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.

Australian sport naming rules

It struck me that there may be some interest here in the discussions that I am mediating here. Please feel free to add your comments in the section I am about to create there. I am very keen to keep this solution focused and so any remarks about the past misbehaviour or motivation of other editors should be avoided. I only want comments on whether you think it is worth having a further RfC to clarify the implications of this discussion, though there will doubtless be other questions that crop up as we go through the process. Please feel free to chip in if you have any positive thoughts to share. Thank you. --John (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please see the RfC I have started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Thanks. --John (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of Hull City A.F.C.

Does this merit a separate article? Surely it can be covered in both the main page, history page, and season page? GiantSnowman 20:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a bad article. -Koppapa (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The quality of the article isn't at issue. To me it seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill. – PeeJay 21:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think this article is appropriate yet. If we end up with a MK Dons-style case (which, given Tan's actions so far, wouldn't surprise me at all), then such an article may be appropriate, but right now, it isn't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Article creator here. I started the article because it was occupying undue amount of space, all about events in the last half year or so. While the whole episode is yet to play itself out, I do think the events will be notable, whether or not the renaming goes through. But if it's too WP:NEWS-y, I understand. Mosmof (talk) 00:57, 5 March :::2014 (UTC)

@Mosmof:, as a lot of hard work has gone into this, and could well be potentially notable in the future, would you mind if we userfy it? It'll save us going through an AFD and it means you can continue to work on it in userspace. GiantSnowman 10:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel it merits a separate article. The notable parts could be included in the main article, while th rest discarded. Most of it is superfluous. - 68.51.33.90 (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are userfying then you will need to restore info in the main article to cover this, the history article will need updating as well. Keith D (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I'm happy to userfy/restore the trimmed content. Mosmof (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"See also" or "Don't see also", that is the question

I've seen this section added to several Slovenian footballers, with the inscription "Slovenian international footballers".

I always thought the SEE ALSO section was for something notable (List of one-club men, list of players with more than 100 caps, list of players with more than 20,000 points and 10,000 rebounds, etc, etc), not for something which is illustrated in a mere category.

Inputs please. Attentively --AL (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of List of current MLS players in 'see also' sections on US bio articles - why? GiantSnowman 10:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that they are unnecessary and I tend to delete them. The relevant guidelines are at WP:ALSO, although they are not particularly helpful. They basically say, do as you wish! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's for articles relevant to the topic which (generally) aren't already linked to either in the body of the article or in navboxes etc. You wouldn't include categories, and you'd expect "notable" (for want of a better word) pages like achievement lists to already be linked in the prose. I don't see the point of including List of current MLS players either. But that's not a blanket encouragement to delete on sight... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hector Bellerin

Dear football fans: Here's another of those old abandoned Afc submissions. It was declined for being promotional, but that can be easily fixed if the football experts here declare this player to be notable. What say? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An article on this guy already exists at Héctor Bellerín. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I guess my search didn't find it because of the accents. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's too bad that whoever wrote the older draft didn't fix up the NPOV problems and resubmit; the article was almost ready. Is there any useful information or sources that should be added to the mainspace article, or should the draft just be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Héctor Bellerín is a much better article and there's nothing in the AfC submission that will improve it IMO, so I've tagged it for deletion. JMHamo (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! One more off the list... —Anne Delong (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Football League clubs

