Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Template:WPF navigation

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) again

Fasach Nua has unilaterally began adding tags to every national football team article, violating WP:POINT and WP:CONSENSUS from the discussion of this issue several weeks ago. He did the same thing regarding club crests in German football club articles a few days ago, and has resumed unilaterally "saving" WP from problems that only he percieves. I would appreciate it if an admin could block him for enough time to prevent an edit war over this issue, as discussion with Fasach Nua has proved impossible in the past. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Fasach Nua to pop over here to have a chat about it. I agree that his editing style is currently a little antagonistic but I also agree that if WP:FOOTBALL want to complain about what he's trying to achieve, WP:FOOTBALL should arrive at a decent and actionable consensus for this issue which is compliant with the general policies of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the way Fasach Nua has been going about this and the German football crests issue has not been productive or cooperative in the slightest. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that Grant, but I'm hoping to extend an olive branch. This edit warring (for that is what it has become) is doing nobody any good. Give it another chance and hopefully we'll get somewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll - Unreferenced tagging for famous player sections

In response to the edit wars being caused by Fasach Nua, let's just establish a simple consensus here, so that we can move on, and take appropriate action against anyone who tags/de-tags against a clear consensus. Therefore:

The question

• Are Template:Unreferencedsection tags appropriate for the whole sections present in many football team articles that list the articles for 'famous' player?

The question applies to famous players, not notable players, as non-notable players should have no article that could be listed in the article at all, per WP:ATHLETE. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes, I am rapidly coming round to that conclusion, to avoid the accusation of Original Research. At the very least there needs to be a set of defined criteria, but with some flexibility for extreme cases e.g. Perhaps George Best or Duncan Edwards at Manchester United may not pass on a number of games played, but it would be folly to exclude them as examples of the club's most famous players. - fchd (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

comment - If you look at the Aston Villa article they do it quite well, using that as a template George Best would qualify via, European Footballer of the Year, Football Writers' Association Footballer of the Year or English Football Hall of Fame

1. Although I try not to get involved in arguments of this nature as I don't think they take WP forward, I personally dislike the lists of notable players attached to club articles. The one on Southampton F.C. regularly has names added who are not notable for anything they have done for the club, but in the absence of defined criteria who am I to say that Jelle van Damme is not notable whereas C. B. Fry is. I would prefer to replace the list with a list of players who won international honours whilst at the club. If they were only notable for their contributions to the club, this should be covered by an entry on the List of Southampton F.C. players. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, I've also come around to this conclusion over the past weeks. While my football related edits tend to not exceed the boundaries of Mexican football (and at the national level at that), I have personally decided to remove the "Notable Players" and "Notable Managers" sections. Instead of listing a "notable" list, I've turned to a table of all the managers with their stats listed. It looks better and doesn't have the smell of bias. The records speak for themselves. As far as notable players, I've removed this section entirely for the same reasons that others have listed; it's simply subjective to a large degree. A list without qualifiers is simply a list. There should be criteria that are clearly defined, and it should be evident why a particular player is noted as being notable. This goes back to the point that if a player is truly notable, then there should be reference to his/her actions in the body of the text. Otherwise, as I said, it's just a list of names..cosme. (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No

1. No per my discussion comment - MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2. No if any editor believes a famous/notable player section contains players that are not worthy of inclusion, they should attempt to define some consensus based inclusion criteria on the article talk page, then remove any players that fail the inclusion criteria (x number of appearances, goals, members of championship winning teams etc). Simply pasting {{Unreferencedsection}} onto dozens of articles adds nothing in terms of content. EP 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
3. No per above and below. There is a better way of going about this than mass-tagging. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
4. No per discussion. GiantSnowman 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
5. No Mass tagging and pointy editing is not the way to go in the midst of ongoing attempts to get things sorted out. It does not contribute to a positive atmosphere here. Wiggy! (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
6. No per discussion and comments. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't believe a full section tag is appropriate because every section I have seen that Fasach has tagged does contain at least some famous players purely by measure of the idiot test, therefore, no-one is ever going to remove an entire section on WP:V grounds. Also, tags are meant to be constructive, to spur improvement (of the section), however, a full section tag makes no attempt to identify which players are in dispute, and no-one is ever going to reference every player in a section, therefore the tag will never get removed, which defeats its purpose - to improve. A better approach is to tag individual players, or open a discussion on the relevent team talk page.

