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.

Club season articles and match info.

Hi,

As I have seen a lot of different information I would like to see some form of consensus on what should be shown on the matches for the club season articles. Many articles use footballbox collapsible and some dont, but no matter what is used the same info should be on articles. I have seen (on the footballboxes) information such as:

1. goals
2. yellow cards
3. red cards
4. missed penalties (during regular time, of course we should have penalty shootout misses)
5. substitutions

and probalby more I cant remember now.

What should we show? Is there any reason to show more than goalscorers? That is what we show in major competitions such as Champions League, Europa League, main World Cup article and so on. Seems like the rest is a bit unneeded to me (cards can be seen in stats section). QED237 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just goals for me. – PeeJay 22:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should have tables instead of the templates. With the table, we can have headings suitable for whatever match info we decide to put in. I personally put position in the league table, points, and goal difference. I can do this because the table allows for flexibility. Kingjeff (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Just the goals and not more. Kante4 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Are red cards not worth adding too? Have a distinct impact on the outcomes of games and are generally noteworthy. Macosal (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion both goals and red cards should be added. Red cards impact the game, yellow cards do not. Missed penalties are not that noteworthy, we also do not included other missed shots. There is only a point to list substitutions when the line-up is listed to begin with, I do not think that club season articles should include line-ups for each game though. CRwikiCA talk 14:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Red cards do not always impact the game. I've seen matches where the team whose player was sent off actually played better after the sending-off. Since red cards only affect the match outcome indirectly, I don't think they should be included. – PeeJay 21:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have has some time to think about the red cards and despite being a bit torn a think they should not be included. As said above they dont necessarily affect the match outcome and we should really only list what is most important which is the score and who scored the goals. Some articles I have seen even only list the scorers of the article-team (but I think both teams scorers should be shown). So no red cards for me. QED237 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

But cards are still major events within the match. Kingjeff (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This topic was touched on some in this discussion from January. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@EddieV2003: Thanks, I had missed that discussion. QED237 (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you look at it we dont add cards in Champions League and other big tournaments so why do it in club season articles? And as @PeeJay2K3: says in the other discussion it is called goals1 and goals2 so why add cards there? Template documentation is for goals. When we have the extended box for big matches then we can display cards. QED237 (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just my few pennies on these articles... This season I see a big push to have the articles in the 4 major leagues in England. All clubs at this level have a season article prior to the start of this season. To find consensus on MOS is going to be hard because some of the editors have been do these updates for several seasons and simply continue their style when the new season begins. Hence anyone who has been doing one style of scores - footballbox collapsibles (eg Carlisle United) and starts to implement table style (eg Manchester United) is going to find themselves in a probable heated edit war. Now each style has its pros and its cons. Also in the area of Transfers - there are some differences. Some add more information so that there is a continuum of following up players in the future. And some just focus on just that team that the season article is about. My jilt with these articles is that contributions start falling off for some teams when we get into the season and the articles become massively outdated to the point I believe that they should be deleted. The task force should be looking for contributors who like editing and keeping an eye on a team whether they are fans or no for the whole season. This is really work - and the volunteerism of WP at the highest level. Also I would like to direct attention at a highly intense and IMO over done club season - 2013–14 Adelaide United FC season. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, the interest seems to drop every season. That is one reason for trying to find all this consensus. Last season I regurlarly went around on all PL club season articles (and others) for update after every matchweekend (as much as I had time to) and got frustrated over the differences. If articles were about the same it would be easier to update them, now I had to see "Ohh, this article has yellow cards" and on the next "only goals here" and so on. The same everywhere would be a lot easier. I am taking this step by step atm to get more consensus and this is one step. Last year I were heavily involved in the league table template to ease the updates. A consensus here would be great. About the different ways of showing results (footballbox or not) is a later project, I have tried but there are to much difference of opinion at the mment for any consensus on that subject. QED237 (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As a sidenote last season "results by round" was also change on all articles to "results by matchday" on all articles since there was a source for that (some article used regular table and WP:OR) so now it is the league position at the end of the day the team played everywhere (on some it was after all teams played that weekend, but there was no source for that and in England there are no rounds and a lot of postponed matches due to wheater and both cups). Consensus really helps people like me who edits a lot of different article and not just one article so a consensus on what info to display for the matches would be great. QED237 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

when it comes to results by round/matchday for a particular club there is a source (like this [1]) which can be used. I wouldn't use it as a source for league season article though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spudgfsh: That was the source we changed to last seasomn on the english club article and also changed "round" to "matchday" as it is what stattoo says. It is a great source for this purpose. Before some article just had a link to the league table as source which is not good enough. The league article in england does not have any table for this since it can not be sourced. QED237 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards are really not needed, that's why it's called goals1/2 in the footballbox. They not everytime change the outcome of a game, like a goal does... Kante4 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would retain the cards as they do give you some insight in to the game rather than just listing goals. The issuing of a card can often lead to a goal and this can be judged by the timing of the events in the articles. There is no reason to get rid of information or not to record it. Keith D (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yellow cards can change games; often or not it alters the manager's thinking and tactics. In the Champions League bookings carry on until a certain stage of the competition, whereas in the Premier League said player could be booked for the fifth time and be ruled out of a important match. But without explanation (prose) to go with the complete fixture list, you cannot draw conclusions. Season articles for the current year are a minefield; just looking at the Arsenal one there is too much going on. Why is there a reserve squad list when the article's about the first team? Transfer spend, since when is that notable when Arsenal do all their business undisclosed? Lemonade51 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have revised my position, I think goals are sufficient. If cards have a notable impact, then that should be discussed (and sourced) in prose. I think it will also be good overall to revise Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons, so there is a proper guideline to refer people too. CRwikiCA talk 13:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I did put this (User:Spudgfsh/sandbox/FootySeasonMOS) together the other week. I think it's a start but could do more peoples input. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read the entire discussion and counted votes (I know consensus is not voting but you get general opinion of people) and I see a majority of people saying goals only. The arguments with the fact that the rest of things dont necessarily affect the games and that the template parameter is called "goals1" and "goals2" for a reason also weighs in advantage of goals only, even if some editors say red cards affect the game as well. If no one opposes I will call this consensus for "goals only" and add it to consensus page after the thread is archieved and also implement it on the articles I am working on. There can always be further discussions later and consensus can change but I feel a consensus has been reached for goals only in this discussion. QED237 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to reopen it, but User:Italia2006 was inserting them to the RM article (with dashes and spaces). I added that it was said NOT to have them and he reverted back with a reason "Uh, no.". Invited him to here. So if anyone can help there? Kante4 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't understand why inserting card information is such a big deal. Goalscorers and cards. Otherwise the information is rather incomplete. Just having the goals seems like laziness to me. Italia2006 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, cut me some slack given the fact that this entire discussion just took place today. Italia2006 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are cards important to a game? What does a YC change to a game? Goals are what defines a game and not more. Getting 4 RC and a win 1-0, the result is what is important, not the way it happened. At least not for us here on Wikipedia... (Discussion going on for a week now) Kante4 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when are we including only information important to a game? If we did that we'd make a note of who assisted each goal in the infobox. Is what time the match was played really that important to the game? No, but we include that as well. This discussion is faulted by misuse of the term "importance". When did importance decide what we include? That seems ridiculous to me. Italia2006 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Date/Time is improtant to know when the game is/was played. Assists aren't important aswell, ONLY the goals matter in football, not something else. For someone who wants to include cards, i have yet to see a valid reason (Other than "Uh, no."). Kante4 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Cards are game information... that's the point of these football boxes. Also, who are you to decide what's important? Again, I think just inputting goals is called laziness. It's very simple. We don't have to have a glut of information in these boxes, I think goals and cards should be the standard as per usual. I don't consider "importance" a valid reason to not include this information. Italia2006 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

