cuts to enable the essay to be quickly accessed - WP:NTABLES and WP:NTEST. League Octopus (League Octopus 07:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

I have added Former countries to the listings. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

WP:NTEST is now being used in live examples - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aris Esymis F.C.. This is the type of AfD where in the past we sometimes had difficulties in reaching a general consensus. League Octopus (League Octopus 17:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

I would like to express my appreciation to the feedback from Stalwart111 and detailing the "next step" to take the essay to WP:VPR for discussion and consideration. I have created shortcuts to WP:NCLUB and WP:NFOOTYCLUB. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

Category:Chinese footballers

Nlu (talk · contribs) has been removing Category:Chinese footballers from relevant articles because he feels that "a 400+ person category is simply not a useful category for any purpose", citing WP:DIFFUSE - however I feel that the category, and all similar (i.e. English footballers, French footballers etc.) should remain as it is perfectly valid. Wider thoughts welcome. GiantSnowman 13:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course it should remain. While I understand his point of view, how could such a category be appropriately splited? – Kosm1fent 13:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Giantsnowman states my position correctly. The category is not invalid per se; that's not my argument. Basically, it is my belief such a large category cannot be useful; that's why I've tried to diffuse them by creating province-based origin categories. Since all of these are Chinese provinces, they are logical subcategories of the parent category. The category tree structure on Wikipedia exists for a reason: it's to avoid this kind of an unwieldy categories. (See, e.g., Category:Footballers from Beijing. Gemchi (talk · contribs) had already inspired this process by creating Category:Footballers from Qingdao a while ago — there are lots of footballers from Qingdao and Dalian, for whatever reason!.)

I would also urge people to stop and think of a moment: for people who are international football fans, you might think that there is some usefulness to have a single undiffused Category:Chinese footballers category because it still creates some differentiation, but China is such a large nation in population that such a category, in the total scheme of things, will simply become such a huge and eventually unorganizable mess. It would be as if there were only a single undiffused category for Category:Cities in the United States (which is a good example of why diffusion is useful whereas if it were populated by tens of thousands of articles, it is useless). Don't simply bow to the temptation of "Well, those are just Chinese football players!" For other examples of how an undiffused mess Chinese people categories can become, see Category:Chinese people by occupation; there are other categories in similar situations that similarly need to be diffused. Don't just get lazy and remain with the status quo. --Nlu (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nlu - what do the province categories actually mean? i.e. how is a player eligible? Born there? Grew up there? Where are the reliable sources that state player X is from province Y? GiantSnowman 13:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The articles themselves generally do state the players' place of birth. To the extent that they don't, I check the Chinese Wikipedia articles. If they don't state places of birth, I leave the articles undiffused. But the articles themselves are generally very good at stating places of birth (unlike some other Chinese people categories). --Nlu (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What if the player was born abroad? or if they were born in Beijing to parents on holiday, and then grew uo back in Shanghai? GiantSnowman 13:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd treat them as from Beijing. Those are relatively rare cases, and we shouldn't let rare cases deter us from diffusion. Again, the category tree structure capabilities on Wikipedia exists for a reason. It's to avoid unwieldiness. (And Chinese people formerly were not going to be able to do something like you suggested easily; they still mostly cannot do it except for the most wealthy.) --Nlu (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that 'born in X' is not the same as 'from X', and the new categories are fundamentally flawed. I don't mind them remaining (providing they were actually referenced as opposed to OR based on birth place) but alongside the Chinese footballers category, as opposed to replacing. GiantSnowman 13:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The same things could be all "From" categories (and those exist in almost all Wikipedia biographical tree structures without much issues) because there has to be some practical way of handling this kind of situations. I'm trying to be respectful (and I hope that I'm not being disrespectful), but I'd suggest looking at the organizations of some non-footballer biographical articles to see how it works in practice outside of the footballers structure. In the hypothetical situation of someone who was born in Beijing and grew up in Shanghai, the person can be double-categorized if there is good reason.

As one Chinese proverb says, "One should not stop eating just because one might choke." There may be difficult diffusion cases. Those specific cases can be either double-categorized or simply not diffused. But that shouldn't stop us from organizing the category in a more logical and less unwieldy manner. --Nlu (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And, hopefully not to get overly repetitive or preachy, but I'd urge everyone to read and re-read WP:CAT, particularly the points in WP:DIFFUSE and WP:SUBCAT. As WP:SUBCAT says:

If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second, then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. For example, Cities in France is a subcategory of Populated places in France, which in turn is a subcategory of Geography of France. Many subcategories have two or more parent categories. For example, Category:British writers should be in both Category:Writers by nationality and Category:British people by occupation. When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also. Category chains formed by parent-child relationships should never form closed loops. If two categories are closely related but are not in a subset relation, then links between them can be included in the text of the category pages.

To be blunt, there is nothing special about footballers that should call for a separate treatment from what (most) of the rest of Wikipedia does. General Wikipedia policies should not be departed from absent a very, very good reason, and I fail to see one here. --Nlu (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

To also be blunt, you have not provided an acceptable alternative. GiantSnowman 13:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What is special about footballers that makes what works for the rest of Wikipedia not work for them? --Nlu (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of an acceptable alternative, the "Chinese footballers" category should be restored forthwith. – PeeJay 14:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What makes this a special case that requires a departure from the general policies in WP:CAT? --Nlu (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say, please avoid making Category:Footballers a separate fiefdom with its own special rules. What applies for the rest of Wikipedia should apply here. --Nlu (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And please take a look at the category: I had not "removed the category"; I had diffused it. I am not happy that the diffusion work has effectively been undone without a good reason. But that is not obviously a reason to diffuse it per se. Still, the idea that a "restoration" is necessary implies that the category had been deleted or modified; it had not; it had been diffused (subcategorized), which is a standard modus operandi here on Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(And, obviously, the discussion is less than hour old, but...) I'd also suggest that the idea "there is no reasonable alternative!" (which I do not agree with) presupposes that the status quo is acceptable. Frankly, it is not, and no one above has really suggested why such a large category has any usefulness (and therefore would constitute a "reasonable" state of things). If my idea of diffusion by provincial origin is not "reasonable," suggest another one. --Nlu (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

People (footballers included!) are different to cities. It is much, much, much easier to determine whether a city is located in X province than a person is from. GiantSnowman 14:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede that point, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be diffused. I mean, this is the situation like where it might be difficult to categorize a piece of art (see, e.g., The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci)). But that doesn't mean that we simply lump them into a category of Category:Art and leave them all there. That renders that category useless.

To borrow a real life analogy, a child asked to organize his/her toys into bins by category may find toys that are difficult to categorize; that doesn't mean that he/she should simply put them all in a single, large, unsortable bin just because categorization may be difficult in some cases. We do the best we can, rather than leaving it as such.

I would also urge people to look at Category:People by province in China — a structure that I had no part in creating but has worked well (and the general structure that these provincial diffusions would fall under). If people of other walks of life are not that difficult to be categorized by provinces, what's special about footballers that requires special treatment? --Nlu (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(And this kind of organization is not unique to Chinese people; see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_6#Sub_category_pages_of_Category:People_by_first-_.28and_second-.29_level_administrative_country_subdivision for a partial list of countries that have this kind of categorizations. Again, it's not considered "unacceptable" generally; why should it be for footballers?) --Nlu (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(For a fuller list, see Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision.) --Nlu (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say all people are difficult to sort. By your logic, actress Ashleigh Cummings (on today's main page) would be placed in 'Actors from [Saudi Arabian city]' rather than (the correct) 'Australian film actors' - ridiculous. Also note that Australian film actors is a category of nearly 900, much more than the 400 in 'Chinese footballers'. GiantSnowman 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with GiantSnowman. Furthermore, Category:Chinese footballers actually has a function - it categorises all footballers who are eligible for the China national team. Categorising those players by the city/province they come from is not functional, since there are no meaningful representative sides for Chinese cities/provinces? – PeeJay 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've already personally written to Nlu (talk · contribs) about my dislike for him deleting Category:Chinese footballers from the player pages. While most of my arguments have already been expressed my biggest concern is that I find the navigation too esoteric, how is a casual football fan supposed to know what province these players are from?