So I believe we then get to the actual point he is trying to make by mass tagging all sections irregardless of his knowledge of each team, is that a formal wikipedia standard/test over and above verifiablility is required for him to be able to tell if a listed player is indeed famous (note: not the same as notable). The correct way to do this of course is to open a discussion in an appropriate forum and gain consensus on if it is needed, and if so what form it takes. Even better, he should propose a guideline to be applied accross all football team articles (notwithstanding expansion to other sports). Therefore, whichever way you look at it, the section level tags should all be removed as they currently serve no purpose as explained above as used in this context. If neccessary, instead of useless and inflammatory tagging, Fasach or others can take the more appropriate steps detailed if he genuinely wants to improve these articles, and not merely disrupt wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to MickMacNee opening comments I don't know why he suggests that "no-one is ever going to reference every player in a section", it is only your opinion that these are famous people on these lists, someone with only a passing interest in soccer may not know who the famous Andoran players are, indeed one could argue that the Europeans might not know the famous South Americans and Americans might not know about the Europeans. Everything that is likely to be challeneged needs a citation, and the concept of these sections is alien to many people, inclusing myself

He has stated that I want a test "over and above verifiablility", this is untrue I would accpet verifiablility, as would policy, and the consensus of the project.

MickMacNee speaks of the idea "to open a discussion in an appropriate forum", obviously the MoS is not the forum, as discusssion there just gets ignored, the Wikiproject Football is not the forum as it gets doesn't get dealt with there no matter how often you try. I would appreciate it if could point out the appropriate forum he is speaking of.

He suggests that "he should propose a guideline to be applied accross all football team articles", yet he has not addressed why WP policy is unacceptable when it places the WP:BURDEN on the person who has made the entry to provide the relevant source and reason as to why it is added there. This especially startling considering request when I did make a suggestion it was met with this rant.

The proposal is designed to stifle discussion, it is flawed, the thread title and opening comments have been inserted simply to undermine my position, posting a block request on this page without basis for one, is only an attempt to imply wrong doing on my part, the first line of the poll is "In response to the edit wars being caused by Fasach Nua...", is clearly a loaded statement designed to imply that there is the tags are cauing a problem, which clearly they aren't. I would have much preferred that the issue was addressed rather than the symptoms Fasach Nua (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that these sections need attention. To justify their existence, they should have defined inclusion criteria, so as not to be arbitrary, subjective lists with no verifiability. However, mass tagging is not a particularly productive way to go about resolving the issue. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I that a no then? MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A yes/no is an oversimplification. Adding such a tag may be appropriate if accompanied by an explanation of concerns on the talk page. Mass tagging without discussion is usually not appropriate. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He is mass tagging without discussion, he abandonded the resulting discussion and resumed tagging resulting in edit warring and drama, with no progress on the actual discussion. He has asserted he wants to see consensus before he stops re/tagging, and without consensus anyone de-tagging is not breaking any rules either bar 3RR, so here it is, a simple way to move on. MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The editors here are aware of the need to do some work on the notable player sections and have been trying to work their way towards a solution. Pointy editing on this and other issues is not helping to create a positive, solution-oriented atmosphere. Wiggy! (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The role of a maintenance tag is to mark something in need of maintenance which these sections clearly are. The burden of proof is defined by policy, and it is the role of the person who uploaded to justify what they have added, idiot test is neither policy, guideline or anything else which would in any way mean we would take notice of it. If there is a process ongoing to address the problem, then the tagging can only serve to increase participation, and fix any problems sooner. These tags were allowed to be removed as a disscussion was going on however, the discussion was killed off by a minority of editors making off topic attacks, and refusing to engage with the debate, until the situation has been satisfactoaly addressed, the topics are in need of maintenance, and the tags should remain. If people are truly serious about meeting the standards set out in wikipedia policy, then a resolution should be quickly made, and tags shouldnt be there for long.

This debate is not a simple yes/no issue, as has already been stated, the sections to which they are added are unreferenced, so they are factually accurate. The removal of the tags only serves to allow the dabate to fade, as we already saw before, I would believe the best approach would be to resolve issues with WP:V, and then remove the tags. To unilaterally remove these tags only serves to damage WP, and this project in particular. If you examine the featured articles Arsenal F.C., Dover Athletic F.C., IFK Göteborg, Leek Town F.C., and Scotland national football team, they have all addressed the verifcation problems associated with these sections, and to remove these tags without dealing with WP:VERIFY, only serves to bar a sizable portion of articles in the remit of this project from ever reaching GA or FA status.