First it was the Starting 11, then it was assists, and now any information besides goals. Pretty soon these football articles are gonna be skin and bone. Italia2006 (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You are the only one (or one of the few) that wants to include cards. Why is it called goals1 and goals2 in the footballboxes then? Still no reason given why it should be included... Shirts and ball are also game information and it is not included. Goals decide the winner and loser, not cards. Kante4 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I just gave you several reasons. I'm done talking to you, give me someone else. Italia2006 (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly the answer i exptected after you can't come up with valid reasons. Just read the discussion that it should NOT be included, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm done with you because you're insulting. I'm not concerned with what's valid to you or not since I've never seen your name before and I edit plenty of these articles. The footballboxes we use contain information related to the match played. Importance is a relative term, one which I don't think applies to whether or not cards are included. You have to be rude and tell me that the ball and shirts are also information, which is especially insulting. Your only reason for not including the cards is because they are unimportant. To who exactly? I think cards should be included and the fact that the template name is "goals" makes no difference to me. We've been doing this for years and the standard has always been simple: goals and cards. So to sum up for you since you don't have much comprehension, the reason to include cards is because they are information related to the match. This talk of importance is arbitrary, because if we're talking about importance I don't consider what time the game was played to be all that important. Importance is relative and thus should not be a deciding factor. Italia2006 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Could not care less if you never saw me edit before and find it insulting (laughable btw) but you say it is important, myself and others say it is not. So, we opened the discussion here and opted to just put in goals. That was the consensus... Kante4 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Kante4, If "the result is what is important, not the way it happened" then why include the date and kick–off time? Does it really matter when the game was within the season? Why add stadium and city? The location of the match has no bearing on the result. You mentioned how it's called goal1 and goal2 in the football collapsible template. But that shows the inflexibility of the template. When I put a table in I usually call that the "Goalscorers and disciplined players" and when other editors, who use the exact same table, uses only goalscorers, I only use the heading as "goalscorers." I can do that because tables are flexible. The football collapsible template violates MOS:COLLAPSE. Everything hidden in the box would have to be in the prose. Kingjeff (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

So, people know when/where it happened and we are not talking about a fictionale match. I know you like wikitables more, but i don't but that's ok. This is about cards right now in the footballbox template. Kante4 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You show that it isn't a fictionale match by adding a source. Kingjeff (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The way the football collapsible template should be used would not violate MOS:COLLAPSE. If the football box is the main source of the information about the match then would violate COLLAPSE but that is the problem, it should not be the only source of information for the match. This is an encyclopaedia and it should contain prose that supports any tables or templates used. Some of the information within the template would never be included in prose or on a table but provides useful background information for the reader. that use would not violate COLLAPSE. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article should contain prose. This is supported by WP:NSEASONS and MOS:COLLAPSE. But do we really want to put the kick–off time, stadium, and attendance for every single match in the prose? Kingjeff (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kingjeff and while I disagree in that I prefer the footballbox collapsible, you're absolutely right. Who cares what time the match was played? Very few people do, but we include it. I think the argument that because it's goals1/2 we should only input goals is incorrect. I think that to include only goals is to include too little information. And again to reiterate, the argument of "importance" is invalid here. Italia2006 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There are three ways around the issue. You can add the hidden information in the collapsable template into the prose, you can use a template that doesn't collapse, or use a table. Kingjeff (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Who cares what time the match was played?" I was asking a rhetorical question because this is the type of information that would be tedious and unnecessary added if

You say "importance" is not valid, yet you say cards is and time/stadium is not, seems odd to me to use that argument yourself. We need more input i think and live with the result. Kante4 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hold on here, I am not saying time/stadium is not valid, that's ridiculous. I'm saying cards are just as valid as time/stadium. That's my argument. I agree that including penalty misses, substitutions etc. are extraneous and unnecessary, but at least include yellows/reds. I think we're heading to a point where we are being too ascetic with this information. Italia2006 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i'm against it, but like i said, let's wait for more input from other editors before doing something. Kante4 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, absolutely. If the decision to include only goals is made a second time, then so be it, of course. Italia2006 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep and i agree with your other points about subs and penalty misses obviously btw. Kante4 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Including subs, missed penalties and yellow cards is going to far, but including red cards which are major events just like goals without doubt should be included. Why are discussions all about season articles spread across so many different sections, surely one issue should of been dealt with at a time.Blethering Scot 15:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Blethering Scot, I think it is inconsistent to include red cards, but not yellow cards. What happens if a player is booked for a second bookable offence? Would it not look like a straight red card? Kingjeff (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Goals are the ONLY major event that decides the match, so only goals should be included. Even a team with less players can still win a game. If users want to see if there were cards, the report link can be used. Kante4 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not just make Wikipedia a collection of links? If we're going to give match details, then we should not have barebone reports. Kingjeff (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Only including goals is hardly worth its salt and you will find it impossible to enforce given the anoint of ips who insist on including yellow cards. It's easy to include two yellows making it a red as template sent off allows it to show two yellows then red. I think saying the report link shows reds is a very naive position and if we do that we might as well not bother including anything. Can you tell me what harm including red cards does. Blethering Scot 00:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the red card template has that feature. You won't be able to use it because yellow cards would be ban from the article. This is why you have to go with both cards or neither. Kingjeff (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No it's not the same at all yellow cards mean 0 in a match unless you are sent off it then becomes a notable incident, the template simply shows how you were sent off whether two yellows or a red and the time of the sending off. That is not the same as indiscriminately including all incidents. There is a big difference as ref cards are game changers as much as goals. They wouldn't be banned from any article, the consensus against was very weak and wouldn't stand up against editorial discretion on a busy article. The reasons given here are simply flawed. You will need to gain much wider consensus especially as multiple sports include red cards. I'm not seeing anywhere near a wide ranging consensus. Blethering Scot 01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But yellow cards would still be showing. If banned, that feature of the template would not be allowed to be used. A yellow card is a yellow card whether it's the first booking or the second booking. You would only be allowed to show a straight red. Are you saying only game changing incidents are notable? If that's the case, than not all red cards are notable. If a team is down 5–0 in the 90th minute, then they get a consolation goal, the goal could never be notable is not notable. Both, yellow cards and red cards are notable. An accumulation of yellow cards leads to a suspension. That suspension could be a game changer. Kingjeff (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But the yellow card is not a game changer in said game, point accumulations do happen but thats what the disciplinary stats section and prose is for season changer maybe if they are an important player but not game changer. The side i follow have one of the worst disciplinary records in the Scottish league system currently and get fined every year due to number of yellow cards, but it doesn't have any effect on an individual game. A yellow card on its own is not a notable event in a game, sorry it just isn't. I can back red cards being used to the full extent of the current sent off template but not yellow cards on their own. The yellow card template is a different beast.Blethering Scot 02:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If we're talking about prose, I'm in an absolute agreement with you. But as far as match reports, there should be yellow card and red cards. I expect a match report to give details of the match. Kingjeff (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But how much detail do you give, if you include one thing where do you stop. These are not indiscriminate lists and we have to draw the line somewhere. Personally I feel it should just be game notable incidents and I feel goals and red cards are enough. Clearly more input is needed here as it's too narrow a group to say there is any real consensus eithier way. Equally though I'm not sure what imminent harm to the encyclopedia including yellow cards on an editorial judgement basis, article to article would really cause. We do have the template after all. That's just my view though. Blethering Scot 02:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Goals, yellow cards, red cards are all notable. I would also use line–ups under certain circumstances. Kingjeff (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a few circumstances where red cards are notable and these should be mentioned in the prose and not just left in the football box. I have yet to hear of a situation where yellow cards are notable and as with red cards their impact and reason for notability should be mentioned in the prose of the article. I think the fields that are present in the footballbox are all notable enough if there is prose describing the match but if anything else is to be considered to be included in footballbox it needs a discussion for the inclusion of it in the template rather than using the 'goals' parameter to shoehorn in other 'non-goal' related information. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not everybody uses a template and therefore there is nothing called "goal1" and "goal2." If the kick–off time, fourth officials, and goal line assistants are notable, then why wouldn't yellow or red cards be? Kingjeff (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the original question was about the football box collapsible so was aimed at that question. Secondly, if yellow and red cards are not notable enough to be included in a template aimed specifically at recording match details why would it be considered notable to be included when a table was used instead of that template? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually the original question wasn't solely about the football box collapsible. Qed237 stated at the top, "many articles use footballbox collapsible and some dont, but no matter what is used the same info should be on articles." So, he stated what ever is being used, whether Wikitable, or any template, should have the same info/standard. I personally put league table info in the wikitable I use. I'm assuming that this would not be affected since this is covered by the Results by round template and not a footballbox template. Kingjeff (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass BLP prods

