Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:03, 21 February 2013

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168: 7 days

Football Project‑class

	Association football portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168: 7 days

Bayern Munich vs. Real Madrid - needs some work

Someone with some knowledge of the subject might like to have a look at improving Bayern Munich vs. Real Madrid. There seems to be a reasonable degree of coverage of the rivalry in reliable sources so there is some scope for improvement. Hack (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually a notable rivalry though? Giant Snowman 09:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. -Koppapa (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is! These two teams have had plenty of memorable encounters .. and bad blood over the years. For starters, see here and here. With that said, the article needs plenty of work .. if not a complete re-write. TonyStarks (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently unreferenced though. Has bad spelling ("laliga", "german"). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not a proper rivalry. Sure, the clubs have had heated matches over the years, but if you asked any fan of either club who their rivals were, I very much doubt that Bayern fans would name Real Madrid or vice versa. – Pee Jay 15:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Mak DOB

There is a slight ongoing issue here, is anyone able to please find a definitive source for the DOB, 1945 or 1948? Comments at the article talk page appreciated. Giant Snowman 11:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lampiões/Lampioes

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Two redirects recently nominated for speedy deletion as "vandalism" by a fan of S.L. Benfica. It's hard to say, Portuguese media sometimes call fans of S.L. Benfica "lampiões" [1], [2]. What do you think about it? Is it an offensive term or rather a harmless nickname? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Portuguese media sometimes call fans of S.L. Benfica "lampiões"" No they don't. The article you shown was to describe the rivalry between Benfica and Sporting fans. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a harmless nickname and that's why media doesn't use it. That Google search is showing that word because it was written by Benfica haters. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, see more specific links in my comment bellow. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need those links to understand this. I'm a Benfica fan and I'm offended by those words. If you think they are not offensive then I suggest adding also offensive redirections for their rivals. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does it actually mean? Giant Snowman 12:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lanterns (or red lanterns) I think. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it's not pejorative is it? Same as calling Arsenal fans Gooners etc. Giant Snowman 12:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is pejorative. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the issue, but as i see there is a disagreement, the article has been un-speedied until consensus is reached. It is now under PROD, and could be taken to AfD if required. The original delete requester should make his case here. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We probably need some Portuguese editors to help out with this one to determine if the term has any negative connotations. TonyStarks (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - it should be taken to WP:RFD if anywhere, surely? Giant Snowman 13:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, definitely. TonyStarks (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. "Lampião" or "lampiões" (plural) is an offensive term used by Benfica rivals use to describe Benfica supporters. The media do not use that word to describe Benfica fans, instead they only use these: "benfiquistas (supporters), águias (eagles), encarnados (reds). BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this (Expresso): The image caption says: "Lagartos e lampiões, eternos rivais". (Lagartos is a nickname of Benfica's rival, Sporting Lisbon.) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or this (Placar): "Os sportinguistas são chamados de lagartos, e os benfiquistas são os lampiões." (Which is, roughly translated: "The Sporting fans are called lizards, and Benfica fans are the lanterns.") --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean the nickname is harmless. For example, FC Porto fans are known as "corruptos" (corrupts) and "batoteiros" (cheaters) in Portugal and yet those words don't redirect to their page and they aren't used by the media. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those Porto terms aren't used by the media? Probably why we don't have articles on them. But as Vejvančický has indicated, the "lampiões" term is used by the media. Giant Snowman 13:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel I am being trolled. Corruptos or batoteiros are not used by the media simply because they are afraid of the consequences, as they are offensive. The article presented by Vejvančický is about the Derby between Benfica and Sporting and they used the offensive nicknames lagartos and lampiões to describe the rivalry, not to describe the supporters. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this RfD may be relevant. The redirect was kept, despite containing an offensive word and negative connotations, because it was ruled to be a useful and likely search term. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But how is 'lanterns' an offensive term? Giant Snowman 13:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter whether it is or not. It might well be, to someone who understands the connotations of the word. I couldn't comment on that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is! I gave you examples below and you still do not understand it. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is match involving Benfica the press doesn't write "lampiões are going to play" they write "encarnados/the reds/Benfiquistas are going to play", the same applies for Sporting and all the other teams. Why do you think "lampiões" and "lagartos" are not used in any article related to the clubs? Because they are offensive = they offend people. So why is "lampiões" redirecting to Benfica? May I add "franquistas" as a redirection to Real Madrid page? May I add "corruptos" to FC Porto? May I add "lagartos" to Sporting CP? BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't explained why. There is no consensus here for deletion, please take to WP:RFD. Giant Snowman 14:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate the text in Portuguese in the edition nº 30669270 and you will understand why the (originaly) offensive article was created and why it became a redirection. