Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Archives
July 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 February 2007 - May 2007 Current archive (archived by bot) next archive

Creation of WikiProject Football task forces

Seeing how this project has grown quite large over time, spawning a few subprojects, some successful, some less successful, I was beginning to think about creating task forces instead (and reorganising the subprojects into task forces). The idea is "stolen" (as with a few other past ideas implemented here) from WP:MILHIST, where this type of organisation seems to work very well. This will not be a large change for this project or the subprojects, but will hopefully improve cooperation in the long run.

In short:

• Existing subprojects (Australia, USA and Canada, Italy and Non-League) are reorganised into task forces instead. Not much will be changed, subpages and such will be retained.
• New task forces are created when enough users are willing to keep such task forces up and running.
• Each task force gets a parameter for the {{Football}} template to keep track of articles and assessments of articles related to the task force.
• More centralised than before, better communication and cooperation between the various groups than before, less duplication of info.

The name "task force" may sound a little militaristic, so if anyone has a better idea for a name, suggestions are welcome. I don't intend to do any reorganisation unless there is broad consensus (especially amongst the members of the subprojects) to do so. Comments, suggestions, questions? – Elisson • T • C • 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good Elisson. Not sure I'd be able to join anything other than the English league task force (don't mind the name, either), but happy to help as always. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Any more comments? Negative, positive, neutral? Anything? If I say that I will go ahead and make the change, will I get any reactions then? – Elisson • T • C • 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea, go ahead dude. I'd expected to find a task force of USA/Canada from WikiProject Football (soccer) in the USA and Canada in {{Football}}. "Team" (e.g. Team USA/Canada) or something similar may also be used in place of "task force".--Victor D ^PARLE 00:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep definitely, sounds good. Happy to help with the reorganisation! Main things for me would be making sure assessments are shared (i.e. rate once for Italy Task Force and it propogates up to WP:Football) and division by geographic area I guess. I did think it might be useful to have Stadia Task Force, Players Task Force, Teams Task Force but in practice people will probably be better placed to focus on the country/region of choice. Should help make things a bit more manageable!! Paulbrock 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

{{Football squad2 start}} Per the Manual of Style headers do not take "un-natural" capitals. Most navboxen and infoboxen also abide by this, I have changed this one to use the same style - Current Squad => current squad. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27 8 May 2007 (GMT).

Player Info boxes

I've just been through all the Lincoln City players and all of the info boxes contained stats per season/club instead of just per club. An example of this is Jamie Forrester's page with this being before I changed it and here being what I've changed it to. I can't seem to find any other club which had its players in the old format before I changed it but I was just wondering whether this was a result of a concensus that has never become standard or whether my changes were correct? Chappy84 21:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite a lot of Swiss player articles are like this, but it's not advised, as the infoboxes would simply get too tall. ArtVandelay13 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also when the flags are used the club names and seasons don't even remotely line up, at least not in IE6..... ChrisTheDude 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for the flags in infoboxes and I think there is a consensus which agrees. Without legitimate dissent, this should be put into the MOS.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll agree that it should go into the MOS. I try to keep my watchlist clear of them as I know the problems that they can cause. aLii 23:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Though the subject is off-topic, I'll address the comments on flags by saying that their appearance in the infobox should be based on the individual player. For a guy who has only played in 1 or 2 countries, I think they're worthless. If a guy has played in more than that though, then they're extremely useful, because it can be difficult to tell what country a club is from based solely on the name. Jeremiah White, for example, has played either youth or professional football in 5 different countries. Adding flags makes his article more informative and easy to view for the reader. Justin Mapp, however, has only played in the United States, so putting flags is pretty much unnecessary. Also, the topic of flags has been brought up on numerous occasions, and no consensus could ever really be reached. Che84 23:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But as Chris explained before, whenever used, flags don't line up with club names and seasons in IE6. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 23:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire format of player info boxes should be changed because one browser doesn't view them correctly? If there isn't a consensus, it shouldn't be removed. And I'm using IE6 right now...it's not very far off. Che84 23:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Jamie Forrester example cited above in IE at the moment and the word "Total" in the centre column lines up with 2002/03 in the left hand column - I'd say that's quite significantly off..... ChrisTheDude 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the format for player infoboxes. I do not see a single flagicon on it. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

They were added for a good reason. It adds more information to the page. In any case, in reverting my edit on the Jeremiah White page, you neglected the change in his stats. Please be more careful when reverting my edits in the future. Che84 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is: if the majority of player articles are in as bad shape as those of Lincoln City's, we've got our work cut out. - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on flags inside infobox templates: when they can add relevant and useful information, such as in this case, they should be included. --Angelo 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this case (Lutz Pfannenstiel) you mentioned above, Angelo, I'm looking at it in IE right now: the last Norway flag (for Bærum SK) lines up with "2002-2003". There's definitely a problem regarding these flags and some browsers. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(answer to Lesfer) To me it looks fine. I use Mozilla Firefox 2 on WinXP, probably you're using IE. This is probably a bug in the template code. --Angelo 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the players' place of birth/nationality, they're useful (for those who have trouble reading). For the nation in which a club is located, it's just easy on the eye (or not, as the case may be). Opinions, of course, but I hope we agree on some kind of standard before too much longer. - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree about including it in the nation, don't really care so much about it (in fact I never implemented it when creating new players' articles), but it might be a useful adding. About including flags aside clubs, to me it seems all a redundancy issue of how often flags are repeated, and how are they really useful and consistent with the infobox look. Some idea about how to formalize this concept? --Angelo 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the flags clutter up the player infobox without providing a great deal of information. The name of the player's nation of birth is listed, so I see no reason to add a flag there. I understand that it is not always apparent which nation some clubs are from, but it's probably easier to handle that within the article text rather than in the infobox. Regards. Jogurney 22:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Angelo, just look at Samuel Eto'o's infobox. Do we really need all those flags for the clubs from Spain? CAN 00:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fromowner

Hey,

I was wondering whether there'd be support for adding the image associated with the fromowner system across a lot of football articles without images. I ask this because I tried as a test run to add it to a few (maybe most) Arsenal F.C. footballers and I've gotten great results - 100% free pictures for both Kolo Toure and William Gallas and maybe more that I haven't noticed. We don't have too many footballer pics so I think this would be a great way to get more. Yonatan ^talk 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. It means that naive editors just upload copyright violations which just create a headache for other editors to tag as such & delete. The Toure and Gallas examples are exceptions rather than the rule, I am sure. I would just leave the infoboxes blank instead. Qwghlm 10:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Geni is quite skillful at detecting these copyvios and wouldn't mind getting more images to look over. I could also do this job. Copyvios will be uploaded anyway, in any system (including the current system), this system is just a way to get good images from people who aren't familiar with the wiki interface (and as previously shown, two images in a month is hardly a bad return). Yonatan ^talk 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

One good way to obtain free images is to search Flickr for Creative Commons images. Even if there you find no free images. sometimes Flickr users will release an image under a Creative Commons license if you make a politely worded request stating your wish to use the picture on Wikipedia. More often than not they are flattered by the request. Oldelpaso 17:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance regarding image licenses etc., but are all images published under a Creative Commons license suitable for Wikipedia; these for example? WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, all CC images that are not NC (non-commercial) or ND (non-derivate) are suitable for Wikipedia. – Elisson • T • C • 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, if you enter a license that includes NC and/or ND (say, cc-by-nd-nc) you'll get a speedy deletion template instead of a standard CC license. Also, the quickest way to search on Flickr for Wiki-ready photos is to go to the advanced search page and check off "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos", "Find content to use commercially" and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon". --Ytny (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad, should have made that clearer. Listen to Ytny instead of me :-p Oldelpaso 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We allow CC-BY-SA and CC-BY up to versions 2.5 (and technicaly CC-SA 1.0 although that is very uncommon).Geni 03:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wanna make life much easier, you can use this tool to upload free images from flickr directly to commons. It gets all the author information, etc. you just have to add a description and category and you're good to go. Yonatan ^talk 01:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

List of England international footballers

Note - I have reinstated this topic to bring it up to date. See end. Daemonic Kangaroo 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be expanded to include every player who has represented England, and not just, as is currently, players who have 25+ caps. Any thoughts/objections? GiantSnowman 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, should be expanded. Archibald99  20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A complete "list" is better kept as a category. – Elisson • T • C • 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But a category cannot give more information - for example, we could have date of first cap, age when first cap was won, opponents of first cap; date of last cap, age when last cap was won, opponents of last cap; number of goals, all in a sortable wikitable. GiantSnowman 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I quite like the idea of a football equilavent of List of English Test cricketers, with the information above. That said, the England players category currently contains 824 articles and is no doubt no fully populated. That's a big list, if done properly. So I'm ambivalent. HornetMike 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I second what HornetMike says - a list of players is a good idea, with caps and appearances etc. included, more than a category can include. Qwghlm 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A list similar to that for the cricketers would be great. Much more information than can be given in a category, but a huge undertaking (would be happy to help with it though). WikiGull 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You could use this as a basis; might need to be wary of copyright issues but you cannot really copyright lists of statistics so as long as the format was different from that one it'd be fine, in my opinion. Qwghlm 13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'll try and start doing something with this. Do we want to agree on the column headings?WikiGull 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest:

Name	Caps	Goals	Date of first cap	Opponents of first cap	Age at first cap	Date of last cap	Opponents of last cap	Age at last cap

I also think the table should be organised by date of first cap.