I have copied this discussion from my talk page as it needs input from the whole project. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The category says at the top that it is all clubs past and present. But the category consists almost entirely of current clubs, with a few who have recently left (eg Barnet, Aldershot, Hull, Crystal P), missing a few who have just joined/returned (QPR, Reading, Mansfield). If it really is supposed to be all the clubs then it is an appallingly incomplete, missing nearly all the current Premier League clubs, who were all Football League clubs once, and the many many many clubs who have dropped out (eg Luton, Hereford, Glossop to name just a few). Either way there is clearly something very wrong with the category as it is at the minute. In any case, there is a separate Category:Former Football League Clubs for those who have left. Whatever, someone needs to figure out what the category is supposed to be and amend it accordingly, because at present it seems like no-one has any idea what the category is supposed to be and its contents aren't correct under any definition. Oh, and you reverted my edits putting QPR, Reading and Mansfield back into the category, but they obviously should be in it regardless of whether it is current or all time clubs, so maybe in future you should actually look at an edit before you revert it. The- (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all - sorry for incorrectly reverting your edits on QPR, Reading and Mansfield. I just assumed that, because the edit on Southampton was wrong, all your edits at the same time were wrong. Mea culpa. My understanding of the basic structure of categories is that once an article belongs to a category, it stays there permanently. Thus, we don't have a Category:Former Premier League clubs. IMHO, the Category:Former Football League clubs should be deleted and all its contents moved back up to the Category:Football League clubs. The separate Category:Defunct Football League clubs should be retained, as long as it only includes defunct clubs who had once been in The Football League. I am copying this discussion to WT:FOOTY. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Former Football League clubs should be deleted, as I also recall there being consensus that such categories should not exist. Number 57 07:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is The Football League, so our category should be Category:The Football League clubs. I agree that only one is required, no need for a separate 'former' cat. GiantSnowman 13:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So - should this go to cfD? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Football League clubs is eligible for WP:CFDS, to match the parent article; Category:Former Football League clubs should be taken to WP:CFD. GiantSnowman 17:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources out there that list all FL clubs i.e. past and current members? Eldumpo (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place, but today after me and a mate were talking about Alex Rodrigo Dias da Costa, I checked his article and found it to be lacking a few citations, some prose errors and too many pictures. I think compared to earlier it is now C-class, what do you think? The Almightey Drill (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think C-class is a fair assessment of the article in its current state. Following the advice at WP:BCLASS may allow the article to be graded more highly in the future. Thanks, C679 13:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Help needed in getting a link to work

Hi, I am wanting to use this page from the Estonian Football Association official website as a source at Sander Puri. However, when the link is re-opened it comes up with a different player. I've tried fiddling with the parameters in the URL but without any luck. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't replicate your experience Matty. Have you deleted your browser cache and tried again? JMHamo (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried it out in the sandbox, and although I didn't save my test, it did work. Try making your change in the article and then we can have a look. Jared Preston (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ref added to the article. Seems to be working ATM. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

PFA Team of the Year

Has anyone noticed the sheer gross size of this article? Is there any way we could cut it down, or at least split it up into separate articles by division or by periods of time? – PeeJay 20:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. But i guess the gazillon of Category:PFA team of the year navigational boxes could all go. -Koppapa (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The navboxes are fine, in my opinion, but the article is monstrously big. – PeeJay 11:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Split it, seperate articles for decades? Murry1975 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the 169th biggest article on WP, although it's nowhere near the biggest football article - that "prestigious" honour goes to the horrendous List of Spanish football transfers summer 2013. I agree a split is warranted, and decades is probably the way to go. Doing it by division would be complicated by the multiple changes in division names down the years -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it enough to do it by decade, or should we perhaps consider creating year-by-year articles and devising a new way to summarise the content in a parent article? – PeeJay 15:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say split by decade. GiantSnowman 12:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've split the main article into five separate articles called PFA Team of the Year (1970s), PFA Team of the Year (1980s), etc. – PeeJay 13:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Allen family tree}}

On my screen at least, all the names in this tl have thick black lines/bars through them. Any idea why.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some sort of technical issue to do with Chrome rendering according to a discussion at Template_talk:Family_tree#Rendering_issue. This appears to be affecting other articles eg Roosevelt_family#Family_tree. Hack (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's fine on Safari. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much all family trees haven't rendered properly in Chrome since some time in January or February. There's apparently some sort of fix (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_124#Kings_of_Wales_family_trees). Hack (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Captain sports.svg

