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.

Season articles

I remember a discussion a while back about the Liverpool season article getting out of hand WRT stats. I give you 2013–14_Portsmouth_F.C._season with all sorts of delights on it.

A couple of questions that it's made me ask.

1. Was there a consensus on the displaying of all matches after the FL/PL lost the court case on it being proprietary data?
2. Are we now displaying yellow/red cards in the {{footballbox collapsible}} template?

=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to have answers on no.2. On many season articles thay are there and some articles not. We need some sort of consensus there. QED237 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never put bookings in the {{footballbox}} template, whether it's the collapsible version or not. They do not contribute to the score of the match, so why bother listing them? – PeeJay 17:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither have I but they keep appearing on the articles I've been editing. I never could decide as to whether they added anything or not. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

On number 1 I feel that the answer is No. Wikipedia has not the oportunity to take that chance. User:PeeJay2K3 wrote on Talk:2013–14 Sunderland A.F.C. season#Fixtures and he said it very well so i quote him: However, Football DataCo, the company that licenses the fixtures for the Premier League, Football League and Scottish leagues in the UK, would be well within their rights to take Wikipedia to court over the overuse of fixtures here. We are a free encyclopaedia, which means we cannot afford to pay for the license; it also means we definitely cannot afford to pay legal fees if Football DataCo decides to sue us over the use of the fixtures. If you want Wikipedia to be sued and then have to be taken down over non-payment of legal fees, be my guest and post the fixtures, but I advise against it.. Wikipedia can not afford to take that risk. QED237 (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I might spend some time deleting/commenting out fixtures that are excessive at some point today/tomorrow. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I just deleted the "matchday squads" section and all of the yet-to-occur fixtures from the Portsmouth article and was immediately reverted. Wow, some people are a bit precious about "their" articles, aren't they? – PeeJay 17:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even try to be fair => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"It's not confusing, and the reader will also know when his team will play in the future" - Well, I mean, when I need to know when my clubs play and I have an internet connection I just quickly go on the club website and click fixtures. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

MOS question

As there is a MOS for club season articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Club_seasons) do we need to spend some time making updating it to take in the best aspects of some of the current club season articles and then enforce it more everywhere? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This is actually where I have trouble agreeing with the MOS. For example, I remember with the 2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season article last year there was a debate about whether it should be done with the style already there or perhaps based on the 2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season or 2007–08 Arsenal F.C. season articles where transfers and background are first and then each league/tournament is separated by section whereas in the 2012–13 season article (and every other season article) all the tournaments are under a heading called "competitions". Personally I am a fan of the style used in the 2002–03 and 2007–08 articles. They are more organized, a lot more detailed, and just the right amount of stats - not overdoing it. If we were to recreate the MOS then I would like it to be based on those two articles (which are also rated as "great articles" by the way. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is sorely out of date and doesn't really reflect any semblance of what I would consider to be a decent club season article. I may be biased, but I believe the Manchester United season articles are the best, with just the right amount of info, but the 2002-03 and 2007-08 Arsenal ones linked to above are pretty close too. – PeeJay 22:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The important thing we should be encouraging readable articles, not stats filled ones. I'm not fussed if said editor wants to use tables or the infobox template for scores, just summarise the matches in writing above or wherever. I'm not keen on the EFS template -- better to create a wikitable, with a yellow/red cards column. I've worked on a few United and Arsenal season articles – 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season is probably the most comprehensive I've written. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I would be lying if I said I was not impressed. This is, in my opinion at least, an example of what these season articles should be. I like season articles and I feel they are notable for wikipedia if the club is at a national level but they need to remain encyclopedic and not like wikipedia is a football stats site when it is not. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I must say all of the mentioned articles are good ones, but 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season must be the best one in my opinion. Also I like the collabsible football boxes (if used properly with a lot of prose as well. Everything is better then 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season that has five rows of text (three in intro and two to explain a table), the rest is just tables and stats (about half of what is was earlier but still too much crap). QED237 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So, are we all going to come up with a consensus for what the new MOS should be? It needs an update and honestly I would love to attack those 2012–13 and 2013–14 Arsenal pages and have this thread as back-up for being allowed to do it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

May I add the 2013–14 Cardiff City F.C. season here they list every substitution in the footballbox collabsible. That must be to much info. QED237 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Not any more it bloody well doesn't! – PeeJay 22:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested in what consensus is reached on season pages. I just started 2013–14 S.S. Lazio season today (yes, it's just tables and charts for now, and even though that's thousands of bytes, it's basically the same as any stub). In the process I looked at the MOS page and realized it had very little to do with how other Italian club season pages looked. Those pages are kind of spotty and in various states of disrepair…I had to rely a lot on the Italian wiki (which if you think we have problems with extraneous frilly templates—look at them). Anyhow, I think I at least got it to solid stub level, and any feedback is welcome. —Ed Cormany (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ya, this will not be solved until someone designs a new MOS in their own sandbox or userspace and we agree on it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem a lot of season articles is there is no text that describes the information that is presented within them. 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season is a good place to start for a new MOS. It seems to flow well, provides enough information (without being a stats book), covers all topics that could arise and is structured in a way that could get editors to add text to the list of stats. It'd be good if we can get it through its ongoing GA nomination first though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, I will try to create a new MOS then based on the 2003–04, 2002–03, and 2007–08 Arsenal pages and lets go from there. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@ArsenalFan700: Okay that sounds great. Let us know when you have something to discuss. QED237 (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