Any thoughts? GiantSnowman 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this (with first few lines)

Number	Name	Date of birth	Caps	Goals	Date of first cap	Opponents of first cap	Venue of first cap	Date of last cap	Opponents of last cap
1	Robert Barker	June 19, 1847	1	0	November 30, 1872	Scotland	Hamilton Crescent
2	Ernest Greenhalgh	August 22, 1848	2	0	November 30, 1872	Scotland	Hamilton Crescent	March 8, 1873	Scotland

WikiGull 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the venue and opposition of first/last caps is a bit much (especially for narrower screens) - just the dates will do for now. Also I would get rid of the number column as well; I would just have name, DoB, caps, goals, first cap date, last cap date. Qwghlm 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree - scrap number and venue. GiantSnowman 16:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about using flags for the opposition then? Adds more information to the table without the wideness problem. Have done it for the first 20 players as below

Name	Date of birth	Caps	Goals	Date of first cap	Date of last cap
Robert Barker	June 19, 1847	1	0	November 30, 1872
Ernest Greenhalgh	August 22, 1848	2	0	November 30, 1872	March 8, 1873
Reg Welch	June 20, 1851	2	0	November 30, 1972	March 7, 1874
Fred Chappells	1850	1	0	November 30, 1872
William Maynard	June 19, 1847	2	0	November 30, 1872	March 4, 1876
John Brockbank	August 22, 1848	1	0	November 30, 1872
John Clegg	April 21, 1852	1	0	November 30, 1872
Arnold Smith	April 23, 1850	1	0	November 30, 1872
Cuthbert Ottaway	July 20, 1850	2	0	November 30, 1872	March 7, 1874
Charles Chenery	January 1, 1850	3	1	November 30, 1872	March 7, 1874
Charles Morice	May 27, 1850	1	0	November 30, 1872
Alex Morten	November 15, 1831	1	0	March 8, 1873
Leonard Howell	August 6, 1848	1	0	March 8, 1873
Alfred Goodwyn	March 13, 1850	1	0	March 8, 1873
Robert Vidal	September 3, 1853	1	0	March 8, 1873
Pelham Von Donop	April 28, 1851	2	0	March 8, 1873	March 6, 1875
William Clegg	April 21, 1852	2	0	March 8, 1873	January 18, 1879
Alex Bonsor	1852	2	0	March 8, 1873	March 6, 1875
Hubert Heron	January 30, 1852	5	0	March 8, 1873	March 2, 1878
William Kenyon-Slaney	August 24, 1847	1	0	March 8, 1873

Let me know what you think - have it stored on a subuser page at the minute. Am happy for that to be the working page until it's a bit more detailed if that helps. WikiGull 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! GiantSnowman 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. However, whilst I see the reasons for just including flags, I think if you took this to FLC I think they'd automatically ask for full names. It's because not all flags are instantly recognisable. HornetMike 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

I have created a new article at List of England international footballers (alphabetical) which I hope is a complete list of England players. I know this is not in a table as envisaged above but at least it's a complete list. As this took me at least 36 hours to complete, I'll leave it to someone else to convert it into a table. Daemonic Kangaroo 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, it looks fantastic! As soon as my exams are over I will have a week and bit of time to waste, so I'll help put it in a table. GiantSnowman 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a large number of red links on this list. in the Category:England international footballers there are 688 articles, whereas there are 1148 players who have played for England; that leaves 460 players without articles. So it's time to get researching/writing guys! To me, the most surprising omissions are Ralph Coates (formerly of Burnley & Tottenham Hotspur) and David Nish (Derby County). Who can resist the opportunity to create an article about players whose names resonate like Percy de Paravicini or Pelham von Donop, or even James "Tadger" Stewart!. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok, so now this means we have:

• List of England international footballers
• List of England players with only one cap
• List of England international footballers (alphabetical)

Now, this might be a chore, but why not just combine these and use the class="sortable" class to make sortable tables? Take a look at List of Arsenal F.C. players - using the {{sortname}} template you can sort players by surnames in the page with no need for separate duplicate pages. Am willing to put in some of the legwork on this one myself if need be. Qwghlm 10:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; they will need to be merged together, if someone can put in the time to convert the list into a table. Step 1 was to arrive at a complete list of England players which didn't exist previously on Wikipedia. Is there any way that the conversion from list to table can be done without hours of typing? Daemonic Kangaroo 10:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now converted it into a table (reasonable effortlessly thanks to regular expressions!), available here: User:Qwghlm/List of England international footballers. I'll look into merging cap and goal data in due course. Qwghlm 10:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was quick - it's great to have someone here with the ability to do such things. I can just about create spreadsheets! Are you happy for me to dive in sometime and start adding the cap and goal data? Indeed, is there any reason why you can't replace the existing list with the contents of your user page? Daemonic Kangaroo 10:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into the possibility of automatically parsing the tables from englandfootballonline.com directly and saving the chore of typing in information (1148 players is a lot!) for both you & anyone else here. I've done this sort of thing before (e.g. the league tables in most of Category:Seasons in English football were created automatically) so it shouldn't take too long, give me until the end of the day... Qwghlm 10:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave you to it for now, esp. as I have a lawn to mow! My only comment is that englandfootballonline.com does not have a separate page for each player which is why I chose to link to englandstats.com. Unfortunately, for some players, e.g. Tinsley Lindley the two sites have different goal stats! Hey ho - I'm being summoned into the garden. Thanks for the input so far. Daemonic Kangaroo 10:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Zinedine Zidane

Lately, I've created archives for talk pages that were getting long, namely Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo, Talk:Wayne Rooney and Talk:Red Bull New York. I was trying to do the same with Talk:Zinedine Zidane but I can't figure out how the discussions are organized. There are overlaps in dates and topics, and I'm afraid if I try to fix it, I'll make a bigger mess. I'd appreciate any help from anyone who's experienced with archiving pages or had a hand in creating the archives.

Now, it looks like it would make sense to have two sets of archives, a chronological one (up to June 2006, July 2006, and August to December 2006) and a topical one (name issues and Materazzi incident). - Ytny 07:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

FA Cup Final winning goalscorer

The IP user 172.143.175.212 has added a succession box to the page of every FA Cup winning goalscorer. There are several problems here:

• Poor wiki markup means that some existing succession boxes and templates have been affected. (Could be easily fixed, although may take a little while)
• He/she has linked to 'F A Cup Final' instead of the standard 'FA Cup Final'. I've created a redirect as a workaround, but this still needs fixing to the standard format.
• Most importantly, do we want this information, and if so how do we define a winning goal? Daemonic Kangaroo has already made this point on the IP user's talk page (User talk:172.143.175.212).

What does everyone think? --Jameboy 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I noticed that when Roger Osborne was edited. In my opinion we don't need it, it's analagous to overcategorisation. The Rambling Man 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can tell from my comments on the anonymous user's talk page, I have considerable doubts about what he has been doing. My main concern is - why should the last goalscorer in an FA Cup final be more important than the first, second or third etc.? The technical problems with some of his edits can all be fixed - I just don't like the whole idea, and am all for simply deleting them, but am hesitant to do so without some strong evidence of a consensus that that is what should be done.. Daemonic Kangaroo 18:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Indiscriminate info. Just where does FIFA define "winning goal" anyway? - fchd 18:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As per Kangaroo & Mr Rundle, if, say, someone was to score a hat-trick in the final, and then someone scored a fourth, who scored the winner? Dubious definition warning. Remove. The Rambling Man 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's trivia - it's not as if it's a title, position or award. We've already been deprived of Category:FA Cup Final goalscorers due to unpopular demand. That would have been much more useful than this.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  19:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree and have started rolling back these changes per consensus above. It's just succession boxes for succession boxes' sake. Qwghlm 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pedro Gabriel Kallstrom Henry

I'm rather concerned about the articles created by this user. I tagged Philips Sperrow Football Team as an AfD and I prodded Pedro Gabriel Barroso de Oliveira but I'm not sure about the other players that he has created. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derry City F.C.

Would anyone be willing to add their support to the nomination of Derry City F.C. for FA status? Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 12:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Silly season

(after my umpteenth Sylvain Distin related edit) Its that time of year again where the merest hint of a club wishing to sign a player results in articles being edited to claim the transfer has taken place. Thinking aloud here so this might be a daft idea, but how about creating a page for listing players subject to transfer speculation so that Special:Recentchangeslinked can act as a watchlist? Oldelpaso 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it all crystal-balling until the fat lady sings? The Rambling Man 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant a project space page, to make reverting gun-jumping edits easier. Certainly not a mainspace page! *shudders at thought of List of players who might possibly be transferred* Oldelpaso 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm am just watchlisting every player that my team (Liverpool) gets linked with and am trying to keep them free of crap. I think a bit of sourced transfer speculation is ok, because it should cut down the number of bad edits that basically say the same thing. aLii 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about any of it. Speculation doesn't belong here, in my mind I'd imagine a snaphshot of an encyclopaedia (okay, so not a paper one) and can't believe that all the transfer speculation nonsense that will go on for the next two months should be documented, except perhaps on individual players pages with good (e.g. BBC) references. But aLii has a good point, this time of the year is so boring to continually remove speculation. Let me know if I can help! The Rambling Man 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A good idea - at the very least, I don't think it would be harmful in any way, if kept in the project namespace. Qwghlm 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort of related question - can anyone explain why Fernando Torres is such a frequent target of crystal balling? In the last month, he has been all but signed to Manchester United, while his YNWA tattoo is a clear indication that he's headed to Celtic and/or Liverpool. I can also see Carlos Tevez and Cristiano Ronaldo articles being frequent targets. --Ytny (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The most trouble I'm having at the moment is people jumping the gun with regards to players signed on Bosmans and pre-contracts. I quite like the idea of the project page though, would make a lot of work this summer easier and quicker. Also, lol at the Torres/Celtic thing. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets standardize national team templates

The template keep on coming.

