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.

Pre-FA review request

I am thinking of taking 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots to FA status and I would like to ask the project for some feedback on how to improve it to meet FA standards. I am asking because Peer Review didn't bear any fruit on it, I thought I would ask here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please have a check of this and give some feedback? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Premier League country/countries

Various editors have been adding Wales to the infobox in the Premier League article as one of the league's countries. Although the league comprises two Welsh teams, I do not believe that Wales should be listed as one of the league's countries as it is administrated entirely from England and is part of the English football league system, not the Welsh. Opinions? – PeeJay 22:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

League of Ireland Premier Division, Swiss Challenge League and Ligue 2 are all marked as bi-national, as were Conference National, Conference North and Scottish Football League Third Division before intervention of PJ yesterday shortly before the post above. Current implicit consensus seems to be with indicating nationality by that of teams participating, not by administration. Frankly, participation is what is of interest to most people: the text can clarify technical issues about organisational matters. Kevin McE (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize that it's a minor league, but Major League Soccer has indicated both United States and Canada despite being sanctioned only by USSF. Unless we change the infobox to indicate sanctioning authority, it does make sense to include the nations of the clubs or teams playing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Question - which federation gets points for the UEFA coefficient if a Welsh team qualifies for Europe? The FA or the FAW? Maybe that would be helpful in deciding. Madcynic (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

England. To my knowledge Cardiff and Swansea would not even be permitted to participate in that event, from the discussion about Cardiff's League Cup final appearance last season. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In MLS, the three Canadian teams cannot advance to the CONCACAF Champions League if they win the league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

But this isn't a matter of which country's teams play in the division, it's about which country's league structure the division forms part of. The Welsh league system does not feed into the Premier League in any way, and if Cardiff and Swansea are progressively relegated, there is no way they could end up in the Welsh system unless they resigned from the English leagues and rejoined the Welsh. The same applies to all of the Welsh teams in the English leagues (Newport, Wrexham, Merthyr and Colwyn Bay), Berwick in the Scottish league, Derry City in the League of Ireland, Vaduz in the Swiss league and AS Monaco in the French league. They are not binational leagues, they are merely leagues that happen to contain one or more teams from another country. – PeeJay 21:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The field is entitled Countries: not organising FA, not co-efficient contribution. It invites one relevant question: what country/countries do the teams come from? In terms of participation, they are indeed binational. Is it true to say that the only country with participants in the Premier League or next season's League 2 is England? No, it is not. There is no reason for the casual reader of the infobox to assume that the field is restricted to organisational identity. Simple truth over bureaucratic technicalities. Kevin McE (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am tempted to support PJ´s approach, not only because of the logic of his arguments, but also because when one see´s English and Welsh flag he may beleave that the two countries play fully in that only league (meaning all clubs and full league systems of both), and that is misleading. I beleave that the field in the infobox could rather be fixed than being decisive on what it actually says ("country" in this case), and also that the technicallity of the few clubs from outside can be explained in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with PeeJay. Perhaps a compromise would be to state England, but with a note explaining that at present there are members of the league who are based in Wales. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with a note as a compromise. It really doesn't matter where a club is geographically from. Swansea, Cardiff, Newport, Wrexham, Merthyr and Colwyn Bay play in the English football league system. Other than being on the other side of a border they're no different to all the other clubs that compete in the pyramid. Whether they want to admit it or not, Swansea will represent England in the Europa League next season and any coefficient points they gain will go to England's total. The 2013–14 UEFA Europa League article uses notes and it looks fine. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest that there be three fields: Country could be used on its own when there is only one country involved, as is the case for most leagues and division, so no change will be needed in all of these. Where there is bi-national participation, we could have two fields instead of that one: something like Countries of clubs, and Administrative nationality. Clarity, no danger of misinterpretation or claim of misrepresentation from either side. A rem note in the template could require that these are only used in seasons when the division has bi-national participation: the basic country field could have a footnote in other years to explain, for example "In some years, a Monegasque club has competed in Ligue 1". Kevin McE (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Two days without further comment, and on the principle that it is better to clarify than to leave information open to misinterpretation, I have implemented a variant on my proposal above. One additional optional field, Other participants, and the previously entitled Countries changed to singular. Kevin McE (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've applied it to Premier, Championship, Conf and Conf North (England), Div 3 (Scotland) and the Irish, French and Swiss leagues above, and to MLS and NASL in the US and the Aussie A-League (and subsequently Lega Pro Prima Divisione and S.League). Anyone know of others? (Later note: I've found List of association football clubs playing in the league of another country) Kevin McE (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not the conclusion that we reached. In fact, the last two comments do not support the change you made at all. You can't just make a change with as far-reaching consequences as this without a proper consensus. – PeeJay 18:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is demand here that there should be clarity about the nationality of the league: I have provided for that. There is also demand here, and more importantly demand at the articles involved, that readers should not be left bewildered that the nationality of clubs involved is ignored: I have provided for that. We don't need to be adversarial and have a "winner" in every discussion: we can ensure that everyone's concerns are met. It was discussed briefly in February last year, with the majority of opinions being for stating all nationalities involved, but with prominence given to the main nationality, which is what I provide. The new solution distinguishes between the nationality of the league and that of some participants. There are not "far reaching consequences": it affects about two dozen articles, and the only effect on 98% of the articles that use the template is that the inappropriate plural countries is corrected. Kevin McE (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not dispute that people's concerns should be met. What I dispute is the method by which you are meeting them and the unilateral action you seem to be taking in order to meet them. The majority that appears to be emerging is in favour of a note, rather than adding more and more parameters to infoboxes (many of which are already too bloated with unnecessary fields). Instead of adding more fields, why not just keep what we had already and add a footnote? This would make far more sense as it would keep confusing info out of the picture, especially since the infobox is supposed to remain relatively constant, and it is not always the case that the Premier League contains a Welsh team, or that there is a Monegasque team in the French top flight (which I dispute, by the way; since AS Monaco is registered with the FFF, not whatever governing body they have in Monaco, they are a French team, plain and simple). – PeeJay 23:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Monaco situation is something of a red herring here: if we were listing football associations, I would agree with you, while we are labelling it as countries, I do not. Same applies to Guernsey FC in the Southern League. Kevin McE (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The recent change to the template resolves this issue completed. Should we be listing the nations or the national associations? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If by "the recent change to the template" you mean the one Kevin McE implemented, then you clearly haven't read anything I just said and I have absolutely no idea why you are thanking me in your edit summary. Otherwise, please indicate the template to which you are referring. Either way, the second part of your question is moot; the only relevant info is whether the division is part of one country's national league system or another's, and if it is part of two or more countries' league systems, list all. Taking Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Wrexham, Colwyn Bay and Merthyr playing in the English leagues as an example, none of their divisions should have Wales listed as a country since there is no link between the Welsh league system and the English. – PeeJay 00:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that is plainly not the only question. Until you intervened, there was a clear implicit consent, re-affirmed at the earlier discussion on this page linked above, and exercised by those maintaining the pages affected, that the nationalities of all participants should be reflected in the infobox. The glaring other question is the omission, in your preference, of the country of participating teams which has never been tolerated by readers/editors of the articles in question. In the adapted template, Wales is listed as "other participants" (maybe not the best title: minor detail like that can be discussed at template talk) to make it clear that their role is participation, not the nationality of the league. No-one is likely to interpret that as a "link between the Welsh league system and the English". Kevin McE (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

