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.

Help! Unrefrenced BLPs

Hi, all. I just added fourteen footballers to this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Unreferenced_BLPs/Full_list.

These players haven't had any citations for over three months, but I don't expect it would take you guys too long to add them, altough I expect some of the people here may not meet notability guidelines. I would do 'em myself, but I've got quite a few BLPs on my list at the moment. Your assistance would be much appreciated, cheers! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk

C.D. Chivas USA moved by admin to Chivas USA despite objections from WikiProject Football

It was explained both in the discussion and in a separate section on the article's page that this logic for the move would affect several other MLS club articles and many other English-language articles. Please be prepared for the fall-out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "WP:FOOTY decides its own rules" is going to cut it when it comes to contesting the closure. "The consensus was judged incorrectly" just might have worked. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 22:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps we can focus on the precedent rather than on my stupid actions. This move opens the road for Manchester United F.C. to be moved to Manchester United, Chelsea F.C. to be moved to Chelsea, Arsenal F.C. to be moved to Arsenal, or some DAB without the football club initials in the name, and one editor stated as much. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The only precedent the Chivas USA move has established is that each football team article should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. This will probably only affect team names such as Manchester United (unless there is a good reason for the "F.C." to be included in the title), but leave others (such as Chelsea F.C. and Arsenal F.C.) unaffected given that their names without the "F.C." (or other similar abbreviation) conflict with other articles. Best Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed (although even that is a big precedent). I'm in favour of the move by the way, on the grounds that it of the main measures of article naming, "Chivas USA" is equal to or better than "C.D. Chivas USA" on four out of five counts.

If there is a general opinion that the call was iffy, we should consider Wikipedia:Move review. If there is a clearly expressed general view that the debate itself was flawed, we could relist the discussion once that move review is complete. But whatever the hell happens, in the meantime I think it would be wise to refrain from similar move requests. What we need at this point is clarity going forward; creating move requests such as Manchester United F.C. --> Manchester United until we have that clarity would be a very bad idea. I repeat, I would be in favour of that move eventually, but we should make sure we know where we are before opening the floodgates. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Walter, you stated in post-move comments, "The football project voted overwhelmingly not to move." Where did that vote occur? --BDD (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

On the article's talk page. I notified individuals here and those from the project who voted there stated that the move should not happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it 'overwhelmingly'; I would say it was 50/50 at best with the slight edge to moving it. If you think that the decision was incorrect then there are ways to challenge it. It strikes me that when looking at the clubs official website [[1]] they don't use the CD outside the URL.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're missing a key word. There are people who voted there who are not active on the football project. Those who are part of the project voted against the move. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Since when do the opinions of "official" project members count more than anyone else's? Football is one of my main areas of editing; I simply don't formally attach myself to many WikiProjects. I can respectfully disagree with your position on the move itself, but this implication of a hierarchy is out of line. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Are we going to leave the name be? I.e. no move review etc? A lack of pushback on this matter would suggest to me that a bigger move request (such as the one mentioned above) is the logical next step. If on the other hand there is likely to be a move review in the relatively near future, it would obviously make sense to wait. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is the logical next step and has just started: Talk:Seattle Sounders FC#RM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Scottish Professional Football League players