If we were to follow Jimbo Wells advice here "pseudo information ... should be removed,aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information", Fasach Nua (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the discussion, FN, is the criticism of the way you have gone about this. If you refuse to abide by WP:POINT or WP:CONSENSUS, then the discussion has no value. You have to agree to the results of the discussion or it amounts to a waste of time. I hope that this turns out to be productive, but to say that the last discussion devolved into "off topic comments" simply because people criticised your methods is disingenuous. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As any wiki regular knows, anyone who uses 'Jimbo said' in an argument, is taking the wrong path. This yes/no poll does not apply to the debate about WP:V regarding these sections, it merely refers to your use of the tags, which as you can see, per the way you describe your use of the tags, is not the way they are actually used by anybody else. They are not to be used as a tool to start mass discussion, they are for specific improvements for specific articles, and as explained, even in that case they are next to useless compared to inline tagging or talk page discussion. Mass placement of tags is not a replacement for a centralised discussion notice, which you failed to provide either. Mass (i.e. guideline/MOS level) improvement requires a different approach. You've frankly made a massive error in understanding the collaberative way articles are developed, and gone about your mission in a disruptive way. And for the record, but unrelated to this poll, for the articles named, I see no improvement, and in fact, only the Goteburg article has a credible famous player section. The rest merely have lists and categories of players, which have existed on wikipedia since year dot. . MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that there is a need to patch up the player sections and there are some good possible solutions that have been discussed. I just don't think there is a need to beat people over the head with policy at every turn and to do it in such an aggressive and disparaging manner. A lot of folks are here for the fun of making something and you can't just disregard that, rules or no. I've seen all kinds of articles improve radically over time and watched the gradual improvement in the contributions of various editors as they become more practised. There's nothing wrong with letting that process and the project mature gradually. People will come around to the rules over time, everything doesn't need to be fixed by tomorrow, and its important to respect and encourage the enthusiasm that drives folks to contribute here. Telling them repeatedly that what they are doing is a bad thing or needs to be ditched on some sort of minor technical violation is a non-starter. Your approach needs to add an element of respect for the people part of the equation. Wiggy! (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I said this last time it was discussed (only a couple of weeks ago), but such sections are completely POV, unless there is some sort of criteria attached to it. Even the the criteria is likely to be subjective. What does notable mean? All players are notable by WP:ATHLETE criteria to all league clubs anyway. Adding a second level of notoriety is dangerous and WP:POV. Peanut4 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the poll, this is not the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is. If any such section is properly done with full criteria, then there would be no need for any user to tag the section, particularly with {{unreferenced}}. Peanut4 (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, unless you agree with Fasach that making a WP:POINT is how you start a discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is quite within their rights to delete any unreferenced POV. I don't agree with Fasach's with of starting it, by mass edits, if that is how he's done it. However, as well as bringing this discussion here to complain about his behaviour, I would suggest altering the "Notable player" sections because this isn't the first time it's come here. To avoid it coming back yet and yet and yet again, then let's get these sections cleaned up. Peanut4 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It was first raised at the MoS talkpage, here, then it was then raised at this project talk page here, and the discussion was ignored in both instances. Having tried to discuss the issue centrally, and failed on two instances, I tagged the pages for maintenance. User:Grant.Alpaugh removed the tags off the pages, and raised a discussion at WT:FOOTY which did have some decent ideas, however when the thread became stagnent and was archived, I readded the maintenance tags, so that sopmeone looking for something to do could easily find these articles and could deal with the maintaince problem, this takes us to the start of this thread. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT makes it clear that the onus is on the person that wishes to include information. The notability of a player is often a matter of a point of view. If a player is truly notable then there will be sources claiming as much. Better to leave players out of a list than to include players for whom there is no source. Rather than hold a poll here about whether these sections should be marked -- which is meaningless under WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted." -- why not improve the articles so that there is no need for the templates {{unreferencedsect}} and {{fact}}? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Futsal articles

There are a number of Futsal competitions around, notably the domestic league of Brazil, Spain and Italy. However, there are no articles about these Futsal competitions, so should we do something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie goh (talk • contribs) 16:09, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

Proposed criteria for football biography navboxes

Following the recent no-consensus but with a drift towards keep at the end closure of the mass TfD of continental tournamnet navboxes, I would like to make a few proposals for what navboxes should be supported by the project, and how we can go about reducing the visual clutter at the bottom of player/manager articles.