See, you say that, but I believe that people who have no clue might assume a link between those league systems. Obviously since those hypothetical people have no clue, they would need something to explain why Welsh teams play in the English league, but the appropriate method to do that is not the one you have suggested. – PeeJay 10:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

People who don't understand the word participant probably shouldn't be trying to use an encyclopaedia. The infobox is clearly not the place to explain why Welsh clubs are in the Premiership: that should be in the text. But there is no need for the infobox to deny the fact that Welsh clubs are in the Premiership. Kevin McE (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

From my point of view - the "country / participant" thing now looks really odd. Wales does not take part at all. A couple of English registered teams based in Wales take part. If Swansea / Cardiff are relegated, does "Wales" cease to be a participant? The MLS argument is a bit of an odd one because of their league structure, and in fact PeeJay highlights the oddities of principalities etc in Europe.

The "Country" field appears to be pretty inappropriate when it is being used in this manner. I would also point out that, for instance, the UEFA Europa League does not utilise the field yet it has far more potential "participants". The Field should be amended to reflect the host federation / registered federation rather than trying to shoehorn all of Wales into the Premier League. Koncorde (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It said countries before, it says country now: if it is inappropriate now, it was more inappropriate on 98% of the articles on which it is used until a few days ago, and has been inappropriate ever since the template was created.

You show lack of understanding by stating "A couple of English registered teams based in Wales take part": those teams are affiliated to the FAW, not the FA.

If you have to ask If Swansea / Cardiff are relegated, does "Wales" cease to be a participant? then you have clearly not read this thread.

Although I don't think any intelligent person would have interpreted it as meaning that the country of Wales takes part, I've changed the display label for that field to Other club(s) from.

What possible reason would there be for presenting Wales as a registered federation? Where did this designation come from?

The Europa League uses a different template altogether: it has no national association organising it, and is not really a league, despite its title. Kevin McE (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? It is a principle that states that the most simple solution is usually the best one. This is not that. – PeeJay 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, I never said it was better before. Only that it now looked odd now with "participant". The Welsh teams may be affiliated to the FAW - but they are registered to play in the English League structure which is managed by the English FA. The Premier League is an affiliate of the English FA. Why therefore are we trying to shoehorn a league which pays no attention to boundaries into a "country" designation? Why does the template not say "National Sports Association"? The "Country" designation really is massively simplistic (and inaccurate) and requires overly complex explanations of what are quite simple principles. The UEFA template seems to handle the issue of "participants" and "country" quite well by completely omitting it.Koncorde (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

John Terry

Some advice needed. Should John Terry have winning the 2013 UEFA Europa League Final included in his honours, even though he played no part in the final last night? JMHamo (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? GiantSnowman 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The picture here appears to show JT with a medal around his neck. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course he should. Winners aren't only determined based on who played in the final. Eden Hazard was out injured but contributed significantly in earlier rounds. TonyStarks (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And this shows Demba Ba with a medal and he was cup-tied with Newcastle and played not one minute.Egghead06 (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