Just an FYI, AlanS (talk · contribs) has just BLP prodded 58 articles (not a criticism - it's perfectly justified), many of which appear to be footballers. It's probably worth having a look through and rescuing them (I've just done Ronny Aloema). Cheers, Number 57 12:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Even though most definitely need work, not all of them are unreferenced. Hack (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Again for information, this is still ongoing: we're on to letter B, and most of them are notable... The annoying thing is that a good proportion of the footballers prodded were sourced to Transfermarkt up until links to that site were removed as unreliable, some as recently as earlier this week. While I don't have a problem with that either, it would be nice if in future editors would take an extra few seconds to replace those Transfermarkt profiles with the player's Soccerway or other appropriate profile, rather than removing and then tagging the page as unreferenced. Would have saved AlanS a lot of prodding and saved those of us trying to fix the prodded pages a lot of work. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. What is gained by leaving easily referenced articles unsourced like that? I know we should not link to transfermarkt, but it is so easy to add soccerway or a comparable reliable link in its place. Jogurney (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As the person removing the transfermarkt references, I feel the need to explain myself. My goal here is to remove every transfermarkt reference from the pedia if possible. Given the sheer number of them (there were over 20,000 when I started), I have tried to find the most efficient method possible. What I've discovered works best for me is to focus on one task at a time, i.e. to first remove all the references, and then once that's done (which should be in a week or two given my present rate of editing) to replace them where necessary, and to deal with the interim consequences as they come up. I have every intention to "take an extra few seconds replace those Transfermarkt profiles", just please bear in mind that when multiplied by the number of articles I'm dealing with, those few extra seconds add up to several days. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Better to take the extra time than to risk the articles getting deleted for lack of sources, especially when we know such sources exist. – PeeJay 17:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not save time by making ONE edit with removing transfermarkt and adding a new source? Instead you go through every article and delete the reference and then come back and visit EVERY article again. Sounds odd to me... Kante4 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a report that shows articles about footballers that are tagged as unreferenced or under-referenced? Hack (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of these articles are starting to get deleted regardless of the validity of the PROD. Hack (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

if its unreferenced then the BLP Prod will be valid even if the player is notable. It would be far better if the source was added when removing, yes it would take longer to remove all incidents of transfermarkt but overall it wouldn't take any longer.Blethering Scot 01:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue was that this user was PRODing pre-2010 BLP creations with an invalid rationale. They have now stopped but the removal of references is continuing, meaning the number of unsourced BLPs is significantly increasing. Hack (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

New MOS needed for club seasons

There have been a number of discussions recently over what should and what shouldn't be included in the clubs season articles. It's been the opinion of a number of editors that the current MOS (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons) is in need of an update (It's certainly been mentioned a few times). In response to another discussion I put together a draft based on a GA article (User:Spudgfsh/sandbox/FootySeasonMOS).

some of the currently ongoing discussions include

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Season articles Player details (again)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Season article fixture lists

does anyone have any suggestions for improving my initial draft. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am one of those believing MOS needs to be updated. I have a few minor things I would like to change but I dont have time now. Maybe I will take your sandbox and make an other example. First of all I reacted to the bright yellow color in all tables such as transfer, in my humble opinion it should be a lighter color (grey?) or should each team have their colors? Anyhow that yellow is a bit to bright. Secondly I think all match descriptions should be above the matches and not the other way around. Thirdly the team names gets a linebreak in them in infobox (attendance row), which may be avoided. I have not had the time to look at content that much but I am very positive at a new MOS and it is a good start. QED237 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The yellow/green colours came from the fact that it's come from 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season. I do like the idea that each team would have tables in their own colours. Feel free to make changes to the one in my sandbox by the way, it's supposed to be a 'straw man' first attempt. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea. I suggest that we work in one centralized place, for now that would be Spudgfsh' sandbox version. I do not have a lot of time now to comment in depth. We might also want to revisit some of the templates that are used in these articles though. CRwikiCA talk 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned in other discussions before - in the fixtures list I think you should also have examples of footballbox and/or collapsibles since they are prevalent in other articles already and is the standard way that matches are presented in competitions. I also think some of your statistics are an overkill. Squad statistics with substitutions etc. also Round by Round, Results summary and other statistics. While I understand that probably for Level I teams that a complete article like this is handy for other levels this information as I pointed out does not get updated fully and by the end of the season is near to useless (IMO). Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the fixtures and results should be presented in tables as opposed to templates. Kingjeff (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingjeff, a table can still be made through a template. I assume you mean you are opposed to using the footballboxes templates for game results? CRwikiCA talk 00:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to them because they aren't flexible like tables. The collapsible footballboxes templates violate MOS:COLLAPSE. I know somebody is going to come along and say it's a guideline and not policy. But why bother having guidelines if we're not going to refer to them at all. I think it might be good if we look at the guidelines. WP:GUIDES states that "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." Kingjeff (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you look at GAs other than your own before making this draft, such as the Manchester United and York City series? They're fairly plain and simple, and the tables include pretty well everything relevant to the clubs' season that's sensible to tabulate. the relevant bit of MOS says "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players" (bolding original). I realise we can't enforce the inclusion of sourced prose, but we ought to be encouraging people away from wanting to shoehorn everything they know about a club's season into tables and templated structures just because they can. As to collapsible footballboxes, Kingjeff is correct that they violate MOS:COLLAPSE: we shouldn't be trying to impose a local standard that contradicts the site-wide MOS.

On a side-note, your NCFC colours fail this colour contrast check. Personally, I just see a yellowish blur at the top of the table, I have to strain to discover there are words there at all, let alone read them :) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

On colour. I'm colour blind so I'm not the best to comment on colours. If you think there's a better set of colours both for this MOS and the article I used as a basis feel free to tell me/change it. I have no sacred cows.

On collapsible football boxes I was of the opinion that it doesn't hide article content if the template is supported by text. the way the collapsible football box works is by showing the specific information that would be included in the prose but giving the reader the option to find out a little extra background information on specific matches. In fact, reading MOS:COLLAPSE I think that {{football box collapsible}} is just the kind of situation that it is promoting as a good use of hide/show. You can have a very harsh view of the term 'article content' which would mean that everything should be visible and you couldn't use the hide/show functionality at all.

On the point about having different examples using other articles as a basis. I think it's a good idea but I nearly started three MOS articles. 1) for articles prior to the season starting 2) for articles during the season 3) for articles following the conclusion of the season. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm colour-blind as well, which is IMO a damn good reason to comment on colours :) I prefer using the default Wikipedia colours for table headings etc, for consistency of appearance, but if people think using team colours is appropriate, they need to use something with enough contrast to be readable. E.g. for Norwich, pick either the yellow or the green and use black writing.

I could go with your interpretation of MOS:COLLAPSE so long as the main information is contained in the prose, but it often isn't. The reader can see more relevant content at a glance in a table-row than in a collapsed footballbox, without having to interact with it. And a table-row can include things like league position after the game, which is (again, IMO) rather more relevant to the club's season than who the referee was.