PeeJay, you stated "The MOS is sorely out of date and doesn't really reflect any semblance of what I would consider to be a decent club season article." What makes it sorely out of date? Kingjeff (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Neil Brown's site

Someone was asking about this recently. It appears he's changed/changing from .htm suffix for his urls to .html, so that previously working .htm urls now land at the webhost error page. Which means we possibly have quite a lot of broken urls. Is finding all the Neil Brown links and sticking an "l" on the end of the url something that could be done with AWB (not something I use, so I wouldn't know) or should we make a bot request?

I noticed that @PeteS: has written a template to generate a Neil Brown link in External link type format. If this were enhanced the way {{NFT player}} has been, to output either EL or cite-web-with-accessdate format as appropriate, it could be useful in the future for inline referencing as well as ELs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, regarding the template, I notice that the format is currently {{NeilBrownPlayers|/player10/barryelliot.html|Barry Elliot}} - but would it be possible to change it to {{NeilBrownPlayers|/player10/barryelliot|Barry Elliot}} (i.e. the template auto-generates the appropriate suffix) - this means that if the suffix changes again, all we need to do is make one change to the template rather than fixing the many, many individual links.

Secondly, regarding AWB, I think it would be safer to run a bot for this task. It's beyond my AWB skills. GiantSnowman 10:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered modifying the template to detect if there is any type-extension like .htm or .html and modify it to the correct type? Josh Parris 01:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been expanding the List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league appearances. I created the Template to avoid a lot of repeated typing. I too noticed the suffix change. I can change it to assume a common suffix (.html) which will mean we can easily fix all if this happens again. Shall I ? PeteS 16:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, if you can. Like I said - if the site changes again, it means we only have to adjust the template, and not the thousands of pages. On a side note Pete, you might also be interested in List of footballers in England and Scotland by number of league goals. GiantSnowman 16:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've requested a bot. WP:BOTREQ#Changing the url suffix from .htm to .html for a specific site. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:@PeteS: And have had a reply, which says it's an easy fix but that this discussion implies we want to use the template instead. Is that the case? Personally, I'd rather get the 1000 broken urls fixed now and apply the template once we're sure it does what we want it to do. At the moment, it's perfect for external links, but it only generates external-link format, without publisher, accessdate etc, which isn't ideal for inline referencing, and isn't appropriate for articles where all references are consistently fully formatted. As mentioned above, if someone were clever enough to enhance it the way {{NFT player}} has been done (must admit, I hadn't known about that before yesterday) to also generate cite-web format...

But the point is, what do we want to do now? fix the urls, or apply the template? Further input welcome... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Struway2: Good point. The template is not fit for all purposes and needs many more fields and defaults to be fully functional. I think it would be a long term goal to have a template because all the refs/citations/links currently have different formats. PeteS (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've started Template:NeilBrownPlayers/doc - and agree we should add more parameters if we can, to bring it up to scratch for in-line use. GiantSnowman 12:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, does that mean you don't want the urls fixing now, but would prefer to leave them broken until the template's fully functional, or what? The bot operator needed a clear consensus if he was going to fix them now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We should fix them now, and then can re-visit once the template is fully functional. I'd rather have poor-but-working links rather than broken ones. GiantSnowman 12:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the template include an optional accessdate parameter, for instances where the template is used as a reference? GoingBatty (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Short answer is yes. Longer answer is yes, and where the template is being used as a reference on an article that uses a particular referencing style, the output format needs to look consistent with that style. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bot approved and running - GoingBatty (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done - 5,410 articles updated. GoingBatty (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Tyau123

Hello, could editors please monitor the edits from Tyau123 (talk · contribs). Seems to be removing sourced content from Middlesbrough related articles and reverts on sight when you fix. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The user seems to be more constructive since returning from the block but I'll keep an eye on him/her. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Competency is still an issue as their edits had to be fixed and his/her attitude is still awful. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

His dodgy editing is returning, removing source from David Karanka and replacing with a source that's not relevant. JMHamo (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not trying to be rude, but it is relevant, he (being Aitor Karanka if not clear enough for you...) is the definitely the current manager of Middlesbrough, i can assure you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyau123 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sinebot! 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Tyau123 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2014