UEFA give out medals to squad members who play absolutely no part in the competition for their club now? It's reassuring to know that they use their money for such deserving causes. Football Against Racism in Europe? Nah, they don't need it. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure they are not that expensive. And also i guess Chelsea decides who gets a medal, not UEFA. May it be the bus driver, shirt washer or boots cleaner. -Koppapa (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thousands of pounds (sorry, I mean Euros...) wasted, but it doesn't surprise me since football organisations, and the people they employ, are experts at wasting/misplacing/stealing money. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think BA shoud have a medal (zero minutes?!), but TERRY (six games, one goal) as Tony aptly puts it, definitely should. --AL (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The UEL regulations just say that there are 40 medals for the club to distribute. Nothing about eligibility. Hack (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Ba is a special case, because he not only didn't play in the tournament, but couldn't, but given there are 40 medals now (up from 30) any active squad member (the squads are listed on the UEFA website) can be considered a winner. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• I would make a distinction between him being awarded a winners' medal and winning in the final: ie, link to the tournament, not the final match. Same should probably be the case for all unused subs etc. But do we normally link to the final or to the tournament anyway? I would have assumed/hoped the latter. Kevin McE (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Just for your information, the daily mail and other newspapers critics this apparition in chelsea kit because he have not win the cup, it's not on the field in the final game. For the medals the UEFA said in 5.04 point : "Forty gold medals are presented to the winning club, and forty silver medals to the runner-up. Additional medals may not be produced." It's not indicated that the medals are only for players, coachs, president, doctor and others members of the club are concerned too, it'a at the discretion of the club. Sorry for my english, it's more easy in french for me...--Remy34 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's no different to a substitute who didn't come off the bench IMO. Narom (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox- Teams managed

I was always under the belief that in teams managed who had the teams who you managed and nothing else so i changed Alan Wright to reflect that but it has since been reverted. Others like Steve Clarke dont mention roles at Newcastle,Chelsea, West Ham, nor Mike Phelan for the role he is most famous for at Man United. Is there a consensus or practice as to what goes in there? Narom (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be manager/head coach roles i.e. no assistants, scouting, youth coach etc. GiantSnowman 17:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The instructions for {{Template:Infobox football biography}} say: "A list of clubs that the person has served with in the capacity of team manager. Please do not list positions other than team manager (such as assistant or coach positions, or director of football roles where this role is not considered managerial) unless that position is a significant part of the person's career; this will apply primarily to those with significant or perhaps primary experience in management.". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That answers that then, thanks. Narom (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why this is? It seems like it would be useful to detail a player's post-playing career. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Because where do you draw the line? GiantSnowman 18:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Where it relates to the team - Coach, Dir of Football, Scout, Physio, Youth Coach, Assistant: yes, ambassador, hospitaility, fan-club co-ordinator: no. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

But surely due to the increasing number of roles that football clubs now have, an infobox could get out of hand and look cluttered. That info should be put in the main body imo Narom (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2... You draw the line at roles that are not "a significant part of the person's career", as per the template instructions. While the reader won't be helped by an infobox-full of 15 short-term coaching jobs, half of which are the same job with a different title - that's what sourced article text is for - omitting something like Chris Hughton's ten years as Spurs assistant manager would be ridiculous. It's a judgment call. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm the original culprit that Narom mentioned in the first post, I was under the impression that assistant manager roles were relevant having seen them on many other infoboxes but I should have consulted the guidance more closely. I agree with a couple of the comments above that it does make sense to include football related positions else you can have large gaps in career history that leave the infobox more confusing as a result. In Alan Wright's case, it seemed relevant to include his spell as Blackpool assistant manager as it was his most high profile management career role and is one of the reasons that he managed to secure his new role as Southport manager. Of course, I'm willing to go with the convention in future Mountaincirque (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It's editorial discretion what to include. For instance, I'd say that Nigel Adkins may well appropriately have his time as Scunthorpe's physiotherapist in his infobox, seeing as this was notable enough to result in one of the best songs in football when he was promoted to manager. But we shouldn't routinely include every job in football that someone has had, as most of them will not be independently notable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't a nice fix for this box be "notability"? If an independent third party source clearly highlights your significance as a person / player / role within club then it's notable for inclusion in the article body. For instance Stewart Houston, Ray Harford, Steve McClaren, Frank Lampard, Sr. seem to have odd infobox profiles due to gaps and/or absence of referring to key elements of their careers. Koncorde (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's already intimated by the present wording. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Swindon Spitfires Women's and Girls' Football Club

Is this club notable on any level? Despite the name it apparently has a men's section, which plays at a very very non-notable level, but what about the women's section.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

...........and, if kept, should it be removed from categories related to men's football, given the non-notable nature of that particlar team? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A team from Stoke Gabriel, which is a village near Totnes, plays at a higher level than this club. The first team in this article plays in the sixth division of the women's pyramid. Not notable. The women's team associated with my club is borderline and they've played three leagues higher. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have PRODded. GiantSnowman 17:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

PROD has been removed on the grounds the team has played in a national cup. So, should the categories related to men's football be removed, on the grounds of the extreme non-notability of the men's team.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as should all the information on that team, though it looks like the category has already been removed. If notability is defined by entering the FA Women's Cup then most of these clubs are eligible! Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Assists in season article