• Template:Canada Squad 2000 CONCACAF Gold Cup Champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Matthew_hk tc 08:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Ghana Squad 1978 African Cup, Template:Ghana squad 1995 FIFA U-17 Championship, Template:Ghana Squad 1982 African Cup. Punkmorten 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a tfd for those four. Neier 13:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to vote delete there, but no one actually bother to delete the deleted template from each players' article page. 121.44.13.175 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please raise the issue with whichever admin closed the discussion. According to Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Templates_for_Deletion_page, the template should be removed before it is deleted. Neier 13:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we now have suitable momentum to keep most of the clutter out of the encylcopedia. I've created User:Neier/Soccer templates to keep track of the recent discussions. Neier 13:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative squad template

I've created a new template set for expanded squad lists, mainly designed to fill season information such as caps and goals per competition. You can look at it here and here. --Angelo 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

a couple of comments: I don't think goalies should have goals against listed in the goals column, while most keepers don't score, the Chilaverts and Higuitas do. The term "Caps" is usually only used for internationals. Oldelpaso 19:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced "caps" with "apps" ("appearances" is too long). About the goals against, I think this might be an additional and useful information. In case keepers score too, since it is a very unlikely thing (unless you go to the Rogerio Ceni and Hans-Jorg Butt's clubs) a footnote might be enough. --Angelo 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Noting results of penalty-shoot outs in cup ties

There has been some difference of opinion between editors (myself included) at the UEFA Champions League 2006-07 article about noting the results of penalty shoot-outs next to the results in the main article, rather than just showing a "p" next to the winning team. My opinion is that is useful information, others think less so and I have had my edits reverted (and the page requested for protection). There's a brief discussion on the relevant talk page, but I think it merits wider discussion here. - fchd 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

UEFA website uses both ways [1]. In my opinion, you should include the final penalty shootout result followed by the "(p)". That's the way I believe fits better. Writing just the aggregate result removes a bit of information, by the way. --Angelo 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

National team

I have found a few distressing redirects related to soccer and I didn't quite know where else to bring the issue up. National team redirects to FIFA and US national team redirects to United States men's national soccer team. These are just the ones I found, but there is a clear bias towards soccer here. The term national team should by no means be redirected to FIFA of all things. Could anybody give me a hand in fixing this problem? JHMM13 22:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo deletion

I've noticed the logo images of many national associations and related teams have been flagged for deletion due to their lack of a fair use rationale. The images need a licensing tag, such as {{Non-free logo}}, which in our case should be {{Non-free logo|football logos}} which will add the image to the football logos category.

But to keep the images we also need a written rationale as well as the {{Non-free logo}} tag.

I would suggest something like this:

Non-free media rationale – NEEDS ARTICLE NAME

Article	[[{{{Article}}}]]
Purpose of use	To identify the organisation and its representative teams. To appear only on the article on the Latvian Football Federation and the articles of its representative teams: Senior Under-21s Women
Replaceable?	Cannot be replaced with a copyright free alternative.

Just glancing at Category:All disputed non-free images I can see at least 25 football logos, all of which should be covered by this rationale. Therefore we need to act promptly.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  11:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll make sure any logos I've uploaded have a fair use rationale as suggested here. This information is very helpful. Thank you. Jogurney 03:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for writing the rationale. Much appreciated. BestEditorEver 11:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Category

I'm looking to set up a category for England 'B' internationals as there are quite a few such players who have articles on Wikipedia. There are categories for most of the other levels of England representation and I feel that it would be beneficial for Wikipedia to have one for B internationals as well. Does anyone have any objections/comments? I'll await some feedback before going ahead. Thanks. --EH74DK 11:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that such a category would be useful. You might find the RSSF site useful as a point of reference. Daemonic Kangaroo 18:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that's a very useful link. There are also a lot of recent players who have won B caps. I'll go ahead with the category. --EH74DK 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Football League players categories

I was wandering, what is the need for Category:The Football League players (current)? Why can't that and Category:The Football League players be merged into one? Category:Premier League players gives them all past and present, so why shouldn't The Football League? Mattythewhite 12:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an aborted attempt to Delete/Merge this category earlier this month at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 11#Category:The Football League players which resulted in no consensus. This may have arisen as it was lumped in with Category:The Football League players. 82.11.41.163 12:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for either category myself. Would have suggested deletion if I'd spotted it in the articles for deletion. WikiGull 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro articles

I have reverted all redirect. It is believed that the articles should be invert into historical articles, not redirecting articles. KyleRGiggs 14:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you've said above. Could you please clarify? Qwghlm 15:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He's changed the Serbia and Montenegro articles from redirects to Serbia into their own articles. I don't think this is a good idea, as Serbia are officially the successor team of Serbia and Montenegro (and Yugoslavia), and every stage can't have its own article. ArtVandelay13 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh God, I'm not even going to go there. FWIW there are separate pages for the Northern Ireland and Ireland (IFA) teams despite one being an official continuation of the other. But I stay well clear of nationalist disputes these days. Qwghlm 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

National teams' page template

Hi. I have raised a couple of issues about the National teams' pages template at it's talk page - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams#Biggest_win/defeat - and i hope some will take a look, and give an opinion, there. Thanks. Enjoy! - Nabla 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A Class articles

Evening. Currently we have three A-class articles. Derry City is currently gunning for FA, Sheffield United was rejected as a GA back in late November, and Aldershot Town has never been pushed for anything. I'm tempted to put the Shots and the Blades up for GA, and if Derry fails I think that should go up too, as most A class articles are good enough for GA status. Any thoughts or objections? к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the Aldershot article getting anywhere at all in its present state, it doesn't have a single reference in it ChrisTheDude 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Aldershot's current rating is under scrutiny. Dave101→talk  21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Isnt it GA < A < FA? Daniel 08:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is or Are

When describing clubs. I've seen it discussed before, but never a proper consensus and I reverted the Rangers F.C. article when it was changed from the latter to the former, only for my revert to be undone. Without wanting to revert again without checking, which is correct? WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say is. Mattythewhite 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It was already discussed somewhere else. There's no mandatory form, the only thing is to be consistent (if you are using is, always use it in the article). My preferred option is to use the third singular form. --Angelo 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

*Lengthy discussion with no consensus here.* WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 15:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably going to muddy the waters here. I would say "Rangers F.C. IS a football club", but "Rangers ARE a football team" - i.e. the club is singular but the team plural. - fchd 15:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd favour is, as that's the norm for British English (although, admittedly, it's not exclusively used). Are is more of an Americanism. See American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. robwingfield ^«T•C» 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

One more good reason to support the is choice :) --Angelo 15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) I didn't read that article, sorry. In fact the article says the exact opposite (is is AmE, are is BrE). My English is the one I learnt in Canada, in any case, and I always used is in Italian football articles. Anyway, I think it's actually just a matter of personal preference. --Angelo 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, that link supports what Qwghlm says below, that are is the BrE variant, while is is the AmE variant. I've started to use the plural form for the Swedish football club articles i edit or rewrite, since the English taught in Swedish schools (as well as Swedish football) is much more influenced by BrE than by AmE. – Elisson • T • C • 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I use are, at least for articles about British clubs, as in British English the plural can be used both for sporting entities (teams) and corporate entities and associations (clubs) with no fuss. Qwghlm 15:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference is are, purely because the majority of usage in the media and in general conversation in the UK certainly seems to lean that way. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a short search around the web to see how British and US news services differ in sports articles. BBC uses are [2], CNN prefers is [3]. --Angelo 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All British media use the plural form almost exclusively. Basically I agree with fchd in that "team" is plural, but "club" is singular. aLii 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A "team" is made up of 11 players minimum. They are. A "club" is a collection of people also. They are. You cannot differentiate like that, in my opinion. Therefore, I would always use are, if or when I have to in the future. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That argument's slightly spurious - a country is also made up of a collection of people but you wouldn't say, for example, "England are located in Western Europe". I wouldn't anyway..... ChrisTheDude 16:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Olympic goals don't count in international stats?

Do goals in the Olympics count as international goals? For example, Brian Maisonneuve scored twice for the USA in the 1996 Olympics, but his infobox says 0 intl goals. --AW 15:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Olympics matches are at U-23 not full level, so I would say no. That said, you could always have the Olympic/U-23 caps listed separately from full international caps in the infobox, as long as the distinction is made clear. Qwghlm 15:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Olympics football is a U-23 event since 1992. Matthew_hk tc 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And before 1992 it was nominally an amateur tournament wasn't it? aLii 18:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To make thing clear: FIFA decided in 1999 that while all Olympic matches from 1908-1952 (bar those involving Great Britain or countries with a professional league who sent amateur squads, e.g. Austria in 1936) are full internationals, all matches since the sixties are not at all recognized, while for the intermediate part additional analysis will be made. from rsssf.com

Teamlist changes

User:Adam mills2005 has made a number of changes to the Premier League to Conference teamlists. Firstly he actually fixed an inconsistency, where they had dots to seperate the teams, whereas all the lower league templates have these - |. I dunno whether everyone's OK with that, or whether there was a reason for dots, or whether the lower league should have dots. Consensus? I think in doing so he's mucked up the spacing, which is beyond my skills. And he's updated them a bit prematurely, it looks a bit weird, although it'll all be sorted over the weekend. HornetMike 18:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FIFA Clubs of the 20th Century

Basically a public poll, nothing official or notable about it. What's Manchester United doing in the top ten anyway. Please delete, oh mighty admin. BestEditorEver 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think it's worthy of staying in Wikipedia, propose it for deletion. To me, this article does not fit speedy deletion requisites (read here for details). --Angelo 11:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pfft. Can't be bothered right now. Thanks for the links though! BestEditorEver 12:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken off the prod tag - it's an official poll, by FIFA, and one that was officially recognised by Real Madrid. By all means AfD it, see what the consensus is. ArtVandelay13 15:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid ranks first, of course they would recognize the poll findings. But Google only comes up with 23 hits, some of which are mirror sites--so I have my doubts if the poll is relevant. A club with only two European Cup finals as second best? This poll can't be official. BestEditorEver 16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They wouldn't recognise a poll by, say, FourFourTwo magazine - the key thing is that it's a FIFA poll. Whether you agree with the results is here nor there. But again - AfD it, see what people think. ArtVandelay13 17:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of the magazine, but it's British, hence the Manchester United result. Anyway, could you provide a source that backs up your claim that the poll is officially recognized by FIFA? No point in seeking deletion if that hideous thing is actually official. BestEditorEver 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a FIFA.com link on the page itself. Incidentally, the magazine isn't British, it's sold everywhere and not well-known in Britain. I doubt a British bias would put FC Bayern in third; Man U have a huge worldwide following which would put them into second place. Not something I agree with, but there you are. ArtVandelay13 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the link too, but the page doesn't indicate if FIFA endorses the poll results or not. Doesn't give any information at all on who conducted the poll or who commissioned it or who paid for the results (Manchester United). Whatever. I'll get over it. BestEditorEver 17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and please try to keep a NPOV in the future. Just because you don't think Man Utd fits on the list, doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same. – Elisson • T • C • 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your condescending tone aside (although it amuses me), the above conversation was mainly about the whether the poll is valid or not. Questioning the ranking of Manchester was just an aside. You would know this of course if your reading comprehension wasn't that of a third-grader. See, I can be condescending too--though apparently I'm better at it. BestEditorEver 18:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BestEditor, please, let's avoid personal attacks. Well, this was pretty much simply based on a opinion. But (un)fortunately there's no room for opinons in here. Wiki does not care what we think about Manchester United, Real Madrid or Malaysia National Team. This ranking, poll, or whatever it is, it is fact, it is real, it is there, sourced with a link to FIFA.com, and this is what really matters. And Man U is on the list regardless of people liking it or not. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok then (thepollisrigged) BestEditorEver 20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Importance rates