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translate what, sorry? Giant Snowman 14:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot the article was already written in a bad english. Please check this edit: Lampiões&oldid=30669270 (sorry I don't know how to link it). BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link, it is the initial revision of the redirect Lampiões. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has no bearing on the current state of the article (i.e. as a redirect). Giant Snowman 14:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that the initial text was trollish, innacurate and offensive. But the user Quarl thought the article was not vandalism and created a redirection. Just because that page exists since 9 December 2005 it doesn't mean it's ok. I only found that page "by accident" when checking redirection links to S.L. Benfica. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, previous states of any and every article does not matter in the slightest. Giant Snowman 14:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does... If the offensive article wasn't created there would be no redirect. Without redirect I wouldn't be here wasting my time trying to explain why it's offensive. This is frustrating but I will keep trying until someone understands it. «Lampiões [incorrect, the correct name is Benfiquistas] is a nickname to Sport Lisboa e Benfica fans. They say they are almost [wrong, we say or used to say Benfiquistas were 6 million, not almost] 6 million of Portuguese natives [in Portugal] are Lampiões (Benfiquistas] (this number probably is a little high [wrong] but probably not far from the truth [correct], specially due to Benfica's victories in the 60's in Europe and to being the team with most Portuguese Titles) [incorrect, in 2005 Benfica was the club with most titles overall, not only Portuguese). Every football fan likes to emphatize their club's victories, players,...multiplying that by 100 [trolling] and you have the grade of fanatism [trolling] Lampiões [Benfiquistas] have. It's almost impossible to have an argue about football with the majority of Lampiões because of this fact [trolling]. Their idols are Eusebio [correct] (the dark panther) [wrong and racist, it's The Black Panther], Chalana, Valdo, Rui Costa, Miklos Fehér [wrong, he's remembered because he died while playing for Benfica] and the spanish coach Camacho [wrong, Camacho was not successful in Benfica].» Do you want more explanations? BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Okay, but it has nothing to do with the current state of the article. BenficaNNossaPaixao, we don't want to insult your club. Your username and edits suggest you are a fan of the club, therefore there's a possibility that you might be biased and attempt to remove facts you dislike. Of course, you may be right, but it should be properly discussed. Why do you think the redirect is offensive? What's wrong with lamps/lanterns? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: everyone is biased. Yes I'm a little biased, yes. If I wanted to hide things I wouldn't be using Benfica in my username which means "Benfica Our Passion". BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, an article by Correio da Manhã says that the officials of Sporting were insulted by replacing of their traditional symbol (lion) by lizards on their logo (Lagartos=Lizards). I believe there is some tension in those seemingly innocent terms. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that incident happened recently. And of course Sporting fans were not happy with the insult. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of idle curiosity, why is calling Benfica fans "lanterns" considered offensive? I can't see the obvious connection myself, I'm just genuinely interested to know what it's all about........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are not (red) lanterns and also because of the simple fact that the rivals use it to offend us. You guys have to understand that Benfica is one of biggest clubs in the world (and of course the biggest in Portugal) in terms of fans (at least they were 14 million in the past around the world) and the biggest in terms of sócios aka paying supporters (currenly around 250,000), not only because of the victories but also because of its social dimension and that leads to a lot of hatred, historically from Sporting and more recently from FC Porto. Benfica is the most hated club in Portugal also because Pinto da Costa which joined FC Porto in 1982 started to fabricate lies to put almost every club against Benfica. And guess what.. after 30 years (31 in April) of hatred and corruption scandals it worked.. and it will continue to work until Portuguese Justice system does not work. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BenficaNNossaPaixao, this is a neutral encyclopedic project, not Benfica's fansite. We describe all notable and verifiable facts and subjects, not just those we like or agree with. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. Those links you provided are not "notable and verifiable facts". They just describe the rivalry between Benfica and Sporting. They are not used regulary by the press because they are offensive! Don't you get this? If you do and think it's ok then I will be fair and I will add pejorative redirection pages to Sporting, FC Porto and any other club. I will do it for the equality. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is calling offensive names being neutral? Do you have anything against my club? If not why are you keeping the redirection page? BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benfica (Lampiões), Sporting (Lagartos) and Porto (Tripeiros) are provocative names given by the fans of each club one to anothers. The point may be that beside a possible mention of it at each club article, there should be no other point of using those names in any encyclopedic articles basically. FkpCascais (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree except for "tripeiros" which is a pejorative term to describe people from Porto (city) and that's why I always write "FC Porto" (club) which leads to Always Learning reverting my edits. :) BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i have to agree with BENFICNNOSSAPAIXAO, i am also Portuguese even though not a Benfica fan (i have no club), that name "Lampiões" is utterly and tottaly offensive and constitutes vandalism here (there is a disgusting saying in Portugal uttered by some football gangs which reads "Em cada lampião há um cabrão", meaning "A motherfucker in every lampião", does not rime in English, not quite neutral is it?