I'm sure this has been brought up on numerous occasions but a potential edit war may begin in 2012–13 Ukrainian Premier League about the inclusion of a section to the goalscoring section - This being a table of assists. An individual has placed the a table on the 10 leading assist producers. I contended that this is an additional statistic that does not add any value except statistics. However, I see that it is also in the EPL. I contended for consistancy's sake that previous seasons don't have this table and that other leagues don't have it as well. Appreciate some comments from the gallery. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources that tally assists are few and far between, and many disagree on the definition, giving contradictory stats, especially historically - therefore it is better not to include assists. Same goes for red/yellow cards. GiantSnowman 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My exact sentiments on this. The source being used is from a media source. It may be a copy of what the governing body of the league is displaying on their website. However, this individual is being confrontational on this issue in that several top league season articles are including this data. I'm considering a WP:RFC so there can be some mediation into this matter. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I oppose that point. In my opinion as long as there is at least one well documented source, it should be mentioned. If not than the information qualifies for self research and should be omitted. However, the assist statistics can be a great supporting information for reflection on a season and justification for some national sports awards such as annual player awards. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

But there isn't "one well documented source" which covers such statistics. GiantSnowman 14:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I mean, define "well-documented". If all the sources use different definitions of an assist, who's to say which is correct, and therefore is there even such a thing as a "well-documented" source for assists? – PeeJay 15:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the point with this ambiguous statistic. While goalscoring is documented and noted by the referee, where is the determination of the assist coming from. There could be a conflict of opinion as to whether its an assist at all. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with you. Some sources even award assists to the players who are fouled in the awarding of a penalty! But anyway, now that we've got that sorted, can I suggest that we don't just remove assist stats from season pages but from all pages? – PeeJay 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that assists should be removed not just from season pages but also other pages. However, I think we are going to get resistance from this side of the Atlantic Ocean (USA) where the assist statistic in soccer is there to be so it analogous to hockey stats, basketball stats etc. Most of all FIFA has kept way from this area. My attention is to the Ukrainian league where a couple editors have mad comparisons to other UEFA leagues that now are displaying this table and this statistic. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is clear consensus here, edits contrary to this would be considered disruptive. GiantSnowman 15:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

GS - Do you think it is worthwhile to get rfc for third party mediation and/or do we get them involved with the discussion that has evolved here? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It would certainly be worthwhile bringing this discussion to the attention of any editors you think might be interested. GiantSnowman 15:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Aleksandr Grigoryev. Assists are an important indicator of some of the most valuable players in the league, alongside the top scorers. Some leagues or magazines give awards to the player with the most assists, or the player that has the most goals + assists combinations, as the person who directly participated in the most goals. Just because you found some sources that slightly disagree doesn't mean that an assists section automatically has no value. Most of the sources agree on everything besides only one or two players.

And there lies the conflict that there is no decisive accumulation but an opinionated and speculative one at that. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the Ukrainian Premier League, there is only one available, reliable source so this isn't a problem there. In another league, if some sources disagree (and we know they will agree on almost everything), then we can come up with a hierarchy of sources we can trust. I propose that the priority should start with first looking at the official website of the league. Next, you can look at the websites of large sports-related magazines that hire their own journalists and give out association football awards. Third in line would be the websites that simply discuss the news and write commentaries about events. With this hierarchy of sources, I think most of the inconsistencies can be eliminated. However, the decision to remove assists tables is not a solution because in removing them, you are depriving the article of valuable information.--BoguSlav 15:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the article being deprived of that is so valuable? The result of a game and the tabulation of points that determines classification is from goals scored and not assists. The information is speculative at best. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Without an assists table article is being deprived of acknowledgement of the players that were directly involved in the creation of a goal. Goals don't materialize out of thin air, so the person who made that last pass that led to a goal deserves recognition. Similarly to the top scorers table, which tells us which players are best at putting the ball in the back of the net, the assists table tells us which players are best at making the last pass that will become a goal. If you watched football, you would know that the last pass is often just as important, or even more important, for the goal to be scored than the work of the player who scores the goal.--BoguSlav 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Assists are no more of a statistic than own goals, red cards, yellow cards. While you say that an assist is more than important than the goal itself and that goals don't happen out of thin air, that is a highly opinionated consideration given that some goals are scored by individual brilliance or by defensive mistakes. Given that then the goal scored is the most important occurance in the game which determines the result of games in the season - NOT assists and giving them credence is highly speculative. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said some players that assist a goal have done more work than the person who scored. Nice try there. I think you and I both know what I'm talking about here, unless you really have no clue about this game. In some goals, all of the work is done by a player who passes the ball to another player who taps it into an empty goal. Sure, the scorer deserves recognition, but no less than the assister.--BoguSlav 23:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

FIFA doesn't agree with you because the referee makes a note of who scored for the official match report but no recogition is made to the assister or assisters 23:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither FIFA nor the referee's notebook are an encyclopedia.--BoguSlav 00:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

And neither are assist tabulation... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