Can we get a ruling on the use of this icon in football articles? I'm pretty sure there are policies against using icons where a text alternative is available, and since we can just replace that icon with "(c)", that's probably what we should do. The only possible advantage of the icon is that it is slightly more decorative than the text, but since WP:ICONDECORATION forbids icons from being used simply for aesthetic purposes, that's another reason to avoid it. Furthermore, that icon seems to be a repurposing of the copyright symbol, which falls foul of the WP:MOSICON section titled "Do not repurpose icons beyond their legitimate scope". – PeeJay 14:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images, and MOS:ACCESS#Images. Remove on sight. If anyone fancies making a start, Sport Club do Recife is just a little icon-ridden... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, I see you've opened a TfD on this already three days ago, odd that you didn't mention it here... JMHamo (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is odd. You'd think I would have done that. Also, the TfD is about a template that used to include this image, I'm talking here specifically about the use of the image, which is included on well over 500 articles (admittedly not all of them football-related). – PeeJay 20:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove on sight, per Struway's links. GiantSnowman 12:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Squad maintenance

Template:Squad maintenance doesn't work. ~~500 squads use this template. --Fredde (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would ask the village pump for help with this. JMHamo (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed JMHamo (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Player representation by club"

Further opinions on the addition of sections like this in FIFA World Cup squads, by Barryjjoyce (talk · contribs), would be welcome. GiantSnowman 15:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is already added to the 2011 AFC Asian Cup squads page. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The flag icons hurt my eyes and probably falls afoul of some sort of accessibility guideline. It's interesting but not especially necessary to understanding the topic. Hack (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

FA Cup qualifying round results

I've tried checking the booklist, but I thought I'd ask here just to be sure: does anyone have a copy of "The FA Challenge Cup Complete Results" by Tony Brown? I'm trying to find out the round in which Chesterfield Municipal played against South Normanton Colliery in 1919-20, and any info about Barrow Shipbuilders' involvement in the same season. – PeeJay 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Stuart Basson's wondrous Chesterfield site will give you the Chesterfield Municipal one (click on "All Chesterfield's cup matches", it brings up an Excel spreadsheet).

FA website archive still not working, then... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate, the Chesterfield link was perfect (shame they can't translate their Excel spreadsheets to a web page though). – PeeJay 19:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PeeJay, you can still reference the Excel document, see the Dennis Stokoe article for an example of how to do so... GiantSnowman 19:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I grew up in Barrow and have never heard of Barrow Shipbuilders as a team (presuming here that this is Barrow-in-Furness the shipbuilders name would fit). This website identifies Barrow AFC as having competed against Carlisle United, presumably in the qualifying rounds, that year - does that tally with your details? It's a long shot but you might ask at [1] or [2]. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick Google finds them mentioned on the page of Frank McPherson (looking at that page, I guess this is where your interest has come from!), referenced as playing for them in the 1918-19 season. The description (' the works team') suggests that it was what went on to be known as Vickers Sports Club, who later became BAE Barrow and more recently Hawcoat Park Sports. Doubt that their website has any info but if you're very interested you might be able to contact them at http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/hawcoatpark/. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SNC. Yes, that's the article that piqued my interest; apparently McPherson played in the FA Cup for "Barrow Shipbuilders" before joining Chesterfield, but as you say, I can't find any reference to that club outside of McPherson's biography. Also, I think Barrow AFC's tie against Carlisle came after McPherson's appearance for Chesterfield, so that can't be it. – PeeJay 11:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

According to [3], Barrow Shipbuilders entered at the Preliminary Round and lost 1-2 to Kells White Star. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:2013–14 X league table‎ or Template:Current X league table