OK, I'm a little confused with this category because it's showing players who played in either the Premiership, the Scottish Championship, League one or League Two. This doesn't make much sense to me. There were times when I was thinking about creating a category that only shows players who have appeared in a Scottish Premiership match which would mean that Category:Scottish Professional Football League players would feature players who have appeared in one of the lower divisions of Scottish football. But then I found out that it wouldn't work because of the fact that both the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League merged to form the new Scottish Professional Football League during the offseason. So for me, I think the best option would be to split this into four separate categories. One that contains players who appeared in the Scottish Premiership, another with players who appeared in the Scottish Championship, and then another with players who appeared in League 1 and one that contains players who appeared in League 2. Just my opinion, but what do you guys think? – Michael (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The SPL and the Football League were entirely different league organisations not just levels so had to be two cats. The SFL only had one player cat for all three leagues that were contained within it. Whilst i agree you could have four sub cats of Category:Scottish Professional Football League players it would be a change to previous cat convention. Had thought about doing it myself when created the main cat but had doubts about it.Blethering Scot 22:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as BS says the previous SPL/SFL were two seperate organisations (hence the two sets of categories), whereas the SPFL has united them (hence one set of categories). GiantSnowman 08:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I know the SPL/SFL were two seperate organizations. But the fact that they merged as the SPFL makes me wonder whether or not Category:Scottish Professional Football League players should be a container cat with four subcategories containing players from each division. – Michael (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other leagues for which we take this approach? Pretty sure we don't have separate categories for the Championship, League One and League Two......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the major continental leagues (eg France, Germany and Italy) have the top two or three divisions under the same organisation, but the player categories are separated by division (ie Bundesliga footballers, 2. Bundesliga footballers, 3. Liga footballers, etc). I guess the problem with England and Scotland (SFL) is that it would be quite hard to go back and work out which division each player actually played in. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm not talking about England or France or Germany or any other country. I'm talking about Scotland and the newly formed Scottish Professional Football League which is one single organization that contains the Premier League, Championship, League 1 and League 2. The English Premier League/Football League are two separate organizations and of course Jmorrison mentioned that some of the continental leagues that have multiple divisions under the same organization, which England of course has with the Championship, League 1 and League 2, but they didn't merge with the Premier League, so I'm not worrying about that. – Michael (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet it doesn't matter whether they merge as those lower leagues are all part of one organisation the Football league so they only have one cat. Ive no objection but the argument is no different whether they merge or were created as one organisation.Blethering Scot 16:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There should be one category for players in all 4 divisions of the league system, otherwise it gets far too messy. GiantSnowman 16:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Created

It seems whilst this was going on they have been created anyway as subcats.Blethering Scot 16:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:CFD? GiantSnowman 08:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Club nicknames

Is there a convention regarding the use of abbreviations or shortened versions of the club names in the nicknames field of the football club infobox? If not, can we set a consensus over this issue? I don't think that, for example for D.C. United, nicknames like "United" or "DCU" should be included in the infobox, since they are only variations of the club name. A recent edit such as this is the reason why I am asking this question. BaboneCar (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Are the/any nicknames supported by reliable sources? For what it's worth the Manchester United F.C. article - a Featured Article btw - does not have "United" as a 'nickname' in the infobox, even though that shortening is quite well used in the UK for them. GiantSnowman 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there are sources out there for that example. I remember a high profile incident where a club from Manchester played a club from Leeds, and a very well known radio commentator decided that it might be a good idea to use the word "United" to refer exclusively to one team. It did not go unnoticed in the mainstream media, although Google is not great for digging up sources in situations where every word of every plausible search term is widely used. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 00:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So long as, e.g., "Rob" is a nickname for "Robert", then I don't see why a common shortened informal version of a team's formal name should not be considered a nickname. JohnInDC (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A club is not a person, and where do you draw the line, for both of them? Robert becomes Rob, Robbie, Bob, Bobby, Roberto, Bobert etc. GiantSnowman 15:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Clubs are not people, no, but that's sort of a non sequitur. You draw the line where the common usage ends. "Robert Burns" was known as "Robbie", not "Bob".

Also for what it's worth, Tottenham Hotspurs shows "Spurs" as an infobox nickname, and Sheffield Wednesday, "The Wednesdays". JohnInDC (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The nickname infobox field was not intended for abbreviations of the name or for words that are part the name. In the given example, "United" is exactly a part of the club's name. "Spurs" and "The Wednesdays" are good examples which differ from their clubs' names, therefore they are relevant. BaboneCar (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How is "Spurs" not an abbreviation of "Tottenham Hotspur"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To be more precise, I am referring to acronyms formed from the club name's initials. BaboneCar (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Before you resume removing shortened names or initials from teams' nicknames, you need to gain consensus. Judging by the existing articles there is none - lots of editors see it differently than you. E.g. Leeds City -> "City"; Manchester City -> "City", Blackburn Rovers -> "Rovers", Crystal Palace -> "Palace". (I'll bet there are scores more similar examples.) DC United had "DCU" until you removed it; Toronto FC had "TFC", until you removed it; likewise Real Salt Lake and RSL, FC Dallas and FCD, Sporting KC and SKC. A nickname is a shortened or familiar version of a name. This includes initials - FDR, JFK, RGIII. There is no consensus that that sort of common usage is inappropriate to football clubs at all, and certainly none that such usage is so inappropriate that such nicknames need to be removed on sight. Indeed the only argument I've seen here to explain why the common sense of the word "nickname" doesn't apply to football clubs like it does to people is the spurious one that clubs aren't people. JohnInDC (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why we're bickering about this. If a nickname is often used for a club, whether in prose or in a 'nickname' field in an infobox in books or magazines, we should list it here (citing the source, of course). – PeeJay 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Using United, City, Palace, Rangers etc as a nickname is like saying Alfred Trotter's nickname is Trotter. A nickname is an altered name (by definition). I recently edited the list of UK club nicknames and found the number of United'd etc a bit ridiculous to have listed. Yes, Man U do "own" the United tag, but no more than Oliver Cromwell owns the Cromwell tag - it doesn't make it his nickname.Cjwilky (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And QPR etc isn't a nickname either, its an acronym. "The Wednesday" has "The" infront of the second name, so doesn't really figure either IMO, and it's the old name for the club, as such it still doesn't count as a nickname, it's a former name. If we're using such things then it should really come under "other names". <added>"Spurs" would count as a nickname.</added>