You didn't lose the chance to insult Benfica indirectly. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Mr.BNNP is one of those users that stopped interacting with me JUST BECAUSE, i have to support him in his query here, please delete this redirect, a good nickname for Benfica would be the Reds or the Eagles, not Lampiões. --AL (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the words. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone agrees with me. It seems only Portuguese people understand the hatred and name calling in Portuguese football... BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk)

Thanks AL and FkpCascais for your constructive comments. You seem to be neutral and familiar with the Portuguese football. I have no objections against deletion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those names are indeed widely used ammong people, in pubs, etc. but allways in a provocative/prejorative way. The actual nicknames for the supporters are Águias (Benfica), Leões (Sporting) and Dragões (Porto), and these other ones are their popular provocative version, but never, or extremelly rarely, used officially or in the media. Best regards Vejvančický FkpCascais (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's natural for Portuguese people to have wider knowledge of Portuguese football, but you completely failed to describe why these terms were offensive, so thanks to FKP for doing so. As stated before, multiple times - if you believe the redirects do not have merit then please take to WP:RFD. Giant Snowman 16:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fail to describe why but failed to convince you that I was telling you the truth, for 2 reasons: my english and my nickname. Regards. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for wasting the time of everyone. I was in doubt because BenficaNNossaPaixao's explanations weren't persuasive. It's always better to get more eyes on this sort of thing. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lampioes (without ~) should also be deleted. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now at RFD - Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 14#Lampioes. Giant Snowman 17:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "lampião" is somehow derogatory but hardly all out offensive. It is not correct that F.C.Porto fans are nicknamed "curruptos" (currupt) nor "batoteiros" (cheaters). Yes, F.C.Porto - as a club - is accused by many Benfica fans of being corrupt and cheaters. But so is Benfica by Porto's fans... It is not a nickname. (I am portuguese, a Benfica fan, and highly suspicious of the neutrality of anyone signing with a "NN" - though I have seen quite a few OK edits from him) - Nabla (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nabla, the term in not offensive, in the early days of Benfica, lantern's in the street glowed in red, so red→benfica→lampiões. Although not offensive, it's never been use by the press recently, it's use by rival fans. I would prefer to make it neutral to redirect "tripeiros" to FC Porto and "lagartos" to Sporting. Actually some media have called Sporting, lagartos, but as a deliberate mistake. If Benfica it's the only one, then it's not right and it should be deleted.--Threeohsix (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If it's not deleted I will create "neutral" nickname redirections for every club I know. And BTW Tripeiro already redirects to the city of Porto, which is correct. FC Porto are called Andrades, Corruptos or Batoteiros. I will add them if Lampiões is not deleted. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not threaten to disrupt Wikipedia if you do not get your own way, that is one sure way to get yourself blocked from editing. Giant Snowman 13:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a threat, it's a logical thing to do. You are the one threating me with a ban only because my arguments go against yours. If I create the redirection Lagartos for Sporting and Andrades for FC Porto I'm only following your logic: nicknames used by fans to offend each other are neutral. Do you know what equality means? BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's very much a threat. You have a clear pro-Benfica agenda here and you need to stop it. I have not threatened to ban you, I've said I will block you if you disrupt Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the merits of the 'Lampiões' redirect, hence why I have no expressed an opinion on it at the RFD. Giant Snowman 13:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here has become unproductive. Further comments should be made at the relevant RfD. C 679 14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Meredith stats