Hi, I am working on the "new" league table templates currently in use in the "english section" which shown full table on main article (for example at 2013–14 Premier League) and the truncated table on club articles like 2013–14 Everton F.C. season. Now the question is how to name the template. Should we have a new template for every season or a current table changing at the end of every season. And should the templates stop existing after the season, storing the content on the pages or should the template always exist (perhaps harder to detect vandalism if few people follow templates but easier to keep it). If anyone has any opinion take your chance and speak up!. QED237 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out this discussion which had a consensus to get rid of the team templates that your table template relies on. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is why the {{Fb cl team}} is being replaced with {{Fb cl2 team}} but it does not affect the table. QED237 (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Previous season templates have been deleted because of it's redundancy. Here is a deletion log for the 2012–13 Bundesliga table and here is the deletion log for last season Champions League group stage table template deletion log. Kingjeff (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes they should be replaced and deleted after every season but that does no mean we should not have templates, perhaps it is even easier to have a bot subst and remove instead of doing it manually when a season ends to "restart" current template for next season. QED237 (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Those previous templates only used {{Fb cl2 team}} with appropriate headers, footers, colors, etc. and were easily just copied into the season article. This new template style has extra coding that would not be copied and therefore can be lost if it is deleted and a new one made. If Qed237 were to leave wikipedia, this code may not be reproducible by other users. I have studied the code some more and understand what it is doing, but I do not know the language well enough to recreate it from scratch. By leaving it under the name Template:Current X league table, substituting at the end of the current season, and updating for the next season, this problem would not occur. EddieV2003 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, the code is a bit complicated but not that hard to reproduce it is just to copy'n'paste. QED237 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That is true as long as the new one is created before the old one is deleted. Kingjeff suggested in the two afds he linked that the years be dropped and one table just be used. As long as people watch for vandalism, I do not see the need to delete and recreate every season. EddieV2003 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That is very true, perhaps a current table is best as long as we really make sure it is substituted everywhere before starting the new table so that a 14-15 season table does not end up at a 13-14 season article. Should even the current 13-14 seson templates be moved to "current", with the risk of 13-14 then always neing redirected to a current table? QED237 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Substitution shouldn't be hard. There is a "What links here" and would show where the table is linked. Kingjeff (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is and I have tried it on my sandbox, the problem is that a big amount of code not needed when season over is included even if only showing part of the table so a lot could me removed manually (all switches and team that is not interesting). But I guess current X table is best or skipping current and just have "X league table". QED237 (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge two articles about same player

Don't know if this is the right place to ask, but as there are two articles (Anel Hadžić (footballer) and Anel Hadžić) about the same player, it would be nice if someone familiar with the routines could merge the two pages. --Wikijens (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd just redirect the footballer article. Nothing to add from that to the other. -Koppapa (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Including "Richest Football Clubs" in Rangers FC's "See Also" Section

The article Forbes' list of the most valuable football clubs is linked in the "See Also" section of the Rangers F.C. article. The last time they appeared on this list was 2009 and their financial position has changed dramatically since then. (Quickly: They have went through administration, and ultimately liquidation, and are now playing in the lower leagues of Scottish Football).

I believe that including this link on the main article isn't accurate, and is the result of a POV edit from people wanting to promote their club (something which football club articles are plagued with. Especially those related to the Old Firm). You can see the discussion on Talk:Rangers F.C., but I still think this page shouldn't be linked, as it's not accurate to suggest Rangers one of the "Richest Football Clubs" any longer.

I am looking for a more NPOV perspective on this. --Connelly90 13:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As they don't appear in the current ranking, or indeed any ranking since 2009, there is no need for the link to be present in the 'See Also' section. GiantSnowman 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there has been another discussion in the past re this, I'm not familiar with or know in the archives where it is so cant comment. However as I've stated on the talk page of the article, this isn't a NPOV issue. The see also doesn't discriminate it does not say they are or ever were, it just says you may be interested in reading this. This isn't an Old Firm issue at all either, nor is liquidation strictly relevant to the debate, its pretty well covered and very neutral on both the main page and at Administration and liquidation of The Rangers Football Club Plc. The see also is still relevant as the tables for previous years are still included at Forbes' list of the most valuable football clubs, if they only included the current ones then of course the see also would be unnecessary and then possibly that would be pov issue.Blethering Scot 18:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no point in adding it to the article. I wouldn't even add it to any club mentioned in the list. -Koppapa (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of to keep it there is for irony.--EchetusXe 20:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Including "Richest football clubs" in the see also section of a specific team's article strongly implies that the team is one of those rich clubs; Rangers is no longer in this group.

