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

Season articles

In light of the recent spate of deletion discussions involving club season articles, I'm wondering if there is actually consensus on this? I was of the belief that season articles of clubs playing in a national league (so in England, the top five tiers) were presumed notable. However, opinions seemed inclined towards articles for Football League clubs only being deemed notable. I would say the difference in level of coverage between tiers four and five is negligible, and the potential is there for high quality content to be created from season articles for fifth tier clubs. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that season articles were OK for clubs that play in the Conference Premier and above. I'm not sure about other countries, but that's the guideline I work to for English clubs. – PeeJay 22:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather that we kept in line with the fully professional league argument, than expand season articles down to the fifth teir. The Grays article is of a very good standard, but essentially there is nothing there that is not WP:ROUTINE, just well written. I can see that we could have arguments where people would want create player articles because they were prominantly mentioned in a season article. My honest view though is that WP:NSEASONS, though brief seems perfectly clear, only "top professional leagues" should have club articles. That should just be the top league in each country and that seems fair to me as a primary criteria as they contain clubs whose seasons are more likely to attract non-routine coverage. I would not argue that this should be exclusive, GNG will always trump any other guideline, but of the three articles noted above, what is genuinely notable about those clubs seasons? The Stevenage one is a promotion winning season, so I could readily accept that as being a genuinely notable season attracting more coverage than normal. The other two, regardless of their written quality are a relegation finish and a play-off final loss season, neither of which, at the fifth level of English football, I would say were particularly notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There was consensus for years that Conference National club seasons were considered notable, so I'm not sure where this recent spate of AfD's has come from (although it is worth noting that the nominator's rationale in most of them is "I don't like it"). The fact is that these clubs get plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources such as BBC Sport, The Non-League Paper, NonLeagueDaily.com and many more, and that should easily be enough to pass GNG. If you're going to bring ROUTINE into it, then we would have to delete 99% of not only season articles but player articles too. BigDom (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I share Fenix down's opinion - we need a cut-off point, and I think having it at the same point as players would seem sensible. Number 57 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we should bring ROUTINE into and that that would mean the deletion of the vast majority of these articles, but I also appreciate that there probably isn't the consensus for that, though it would be good to gain agreement on what the cut off point should be for such articles, and not just for England. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that Conference Premier season articles were considered notable. The fact that for the 2010–11, 2011–12 and 2012–13 seasons there are twelve, fifteen and fourteen articles respectively certainly suggests that this was previously the case. T 88 R (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the cut-off should be relegation out of the Football League. But I have no problem with well written Conference Premier season articles like Hyde or Luton. I'm happy for there to be exceptions to the rule. I just object to the red links in the template, which suggests that articles should be created. Articles such as 2012–13 Braintree Town F.C. season should be deleted straight away, there is just no content.--EchetusXe 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

May I ask, why do you place the cut-off above the Conference? It's a national league that we use as a notability threshold in other circumstances, so why not here? – PeeJay 20:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The notability threshold for players is above the Conference, what other circumstances are cut-off below that level?--EchetusXe 06:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a Div 2 cut off makes more sense. Essentially by having this difference we are saying that a player who spends his career in the conference can have hundreds of words written about him in his club's season articles, but is not notable for an article himself. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't like the application of the criterion "national league" to season articles, but "fully professional league" to players. I believe we need some uniformity here. That being said, i still believe any club could have season article if they met GNG. I would have no problem accepting a season article on a club below level 5 if they achieved something very notable, like a record level of points, unbeaten season, or something else that got more coverage than would normally be expected at that level. Fenix down (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I thought we still used the Conference as the cut-off for player notability. I need to catch up! – PeeJay 09:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can remember (going back to 2006), we've never used the Conference as a cut-off point - it's always been considered a non fully-pro league. Number 57 10:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In Scotland the mileage seems to be different, where we have season articles for all teams, even semi-pro and amateur: Template:2012–13 in Scottish football. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well but at least some of those articles have some decent content unlike absolute wastes of space like this and this. Surely we should concentrate on getting rid of or sorting out the existing crap articles first and foremost? BigDom (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This response is admittedly largely about never missing an opportunity. My views on bit-part lower league players having full blown articles when there is nothing of note to say about them are pretty well known. But am I alone in thinking that a difference in standards between season articles and player articles does make sense? Hardly anyone thinks that the career of one of last season's Hatters warrants a stand-alone article (unless he had a significant history in the Football League), but the exploits of Conference teams over an entire season regularly do attract significant coverage in reliable national sources, both at the sharp end and at the bottom (even mid-table clubs get significant attention). —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. It obviously (to me at least) makes sense to have a slightly lower notability threshold for season articles because clubs' seasons in general get more coverage than the individual players. This is the exact point I've been trying to make all week, here and in deletion discussions, but no-one seems to listen. BigDom (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually not one of the teams in Template:2012–13 in Scottish football is amateur. They are all part of the football league in Scotland and are pro or semi pro of which there is enough coverage to make these meet GNG. Only teams below that level could even slightly be considered amateur which there are many if you go down to Scottish junior level which despite the name is still senior football and the highland leagues and such. Interesting that Clavdia chauchat is again pushing a pov on others just like she has at Rangers and tried to prove with a very silly AFD.Blethering Scot 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Queen's Park are amateurs but yeah I agree that all teams in the SFL receive enough coverage during a season to have their own articles. It's obvious that a different notability threshold is needed than the one we use for players. BigDom (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgot about Queens, i have no idea why they play under that guise as not even the junior teams do however i could from sources make there season meet GNG so the point remains at that level its verifiable. There are several junior teams that get a vast amount of coverage but i wouldn't go that far.Blethering Scot 22:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also i agree player notability threshold shoud not and isnt the same as club or season notability. A clubs will achieve over the course of a season far more coverage than one player does.Blethering Scot 21:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wind your neck in, Blethering Scot. You can take an opposing viewpoint without making personal attacks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you wind your neck in Clavdia chauchat as you are yet to apologise or justify your clearly disruptive and pointy AFD were you failed to carry out WP:Before just to prove a point similar to above on an article that clearly met GNG which was wrong and stupid. There is a difference to making a point and going around different talk pages (not cool) continually using the same old and against common consensus views. Such as Rangers are a Pheonix Club.Blethering Scot 23:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You would both probably get more out of this discussion if you refrained from personal attacks and rather than debating whether individual users followed procedure, instead debtate whether any of the season articles in Scotland contain anything other than WP:ROUTINE and whether any of them avoid contravening WP:NOT#STATS. If they show non-routine coverage (i.e. not just brief match reports from the usual sources) and contain significant amounts of sourced prose rather than simply a list of results and players, then it doesn't matter what level they play at or whether they are pro or not or in a professional league, they will almost certainly pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Format