To coin a phrase, no one remembers the guy who finishes second, just as no one remembers the guy who made the pass for a goal. And nor should they. Assists are statistically irrelevant. After all, where do you draw the line? The guy who passed to the guy who scored? The guy who passed to him? How far back does it go? I mean, in the end, which pass makes the goal? It's not relevant. – PeeJay 23:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you we were to play your hypothetical game lets forget the contributions of the individual players altogether. After all, it's the team that wins or loses. Clearly none of the top scorers wouldn't have made it onto that list had it not been for teamwork. Besides, what is a "goal scorer" really? It's simply someone who made the final touch before the ball went to the back of the net. Who's going to remember that? It's the result of the game that matters more than who scores. Let's just make the season articles with a league table and that's it. You can make anything sound irrelevant if you oversimplify. --BoguSlav 23:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's more than the final touch before the ball went to the back of the net because it determines the outcome of the contest.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that Dario Srna is supposedly the number 1 assist maker in Ukrainian PL with 12 assists one should be able to find where those 12 assists happened. The source just doesn't exist because the recording is kept in some hidden file that is not accessible to all.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Eldumpo (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
If reliable sources are quoting assists for leagues then I don't see the problem in including them. If there are multiple reliable sources (with different data) then either list the alternative figures, or if there really is too much confusion there could be a case for not including them. However, most of the time won't there be an official source for these assists? Eldumpo (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The assists table has been part of the league statistics for quite sometime. Last season of English premier league saw their page being played around a lot with people removing and adding back the assists table. Sadly, I too was involved in the melee. Ever since the dubious goals committee was formed, the confusion of goals have gone in Premier League. It's not the case still with other leagues. Pichichi awards goals based on their team of experts, and their award to the top scorer is the most coveted in la liga. But this is not the official stats. This was evident couple of seasons back when Ronaldo scored different number of goals as per different committee. Same goes with assists as well. There might be contradictions between sources, there will always be. As long as the source is quoted and reliable to some extend I feel it should be fine. Regarding claims of only goal scorers being remembered... This is mainly because goal tally of every player is easily available and the assists tables are not. It's only been in the 2000s that assists counts started getting noticed more seriously. And this being Wikipedia, it's sad if we let such knowledge go waste. If I want to see how many did Pele assist, I won't even get a vague figure. Fifteen years down the line, if i want to see how much Cristiano Ronaldo impacted the game other than those many goals, it would be a little easier with the assists he made. I am not claiming here that assists give you a full account of the impact of a player. But it does give an additional account of the player's ability and impact in the final third. Deepak (talk)

• An {{rfc|soc}} has been submitted. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Alf Bellis

A non-registered user has indicated that he died last month, but I cannot find any evidence to confirm it. Can anyone else investigate somehow?EchetusXe 18:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find anything either, and Bellis does not qualify for Category:Possibly living people as he was known to be alive less than 10 years ago. GiantSnowman 19:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Zinedine Zidane - French or Algerian?

Can I please get little input to this discussion? Thanks in advance. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Will if we take the approach that some users on here take, his lead should not indicate French or Algerian, he is just a footballer! On a more serious note, there's absolutely no discussion, Zidane is French. TonyStarks (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Need to change error regarding Leeds United.

There is a recurrent error regarding the Leeds United content - namely that "A.F.C." is being inaccurately assigned to pages regarding the club rather than the correct "F.C.". Essentially all football clubs have a legal personality (XYZ Limited) and a playing personality (XYZ F.C.). The club was sold from one company, the old company (Oldco) (now in liquidation) to a new company (Newco). The reason for the error is that the "association" bit was part of the old defunct company name, but is NOT part of the new company name, nor is it part of the playing personality (team) name, as evidenced in this Official FA document. The one notable exception where AFC is still used, presumably an error on their part, is the UEFA site - which must surely be superseded by the official FA document above, not to mention no record whatsoever of AFC being part of the club's name on their own Official website - a place where the existence of such an oversight would be inconceivable. Basically the problem is that many of the links to do with Leeds, including of course the main page itself, includes this erroneous "AFC" part. Can these errors be corrected for the sake of accuracy? Gefetane (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware some fans may take issue with this change, as "AFC" has unquestionably continued within some cultural aspects re. the club. The question is simply whether Wikipedia should be accurate on this matter or not, as I do not believe that can be any serious question of the factual integrity of the claim (any disputing of which relies solely on the assumption one uefa website page trumps the accuracy of the club's own official website/Official FA documents/records etc.) Gefetane (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM. GiantSnowman 08:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

They do still use it - in fact it's written in 20ft high letters on their ground! here. Cheers Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone tell them that they forgot the full stops! ;-) Narom (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Aguilas de Tabasco

Hey everyone, I was once part of the Wikiproject Football before, but school and life does indeed take me away from WP:Football. Now I'm back, and I checked about an article stub for Aguilas de Tabasco. The weird thing is... I actually can't find the official link for the football club nor any histories of it in the Tercera Division of Mexico nor in Google.

I'm curious to know what kind of guidelines do I have to follow to ensure that the club has enough information to stay here on Wikipedia as a solid article, whether as a stub or not.

Also, like I say before, I'm willing to help out with research for other little-known football clubs around the world if you want, y'all can ask me via the talk page of my profile.

Rakuten06 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. GiantSnowman 10:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey GiantSnowman, thanks for the reply, but I can't find any notability for the football clubs and to decide whether they should be left alone or deleted. Rakuten06 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant WP:FOOTYN. GiantSnowman 15:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I checked the WP:FOOTYN for the club notability and according to that, Aguilas de Tabasco never appeared in a Mexican Cup (Copa MX) and I never found a independent link or whether that Aguilas de Tabasco have an official website for that, so I'm thinking of recommending it for deletion. What do you think, GiantSnowman?