User talk:Kai Lau 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) But by that logic, no subcategorization should be done -- which would render categories useless. Plus, no one is going to be determining player eligibility by looking at that category anyway, particularly since, as times goes on, that category will get larger, and larger, and larger. American sportspeople categories generally are organized by state (and cities, when the cities are large enough) without the evil that has been spoken of for subcategorization, and I would argue that those categories are more, not less, useful as a result. --Nlu (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(As an aside, my responses may be slow at times at least for the next few days; I am in a jury trial right now, and I'm probably diverting myself too much from that trial already getting into this discussion.  :-)) --Nlu (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what we're saying at all. Is a city in X province? Well either it is or it isn't. Is a player from X province? Well he may be, he may not be - basing on place of birth is no indicator. GiantSnowman 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see why this is a concern in the football context where in other parts of Wikipedia, this concern basically is a nonproblem. --Nlu (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It applies for all categories relating to biographies. GiantSnowman 15:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Footballers from Beijing is a perfect subcategory of Category:Sportspeople from Beijing and you could continue diffusing Category:Sportspeople by city or town, but it shouldn't be a replacement for Category:Association football players by nationality, but rather an addition. Most articles are categories in the following categories: Category:1974 births, Category:Living people, Category:Sportspeople from London, Category:English footballers and so on. In this case you could change Footballers from London with Sportspeople from London, but leave the English footballers as it is. Football is different then other projects because our view on nationalities are different then other projects; while other projects decide the nationality by checking their birth of place or passport we decide the nationality after which national football team a person played for. To take an example: Vadim Demidov was born in Riga, and lived his first years in Soviet before moving to Norway and later played for the Norwegian national team. He fits into Category:Sportspeople from Riga and maybe also Category:Footballers from Riga, but that would put Demidov into the Category:Latvian footballers which is totally wrong. Your category-tree might work in China, where people isn't moving (?), and Chinese people are indeed Chinese people. But we should leave it as it is for consistency, to not get a total mess in Europe with even more nationalistic POV. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the Soviet breakup is itself a sui generis issue that is unlikely to recur. Further, just because there are exceptions doesn't mean that we forget about the rationale of subcategorizing at all. Joe Alexander (basketball) is in Category:Sportspeople from Beijing (and prior to my creating that category, Category:People from Beijing, and I didn't put him there) for good reason; he's "from" Beijing. Category:People from Beijing itself is a subcategory of Category:People by province in China, which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Chinese people, which may mean that, for some purists, Alexander is in a category tree that he doesn't belong. But it's an exception rather than the norm. If we're going to be stuck up on these categories, we might as well throw the categorization scheme to the wind and make the structure an unusable mess — which, I have to say, Footballers is becoming. I believe I am proposing a sensible way of fixing it, at least in the Chinese context, and I am hoping that in practice, it will persuade people that it works and that the concerns about it are overblown — certainly such concerns have been considered nonexistent in the American context.

I'd also urge a temptation to be provincial (no pun intended) as to football. Look at the entire Wikipedia. Look at how similar categorization schemes have worked well in the entire Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

And I'd also add that perhaps the Demidov example is a demonstration that this categorization scheme works, rather than that it doesn't. I must say that I'm an outsider as far as football international transfer rules, but in the ice hockey context (which I am familiar), Evgeni Nabokov views himself as Russian and is viewed as Russian, but has played games for Kazakhstan before after having been born there. Movements of this nature are also quite common in table tennis and badminton. I am going to assume, as an outsider, that had Demidov wanted to play for Latvia, he could have. --Nlu (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thought: if you want more input from people who have more experience with categorizations and really think that the provincial subcategories are unworkable, do a WP:CFD to propose deleting them. (After all, if they're unworkable, why should they exist?) I think you will get to hear from people who are familiar with categorization scheme here on Wikipedia outside the football context who will make good arguments that this categorization scheme works. --Nlu (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that these categories should be deleted, they are perfectly fine as long as you replace them with "Category:People from Chinese province" and keep the Category:Chinese footballers in the articles, and as long as "Category:Footballers from Chinese province" is not a sub-cat of "Chinese footballers". Mentoz86 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That defeats the entire point of diffusion, however. Again, large categories can get unwieldy (as I submit that this category is). --Nlu (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that we even have worste cases, like Category:Association football midfielders with a total of 13,113 (by time I´m writting this) regarding WP:DIFFUSE but this project tends to do things in its own rythm without disturbing the so-so harmonia around here... Basically, Category:Chinese footballers is a very usefull category, as puts you all toghether all players that are eligible to play to China, and by now should definitelly be kept, and if any changes are to be made that should include wider consensus and other country categories as well, as China is not the only cat overpopulated. But, personally, for time being I think we have much more important stuff to work before (don´t take me wrong for saying this, please Nlu, I perfectly respect your concern, I just don´t think it´s time for it now). Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you: diffusing Category:Association football midfielders and Category:Chinese footballer and create Category:Chinese football midfielders would be a better idea then what is done at the moment. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(unident) FkpCascais, you hit on the head of the nail here in one important aspect: "this project tends to do things in its r[h]ythm without disturbing the so-so harmonia around here[.]" That should not be the case; Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and football articles should not be in its private domain immune from the rest of Wikipedia rules and policies. I'd urge the members who are in this "harmonia" to consider whether this is a proper state of things. --Nlu (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And please don't forget this rationale why categories exist at all:

The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.

(This is from WP:CAT.)

When the "set of pages" becomes 400+ pages (or, as FkpCascais noted, 13,113 pages), that "central goal" doesn't exist any more; what exists is a jumbled mess that has no use to anyone. I've been dealing with the Category:Chinese footballers category only because I consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable about Chinese geography; I don't propose to know the other countries' geography well enough (save that of the United States, of which I am a citizen, and of the Republic of China (Taiwan), where I was born) to properly subcategorize. (And frankly, I am not a football fan — of either the global or the American variety — to be sufficiently interested to do so.) But I do care about the Chinese footballer category to want to try to make its category structure useful, efficient, and properly pruned. Again, I'd urge everyone to read WP:CAT, understand why categorization schemes exist, and understand why the current state of things completely defeats the purpose of the categorization concept. And, again, remember that this is part of Wikipedia, not its own separate domain. --Nlu (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully respect your approach of citing policies Nlu, and I cannot say nothing more except that your point is right. The aspect I meant with the expression of "so-so harmonia" is that usually these sort of edits, such as inclusion of such categories, has been widely established for years, and making some sort of change would work much better if we sort out the best solution for all these cases (as Chinese cat is not the only one having this DIFFUSE problem), rather than one editor solving one specific cat on its own way.

I am not saying that your changes were right or wrong, but just saying that your decition on one specific cat may affect the way other cats in that same situation would/could be dealt.

To resume myself, I basically agreed people reverting you simply because your move may implicate further changes affecting other categories and that should definitely be discussed first within the project scope to solve out the best decition for all of them, rather than particular editors solving each particular case in its own criteriums. Your approach may end up being the most appropriate one, maybe not, maybe another is adopted like positional division, or even some third way of splitting them, we just need to build a consensus here first on how to deal with them. I think that numerous categories had this DIFFUSE problem for long time, so I think it wan´t hurt so much th project just to keep them while the discussion is not concluded and the best option agreed. Sounds well?

So, basically, Nlu thinks that geographical division would be the best approach for China; Mentoz86 liked the idea of splitting them by playing positions; I personally don´t have a formed opinion yet; do we have any other options? FkpCascais (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on anything category-related, but I don't think the player eligibility thing is much of an issue. We have Category:China international footballers for those who have played for the national team. I'm not sure 400 is a problematic number though, that's only two screens worth. Some of the categories in Category:Association football players by club have over 1,000 (and I'd be dead against any further subcategorization of those). Oldelpaso (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Any further thoughts? To be very frank (and I know I might sound snobbish in doing so), I don't think the arguments against geographical subcategorization make sense at all, and I do believe non-subcategorization renders the category useless under WP:CAT. Would there be acquiescence, at least? If not, while I am in a trial right now still, I do intend to take this to the WP:RFC level since the current state of affairs appears to be against the principles in WP:CAT. --Nlu (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This project has been strangely calm for this last couple of weeks, not sure what going on... usually it´s not like this.