1. General rule The super-collapse function should be used when there are more than 3 managerial or 3 international navboxes using the layout discussed above: International top, Managerial mid, and current squad at the bottom.

2. Current squads - should only be used for teams playing in fully professional leagues (subject to deletion if displaying badly out of date information due to lack of updates)

3. International squads - Should only be permitted for the FIFA World Cup and the highest level of continental tournamnet (European Championship, Copa América, African Cup of Nations, Asian Cup and Gold Cup).

4. Managerial templates - (I'm not sure about the minimum standard for this one perhaps something like) Managerial templates should only be created for clubs that have played at least one season at the highest level of the national league structure, or at least 10(?) years in fully professional leagues.

5. Awards - Award navboxes should be strongly discoraged, the information and a wikilink to the award should be made available in the honours and awards section of the player/manager article.

6. Clearing succession boxes In cases where the succession box can be replaced by a managerial navbox, this should be done. In cases where the succession box does not refer to a managerial position the information (club captain, player of the year, etc) should be transcribed into the text of the article or into the honours and awards section as part of the succession box deletion process.

I hope people can bring themselves to support this proposal so that we can begin super-collapsing the big piles of navboxes and deleting all of the succession boxes and vanity award templates with some comprehensive consensus based guidelines to fall back on. Feel free to add your views below, thank you. EP 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

No arguments from me. Those criteria seem perfectly worded. – PeeJay 19:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here. We really really need to get rid of squad templates for teams not in fully pro leagues - they just encourage the creation of articles on NN footballers. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not if they're done properly - i.e. with non-notable players de-linked (and they usually are). A lot of Conference clubs have maybe two-thirds of players notable, so the navbox is a useful tool. And these players are less likely to have international navboxes, so there's less danger of clutter. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what would you have as a cutoff point for squad templates? I've seen some with only two links on - surely these are pointless? пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think ArtVandelay13 may make a good point. I'd perhaps add squad templates for teams one level below pro level, or at least for those countries where there is promotion/relegation between the bottom level and the one below. Peanut4 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be taken on a team-by-team basis: i.e. a minimum number of notable players. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Was just thinking something along those lines. It makes perfect sense. But rather than team-by-team I'd say we set a mark now. Either a percentage of the squad (half maybe) or at least a teamworth of notable players. Peanut4 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I could live with a teamworth (i.e. 11). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why this is necessary, just to protect a few English non-league sides. This could also lead to the absurd situation where player x leaves club y necessitating the deletion of the current squad navbox because less than half/only 10 of the players have played for other unrelated clubs. A less complicated alternative could be should only be used for teams playing at the national level of the league structure, which would allow navboxes down to Conference National level. I really think its better to keep it simple rather than come up with some convoluted definition aimed at preserving some pre-determined templates in English non-league football. EP 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In complete agreement with that and the complete removal of succession boxes. And it seems everything above looks good. Peanut4 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Establishing a consensus in the light of recent non conclusive TFD is quite needed. Personally I think the proposed points by English peasant are short and good formulated and I will support them if there will be some straw poll or voting. Just one note to the international navboxes - we should keep them consistent as FIFA World Cup templates are. Consistent in design, colours and naming. We should start from recently created Euro ones which almost all use different names. It's not "European Championship" but UEFA Euro etc. European Championship can be also in darts, UEFA Euro is only one. :) - Darwinek (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of leaving it a few days for discussion before opening a straw poll, so as to not get slammed for starting the !voting process too quickly. If anyone else feels it is appropriate to start a straw poll now I would not object if they set it up. EP 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I know I'm in the minority on this, but I still think that officially sanctioned awards have a place in templates. Certainly not magazine awards, etc. though. matt91486 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposals, but suggest that clubs which are fully professional but are playing in the top-flight national league (e.g., Standard Liege in Belgium or Saprissa in Costa Rica) which contains some semi-pro clubs may be allowed a squad template. These types of clubs typically play in continental championships are have notable squads, so I would hope a template is acceptable. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Any team in the Champions League certainly needs a squad template. But I think there needs to be a sensible approach to overlook any rules in certain cases for clubs that don't fit the criteria but where a template would help navigation. Peanut4 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposals

1. General rule The super-collapse function should be used when there are more than 3 managerial or 3 international navboxes using the layout discussed above: International top, Managerial mid, and current squad at the bottom.