Collapsible football boxes does hide content. It would get tedious to have to put every little thing from the box into the prose. I have seen a table on the Dutch Wikipedia which I like. It has match details (date, kick–off, stadium, and city), score and goalscorers, lineup, and cards. The goalscorers column shows the score after that paticular goal. Kingjeff (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

TBH, I'm not sure how much we'd be able to confine enthusiastic editors to a particular style of anything. Might do as well getting agreement on things that really should and really shouldn't be included, and which bits of WP:MOS we want enforced. Wikilinking club name, home town and home ground in every single footballbox is a pet hate of mine: once in the lead and once in the infobox is enough. That and not referencing everything to the club's website. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Less is more. The biggest issue I find with club season articles is the amount of tables; there is no need for one to show top goalscorers and players with the most red and yellow cards – just merge it with the squad statistics table and add text. This is an encyclopedia, not a stat haven. Although the Arsenal ones now have written prose, there are still some things which could be removed like 'Squad information' (pointless), 'Reserve squad' (this is about the first team squad), 'Overall transfer activity' (speculatory). I've had a go cleaning up yesteryear seasons because they are stable and I don't have to get into edit wars (11 now GA, jillion to go]), and although the prose isn't pitch-perfect, they are consistent and make better use of the tables. 2003–04 is the most comprehensive of them all and it's the template I now use. I have no problems with collapsible footballboxes; in most cases when I work on a season article, results are presented in that style so I can just get to work with prose. For pre-1992 seasons like 1991–92 I used result tables similar to the Manchester United and Birmingham season articles as I initally couldn't get goal information about the other team. On the subject of MOS, I've started one at User:Lemonade51/Club seasons – feel free to leave comments here or there. It's uncomplete, but hopefully should get the ball rolling. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

One thing, these articles are for first team only? 2014–15 Stoke City F.C. season and that editor who completely controls those articles (removes team parameter in table all the time for example and display entire table) keeps track of all U21 matches as well. QED237 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Another issue that I have seen is that some editors use a squad template to show the squad and a table to show statistics. I believe that the statistics table could easily show the squad for the season without having to put any additional list. Kingjeff (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of what's been said already; only the squad statistics for the season in question should be shown, the squad template contains stats that have no relevance to the current season. Also the articles are for the first team only, therefore I don't see a need to include U21 results. Boddefan2009 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles are about a club's season and if the Under-21's are notable (they usually aren't) then they reasonably could be included. There shouldn't be a hard in fast rule on that.Blethering Scot 19:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

How is the MoS doing? Are we closing in to some agreement?

I want to discuss one thing. The previous MOS as well as this one has the score "compact" and not unneccesary space like some editors want. What is everyones say on this? In all big tournaments like Champions League, FIFA World Cup and so on we dont have that space so why have it on club season articles? To me it just feels not needed and I have started to remove it for consistency and as per current MOS. QED237 (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No need for spaces. Like you said, it's been done everywhere else now. Kante4 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the space, however its fine without, its unlikely something that will be argued over by referring to mos however so i would leave as no space on mos.Blethering Scot 19:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion we need answers to two questions before we can close the MOS discussion.

1. Does the proposed MOS contain everything that we expect to see on a season article (even if we don't agree with how it's displayed)?
2. Does the proposed MOS detail the things that we expect to NOT be on a season article?

My MOS needs an example CL group table => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Few issues, i don't think transfers should be at the top, the season summary and then fixtures are the most important part of the article, i prefer them at the bottom of the page after player & team statistics. Current articles seem to have a mix of both. The Infobox should follow capitalisation rules so should be Third round, not Third Round, league placing should imo be Seventh place not 7th. I don't think stats should be mixed with fixtures but in separate sections. I do however like the joint table for appearances, goals and discipline as this is one of the better examples i have seen, but it doesn't seem that easy to understand how to update so that could be a problem with some users less familiar with wiki code. I would prefer a template that calculates the total columns. Also given we have such a variety of season articles in use, how to we propose to deal with that. I personally think consistency between season articles of one club is important, so changing the way its laid out could be problematic if older seasons don't get changed.Blethering Scot 19:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Also Pre-season matches should have its own header not a sub section of transfers.Blethering Scot 19:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The way my MOS is supposed to work is there is a build-up to the season section (with prose) which includes subsections for transfers and pre-season matches. I admit that the inclusion of the January transfer window in the build-up to the season is not the most elegant solution but I felt it got in the way when placed halfway through the league season. With regards to existing articles I think the MOS shouldn't be a template we apply to all articles but an example of good practice which shows the kinds of information which should be included and specifying information which we have a consensus that shouldn't be included. The what being more important than the how. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that works to be honest, yes of course there should be substantial prose but that can be split between sections, its obviously only my opinion but i think it looks a bit of a mess whilst well intentioned. Also of course there should be an initial season summary but thats no reason stopping individual sections having prose especially a transfer section. Pre season matches should be treated as fixtures just like the Premier League so should have their own section. You definitely however need to change the detailing in the infobox as capitalisation rules do apply there.Blethering Scot 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record I'm not against a new mos, we badly need one. Just feel this could be much improved on that draft in a more organised way. Would be happy to help create a different version.Blethering Scot 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before I have no sacred cows. The problem is that the MOS is detailing layout clearly (which people argue about) but the important things (like not to include every substitution) are lost in the 'layout arguments'. Given the variety of current layouts (just in articles that are considered) GA I think we will never agree on a layout but we should be able to agree on content. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 07:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

League table templates, new version

Last season there was consensus to develop new league table templates (earlier the displayed only full tables). The new tables were more complicated with switches and such, but displayed only 5 teams on club season articles since there is no need to display entire table, only the team on article (and closest opponents) are interesting. The result was for example {{2013–14 Premier League table}} and helper template {{2013–14 Premier League table/p}} (and redirect {{PL13}}) who both needed updating every time.

This work really well on the articles and was used on entire English leaguesystem and dutch eredivisie. Although working well there are always improvments to be made and this summer @CRwikiCA: developed a new version (I tried to help with minor things afterwards). This new version was mainly made to avoid the most common mistake when updating the table, which was that the switches got moved around and the wrong rows was displayed on articles. For example there could be positions 8,9,13,14,15 in one club season articles. Also editors did not update the helper template with teams positions which made the same problems with wrong rows showing.

This new solution means one extra template but only one template needs to be updated (no swiches there) and this will most likely make updating much more easier. Now I had to take close watch all the time and felt like only I could update it. The major drawback currently is that the layout template must be edited at end of season when clubs enter Europa League after domestic cup victories, but I think it will work and perhaps we can work on a decent solution until then. Also H2H rows (e.g. LaLiga) are a bit more complicated but I have an idea for that, but it will only show for a full table.