Looking around the Wiki, I've seen many of the articles supported by this WikiProject still don't have an importance rate and lots of them are not realistic (e.g. Demis Nikolaidis, Sheffield United F.C., Beşiktaş J.K., Fenerbahçe S.K. and Galatasaray S.K. as Top-importance). I guess we all should make something to fill this gap. --Angelo 20:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One problem, in my opinion, is that the template used for the importance scale is a general one. Personally I think it would be better creating a similar template specifically for this WikiProject; multiple examples could be given for player bios, clubs, stadiums etc. I think this would help make assessments more consistent and result in fewer unrealistic ratings like above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave101 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the suggestions made here by HornetMike are very good, and are the guidelines that I now use. Gasheadsteve 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To me they're fine. However, we all should consider about rating all football-related articles. Most of these articles don't have any kind of rating at all. --Angelo 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How would you assess Sheffield United F.C. in terms of importance? To me it's "mid-importance", however this was reverted by another user, seemingly a Sheffield Utd fan, who set it up as "high-importance". P.S. Here is my proposal for importance rating on football, it is mainly based on Gasheadsteve's one, feel free to put it into the assessment department if you agree with it. --Angelo 00:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks much better. I would support using that over the current template. Dave101→talk  15:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added Angelo's template to the assessment page. The template is here. Dave101→talk  08:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fulham F.C. squad

What do you guys think about this? Kingjamie 20:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also this. Personally I prefer the standard squad template. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, what are you going to do with teams where contract and apperance data is hard to come by Kingjamie 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it's also barely relevant to the main club article. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now reverted these versions Kingjamie 21:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand some people could prefer the old format, but some other people could like to have more information about the whole squad in one table instead have to go to each players article. Also, there is no need to use this new format for all clubs, I used it for FC Barcelona because I'd like to know those information, I collected it, and release for anyone else who also like to know it. I believe those information are relevant to the article because the players are the most important asset for a football club. Also, the new table only add new information, it doesn't take anything, so it doesn't take anything from anyone who couldn't like it (the old one takes information from people who could want to know it). I'd like to place it back and hear from other people (I had opened a discussion on FC Barcelona), if someone used it on another club it shows some people like it.--ClaudioMB 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the current template set is the result of a long, hard discussion on the matter and it seems to be fully appreciated. A large majority of people here agreed that additional unnecessary information related to individual player should be instead included into the players' associated articles. I could also say the current template is appreciated too as it's been used in (at least) the Italian, Spanish and Swedish Wikipedia. --Angelo 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they appreciate and use it because they don't know another option. Few days after I posted the new format, someone already used it for another club. It shows, there are people who like it. And always there is room to improvement and different options. Keep open mind. Also, the information are not unnecessary, some people like to know about that, the information is directly related to the squad and the club, so some people find it relevant. For those who don't care to know, they are not loose anything.--ClaudioMB 21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, there's a fine line between usefulness and excessiveness. The current template is a good equilibrium, it includes role, number, name, nationality, and even a personalizable parameter for captains, youth players and players on loan. Your proposed table in fact did cross by far that line; it includes exxagerate information, such as multiple nationalities (i.e. rows double-sized that usual), jersey names (how about minor league teams who don't have personalized shirts?), date of joining, total number of appearances and goals (again, a serious issue for minor teams) and even transfer fees (often very hard to source, even for top sides). Don't be offended, but it's evidently way too much, and not just to me. P.S. I am absolutely open-minded, that's why I originally proposed and asked for a standardization of football squads to fix the mess caused by a single, often completely different, squad table for each team. --Angelo 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with one standard for all clubs. There are big clubs, which some people love to get more information about them (even transfer fees), and small clubs, which a basic information is enough. Also, as prove that there are so much interest on big clubs, it's easy to find information about them (on the internet or on the player's article). Some people just want get some more information in a single table, since that information already exist. I believe it is too extreme, and not free, to force everyone to follow one single standard that can never be changed. Only allowing people to be creative and try new things will improve something. I don't believe there is something so perfect.--ClaudioMB 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What you want is to include personal info into team articles. This is simply wrong, because that article is there to feature team information, not individual information that fits much more better on individual articles. And I have (of course) to disagree with your disagreement: who decides how big a team is? What is big to you is not necessarily big to me, it's all about opinion and personal. Obviously, we are not forcing anyone, but this is a WikiProject made by established users who found a consensus over a serious issue, and as you probably know Wikipedia is based on consensus, the only way you can impose your idea is by finding consensus. And I don't see consensus over your proposal. --Angelo 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree again. First, that information is not about the players' career as a whole, it is about the players on that club exclusively, so it's relevant to the club. Second, maybe I was not so clear about my 'big club' point. I'll redo it: There are some clubs' squad, which some people love to get more information about them (even transfer fees), and other clubs' squad, which a basic information is enough. As prove that there are so much interest on some clubs' squad, it's easy to find information about them (on the internet or on the player's article). Also, there is no need to anyone to decide which club's squad should have or not more information, if there is a source of the information, that source could be used by anyone (free). Third, clearly there is no consensus anymore, because I firmly disagree with the idea that just one type of table must be used for all clubs' squad. I believe I've created a good table that doesn't remove any information from the old one, and I think this new table could be used, not for all clubs' squad, but for those that people can find more information about it. Also, I'm not the only one that tried to use a new table, Hermanjoshua created a similar table [4] but it was removed. Now, I think we need to find a compromise. It's that the way it should work?--ClaudioMB 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I firmly agree we should have a common Manual of Style we all should use and surely I'm not the only one here to do so, sorry. And let me remind you that consensus is not unanimousity and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Angelo 02:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Manual of Style does not mean that you must use the exactly same standard for everything. It's totally possible have a style with two or more templates that could be used dependent of the content, where better fits. Second, yes, you have consensus here (3 against 1), but if people have the opportunity to see the two tables and know they have to speak out to be able to choose between them, I bet it will change fast. Lets be more bold, test it! It was what I was trying to do, I wrote I note on the FC Barcelona discussion asking people what they think about it?. Third, the new information it's not an indiscriminate collection of information, it's directly related to the players and their situation on the club. Example: this player plays frequently or he's normally a sub?; how valuable is that player to the club?; he is from that country or just play internationally for it?; this player will probably be part of the squad next session? Who are the players that the club depend on to score?. I believe, lots of people thing that is important information on football club.--ClaudioMB 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an overload of information. First of all, look how many empty cells there are. Okay, if they are a sub, how much harder do you think it would be to find their contract details, their transfer fee, etc.. All this extra information (kit name, apps, goals) can easily be found at the respective players articles. By adding it into templates like these, it becomes less accessible and less user-friendly. The plain, simple template we use is enough. Want to find out all the information about this players stay at the club? Click on their name. It's as simple as that. Again, as I've said, it's extra information that focuses too much on the players of the club than the club itself. CAN 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are we? from 'The plain, simple template we use is enough'?--ClaudioMB 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The legion of editors who have used templates stemming from User:Angelo.romano's template, the one that is used in club articles today and has become MoS. CAN 03:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you speak for all of them!!!? There is a leadership on that legion? How many are they? They know about this discussion? Have them be presented to a new idea? They know they could add a new option?--ClaudioMB 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, you've miscontrued what I said. What I mean is that the majority of editors (as you can even evidence from here) prefer to use the old template over other templates, such as yours. CAN 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I didn't misconstrued. So, there are 7 or less editors on that legion? Because I count 4 defend the old template.--ClaudioMB 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You've misconstrued what I had said, yes, because if you read it again, you will see what I actually mean. Go to any club you want, they use Template:Football squad player because it has become Manuel of Style and generally accepted as the de facto template to use for squads. CAN 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure I didn't misconstrued what you said, it's clear as crystal to anyone see. You are trying to intimidate me with sentences like 'The plain, simple template we use is enough', 'I mean is that the majority of editors' and 'The legion of editors who have used templates'. That's not appropriated.--ClaudioMB 04:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For everybody else, I ask, is there any possible improvement on the current template (even a small one)? There is any opening to show people a new option and gather fee backs to see if there is a possible improvement? Is it that close between 4 people? Because, what I thing it is unacceptable is one person add something to an article, then two others discusses between them and simply reverse without even call the person who created it to the discussion. It's that the standard behavior on Wikipedia community? And now, 2 more join the first two and try close all doors about the subject. Something is not going well, I have to say. Please, anyone could help me here.--ClaudioMB 04:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We could of course, have a vote supporting or opposing this new template. CAN 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kingjamie, please, do not revert someone's work without send him/her a note explain it. I don't think that is a proper procedure.--ClaudioMB 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While I mentioned to ClaudioMB that I don't have the heart to argue with people about the relative merits of standardized formats versus providing additional information where it's available and someone makes the effort to provide it, I think he's correct on this point. If you're going to revert changes that took me a significant amount of time to make, Kingjamie, please have the courtesy to let me know that you're doing so and why. Hermanjoshua 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's wise to run ideas past this WikiProject first (as I did in another section) so that you don't, as you seem to have done, waste time doing something that's likely to be reverted or deleted. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dudesleeper, are you saying that everybody must know that there is a discussion about every simple point on the Wikipedia. Even though, still totally lake of respect and arrogance to just revert a work that adds information without a single warning, like it was a vandalism. 'Unacceptable'. Also, why you consider that anything that is done before past by WikiProject will be 'likely' reverted or deleted? Seems you are preset to discard anything that is not pass by you and your friends. It's like a small group here fills owners of all article about football. --ClaudioMB 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So, because people must know about all discussions, some else could just remove their work without any warning or invitation to the discussion? Like they are vandals.--ClaudioMB 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's called being bold. CAN 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are you calling bold? The person who changed the article or the person who reverted it? Or are you trying to say it's the process of being bold?--ClaudioMB 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll throw in my 2p worth - I think the basic (de facto) standard version is more than enough for club articles. The extra fields added in the template that appeared on the Fulham article make the table unwieldly, unattractive and overly detailed. Keep things like "former club" and "contract length" to the player articles (if the players are notable enough). - fchd 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Soccerbase and t'play-offs

This has probably been asked before, so please link as necessary. Soccerbase isn't including league play-off appearances in players' stats, which will likely cause some confusion when editors compare stats in their articles with their profile at said website. What's our take on this: include play-off appearance stats or not? - Dudesleeper · Talk 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They are listed in the "Other" column, see the profile of yesterday's goalscorer Robbie Williams. Playoffs are technically a separate tournament from the league. Oldelpaso 08:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is that stated? If the Football League or the Association of Football Statisticians say so then fine but I think we need some sort of definitive reference to make sure and prevent arguments in the future. Qwghlm 09:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Other column isn't displaying Williams' goal from yesterday (it's showing zero goals). - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably because its a UK Bank Holiday this weekend and its not yet been updated, the game isn't listed in the "games played by this player in 2006-07" either.