I think that it is undeniable that WP:DIFFUSE favours the division of overpopulated cats but it also begins by saying that "there is no limit on the size of categories".

The thing is that there are some practical reasons why keeping things the way they are seems saffer. One is that you may be opening the Pandora box for other countries... Nationalism for exemple had been occasionally painfull to deal around here and some editors will certainly jump into separating country cats into regional ones and so. Another one is the familiarity of the context. For instance, while it is accessible and logical to add Chinese footballers for a Chinese player to everyone, I am sure that a very low percentage of non-Chinese editors are familiarised with Chinese geographical divisions in order to insert the right subcat. Personally, I am not opposed to your proposal, I am just a bit skeptical that it is practical. FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Some of the subcats of Category:Association football players by nationality are certainly huge. E.g. Category:Argentine footballers (2761 pages), Category:Brazilian footballers (4410 pages), Category:English footballers (13664 pages), Category:French footballers (3324 pages), Category:German footballers (3430 pages), Category:Italian footballers (3644 pages), Category:Japanese footballers (2694 pages), Category:Spanish footballers (2505 pages). Fitto for subcats of Category:Association football players by position: Category:Association football defenders (11067), Category:Association football forwards (10895), Category:Association football goalkeepers (5871), Category:Association football midfielders (13124)

In the spirit of WP:DIFFUSE, I suggest new subcats of Category:Association football players by nationality and position - e.g. Argentine association football midfielders. The above discussion suggests that this would feel a more natural way of diffusing the national footballer categories than by geographical subregion, since it corresponds better to the categorisations actually used by football fans. (Many fans recognise the nationality of a footballer, while ignorance of the nation's geography mean they wouldn't recognise a geographically organized subcategory. The nationality in question is also that regulated by international footballing bodies, which is in imperfect correspondence with - and membership criteria sometimes better defined than for - geographically defined subcats.) Does that sound a sensible way forward? Dsp13 (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you hit it right on the spot and in my opinion your proposal seems to ideal among the ones proposed. I would even go further and suggest that we replace 2 overpopulated categories, exemple Category:Chinese footballers and Category:Association football midfielders to only one Category:Chinese football midfielders, making the other two overopolated cats obsolete. I would definitelly say yes for this option. FkpCascais (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The usual way to do things isn't to actually delete the parent categories, but put a catdiffuse template on it. (The other question is whether new categories can be called things like Category:Chinese football midfielders or have to be called things like Category:Chinese association football midfielders. But I guess you guys have lots of experience resolving that question!) Dsp13 (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Category:Chinese association football midfielders would be the correct form of the cat (my lapsus up there), and yes, the catdiffuse was obvious, I am just wandering if one cat could be diffused in two parental cats as I sugested. FkpCascais (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

sounds good to me. In that case, looks like there would be 42 ppl in the intersection of those cats. Dsp13 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the best thing of all is that seems that we found the best way to diffuse the overpopulated cats and consistently apply it from now on whenever is needed. What about this related discussion, would it be appropriate to make that new cat where all the regional cats would be included then? FkpCascais (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

OK Dsp13 (talk) let me get this straight, you've gone on to delete the Category:Chinese footballers from as I speak 44 players even though the majority of the people here still believe that this page has relevance.

You're also created a new page Category:Chinese association football defenders, which needs further discussion such as 1) What about players who play in several positions? 2) Does a player fall into this category if they've only played a few minutes there, or only one game there? 3a) Are you gonna apply a simular page to all the other countries? 3b) If not why not?

User talk:Kai Lau 9 October

Hi Kai Lau - sorry I didn't see your comment straightaway. Most of the discussion relating to this seemed to have moved to a thread (Categorization) lower down the page. There's some discussion of your 1) and 2) there. As regards your 3) and 4) I was not going to apply a similar page to other countries and positions unless there seemed to be some consensus that this was a good idea. If you have objections please do express them, and hopefully the best way forward can be found. If the best way forward is thought to be to revert the changes I made, then I certainly won't object! Best, Dsp13 (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Historic League Tables - the best sources?

Many of us use RSSSF for our historic league tables but there are some other superb sources available:

• Austria - Austrian Football Site (Andreas Exenberger) - contains Austrian tables from 2002/03.

• Austria - Austria Soccer - historical records of Austrian first and second tiers.

• Australia - OzFootball - Australian State Leagues and more

• Denmark - Danskfodbold.com (DBU's Officielle Statistikere) - Danish tables (top 3 tiers) back to 1927/28.

• England - NonLeagueMatters Tables Index - English historical tables going back to 1945

• Germany - Deutschen Fußball-Archiv - German Football Archive with many league tables

• Portugal - ForaDeJogo - Portuguese historical league tables

• Spain - Futbolme Spanish historical league tables

• Spain - AREFE regional - regional league tables in Spain

• Sweden - Clas Glenning - Swedish final tables

I will be adding these to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links but there must be more great sources for historic league tables. Can you advise me of any more? Thanks. League Octopus (League Octopus 14:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC))

Confusingly, there's also NonLeagueMatters.net which has tables for loads of leagues all the way back to the 1880s. Number 57 14:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Does the The English National Football Archive have all the Football League and Premier League league tables? Is it free to access? League Octopus (League Octopus 14:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)).

Oo thanks for them. Maybe i'll eventually finish off List of Southport F.C. seasons now! Narom (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Apart from RSSSF and Statto, a source for many English leagues is FCHD, which has the virtue of being accepted as a reliable source. And WFDA is actively adding to its Welsh historical tables. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've previously compiled a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force (Online resources) for the Non-League Taskforce if that's any use. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Here are all the Slovenian First League season tables with all matches and 15-20 topscorers in a distance of a simple click, just choose the season: League official website. FkpCascais (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• I´ll find you more, give me a minute. Btw, I supose you know Claudio Nicoletti and his data collection. FkpCascais (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Well, this one was easy, as the Montenegrin First League was only formed in 2006, but here on Montenegrin FA official website you can find the tables of all seasons: Just click on te season at the "Arhiva" section on bottom-right. Here is the same but for the Second League. FkpCascais (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Here are the Macedonian First League tables since 2002, although in Cyrillic and with the period 1992-2002 missing, I know... but here it is anyway, it´s the Macedonian FA official website. FkpCascais (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Here are all Croatian First League tables, just click the season. FkpCascais (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Now, for Serbia, here is a website where you can find all first and second (and even some 3rd, 4th and 5th leagues) from 1920 till 2006: just pick a decade "Period" in the left column. The period 1920 till 1992 corresponds to Yugoslavia, and 1992 to 2006 to FR Yugoslavia, named Serbia and Montenegro from 2003 to 2006. Here you have the rest of the tables (2006 till nowadays) and also the previous ones with the exception of the some Vojvodina played in Second League but they were during the 1980s. An easier way to have access to all top league season tables of Yugoslavia and Serbia since 1945 till today is perhaps Partizan´s official website: just pick a season. FkpCascais (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Here you can find an all-time table of the Yugoslav First and Second leagues. Yugoslav First League tables (1923-1992) can also be found here.
• All Bosnian top league tables can be found here, just click the season on left column. Most of the second Bosnian league tables can be found here. FkpCascais (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is incredibly helpful FkpCascais. Many thanks. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

Incorrect tables - how should we address the problem?