What would be more helpful is a Manual of style for club season articles at the moment they are a mess, and even one season to the next can be totally different. Ive suggested doing this several times and it would be really good to get one done.Blethering Scot 22:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Was anyone aware of this pages existence Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. I ask because i have raised creating an mos before and never been pointed to this and its not linked to in the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Football infobox where the others are. Also its not that great.Blethering Scot 22:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

We have MoS for almost everything, but they aren't used as much as they should be. What we should do is start a broad discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons on what should be included in a season article, and what shouldn't be included in a season article. That way, the "content dispute" at 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season wouldn't have been a content dispute, as we could have showed the MoS to everyone who wanted to add this or that list of statistics, and made them start a discussion on that page if they wanted to change anything. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And all our MoS are just decent places to start from, and not followed strictly by anybody. I was at one time aware of the seasons one, but had forgotten about it. There were strong objections from an editor who preferred a stats-heavy template-based approach, which may be why no-one remembers it and it's never been developed. Again, it looks a decent place to start from, and some of the better season articles have a similar structure and content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The MoS for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons looks severely outdated. I shall continue the discussion of proposed changes over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. -RedsUnited ^(Talk) 01:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not only severly outdated its very poor. Were all moaning about the state of season articles and given how poor that mos is we can hardly complain.Blethering Scot 17:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

In the below table in the majority of season articles around they are sourced by the competitive match reports included in the article. Now this is done by on a week to week basis using the match reports to add appearances which means there will be a minimum of 40 match reports or more if doubling or tripling up these refs. Now the section is clearly referenced but could be perceived as WP:OR now even if it is as this section is sourced and ultimately verifiable this shouldn't be grounds for removal unless there is another issue present. What i am asking is how we deal with this. If i add a link to the team soccerbase page for stats once the season is over it will no longer be accurate as players move on. The only way to do it would be to add a source for every player which in my view would be excessive and worse than using match reports as its as difficult to verify as going through the match reports. Once the likes of the football yearbook is out you could use that but do we need to as this will be a year down the line when most have forgotten about updating the year before's article. I always include a reference to the squad list ref to cover number, position and like but that doesn't cover the team match stats. This has been brought up twice in my view needlessly in last two weeks but as a very small percentage of season articles on here ref this section other than to the match reports we need to establish a view on it.Blethering Scot 22:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No.	Pos	Nat	Player	Total		Premiership		League Cup		Scottish Cup
				Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
1	GK	SCO	Jamie MacDonald	6	0	5+0	0	1+0	0	0+0	0

• Last updated: 31 August 2013
• Source: Competitive matches
• Ordered by Squad Number.

Appearances (starts and substitute appearances) and goals include those in The SPL, Scottish Cup and the League Cup.

Sorry, but I don't see why the Soccerbase squad stats page for the season in question can't be used: e.g. Hearts 2013/14, Hearts 2012/13, Hearts 2011/12, etc... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't actually referring to Hearts it just happened to be one of the two season articles i update these days. I actually had no idea it kept an individual record of the club season stats, thought you could only get the stats from the individual player stats pages.Blethering Scot 22:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Another option is worldfootball.net 2013–14 Hearts Premiership. A ref tag applied to each competition's title in the template/table will cover apps and goals as well as discipline.EddieV2003 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

is that considered a reliable source. My problem with the soccerbase one is i can prove it wrong for championship or lower nine times out of ten. Its great for most things but when the press association are involved which in scottish football is where most of these stats come from its not the best. For the premiership clubs it tends to be ok.Blethering Scot 22:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Starting 11 again

per this thread, I was convinced that this is WP:OR, but there is some disagreement on 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, consensus is pretty clear. GiantSnowman 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm at 3RR, further input welcome. GiantSnowman 20:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

me too. the current edit warrior is a WP:SPA. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To me it is easy. No starting XI in articles. Impossible to find WP:RS for formations. QED237 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have seen a more objective form such as at 2013 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season#Starting 11. While it's unreferenced, it does clearly indicate how many starts each player has received and based on WP:CALC and the results listed on the same page, can be calculated. Without something like that, there's no way to include it. If it means removing them all to avoid further problems, I would have no objection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That is just stupid; they've got Jay DeMerit, who has played a grand total of 8 minutes this season, in the first-choice starting 11. A perfect example of why we shouldn't have these sections. BigDom (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed they also have a "Start formations" subsection. Can't this also be classified as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? Formations can change during a game and different sites could report different formations. --MicroX (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In-game formation changes would not be reflected. The section would strictly be for starting formations, which in the case of Real Madrid, are well documented under match reports at MARCA and Soccerway. The "Start formations" subsection is a numerical count of the instances in which each formation was used and the correlating matchday number of usage(s), also well documented across independent articles.

I'm in favor of keeping such a section because at worst, it'd be a murky borderline policy issue, but the information and content it provides are not inherently factual fallacies, adds to the readability, are very relevant to the subject (identifies the manner(s) in which a team plays as well as usage volume of individual players), and, through common sense, improves the overall article. Bobby (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --MicroX (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it does matter. "Start formations" is unambiguously not OR because of multiple independent sources provided above. "Starting 11" contained an image of a football field with players in positions. The argument for SYNTH was that combining the table in "Starting 11" with "Start formations" resulted in an improper synthesis. The image of the field has been removed, leaving just the table, which is just data with sources provided. Bobby (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how laying the players' names out in places on a green rectangle determined by their position code differs from laying them out in a table next to their position code, but perhaps that's just me...

The title "Starting 11", however, is absolutely OR/SYNTH. If it was called "list of players having started most times in each position", and it was independently and reliably sourced without any need for expert knowledge of the players concerned (see below), then it would at least say what it meant. But calling it "Starting 11", when it's not necessarily the case that those 11 players have ever been in the same starting eleven, misleads the reader. An example: if you take the players from 2012–13 Birmingham City F.C. season#Appearances and goals, arrange those with the most league starts in each position into a typical starting shape, that set of players only started together ONCE in that season. That may be an extreme case, but it's the first one I tried. Why would we want to display as a typical, informative, starting eleven, a set of players that rarely started together?