The bottom line for me is sticking true to the definition of "nickname" AND avoiding unnecessary clutter.Cjwilky (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If an acronym is commonly used to refer to a club then it's a nickname, even if it's an acronym. Lots of clubs aren't referred to with acronyms, for whatever reason (take for example the Seattle Sounders), so when they are, it is a nickname and is properly noted. It's a shortened, familiar way of talking about the club. It doesn't matter if it's an acronym, it's still a nickname. And all this hairsplitting is not only arbitrary but silly - "The Wednesdays" is a nickname because it has a "The" in it; "Spurs" is okay because it's not the whole word "Hotspurs", but "DCU" and "TFC" aren't nicknames because they're just initials. (Like, again, JFK, FDR, RGIII.) If I call them "The DCU" (as many commentators mistakenly do) is that now a nickname? JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Wednesday" is the clubs old name, its not that it just has a "The" in front. I guess the question there is does using a clubs old name count as a nickname if it is commonly used? I suppose so. Generally sticking a "The" in front makes no difference at all in my mind. Colchester United are known as "The U's" - that's a nickname. I don't think this is splitting hairs at all, there is so much clutter in wiki, the better articles are well weeded - see gardening ;) Cjwilky (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I question the clarity and precision of a conclusion that "The Wednesday" is okay, even though the name of the club today is "Wednesday", because the prior name of the club was "The Wednesday" (I gather - this is all news to me), but "The United" would not be okay - and must be removed! - because it's just the name of the club, and "The" doesn't make any difference. I also am still struggling to understand why acronyms - which are not universally applied to clubs (I just remembered Miami Fusion) - are not a nickname when they are applied to clubs as familiar shorthand. "Acronym" and "nickname" are not mutually exclusive categories. JohnInDC (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates about Ghana

I would like to know who were footballers who participated for Ghana at 1968 AfCoN (finalist) and 1970 AfCoN (finalist). I tell you that because I have seen two templates about Black Stars, which aren't completed. Who can give me the informations? Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable it is, but there is a squad list here without squad numbers. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!!--FCNantes72 (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You can get lineups for Ghana's 1968 finals matches here 1970 finals matches here. Jogurney (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeated reverts and possible sockpuppet at Chivas USA

User:Kyumatte (contrib) is constantly reverting edits to make the lead of Chivas USA read:

Club Deportivo Chivas USA is an U.S.-based professional soccer club located in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson, California, subsidiary of the Mexican club C.D. Guadalajara, which competes in Major League Soccer (MLS).

The article should read "...an American based professional soccer club..." but Kyumatte keeps reverting it.

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Kyumatte isn't the only one to perform these reverts. I find it suspicious that User:Kaizjose (contrib) has done the same in the past.