JMHamo (talk) Have you now realised that it is not dodgy editing?! This is 2014, and Aitor Karanka is not a player anymore, my reference is from a reliable source and says he is NOW in the PRESENT day a manager, we don't want old un-updated garbage on Wikipedia do we? Tyau123 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014

I have amended the article in a way which does not suggest that Aitor Karanka is still a player, but does highlight the important fact. It is relevant to David Karanka's early career that his brother was also at Bilbao at the time. It is not relevant to David Karanka's early career that his brother is now manager of Middlesbro nearly 20 years later. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for amending JMHamo (talk) mistakes. Much appreciated that someone agrees he is still not a player. Thanks. Tyau123 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2014

I did not say that JMHamo had made mistakes, or that the previous version implied that he was still a player. But hopefully my wording will be an acceptable compromise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your less assertive manor. It was a mistake however that one 'certain' user still thought Aitor Karanka was still the manager, still, this is not the place for dispute and I thank you anyway for updating the page. Tyau123 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2014

Whoa s/he lost the plot last night I think the indef was appropriate. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Somalia national football team vandalism

I believe Somalia national football team has sustained some unreverted vandalism since late November, so much so that I think it should be restored to a past version, but I'm not sure which was the last stable version. There are some versions in November with full World Cup records etc. Help would be appreciated, thanks. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done I removed the vandalism, cleaned the article up a bit, updated the squad and added the page to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads up. 2nyte (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for fixing it :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merging

• Chad Premier League=Chad Premier League 2011
• Timsah Arena=Bursa Metropolitan Municipality Stadium
• Young Sports Academy=Young Sports Academy Bamenda

What is the solution?--95.236.246.49 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd redirect all the latter to the left ones. -Koppapa (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, Chad Premier League could use some serious clean up of both content and layout. If we can trust RSSSF, it seems as if the competition modus of the national championship is more similar to the one used in Germany before the introduction of the Bundesliga, meaning the best teams of several regional leagues played a separate tournament for the title. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right, but its hard to find info on the league. The 2011 article should actually be deleted, as there was no national play-offs and the article is infact about the local N'Djema league. -Koppapa (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected them all. -Koppapa (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Theo Walcott

Given I was not around most of 2013 I just wanted to clarify if consensus still stood that assists should not be included in career stats table. Theo Walcott's assists are sourced but given assists are subjective and there is no universal definition of assists should they not be removed? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Last I remember, not included. The rationale being that there was no clear definition as to what was an assist as various sources used differing definitions.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I just went by the article and removed the assists and now afterwards I saw this discussion. There should definately be no assist since the definition of assist changes from place to place. QED237 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input seems the stance hasn't changed. Guess you saved me some time QED. :) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I just got reverted at Jack Wilshere. Guess someone likes assists. QED237 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User warned for editing against clear consensus. GiantSnowman 11:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

kadir ozkan 1461 trabzon

Kadir ozkan is dead. Who is new 1461 Trabzon trainer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.7.182 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

According to transfermarkt it is Ayhan Alemdaroğlu. The Trabzon website did not have anything different. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 11:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, that is why I did not change it yet ;) --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Bury F.C. stats?

Does anyone know where I can find stats and line-ups for Bury F.C. in the mid-1990s? I'm trying to fill in a stats table for David Johnson (footballer born 1976), but Soccerbase doesn't have complete stats going back that far, so I'm flying blind on his Football League Trophy stats. All I need to know is whether his one FLT goal came in 1995–96 or 1996–97. – PeeJay 18:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

News of the World Football Annuals for the relevant years would have those stats, but unfortunately I just checked my collection and, although I have some from the 90s, I don't have either of those. If all else fails, you can buy the 1997 edition for a penny on Amazon........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

He scored in Bury's 6–0 win against Mansfield Town on 13 January 1997, according to the English National Football Archive. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks guys! – PeeJay 19:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Emmanuel Adebayor

Could someone please review this edit to Emmanuel Adebayor by an anon. I don't want to revert again. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. I can't see anything in the article about Metz B, so it shouldn't be in the infobox, and Mr Adebayor did play 8 Europa League games last season. It should be as of match played 4 January, not 5, but unless I'm missing something, that's all that's wrong with it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

FIFA Final rankings

Never understood why they rank teams not in the top 4, but anyway, where are those listed at the FIFA site. An IP comes up changes something and i wonder what is correct. Why would Tunisia at 0 points be above India at 1 point in the group in either of those two versions. Another example would be this change, what version is correct, how does FIFA rank teams losing in the quarter finals? By result in that round, by group stage record? Those sections in all FIFA tournaments definately could use a sentece explaining how the ranking was achieved, better have a direct source too. -Koppapa (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Mullins