The Internet is hardly a good source for tables, especially for lesser countries. The plethora of point systems and tiebreaker rules used worldwide means that anything that does not have some printed (newspaper or book/annual) confirmation is suspect, particularly if the table is generated from results stored in a database, then it is likely to be wrong in at least some cases. I have seen enough errors in seemingly foolproof tables that only became apparent when consulting the relevant newspapers.109.173.212.187 (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This raises a secondary issue which is of importance. However, it is questionable whether newspapers and books are anymore likely to be correct than a website. I have noticed some errors that emerge in our current WP tables - in particular those updated by Editors on a weekly basis. The three sources that I use for historic Portuguese tables sometimes conflict which can be a nightmare to sort out. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

F.C. United of Manchester season articles

I have a situation where there has been an article created for the 2012–13 F.C. United of Manchester season, I have give it an Afd but he contested the original PROD, with this response. I have also noticed that he has made season articles for every season back to 2005–06, what is the situation here. --Liamtaylor007 (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Season articles for a club playing in the 7th division .. |: TonyStarks (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Where the club receives exceptional coverage in national media for a club at that level (c.f. the current situation with a certain club playing in the fourth tier of the Scottish league system right now), it's entirely possible that such an article could meet our notability guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation

One of the important discussions has been allowed to die slowly without beinjg solves, but I think that a good proposal has been made by one user and I would like to call the attention to project participants and invite everyone to give opinions in order to see if we could solve the WP:DIFFUSE problem found in numerous footy categories that we use. This is the discussion, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Category:Chinese_footballers, it´s up there and see bottom of it for the new proposal, comments or even new ideas would really be appreciated. Thank you all. FkpCascais (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Dsp13's proposal of division by position is a good one. But it is insufficient in itself; it is still likely to end up with categories that are still overly large (albeit a little less so). Football fans may consider geographical division to be not particularly helpful, and I would beg to differ (at least for Chinese players): geographic origin is quite important in the Chinese world, and if necessary, we can do both; this is not an either-or proposition. The fact that there may be other potential diffusion issues for other nations is not a good reason to say that Chinese footballers should not be also diffused by geographic region.

While one might argue that the diffusion criteria I used created other issues, I would ask people to take a look at Category:Chinese writers and Category:Chinese artists. The genre diffusions that people had done previously is a good and necessary diffusion, but left the categories still overly populated. I made the additional diffusion categories by dynasty (i.e., historical periods) and by geography. The three types of diffusion also allows ready further diffusions in the future should the subcategories themselves get too large. I think the result is a more navigable and consistent diffusion scheme. Obviously, footballers can't be diffused by dynasties, but geographic diffusion is basically neutral, easy to do, and useful in the Chinese context. I don't believe the fact that it may be more difficult to do so in the cases of some nations should mean that it can't be done in addition to, not as an alternative to, the positional diffusion that Dsp13 proposes. --Nlu (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that adding a specific regional category would not be a problem. We already have that case for Spain, Category:Spanish footballers by autonomous community, which are used along with Category:Spanish footballers, and I think there are a couple of more of cases around.

Personally, I do understand the regional importance within China, no problem with that, I think that some editors mostly opposed the idea that the regional cat starts to be used as replacement for the country one. So can we conclude to diffuse the Category:Chinese footballers by playing position, and use the regional ones as separate? FkpCascais (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

But it's not a replacement; subcategories are part of the tree. Category:Footballers from Liaoning, for example, is a subcategory of Category:Chinese footballers, so by moving an article from the latter to the former, the article remains in the Category:Chinese footballers tree. --Nlu (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to make a new parent category Category:Chinese footballers by Administrative divisions where all the regional Chinese categories will be inserted? FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Dsp13 already did it. (Category:Chinese footballers by province.) --Nlu (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've created and diffused things to Category:Chinese association football defenders. I'll pause there in case objections show up. Dsp13 (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What about if a player plays in two positions? GiantSnowman 15:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes them both, not neither, and in that situation the player would be part of the "Fossian association football defenders" and "... midfielders" as well. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 18:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if they are a midfielder who only plays one match in defence? GiantSnowman 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Presumably if a reliable source describes the player in question as playing in the position in question, then yes. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 18:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So if Wayne Rooney went in goalk for a game due to injury, and the BBC match report said 'Goalkeeper Wayne Rooney made a clever save', then you'd include him? GiantSnowman 18:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No. There's a subtle difference, one I don't believe for a second that you've missed. If (say) BBC Sport describes a player as a defender/midfielder, then that is what we go with. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 18:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

But in my example BBC Sport has described him as a goalkeeper... GiantSnowman 18:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe we are talking in terms of positions played in on a semi-regular basis. Along the same lines, would you put goalkeeper into Rooney's infobox? The infobox info on positions is what I would go with. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 19:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Any conclusions? --Nlu (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Alexanderalgrim

Has anyone, in FOUR or FIVE years (not sure of the exact number), managed to reach out to this person? I ask this because i see his page is/was (will be?) absolutely flooded with AFD requests. No summaries, no replies to our messages, no nothing.

Attentively - --AL (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well we do know he is 100% still active on here (See: [1]) but ya this is freaky. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Many editors don't bother talking. It's only a problem if they don't listen. GiantSnowman 08:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seems to be PRECISELY the case, Snowman. --AL (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Extended statistics tables

England
Season	Club	Division	League		FA Cup		League Cup		FL Trophy		Play-Offs		Total		Discipline
			Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
2012–13	Portsmouth	League One	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total			0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

I know we discussed these type of extended statistics tables (as shown above) before & that most people were agreed that they were a bad idea. I personally find them unnecessary, oversized & distracting & I think that's reflected in it's non-use in good articles. The thing is I can't find the previous discussion in the archive if someone could point me direction of that discussion so I can better advise an IP as to why they are discouraged by WP:FOOTY I would be grateful. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The layout you've provided an example of should certainly be discouraged. That layout is found almost exclusively on articles of Leeds United players and when I've tried tidying them up the IP who added them often throws his toys out the tram. Here's another horrndous-looking table, for good measure. The closer to something like this the better, I say. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nononono. There should be a column for League, FA Cup, League Cup, and 'other' (as that is what Soccerbase uses) - and certainly no discipline/assists column. As I've said before, I think the table in use on Shane Sutherland (and many more) is best. GiantSnowman 08:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What about players who played in countries with and without league cup competitions in their career? Wouldn't the league cup column be quite empty? – Kosm1fent 08:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If stats or unknown or non-existent, then I'd suggest following the example of Nahki Wells. If they've exclusively played in a country/countries with no competition, then don't have a column at all. GiantSnowman 08:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm taking about players who have partly played for countries with a league cup and for countries with no such competition. For example Charles Itandje; is this way the right way of presenting statistics in this case? – Kosm1fent 08:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

IPs seem to think everything needs a column rather then accepting the Other column with a footnote is perfectly adequate. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)−

Kosm1fent - we should distinguish between cup competitions when we can (i.e FA/League), but continental/play-offs/other cups are fine in 'other' with a footnote, as DUCKISJAMMMY suggests. GiantSnowman 08:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should add a "Career statistics" table to the projects MoS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players, so that we have one that can be used in every article. But as I've said before, we should include the league that the player has played in that season. --Mentoz86 (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to include a 'League' column in the Sutherland-style wikitable, I can draw up a template tonight when home from work? And then agree it should be added to MOS, and exclusively used. GiantSnowman 08:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed template

Club	Season	Division	League		FA Cup		League Cup		Other		Total
			Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Wikipedia FC	2010–11	Division 1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
	2011–12	Division 1	5	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	7	7
	Total		6	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	8	1
Wiki Town AFC (loan)	2010–11	Division 3	25	15	1	0	5	3	4	2	35	20
Footia FC	2012–13	Division 2	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	1
Career total			33	16	2	1	6	3	4	2	45	22

Thoughts? GiantSnowman 12:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as it offers some flexibility regarding to columns. Also from what I can see, one-year spells at clubs shouldn't bear a "club total" row? Cheers. – Kosm1fent 12:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding columns - I don't think any more should be added, but we should certainly remove any that are irrelevant for a player's history i.e. no League Cup in the country he played in. Regarding one-year spells - I'm not bothered either way. Some have them, some don't. GiantSnowman 12:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine, but we should still have some flexibility to add a Europe/Continental column. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel that they should be included in 'Other' - after all, stats website such as Soccerbase do not differentiate. GiantSnowman 14:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

But Soccerbase do list each appearance by season, meaning I've been able to differentiate between apps on the this table, for instance. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