This new version can be seen at main template {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}} and helpers {{2014–15 Eredivisie table/layout}} {{2014–15 Eredivisie table/teams}}, were only main needs updating (until more qualification rows is needed in layout)

What do you think? Should we try this new template-layout? It should be easier to update with only one template without switches and I am hoping the layout is not to hard to understand and should not be to hard to copy to new leagues. QED237 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The main though between this setup is the separation between the data and the lay-out, which would make it a lot easier to edit for most editors. As primary author of the new setup, I will not give my opinion here, it might be more interesting to hear from people that are less comfortable with the intricacies of coding. CRwikiCA talk 15:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I like it. It is a more elegant solution than the old one as it limits the part of the template that needs updating to just the bits that are updated. looking at it, the likely error that will be made during updates is editors forget to renumber the teams and/or stats but that is a much more obvious error than the current solution. good work chaps. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at these templates? In particular for Carlisle United its wrong - Template:2014–15 Football League Two table I'm inclined to remove these templates because of this continual instability.... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

---

@Brudder Andrusha: I will look at it right now. Most likely someone has not updated the helper template (on of the reasons for this new setup when only one template needs to be updated. I am ready to fix it if no one opposes. QED237 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: Now I have fixed league two. Is it the same for all english leagues? Anywhere else? QED237 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So much work. I'd go for using the whole table altogether, it's just much easier. After the season, change it to a wikitable if you like and then copy the 5-6 places you need to the season articles. -Koppapa (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Koppapa: Maybe, but there was interest for it as we dont need to list all 20 teams on all club article. When you look at article for a top team you dont care about 16th place (probably, it can be seen at main article). And there was consensus to do this and some editors wanted to do the work. This is not discussion if we should list entire table or not, it is wheter or not we try new setup. Do you have anything against the new setup other then "so much work"? QED237 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay since no one really has opposed the new layout other then it is two much work and we should list entire table (not what consensus was before so in such case you may want to open discussion and find new consensus for that) I will go ahead to implement the new setup when I have the time, (If anyone else want to do it feel free to do it). Or does anyone else have something to say? QED237 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a set thing, not everyone will want to do the work to display only a partial table. Im with Koppapa just show the full table if thats what people want.Blethering Scot 14:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone want's to do all that work, that's fine. -Koppapa (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Update #1 - This has not been fixed after the second game. Currently Carlisle is 22nd... Template is not even showing the team... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is same IP every time not making complete updates. I am working on the new. Will fix it ASAP and fix this for now. QED237 (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Blackpool FC squad

Some of you my have seen the reports today around Blackpool F.C.'s issues of not being able to name 7 substitutes for their match. [BBC match report]. Two youth team players were added to the squad (31 and 38 in the match report) - one of whom made his first team debut (31 - Telford, in the 88th minute). Despite the fact that they are not officially listed yet on the Blackpool website in the official squad list (given the fact the club failed to register players to be eligible to play - this is perhaps not surprising) - I'd say that the BBC report being cited against the players being added to the squad list as a reference is sufficient as a source. Views, please? Zanoni (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. It's not that uncommon for kids to get on the bench or even to play before getting a website listing, even for clubs without Blackpool's particular difficulties. If they've been on the bench with a number against their name, then they're in the squad. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Article created for Dom Telford who made his debut. if anyone can help out with additional personal information (date of birth, place of birth etc) - would be helpful. 00:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally would add them. Especially on the club season article. Kingjeff (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that we're ignoring the given reference(s). Plus, if the players weren't listed in the shirt-number assignments published the day before the game, clearly they aren't regarded as first-team players. As I mentioned, people get excited when they see squad numbers assigned, regardless of the circumstances. Makes sense to include them in the current-season article, but — as predicted — the stats aren't being updated, so I don't know what the eagerness to create these stats tables is all about. Surely there should be some discussion beforehand to see if anyone will be doing the necessary updates? - NewTestLeper79 talk 13:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Fb out2 player

Hi, I have a question about {{Fb out2 player}} that I came across when looking at 2014–15 FC Barcelona season#Transfers out. I noticed that there were a column "moving to" that looked weird with flags and that a editor was adding flags to that section. Further investigation gave that some flags was automatically genererated and that the template uses fc team templates (which we should phase out I believe?) Could someone please take a look at this template if it needs a remake and perhaps remove use of fb team templates? QED237 (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd support the use of a plain old wikitable. This isn't really easy to edit now anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The templates in the "fb" series are attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist, so it would be best to do away with them altogether. – PeeJay 12:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have made some changes in that template some time ago to support the non-use of fb team templates. Instead of using the |nc parameter, you use the |ncl template. (I couldn't find a better name for the paramter, sorry). I'm still going on replacing fb team templates and deleting, (using but it takes time :( . Ah, but if you use the |ncl template you need to put the flag by yourself. The flag is auto-added by the template, I think, and it checks if the country of the team is different from the other team, and then adds a flag. GNozaki (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes they are useful, but in most cases it's simply easier to use a wiki table also when it adds a flag automatically there is greater chance it could be a violation of mos flag depending on the situation it's being used in. Personally i would prefer if we stopped using these. Blethering Scot 00:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

FC Universitatea Craiova/FC Torentul Secui

Could someone who knows something about Romanian football have a look at FC Universitatea Craiova and FC Torentul Secui (new article)? Hack (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the later is a local club playing the sixth (lowest) level currently. I see no connection between the clubs. Seems like that player Nicola Valentin (contributions) copy pasted from the University Club to have an article about his club. -Koppapa (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you say this version of the FCUC article was the last good version? Hack (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd prod the other club and player. -Koppapa (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone has done something similar at CS Universitatea Craiova (football) per a report at the admin noticeboard. Hack (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems tougher. I don't know. -Koppapa (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Umberto Piccolo, an american from Wyoming in the italian championship

There is a little enigma to solve: Piccolo played only one season and then he disappeared: there is a chance to see if he came back in USA? --95.253.47.136 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Two articles nominated for deletion

Two articles that I created have been nominated for deletion:

• 2013 CONCACAF Under-15 Championship - Discussion here
• 2014 CONCACAF Girls' U-15 Championship - Discussion here

For me, it seems silly that the similar AFC, CONMEBOL and UEFA competitions have articles yet the CONCACAF (North America's equivalent to UEFA) versions are being nominated for deletion.

• 2013 AFC U-16 Women's Championship - Asian women's youth tournament
• 2014 AFC U-16 Championship - Asian men's youth tournament
• 2013 South American Under-15 Football Championship - South American youth tournament

Please comment at the 'Discussion' links above. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey @TheBigJagielka: well done on completely and utterly violating WP:CANVASS here... GiantSnowman 19:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also please refresh your knowledge of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fenix down (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Competition notability

In light of the above, I think it's worth setting criteria for what competitions (not leagues) are considered notable enough to have an article. I'd have thought that a competition organised by one of the six confederations would've notable enough for inclusion.

There's nothing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I agree; I can't see why an international tournament organised by the continental body wouldn't be automatically notable? Number 57 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• What level of coverage would the average continental U14 or U15 tournament gather? Hack (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• A competition might be notable, but that does not mean every individual edition merits an article. GiantSnowman 08:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Luciano Vietto

Hello,

I am a University of Toronto student, editing the stub of Luciano Vietto for my assignment. This is the first time I am editing a Wikipedia article so any insights and suggestions I can get will be greatly appreciated.

So, if you see the stub now, it has a small introduction and a brief Career section and obviously the References tab. What I am planning on doing is adding a Youth Career section to talk about his early beginnings, expand each section with more information based off my research, and lastly add Career Statistics section with all his career statistics in a table format just like how most footballer articles have nowadays.

This is all I have up until now so once again any feedbacks or suggestions on making this stub into an amazing article would be greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushalchavan (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Annual question

Time for me to ask it (as I do each year it seems): does an appearance in the Football League Cup consititute notability sufficient for an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes - playing in a fully-professional competition (i.e. for one team from a FPL against another team from a FPL) certainly meets the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As I suspected. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, whether those players who make their debuts tonight would meet the GNG is another matter, but one that seems to be increasingly (and conveniently) ignored. BigDom (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A period of grace has traditionally been allowed for players making their debut; and if it proves to be their only appearance, then there is plenty of consensus at AFD showing that technically meeting NFOOTBALL but failing GNG is not enough for notability... GiantSnowman 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So how long do these joke articles like Teddy Bishop that contain no useful information whatsoever get? If someone created an article like that about anyone other than a footballer it would be deleted on sight. BigDom (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well first of all, I am sure if someone had the time they could perhaps add a lot more to the article, probably not enough to satisfy GNG but enough to say more than that. Secondly, I would say at least a year or two is enough to delete a one appearance player article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Dom, your argument basically boils down to "stubs are rubbish" and that is against everything Wikipedia stands for. Start it and they will edit! GiantSnowman 11:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

League tables and names

Hi, Tried this one time before without any success (only one editor replied) so I try again as this needs to be decided after a recent event I spotted.