Upon further inspection of a number of places which keep appearance statistics, some count playoffs as additional League matches and put them in the League column, others put them in the "other competitions" column, and there is no dominant approach. The fact that Manchester City's official club records and Soccerbase treat them as separate may have misled me. In the case of British clubs, I'd go with whatever convention Rothmans uses, as its as close to the definitive statistical tome as one is likely to get. Anybody own one? Oldelpaso 09:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding, your first point: you would be correct; it has been updated now. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, lordy Soccerbase's refusal to see play-off games as league games does my nut in. When updating an infobox - what's seen as a simple thing to do - people aren';t going to search through the season stats to see whether those 3 appearances listed in other are play-offs or Auto Windscreens or whatever. Even if you have, as I have with a number of Watford ones, people often think you've done the adding up wrong when updating and simply delete them. As far as I'm concerned, the play-offs are a football league extension tournament, thus they're league games. No other statisician I've encountered seperates them. As a side-note, the more experience I have with it, the more I find Soccerbase is inaccurate fairly frequently. I wish football have an equilavent to CricInfo. HornetMike 11:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rothmans yearbook (sorry, Sky Sports yearbook now) does EXCLUDE play-off appearances from season-by-season and career league appearances. - fchd 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As do both of Barry Hugman's books: the PFA Who's Who, and the Football League Records 1946-2005. Based on this, the infoboxes have to omit them too, it's the only way they'll be consistent. ArtVandelay13 12:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In which case I say go with those books and declare playoffs not to be league matches. Maybe it's worth adding this to the instructions for {{Infobox Football biography}}? Qwghlm 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note there, but haven't gone further until we reach a consensus. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the BBC seems to be counting them as league games. If you compare Steve Howard's league goals on the Derby page on the BBC and Soccerbase websites, you'll see they give different numbers. Gasheadsteve 18:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been doubting the Beeb's stats for a while now, and I've just discovered they aren't listing Andy Morrell, who scored 16 league goals this season. Also, they had the aggregate scoreline of Blackpool's win over Oldham in the play-off semis incorrectly displaying as 4-2 for the duration of its appearance on the League One frontpage. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead an remove them from the Blackpool player articles in which I included the play-off stats. Hopefully people who added them to the player articles of the other eleven teams involved in the play-offs will get wind of this. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To compound the issue, Soccerbase is including play-off results when calculating managerial statistics. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No reason why it shouldn't, it includes matches from all competitions. ArtVandelay13 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's right, so it should. It's part of a manager's personal stats. However, rewinding slightly, the play-offs certainly are not part of the League season. They are not pre-published League fixtures within the season, they are a separate tournament at the end of the season, with participants obviously TBA at the time of the publishing of League fixtures. That's logical; it's unfortunate if it disrupts the statisticians among us. A little extra research usually does the trick in these cases. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh, didn't know they didn't count as league games - the couple of statiscians I use do. Seems bizarre to me, but I'll go along with the majority, obviously. HornetMike 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Starting line-ups

Just came across this, what are people's opinions on starting line-ups in club articles? Surely there is no one standard line up, due to injury, form, squad rotation etc. and so isn't this just conjecture and opinion? GiantSnowman 10:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. As I put it in a previous discussion - the manager picks the team, not Wikipedia. Such an inclusion is inevitable POV and only leads to edit wars. It should be removed straight away. Qwghlm 10:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before somewhere. Anyway, yeah the consensus was that stuff like this is definetely POV. Either it's just someone picking the best players, or it's a "most common" line-up which is deceptive also - even if you pick the 11 players with the highest appearance stats, the line-up depicted won't necessarily be the most regular one. I think it was agreed that such pictures showing the line-up from a special match - a cup final, for instance - were alright, although I don't especially like them. HornetMike 11:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A tip to seek out these starting line-ups: Check Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png and see which pages this image is included in. Punkmorten 13:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Er...as of the timestamp below, only this talk page links to the image - that's not an impressive tool to be using at the moment, really. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He meant the "File links" section (half way down the Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png page). - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Click on the link, scroll down, discover the section called "File links". Punkmorten 19:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Silly me. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What about national team starting line up like in this page, Germany national football team#Starting Line-Up. Martin tamb 20:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That section's completely pointless, it duplicates (unnecessarily) info in the section below, it doesn't say how those eleven players were chosen (was it the starting line-up in a specific match? if so, which one? if it was the most recent one, who's to say that's the "usual" German starting XI?), plus the caps/goals totals for the players listed in the "starting line-up" section don't match their totals in the "current squad" section below!!! In a word (or two), bin it! ChrisTheDude 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah - "Germany II starting line-up"? What on earth's that? I didn't know they'd made a sequel to Germany! :-) ChrisTheDude 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a wikipedia policy against this. It's news which is not allowed. Kingjeff 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I would like to see the consensus on how best to approach minor incidents that are of significance. Whilst there is a temptation, indeed an obligation, to keep wiki up to date, at what point do we draw the line. For instance, today West Brom lost in the playoff final. This was a significant event in the club's recent history. But does the fact that the match took place on May 28, 2007 warrant a mention?

This specific example has a straightforward solution, i.e. a re-edit to inform the reader of the event, without giving irrelevant and unnecessary detail. A better example is Aston Villa, and the coverage given to their title and subsequent European Cup winning season relative to the last few seasons. Could someone outline the general policy for sports teams in this kind of case, or if there isn't one what's the general consensus? BeL1EveR 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the date is important since European seasons span two calendar years. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the exact date, to the day, is important, instead the sentence about West Brom's promotion final loss should just use the season involved. As for the recentism in articles, there is no general policy as such but any article deemed of Good or Featured status should have a comprehensive and balanced coverage of a club's history. Qwghlm 19:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Premier League - potential featured topic?

A WikiProject's greatest achievement is probably producing a featured topic.

Premier League is currently an FA, and among the 20 clubs' articles, there are 4 FAs (Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C., Everton F.C. and Manchester City F.C.) and 1 GA (Liverpool F.C.). The other 15 clubs' articles all deserve at least a B-class rating.

Hence, "Premier League clubs" (with Premier League as the lead article) has the potential to become a featured topic. If at least half of the other 15 clubs' articles are improved to GA status, a featured topic nomination is likely to pass.

Unfortunately, because I do not know much about most of the clubs, I am not in a position to contribute much in terms of content. Nevertheless, I would be happy to file, comment at and addressed concerns raised a peer reviews, GA nominations and the featured topic nomination.

I will consider joining this WikiProject in future, as I intend to contribute to articles pertaining to Chelsea (which I have supported for 4 years) and football in Singapore.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, that sounds as if it would be possible and would be an excellent achievement. There are probably a number of topics within the scope of this project which could have the potential to be featured as well as the Premier League, perhaps things such as Football in (country) articles and related pages or World Cups. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 10:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

League play-off finals

Just wondering if these would be regarded as notable enough to safely exist as articles. There was no mention of it at WPF:Notability. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think so; it might not be the league exactly, but its close enough.. and are appearences in the League Cup enough to give notability? Mattythewhite 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean with "league play-off finals"? If you mean a standalone article for things like the 2007 Football League Championship playoffs, I disagree, otherwise we should also consider making an article for more relevant finals such as the UEFA Cup and Intertoto Cup ones. --Angelo 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We have Football League Championship Playoffs and I think notability would certainly stretch to a similar list for Conference finals. If you mean articles for individual finals, then I'd be inclined to agree with Angelo, above. To back him up, {{Champions League Final}} also has a few redlinks.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  20:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean for actual, single-game play-off finals, such as those that occurred this past weekend in England. Since they're regarded as a different entity to the regular-season league, I think they'd be good for including statistics not valid elsewhere. The road-to-the-final (i.e., just the semis in this case) would be included in said article. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Well, a standalone article about a playoff final of a second-tier domestic league would be excessive detail to me for the reasons I explained above. A better idea would be to consider splitting Football League seasons articles into "Championship", "League One" and "League Two" ones and expanding them. I am doing this way for Serie C, and there's absolutely enough space also for including playoff results. --Angelo 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A possible alternative: expanding [[Football League Championship Playoffs to include a short prose section about each match. Oldelpaso 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how long is the prose. What kind of content would you include? Give me an example, just to figure out what you really want to do. --Angelo 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Only a paragraph or two. The sort of thing that would be put in the lead section of a standalone article about a final or when using summary style, about the length of the current lead of, say, FA Cup Final 2007. I don't have a burning desire for any one method though. The one you suggest would work just as well. Oldelpaso 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Well, try it, and in case the whole article gets too long consider to split it by decade. Adding a reference into the Football League season article would be an asset. --Angelo 19:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indentation!) It should be pointed out that some Conference play-offs have their own articles already. See: Conference National Playoff Final 2003. HornetMike 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not too keen on the match recaps that creep into these kind of articles. Basic facts are all we need. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New Club Squad Table

Hi everybody, I'd like to invite you all to take a look on a new version for the club's squad that could be used. It's not to be forcedly used for all clubs, it's just a option that could be used for any club. There are two big increments to the old table: First, there is more information about the player's career on the club (appearances, goals and others). Note, this information is exclusively related to the player on the club, it does not count the player's information on other clubs. Second, it is sortable. Please, take a look [5] (look for Current Squad) then post here your opinion about it and if it should be available for use in the Wikipedia. Thanks.--ClaudioMB 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks naff, in my opinion. The information in the majority of the columns are best contained just in the player's article. The basics (name, squad number, nationality, loan status) are all that are necessary. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So, voting suggesting a no to its being made available for wider use on Wikipedia. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree about replacing the current template set with the proposed table, as per Dudesleeper and myself (we already discussed a few paragraphs above if you have a look over there). Keep it simple and short, that's the best way. --Angelo 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my thought about the template: It's simple, full of information, and looks good.