The liquidation is very relevant to this debate as it's regarding the current finances of the team, and whether it's accurate or fair to so include "Richest football clubs" in the see also section any longer.

If you stand by including the link on the basis that the reader "may be interested in reading this"; then on that logic shouldn't we add it to every football-related article, or at least every football club's article? Since it's a subject that everyone interested in those articles "may be interested in".

(NOTE: Previous discussion is here) --Connelly90 10:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to make the point I made at both Old Firm clubs talk pages about this issue: I believe it is a perfectly relevant see also page as both clubs are included in the lists on the page. The compromise made by Connelly90 by adding '25th in 2009' in parenthesis also means there is no confusion as to whether the club is on the current years list. Cheers, VanguardScot 11:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, anyone contributing here may also wish to read the page WP:See Also. Cheers, VanguardScot 11:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I only think it would be relevant to include the link in the "See Also" sections of clubs who appear on the current list. --Connelly90 11:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally the question I would ask is that is there somewhere in the article that mentions at one point they were on the list. It certainly should somewhere in the past finance section. If it does then it would be fair to remove the see also. I'm not sure it adds much in the irony stakes tbh. Blethering Scot 13:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The "Ownership and Finances" section deals almost exclusively with events surrounding their administration/liquidation as well as their current financial position. Only three lines of the section is devoted to their pre-2011 ownership and finances. --Connelly90 14:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European football club stadiums

Dear football experts: This draft was created some time ago, but never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Now its on the G13 stale draft deletion list. Is this a notable topic, or should it be let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Bin it, the much superior List of European stadiums by capacity already exists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again - it's gone.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Moore

A recent edit at Chris Moore (Welsh footballer) changed the height from 5 feet 11 inches to 6 feet, with no source. The height is incorrectly formatted (it should be just digits). Should the edit be reverted or cleaned up? Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced information about a BLP that has been challenged? Remove per WP:BLP. GiantSnowman 12:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Soccerdatabase.eu

FYI, this site is a copyvio of the defunct 'playerhistory' site and has now been blacklisted from Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 12:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Have the links already on the site been removed, obviously blacklisting will prevent new ones being added. Blethering Scot 13:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe so, and I have been removing any new additions over the last few months. GiantSnowman 13:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Playerhistory was "downgraded" from an "opening soon" banner to a parked domain. Regardless of the legality of soccerdatabase.eu, they have preserved a not inconsiderable amount of player data - too bad there are almost no lineups. 109.173.211.121 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You'd be better off finding old PH links at the Wayback Machine. GiantSnowman 13:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Individual international matches

I thought that usually, individual games, even official games between countries, did not get articles. If so, perhaps someone can take a look at Malaysia vs Indonesia (1977 SEA Games), Malaya vs Indonesia (1977 Merdeka Tournament), Malaya vs Indonesia (1977 Pre-World Cup), Malaysia vs Indonesia (1969 Merdeka Tournament), Malaya vs Indonesia (1961 Merdeka Tournament final), Malaya vs Indonesia (1957 Merdeka Tournament) and Malaya v Indonesia (1958). Some of the articles may also be copyright violations wrt to their (short) text part, which seems to be taken straight from a newspaper. @Hakim pandaraya:. Fram (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They seem like they were created in good faith, but these articles should be deleted in my opinion. If a match which started a "war" in South America doesn't get its own article, then these shouldn't. --Connelly90 15:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They should all be PROD'ed. JMHamo (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

...with a stick? --Connelly90 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)