Dear footballers: Here's another old declined submission that will shortly be deleted as a stale draft. This player appears to have won a trophy. There's a navbox with many other players who have won this trophy, and they appear to have articles. Is this a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone on here wanted to take the time to find individual sources for all those awards he has won in the past then he might pass WP:GNG but at this moment the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. He will be notable in a few months though as I suspect he will be drafted into MLS by then but that is WP:CRYSTAL for now. So ya, not notable! Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have postponed deletion for six months and sourced some of the awards. Sorry if the citations aren't right - I don't really understand some of the acronyms. Is this notable enough now, or should the article be left in Afc while awaiting the draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert on US college sports, but I'd guess the Hermann Trophy might well make him notable per WP:NCOLLATH. If there's a college sports WikiProject, you may want to try asking there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hermann Trophy is often referred to as the soccer equivalent of the Heisman Trophy (the highest award in college-level American football) - eg "the Hermann Trophy winner — college soccer's version of the Heisman".[1] That would suggest Mullins passes WP:NCOLLATH. Hack (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Struway is right, per NCOLLATH he is technically notable but I would still like a revamp of the article with more sources before moving it to the mainspace. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are six months to get that done. Thanks to those who took the time to look this over. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail

This is to let you know that there has been a (further) discussion about the general reliability of the Daily Mail at the reliable sources noticeboard. Several editors think we should have a blanket ban on it. And a sample trawl I did of how the paper is being used as source reveals that it's often used in football-related articles. I thought you people might like to have a look and see whether you consider it reliable for various purposes. What I've seen seems to break into three categories: a) factual info such as results, b) opinion about play (reviews of games etc.), and c) info about players. In the c) category some uses may be close to gossip, therefore not encyclopaedic. Mario Balotelli is one example where you might be able to see if WP:BLP is complied with. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As much as I hate the Daily Fail Mail as a publication, I think it's a bit harsh to call it an unreliable source. Sure, we should use other sources if possible, but if the source is only being used to source basic facts (such as it is for Mikaël Silvestre's family's names in his article), I think it's OK. – PeeJay 18:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is the same as PeeJay's. It can be trusted for straightforward factual claims, but should be avoided for critical analysis, unless the purpose of its use is to demonstrate one of several differing viewpoints, all of which are represented in the section. Whether the Mail should be banned on matters which are not black-and-white is a matter for RSN – I think that would be a step too far personally, and would give further ammunition to those who argue that Wikipedia is not neutral. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any specific opinions about its reliability in football-related matters? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

For specifics, you could consider this recent discussion. Thanks, C679 17:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem using the Daily Mail if it is the only source available. However, we should use other sources if we can. For that reason, I would oppose blacklisting it. – PeeJay 18:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an example of perfectly legitimate football journalism. If we blacklisted the Daily Mail then we could not reference much of the information stated in the article, or at least would be forced to use much less convenient sources. As it is I only came across the article long after the Wikipedia article was put into perfectly serviceable shape, but there we are.--EchetusXe 22:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Group season in statistics tables by club or list them chronologically

There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players about the ordering of the seasons in statistics tables. The question is if the seasons should be grouped by club like this one

Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Continental		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Template United	2000–01	Premier League	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	2001–02	Premier League	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	2004–05	Premier League	2	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	6	0
	2005–06	Premier League	1	0	3	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	7	0
	Total		3	0	3	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	13	0
Wiki City (loan)	2000–01	Second Division	15	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	15	10
Template Rangers	2001–02	First Division	15	0	3	0	1	0	3	0	1	0	23	0
	2002–03	First Division	36	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	40	0
	2003–04	First Division	28	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	32	0
	2006–07	First Division	18	1	1	0	0	0	–	–	–	–	19	1
	2007–08	Second Division	30	1	5	1	0	0	–	–	–	–	35	2
	Total		127	2	11	1	3	0	5	0	3	0	149	3
Career total			145	12	14	0	10	0	5	0	3	0	177	3

or sorted chronologically like this one

Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Continental		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Template United	2000–01	Premier League	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wiki City (loan)	2000–01	Second Division	15	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	15	10
Template United	2001–02	Premier League	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Template Rangers	2001–02	First Division	15	0	3	0	1	0	3	0	1	0	23	0
	2002–03	First Division	36	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	40	0
	2003–04	First Division	28	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	32	0
	Total		79	0	5	0	3	0	5	0	3	0	95	0
Template United	2004–05	Premier League	2	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	6	0
	2005–06	Premier League	1	0	3	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	7	0
	Total		3	0	3	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	13	0
Template Rangers	2006–07	First Division	18	1	1	0	0	0	–	–	–	–	19	1
	2007–08	Second Division	30	1	5	1	0	0	–	–	–	–	35	2
	Total		48	1	6	1	0	0	–	–	–	–	54	2
Career total			145	12	14	0	10	0	5	0	3	0	177	3

I prefer the chronological version because it is less confusing and reflects the career of the player. What do you think? --Jaellee (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not use the chronological version. I think it's more counter-intuitive to group the player's seasons with his various clubs together. Here are perfect examples of player articles with career stats tables, which I think should be the standard (including a citation for each season in the table) -

Chris Burke

Wes Fletcher JMHamo (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think anyone was suggesting grouping two completely separate spells with the same club together, as in your top example: that really wouldn't make sense. Of if they are, it's the first I've heard of it. I thought the problem was just whether loan spells be included chronologically interspersed with seasons at the player's owning club, as per example 1, or placed together, after the owning club details, as per example 2.