Coming back to OR: According to 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season#Starting 11 after 3 games, Modric had three starts at defensive midfielder and Isco three starts at attacking midfielder. How do you decide just from these three sources that Modric played defensive midfield and Isco attacking midfield against Betis? The images display them identically. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see it improves readability; it's just a table with a diagram, so there's really nothing to read. Also, I don't see how you can "identify the manner in which a team plays" by their formation and most commonly used players. Two teams might play 4-4-2 and play in completely different styles to each other, which wouldn't be immediately obvious, even if you knew which players they used, since you'd have to have pretty much expert knowledge of the players to know how they play. In short, the starting formations sections are bogus and should be deleted. – PeeJay 08:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see how that Whitecaps table is supposed to work. If Leveron has had 16 starts, why isn't he included.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with ChrisTheDude that example is really bad and I think that table probably should be removed. QED237 (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Also I must say that User:PeeJay2K3 response was very good. I totally agree with that. QED237 (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Xboxandhalo2: - there is clear consensus (once again!) that these graphics/tables are simply not suitable, regardless of how they are displayed. Why can you not accept that? GiantSnowman 09:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Struway2 has it nailed. The "starting XI" is, at best, confusing and, at worst, totally misleading. I would advocate a "destroy on sight" policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with the comments about a "starting XI", "most used XI" etc. I have a different view on (for instance) the actual starting lineups on the first and last day of the season, particularly for clubs that have gone through a lot of transition. Take Watford last season: started out in a 4-4-2 which strongly resembled Sean Dyche's team, and finished up 3-5-2 with a lineup representative of what Zola had used through the season. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 15:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I recently came to know this "starting 11" dillema, I created some articles and added a starting 11 section based on the "Almanaque" I bought which is a club official product, it has a drawing of the most used eleven in the season, so my question is, does starting 11 from this reference is also unappropriate?--Threeohsix (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This may remove the original research argument, but others remain. I am not sure about copyrights on copying the work somebody else has published in this case. Many reasons for the removal of these sections are still present. As others have mentioned, does it represent how the season was really played? The original research part was not the whole argument against Starting 11s being in the articles. EddieV2003 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And what other problems are? Can you explain them?--Threeohsix (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

These are quotations from the threads I showed you yesterday:

"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)"

"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)"

"There is no such concept as a "starting XI". This is enshrined in the sport's rules, which dictate that managers need name their outfield lineup only in the period immediately before kickoff. Let's not entertain any more of this fanzine nonsense. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)"

"I believe the "starting XI" is nonsense and should be removed absolutely. We have injuries, we have rotation systems, we have competitions that remove players from league play for a month, the concept of an "average starting XI" is pure original research and should be excised on sight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)"

Even if the club publishes an image of a starting 11, it is something that does not represent anything related to how matches are played.EddieV2003 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand, I advise you not to claim OR, when removing it, better "Recent consensus in Wikifootball" or something close, because otherwise in can lead to confusions. Personally I feel this just diminuish the quality of the articles, as graphic with most used squad is helpful for someone non related to the subject, but the bosses here have decided it, let it be.--Threeohsix (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential problem at New York Cosmos (2010)

I know how some editors like to keep the original NASL's history separate from the modern teams that have the same name. Those editors may want to review the edits at New York Cosmos (2010) that imply that the modern team is a "reestablished" version the original team and the nav template, Template:New York Cosmos completely links both. As the editor making these changes has taken offence at me pointing out that images are not to be added to nav templates and already doesn't like me, I'd prefer if other editors could 1) deal with this issue and 2) mentor the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Having them in the same navbox isn't that big a deal. The name itself is like a brand but the club articles should remain separate. --MicroX (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is. They are two completely seperate clubs and the fact they have the same name is utterly irrelevant, as is any claim the new club may make to the old club's history/legacy/heritage. GiantSnowman 08:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the full story - but the US franchise and naming system is a little strange when it comes to this sort of stuff, so it's entirely possible for them to be the "same team" if the NASL recognises them as such (in the same way the Cleveland Browns are the Cleveland Browns with all the history by NFL rules). However if the NASL of today is in no way linked to the original NASL (I have no idea of such finer things tbh so trust that GiantSnowman is right, and that this is what his point rests on) then they are completely separate entities with the same name as homage. Koncorde (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the legality of it, but apparently the current club owners purchased the name from someone who was in management with the original club. I'm not sure how he gained possession of the rights to the team name, but it is stated that he ran some soccer camps under the Beckenbauer's name and it was somehow affiliated with the original club. Since the US is very litigious and protective of trademarks and branding, I doubt that they are using the name without legal authority.

That the current NASL and the earlier incarnation are unrelated is true and undisputed, even if they bought the Soccer Cup, which was the old trophy used with the original NASL.

How many European clubs ceased operation only to be "resurrected" by different parties years later? How many merged with other clubs and yet we keep the history in one location? Why is it that we have this insanity for North American teams and not from other locations? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Assists

Relating to the 'Starting XI' issue - this has also been discussed before, but can't hurt to re-state the obvious i.e. they are not encyclopedic and should not be included due to different definitions and stats. What are people's opinions on including 'Assists' stats in player tables / club season articles? GiantSnowman 15:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Assists have no use outside of stats websites so remove on sight from all articles. I'd have a different opinion if 1) there was a complete definition of what one actually is and 2) they were actually meaningful during/after matches. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with above. Should be removed, since there are different definitions on different places. QED237 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Should never be included. Far too much potential variability between sources. VanguardScot 17:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This originated from Talk:2013–14_Real_Madrid_C.F._season#Assists. In short, La Liga, perhaps unlike English football, logs assists as an official statistic (same thing with UEFA for the Champions League). As a result, at least for Spain and UCL, the most reliable of all sources exists, in addition to other sources that concur.

My position is if the competition organizers record assists, then keep. Otherwise, variances across sources over "definition" and whatnot may constitute inaccuracies. Bobby (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your position is in stark contrast to everybody else's, regardless of what league it is. GiantSnowman 18:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If they were better defined and led to something important like the Art Ross Trophy in the NHL, then there would be a reason to include them. Ice hockey and basketball have articles about an assist in those sports because they have a clear definition. I have seen places list a player being fouled leading to a pk as an assist. Without a clear definition, there is no reason to include them in football articles. EddieV2003 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If this was a sport-wide statistic, it would be worth including, but there's far too much variation in the definition of an assist between leagues/fantasy football competitions/whatever other source we use. If a player wins a penalty that is scored, does he get credited with an assist? Some would say yes, others no. What about if the penalty is scored on the rebound? Is the assist given to a player who contributes the last meaningful pass, the last touch, the last glance? It's too vague to assign to anyone and not a stat we should bother recording. By all means do it on club-specific wikis, but not here. – PeeJay 19:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything said here; assists should be removed from all Season articles and player articles on sight. For example Juan Mata's career stats table lists assists, which are misleading and have no basis. JMHamo (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume this agreement also applies to league articles. Currently, the 2012–13 Bundesliga and others have the top assists listed next to the top goalscorers. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It is cited to the official site, so I don't see why it should be deleted. However, it points to the current season, so presumably the link needs fixing. Eldumpo (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A quick look at Ronaldo's stats for the 2012–13 season - one of the club's most popular players (so should have more out there about him, people paying more attention to stats etc.) and the last completed season. The Real Madrid official website gives him 9 La Liga assists, whereas ESPN gives him 10. GiantSnowman 17:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