True, and I've done it myself here, but thinking about it is that technically OR? GiantSnowman 15:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so; as long as the content is adequately referenced I don't see any problems, in relation to what is stipulated at WP:OR. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I should say that a European column would be appropriate for players who consistently play in Europe (or Asia etc).--EchetusXe 19:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The proposed table is pretty much along the lines of the sort of tables I normally add to articles (although I don't always add the division) & as EchetusXe says a Europe Column is appropriate where the player regularly plays in European competition like Mikel's table for ex.. It would be great if we had MOS on this matter which also outlines what is not to be included like columns for all competitions, assists (which we've already established is a bad idea on may occasions) here's just one example. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't include 'Division' column either - but I know that some people do. Same with European - that can be a variable. Other than those two issues (which aren't even that), can we agree that this format should be exclusively used? Once we have consensus/MOS then it'll be easier to deal with those who use other tables, including the awful template table. GiantSnowman 11:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. – Kosm1fent 11:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. FkpCascais (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Whilst the table GS shows is pretty much the format I would use personally (maybe have an extra column for Europe/FLT), why do we need to try and be so prescriptive regarding the preferred format? If there are reliable sources showing assists, cards etc for a particular player then why not include them? Eldumpo (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As has been repeated far too many times before - such reliable sources do not exist for players who didn't have a career in the past 5 years. They barely exist for current players, and 'assists' are far too subjective. Regarding the Europe column - yes that would be an accepted variable, but FLT should stay in 'Other' in my opinion. GiantSnowman 19:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously if there are no sources then cards etc shouldn't be included, but if there are sources (appreciate this will only be for more recent players) I don't see why these should not be included. Re FLT, people will have different views, but I would not want to see MOS text saying that an FLT column (or other appropriate competition for a particular player), should be excluded. Eldumpo (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The point of MOS is that articles follow the same style - including red cards for modern players but not older ones defeats this objective. That's why we don't include cup games in infoboxes. GiantSnowman 10:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What chronological sorting are you suggesting? It is rather confused in this short sample (2010-11, followed by 2011-12, followed by 2009-10) Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Arranged chronologically, but by club. So first club first, second club second etc. GiantSnowman 20:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the case of a player playing a game in the Champions League in Europe and then playing in the Asian version of the cup, why doesn't the table just be a generic and read 'Continental' instead of Europe ect ect... if you get where i'm coming from. --Liamtaylor007 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

'Continental' works well. GiantSnowman 10:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

i dont agree with that and other users should have the opportunity to vote at that! not just 5 or 10 or even 20 decide what is suitable or not . thank you Adnan talk 13:59; 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Consultation

One user moved Fernando Mendes to Fernando Mendes (footballer). Problem is (in my view) that Fernando Manuel Mendes is also a footballer, isn't the new approach somewhat wrong and/or misleading? I also think the WHOOPS tag was much more effective than what is present in both players' article, as the other Mendes person in disambiguation is not a footballer, but that's a different (and much more debatable) issue methinks.

I try to move "Fernando Mendes (footballer)" to "Fernando Mamede Mendes", was not allowed. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance --AL (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Going by WP:COMMONNAME, Fernando Mendes (footballer) should be moved to "Fernando Mendes (footballer born 1937)" and Fernando Manuel Mendes should be moved to "Fernando Mendes (footballer born 1966)". Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Mattythewhite. GiantSnowman 08:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pages moved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dead references incoming

This was spotted by User:Rumping so credit goes to them. BT Internet are closing their customer webspace and deleting the content. Which means that all references that end with btinternet.com or btinternet.co.uk will become dead links on 31st October 2012. This project has a lot of references that are based on btinternet sites, so it may be worth getting busy with www.webcitation.org. The following are lists of all the articles that use btinternet.com and btinternet.co.uk. - X201 (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know, the main one would be the old Football Club History Database website at www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk/ . Not too much of a problem as all that needs to be done is for the .btinternet.co.uk to be replaced with .info so that the user is deirected to the up to date new version of Football Club History Database at www.fchd.info . I can't think of many other websites that use that ending. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding FCHD, has the URLs remained the same other than the change from .btinternet.co.uk to .info? If so, I will run AWB to change them all. GiantSnowman 13:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That is definitely the case for all the clubs, BT: [2], Info: [3]. It's a little bit more complicated for a few seasons. Example for the Football League it didn't work, BT: [4] Info: [5]. Whereas FA Trophy seasons do work, BT: [6], Info: [7]. The majority of ones I find are club ones and seasons that work though. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Browsing through the lists I noticed links for individual clubs and some links for Women's Football league tables and cups. - X201 (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the full list of articles making use of Football Club History Database's old url [8]. AWB could indeed be used to change these to .info, though it would be advisable to check any ones that aren't club pages to make sure the correction has worked. The Football league ones also need to have the /fl/ removed, I think. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

After a bit of work on removing season and competition pages, the only btinternet.co.uk links left in article space are club pages. Thus it would be fine to replace the ones in article space with .info. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've sorted out all the ones that linked to wolves.stats.btinternet.co.uk and directed them to wolves-stats.co.uk instead. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Are people aware that there is a reference template for the FCHD ({{fchd}})? If we use that, then we only need update the template when sites change. Number 57 11:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay so I've removed all main article space links to the fchd.btinternet.co.uk website and changed them to the newer fchd.info. With regards to the template that Number57 mentions, yes eventually it would be great if all the urls were replaced with that template. But first things first I just made sure the main article space links don't become dead links at the end of October. FCHD aside, there is still a problem with other btinternet sites that are used on football articles. I've made as good a list as I can of these offending websites that will die at the end of the month. We either need to find replacement references, or make sure that the pages are archived.

Mainspace football articles	URL	About	List
Done	http://www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk/	Football Club History Database	[9]
Done	http://www.btinternet.com/~a.drake/	Sheffield Wednesday database	[10]
18	http://www.btinternet.com/~rfc1871/	Reading F.C. database	[11]
Done	http://www.btinternet.com/~portconnection/ http://www.portconnection.btinternet.co.uk	Southport fansite	[12] [13]
Done	http://www.trevor.jones4.btinternet.co.uk/	Player stats	[14]
Done	http://www.btinternet.com/~c.beirne/	Managers	[15]
Done	http://www.btinternet.com/~dajaca/	AFC Darwen	[16]
Done	http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/	Aston Villa and Non-league	[17]
Done	http://www.btinternet.com/~croydonathleticfc/	Croydon Athletic F.C.	[18]
Done	http://www.btinternet.com/~m.d.pratesi/mp/quizball1967.html	David Ford (footballer)	[19]
Done	http://www.btinternet.com/~rob.frowen/presenters_d.html#David%20Davies	David Davies (football administrator)	[20]
Done	http://www.btinternet.com/~sutton.united/buchan.htm	George Smith (footballer born 1915)	[21]

Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Some of these websites look self-published - are they reliable? GiantSnowman 15:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess that also needs to be decided before the end of the month. Does the info they reference need to be removed from articles in that case, or just the link (leaving the article missing references)? Any that pass the RS test should probably be archived at http://archive.is/ or something like that. Once that's done, the btinternet problem will be avoided (for WikiProject Football anyway, other projects have plenty of btinternet references/links too) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

FCHD has long been established as reliable at multiple FAC/FLCs, don't know anything about any of the others............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

1985 Wales vs Scotland football match

1985 Wales vs Scotland football match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thoughts? Doesn't look to be notable to me, other than for one (tragic) event... GiantSnowman 19:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ye apart from Stein's heart attack, there is nothing notable about the match. Not sure if that alone warrants notability, probably not. NapHit (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken it to AfD - see here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a notable match even in isolation from Stein's death. This is hardly a violation of WP:ROUTINE. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Eise Aden Abshir

Hello. Please pay some attention to the article with a lot of unsourced data. -- Postoronniy-13 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Club Season - Competitions Overall

I think that this table is quite useless (e.g. 2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season#Overall) because that informations are already present in the infobox (current/final position/round) and the started round can be find in the article without any difficult by itself is a quite useless info. Stigni (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