My thought on new sortable table: It's full of information but it's excessive and difficult to manage. Player name and shirt name are excessive, most are just the same. Appearances and Goals are difficult to manage, even it is very difficult to maintain in individual player's article infobox. 'Since' is a good information, I like it. And lastly, the transfer fee and contract are very difficult to manage since not all clubs release all the information for each players, it's easy to see for notable players like Messi, Eto'o, Ronaldinho, but see how many blank cell you have there for Sylvinho, Gudjohnsen, etc. In summary, I think it is too difficult to manage. Excessive, I can live with it, I like more information if it is placed properly.

I didn't mean to insult or depreciate your work on creating that new format, but I think the club's main page is not suitable for that lot of information. I have some suggestion on where your new format might work, some of the clubs has sub page that listed the summary for each season such as this Palermo season 06/07 page. It would be good to have the appearances and goals in sortable table here. Also here in A.C. Milan squad page, it's a good place for more information on the squad. Martin tamb 06:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the sortable table is far too busy, with a combination of an excessive level of detail for the club's article (apps and goals) and information that would be hard to reliably source (transfer fee and contract details). Shirt name is totally unnecessary everywhere except Spain/Portugal/Brazil where players sometimes don't have their surname on their shirts. In short, I'm not keen.... ChrisTheDude 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen either. Looks unwieldy and will take a lot more maintenance than the current way of listing a squad. Much of the additional information will be in the player article anyway. WikiGull 07:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to replace what did the job perfectly before. Fedgin | Talk 08:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea, because what are going to do with a club like Workington, where appearance and contract data is hard to come by. Also, if it aint broke, don't fix it. Kingjamie 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't like it at all. Shirt names are an unnecessary detail. It uses too many unconventional abbreviations. The "until" and "T.F." (I presume transfer fee) column may often contain unverifiable information. The captaincy and "other" columns are often blank, which leaves ugly greyspace all over the place. I don't like the fact nationality is the first column either (it should be shirt number). The fact you have to have a very long key at the end sums it up - the usual template is more or less self explanatory, but this table is a monster in comparison. Qwghlm 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that the table is a bad idea for all the above-mentioned reasons. Punkmorten 10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it lacks clarity. It took me a few seconds to work out a couple of the columns were, and I needed the key to know what L.T. meant. If a hardcore football fan who knows all the jargon associated with the game finds it unclear, I'm sure a non-sports fan would find it confusing. As part of a general purpose encyclopedia, articles should be accessible to a layperson who knows nothing about the subject. Oldelpaso 18:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all feed backs. That way the new table can be improved. I have to specially thanks Martin tamb for his words and his excellent suggestion to move the new table to a FC Barcelona squad article. I hope, there is a opening to try this out and see if people like it. For the 5 days this table was on the FC Barcelona article, at least one person like so much that he worked hard to gather lots of information to create a similar one for another club.--ClaudioMB 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no... Not separate squad articles... :/ Why do people always feel a need for duplicating info? Why not keep the squad in the club article in the template form currently in use (which I like very much by the way), and the extra info in the player articles? Why the need for a mid-layer article combining the worst of two worlds? I personally would consider that squad article to fall under WP:NOT#INFO. – Elisson • T • C • 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. CAN 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree. Martin tamb suggested to put these kind of information into club season articles, and he made examples of US Palermo (I created it, btw) and AC Milan's current ones. This is completely different to what ClaudioMB made. --Angelo 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Elisson, I believe I was not very clear, as you can see FC Barcelona current squad still the same. There is only a link to the new article. Just like on the AC Milan article. Which, by the way, no one since to have any complains, because the article is there since Nov/2006.--ClaudioMB 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Angelo, please, explain how these two articles A.C. Milan squad and FC Barcelona squad are completely different?--ClaudioMB 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to A.C. Milan 2006-07. "AC Milan squad" should instead be deleted per WP:NOT#INFO as suggested by Elisson and its content partially included into "AC Milan 2006-07". --Angelo 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Which of the 10 items on the WP:NOT#INFO those 2 articles are consider to be? If the A.C. Milan squad is consider WP:NOT#INFO, why just today, after 5 months someone bring it up? Nobody ever saw that article before? I know you Angelo, just add information last April [6] for this article that you now call WP:NOT#INFO. How odd is that!? I don't know if I should keep discussing here anymore. I left the FC Barcelona the way it was before. Just add a link to a new article that is similar to another article that is 5 months old. Even that way, you want remove that table at all cost. Wow!!!--ClaudioMB 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't know me at all, so don't judge me. I've reverted a vandalism and updated the club template that was recently modified, so what? Try to show a little respect towards all the people around here in the future, I am a man like you and I might be offended by your non-cooperative behaviour. Let me remind you of WP:POINT. --Angelo 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not judging you, I'm reading your argument pattern and I affirming what you are trying to do (not what you are). Second, if you reverted a vandalism, you help the article, if you helped the article you approved that article. If you change your mind today, its because my article. That's personal!! Third, I'm not disrespecting anyone or been non-cooperative here, because I'm just defending my point of view. I even changed my position seeking a compromise when I move the table to another article. Finally, I'm sure some people are not liking all this strong discussion and because I'm practically alone here, it looks like I'm the one non-cooperative. But, someone has to defend his/her point of view, even lonely.--ClaudioMB 03:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indentation). My opinion, like pretty much everybody else, is that the current squad template is fine, is used to good effect in, nowadays, pretty much every one of the 1000s of club articles on Wikipedia. There is no need for a different version, and random exceptions for various clubs would look bizarre. HornetMike 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Humorous interjection to lighten the tone: Given the fact that the "new" template appears to require the inclusion of the player's full name, I hate to think what it would look like for any club Charlie Oatway plays for ;-) ChrisTheDude 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It will be awkward. :-)--ClaudioMB 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Captain hierarchy

Some of the club article such as this A.C. Milan and F.C. Internazionale Milano has captain hierarchy section under the current squad. I think this section is pure original research and can't be confirmed. I think it is better to have (captain) and (vice-captain) on the current squad section rather than listing all 5 players that have been captain this season. I would like to know what are you guys think about this before I make the edit on those pages and create disputes. Martin tamb 06:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I can't believe there's really a reliable source that could confirm who a club's sixth-choice captain is ChrisTheDude 07:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Waiting for some more response before I start editing those captain hierarchy section. Martin tamb 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well WikiGull 07:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the information. The onus is on whoever wants to keep it to find a reference, not for you to prove that there isn't one before deleting it! It can be re-added easily enough if someone does manage to find a reference (which I doubt will happen). aLii 09:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for all your input, I'm gonna start working on it. Martin tamb 10:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jose Mourinho for GA status!

This WikiProject has produced several GAs and FAs on clubs, players and stadiums. But has any article on a manager achieved GA or FA status? Imoeng and I (both of us have been Chelsea fans for 4 years) have decided to collaborate to improve Jose Mourinho (who, as my nick suggests, is my idol, along with Jack Neo) to GA status.

As I am not aware of any GAs or FAs on managers to use as a precedent, and the WikiProject does not have a Manual of Style for manager articles, how should the article be structured? Perhaps there should be a discussion leading to the creation of a Manual of Style for manager articles.

Moreover, neither of us know much about Mourinho's pre-Chelsea days, apart from the information already in the article. I have noticed that while most articles are gradually improved through the "wiki process", GAs and FAs are usually the work of a core group of dedicated contributors. Hence, could a Porto fan (or a Jose Mourinho fan who is familiar with his pre-Chelsea days) join the collaboration?

An article I wrote, I Not Stupid, failed GA partially due to concerns over choppy prose. I speak and write British English at a near-native level (most of my friends speak Singlish), and am trying to improve my English to a native standard. Imoeng writes English at an advanced level. Although only FAs require "compelling, brilliant prose", GAs still require that "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". Hence, the article would greatly benefit from someone who writes English at a professional level and is knowledgable about the subject joining the collaboration.

Finally, a GA needs lots of reliable references. Could members of the WikiProject recommend at leas three newspapers which are available online and provide reliable sports coverage? Having such newspapers at our disposal would make it much easier to provide references for each sentence, as well as help us find information on Mourinho's pre-Chelsea days.

If satisfied with the assistance I receive, I will consider joining this WikiProject, as I intend to contribute to articles pertaining to Chelsea F.C. and football in Singapore.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a candidate for the /Article improvement drive rather than this page. Incidentally, I don't like your tone when you say you will join the Wikiproject if you are "satisfied with the assistance". If you want the assistance of others you would be better off demonstrating your commitment to it by being bold and contributing yourself, rather than making demands as if this Wikiproject works for your benefit. Looking at the last 100 edits to the Mourinho article, you have not made a single one - it seems to me you're asking a lot of work from others to help on a pet project without doing any yourself, just as you did several months ago in another GA drive. Qwghlm 10:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one who thought he was coming across like a bit of a pompous ass :-) ChrisTheDude 11:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice: I don't know that guy. Imoeng 07:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to cancel the planned collaboration. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to replace national team flag templates

Hello, I am not a regular member of this WikiProject. I usually spend my time on Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template work. And that brings me here...

Some of you may have noticed the internal changes to the {{flag}}, {{flagicon}}, etc. templates earlier this year. The main effect of these templates is to provide a parameterized mechanism for consistently rendering flag icons. I would like to add national sport team templates under that system.