La Liga awarded him 10 so that would be the one used and RealMadrid.com would be removed as a source. Bobby (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

But do we know which is the 'correct' source? We don't/can't, hence why there is overwhelming consensus here and at the season page that assists should not be included. GiantSnowman 18:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the position that they should be included if they are officially tracked by the competition organiser. I mean we essentially do that with goals already. If the scorer of a particular goal is in dispute, it's the organising body that decides who gets credit for it, and that's the info we go with on the relevant pages, even if other sources report it differently. This should be no different. If the organisers track assists as a player statistic and make those numbers widely available, then those stats should be included as a sufficiently interesting and reliably sourced fact. If not, the numbers published by other sources are all but meaningless and shouldn't be included. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still against including it as it's not notable enough. Apart from the players of fantasy football there is no use for the stat. No player wins a trophy or gets a bonus and no team gets a trophy or a performance bonus for them. There are a lot of football stats that have more of an affect on the game and have a precise definition which we don't keep a track of. I would say number of fouls committed by each club would be of more use as it forms a part of the fair play rating of each club and therefore the league as a whole (not that I'm suggesting that we include it). As I've said repeatedly, the lack of a precise definition is the biggest problem and I've just as much confidence in the Premier Leagues version of the table as I do in any other. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the difference between the current situation with goals and the prospect of using the 'official' assist tables is that there is a precise definition of when a goal has been awarded (i.e. when the referee signals for it). Using the official decision on who has scored the goal is different as there is a specific panel to decide who gets awarded the goal. That is not the case for assists. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The existence of a precise definition of an assist should be a moot point per WP:V, supported by WP:NOTTRUTH. The organizing body's version of the assists table is adequate as a reliable source. Whether you personally agree or disagree with it due to the possible existence of conflicting sources isn't relevant because the due weight should be placed on the official source. Assists are an interesting enough statistic that recently has been frequently cited (Ozil's transfer; Ribery's Best Player in Europe). It'd be a positive addition that wouldn't harm a club or league season page.Bobby (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

For club season articles any particularly interesting assists stats would be better off mentioned in the prose with a link rather than adding yet another table. With player articles I agree that they should definitely be removed. Using the standard player stats table there are already 10 apps/goals columns so the addition of another five assists columns like this makes the table excessively large and harder to read. T 88 R (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

An inherent problem is that aside from a few major clubs' season articles, 95% of the remaining season articles lack significant prose, if any at all. In those instances, including a table near the bottom of the page would be better than nothing. Bobby (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The lack of prose does not mean it is right to add a table that should not be on any page at all. I would say it is better with "nothing" in that case. We cant add "bad" information just for the sake of adding something. QED237 (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think assists qualify as being indiscriminate. Heck, it's only one of three player statistical categories that ESPN tracks. If the preeminent sports publication think it's an important enough category to include, then we shouldn't try to subjectively argue it isn't just for the sake of arguing. Bobby (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Xboxandhalo2: - seriously, drop the fucking stick. The only person pressing for the inclusion of assists is...you. You are not going to change anybody's opinion, there is no desire to include the assist stats, and I doubt there ever will be. Move on. GiantSnowman 16:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A total misrepresentation -- there are many who press for inclusion if you really look closely at the talk pages. Cogent reasons have been cited and rebutted with rubbish. Variability is a non-starter; sources provide conflicting information all the time, and if there's an official body that clocks a stat, I don't see why it can't be used. Definition is a non-starter; again, the resolver will be the use of an official stat. Importance is perhaps debatable. After goals people look out for assist stats. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A minority of editors making weak arguments at the talk pages of individual articles? Mere WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, far outweighed by this dsicussion here. GiantSnowman 10:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Consensus favours no assists. I consider this discussion closed. JMHamo (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

But there is a split in consensus, that is evident so the discussion cannot be closed 109.148.200.72 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as GiantSnowman has already mentioned. JMHamo (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There is not a split here, mysterious IP. GiantSnowman 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Arrived late in the discussion, but assists are sometimes infuential in determining the league best player, where is that stat going to be? in the personal player page, a mention in the league page, in the prose?--Threeohsix (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere. GiantSnowman 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm perplexed because UEFA along with La Liga keep records of assist but England does not, so we must remove it from ALL the articles not related to English football? La Fuzion (K lo K) 19:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

England does too actually. Bobby (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why or what prompted the request to remove assist from articles when it is a valid stat? La Fuzion (K lo K) 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with which countries use them and which countries don't. It is to do with all the other issued that you have failed to deal with. GiantSnowman 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your hostility is really not necessary. There's an article that defines assists in football. Along with the leagues recording it as an official statistics but you seem to be hell bent on removing it because ...? Wait, you don't have a valid reason besides your personal opinion. Have a good night. La Fuzion (K lo K) 19:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Where have I been hostile? I'm simply repeating the point that there is no agreed definition of assists among the RS that Wikipedia uses, resulting in conflicting stats and potentially incorrect information. What is your "valid reason" for including them? Wait, you don't have one, you just like assists? Have a great night. Please also learn to indent. GiantSnowman 20:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with including assists. If there is a page that records it for the country they play in (link(s) given above and Bundesliga here) just use those to add them. I see not a clear consensus like it is/was stated... Kante4 (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The assists provide a valuable, encyclopaedic piece of information for people looking to better understand a player and what their statistics are. Although there are some statistics that conflict, this is the same with goals, minutes and hundreds of other events and facts throughout history. The fact is if the official governing body of the league the game is being played in has an assist statistic, then that should be taken. The assist is such a valuable statistic and should not be removed. Fudgy budgy (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Goals rarely, if ever, conflict - but 'minutes' is not something we should record either. We are not a statistics website, if readers want to "better understand a player and what their statistics are" then we should (and do!) provide external links to websites that have that role. GiantSnowman 08:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to indent my responses? I did not indent for a reason and it is "Please, also learn to indent.". I tend to ignore contributors who have ownership issues so I'll let you be. Keyboard warriors tend to eliminate themselves sooner rather than later. As per my "valid reason", I have none as this is a trivial argument you made into a pressing one due to your lack of effectively communicating your point for a more dictator like attitude. You feel that your opinion is valid and others are "in the way" so I say we should go with what you've said as I would not want you to do something crazy to yourself if you don't get your way. Cheers... La Fuzion (K lo K) 12:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Because you seem to lack the ability to indent - and please do not attempt to correct the language of a native English speaker with 2 degrees in the subject, you come across looking ridiculous; same goes for your unfounded accusations of OWNership and "keyboard warriors." I take it you are unable/unwilling to comment any further on the matter at hand? GiantSnowman 12:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on your 2 degrees. I guess they just hand them out nowadays. Anyways, I have no issues with discussing this topic; however, your hostile responses are not warranted. This is just the internet buddy. As per assists, if the consensus is that most reliable sources don't agree on what an assist is and FIFA has not provided a clear definition, then it should be removed for the sake of consistency. You could have easily stated your request and then discussed it but it seemed you were busier on being condescending when someone differed from your opinion. There are other responses here that call for the removal of assists w/o the need of using the "I have the bigger stick" attitude. La Fuzion (K lo K) 13:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The only one with the attitude problem here is you - but that's to be expected when you have been canvassed for your comments here. GiantSnowman 14:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If you guys want to continue this, please leave this section and go to your walls and continue. This is so lame. Coming to assists tables, I have noticed that even La Liga 2013-14 season has not been fully updated since matchweek 2. If this is the scenario, discussing about whether or not to keep assist tables is a pathetic joke. Also, Atletico Madrid 2013-14 page has more of La Liga 2013-14 contents than its own. Not sure who is playing this though. Assists have been well documented, though different sources credit it differently. But that's the same case with goals as well. The issue has not been resolved yet. So I suggest we wait and watch till the end of current season and see how it develops. One year isn't a long time is it?Deepak 15th September 2013