I saw that someone replaced the entire content of {{Current Austrian Football Bundesliga table}} with {{2014–15 Austrian Football Bundesliga table}} (instead of a redirect). This was done after the later template was created a few days ago with the exact same content as the original current-template.

My response was to restore the current template and CSD (with help from twinkle) the date-template as a copy of an already existing template, but know I remembered the earlier discussion what the names should be.

The major argument is that we should not have a lot of old templates and they have gotten subst and deleted by TfD many times so during those TfD's there was discussions and minor agreement to rename all templates to current table and subst after the seasons and restart the table instead of removing the old one and create a new.

Following "what links here" to the current-template however links to some article from 2013-14 season which means that they have not been substituted and have the current table for this season on them now which is bad. So can we trust they willbe substed or should we use the season-date template instead?

Please comment. QED237 (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ideally the process would work like you say, but realistically I think it would probably be better to have one each season, then delete it when it has been completely substituted. Unfortunately a lot of stuff doesn't get cleaned up in the way we'd like. I actually spotted a problem with this exact template a couple of weeks ago, as no-one had substituted it onto the 2013–14 Austrian Football Bundesliga article, which led to one person trying to fix the link to the template when it got reset to zero for the new season (which made the table disappear completely, as it was an invalid link), and then another editor adding a really crap table. I then solved it by creating {{2013–14 Austrian Football Bundesliga table}} (the existence of which may have led to your situation, so sorry if that's the case) and adding it to the article, as I didn't know we were meant to substitute stuff. Number 57 14:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was not aware of the situation at that article, for some reason I did not have it at my watchlist and I totally understand the solution of creating the template for last season (so no worrieds about any creation of this problem, it lead to this discussion which is good).

In my opinion I believe these template should stay (but the TfD's say delete) and not be substituted and deleted as when older tables gets vandalized it is easier to have the template on watchlist then all articles the table is on. Also the new templates (described above) may (I dont know) be harder to substitute as they are divided in three templates with switches and so on. QED237 (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your point about vandalism, and I don't see a problem with keeping the tables in template format if they're being used on multiple articles - it's a (small) kb saving for the project. Number 57 14:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont want to jump to conclusion about consensus on the matter (and the old TfD seemed more like suggestions to rename the tempates) but in case we should have the date-templates instead of current what is the best way to move forward? Should I remove CSD-template? Should we remove the article and after that make a page move from current to the date-name? Or what is best? The absolute best is to find consensus first. QED237 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is always possible that standings are adjusted after the next season starts, for example in the 2004–05 Serie A. For this reason I think templates should stay, so changes like that could be easily implemented. CRwikiCA talk 18:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I created {{Current Austrian Football Bundesliga table}} because tables created for a single season had been put up for deletion. Kingjeff (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingjeff: Okay, I did not know that it was you who created it. What do you say about it? Should it stay given the issues I provided with table not being substituted everywhere or to you think we should keep it due to all TfDs? QED237 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me either way. But tables for each season will have almost no edits after that paticular season. Kingjeff (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

660 football biographies marked as unreferenced

There are currently 660 BLP articles marked as being unreferenced at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Unreferenced_BLPs/Full_list. Many are false positives due to poor tagging but most need some attention. Hack (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

From the 20 or so that I've looked at, at least half seem to be false positives caused by editors who don't know the difference between References and External links, which then causes bots to tag the articles as unreferenced. I had this very same problem a few days ago on Diafra Sakho with a stubborn editor who couldn't understand that general references are just as valid as inline citations so kept changing the section header to "External links". BigDom (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand and that very short article looks better now you have split the refs between the two types!--Egghead06 (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you understood, why would you incorrectly tag the article? All you had to do was place {{no footnotes}}. Hack (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jeez there are some snooty people on here running around with their insults. What I did I did in good faith as the article had no inline citations. Then a pack of wiki boffins get on my case. Just fix, move on and stop bitching. Not everyone knows every wiki tag you know.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Player lead

Hi, I was approached by an other editor regarding regarding the wording in the lead of player articles. He asked me if I could present it here so I will do that.

If we find some sort of consensus it could be good to update the player MOS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players.

The first thing is if we mention league or not, which I have read in earlier discussions we should not as teams can be relegated and promoted without it being updated on the player articles. (What I can see there is consensus so it is just to update MOS?)

Secondly (and our main discussion) it is about how we write the nation of the club the player is playing in (if we should mention it at all).

1. "Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays for Manchester City as a striker"
2. "Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays for Manchester City in England as a striker"
3. "Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays as a striker for Manchester City in England"
4. "Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays for English club Manchester City as a striker"
5. "Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays as a striker for English club Manchester City"

I believe we may have had this discussion before but could not find it.

In my opinion we should use alternative 4 or 5 (some articles dont have player position making 4 and 5 equal), and the editors I talked to seemed to favour 2 or 3 first and then suggested number 1.

My reasoning is that number 1 does not mention nation of club at all, which we should if the player does not play in his home nation. The number 2 and 3 alternatives I dont like because it somehow implies that the team only plays in a certain nation but they can play friendlies, Champions League and more in other countries. For example a match between Roma and Barcelona in Rome, Italy then Messi is not playing for Barcelona in Spain, he is actually playing for Barcelona in Italy. Therefore saying Spanish club Barcelona is better because the club is always Spanish no matter where the match is being played.

Your thoughts? QED237 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My preference would be 'X is a [nationality] professional footballer who plays for [country] [team], as a [position]', obviously not including 'country' if it is the same as nationality, and changing 'professional' to 'international' if they are an international. GiantSnowman 14:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC) GiantSnowman 14:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

On the league: I have no problem with its inclusion, it's informative to the reader, I think the lack-of-updating problem is sometimes exaggerated, and where the article has a substantial lead section, it's very odd that the leagues for a player's previous clubs can appear there but not their current club.

On opening sentence: 4 or 5, if the playing position must go in the opening sentence. Agree with Qed237's reasoning entirely as to 2 and 3: "club in country" doesn't mean the same as "country-ish club". On 1, I wouldn't include the country if the player is playing in their native country, but if they're playing abroad, it needs to be appear somewhere in the lead; we're here to inform the reader, after all.

I'd agree with GS about including "international" if appropriate, but I wouldn't bother with "professional". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I usually include professional to make it clear they aren't amateur. Its entirely possible a notable player has been professional previously but is no longer, however it is a minor quibble. I would choose #"Player X is a Spanish footballer who plays for English club Manchester City as a striker" whilst including the league. We have however discussed this very recently.Blethering Scot 19:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I use "professional" as that is the indicator of notability - just as we should use "amateur" for players in the early days of the sport. GiantSnowman 07:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I would go for #5. It makes the most logical sense to me for the sentence fragments to be placed in order of importance/permanence. His name and birth date will always be the same, so they go first. Then his nationality and what he is notable for (e.g. "[Player X] (born 42nd Smarch 3102) is a Fooian professional footballer"). Then I would put his position before his club because regardless of which club he plays for, chances are he will still play in the same position; furthermore, if he is unattached, you need only remove the name of the club from the end of the sentence instead of from the middle (e.g. "[Player X] (born 42nd Smarch 3102) is a Fooian professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for Sampleton Rovers" vs "[Player X] (born 42nd Smarch 3102) is a Fooian professional footballer who plays for Sampleton Rovers as a midfielder"). Probably works either way, but my personal preference is to put the current club at the end of the sentence. Oh, and the country the club plays in only needs to be mentioned if it is different from the player's nationality, IMO. – PeeJay 00:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be a note for players with significant connections to multiple countries. An extreme example of sticking to FIFA nationalities would be "Ferenc Puskás was a Spanish footballer and manager". Hack (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In those cases don't use nationality in the very opening of the lede, save it for later - say 'was a professional footballer [...] Born in X, he represented X, Y and Z at international level. I also disagree over the order, I think the position being last flows better, and the club should come before the position if we are talking about "order of importance." GiantSnowman 07:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