I'm trying to take the article to GA status. Can anyone find a reference for the stats table?--Echetus Xe 18:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Total stats can be sourced to page 182 of "Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939" by Michael Joyce. Year-by-year stats can be sourced to StretfordEnd.co.uk and MCFCstats.co.uk. – Pee Jay 02:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cheers.--Echetus Xe 11:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, neither of those sites are visible on a I-pad. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had some trouble with the City site, and its not too useful anyway. So yeah, I'm assuming the book mentioned verifies completely the stats table as it is, but still any other Man City or North Vics stats would be handy, just to be safe.--Echetus Xe 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Utd stats are also available here. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thats a good source.--Echetus Xe 19:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Joyce book only lists his total appearances (league only) for each club, not season-by-season -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MCFCstats.co.uk is no longer updated and may go offline at any time, as sadly the guy who ran it has passed away. Use [3] instead. The stats there are provided by the author of statistical tome Manchester City The Complete Record, and thus meet RS. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May go offline you say? Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 13:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The site has a flash based interface that makes it impossible to use WebCite etc. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noone

Can anyone provide WP:RS for the pronunciation of Craig Noone? I had a look and found this but it's not RS. Think it would be good to have it at the appropriate page. Thanks, C 679 17:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that unusual a name: why is there any doubt or querying of it? As in midday, lest there be any uncertainty. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason why anyone would think it was pronounced anything other than "noon".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the similarity with the common phrase "no one", which has a markedly different pronunciation. C 679 18:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely "noon". A really nice lad and talented player. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject proposal

I've posted a grant proposal at meta titled "Backlog pages for all WikiProjects". Summary: The Category:Wikipedia backlog page quantifies cleanup templates for English Wikipedia, but WikiProjects don't have similar pages to know what needs improvement. Because this is such a successful WikiProject, I'd appreciate any input over there on the idea of it. Please comment there if you think it will be a help to WikiProjects, generally speaking. It may or may not be funded, but even if it is not funded, perhaps the idea will flourish and benefit all WikiProjects thanks in part to your input (see part 3 towards the bottom of the page). Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Evrard Kouassi

Can admin restore his article, he has made debut yesterday in fully professional league [4]. Thanks. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please update & improve. Thanks, Giant Snowman 11:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Armin Hodžić article

Can an admin restore this article? He's played in the Bosnian Premier League. [5] TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bosnian Premier League is not fully-pro according to WP:FPL meaning playing in it does not automatically grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:FPL may be wrong in this case. Article 71 of this [6] seems to suggest that the top two divisions in Bosnia can contract professional players. Google translation I think the only way this can be settled is by contacting the league as I could not find a source that flat out say the league is professional. TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise some of the entries at WP:FPL are sourced to league regulations etc, but it may not be the best approach to just ask leagues directly. They may not be neutral in their response? Eldumpo (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Straw - Amendment to WP:NFOOTY