2. Current squads - should only be used for teams playing in fully professional leagues or professional teams that are playing in leagues that are mainly professional (at least 80% 0f the teams have clearly sourced professional status). These templates are subject to deletion if they are displaying out of date and misleading information due to lack of maintenance .

3. International squads - Should only be permitted for the FIFA World Cup and the highest level of continental tournament (European Championship, Copa América, African Cup of Nations, Asian Cup and Gold Cup).

4. Managerial templates - Managerial templates should only be created for clubs that have played at least one season at the highest level of the national league structure, or at least 10 years in fully professional leagues.

5. Awards - Award navboxes should be strongly discoraged, the information and a wikilink to the award should be made available in the honours and awards section of the player/manager article.

6. Clearing succession boxes In cases where the succession box can be replaced by a managerial navbox, this should be done. In cases where the succession box does not refer to a managerial position the information (club captain, player of the year, etc) should be transcribed into the text of the article or into the honours and awards section as part of the succession box deletion process.

Straw poll

Following the discussion above, I have made a small amendment to point 2. please feel free to support or oppose the criteria as stated above. Cheers EP 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support all but 2. I'm not sure the best way to re-word or change 2, but I'd like to see this expanded for certain countries, i.e. expand for one to Conference National in England. Peanut4 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made another change to criteria 2 here which would allow Conference templates to be kept, for the demonstrably professional teams in the league. I hope this is satisfactory. EP 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I like Peanut4's expansion for number 2, and I disagree on #5. I think official awards should maintain templates. matt91486 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please define what you mean by official award? Player of the month as officially honoured by the BBC, some magazine award?, National FA award? FIFA approved award?--ClubOranje^Talk 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see why awards shouldn't be linked to in the Honours and Awards section of player/manager articles it is the natural place to look for them. In my opinion there is no need to duplicate the information in a navbox. EP 14:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I mean awards issued or recognized by national or international federations or leagues. Like the MVP of Major League Soccer, FIFA World Player of the Year, or any of the World Cup awards. I know the World Cup awards are currently succession boxes, but I think they should be turned into templates and covered by this proposal. The only non-officially organized award I'd make an exception for is the Ballon d'Or, because it's so prestigious. It's not a matter of duplication, it's a matter of navigation. Their managerial positions are also all listed in their infobox, but we keep them so we can see continuity between leaders of the club and navigate amongst them. matt91486 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support revised proposal. Jogurney (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support the revised proposal. Salt (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support the revised proposal. Note: Only a few people participate in this vote, is there any possibility to advertise it? More people = stronger consensus. - Darwinek (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal. – PeeJay 09:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal Paul  Bradbury 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal. Bigmike (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support everything except "more than 3", I think it's a too low number. If a retired player who's not managed have played for example 3 World Cups and 2 Euro's I think they don't have to be collapsed. So for me the collapse would come when a player has 6 or higher (including all cups, manager and current), not 4 or higher. ← chandler 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal. GiantSnowman 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support except #3 Mostly suppport, but some concern regarding expansion of international squad templates to highest level of federation. Relaxing the criteria only encourages more relaxation of criteria. Federation cup will be next, with the argument that it must be more notable than the individual federation tournaments as it takes the best from each and puts them together. Then it will be qualifying for above qualifying is part of the process toward winning the world cup. and so it goes.--ClubOranje^Talk 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Seasons" templates

As we're on the subject of templates, what do people think about the "... seasons" templates. I've just converted the years in {{Serie B}} to match {{The Football League Seasons}} and {{FA Cup Seasons}} as I thought it was a pretty good way of doing it. However, it seems a couple of editors aren't happy.