Currently, there are almost 900 individual templates (found in Category:National football team templates. I am proposing to replace this set with four templates. The maintenance benefit should be immediately obvious; any updates to the common flag data structures will "ripple through" to all national team instances. There are several other benefits, listed below.

Here is the gist of my proposal: instead of a set of individual templates for each national team, there would be a very small set of parameterized templates. Any historical flag variants are handled by additional parameters. I have created the {{fb}} template to test this concept. The name "fb" was intentionally chosen to be short, to align with the current abbreviated naming of existing templates. The redirect {{footyflag}} has also been created if you prefer. I have yet to create the "fb2" (for rendering the flag after the name), "fbw" (for women's team) or "fbw2" templates, but you get the idea.

Using Italy as an example:

Current template	Proposed replacement
{{ITAf}} → Template:ITAf	{{fb|ITA}} → Italy
{{ITAfold}} → Template:ITAfold	{{fb|ITA|old}} → Italy
{{ITAf2}} → Template:ITAf2	{{fb-rt|ITA}} → Italy
{{ITAfold2}} → Template:ITAfold2	{{fb-rt|ITA|old}} → Italy
{{ITAwf}} → Template:ITAwf	{{fbw|ITA}} not yet available
{{ITAwf2}} → Template:ITAwf2	{{fbw-rt|ITA}} not yet available

I have already tested this system with all 207 current FIFA country codes, and 189 of them are working as expected. I know how to fix the remaining 19, but I haven't done it yet. It can easily be expanded to non-FIFA teams too. I'd like to get some feedback here before proceeding.

Another benefit to this proposal is that you can use the full nation name instead of the FIFA country code, if you prefer. Can't remember the code for Malaysia? (MAS? MAL? MYS? MSY?) Use {{fb|Malaysia}} for Malaysia.

Obviously, before making such a sweeping change, I'd like to get consensus that this is a good thing to do. If we agree to go ahead, then I am offering to make all the changes myself, so this is not a "make work" proposal that I am imposing on this project. The implementation can be phased in gradually, and nothing will break in the meantime.

Thanks for your consideration, Andrwsc 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I already implemented Template:Footyflag following the discussion we had a few time ago. Yeah, it was just a redirect :)... And I did it; well I'm probably getting old. Anyway, I fully support your proposal, possibly using different template names (fb, fb2 and fbw are meaningless to me). --Angelo 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess my proposal has multiple elements upon which feedback can be given, so for anybody participating in this discussion, please indicate what you like and what you don't like, and I will try to sort it all out accordingly. Andrwsc 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised that this proposal hasn't generated any discussion here, other than Angelo's one comment of support. Shall I interpret this as "silent assent" and boldly start making the changes? Andrwsc 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

*Non-silent assent'* WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and do it. In case you need some help, you can contact me. --Angelo 17:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! I will probably set up a "progress page" with a list of replacements that can be safely made and we can individually delete the old templates once they are no longer transcluded. Anybody who wants to run some AWB sessions can work from that progress page. I will start this sometime in the next few days. Andrwsc 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I missed this the first time around, I guess. What is the impact on the server by switching these templates? Instead of looking up {{ITAf}} and making the simple substitution, now, it has to look up {{fb}}, and pass the ITA parameter, to compute the substitution. I would recommend to hold off on the mass substitutions until someone from the technical side of WP could comment on this. Neier 08:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's precisely the same mechanism that is used by the {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} templates, both of which are transcluded in many, many, thousands of instances. We had a detailed discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template a few months ago and concluded that this system is appropriate. Andrwsc 08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the U-21's templates? Matthew_hk tc 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to that. Andrwsc 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:fbu21 is ready to be used. In the next few days, I will start substituting individual existing templates to use this single template instead. Andrwsc 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists of transfers

I'm not sure if we have discussed this before, but: Should we allow entries which list football transfers, like list of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season? Or do they constitute a violation of WP:NOT#INFO or some other policy? I have a bad stomach feeling about them, but let's hear what the rest of you think. Punkmorten 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say so, however I'm experiencing a little trouble with several users (especially IP ones) who add new signings to the main club article even in case they're unconfirmed at all (I cannot even remember know how many times I removed Vincenzo Iaquinta from the Juventus F.C. article). This is just a little piece of a bigger problem. P.S. There is also List of Italian football transfers 2007-08, I guess they might be at least merged for now. --Angelo 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of transfers for Serie A also exist for several previous season anyway. For those new ones, I think they need to be merged soon. About that club article, I think it won't stop, it's not just Iaquinta in Juventus, I have seen more of that everywhere I browse the clubs article. It's up to the editor to keep maintaining them ^-^. Martin tamb 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But in my opinion we can make something to prevent all that. For instance, let's not include team signings before the transfer market is opened (i.e., July 1).--Angelo 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean for the club articles, right? I agree that the club squad shouldn't be updated yet until the new season, but lots of editor will just add players based on some rumours or unconfirmed news. Maybe for those club articles that are heavily vandalized (not sure if it is vandal), semi-protection for 1-2 weeks would be good. Anyway I just add merge tag on both pages. Martin tamb 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean that. For now I am just adding comments right above the team squads begging editors not to change it in the form <!-- PLEASE DO NOT ADD OR REMOVE PLAYERS. THIS IS THE TEAM ROSTER FOR THE 2006-07 SEASON. -->. However I don't think these kinds of edits we're experiencing would fit into vandalism, they are likely to be mere blatant edits. --Angelo 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll use that whenever I'm removing unconfirmed transfer. Martin tamb 19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but back to the original issue: Should we have lists like these, or should they go like the results pages? I am aware than there are at least a dozen more. Punkmorten 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm.. I don't know what should we do, but I find dozens more of them, you might be interested in a list, so if any of you would make any action, we would be consistent enough to include them all. list of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season List of transfers of Serie A - 2006/2007 season List of Italian football transfers 2007-08 List of English football transfers 2007-08 List of English football transfers 2006-07 2005-06 in English football#Transfer Deals 2004-05 in English football#Transfer Deals 2003-04 in English football#Transfer Deals 2002-03 in English football#Transfer Deals 2007-08 in Scottish football#Major transfer deals 2006-07 in Scottish football#Major transfer deals 2005-06 in Scottish football#Major transfer deals List of Turkish football transfers 2007-08 List of Turkish football transfers 2006-07 List of German football transfers 2007-08 List of Hungarian football transfers 2007-08. Note: I'm silly enough not to see your tasklist page, perhaps this will complete your list. Martin tamb 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Even a Hungarian one! Definitely WP:IINFO. To me we can delete them all. --Angelo 06:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, see that the Hungarian ones only has those 2 Hungarian youngsters snapped by Liverpool. The 2007/2008 transfers from Hungary and Germany didn't even linked from any pages yet. Definitely not worth keeping. But if we do want to delete them all, there would be mass of rejection especially from English fans on their English football transfer out there. Martin tamb 06:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this case let's start just with Hungary, Turkey and Germany. --Angelo 06:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sponsored stadium names

We don't list leagues by their sponsored names (e.g. Isthmian League, not Ryman League), so what do we think of when stadium names have sponsors names attached to them - e.g. today's krbs Priestfield Stadium ? Are we not being a little inconsistent? Will anyone ever refer to it as the krbs Priestfield Stadium? - fchd 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As sponsorship is by & large ephemeral we should refer to the stadium by its original common name wherever possible (e.g. as we do with Football League Cup). The exception I suppose is any stadium that never really had a non-sponsored name e.g. Emirates Stadium - although even then a case could be made for it to be located at Ashburton Grove. A comparable example is Millennium Dome, even though the sponsored name is The O2. Qwghlm 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Liberty Stadium? That was officially called "New Stadium" for about two months while they were waiting for a sponsor? Should it be moved back? And Galpharm Stadium is an example of a stadium that was originally built as McAlpine Stadium and was renamed after that deal ran out - which makes sense, so would Emirates Stadium be renamed in ten years? Da-rb 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand about the naming of the league, but for stadium, some stadium listed their sponsors name as their official stadium name, namely that Telstra Stadium in Sydney, Australia (which was previously known as Stadium Australia during the 2000 Olympic). If you look at the article, there would say that Telstra only acquired the naming rights until 2009 (if not extended) but no one would refer that stadium as Stadium Australia anymore until Telstra stop sponsoring it and if no other sponsors acquired. So I think its better to list them as their current official names, because we really couldn't predict when the sponsorship ends or whether they would be having the same sponsors in the future. Also I think consistency is not the issue here because league is a competition and stadium name is a place, if you put their former names, people would be misleaded. Martin tamb 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Stats

In James Beattie, his stats table gives (and User:Kingjeff persists) his 2007-08 stats. I disagree with this being included, as we don't even know if he will be playing there that season, and its not even started yet!