• [6]
• [7]

Looking at both users' contributions, they are both active in Mexican articles. Could they be sockpuppets? --MicroX (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Although it certainly is suspicious that the edits of one user ends (Kaizjose) when the other begins (Kyumatte), accusing them of sockpuppetry at this point is too premature. Their disruptive behavior, if continued, should be enough of a justification for blocks (which, hopefully, won't be necessary).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

He's been blocked along with his other sockpuppet User:Scalkanes. --MicroX (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hardbody F.C

Dear football enthusiasts: Here is an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as abandoned. Is there something worth rescuing here? Sorry, I know nothing about football. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, having played in the top division in Zimbabwe, the club is definitely notable. Number 57 15:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here could take this on. I am not competent to do it. A football is the one with the pointy ends, right? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

this is an American football, while this one is used in "our" game. ;) Mentoz86 (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha! One of those almost went through my windshield the other day when I was driving past a soccer field, leaving streaks of white paint behind. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will do it but a lot of work is going to be needed to make it look good. The references don't even work! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

Redirect discussion on the page Subroto Cup is taking place here. If you would like to give your opinion then please do so. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Soccer" in Australia

'Tis an ongoing battle that football fans in Australia have over the use of the term "Football" in this country. Fans of other codes of football (specifically AFL and Rugby League) feel that Footy is claiming ownership of the term "football" and have successfully campaigned to have Football related articles changed from Football -> Soccer -> Association Football -> Soccer over the past 6 years or so. It is getting ridiculous. Inevitably, it has been brought up again to change all references back to "football" and I would request some assistance (be it in support or comment]] from the WP:Footy group in the discussion: Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move again. Even if this does get passed, I'm not sure how we can just arrive at a permanent solution. Many thanks in advance Ck786 (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It may pay to have a read of WP:CANVASSING. Hack (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Penalty miss in matchinfo

Hi

From what i understand we should not show penalties that is missed unless it is in a penalty shutout, but i cant find earlier discussions about this. I can only find this discussion and this edit. The reason i ask is that someone keeps making this edit. Can someone confirm this or should we have a discussion now? QED237 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary IMO, unless we're going to start noting every time someone misses an open goal..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Only events that actually contributed directly to the score should be listed, so no bookings or sendings-off either, just actual goals. – PeeJay 22:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

CfD for Women's football leagues in Norway

Hi there. Category:Women's football leagues in Norway is up for discussion here and your input is appreciated. I've listed it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves, but it looks like those TfD's and CfD's don't get that much attention. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Infobox football club

An editor has suggested some changes to {{Infobox football club}}. Probably worth getting some thoughts on the talk page. Cheers, Number 57 17:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Page moves over create protection

Could any admins about please move Sergiu Cristian Popovici to Sergiu Popovici and Sou Yaty (Cambodian footballer) to Sou Yaty. In both cases, the WP:Common name was create protected due to excessive sockpuppetry, but the current versions of the articles both appear to be appropriate. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 08:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Khandoba Talim Mandal Football Club

Dear football fans: Above is another old draft that may be of interest. Let me know if it should just be deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be deleted, it doesn't have any indications of the notability and last sentence has said it all: "Never appeared in a official AIFF tournament" and I feel that it's created to impress the other friends anyway. Hisakiwa21 (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have tagged it. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

FC Mostransgaz Gazoprovod Speedy Deletion

Hey, I need your help!

I created the article of FC Mostransgaz Gazoprovod, a defunct club with everything (the football infobox, the achievements, the explaination for a defunct club) and it was marked for speedy deletion. I already made an argument on it, arguing that it is notable because it appeared in the other article: List of football clubs in Russia, appeared in the Russian 2002 First Round, and that it's already notable in the other languages of Wikipedia (Polish and Russian Wikipedias).

Could you please help me defeat this speedy deletion tag? Hisakiwa21 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up...

...over a user who insists on repeatedly adding unsourced content, and when asked to provide sources just mouths off. Just so anyone who comes across this user is aware they have previous. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had a word. GiantSnowman 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Starting XI in Season articles

Hello.. this has been discussed here before but I just want to be 100% sure that I am right to remove Starting XI from Season articles as it's clear WP:OR. Agree with me? JMHamo (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep. GiantSnowman 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless sourced properly, but that is highly improbable. CRwikiCA talk 18:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well let's talk about 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season for now.. I removed the Starting 11 section and it was reverted, so rather than risk 3RR, could somebody else please remove it. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Times like this I wish football had the equivalent of an American football depth chart. That would make things a lot easier. – PeeJay 12:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A starting line up has been included in previous articles and the most frequent starters can be referenced to the appearances table in the same article in every case. So can someone explain why a consensus has been made to remove it from the article? It serves as a visual representation of the most commonly used formation which is useful when there is a healthy competition for places within a side. On what basis did people want it removed? Thanks (PS: don't take this the wrong way please - I just want an explanation :) ) Ricky Sen (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Read this archived discussion. Hopefully you get your answers here... JMHamo (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Football is not baseball or gridiron where the starting positions are essentially fixed. In football, with formations which can change from game to game plus the element of squad rotation, you could end up with a "most common starting XI" which never actually took the field together, which IMO is nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, a single starting 11 is going to be misleading for reasons stated. However, I agree with the value of a visual representation being valuable.