Admin help needed

I broadly edited the entry of the NF-Board and it was just undone stating that it was an "abuse". In fact most of the references are dead links, many information is just wrong and it is not even clear to me if the NF-Board is still existing in any way. The "undoer" mainly quotes the page www.nf-board.org as a source. This page states it is an official page. The page www.nf-board.com also states that. Both pages do have member lists, both lists are different and half of their "members" never existed or do not exist anymore. I have spoken to some of the FAs that are listed as members (Somaliland, Wallonie, South Lower Saxony or South Cameroon for example) and they never had a single match. Besides some of the FAs not even heard of the NF-Board before and where quite confused to be listed as an official member when I wrote them. To me, just beeing a fan who got interested in non-FIFA football, it is absolutely unclear if the NF-Board is still operating. I found out that there is an other organization (called CONIFA) which will organize a World Championship of non-FIFA teams next year. I also wrote online that the NF-Board is trying to do any legal actions against them. But I can see no evidence of the NF-Board still beeing active in football in any way.

To come back to the essentials of Wikipedia: About 70% of the article is wrong (Luc Misson is not the General Secretary), is a self-fulfilling prophecy (The article says it is also known as non-FIFA board. Only pages that cite Wikipedia call them non-FIFA Board. Same with their "wish to work with FIFA".), is unproven (most of the members), unclear (the "official" homepage, the president, etc.) or is just promotion ("The best VIVA World Cup ever"). I see there is some need for this article due to the great history of the NF-Board and the VIVA World Cups, but I think the article should be based on facts. And the only fact is that they do have a great history.NikauTokelau (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot agree on the article talk page, then WP:DRN may be a better venue to take it. GiantSnowman 08:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Current state looks good. Notice the weak article, and absence of actions of the Board earlier too. -Koppapa (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately the article has been filled with wrong and dubious info again. I would love to find an agreement on the talk page, but the editor who is adding the unclear info does not talk on the talk page. He is just bringing the page to the same dubious stage again and again. NikauTokelau (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: He finally contributed to the Talk page. It would still be welcome of some people could join that discussion. I am new to wiki and I am unsure if unquoted information or promotion material like "The NFB will work with FIFA" should stand. Same with the members lists. I wrote to most of them and many never heard of the NFB. Should we nevertheless just copy the NFB's list? Even if many of those FAs just exist on that list and never had a team or match ?NikauTokelau (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Backround colors in standings removed

Hi

Now the groups in 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round are getting finished and someone removed the pink/red lines for eliminated teams when some groups was finished like here and here with the argument "all group matches finished, deleted the pink borders that indicate no chance of qualification". Now there is one editor insisting on removing the pink color for elimination even on groups with all games not finished (but it is decided who win group) like here and here with argument "group is decided". My question is now, shouldnt we wait removing these pink colors until the group is finished or maybe even until all the matches in that qualification stage has been finished? I feel like we should. QED237 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't tracked the full argument, but it seems there are two issues at play. First, the colour coding of the different stages of qualification. And second, final colouring before all games in a phase have been played. To the first issue I have replied on a talk page and I think implicit (if not formulated explicit) consensus is that the first tier of qualification in any group is green. I agree with this practice and it is my opinion it should be the case for the CAF second round as well. The second issue might be a bit more contentious, in this specific case the groups will be over in two days, so there is not necessarily a reason to fight this battle. I personally feel it is fine to state the qualification status as final once it has been decided, even though games are left to play. It is not WP:OR, because typically clinching qualification is widely published. Especially for the world cup qualifying it shouldn't be too hard to find a source for it if needed. Otherwise WP:CALC might still apply. It is probably better though to accompany the table with a note saying something to the effect of "Xxx has qualified, even though games remain to be played". CRwikiCA talk 17:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. # Archive

I think something has gone wrong with the archiving, I really haven't paid enough attention to the project or the page to know what is going on. There are 1 to 4 archive pages pointing on the talk page and yet page 4 is rather long and goes back only too November 2012. So where is the rest going to? And why is there no new archive pages? Govvy (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The explanation is simple: The first three archives was manually archived, but after this edit it was archived by a bot and the bot will start on the next archive once the fourth becomes 100kb. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

But the first four are manuals as I did them, but after that, there are no new pages so where on earth is it arching too? Govvy (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The bots last archive was on 5 September 2013, and that was to Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C./Archive 4.Blethering Scot 18:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox football club

See Manchester United F.C. on the infobox where it says Capacity to the left of the field there is a small -. This appears on every article with this infobox in it. Can anyone explain the reason for this or is it an error. Thanks.Blethering Scot 18:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

appears to be from this edit. probably should be a bullet instead of a dash. the point here is probably to show that the capacity and coordinates apply to the ground. Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly but does look very peculiar. How many club articles have the Coordinates in the infobox.Blethering Scot 18:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

the thread discussing this is on Template talk:Infobox football club‎. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the dash for now, agree it doesn't look right - ideally it would be indented but I'm not sure how to do that. GiantSnowman 18:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

see the thread on Template talk:Infobox football club‎. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to split Football hooliganism

Hello WikiProject Football. I've created a split proposal at Talk:Football hooliganism#Proposal to split. Please comment over there, especially to notify any objections. (I won't proceed if there are many.) --Stfg (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Carl Jenkinson stats table

Could somebody please revert the Carl Jenkinson stats table to the last good revision please? There is a user who thinks "optimizing" it means removing citations and info about European cup appearances, which I consider disruptive and does not improve it. I tried discussing it on the Talk page, but nothing. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted it. At least they are participating in the discussion now. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is any admins about can someone protect this page please. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Live scoring

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 8, I want to make it known that I strongly support live scoring of matches. Wikipedia is often the first to cover important news events, and sporting matches are among them. Along those lines, I categorically reject the notion that Wikipedia is "not in the business of" reporting scores in real time. We are an encyclopedia, and have a commitment to provide the most current and accurate information. Let's note with pride the willingness of some editors to take time out of their day (and perhaps monitor the Wikipedia page while watching the game), just so others can receive better information. It's a virtuous act that we should reward. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not a ticker news service. It's an annoying act that leads to incorrect information, and should be stamped out. GiantSnowman 17:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Where on WP:NOTNEWS does it state that we are not a ticker news service? It states that articles "can be updated with recently verified information"; the verification can easily be obtained from the ESPN (i.a.) broadcast or the online "GameCast" that lists the score and different plays.