As you can tell from the title, I have finally lost it really. Currently I am trying to redo most Indian football player pages but it pains me when I see pages like Sudhakaran Kumar where nothing is on the article. Now I have had this discussion on here just last week and I already did two AfDs. One which was successful in getting rid of one of these types of pages while the other one is looking like it will fail and all because the player passes WP:NFOOTY.

Now first of all, lets get this straight, this is India, not England or the United States. I dont have pages beyond pages of information about specific players who made there debuts before 2010. In India, the football media and football websites did not release player profiles or even stats till 2010 when India qualified for the AFC Asian Cup. Before that there was nothing except for national team stats or results in the league. That is why I ask for pages like Soccor Velho or Sudhakaran Kumar to be deleted because there is nothing available about them. They obviously fail GNG and honestly, think about it, why would I be coming here to ask for them to be deleted if I could just expand on them with simple google searches. The answer is that I cant. Nothing is available specifically about them accept for some match-reports. If you want, you can go do it yourself.

And to me, this is the problem. I understand the reasons for why we allow players who pass NFOOTY but not GNG is because the player in question is probably young and is guaranteed to have more sources eventually but these guys are far from it now. Velho is 29 while Kumar is 24. They have passed that mark and yet they still have super-stubs which even I cant expand on. And its not just these players. There are many within the Indian football scope and other Asian football scopes but I can do nothing about it because of NFOOTY.

Again, what I am asking for is less leniency when dealing with these pages. Last week I had user create a bunch of stubs for players I decided to skip when going over squads in the Indian football league. There is a reason for why I skipped them. If I cant make a meaningful article then why create one? I am just asking for users on this WikiProject to take this into consideration because right now I am ready to do a "cleansing" of all these stubs in the Indian football pages. I just need the okay. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with offline sources? C 679 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do use offline sources like newspapers that cant be found online for example but, I have tried to look for information on both these players mentioned above using sources offline and I cant find them and nor can people I ask. Again, why I ask. I cant find anything online or offline. If I could I would use it to my advantage. Its not hard to add if I have it or someone else does but so far no one does.--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see what you're saying but the AfD will take care of this issue, we both know it's unlikely NFOOTY will change to reject players where multiple reliable sources are "not available" as even an exhaustive search of the internet where nothing is found does not rule out offline coverage. Do you have any books about Indian football? You may know I propose articles for deletion, usually when no references exist or when I feel the topic is not notable; in the case of "notable" players in the Indian professional league, it seems strange you would try to have them deleted. Ultimately if consensus is to keep, my advice to you would be to ignore these stubs and try to get alternative articles up to higher status; there is only one article in the Indian football taskforce that is above C-class, for example. It will help your motivation, for sure. Thanks, C 679 16:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do. My rule is for whenever I see an Indian player that has no page is this: If the player is over the age of 23 years old, has played a game in the I-League, yet has no information or stats then I will not create the page. I will ignore that player. The only exception is if the player does something extraordinary (one of the top scorers in the I-League or selected for the national team) or if information can be found. Thats basically it. As for me and wanting them to be deleted. Well, as you know, I have been doing this for over 2 years and it has not bothered me till 2 weeks ago. Before I just ignored them and let them be. Then all of a sudden I see a bunch of stub articles being created and not only stubs but untruthful stubs. Some of the new stubs said that the player joined in 2012 when really it was either unknown or before that; or the user would place this seasons stats in the infobox for a player who has been at his club for years. That just got me livid for some reason (not to an extreme extent) and honestly I just did not want to see them. Why create random stubs? That is why I am asking to delete them. That morning I woke up to a flood of stubs was ridiculous. And I dont mind if it is a stub for a younger player because those are easy to expand upon but for guys who are older it just takes a lot of work and most times comes up with nothing. In Velho's case (AfD) Struway was able to find sources and now I will drop the AfD that is just one of many pages that should be on AfD. Go to the Sporting Clube de Goa squad section. So many stubs there. Thats really my problem. An overgrowth of stubs.