As a positive compromise, I have found a simple appearance table showing match by match lineups could work well, ie one with dates/games down one side and a list of players across the top, then giving position codes rather than squad numbers for the player. It visually helps show how a player has been used, and the common lineups. A starting position would maybe be the best point of defining the position, with flexibility if another position is the main one used. Subs can be marked in (parenthesis). It is also possible to include say a red dot to indicate a player having an injury that excludes them for a given game. Cjwilky (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Still no - player positions are not fixed. John Smith starts the match as a right back, then is moved to centre-back after 30 mins. In the second half he is pushed up a defensive midfielder position, before being put on the wing for the last 10 minutes. What position would you mark him, where would he feature in the end-of-season Starting XI table? GiantSnowman 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Second place honours

I'm at 3RR with an IP at Bradford City A.F.C. who believes that coming 2nd in a major league/cup competition is not an honour. Further eyes/views appreciated please. GiantSnowman 10:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I just went to the article to add a view (FWIW, I agree with you that runners-up spots count as honours), and found no discussion or attempt at discussion on the talk page, and the anon blocked for vandalism. Are you sure you should have blocked them for vandalism over a content dispute that never went to the talk page? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a dispute, it was blanking of content. See WP:3RRNO. GiantSnowman 11:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Matter of opinion, I think. Serially excluding and re-including runners-up honours sounds pretty much like a content dispute to me... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you feel my block was wrong please feel free to raise it at WP:AN. GiantSnowman 11:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you were a bit quick off the mark, especially after asking above for others' views, and BRD would have been a better approach. If the anon refused to discuss and kept reverting, it would have made it clear they were being disruptive. But I'm not going to report you anywhere. Surely we can express an opinion without having to do it on a drama board. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an editor who used 2 IPs to remove content 4 times before they were blocked. I posted on the talk pages of both IPs - and not just templates either - and still nothing. Should have I attempted a discussion on the article talk page? Maybe. Would it have made any difference? None at all. GiantSnowman 12:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Struway2: - now back with a third IP address... GiantSnowman 12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Which means that in hindsight your block did no harm. You think you handled it right, I think you could have handled it better. It happens. I'd guess we're neither of us perfect. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Back to the main subject, IMO runners-up is not an honour, only winning something is. I have never included it in articles, and have removed it whenever I've edited an article. Number 57 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Silver medal at the Olympics? GiantSnowman 18:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can tell me which club has won a silver medal in the Olympics, then I'll change my mind. Number 57 18:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Brazil won silver medal at the 2012 Summer Olympics Definitely notable JMHamo (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Brazil are an international team. We are talking about clubs here. Number 57 19:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So a country winning an honour is fine but a club is not? And to answer your question, the 1900 Olympic competition was competed by 3 club sides, and although no medals were officially awarded, the IOC considers that the British club won gold. GiantSnowman 19:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, honours are different for players, clubs and international teams. (and I was aware that in the early days of the Olympics club teams were entered, but they were entered to represent their countries, so the medal in theory belongs to GB not the club). Number 57 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So the players were runners-up in the FA Cup final but the club itself wasn't? GiantSnowman 20:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

TBH, I'm not sure it should be included for players either. Number 57 21:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I don't have a problem with the words at the club article styleguide: "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Then don't call it "second place", call it "finalist in the Blah Cup". Just getting there is noteworthy (and praiseworthy). JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Teams that finish second in the championship get a trophy to parade around with (and more importantly promotion) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Struway2 and the club article style-guide. If a club has a large number of trophies then I don't see the harm in omitting second place, especially if they have placed second several times. Bradford City doesn't have that many trophies compared to other major clubs so the second-place wins should be included. Also, now that we are bringing up the matter, I have started a minor section in the talk page of the club article guide regarding how the information is presented because I noticed it was modified a while back and didn't really see a discussion. --MicroX (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a heads up - the IP continues to block evade, and has now turned their attention to the Derby County F.C. article. Further eyes across all clubs welcome. GiantSnowman 10:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of hand Liverpool 2013-14 season article