To have such a section in the middle of the article seems pointless to me. But if you move it to the top of the article, like they've done in the article about 2011–12 Liverpool F.C. season, it is pretty useful. --Mentoz86 (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Juventus Primavera players

Category:Juventus Primavera players

Thoughts on categories for youth teams? I think it's overkill and some players on the list may never have even played for the Juventus youth team.... GiantSnowman 10:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is actually something I have thought about for a long time and basically what I think now on this is that youth team categories are overkill. Why group them together in that category when the reader can just easily read the article and find out what youth team the player is on. Also what about players that come from youth teams for clubs that are not notable. Do we make the category for them? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be quite useful. We have a problem with Bayern Munich, where people who have played for the reserve team but not the first team go into Category:FC Bayern Munich II players, while people who have only played for the youth team often go in Category:FC Bayern Munich players, which seems odd to me. A Category:FC Bayern Munich Junior Team players might solve the problem in this case., ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Will players who play for the youth team and then the senior team be placed in both categories? or is the 'youth player' cat just for those who never make the grade? Cos the Juventus creator is removing the senior team cats - this is one of many examples - I have reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 10:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC

Yes, they should definitely stay in the senior team if they made it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Falque didn't, though, as far as I can see, so presumably the editor is using the Primavera cat for those who made it no further than that level......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Agree 300% with Snowman, totally overkill. There is a similar category, Category:Real Madrid Juvenil footballers, but nothing similar created for FC Barcelona or Atlético Madrid to give some examples. Regarding Art's input, if a player has never played for FC Bayern Munich but has been part of the roster on some seasons (example Christian Saba), he should have both categories (full team and amateur team) in his article. In the second part of your reasoning, yes, i have seen it in several articles, players who only played youth football for one club have the first team's category. Odd, especially as it's not consensual (some players have it, others don't).

Attentively - --AL (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Long-held consenus is that a player should be categorised by any club he has played for, junior or senior. GiantSnowman 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• What i meant by "non-consensual" was that i see it (the category) in some articles, not in ALL. But glad to hear a project consensus has been reached. --AL (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Bradford City squad

An IP keeps on removing 2 players, and adding 1 new one, to both the squad list and squad template, citing this site - but it is my club and I cannot recall any news stories saying Steve Williams/Dean Overson left and Jack Bentley joined - but then I was away a number of times over the summer and may have missed the reports, as I did with another player (Dominic Rowe). Williams lost his squad number following a fall out with management, and Overson went out on loan, but that's it. Can anyone help at all please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 16:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Overson was at Barrow, but his loan ended about 3 weeks ago so he's definitely back at Bradford now. Don't know about the others, sorry. BigDom (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bentley is listed as a youth team goalkeeper, and may have a squad number, but if the club haven't announced it, we can't put him in on the say-so of some bloke's website ahead of the club, per WP:RS. Williams and Overson weren't given squad numbers, per this, so they won't appear at FootballSquads, which is a squad numbers site. Though if the squad list is supposed to be just first-team squad members, and sourced to the club's player profiles pages, perhaps they shouldn't be in it either, as they haven't got numbers and don't appear in the list of players with profiles? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps again

The template is clearly about the entire history of teams with the Whitecaps name. Has been for a long while, nearly the start of the template. Today I recognized that their historical stadiums were not listed and I added them. An editor who has pushed the point that MLS clubs are not a successors to any with similar names reverted and pushed his preferred view of the matter onto the article after removing my change. I see two options, creating two separate templates to accommodate this opinion or make the template reflect the history. Again, the team believes it is the successor to the NASL Whitecaps and that has been repeatedly thwarted by this and several other editors. There are more articles. Just search for 1974 in the news section for links to some of them. I would appreciate a bit of help at the template thanks. Template talk:Vancouver Whitecaps#This is about all Whitecaps teams, not simply the MLS incarnation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you're both on 3RR so quit that, and continue the talk here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

TRM, for what it's worth Walter's description of the situation is rather one-sided, to say the least, given that it obliterates the repeated objections by numerous editors to his continued efforts to format the Whitecaps articles to reflect his perspective. While I'm not crazy about repeatedly reverting, it is only fair to note that the majority of my changes at the template involves rolling it back to the pre-existing version (not my preferred variant) while asking repeatedly for discussion per WP:BRD. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. My first instinct is to stop you both going beyond 3RR because that way, as you both know, has blocks and shit associated. Secondly, BRD is ok, but only so far, it's an easy weapon to wield when you want to advance a position of your own with no justification. It's often misused. Not saying that's the case here, but BRD is a tedious stick. Thirdly, you're both experienced editors, so let's encourage all contributors to discuss the debate here. Then we can work on a solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like the issue addressed rather than the editors. My description is not one-sided. It's simply factual. The article has listed past seasons to 1974 for two years now. Is that one-sided? Also, asking for discussion is nice. Actually starting one is nicer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As described at the template talk page (since there are two parallel discussions now) the template is primarily focused on the MLS team, per the articles linked from the first lines of the template. The edit you made today presents the older stadiums - never used by the MLS squad - as part of their playing history. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The primary focus of the template is not the MLS, it is the club. There are more articles related to the current, MLS club only because there are more editors willing to work on that, but all of the club articles are linked in the template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Kayne Vincent... Japanese, Aussie, or New Zealand. The debate with Asian squad rules begins!

Currently I am updating the Prayag United S.C. squad and I saw that they signed Kayne Vincent as there fourth foreigner. Now in India, the I-League, and most Asian footy leagues there is a rule where you can only have 4 foreigners on your team but only 3 of them can be from outside of Asia. One of them MUST be from Asia. Now that is where I have a concern. Prayag have 4 foreigners. 2 Nigerians and 1 Costa Rican and one unknown. The reason I said unknown is because since they already have 3 players obviously from outside of Asia then how come the fourth player they have is from New Zealand. New Zealand is not Asia nor are they part of the Asian Football Confederation. Now I know this unknown player (Kayne Vincent) is also Japanese and may have Aussie citizenship but I am having trouble finding proof. Goal.com says that he is Australian but I rather have a back-up source just to be sure. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This piece says he has a Japanese mother - and that his dad is a Kiwi. No mention of Australia, no idea where that has come from, maybe someone getting the flags mixed up or something? GiantSnowman 15:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh god.... I forgot to mention that Vincent has played for the New Zealand U20 football team and I know that means that we would automatically put New Zealand down as the flag but based on what GiantSnowman put down should we make this a special case where we put it as Japan because of the 3+1 foreigner rule? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No, he is NZ as that is his sporting nationality. The fact he has a Japanese mother, and therefore does not count as a non-Asian foreigner, should not affect that. GiantSnowman 15:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Prince Boateng count as UE player but he played for Ghana because his mother is German. This case I think is similar, so for this rule he count as Japanese. --Stigni (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya but the AC Milan page and Serie A page counts Boateng as a Ghanaian (as seen with his flag) so what I will do is that I will give Kayne Vincent the New Zealand flag and then on the 2012-13 I-League page when I make the "Foreign Players" table I will leave a note stating why Vincent counts as an Asian player as well. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I also added a note to Prayag United's page to clarify feel free to modify it. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And thank you to GiantSnowman and Stigni for helping me solve this. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Rotherham United players

A few years ago, Rotherham UNited published a Word document which gave stats and a brief bio of all former players. A copy is saved on my computer so I can access the info, but I can't find the original URL anywhere. How would I go about citing this? GiantSnowman 13:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

http://origin-www.themillers.co.uk/page/PastPlayers/0,,10360,00.html cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a publication, you can name the publisher. It might not be easy for readers to verify without undertaking an extensive search to track down a copy of it, but it is in principle verifiable, which is all WP:V insists upon. We don't disqualify obscure, out of print specialist books as sources: this is essentially the same. Your stock should stand high enough for readers to AGF, and I suspect that the revelations of such a document are likely to be so extraordinary that anyone will challenge the claims. (Before ec: D'oh) Kevin McE (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect Struway, cheers! GiantSnowman 14:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Torquay United Programmes

Hi guys,

As a Torquay United fan and the creator of the Martin Rice and Daniel Leadbitter articles, I am wondering if it would be possible to illustrate both these articles and the biographies of Torquay's current squad with images of them on the front of the club's match-day programme.