Rakuten06 (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mexico hasn't had a national cup for decades, and Copa MX first began in 2012, so I'm not sure FOOTYN is helpful for Mexican clubs. This club is clearly small, but it does get some coverage in the Mexican press, so I imagine it will pass GNG. Accordingly, I think it would be best to take it to AfD if you plan to request deletion. Jogurney (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers

Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers

Current wording for eligibility:

This category includes players who were born in what is now the Republic of Ireland or who have played for the Republic of Ireland national football team at senior level, junior level or both.

Mr proposed wording:

This category includes players who were born in what is now the Republic of Ireland or who have played for, or declared an intention to play for, the Republic of Ireland national football team at senior level, junior level or both.

Murry1975 (talk · contribs) disagrees, so we have said we will bring it here. My logic is that if a player (an example is Daniel Devine) is eligible for the ROI national team, and declares his intention to play for them, then he should be included in the category. Thoughts welcome. GiantSnowman 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont believe the catergory should be added to player who hasn't played at some level for the FAI or been born in what is now the state, the wording of the definition in the catergory should, in my opinion, stay the same.

My reasonig for this is based on two (related) points;-

Firstly WP:CRYSTAL, we dont know if they will be capped, calling them Foo association footballers assume they would/will be.

Secondly, the biographical aspect- if a player fails to be capped, their career ends without, Vinny Jones wanted to play for Ireland at one stage (he wasnt eligble in the end but still gave his intention), do we keep a catergory that doesnt represent the players career.

I removed the atergory a while back some where (cant remember who) an American player who is of Irish descent, no caps, not born in the state, an American international and no indication of his desire to play for ROI.

So thaughts please gents and ladies. Murry1975 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. If a player declares themselves for a nation, they must be recognised as having that nationality to some degree by some form of governing body and therefore they have a right to claim that nationality. If we do not add this text to the category, we are precluding the category from including players that have every right to be included there. – PeeJay 20:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Murry here, declaring intent is simply not good enough to warrant inclusion in the category. Is there proof that the player is eligible to represent the country? Do they have nationality/will they be able to acquire it? Are they answering a simple question in a not so serious interview? Will they ever receive a call-up? Lots of factors have to be considered and I think it's a lot simpler to keep the category as is than to modify it and open it up to editors interpretations of comments made by players. If anything it will just create more problems to deal with. TonyStarks (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding eligibility - yes. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, I believe that every player from Northern Ireland is eligible to represented the Republic of Ireland at sport. Does that mean that every player should be included in both? No. Does that mean that players who declare international alleigance to the ROI should be included in the relevant category? Yes. GiantSnowman 08:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TonyStarks, declaring intent does not equate to being such a person. If you have a Kenyan who wants to play for the Denmark national team, he shouldn't have the category until he is such a player, regardless of his objectives. Until such a time that he has represented his adopted country, he is not a player of that country. Otherwise every Kenyan footballer in Denmark could make a claim to this re-worded category. I've used different nationalities in my example to try to emphasise the point. C679 10:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If the Kenyan is eligible for the Danish national team i.e. holds nationality of that country then I say he should also be included. He is Danish, he is a footballer - he is a Danish footballer. GiantSnowman 10:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"holds nationality" – yes, merely "has declared an intention to play for" – no. C679 13:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and based on that, let me clarify my point from earlier: if a player declares his intention to play for a particular national team, and it can be proven (either in the same source or another) that he is indeed eligible to play for that country, of course he should be added. – PeeJay 11:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Just make sure I'm getting everything straight here, we're talking about someone who is not a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, but is eligible to play for the RoI (is this even possible?) and has declared their intention to do so? Then, yes, they should be included in this category. The eligibility creates a sufficiently real link between the person in question and the RoI, and declaration makes the link sufficiently pertinent to merit inclusion in the category, in my opinion. Only one or the other is not sufficient though. As already pointed out above, without eligibility the declaration is irrelevant, and without the declaration, the eligibility is in all likelihood not encyclopaedically interesting. I've included the criteria that the person be a non-citizen, because if they are a citizen of the RoI, they're an RoI footballer by virtue of their citizenship already and the declaration becomes a moot point. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(de-indent) People born in Northern Ireland can choose to have British or Irish citizenship (or both) under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Football-wise, FIFA goes further, and allows anyone born on the island of Ireland to play for either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland (good background here). In Wikipedia terms, we need to be VERY careful when attributing national identities to people from Northern Ireland – such editing is subject to Arbcom restrictions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles) Oldelpaso (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Odeje

Benjamin Odeje must be worth an article now,[1] thoughts? C679 10:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Odeje never played senior international football. Does he pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL any other way? I have limited internet access here so cannot check. GiantSnowman 10:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