What do people think? Should we adopt this as our standard, or is this better? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The style used for {{Scottish Football League Seasons}} is much better. The links are all aligned, which makes the template more aesthetically pleasing, and it makes it more obvious that the Wartime years are excluded when they are greyed out as with the Scottish Football League Seasons template. – PeeJay 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually prefer visually the second one. But I likewise prefer having the greyed out seasons for the war years. I'd prefer adding that to the second template, but otherwise using that option. matt91486 (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One problem with them all is that they need endashes, rather than normal dashes. It shouldn't make much difference to the layout though. Peanut4 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we eliminate this typographical historic nonsense - does anyone in the real world ever use endashes for things like this anymore? As far as I can tell, normal dashes as per the key on the normal keyboard is used virtually exclusively these days, both in things like 2007-08, and when reporting scorelines such as 2-1. - fchd (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and my position is definitely for {{Scottish Football League Seasons}} because it aligns the years correctly in decades. Using the small font is just a minor con to ensure they align. Peanut4 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Scottish Football League Seasons}} Definitely! ← chandler 21:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now been told that people only like the {{Scottish Football League Seasons}} because it happens to start with a full line. Do people mind ones like {{The Football League Seasons}} which starts halfway along the line? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it at all. I've used the same style for {{Manchester United F.C. seasons}}. – PeeJay 13:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer full lines at the start over full lines at the end, but I'm certainly not going to lose my mind over it being different on some. But if we really wanted to standardize, I think full lines at the top look better than the bottom. matt91486 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The "new" layout looks awful. The "older" one was clearer. CapPixel (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Codswallop. The {{Scottish Football League Seasons}} style is much clearer. – PeeJay 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The font is smaller and there's no real need to divide the seasons in decades. The only thing that's ok is the grey seasons. CapPixel (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dividing the seasons into ten-year blocks makes the navbox much easier to navigate than dividing them into seven, eight or nine-year blocks, as many other "Seasons" navboxes are. True, the font is smaller, but that can be changed. Other than that, there's really nothing wrong with this style of navbox. – PeeJay 08:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with {{The Football League Seasons}}. It starts in the middle of the line because the league started in 1887 and we're dividing into decades. Which in my opinion is hugely more preferable than 7/8 year blocks, which take too long to find the correct year. These are navigational aids not just something nice to stick at the bottom. Peanut4 (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that these templates should age. But I find easier to navigate the "other" layout. CapPixel (talk)

FWIW, I agree with Peanut4 and Pee. A decade on necah row makes navigation far easier. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Then ok. Since majority seems to agree to change the seasons, then ok. But I would leave the font larger. It's easier to read. CapPixel (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately large font won't fit all the text in on a row of 10. Peanut4 (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Click here. CapPixel (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Flags in club infoboxes

A common occurrence in club articles is a flag next to the chairman and manager in the infobox. I have a habit of removing these, citing WP:FLAG. However, it seems I am frequently reverted, and upon undertaking a random sample of club articles they seem to be extremely common, perhaps indicating a de facto consensus. Opinions on the matter welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In my view flags used in club infoboxes for manager and chairman ARE acceptable; however, flags in player's infoboxes to represent which country the team they used to play for in is a big no-no. GiantSnowman 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with GiantSnowman. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what flags in player infoboxes can look like in Internet Explorer:

So I tend to remove them. No problem in the club infoboxes though, as the chairman/manager fields have their own rows. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Oldelpaso. What use really are the flagicons? It's style over substance as far as I see it, otherwise you could make a case for flags everywhere. I certainly remove them from player infoboxes. Peanut4 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with flags... --necronudist (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an understanding for flags, though only if the player have played in clubs abroad, thus showing that the clubs are not from the same league etc. Though I think it looks better without flags, I dont add or remove flags when I (dont) see them ← chandler 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of them in club lists for exactly the reason ArtVandelay points out. They screw up the infoboxes, plain and simple. Qwghlm (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

People still using ie in 2008, that's our real problem. BanRay 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat difficult to solve, though. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jordi Cruyff