Torquay choose one player as the "cover star" of each programme (example: http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc7/373729_272170339468913_1204166126_n.jpg) and it seems this is the best image available of most of the players; currently, Craig Easton's page is the only one of Torquay's current squad to be illustrated with a decent picture.

Although I'm far from an expert in the rules regarding image use, would it be more acceptable if I uploaded photos of the programmes (from my own collection) for each player? It seems a shame that very few players at this level have articles containing photos.

Thanks,

Drawley (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that those images wouldn't be usable on WP. They are copyrighted, and copyrighted images of living people can't be used unless there's some truly exceptional reason why a free image couldn't be obtained. As there's nothing to stop someone taking a camera to a game and photographing the players, it couldn't really be argued that the above applies, sorry about that....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Lionel Messi

Query over the career statistics section at Lionel Messi, which simply is: this is OTT, right? We've got a Career totals table, a Senior team table that lists assists (which are of course against consensus), goals per game and assists per game percentages, "Goals Against ..." tables which aggregate all of Messi's goals against Spanish and Continental opposition, tables listing his every goal at U20 and U23 level and Hat-tricks tables. Complete overkill IMO, not to mention most of it is poorly formatted and largely unsourced. I've tried removing most of this content but was immediately reverted by Ftj1357 (talk · contribs); judging by his contribution history, this seems to be a case of WP:OWN. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Direct them to consensus for tables at #Proposed template. GiantSnowman 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just look at the sources as well. Most of them are in languages I dont even know and read. Most of them (thanks to google translate) show that the reference is not a real reference for a stat it was put to. I recommend getting rid of a few section. Merge the Barcelona youth stats and Barcelona first team stats. Get rid of the total statistics as I dont think it is right to have a combine stats table for domestic and international and of course go with the Proposed template discussion. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Goals against oposition surely is non-notable. Think of that for every player. -Koppapa (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Career totals - no, Youth team - no, Senior team - merge Supercup, UEFA Super Cup & Club World Cup into 'Other', Goals Against Clubs - no, international stats need trimming down. The hat-tricks is a new one though I wouldn't be too opposed to the list.--EchetusXe 21:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

We should have that table referenced though with match-reports, specially a page like Messi's. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to EchetusXe: I'd certainly keep the content from the Youth team table, preferably merging it into the Senior team table, since it includes apps/goals in senior divisions (Tercera División and Segunda División B). Mattythewhite (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah yeah good point.--EchetusXe 23:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and removed a truck-load of content; what do people think? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better, though I'd still like to see the 'Youth team' and 'Senior' merging (as Youth Team was still senior league football, wasn't it?) and merging of the Champion's League, Super Cup etc. into a single 'Contintental' column. GiantSnowman 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

2nd Discussion

Arsenalkid700, you keep saying the sources aren't real just because you cant speak arabic? I don't think it should be a problem if you cant speak it. First sources : as example For goals against Spanish teams... there is every single season in la liga with every match (not just Barcelona matches)but they are sorted as years like la liga 2011-12 then 2010-11 and so on... and then other infos inside eachone for every match like who scored, yellow cards etc... so i really think u cant doubt something just because u cant read it. The same goes for cup matches and for Europe its all in English. And then again im 100% of all of them because i spent over two days collecting them from all over! So you cant just remove it as that because you can't read it. What I really can't get its not even showing up until u extend it! So its not even long annoying for regular users but yeah its interesting for anyone who is a soccer fan... it might be not notable for you so u dont need to extend it but for some soccer fans its because we are not talking about regular player here we are talking about a player breaking records every little while. And merging all continental or cups together aren't helpful either! I think Expedia is about facts and numbers not about merging them or what we like, so yeah the more you have of facts the better as a source . Adnan 23:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

I don't think you get where I am coming from. I don't care if they are in a different language. I use non-English sources all the time for when I edit Indian football articles and also google translate helped and can help. What my complaint was that I could not see the said stats. I forgot which stat but when I clicked on the reference and source it took me to some other website which from google translate I can't see what it is about. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ok im sorry but im really ready to go on it with u one by one to prove u they are all good & correct & sorry for all cofusing earlier also Adnan 00:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Never forget WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 07:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• 1st -I just saw u also removed assists section from career total...but assists arent extra loaded data for any soccer player especially who plays upfront its about goals + assists It'd be sensible to remove it if it was for player like pique as example (barca defender) but for player playing upfront assists is a major part from it...so I think we need to leave it at career table .because if its not important then goals also not important they are both fit in the same package ... even when they judge the player they take into account how number of goals they assisted (the ronalod and messi debate was part of that when they argued ronaldo doesnt assist his team ) , especially when u find player much less important than messi as Andrei Arshavin have it and most notable soccer player. I agree we dont need ratio as that for every season (maybe after he retires we can make it but just not yet ) but i think its really important .
• 2nd - you removed his youth and under 23 years old goals again its equal for senior team goals and no you cant merge them together because then you are putting false information since FIFA it self separates them as two different things & they dont count any international appearance for youth teams with senior teams so i agree going into too much details about it isnt correct but not mentioning it making it incomplete article .

• 3rd -about goals against clubs : he is a soccer player & the sections is about career statistics its not like going into statistics as -scored as example in min 53 , yellow carded in min 71 - its about teams who scored against them and since they dont show up until you extend it so it doesnt make the article long and ugly but it makes this section for anyone who needs data base (as commentator) a good way to get information all what he needs to or some soccer fans as me can find information they look over it usually .especially we are talking about guy breaking records every year so when he is gonna hang up his boots its gonna be all more important than now .so easier to have it collected than working on it later as that . Thank you Adnan 11.43 am 16 October 2012 (UTC)

was wondering about it earlier,I totally agree with assists and youth point & while the the goals section isnt harmful might not be super interested in it like checking it everytime but yeah it can be interested sometime. messi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basselmessi (talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC) — Basselmessi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

thats what I'm trying to explain :) Adnan talk 12:49, 16 october 2012 (UTC)

There is no universal definition of assist. Every site has its own rules about crediting them. Some include penalties won, deflections from goal post or keeper to other player who scores. It's dubious. There is a difference between full international cap and youth cap. Just because it's an article about Messi, that doesn't mean we should include every possible statistics out there. Reminds me of that guy who made a list of every goal scored by Pele. Ridiculous. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Adnan - your proposed edits are against consensus, both long-standing and recent. You also appear to have been canvassing. GiantSnowman 14:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No I didnt & im not proposing against consensus you cant make it as its your own idea (check my talk page and see what Ftj1357 said ... so im not the only one who is talking about it so SAYING im against consensus isnt true at all because its have been only 2 people talked about it ! you and now dr.vicodine so im not against consensus actually you are against consensus :) because dr.vicodine accepted its different from international senior i mean the youth and dont accuse me from something i didnt do just to end the discussion because the discussion is still wide open and neither me or you or even dr.vicodine can decide it its not your website neither mine or his ! so its not ur own idea or mine its a collective work .. so wikipedia is a collective work of resources ! so anything has resources in it as data base i dont think you can judge it upon ur own idea anyway it appears about the youth you are against the consensus not me .... Adnan talk 13:33, 16 october 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I sad there's a difference between senior and youth appearances. And the difference is that we don't list goals scored for youth categories. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the discussion above - #Proposed template - which we agree what format a stats table should come in. That is the current consensus. Oh, and you have been canvassing - you've posted on over a dozen user pages, and you're still doing it. Please don't deny it, and please don't do it anymore. GiantSnowman 14:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

so inviting other people to make a decision other than you isnt acceptable ? how would they know about this discussion if u dont invite them into it "? whats wrong with that !! and how come only 5 people with you decide what should be the table look like ! Adnan talk 14:53, 16 october 2012 (UTC)