As for the 1 article above C-Class (Sunil Chhetri if I recall). That is the point of my many projects and the many revamps of all 14 I-League clubs pages. Right now I am also rewriting the whole India national football team page with much, much more detail than the current version. I have just been slow really. Plus the expectation in terms of players is that the players under the age of 23 should be "B" class in a few years after they get a few seasons under their belt. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FA Cup Finals

I have been writing up the season by season articles for Southampton F.C. starting from the very beginning. In 1900 and 1902 the Saints reached the FA Cup Final. The articles on these two finals were very poor and I will bring them up to scratch at some point. Although I have plenty of information from the Southampton point of view, the Cup Final articles should be more neutral. Can anyone point me to an online resource with details of the early FA Cup Finals? www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk used to have match reports for each final but these are no longer accessible other than those up to 1879. The Sporting Chronicle has the line-ups but little else; e.g. 1900. I would have hoped that the Football Association website might have something but, if it does, it's well hidden.

On specifics, most of the articles give a kick-off time of 3.00 pm. My Southampton books include a picture of a flyer advertising tickets for the train from London Bridge station to Crystal Palace which show the match kicking off at 3.30 pm. Are we sure of the other kick-off times; if not, they should be left blank rather than be wrong. (Incidentally, the flyer says that the last train from London Bridge was at 3.00 pm - as the journey time today is between 25 and 30 minutes, that's cutting it rather fine. Not a lot of time for a pre-match drink!)

Any help/pointers would be greatly appreciated. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly add some more information from the Sheffield United perspective for 1902. I've been trying to update their entire history but as I started at the beginning I've only got as far as 1893 at the moment!! Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Wayback Machine has archived the pages for the 1900 and 1902 finals, though they don't add much compared to the first final, for instance. Anyone with a library card should be able to access online databases. I found a great article in The Standard under Football Notes about the 1900 final that details the build-up, the match itself and post-match. It was played under favourable conditions, "a summer-like temperature". Bury won the toss and set Southampton "to face a strong sun". Lord James of Hereford (I presume it's him), president of Bury F.C., presented the medals and handed the cup to Bury captain Jack Pray.

Regarding kick-off time, the article begins with: "Southampton's apologists have been very busy since four o'clock on Saturday afternoon. Account for it how one may, Southampton were a beaten team from the very start of the great match at the Crystal Palace." That suggests it started at 4.00 pm but Southampton were 3–0 behind after 23 minutes so it could easily be 3.30 pm. There is a lot of text but it doesn't appear to state exactly when the match kicked-off. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the Evening Standard article? Thanks. --- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for it here using the words "cup final southampton bury". If you can login it'll be there. I found a way to link to articles on NewsBank without the need to login but I can't see a way to do it on Infotrac. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It always worth checking what news archives you can access (from home) via your local library's website. In most counties that's the Times and Guardian/Observer at a minimum. Though most of the time you need to hit the microfilm machines to be able to do a thorough job. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for their help. West Sussex libraries only have the Times archives available which has a great report on the two finals, although I can't find a reference to the kick-off time. Does anyone know if their is a shortcut to citing the Times Online. I can't really use the URL that has been generated by the various searches. Thanks again. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On browsing further, I have now found brief articles that confirm both the 1902 matches kicked off at 3.30 but nothing yet for 1900. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that important. Just remove it then. -Koppapa (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hinko72