DeAndre Yedlin

I think this page should be protected because there are users adding that he signed with Tottenham and was loaned back to the Seattle Sounders, but the sources are saying he will stay with Seattle for the remainder of 2014 and then join Tottenham. That doesn't mean he was "loaned back". It could mean the transfer won't take effect until 2015. So unless there's a reliable source that indicates that he was loaned back, I think it should be protected. – Michael (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, from both news reports on both Sounders and Spurs' websites, it is a transfer which does not start till 2015. Of course this part should be of note: "DeAndre has signed a four-year contract..." This comes from the Tottenham report. So, does the 2014–15 season count towards his four-year contract? When does it start? That is the main question. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

BBC and Sky Sports are claiming he would remain in Seattle until the start of the 2015/16 season. None of them are saying anything about a loan. Would the contract start then? This is confusing. – Michael (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, so until an official source comes out confirming it is a loan then we should just assume he is a Sounders player till 2015. Really the only option we have. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not confusing at all. You can agree a transfer in advance, and the player moves only at a later date. Jermaine Defoe did exactly that moving from Spurs to the MLS. The official sources I've seen, including official announcements from the MLS and Spurs made no mention of a loan so Yedlin would officially complete his move after the current MLS season. LRD NO (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

From the official statements:

• MLS: The deal will see Yedlin stay with the Sounders through the 2014 MLS season, and Sounders part owner and general manager Adrian Hanauer said Wednesday that Spurs will assess Yedlin and their own needs this winter and decide if he'll join the club then or next summer.[2]
• Spurs: DeAndre has signed a four-year contract and will remain with Sounders before joining us ahead of the 2015/16 season.[3]

As it implies, Spurs will decide after the 2014 MLS season to bring in Yedlin in winter or summer 2015, both ahead of the 2015–16 Premier League season. LRD NO (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think where all the confusion came from was from twitter reports saying that it is a loan/not a loan and stuff like that. They way you put it though it seems simple. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion; the first team profiles page on the official Tottenham site does reflect that Yedlin is now owned by Tottenham and is on loan to Seattle. (http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/first-team-profiles/) He is listed at the bottom of that page. It is interesting that this was not reflected in either of the club announcements. OR is this just a mistake made by an over-zealous Spurs webmaster who's edited that page without actually having a clue? I'm actually leaning towards the over-zealous webmaster! 60.240.5.113 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Bot's job

Is there really no way to get a bot to do the updating of pages like this one? --Theurgist (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think there is. On a side note, I spotted several errors in that list, including the location of FK Qarabağ, who were shown as playing in the ghost town of Agdam. The city is their original home, but they now play in Baku. Unfortunately an Azeri editor has blindly reverted this change at a couple of other articles, so I would appreciate someone else having a look and deciding whether the map should represent where the team plays, or the original city they represented. Cheers, Number 57 10:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• FC Karabakh played in Quzanlı district, which is not Aghdam itself but it is Agdam District. Now, they moved to Baku but there is not guarantee they can move it back there.--Yacatisma (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The most important detail is in the tense of your answer - i.e. "played". The map represents where they are now (especially relevant to the 2014–15 season article), not where they were in the past or may be in the future. Number 57 10:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. Then I will restore it back. Thanks for ur cooperation.--Yacatisma (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

I can't think of a description for edits like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Buck&diff=621329498&oldid=615294785) other than vandalism. We had an argument about this a few months ago, which the user (GiantSnowman) lost, he failed to demonstrate why such material is contentious and should be deleted. Clearly a tag would have been appropriate for uncontroversial material like that. I'm not going to repeat my arguments, because they didn't get through (you can read them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_86#Referencing_honours), but what i did say that such an approach would put off potential editors. Well here's the proof - I've contributed a lot to this encyclopedia, and to this project, but I'm not going to anymore. I hate overly dramatic exists like this as much as anyone else, but what's the point in trying to share your knowledge if people are willing to vandalise your work, because all they want is to blindly (and inaccurately) enforce rules? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's not even about enforcing rules - unreferenced information should only really be removed if contentious, and not everything on Wikipedia needs to be referenced. This was clearly not a contentious biography, so at most it should have been fact tagged. I cannot see the benefit to anyone of removing all that information. Number 57 10:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Number 57, it's best that everything is referenced. If everything has a credible reference, then there will be no issue. Kingjeff (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Have no comment to make on your problems or your exit. Would point out however that following the 'Honours' dispute mentioned above, a list was created of unreffed honours, the articles so marked and editors given 31 days to find refs. For the vast majority of articles so tagged no refs were forthcoming and the unreffed data deleted.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? Arjen Robben's honours were deleted on 14 July claiming it was unreferenced for one month but I didn't see any tagging around 14 June. If there are more of these cases, then it is no wonder that the honours won't be referenced.

Everyone who has commented here also commented in the original discussion which set up the file and the 30 day 'rule'. To say now that you didn't know what had been decided and that unreffed lists of honours would go could be considered to be perverse.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all I haven't commented in the original thread but I've commented here, so your first sentence is just false. And your second sentence is also wrong, I did not claim that I didn't know about the 30 day rule. I don't know how you got that idea. If someone doesn't know about the 30 day rule, it is the one who doesn't even tag the article but deletes the honours section after 30 days have passed (after the tagging that didn't happen). --Jaellee (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of who knew what, none of the honours info is lost forever. If it concerns you, revert the deletion and add a reference and the problem goes away and we'd all have no reason for discussions like this!--Egghead06 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion and added references, because it did concern me. After a sufficient number of edits, the information is practically lost in the history because editors forget that it ever was there. At least I don't know how to find out if in a given article the information ever existed and in which version (if there is a tool for this purpose, then someone should tell me). If editors would stop "needlessly deleting information" as User:Macosal put it below, the whole thread would be unnecessary. --Jaellee (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason that page hasn't worked is that the burden of referencing every honours section has essentially been placed on me (which, as I said at the time, was far from ideal). I've had a busy month and so haven't been able to do a lot but try to do a few when I can... Can't entirely see the point being made in any case. Can very much sympathise with the frustration of seeing information needlessly deleted and agree that it doesn't seem to be ideal for any reason other than ("that it's allowed" - which I disagree with in any case). I think this is a good debate to have. Macosal (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW had I had access to my laptop (it's in transit from Nz To Uk ) I would have added more refs myself but on an IPad- forget it!--Egghead06 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Everything should be referenced, although sometimes honours are referenced in text just not directly in the honours section and that should always be checked before deletion. If they are tagged and no one has added a reference then i don't see an issue in them being deleted, however i know they aren't obliged to but in the interest of the encyclopaedia i always think the person who deleted should double check they aren't easily verified.Blethering Scot 14:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not true – not everything has to be referenced. See Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Also see WP:MINREF. Number 57 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

People should not be creating walls of text that are unreferenced. Everything in that article was essentially unreferenced and as far as I'm concerned GS was tottaly in the right. As far as I'm concerned that is contentious material. No editors or admins for that matter should be condoning that. Good practice is clearly referencing information you add, Bad practice is not. Not the only one that disagrees with you on this. Blethering Scot 00:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I have to conclude that you don't seem to understand what "contentious" means. I look forward to your answer to Macosal. Number 57 09:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