So using your example, the difference would be between your second table, purely chronological, and the one immediately below:

Club	Season	League			National Cup		League Cup		Continental		Other		Total
		Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Template United	2000–01	Premier League	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	2001–02	Premier League	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wiki City (loan)	2000–01	Second Division	15	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	15	10
Template Rangers	2001–02	First Division	15	0	3	0	1	0	3	0	1	0	23	0
	2002–03	First Division	36	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	40	0
	2003–04	First Division	28	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	32	0
	Total		79	0	5	0	3	0	5	0	3	0	95	0
Template United	2004–05	Premier League	2	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	6	0
	2005–06	Premier League	1	0	3	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	7	0
	Total		3	0	3	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	13	0
Template Rangers	2006–07	First Division	18	1	1	0	0	0	–	–	–	–	19	1
	2007–08	Second Division	30	1	5	1	0	0	–	–	–	–	35	2
	Total		48	1	6	1	0	0	–	–	–	–	54	2
Career total			145	12	14	0	10	0	5	0	3	0	177	3

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My issue with tables that are arranged chronologically rather than by by club they end up looking like this mess of a table. GiantSnowman 13:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I support the table indicated by Struway2 for the exact reason pointed out by GiantSnowman. The table on that old version of the Jordan Slew article is abhorrent. – PeeJay 16:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And for the record I also support Struway's template, which is pretty much the template already in place... GiantSnowman 18:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I support the chronological table, we try to list everything else chronologically, why shouldn't this be done in this case? The table currently present in Joe Hart's article is how I think we should do it. Makes no sense to me to list the loan-spells from seven years ago at the bottom of the table. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

But what use is that to the reader wanting to get a full picture of his Man City career? GiantSnowman 19:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And what use is Struway's example in the case of Stefan Effenberg? He had two different spells at either Borussia Mönchengladbach and FC Bayern Munich. A reader couldn't get a full picture of his career at either club because Effenberg played for Fiorentia in between and so the seasons shouldn't be grouped. It seems to me that there are different use cases for statistics tables and your proposed use case isn't one I have very often. --Jaellee (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Struway's table doesn't apply to Stefan Effenberg though, since he was never on loan to any clubs. Furthermore, why would you group together two separate spells at the same club? All we're saying is that if a player went on loan, the loan spells should come after the stats for the club he was on loan from. – PeeJay 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't group anything together since I favor the chronological version, as far as I have understood GiantSnowman above, to get a full picture of his Bayern Munich career (in this case). Isn't that the point in grouping the seasons at one club together (or have I missed something else)? --Jaellee (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at the Joe Hart table - one spell at Man City, but you cannot tell because of all the loan spells that have been shoved in there. If he'd left Man City for another club and then re-signed, then yes have separate chronological lists. But having chronological lists at the expense of club lists is, quite simply, rubbish. GiantSnowman 21:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, no-one is suggesting grouping separate spells at one club together. Effenberg's table is fine by me, apart from I'd repeat the division names each row, pending confirmation from someone with competence in accessibility issues that you don't need to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A player's spell with a club should be grouped together, and not 'interrupted' by whatever loan spells he may have had. A 2nd spell with the same club would, obviously, not be grouped in with that 1st spell either. GiantSnowman 13:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously? Maybe it's time that you check your assumptions, it seems that I don't share them. I was first told that a table should to be "grouped by team and not by season". In my world view, "team" means for example Manchester City or FC Bayern Munich. That's why I created the first example table which is grouped by team. Up to that point, no one had ever said to me that it really meant something like "group according to the time a player was continuously contracted to and playing for the club" (this seems to be the unspoken assumption). My belief was reinforced by GiantSnowman's remark about a reader that could be wanting "a full picture of his Man City career" which I interpret as "all the seasons he was playing for Man City". I guess here obviously everyone knows that "a full picture of someone's career at XY" means "a full picture of a single continuous contract at XY". Maybe you should compile a list of "obvious things" and give it to me, this would make it easier for me to follow your logic. --Jaellee (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't be a smart arse. You've had it explained to you at least twice since your original post in this thread. Surely you comprehend the type of stats table we meant now? – PeeJay 18:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful response. I was annoyed by the way some editors assume that certain things should have been clear from the beginning without ever saying them and tried to explain that not everything is obvious and not everyone who doesn't see the obvious is a moron or worse. Obviously, I failed. And for the record, I still think that the chronological version is the more intuitive one. None of the reasons why the other one is better has convinced me so far. --Jaellee (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Good thing it's not just your opinion that matters then. – PeeJay 18:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's also not just yours, either. I interpret the answers of most editors as something along the lines that Struway's example is "neater" or that the chronological versions are "messier". So in my opinion, the format of the table is mostly a matter of taste and regarding to taste, not everyone who has a different opinion is automatically in the wrong and can be dismissed. --Jaellee (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No one is dismissing your opinion; it has been considered, and the users above (and below, apparently) view your opinion as the inferior option. That's how consensus works, isn't it? – PeeJay 20:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, not every one has considered my opinion as inferior and I don't have a problem with the opinion being considered as inferior, but some edits on this topic suggest that a person holding such an opinion is regarded as inferior and I object to that (which was also the point I wanted to make above, after which I was called a smart-arse). --Jaellee (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Chronologically, as suggested by Struway2 is clearly preferable from a logical perspective. The first example is really messy and is difficult to follow the thread of the career. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Tff.1.lig-tff.2.Lig-tff.3lig