Inviting people to a discussion should certainly be encouraged; what you should never do is try and sway them as you have been doing. There have been numerous discussions with a number of editors here about the table; as stated, consensus has been established. GiantSnowman 15:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

i wasnt doing it i was saying exactly what u were doing and isnt wikipedia for all to say what they think ?? how many editors did u discuss it with ? less than ten ?? and you never invited anyone into that discussion other than who think would accept your idea you cant make a decision with less than 1o people agreed about it Adnan talk 15:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus-building doesn't require a minimum amount of participants to a discussion – it can even be formed by two people if no-one objects. If you do, you can start a discussion to build new consensus (like you did here) and of course you are free to notify interested editors, but leave personal opinions and urges to support one's point of view out of them, or else you are canvassing. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 15:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My opinions on what's there at the moment (cut down version):

Club stats: the "youth team" appearances should be in the same table as the "senior team" apps, because they're apps made in senior leagues; in terms of columns, I'd have League, Cup, Champs Lge and Other (with footnotes saying what competition the apps refer to);

International: the international goals list must not be hidden, according to MOS:COLLAPSE, which says "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content".

and on what was removed:

Career totals upsum: available elsewhere in the article, either in infobox or other tables in the stats section;

Assists: unfortunately, although a player's assists are relevant to their career, there are no consistent sources for what constitutes an assist, so including them runs counter to the verifiability and reliable sources policies;

Goals against (...) clubs: OTT: WP:NOTSTATS says that "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader": the general reader can perfectly well understand the progression of a player's career without seeing an itemised list of how many goals he's scored against any given club: if any of it's significant, mention it in the text;

International by year: wouldn't have a problem with the under-age stats going back into that table;

Under-age goals lists: OTT;

Senior team goals/comp/year: if that's desirable, it could be incorporated in the International by year table;

Hat-tricks: totally OTT; mention the season record one in the text, if it isn't already.

In general, it must be made clear exactly which stats are covered by which sources: the reader shouldn't have to trawl through a list of references to find out exactly where any piece of statistical info comes from. And for full disclosure, I joined this discussion because I saw it developing in my watchlist, and have not been invited to comment ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Struway2. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely edit of kit

Hi,

While using WP:STiki, I came across this edit. It looks unlikely to me... but I could be wrong. The editor is new and has made a number of edits of this type. Could someone who knows about these things check out the edits? Thanks.

Yaris678 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

inthemadcrowd

The inthemadcrowd.co.uk website, a site that has profiles on every Hartlepool United player, has been blocked by Google and others as an attack site. Quite a lot of articles link to the site. Does anybody know if the site has been hijacked or if we should remove all links to it?--EchetusXe 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Google's diagnostic page, it looks pretty dodgy to me. Best keep away until it's been cleaned up. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the South Korean flag used in fb template

As I was patrolling my watch list, I noticed this edit. I noticed that both the normal and the right-hand version of the template does not include the flag: South Korea. When I checked the template, {{fb}}, it linked to Category:Country data templates which also displays the problem. Any idea what the underlying issue is and how to correct it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It all looks OK to me. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No flag appears for me. Forced a browser cache refresh. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Flag is showing for me as well. GiantSnowman 15:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Mehdi Lacen / Medhi Lacen

The original article (now at Mehdi Lacen) was created as Medhi Lacen but moved by a user to "correct the spelling of his name." However, most sources spell his name as Medhi not Mehdi. Another user, who probably tried to move the article back but couldn't since there was an article there, blanked it and cut and paste the contents of the first one. So we now have two articles with same content but different spelling. I'm not certain which spelling is correct but I'm leaning more towards to Medhi given the number of references. Would an admin please be kind enough to sort this out. For starters, at least get rid of the duplicate article (Medhi Lacen) without history, and then we can move the first article if necessary. Thanks in advance. TonyStarks (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have done a HISTMERGE; the article is now at Medhi Lacen. GiantSnowman 12:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! TonyStarks (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:2012 national football team results

Just came across Category:2012 national football team results. Is there a standard for the articles contained in this cat? Hack (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the article in this category is quite useless because they can be marge with the article 2012-13 in <county> football as I did for 2012–13 in Italian football. Stigni (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

nat fs template colours

see Template talk:National football squad start#colour. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Famous/notable players or international players?

After a run-in with a user in some clubs (Albacete Balompié, UD Las Palmas and CD Tenerife for example - he kept removing the FAMOUS PLAYERS title and replacing it with INTERNATIONAL PLAYERS), i have to say it stopped shortly after it began, did not want (another) unnecessary edit war, but now i ask the "commission":

Which is more accurate, the former or the latter? This question is pertinent because of this article which i have created, Alexis Trujillo: for Las Palmas and Real Betis he played in more than 200 (TWO-HUNDRED) league games (so he appeared in even more official ones). However, under the current titling i cannot insert him in Las Palmas, because he was not a Spanish international at any level.

Attentively - --AL (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's a good reason (and a good source) why they are 'Notable' for the club, such lists shouldn't be included at all IMO. GiantSnowman 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Choose criteria, and then add all players that meet them, whatever those criteria might be. Players should follow criteria, not the other way around. If there is a really good reason to mention an individual, then he should be important enough to merit mention in the text (eg George Best at Tobermore United F.C.). Kevin McE (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion..

I see vandalism on the United Arab Emirates Men's Soccer Team went undiscovered, which led to the Asian Football Confederation referring to the team as the Sand Monkeys, which prompted an international row and apology. I would think perhaps similar articles should have an eye on them, just in case similar vandalism occurs. [22] SirFozzie (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by what a "similar" article might be. Interestingly the edit immediately after the offending edit was reverted by a bot. Surely these sorts of words should trigger action by a bot or be flagged by the system. Hack (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It reminds me of vandalism to the article on Russell Brand that changed the name of his mother; certain british tabloid newspapers then used the fake name in their photo captions, to much hilarity and red-faces. The fault lies with those relying on Wikipedia as a reliable source - because unforunately it isn't. GiantSnowman 08:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Going through journalism school only to end up writing about the bottoms of celebrities is a real downer. Perhaps those depressed people forget to check their sources – give them a break, yes? :P – Kosm1fent 10:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And this my friend is why we source everything. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ola Alabi - notability

This player has just signed for Margate NonLeagueDaily article and I've added a reference to this effect. The article was a mess, so tidied up and removed some of the unsourced and wild claims. One of which was that he was signed on a 2 year contract with [[Gretna F.C.[[ - the reference which was at the bottom showed he played for successor club Gretna 2008. Also claims of having played in Cyprus and Malta, but I cannot find any decent references to support this. Given some of the wild, unsupported claims I have deleted, can anyone actually provide any evidence that he has played anywhere that would make him notable? Zanoni (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What's for sure is that he didn't play for Alki Larnaca in 2010–11: [23] – Kosm1fent 12:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have PRODded the article. GiantSnowman 12:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oddities

Browsing through the site, found out that Paul Abasolo's article, in Spanish, is titled "THE PAUL ABASOLO SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE" after the page was moved (see here http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caso_de_abuso_sexual_de_Pa%C3%BAl_Abasolo). Don't know if we can do anything here considering it's another wiki, but i just thought i'd drop a line to see if there are any similar cases in "our" wiki.

I mean it's utterly and totally wrong that approach, it's like having an article here titled "THE ANTICS OF JOEY BARTON" instead of the real thing. To have a separate article with mention to the sportsperson it's debatable, to ERASE the article on the sportsperson and replace it with another on stuff they did off the pitch is a "no-brainer" (as in it "should NOT BE DONE").

Attentively - --AL (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We can't dictate the contents of another language Wiki, I'm afraid. Until it affects us at en.wiki, there's nothing we can do - though you could always post at es.wiki to see if it violates their BLP policy. GiantSnowman 15:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think it violates any policies man, since it's factual and referenced. I just feel it's a very poor choice of titling an article, it should be as we have it in this wiki, Paul Abasolo, with the due sections FOOTBALL CAREER and CONVICTION (or another title of our choice for the #2) --AL (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Article titles can still violate WP:BLP. GiantSnowman 15:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)