He's certainly culturally significant though, and I think probably merits an article under those terms, rather than his prowess as a footballer (ignoring race). Do we have any sources to suggest if he went on to play football at any level? The BBC source above does say he coached at Queens Park Rangers F.C. Grunners (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not WP:RS but Charlton Athletic according to this and that. C679 12:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I can not find any reliable source though to back that claim. Surely if he played for Charlton their would be at least 1 reliable source claiming he did? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried Neil Brown? As stated before, only limited access so cannot check myself. GiantSnowman 13:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing on Neil Brown he has played for Hendon not that it makes him notable [2]. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I fear this may fall into the realm of WP:BLP1E. GiantSnowman 13:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with GS ↑↑↑. But if anyone wants to contact him to clarify anything they can do so on [REDACTED] got it from here pg2. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth Charlton state he was only a schoolboy for them. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it may be appropriate to create the player article as a redirect to Black players in association football or similar. Note that while such an article does not yet exist, an equivalent Black players in American professional football does. C679 14:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a worthy topic, and redirecting is sensible. GiantSnowman 14:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There was some contemporary media coverage. He got several paragraphs (headed "Boy 'Pele' plays for England") and a picture in the Daily Mirror before his first appearance for England schoolboys in March 1971 (can't supply a publicly accessible URL, but could upload a screenshot if anyone's interested). Leslie Nichol in the Daily Express preview of England vs Holland schoolboys (April 1971) writes "This boy has amazing speed, and I expect him to destroy the Dutch defence through a goal-scoring link with Brian Bason from Sussex" (England won 5–1 and Odeje scored). He gets a mention as an example in a November 1971 Mirror feature about the possibility of England being represented by a multiracial team in the next ten years. Played for Charlton team that reached FA Youth Cup QF in 1973 (Mirror). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a newbie (when it comes to creating articles) and I just created Benjamin Odeje without realising that this debate existed. Sorry if I have trod on anyone's toes... MrStoofer (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No problems at all. Let's see if Struway can dig out his sources to bring up the article to meet GNG - if he does, brilliant, we have another notable article! If he doesn't, no worries, we can discuss other options such as redirecting etc. GiantSnowman 15:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it massively pedantic to point out that if he played for England Schools then he didn't technically represent England? Anyone who goes to school in England is eligible for that team, even if they are not English (Ryan Giggs of course played for England Schools, which is what some people base the erroneous claim that he could have played for England on) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Depends if he passes GNG. If not then a redirect to a new article about Black players in association football would be fine, as stated. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded it a bit, and nominated for DYK as well. To Chris: it's true that in the days when ESFA ran the schoolboy internationals, the qualification wasn't the same as the current England under-age teams. However, contemporary news sources referred to the matches as featuring "England", and to Mr Odeje specifically as the first "African" or "coloured schoolboy" to "play for England". And the current BBC news piece quotes an FA spokesperson as "confirm[ing] Benjamin Odeje was the first black player to represent England at any level." So yes, it's not only massively pedantic, it goes against reliable published sources ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Premature Neymar edits

So Neymar won't officially sign with Barcelona until Monday, and even then, it doesn't seem like he won't actually be on the team until July (though I'm not sure what the protocol is when a player has played his last match with his old team). That obviously doesn't stop editors from making premature edits and adding stat tables.

Anyway, I'm at (or past) 3 reverts so I'm stepping away from the article, so if this is the kind of stuff that bugs you, please keep an eye on the article. Mosmof (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

He reverted me rolling it back, so...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:CanadianBoy7_reported_by_User:Narom_.28Result:_.29 Reported. Narom (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Kim Kold

I just watched Fast & Furious 6 (don't judge me). Anyway this guy played a minor role as a massive bruiser. I looked on his wiki page and it says "Kold is a former football goalkeeper. In 1993, at 27 years of age, he suffered a serious injury in his Achilles tendon. He was sent to the gym for rehabilitation training, where he took up an interest in bodybuilding". If he was a professional footballer at the age of 27 then he must have had some sort of career in the game. Does anyone have any sources for (probably) Danish football in the early 1990s?--EchetusXe 00:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say he was a professional footballer...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not listed here or here. Doesn't mean he wasn't a footballer, just means he (probably) didn't play professionally. GiantSnowman 09:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks guys.--EchetusXe 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Judan Ali

Something seems extremely fishy about this article. It was created by a user whose presence on WP seems to simply be the enhancement of the subject's online profile. Is the subject actually notable, or are most of the sources in the article red herrings? – PeeJay 01:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That article gave me a good laugh. TonyStarks (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of one of those CVs which says things like "I was involved in a project" or "During my time at xxx so-and-so was achieved". Yes but what did YOU actually do? This has all the right words, Ruud Gullit, Arsenal, coaching etc. but what has Mr Ali actually done to make him notable. Even the image included is up for deletion. Would suggest a massive case of self promotion with very little substance.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Taken a look at it and it's not clear if the sources are enough to support such an article. The Daily Mail article labels him an amateur and youth coach. Other sources appear to be making routine reports and/or are from blogs, etc. May be a candidate for AfD. C679 10:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Now at AFD. GiantSnowman 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Overhaul of notability guidelines and football article MOS