I am having a look at the 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season article and it's really gone crazy, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK applies here for sure. I am very conscious of edit warring that can occur if I just rip out sections, so I would like to get agreement on what should be removed please. I am thinking a lot of the Squad statistics section can go for various reasons. What do you think? JMHamo (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It is concerning that there is no prose about how Liverpool fared during pre-season, what their expectations were in the incoming season and of their two league wins. I understand this can be time consuming, but for a encyclopedia this should be emphasized. Something I happened to point out here, which the dedicated editors have since addressed, albeit with keeping various tables. As for the Liverpool article, the Under-21 section is not needed -- this is about the first squad. Goalscorers, Captains, Summary under 'Squad statistics' should be removed. Why is there a 'Squad and coaching staff Information' section? Likewise Backroom staff, it could be incorporated in prose to discuss about Rodgers' appointment the previous summer, who he signed, how Liverpool fared, who they signed this season (links in with transfers), et al. Ideally there should be a MOS for season articles in place. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that there should be an MOS for club season articles. Without getting too precious about articles I spent a lot of time on in the past, I really think that the Manchester United season articles should be the model for this. I'll admit they're not perfect, but a lot of other clubs' season articles contain far too much useless info, with people treating them like stats repositories rather than anything else. Who gives a shit when Branislav Ivanovic's current Chelsea contract expires in relation to the current season? Or when Luis Suarez signed for Liverpool? In stats sections, all that matters is how many appearances and goals were recorded by each player in each competition, possibly with the inclusion of disciplinary info. There's no need for info about dates of birth, previous club, total appearances/goals for the club, results by round, starting XIs, captains or any of that bollocks; it's just not relevant. – PeeJay 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The DOB may be okay to include but the rest isn't really necessary. --MicroX (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would the DOB be OK if nothing else is? It is completely irrelevant. The players' ages have nothing to do with the club's performance during the season. – PeeJay 01:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

True but sometimes it is interesting to know the DOB of the squad members though the age will be irrelevant years from now. It isn't a big deal to me whether DOBs are included or not. Consensus should decide. After looking at 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season, I'd say it is a good example to emulate and less clustered than these two.

I have just removed international goals and appearances in the squad-table once again that an IP-user keeps adding, saying it is just additional information. My feeling is that it is totally not relevant information to have player national stats in an liverpool article. That belong to the player pages. Does anyone agree? Feel free to help me remove this part if it keeps coming back. QED237 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Youth team loan deals

Oliver McBurnie is a youth player at Bradford City (he signed his first pro contract yesterday) and has been for a number of years - but last month he spent time with Man Utd, playing for them in the Milk Cup and finishing the tournament as joint top-scorer. His time at Man Utd is described as "work experience" by both the club and the local paper. Personally I treat "work experience" for young players as a loan deal, as normally it is to the first-team of a non-league team, e.g. John Marquis. However, because McBurnie's deal was between two youth teams, how should it be displayed in the infobox, if at all? GiantSnowman 11:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd just mention it in the body of the article, playing in a couple of pre-season matches for a youth team on a glorified trial doesn't seem like something important enough to go in the infobox. BigDom (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's before his first-team involvement, it can go in the youth section, if it's after then in the career section with 0 appearances and 0 goals. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Che1563

Keep an eye out for this editor. I've reverted several cringeworthy "playing style" descriptions, possibly the best of which is this one. - Dudesleeper talk 13:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've left him a message. GiantSnowman 13:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin help request

Are there any Admins around to revert 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season back to the last good version by GiantSnowman and block IP 109.149.12.114 for breaking 3RR? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season

Hi

There is something wrong with 2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season, Everything is centered. I have tried looking at it, but cant find the error. Probably I am to tired. Whould appreciate if anyone can take a look. Thanks! QED237 (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It still looks ridiculous in my opinion. I am tempted to remove it completely... JMHamo (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the jerseys where still centered. QED237 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed.But I still don't think it looks good.Maybe it's better to remove the kits?Lsmll 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)