The above user seems intent on making disruptive edits to BLPs - specifically Ben Starosta for whom he is trying to invent a more accomplished career history. Based on comments he's left on my talk page he is obviously either the player's agent or acting on behalf of his current club, which is obviously non-neutral before we even get to his attempts to manipulate career stats. I notice Giant Snowman has already left him a warning about his edits on another players article so I assume he'll be widening his activities. Please keep an eye on him. Cheers. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a new user profile, claiming to be the player himself that has amended the article once again - I'm pretty certain it's the same guy. For clarity he's removing some of the less successful parts of the player's career (all sourced) amending stats to try and show he played in the Premier League for Sheffield United and has added in a completely unsourced (and erroneous) international appearance for Poland. Some help would be appreciated. Thanks Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and warned the new user, article added to my watchlist. I'd advise to to take it to WP:SPI if you believe they are the same. Giant Snowman 13:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - based on the language he used on my talk page I'm pretty certain it's the same person. He claims to have no knowledge of any of the stuff he's removed - which is interesting as he's claiming never to have been signed by Darlington when you can actually see him in the picture here [7]. :) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For balance, you could always add in Mr Starosta's appearance in the Conference North for Alfreton :-) [8][9] cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even find that when I updated the article originally - I've added it in now. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International stats table

I am starting to see these tables popup on player articles, I don't mind the domestic table, but for some reason the international table seems wrong. William Gallas#International for example, it's just three colomns, year, apps, goals. There is already a goals table above and the international section should cover the information in simple text. It's overkill on statistics, it's just repeated information in tabular format. Can we come to some consensus and remove these tables? Govvy (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion in January 2013 didn't result in any consensus either way; personally I agree that they are overkill and not needed. If they are, then we need agreed guidelines on format & layout, like we (kinda) have with club stats. Giant Snowman 15:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: User:ArsenalFan700/sandbox. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anything I'd say the table listing every international goal with opponent, etc, should go, I've never understood why we have those....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalFan - what WP:RS differentiate between tournaments / friendlies / others? NFT, probably the premier source for int'l stats, simply shows number of appearances in a calendar year.

Chris - agree 100%.

Giant Snowman 15:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% on the tables listing individual appearances and goals, but I'd say it's only logical to include a table listing year-by-year apps and goals, in the way we do for club career stats. This also allows us to explicitly cite a player's international stats, which is more appropriate than the oft used method of just sticking in another external link. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see a very basic table listing 'Year', 'Apps' & 'Goals' (a la NFT). I think that's all we need, and we certainly don't need a breakdown of every single app/goal. See this as an example. Giant Snowman 16:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me; here's an example of one I've used in an article. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought ArsenalFan table looked better, that one on Andre Boucaud looked a bit odd to me, I was wondering if it would be a better use of space to have a horizontal table instead of verticle, it's the added space these thinks make in an article that get me! Govvy (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reigning world champions at continental championships and vice versa

The article "National team appearances in the UEFA European Football Championship" has tables showing the performances of host nations and of defending champions, but then would we also like a table displaying the results of reigning world champions?

Year	Reigning world champion	Result
1960	non-UEFA team (Brazil)	-
1964	non-UEFA team (Brazil)	-
1968	England	third place
1972	non-UEFA team (Brazil)	-
1976	West Germany	runner-up
1980	non-UEFA team (Argentina)	-
1984	Italy	did not qualify
1988	non-UEFA team (Argentina)	-
1992	Germany	runner-up
1996	non-UEFA team (Brazil)	-
2000	France	champion
2004	non-UEFA team (Brazil)	-
2008	Italy	quarter-finalist
2012	Spain	champion

Also, the "National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup" article has the same two tables as the above article already has, but what about a demonstration of the performances of all reigning continental champions at every World Cup? This would produce an enormous table, whose last three rows would currently look like that:

Year	AFC		CAF		CONCACAF		CONMEBOL		OFC		UEFA
Year	Reigning continental champion	Result	Reigning continental champion	Result	Reigning continental champion	Result	Reigning continental champion	Result	Reigning continental champion	Result	Reigning continental champion	Result
2006	Japan	GS	Egypt	DNQ	United States	GS	Brazil	QF	Australia	R16	Greece	DNQ
2010	Iraq	DNQ	Egypt	DNQ	Mexico	R16	Brazil	QF	New Zealand	GS	Spain	1st
2014	Japan	TBD	Nigeria	TBD	TBD	TBD	Uruguay	TBD	Tahiti	DNQ	Spain	TBD

Let me hear your thoughts. --Theurgist (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think those are needed. Those are different tournament. -Koppapa (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see a particular need or advantage in them. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grantham Town FC logo

Afternoon all. Two weeks ago, I received an email through Wikipedia from someone (I shall preserve their anonymity for now) stating that the logo currently located at Grantham Town F.C. is "not correct". The sender stated that he has a "web ready copy" of the actual logo, that he can email. I've never been in this situation, and have no idea how to proceed. Please advise. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 13:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the colours are quite different from the logo on the club website. As I see it, if you receive a copy via email and upload it with the appropriate fair use rationale, there should be no problem. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yugoslavia U21 Squad 1984

Further input would be appreciated - regardless of the outcome it is going to effect a number of existing & future articles. Discussion is here. Giant Snowman 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira

Hello,

I recently made the 2005 Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira article which was a match between Benfica and Vitória de Setúbal in August 2005.

Is it possible to create the kits for both sides. In this message section I have added links for you, to help you create the kits.

Benfica's Kit

Vitória de Setúbal's Kit

[13]
[14]

User talk:Alexgreene87, 21 February 2013, 15:37 UTC

already good enough for me. -Koppapa (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already suggested at your talk page you use the home kit from the infobox at this version of SL Benfica, which is a slight improvement on the plain red. All you have to do is copy the corresponding parameters from there to the Benfica kit in the 2005 Supertaça page, i.e. copy the contents of |pattern_la1= in that version of the Benfica infobox to |pattern_la= in the Benfica kit template at the 2005 Supertaça page, and so on for the other parameters. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Taylor

Over the past three weeks or so, a succession of different IP users have kept removing the same passage from Jake Taylor's page. Although they are different IP's I am assuming they are the same person as each address has only been used to edit this specific passage. They seem to take exception to a sentence saying that he recently struggled to break in to the first XI during a recent loan spell and despite it being referenced, have kept removing it. I have reverted each time and also left a couple of messages on their talk pages but have had no response. I have also tried altering the wording a bit but it was still deleted.

The passage was removed today again without explanation for about the sixth time. I have reverted it again and left another message but I don't expect a response. What are you supposed to do in a situation like this? Cheers T 88 R (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Stop this Circus please !!

There is a page related to all kind of records in Spanish football , this IP 83.63.128.68 , 49.244.173.62 keeps removing records he doesn't agree with, these records are sourced but his reason to refuse the source because its the official websites for the related club !! so its just a cherry records for him ! even though if you check the existing records there are many records as it in other football records pages but he keeps removing them.

the records he keeps removing :

-Only Spanish team to score in all away games in a La Liga season , he keeps deleting this record even he is the one who added Most games with three or more goals in a season?? so which one seems more picky trivia ?? it's a season long record and no other team in the history of la liga did it..so why remove it ?

-Only team in Spanish League to have won all away games in the first half of the season : It's a winning record for a set games of la liga !

-Most consecutive away wins in one season : he thinks only ongoing records should be added so thats why he keeps removing that

-Most consecutive games scoring: he keeps removing it saying other teams are holding the record...even the source is clear about who holds the record and he couldn't provide a source stating otherwise but still he keeps removing it

finally he keeps talking about biased records?? he keeps putting Ronaldo records which is :

fastest player to score 100 goals by number of seasons !?! there is one for number of games as all other records ...but since his FAVE team boy didn't get the record he searched to added them by number of seasons...it's for sure a trivia because there is no other records in whole wikipedia like that ! all just put number of games ! which is clearly he doesn't have .

thank you all.