TFF First League, TFF Second League and TFF Third League are fully professional league.

• [2]
• http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1_mesaj:82.58.107.172&redirect=no
• http://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=376--79.11.241.190 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The first and third sources do not actually confirm fully pro status, the second is a Wikipedia page and therefore unreliable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The status confirmed that 3.Lig si fully professional: [3],[4],[5],[6]. So super lig, 1.lig, 2. Lig, 3,lig are fully professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.34.6 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So about 50 clubs in Turkey's fourth league pay their players enough, so they don't have a second job? -Koppapa (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In italian professional Lega Pro Seconda Divisione some players play and have a second job.For a exemple [7] Luca passerella plays for A.C. Delta Porto Tolle and also work. But lega pro seconda divisione is fully professional.--79.51.7.250 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fb results table

We all want to get rid of those Fb-templates, and after I noticed 13 new Norwegian Fb team templates, I decided to do some experimenting in my sandbox to check if it was possible to replace the Fb results table. It turns out that this wikitable is exactly the same as this table which uses the fb templates. I realized that it would be easy to replace the Template:Fb r header and Template:Fb r team with wikitables, while Template:Fb r and Template:Fb r footer might still be useful and fits into a wikitable. What do people think? It is the first two templates that uses the Fb team templates, so if we get rid of those we might be able to get rid of a lot of templates. Mentoz (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We definitely need to get rid of these templates. GiantSnowman 13:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We could definitely cut down with the template usage, but will we be getting a bot to make the tens of thousands of changes?--2nyte (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a bot should make these changes, ideally following a TFD. GiantSnowman 13:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I made one using a wikitable here. It looks slightly different, but I do not think a need for two links to the club exists. As far as the bot, I do not know if our last request was not clear enough or the people were just not interested, so will we get a bot? That will be determined in the future. EddieV2003 (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the link to the last bot request : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_56#FB_team_templates Not many takers there :-) -Koppapa (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

paredes -vutov (errors)

Leandro Paredes:Il giorno 07/01/2014 viene definito "fenomeno vero" dal famoso cantastorie calcistico Marco Boscaini.

Antonio Vutov:Udinese is interested but he currently plays for--79.51.7.250 (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC) levski

Mohammed Dahman

Mohammed Dahman's article contains ONE ref, which doesnt mention him. Any clues? Murry1975 (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added a FIFA ref. GiantSnowman 20:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. At least it mentions him :) Murry1975 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Hitzlsperger

It might be worth locking the article, he's recently announced that he's gay, as such his article may be a target for vandals. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Already done JMHamo (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

1895 World Championship (football)

It's amazing this article is here and obviously it should be here, at the time those games were the biggest club level international games.

The issue is, not only Sunderland won it. Those kind of games were also won by Renton, Hearts, and Hibernian. Shouldn't it be better to turn this article into an article about all those games? What should be the name then? 2.124.1.232 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

An article on World Championship (football), which is currently a redirect to that match (but should probably be a disambiguation page at the moment!) would be appropriate, stating who organised the matches, how they came about, how long they ran for etc. There could then potentially be a separate article on each match. All would need sourcing, however! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC).

Move request

I have started a move request for articles on Premier League seasons prior to 2006-07. Please go there and make your views known. The location is: Talk:1992–93 FA Premier League#‎Requested move Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1999–2000 season articles

I just wanted to known why 1999–2000 season articles are named, for example, 1999–2000 La Liga rather than 1999–00 La Liga. It has always crossed my mind.--2nyte (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it is because AB–C implies AB–AC, so it could refer to 1999–1900. The notes in MOS:YEAR do not list a reason, but it's talk page might have an old discussion about it. CRwikiCA talk 03:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:YEAR suggests if the two years are in different centuries, the second year is spelt out in full. Technically 1999 and 2000 are in the same century but the intent is that if the first two numbers of the years are different, both years are written in full. Hack (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Octavian Constantinescu