Furthermore, WP:NOTNEWS states "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Indeed we are not emphasizing the new information with live scoring; we are simply including it in its proper place (namely, the place where the score goes). It's not like we're committing some egregious error by posting the current score; in fact, the current score is infinitely more accurate than the default score (namely, 0-0). When an editor looks up a given sporting event, they expect to see accurate information. If the score is listed as 0-0 they may think the game is still scoreless when in fact it is not. It is a disservice to readers to exclude verifiable information. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, because when Wikipedia states a score of 0-0 and confirms that was prior to the match, that is 100% accurate. When it says 2-0 because two editors have both added the same goal scored by one team without realising, that is 0% accurate. NOTNEWS states "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and live scores falls under that. The fact that you are citing ESPN, a sports news broadcaster, tells us everything we need to know. GiantSnowman 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ESPN is a solidly reliable source for scores. Yes, the score may be overturned within a few seconds or minutes ("the ruling on the field is overturned," as they say in American football), but those are blips on the radar. We report information that later turns out to be false all the time; "facts" change with time and may even be retroactively changed. For example, USC had some of its American football wins "vacated" - which is to say, wiped off the record books. If we want to avoid being "premature" we would have to wait, say, ten thousand years until nobody plays sports anymore, just to make sure the score won't be vacated at some future point. We can't wait forever to report scores.

Inaccurate scores are indeed problematic. However, I see the 2-0 problem as being a rare one; even if it happened 5 times, we're talking about thousands of articles, and the fact that people noticed it tells me it did not go uncorrected. Both 0-0 and 2-0 are plainly and simply incorrect. There's no way around that, and I do not endorse either. I endorse only what is current and verifiable, which is 1-0. Live scoring is an elegant and easily recognizable representation of our goal as a project - to relay the sum of human knowledge. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ESPN may well be solidly reliable; that does not mean we should try and imitate a sport cable network! The 2-0 problem happens more often than you might think, with over-eager IPs wanting to be the first ones to update the score. 0-0 is NOT incorrect when it is made obvious that the game has not completed. Case in point, I suggest you look at this recent match - it was at 3-1 (so by your methods the corresponding article would have shown 3-1, and would have been updated as such) but then it was abandoned due to weather and will be re-played in the future. A score should not be placed in an encyclopedia until it has been confirmed as finishing. Finally, you need to stop comparing soccerball to gridiron, they are two different sports with different rules & culture, and what happens in American football is 100%, wholly, completely, entirely irrelevant to this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not discredit my comparisons. I have every right to make them. The concept of live scoring applies to all sports, whether this or any other, and I find the concept admirable in each of those situations (except perhaps for tennis, where the score can go back and forth before there's a winner).

• There's no harm in putting a score in there as long as it's current and verifiable. Once we find out the score is inaccurate (because the game was cancelled or postponed) we can change it, but to assume the game may be cancelled or postponed is a crystal ball prediction. Based on the best of our knowledge (past sports matches as evidence), it is safe only to assume that a given score will be upheld and will contribute to the final score, and that a game will have a final score (i.e. will not be cancelled or postponed). To suggest otherwise (that a team scoring is not really valid, or that a final score will never arrive) seems overreaching. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Outside (of you two) perspective. I've been guilty of adding scorers, but not updating scores during a match, but I understand this situation. There is no deadline so we can wait for the match to finish before updating the score. Presumably, those who are advocating updating scores mid-match would also advocate updating league tables mid-match.... What a disaster...

Having said that, it's a little like the end of season change in divisions for promoted and relegated clubs, and players transferred whose contracts don't actually start until, say, 1 July. Trying to fight this kind of knee-jerk news ticker reporting on Wikipedia is a lost cause. It shouldn't be encouraged, but we'll never 100% beat the tide of people who "want to post it first". Perhaps we could direct those folks to WP:ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Trying to fight this kind of knee-jerk news ticker reporting on Wikipedia is a lost cause."

• That seems like a very dismissive way to interpret the good-faith actions of many editors who want to share their knowledge with others. Perhaps you think Wikipedia should "eventually" be good; I think it should be good right now. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Pages frequently don't get updated fully or incorrectly because more than one editor does it leaving the wrong scores, matches get abandoned and the scores still sit there. Especially important regarding abandoned matches as the end source ends up with all the stats removed. Its a constant battle and the only reliable source is the one that comes fully completed at full time. Scores is not an imperative update and we should not be trying to be a poor mans breaking news service. If people want live scores they'll to to ESPN if they want encyclopaedic and fully verifiable information backed up with a reliable and complete source then they will come to Wikipedia. The one jumping glaringly out at me point is Once we find out the score is inaccurate' we are an encyclopaedia and should not be providing the user with inaccurate info in the first place especially without a set in a concrete reliable source which with live scores it never is. There is simply no need for live scores on this site unless Jimbo decided to launch a breaking news or sports ticker service which we are neithier and is clearly what WP is Not. Blethering Scot 22:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Once we find out the score is inaccurate"