To try and clear this up - what about that material made it "contentious"? Macosal (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What is contentious was discussed in the original discussion about 'Honours'.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat unsuccessfully (with no real conclusion reached). The above comment suggests that "contentious" is not related to the content of the information at all, but some other factor? Macosal (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not referring to honours at all. An article with a wall of text unsourced is contentious. In what way does any editor know if any of it is verifiable and that's exactly why we end up with hoax articles. Number57 beliefs would lead to an incredibly unverifiable site. Sorry but it's an extremely poor show from him. GS did nothing wrong editors thinking its ok to add large volume of unsourced text are. Honours was never the issue as I said previously honours are often referenced in main prose and if not then they are unverifiable and should be challenged. Blethering Scot 15:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, this has been covered here before and also at WP:BLPN - this information does need sourcing to reliable, third-party sources in line with our policy on living people. It's not vandalism. We've advertised this page before - User:Macosal/BLP - where we add all articles with unreferenced honours. If they are not referenced in a month, they are removed. That is far more leeway than is required under BLP. GiantSnowman 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

spot on. Blethering Scot 15:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not spot on, it's wrong. We're not talking about honours here, we're talking about the text detailing someone's career. I've quoted above from the relevant guidelines - what is unclear about it? Number 57 18:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This applies to any information about living people. It needs citing directly, otherwise it can/should/will be challenged and removed. GiantSnowman 11:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not how I'd read WP:BLPSOURCES: " all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." Doesn't seem to apply to "all material" to me? Macosal (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

...and this material is being challenged, is it not? GiantSnowman 12:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case why have a policy at all? Why not just make a guideline that says "delete all unreferenced information"? You aren't challenging the information, just removing it purely because it is unreferenced, which has removes information which could be sourced and frustrates/alienates other editors (as above). Further, WP:V has this to say re "challenged" material: "Whether and how quickly this [deletion] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." I.e. not in any/all cases (as your conduct suggests). Macosal (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 UEFA Europa League Final

Judging from this footage (please see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaM840xp6Kc), are there any wikigrounds to replace this reliable reference from UEFA.com (http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/matches/round=2000474/match=2012680/postmatch/report/index.html#spot+sevilla+leave+benfica+dreams+tatters) with this one from a non-reliable source (http://www.socceramerica.com/article/58069/brazen-goalkeeper-cheating-helps-sevilla-win-europ.html)? Also, per that, are there any grounds to change Beto's name to "Betoteiro" (Portuguese compound word of his sporting name and the Portuguese word for cheater, "batoteiro")?

Tried to address this situation (doing the same on several other Benfica players, where the due reference was removed on the grounds of UEFA/UEFA.com being biased), was accused of being a Benfica hater, an attention-whore and taunted after sporting thoughts of leaving the project after the run-in (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.81.115.107#Edit_warring_on_multiple_articles). If i was wrong in my approach, it was with the best intentions of improving WP. Also, if possible, i would like to have User:Panhead2014's input here if possible (i am forbidden of addressing him in his page by himself, so i have to oblige), he has to gone to the anon user's page to offer him his support.

Attentively, happy weekend --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? You want to change a player's name so that it implies he is a cheater and you're complaining that other people are biased? – PeeJay 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, misunderstood! I do not want to change Beto's name, someone else did here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beto_(Portuguese_footballer,_born_1982)&diff=621282219&oldid=620829402)! Please NEVER again accuse me of vandalism, 188.81.115.107 made that change, then taunted me saying "Oh, you don't like his new nickname :(" when i confronted him. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Then no, there are no grounds to change his name to "Betoteiro" or to introduce sources of questionable reliability (especially not if they're replacing an article from UEFA.com). – PeeJay 19:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable derby

Is Ashington–West Auckland Derby a notable derby? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a really local thing. -Koppapa (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not. Even if this were not at a very lowly level of football (five levels below the lowest professional league) the teams have only met a handful of times and the fact that there was a ruck at one game which got some minor coverage in the local press absolutely doesn't make it a notable rivalry -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

..............and now it is at AfD -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No idea about this example, but are there clear guidelines anywhere on what makes a "derby" notable to Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair that would be very difficult to define. Surely it would have to be GNG and non routine coverage just like any other subject. Blethering Scot 03:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources writing about it as an ongoing rivalry, preferably over a number of years, would be what to look for. In the case of these teams, there has been some coverage of matches between them in the local press (naturally) and some column inches given to what sounds like a very minor fight at one game, but that's it. Nothing has been written about how there's any more of an ongoing rivalry between these teams than between any others in the league..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

2014-15 Premier League Results

Any thoughts on this article? Is it notable? And thought we decided above not to list yellow cards. QED237 (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This is something for the 2014-15 Premier League article and I would not use templates for the matches. I would use prose. Kingjeff (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Could someone look at it please. Editor keeps adding livescores and liveupdates and football boxes full of yellow cards and say it is good. Yes I agree is is for PL article who currently lists the matchresults already he just wanted a page for all matches with all info. QED237 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Useless, results are at the mainarticle. No need for a stats article. Take it to AFD! Kante4 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I just put it up for deletion. Kingjeff (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• While I think the author is a bit too bold to challenge the establishment here at WP:FOOTY with this kind of an article, shouldn't the same kind of pursuit been made against 2013–14 A-League? If an overkill article such as the one exists then the detail that @M00036 wants to provide could be merged into the main article 2014-15 Premier League. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I might have been bold with my point above. I just felt that it hadn't really been covered in another page as a whole section.M00036 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Transactions

Hello everyone! I just wanted to note, that there is such template, essay and warning. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gregoire Akcelrod

Dear football experts: Is this a notable football executive? Should the old draft be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

From a football point of view, he does not appear to be notable. Number 57 19:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Number 57. There isn't much information about anything else, so I guess I'll let it go. If no one edits it, it will eventually fade away. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Need help at Fahrudin Jusufi

The issue is related to our discussion here (3 or 4 sections above) regarding the lede. An IP has been changing the lede from Yugoslav or Kosovar footballer to Albanian footballer with the claim that the family Jusufi is Albanian. I tried to explain in the talk page why I am reverting his change, but he ignored and reverted again. I don´t want to break the 3RR rule and I would also like for some other editor to step in because the IP seems to think that I am reverting him cause I am Serbian editor. The thing is that besides Jusufi being othnically Albanian is disputed (Jusufi family is Gorani) the main issue is that putting in the lede that he is Albanian footballer is totally wrong, as Fahrudin Jusufi played for Yugoslav national team and has no links to the country Albania. If anyone can just see the recent edits on the article and the talk-page and help, I would greatly appreciate. Best regards to all and I hope you´re all having a nice summer. FkpCascais (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernesto Amantegui

Dear football experts: Six months ago I postponed deletion of this draft because the subject was nearing notability. He appears to have an [[4]] in the Spanish Wikipedia. Is it time yet for this to be moved to mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he has played in the Thai Premier League, which is a fully profrssional league. However, it does need updating though. Useful info here. Number 57 19:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Damián Martínez

Hi, need input regarding Damián Martínez. He has always been known as Damian Martinez but this week Arsenal suddenly changed his name to Emiliano Martinez instead on list of first team players on their website. This has led to IP changing his infobox name and name in the lead. Is that what we should do? Or should the article be moved to Emiliano instead? We should use WP:COMMONNAME and he is still known as damian?

To me it seems a bit strange to have article at one name and an other name in infobox and lead.

Lot of guestions so feel free to add your thoughts. QED237 (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

His full name is Damián Emiliano Martinez[5] and that at least should be reflected as such in the LEDE and infobox without brackets. Whether the eventual consensus is to use his first or middle name, a redirect should be included. LRD NO (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If the article is located at 'Damián Martínez' then the infobox should display name as 'Damián Martínez' and fullname as 'Damián Emiliano Martínez'. Any change to 'Emiliano Martínez' should be supported per COMMONNAME via a WP:RM. GiantSnowman 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Surely the article should be changed to the name he is listed under on Arsenal's official site, irrespective of what he was listed under here with a redirect.--87.74.76.51 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)