Has anybody ever heard of Octavian Constantinescu. I can't find anything about him on Goggle or Soccerway. JMHamo (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged him for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. The article reminds me of another recent-ish one. Can't remember what. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Struway2, I knew it was a hoax, but just wanted to get a second opinion! JMHamo (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Who's the image of, it is a player in a Bitonto shirt. Where does the image stand should it be deleted it was created by the same person. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The same dubious article exists on Romanian language Wikipedia see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia too. JMHamo (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The image used is most probably copied from here newsued.com... JMHamo (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The article previously existed on the English Wikipedia under name Octavian David Constantinescu which was deleted three times and the creator DigiTv1 (talk · contribs) blocked so GspTv1 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet that's evading a block and creating the same nonsense. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the Spanish one as a hoax. Romanian might be beyond me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the article and blocked the user. GiantSnowman 13:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the Romanian version for speedy deletion also. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Romanian version is now deleted and it was only created today so a decent catch. GspTv1 removed the speedy tag from the Spanish version. Can some take care the image. From the link JMHamo provided it seems to be copyrighted and person it depicts appears to be Francesco Monte. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Tagged the Commons image for speedy deletion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Luke, there is also this image. I've contacted an admin on the Spanish Wikipedia in relation to the Spanish version of the article. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• If I knew the source of that, I would be able to mention it as a copyvio. I'll nominate it as a hoax image that is almost certainly a copyvio though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Having checked both accounts global contributions I found a third and fourth image. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

All images have been deleted and I've blocked both accounts on Commons. If any more socks/images show up, let me know on my talk here or on Commons. INeverCry 21:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the spanish version of the article. Thanks for the warning. Bernard (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Swansea

Hi guys, probably you know that Swansea has very good stats H2H with English grand teams. I propose to add this info in team's article. Probably is the "small" team with best results against english ellite. Just look here

• Swansea vs Chelsea http://int.soccerway.com/teams/comparison/?team_ids%5B%5D=661&team_ids%5B%5D=738
• Swansea vs Arsenal http://int.soccerway.com/teams/comparison/?team_ids%5B%5D=660&team_ids%5B%5D=738
• Swansea vs Man. City http://int.soccerway.com/teams/comparison/?team_ids%5B%5D=676&team_ids%5B%5D=738
• Swansea vs Liverpool http://int.soccerway.com/teams/comparison/?team_ids%5B%5D=663&team_ids%5B%5D=738

XXN (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the value in that. Eleven wins from 38 games in total is hardly something to get excited about...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have to agree with ChrisTheDude on this one. And who says what teams are the "english elite"? For example you dont have Man Utd and is Tottenham there? QED237 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, who decides that Swansea are a "small" team? For the record, I checked that site and, assuming their stats are accurate, Brentford have a much better overall record against the same four opponents, so the claim that Swansea are "the "small" team with best results against english ellite" isn't correct anyway...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks to be pure WP:SYNTH. GiantSnowman 19:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Nahki Wells

According to this, Nahki Wells will sign on loan for Huddersfield Town for one game before signing a permanent deal. No other sources I have seen (i.e. official sites of both clubs) have mentioned. Is it worth adding this 'loan' spell in the infobox/prose/career stats table? I don't think it is to be honest... GiantSnowman 19:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

BBC has now said that the loan deal will be until "next week" - maybe it is worth changing to reflect this then? GiantSnowman 19:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with you, but in light of the emerging facts, definitely in prose and infobox. What I was going to post was:

Not in the stats table. Infobox and prose, depends on sources. If the club site(s) say that, or the FA registration list, when it comes through, or national media, then it's moderately interesting to include in the prose (illustrates how anxious Huddersfield were to get it done) and it ought to go in the infobox for accuracy. If that report in the local rag is the only source, then no. See e.g. Jermain Defoe, who joined Portsmouth from Spurs on a one-day loan ahead of a permanent transfer, and doing it that way made him ineligible to play against Spurs in the league, or Neil Kilkenny's move to Leeds. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Spot on - I have also explicitly referenced the 'loan' in the infobox. GiantSnowman 20:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 Bayern, Dortmund and Leverkusen seasons

2014–15 FC Bayern Munich season, 2014–15 Borussia Dortmund season, and 2014–15 Bayer Leverkusen season – cases of WP:TOOEARLY or perfectly legitimate articles at this time of the year? Discuss, please. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Much too early, IMO. Those three teams may have mathematically avoided relegation for this season (I haven't read the articles so I'm just speculating), but there is nothing concrete about next season yet. I'd wait until the fixtures for next season are announced, either in the league or pre-season. – PeeJay 22:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Leverkusen one is 32,615 bytes long, and the only readable content is that Sidney Sam has left for Schalke, which is factually incorrect and a BLP violation because it isn't 1 July yet... Far, far too soon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Much to soon. It is almost only empty tables, why have tables if they are empty. And also is all the info true? Could for example Bayern still be relegated this season theoretically and therefore not play in Bundesliga that season? These articles should not exist yet. QED237 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