• You seem to be taking that out of context. I was referring to situations in which a game is cancelled or postponed - we have no way of anticipating such situations, so they are inherently special cases. In the vast majority of cases the game actually goes through as planned. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody looks on Wikipedia for live scores – there are dozens of better providers of that particular service – so there's no good reason to do it. Wikipedia can never be as good as most other providers of live scores, because editors get their scores from those providers. Good reasons not to do it include the reasons stated above by others, and one that I regularly find, that of someone updating a live score, then losing interest and buggering off, leaving an incorrect scoreline in an article long after the match has finished. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but by that logic no-one should edit anything in case they lose interest and bugger off part way through. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Given all the other means of getting a score, why would anyone choose an encyclopedia? Also a game is 90 mins or thereabouts. Editing an article on Wiki is often a lifetimes work! Buggering off half way through something which is known to have a definite end time is no way to go. Doing the same on an article on a person or a place would not be so bad as long as the article were left in an acceptable condition. Surely even in this age of instant info we can hang on until the cholesterolly-challenged female has completed her vocals?--Egghead06 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Surely even in this age of instant info" -- that's exactly the point. Wikipedia helped pioneer instant, easy access to anything you could imagine. That's one of our founding tenets; that's in our DNA. This is a logical component of that philosophy. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Although another sport WP:LIVESCORES hits it on the head! Why would it be different for football? --Egghead06 (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm endorsing the idea of live scores for all sports (not as a requirement but as an option). "Only three editors participated in the discussion so the decision may need to be revisited at some point" - that's part of the problem. We haven't had a vigorous enough debate. I think there are more supporters of live scoring than it would seem on the face. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Nobody looks on Wikipedia for live scores"

• Strongly disagree. Our articles about current sporting events (or current events as a whole) get tens or hundreds of thousands of views. Whether people like it or not, we are looked to as a relayer of breaking news (not a primary source, but a timely secondary source). Some editors have made good faith efforts to keep others updated, and it's frustrating to see people dismiss those efforts. Without the "live game" tag people will still update scores - but readers will not be warned - making the problem double. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of Template:Match in progress is that we're warning the readers that the match is still in progress, and that the information will continue to be updated. No reader who sees "match in progress" next to a score is going to take that score as the final score. The reader will see the tag, recognize that the match is still ongoing, and take the score as a helpful gauge of where the game is so far; the reader may check in after the game has concluded to see the final score, but most likely will not do so. For those few moments when the reader stops by the article, let's give them the best knowledge we have available to us, rather than mislead them with outdated pre-match information. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news medium. If a person wants to know the score of a match, ESPN or another source is better suited and just as easily accessible (if not easier since scores are on the front page). I do not get Bundesliga games, but I would not come here to get the score when a gamecast somewhere else breaks down the events in real time. Some members are editing the 2013–14 FC Bayern Munich season appearances table during the match which I believe should wait until it is finished, but the information of who started will not be incorrect like a goal which may be ruled later to have been scored by a different player. There is no reason to go back and correct errors when they are avoidable in the first place. The site guidelines say it is not a news ticker, so it should not be treated as one. EddieV2003 (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If a user is coming to Wikipedia for live match results, they're using Wikipedia in the wrong way. We are not a primary source, and although we get our info from primary/secondary sources, that doesn't mean that people should skip the middleman and come straight here. If they come here and find that we haven't updated the scores throughout the match, that's their problem and they should go somewhere that does do that. – PeeJay 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree! I have been told by anons that their employers have blocked sports websites so that they cannot get updates that way. My response was that if an employer thinks employees are wasting time by looking at sports websites and then if Wikipedia is used for that purpose, what will happen to this site at that place of work?

We are an encyclopedia and not a scoreboard or a news site. We should remove the MIP template, or at least update its documentation to indicate that scores are not to be updated during match play. We can also lock articles where match results may be posted on a case-by-case basis until this behaviour stops. At the very least an edit page notice should be added to those pages indicating that match scores should only be updated after full-time. It might be appropriate to link to the official location where the live score can be seen while the MiP template is in-place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So should we update league tables while these matches are going on Casey? Where do you draw the line? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And what about issued raised by #Two sources, two versions where the goalscorer is contested? GiantSnowman 17:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Livescoring has a lot of problem, minute or goalscorer sometimes are not clear. A goalscorer can change some day after the match because it is an o.g. or there is touch not seen, so on... There is already an editwarring after the end of the match because everybody what to update the tables, some times it was given to some team 2-3 victory more. There is a lot of error already updating at the end of the match. I don't want to know how much errors could be made if league table are update live. But if we allow the livescoring why we don't allow live update of league table? For me is clear to not permit the livescoring. Stigni (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Noone has ever updated a league table live. So there is no problem. If someone updates matches live, who cares. Not worth the hassle of reverting if things sort themselves out after 90 minutes of waiting. -Koppapa (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No-one, ever, in the history of Wikipedia? I call shenanigans on that. GiantSnowman 10:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

For the Kenyan football there is this Template to remember that Wikipedia is not a play-by-play sports magazine. You are right no one now update the table, but how much undo we have done?? Stigni (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World football club attendances

Dear footballers: This Afc submission may be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, look at that, every team's average attendance is an exact multiple of thousand, what are the odds of that happening? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Its creation was rejected a month or so ago. This is not of interest, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is this even being brought up here? If the creation of this article was declined 33 days ago (as I can plainly see on the AfC page), it should have been scrubbed from the list of AfCs. – PeeJay 10:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume it's being brought here because the original submitter has lost interest, to see if there's anything a subject expert might want to salvage before it does get removed. Constructive thing to do, in my opinion, as most people here never go anywhere near AfC and there was a spate of PROD/AfDs resulting from one particular (no longer active) reviewer's acceptances of clearly non-notable submissions. This one's clearly a WP:NOTSTATS failure, even if properly referenced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So what about these or Average_attendances_of_European_football_clubs? -Koppapa (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What about them? In my purely personal opinion, the first lot are mostly unsourced with pretty random content, and they all fail NOTSTATS, which says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", and that "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader."

The last one is sourced, and beautifully laid out, but the text, in its entirety, reads "The following is a table showing average attendances for football clubs in Europe in domestic league matches. The specific seasons are listed alongside each team, with the default being the 2012–13 season. Teams are included if they achieve a 25,000 average." Not sure how that explains why we should be interested? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged all the articles in Category:Football club attendances with PROD. GiantSnowman 12:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed the prod tags. We have many similar articles that collect sports attendance figures, see Category:Sports attendance. If there's something specifically wrong with the football club attendances articles, that can be discussed in a group AfD, but I don't think asserting WP:NOTSTATS, by itself, is enough, and nor is it sufficiently uncontroversial to warrant erasing all these articles via PROD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Now at AFD. GiantSnowman 15:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, football fans. Although the article had been declined, it had been resubmitted. Sometimes that happens a number of times, with the submitter making improvements (hopefully) between submissions. But sometimes a submitter can have a good topic, but need some help to make the article acceptable, or a bad topic, but the only experts in the field would know. Sorry I didn't look back sooner to see the above questions until now. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm not too familiar with the procedures at WP:AfC. – PeeJay 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This particular article has now been moved to Record attendances in non-European club soccer which to me appears to be a bit of a strange subset of stats (why exclude europe). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

League of Ireland second-tier players

Hello, for those that monitor PRODs - This morning I added 18 players from the League of Ireland First Division (second-tier), which is not a fully pro league and fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Was expecting these to be players who'd only played in the second tier, what with the rationale Plays in the second tier of League of Ireland football - not a fully professional league, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and PROD being for uncontroversial deletions. Most of them, if not all, have played in the top tier as well.