• Agreed - what is the point of having a completely empty row anyway. I think I'll remove it and see what happens. - fchd 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

2007-08 season is the next season coming up. There is no need to remove it. Kingjeff 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fine. Add it when the season starts. As it is now, it is just blank space. Absolutely bloomin' pointless. - fchd 17:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a very very minor things, most reader wouldn't even notice or bothered abut that. I thinks it's better to focus on the players biography (most of them need more referencing) rather than statistics (well it's not really statistics coz it'z empty column but its part of the stats table). I hope this won't continue to became big argument, it's really not worth your time to argue on such a small issue (well maybe some of you thinks that this is important, but for me this is just not). Martin tamb 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If we're to be consistent with the removal of the jumping-the-gun additions that are prevalent at this time of year, the blank line should be removed; however, Kingjeff has never been receptive to other people's opinions, so it's better to leave him be and focus on other things. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not when a personal attack like yours is involved. Kingjeff 19:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps not when your personal attacks on me are involved! Mattythewhite 19:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack. It was a matter of fact. Kingjeff 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So calling me ridiculous for no just reason and putting in your edit summary to an edit to Luke Varney as "If you don't know about July 1, maybe you shouldn't be editing football articles." aren't some kind of insult then? Mattythewhite 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained to you that putting every single year of a multi year contract in the stats table is rediculus. I really don't think it can get any clearer then that. Kingjeff 19:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with you on that! It would be utterly pointless. Such as having a season that is blank! Mattythewhite 19:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not pointless at all. Kingjeff 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Whats the point to it then? It would be just as encyclopediac to have the 2007-08 season on as it would be as to have 2008-09 on, as neither have started, neither have any statistical information to them, and does he even have a contract for next season? Tell me that then if you're so sure he will be there for 2007-08. Mattythewhite 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I never knew Lukas Podolski was a sausage maker.. Mattythewhite 19:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bwahaha. (Sorry, but I had to remove the vandalism. Standards and all that...) - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on player transfers

There's a discussion on timing of player transfers here. A concensus is needed one way or another- some articles list "current club" as the club the player will join on 1 July, whereas others list their club prior to this date. Dave101→talk  18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If the situation is described clearly in the prose, its moot for countries where its currently the close season, as the player will play for neither in the interim. In any case, it will certainly be irrelevant in 30 days time. If its really causing consternation, use a footnote to explain it. Oldelpaso 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Competition Years Manual of Style

Should there be a manual of style for competition years, such as MLS 2004, because I know that, and other articles, need some love. Bornagain4 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion and page moves

I'm including the FC_Barcelona_squad article on the list to avoid people open just the A.C._Milan_squad one, and beleive the Barcelona one is quite the same without open it (because they aren't) or even don't see it at all.--ClaudioMB 03:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian footballers and categorisation

I've noticed that a lot of Brazilian footballers, most of whom are known by their first name or first two names, have been given a sortkey based on their surnames - i.e. Diego was sorted as Ribas da Cunha, Diego, which means he'd be listed under R. This is counter-intuitive, when Diego is the name he's comonly known by, and many people won't even know his full name. This occurs with a lot of Brazilian footballers, so if people could consider it when adding and editing Brazilian footballer articles, it'd make the categorisation much more useful. ArtVandelay13 13:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, why are Brazilian footballers named inconsistently regarding nickname/full name? Why Mazinho and then Paulo Sérgio Rosa? Punkmorten 17:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they're only listed by their common name when there is no-one else of that name, or they are clearly the most promiment person of the name. ArtVandelay13 17:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo deletion - 2

Further to the section above, it is both urgent and imperative that all club logos have a fair use rationale in addition to the logo licence. (I notice that Derby County F.C. logo has bitten the dust).

The following seems to work as a sub-section in the Licensing section:

Fair-use rationale

1. obtained from the club website
2. low resolution image
3. no non-copyright version available, by definition
4. the logo is only being used for informational purposes
5. its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it is the primary means of identifying the subject of this article

BlueValour 00:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just as a heads-up, the Jeanfield Swifts badge has this evening been deleted because (according to the edit summary of the editor who did it) the above boiler-plate FU rationale was deemed "inadequate".... ChrisTheDude 22:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You mean this logo? That was made by a user who doesn't seem to like fair use:[7]. --Angelo 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, he's just got a personal gripe against me because I'm standing up to him (all those recent removals are images I uploaded). - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Player honours

Just making sure we're all on the same page when adding honours to a player's article. If they played at least one game in that season's competition for the club, then I'm listing the accolade in their article (not saying this is the correct approach). I have a feeling there will be instances of editors just adding the accolade if they made an appearance in the relevant final. - Dudesleeper · Talk 08:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In Norway a player has to appear in a certain percentage of the league games in order to win a league medal. I don't think there are any such restrictions on cup level. Punkmorten 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The league restriction also exists in England, I think it's about a quarter of the club's matches. And I'm pretty sure a player doesn't get a cup-winner's medal unless he is actually in the 16 for the final..... ChrisTheDude 09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My recollection for England is... for the Premier League it is ten appearances, minimum. For the FA and Football League Cups you have to be in the matchday squad (i.e. team or bench). For the Champions League these days, however I think you get a medal if you're part of the squad taken to the final (even the third-choice keeper gets a medal, I think). Qwghlm 09:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely 10 for an English Premier League medal (see here and here (last entry)). The SPL have also confirmed (in an e-mail) the same for Scotland. Fedgin | Talk 10:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It varies from country to country and from competition to competition, so it's worth familiarising yourself with the rules, where possible. In the Bundesliga and DFB Pokal, for example, medals go to the entire squad regardless of appearances. ArtVandelay13 13:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth starting a page for this sort of information? Might be handy to collate this information (which could go in each competition's page anyway) into a single page? Fedgin | Talk 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In Jeremy Wilson's book "Southampton’s Cult Heroes" he says that after the 2003 FA Cup Final, 16 runners-up medals were initially presented at the Millennium Stadium (to the 11 starters plus 5 substitutes), but shortly after the final the FA sent Southampton 3 additional medals which the manager presented to Francis Benali, Jason Dodd and Kevin Davies for their contributions en route to the final. Presumably this is normal as I see no reason why they should have made this a special case. Daemonic Kangaroo 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a fairly recent development, but according to the rules, 25 medals are given out to each of the FA Cup finalists, similar to UEFA (who give out 30), so it's reasonable to assume people like Luis Garcia or Hayden Mullins would have got one. ArtVandelay13 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that rationale though. Wikipedia isn't about "assumptions." What if a club had only used 16 players, through all rounds, in winning the FA Cup? Are you saying that we're to assume that 9 other squad members played enough of a part to get a winner's medal?! Just listing whoever was in the matchday squad seems the way to go, to me. aLii 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

May I add something that Fedgin has said, it's true that 10 games is a minimal, but EPL sometimes give special dispensation to first team player who suffers injuries during the season, for example, Alan Smith only played in 6 league games this season, but during the medal presentation, I heard that EPL has give him a special dispensation to get a winners medal. This may confuse the issue furthermore. Martin tamb 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How about if a player played in the FA Cup third round then was sold two days later and his original club went on to win the cup? He'd have played one FA Cup match that season for the ultimate cup winners but there's no way that could be added to his article as an honour he'd won, surely? ChrisTheDude 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost sorry I asked now! Regarding Chris' point above: nope, in my eyes he wouldn't receive the honour. Of course, a lack of sources (online or otherwise) on the matter is making this all the more difficult. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not us to decide who gets an honour or not. If 25 medals are given out then 25 names should be attached to the honour. Kingjeff 18:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What would be the source for the list of 25 names? I've never seen such a list officially published by the FA (or equivalent) ChrisTheDude 11:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ranieri and Juventus

Several IP users are continuously changing the Juventus F.C. article setting Claudio Ranieri as new head coach despite the fact he will become effective from July 1 and a Serie B season with caretaker manager Giancarlo Corradini is yet to finish. I would also suggest to semi-protect the Juventus article, because I think this issue will go on for a long while, together with the "usual" adding of rumoured transferred players (Iaquinta in Juventus's case). --Angelo 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just add a note to say that Ranieri will take over on the specific date. It's not a rumour is it? aLii 13:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I already added a note for it, however this was continuously deleted and changed by several IP users. The July 1 date is a fact, being noted also by the official Juventus website [8]. Anyway, the article has been semiprotected now. --Angelo 13:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Honours

May other titles in international competitions or tournaments, apart from them held by FIFA and UEFA, be mentioned in the articles about National teams? - Sthenel 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would include them, the Kirin Cup for example was a fairly notable event in the (recent) history of the Scotland national team. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean in a section named "Honours" not generally in the article. What about the World Military Cup and Under-17, 19, 21 championships? - Sthenel 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the Honours section of an article in my first reply. With regards to those examples, none of them are competed in by actual full national teams (although under-21 honours could go on the relevant under-21 national team articles) so shouldn't be included. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 21:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK thank you! - Sthenel 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing often appears in club articles, but it's best to give unofficial competitions their own subsection of the honours section. ArtVandelay13 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent creation

I'm notice both article is created back while recently it was deleted because concern of crystal ball:

• 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF) logs
• 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) logs
• 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) logs
• 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)

The problem is FIFA is not officially announced the list of the team will be participating, it just said 204 teams. This mean it could change until draw and no source list down the team so far.

I hope some of the actions can be taken. Thank you --Aleenf1 06:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Scottish_Cup_2004-05 up for deletion!

Perhaps you should have a look at this one chaps [9]. The nominator also questions the need for the articles on all the other seasons too.... Nick mallory 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It was speedily kept. Nick mallory 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it had already been put on the list of nominations for deletion. There's no need to advertise the fact here as well. Qwghlm 14:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro

Unfair if redirecting Serbia and Montenegro but Yugoslavia did not get a redirect. KyleRGiggs 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you add a little more context? Its not clear what you are referring to. Oldelpaso 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Report

It looks like the report is not suitable to include in footballbox, i have found that the link was empty. The problem occur because FIFA had develop a new website interface, and the web address for the report also alter. So, please consider to include report in the future. --Aleenf1 06:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, could you clarify what you're referring to? What report? What infobox? ChrisTheDude 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

External link report in any edition of FIFA World Cup, you can press it ans see what happen, is "error", so should it include in footballbox, not really a good idea. --Aleenf1 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good spot. What a shame, someone obviously put a lot of work into putting all those (Report) links in. 2006 FIFA World Cup has plenty of these, and infact so do all the World Cup articles. It'll take a LOT of work to fix. Stupid fifaworldcup.yahoo.com! I can't abide sites that delete pages. aLii 15:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

BBC Sport is good alternative. They never delete match reports. Kanaye 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Regional flags

Is there a consensus on the use of a regional or state flag next to the name of a player, as well as their national flag? The CE Sabadell article has got a whole load of Catalan and Spanish flags next to each other, and it's a bit hard on the eyes! I think in cases like this the Catalan flags should be removed, which may offend people from Catalonia, but Spanish is the nationalality that is recognised by FIFA. Gasheadsteve 11:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

is this for players who have represented Catalonia and The Basque Country, for example? Blogdroed 13:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

None of these regions and territories are recognized by either UEFA or FIFA, so do not include them. --Angelo 13:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Spanish club articles use them, and they need removed. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should be removed, it's completely irrelevant. ArtVandelay13 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Evans' personal life

Does anybody know eneything about Steve Evans', the Crawley Town managers personal life because I require it if I want to promote the article to GA status, I have done everyting else on this list except that, if you do add to the article but do please rember to cite your sources. Also can you please check for that I have done everything on that list correctly. 16:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)