User:GiantSnowman and I have agreed that this WikiProject needs to re-examine its notability guidelines and completely re-do the Manual of Style for all the different types of articles we have. Obviously we can't do this unilaterally by ourselves, so we're looking for input from all of you guys. If you're interested in restoring WP:FOOTY to its past glory, post below. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically, we need to make it clearer as a WikiProject what we consider acceptable/notable and what we do not. How we want articles to look, what they should contain etc. GiantSnowman 11:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. In my opinion, things are starting to get a little out of control and we need to pull back on the reins a little bit by imposing a few more stringent guidelines. – PeeJay 11:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree but we've been saying this for years, especially with regards to notability, and every discussion ends up going precisely nowhere. Here's hoping for better luck this time. BigDom (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we just have to resolve to make sure any suggestions are actually implemented this time. This is why I'm hoping we can get a decent number of people (particularly WP:FOOTY veterans) involved in the discussion, so that we can get considered opinions based on the past and future of the project. – PeeJay 12:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to help out wherever needed (and think I count as a veteran ;)) so hopefully we can get a few more people on board and get cracking. BigDom (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As an opinionated veteran :-) I'd be happy to contribute. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As an opinionated noob ( as you can see on the Danny Wright AFD) I'd be happy to help where possible. Narom (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Members has 401 active members and a whole lot more that are inactive. The list has not been updated with a tag from July 2011. The project as whole has been status quo for a while now. I will contibute in the areas that I have been involved with primarily from the Ukrainian Football scene. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree some changes would be welcome, but would suggest that revised notability guidance is more important than MOS issues. Eldumpo (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to prioritise one over the other, as I believe that some club season articles are getting ridiculous in terms of the sheer amount of pointless stats, templates and tables that are being included, but I see where you're coming from. – PeeJay 12:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you cannot improve one without the other. GiantSnowman 12:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Certain club season articles do really take the biscuit when it comes to stats. Ban starting XI's first and foremost unless it can be backed up with creditable sources, not tosh. Why is a disciplinary record table needed if said user isn't going to add any context? Some have a squad information table, on top of a top goalscorers column. Plenty have kit sections without prose -- I mean really. Looks nice on the eye, but nothing encyclopedic or creditable for a reader to get stuck into. Such was my concern of them, I actually bothered to keep a record of the Arsenal ones in my sandbox and the articles ticked are more or less what this new MOS should expect. Readable content and tables when needed. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I remember use having this discussion earlier in 2012 on the 2012-13 Arsenal season page. This is an encyclopedia for gods sake, not a football stats website. Starting 11s I am fine with though. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you give/link to a bit more info - which guidelines need to be made stricter and what are the problems? What exactly do you suggest? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So we have WP:NFOOTBALL for players and WP:FOOTYN for players/clubs - but the latter does not cover clubs in any great detail, and does not mention leagues, seasons, referees etc. etc. GiantSnowman 13:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So, how are we going to go about this? I would suggest creating a separate page for a discussion of this magnitude. Perhaps have a page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability Guidelines Discussion and then have members use the talk page there to add there opinions on what the new rules should be and then have the actual page have a "rough" copy of the new rules as they are implemented and agreed to. I am fine if we choose to go about this in a different way and am willing to add my input as well. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of a new page, though something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/2013 review would do seeing as it more than just notability we need to discuss. GiantSnowman 15:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am alright with that. Better title as well considering that we will all probably talk about the MOS and notability at the same time. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Totally disagree, I think separate pages for separate discussions. This topic is only a few hours old and is already confusing as editors comment on elements that are personal priorities. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it is already clear some editors are more interested in notability, some MOS. By having separate pages, editors can enter whichever discussion they want without their comments losing impact as others talk about a different subject. I don't have any particular issues with the current notability guidelines for clubs and players, they are succinct and a quick view of the AfDs in recent months show they work as they lead to pretty clearcut decisions 99% of the time. However, completely agree that more formal guidelines should be laid out for Leagues (particularly those that are not the top league in any given country), seasons, referees, non-playing staff, etc. Looking at the recent AfDs, it is these areas where there is much more debate because there lacks clear guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

From a project management aspect Fenix, you should always start with a centralised hub - and then you can spiral off into subsections with task forces etc and personal interests. If you spin it off right now, we're going to get a MOS that will not speak to the Notability and have difficulty referencing a centralised strategy. The 2013 Review should be the White Paper from which we identify activities to be undertaken in a logical and managed process. Koncorde (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy to see a centralised page to allow us to decide upon which elements need to be looked at in greater detail, but would be concerned if it was much more than that. there already seems to be two separate discussions on notability going on here already, one about what elements are notable within an article (which would be relevant to any MOS discussion) but also a discussion on what level of notability would be required for an article in the first place for subjects not directly covered by WP:NFOOTY. Would be great to do some work on this, so happy to participate whatever format it takes. Fenix down (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes Fenix - we would have a central page for general discussion and organization, and then create individual pages for every aspect we need to cover. GiantSnowman 17:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for this. The articles are inconsistent across the board, I would love to see a consistency in sections, points of reference etc and would be more than willing to offer support wherever required. Koncorde (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Marco van Ginkel

He is being linked with a move to Chelsea from his club Vitesse and a lot of people keep vandalizing the page. I have reverted it once already and another Wiki user has also, just was hoping for some protection of the page so it doesn't keep happening. Thanks! Rupert1904 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 15:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I'm not sure if the 2012–13 Gibraltar Premier Division should be listed in {{2012–13 in European football (UEFA)}}. It indeed was during the 2012–13 season that Gibraltar was accepted as a UEFA member, but does UEFA recognise the Premier Division as a national league? At the very least, there are just six participating teams this season, and I seem to remember reading that UEFA requires national leagues to consist of a minimum of eight teams (and therefore Liechtenstein cannot have one as there are only seven clubs in the country). --Theurgist (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. They are UEFA member, it's their top league. May not be enough to enter the Champions's League at current state, but i don't see a problem with that. -Koppapa (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)