They still seem to be 22 points short of ending in the top-15 for sure. Having empty tables like this is pointless, I would suggest to WP:USERFY the content on the editors page, so he (and potentially others that want to prepare the articles already) can update this minor information and move it all live when the current season is done. CRwikiCA talk 01:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a solution that will make all happy. I agree that Lewandowski transfer was not a justified cause to start them. EddieV2003 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Far too early. Nominate for deletion and trout whoever created them. GiantSnowman 09:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. USERFYing the articles indeed seems to be the best solution. One more thing, though – could someone of the sysops please take care of Category:German football clubs 2014–15 season? This would be an empty category once the moves to userspace have been done. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Empty categories can only be deleted after being empty for 4 days, see WP:C1. GiantSnowman 14:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right, completely forgot about that. Anyway... articles have been USERFYed, category has been tagged. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OFC qualification for the 1966 FIFA World Cup

In the articles 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification, 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF, AFC and OFC) and 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC – OFC) it is specified that Australia competed as an OFC (Oceania Football Confederation) member country. This is incorrect as the OFC was not founded until 15 November 1966 (obviously after the 1966 World Cup and its qualification period). I think changes in the article titles and their content should be made.--2nyte (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd rename 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF, AFC and OFC) to 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (Africa, Asia and Oceania) and redirect the 1966 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC – OFC) article to that. There basically is no additional info. -Koppapa (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We definitely don't need two separate articles on the same topic, regardless of name - and I agree with Koppapa's naming suggestion. GiantSnowman 09:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adis Hadžanović

Dear football enthusiasts: Here's another one of those old abandoned drafts. This one was never submitted. Is this a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Long story short - not as far as I can tell. GiantSnowman 09:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In more detail, Bosnia does not have a fully professional league, and there is no indication he meets WP:GNG. So not notable. Thanks, C679 10:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue regarding years in player infobox, Johan Dahlin

I'm having a difficult time trying to explain to User:Plexus14 that in the article of Johan Dahlin the years for in which he played for Malmö FF in his infobox should be 2009–2013 and not 2009–2014. Dahlin left Malmö FF for a Turkish club on 7 January 2014 when the Turkish transfer window opened. The transfer was official already in December 2013, but more importantly, Dahlin did not play any league or friendly match for Malmö FF in 2014. I believe that the common practice across Wikipedia is to write the year in which the player last was part of the season squad, thus 2013 in this case. I see no logic point whatsoever in writing 2014 as his last season in the infobox, this gives me the impression that Dahlin played a couple of league matches or at least was part of the 2014 Malmö FF squad, which is clearly misleading. I don't want to break the 3RR rule so in the case that I'm correct in my view of common Wikipedia practice regarding this, then it would be much appreciated if someone could help me revert the edits. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem wtih this issue is more basic, if there is some regulations as Reckless188 said. It has been said that the player did not play any league or friendly match for Malmö FF and because of this reason it should be written the years "2009-2013", instead of "2009-2014" although his contract is still active until 7 January 2014. With this rules; for example a player has transferred to a team and he's got injured for a long time and did not play any single game for that team and next year he's transferred another team. Then should we ignore that year? Should we ignore that team just he was injured and did not play any single game with that team? İt is not seem logical though.

For leagues that have calendar year seasons (e.g. Sweden, USA etc.) we have always traditionally always used the seasons a player played for a club - and not the specific date of departure - in the infobox. So for Dahlin, that would indeed be 2009–2013 (the season he joined, the season he left). GiantSnowman 09:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

John Mitten

Hey, just kicked off this article for cricket project. Guy played football too for Newcastle, Leicester and others in 1960s. Cool. So. Anyone want to adopt it for football coverage? --Bill (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll expand momentarily. GiantSnowman 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting he's the son of former ManU player Charlie Mitten. [8] ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Charlie gave John his senior debut at Mansfield at age 16. However I can't find a source verifying that. GiantSnowman 14:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

These sources [9] [10] [11] don't explicitly say debut but state his father who was player/manager played his 16 year-old son in a number of matches even dropping local favourite Bobby Mitchell in the process. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

These say [12][13] he made his debut against West Brom in November 1958 (missing a peno) a period when his father was in charge. He also had a spell at Whitley Bay. The book about his father looks an interesting read. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Stadium under construction?Old Project for Euro 2016?

What is the situation about these turkish stadiums?

• New Trabzon Stadium
• New Konya Stadium
• New Eskişehir Stadium
• New Kocaeli Stadium
• Timsah Arena
• Vodafone Arena
• New Antalya Stadium

Are these stadiums under costruction or are they a old project for Euro 2016? What's the solution abou t the proposed stadium?Deletion or redirect? --95.244.242.218 (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)