I've dePRODded a couple. Derek O'Brien, who was in the 2007 PFAI Premier Division Team of the Year and helped St Pat's reach the rounds proper of the UEFA Cup, and John Frost, who had a long career in the LoI and played in three FAI Cup finals, once on the winning side, would IMO pass GNG comfortably. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And another procedural removal: Davin O'Neill was kept at the multiple AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark McNulty (footballer), so is ineligible for PROD (as was Derek O'Brien, I thought I remembered him from somewhere). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Struway2. I didn't see an AfD nomination notice on the Davin O'Neill talk page, but I see you've added this now. I have also added the AfD nomination notice to Derek O'Brien JMHamo (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, should have done that when I noticed him. Rather than relying on talk page templates, which often aren't there, it's a good idea to check the article history edit summaries for mention of prod or AfD, or click on What links here, Wikipedia namespace. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

flatlist in infoboxes

Apparently unbulleted lists are a previously established guideline according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, yet I don't see any acceptance of them at the clubs page and the docs do not support their use. There has been no evidence at MoS/Lists that they are in any way better for any purpose, and they're grammatically incorrect in lists, which should be separated by commas.

My question is, should we move to their use in the infobox, and if so, would someone please clearly indicate that in the documentation there? If not, I would like to clearly state our opposition to this wave in the documentation there as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No comment? Leave as is? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Australian seasons

Currently all National Soccer League and A-League seasons articles (contained under Category:A-League seasons and Category:National Soccer League (Australia) seasons) are titled with the format YYYY-YY <league name> without the word season in the title. Is there any policy reason why I shouldn't move all of these to include the word season? Hack (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season says the word "season" should only be used if there are two seperate championships played during that season i.e. the Apertura/Clausura system in South America. GiantSnowman 11:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The second part of that sentence says "OR the season is decided by a knock-out tournament after the conclusion of the regular season (e.g. Major League Soccer, Australian A-League), the word "season" should be attached to the title." I'm guessing that means season should be used for all A-League seasons and most NSL seasons. Hack (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case - yes, you're right. GiantSnowman 11:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The wording of that page suggests it's a proposal. Just wondering if it ever got anywhere towards being more formal. Hack (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm usnure if it ever was formally 'approved' but it's been there for 3 years and is listed as one of our Manual of Style, so I would presume so. GiantSnowman 13:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Two sources, two versions

Hi, few days ago I posted a specialized question on the help desk (here), and John Broughton suggested me to ask here. This is the issue:

3 days ago, after the end of matches listed in the article 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fourth Round, I waited for the end of various updates to make some technical controls. In a match, Honduras-Panama (2-2), the FIFA report (both in index and final report forms) assigns the 2nd Panamanian goal to Gabriel Torres, min. 90'. CONCACAF report assings it to Roberto Chen, min. 90+2' (see live commentary), after an assist... Yesterday I reverted an anon edit (this one) explaining the reasons in the summary and preferring FIFA version to CONCACAF's one because, in the doubt, FIFA's is the one linked in the article. By now I've seen this edits but I've not reverted them. Well, I've not reverted for some reasons: to avoid a possible edit war because the anon could be right (CONCACAF report) and, btw, the IP seems to come from Panama... and he/she could have seen the match on TV... Well, in cases as this one what is the report to follow? It's just a help request to a most experienced user in this field. Thanx for listening. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition: In the help desk question Fuhghettaboutit linked to me this video showing the scoring Examinating it, and seeing the portraits of both Panamanian players involved (Chen - Torres), it seems to me that the anon was right. The action is really rapid and not perfectly clear but it seems that the scorer was Roberto Chen after an assist of Luis Henríquez (img) (number 17). --Dэя-Бøяg 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the majority of sources indicate Roberto Chen scored the second goal, including the network that aired the match in the US (see here: [1]). Jogurney (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources including both the Panama and Honduras federations. If it were me, I'd give it to Chen, and add a visible note below the match details box, including links to as many reliable sources as you think necessary, saying that FIFA are on their own in awarding the goal to Torres. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

11v11

I've used this site occasionally, but I am now getting Malware warnings from Google, so please be careful in case it's been compromised a la In The Mad Crowd. GiantSnowman 19:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Addressing Icelandic footballers

I noticed that many competition articles record the second name (the patronymic) of the goalscorers from Iceland. This is not correct. Most Icelandic people do not have a family name; they only have a patronymic (occasionally matronymic) second name. More info about Icelandic names. They are properly addressed by their first name. E.g. Kári Árnason is properly addressed as Kári, not Árnason (which mean means Árna's son). However, if you look at, e.g. this world cup qualification page, you see that they are all listed by their second names.

Ethiopian names are similar, no family names, and properly addressed by the first name. However, by contrast, in WP, at least as far as I observed, Ethiopian people are always properly addressed. For example, in this world cup qualification page, Getaneh Kebede is properly listed as Getaneh, Saladin Said is properly listed as Saladin.

Why does WP address Ethiopian people properly, but not Icelandic people (at least for footballers)? FootballStatWhore (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine it is partly to do with the sources and partly to do with the names on the back of the shirt. If you look at the source (FIFA) it lists all players second names in capitals giving those names prominence. If you look here you will see that Gylfi Sigurdsson has 'Sigurdsson' on the back of his shirt.

There is no desire to use full names in the places you are raising the issue with so they have been shortened in accordance with these. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 08:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And not every Icelandic player has a patronym i.e. Eiður Guðjohnsen. GiantSnowman 08:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Whenever I've done articles about Icelandic football I have always used the full name because that is the proper way to address Icelandic people. It's just wrong and meaningless to only use the patronymic or matronymic, and even Icelanders who have family names are adressed by their first name(s). That's why we have {{Icelandic name}}. <pedantry>FootballStatWhore, just a minor point: Árnason actually means Árni's son (Árna is the genitive of Árni)</pedantry> BigDom (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that the Ethiopian footballers print their first name on the shirt. In this video at 26", you can see Getaneh is on the back. But FIFA always records the second name in their report. What an asshole. FootballStatWhore (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixtures and results on Season page

I have seen this page 2013–14 Hong Kong First Division League and I have seen the complete fixtures and results of all season. All the edit are done by User:Fabregas0414 but I think all that fixtures and results are a little bit overkill. Stigni (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Year format in dissolved clubs

After looking at some of the clubs in the phoenix club page, I noticed that on the one hand Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) displays the year the club was founded in parentheses and on the other hand past NASL clubs Seattle Sounders (1974–83) display the years the team was active. Shouldn't there be some consistency? --MicroX (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)