Cannot help but think that his last name should be the same as his fathers....Johan Cruijff. Your thoughts please. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. In most English language sources, Jordi's surname is spelled with a Y, mainly because that's how it was spelled when he was with Man Utd. – PeeJay 22:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 19#Diacritics in article titles. I think this boils down to whether Jordi is Dutch, in which case it ought to be Cruijff, or Spanish, then maybe it maybe Cruyff. But according to the previous discussion, it should mirror his actual name. Peanut4 (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that PJ's reasoning holds water, because his father's surname is far more often spelled with a Y in English language sources as well (146,000 vs 91,000 on Google, English language only), although he did not play for any English club (the Y spelling was on the back of his shirt for his English language clubs in the USA. Wiki article titles often show place of origin orthographics rather than common English use, although the player's own charitable foundation provides the Y spelling in its English-language site, so if there is to be uniformity, I would suggest that it would be on the Y spelling. The main grounds for differentiation would be that JC Snr played much of his career in the Netherlands, while Jnr has never been based there as a professional, but that is not a very strong reason either. As long as the redirects are there (and they are, for both generations), I don't think it matters that much. Kevin McE (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to side with whatever FIFA has the player listed as in their English language version, on the basis that is what their FIFA registration most likely is. But that's just me.--ClubOranje^Talk 09:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be both Cruyff, 'cause that's the common spelling, due to the IJ issue. --necronudist (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this is the IJ issue to, but other dutch footballers have ij instead of y (Wesley Sneijder for example) ← chandler 19:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sneijder is another example of the IJ issue. So is Dirk Kuyt, as it happens. Before he moved to Liverpool, his name would almost always have been spelled "K-U-IJ-T". – PeeJay 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, can't remember now (but they'll probably show it in the match highlights soon), if it says Kuyt or Kuijt on his shirt right now? ← chandler 19:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Pierre van Hooijdonk? Peanut4 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And what about Feijenoord ← chandler 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we know what the situation is with Feyenoord. Although their stadium is still officially known as Feijenoord Stadion, the club's name officially uses a Y. – PeeJay 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and what about Frank Rijkaard? ;) ← chandler 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much in the way of consistency with these articles at the moment, with the exception of Feyenoord which seems to fall into a different criteria. Are some of these entries wrong? Should we be Anglicising the IJ? Or should they be Cruijff, Rijkaard, van Hooijdonk, Cruijff, etc? Peanut4 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think something has to be done for consistency, right now in the dutch euro 08 team, we have Ooijer, Mathijsen, Sneijder and Kuyt. ← chandler 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So does the BBC Report though. Peanut4 (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just meant the inconsistency, I know that's how it's reported all over. But we really shouldn't base the article names on the media, I think we should have the correct name. I mean if we'd only go by English language media no Swedish player in the NHL would have å, ä or ö in their names. Ofc this probably is a bigger issue than just for wp:footy.. if it were to rename all ij's from y to ij... I would at least be for changing the article titles for all players to ij, just for the same reasons i'm for å, ä and ö's instead of a and o's in nordic names, č and ć's instead of c's for slavic names etc. ← chandler 01:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

List of former Scottish Football League clubs - wider opinion sought on point raised at FLC

Should this list include Meadowbank Thistle, or is it generally considered to be the same club as Livingston? I notice the two "incarnations" do not have separate WP articles, not that that's necessarily an indication of anything........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. It's the same club with a different name. Ideally Clydebank (II) shouldn't be on there either, as they are still in existence as Airdrie United. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the same club, though - it retains the old club's registration, but its identity - name, location, fanbase - is different. That's what a football club is, not the company's registration. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from the FLC page) My view is that if you change location and name then it's effectively a different club, a different identity - the Livingston situation is almost identical to MK Dons in that respect. To me, the fact that Meadowbank Thistle don't have their own article is an oversight. ArtVandelay13 (talk)

It's also worth pointing out that when teams in North America move, which is more common, the old identity is consodered defunct, and that Airdrie United's history [1] is all about Airdrieonians, with no attempt to co-opt Clydebank's. Livingston, meanwhile, consider 2005 to be its tenth anniversary [2]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Dundee United are celebrating their centenary next year as they were formed in 1909, although they were intially called Dundee Hibernian. They merely changed their name in 1923, without moving, etc. and are definitely the same club; it's a bit trickier with the likes of Meadowbank/Livingston and Airdrie Untied/Clydebank, as Clydebank have been resurrected and continue outwith senior football... •Oranje•·Talk 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Meadowbank are exactly the same organisation as Livingston - there was continuity of staff, players and most importantly of all legal league status. While a change of ground and name are major events in the history of a club, it does not make it a new organisation. - fchd (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A club is much more than the organisation and legal status though - they are not the things that people support. Frankly, for a list of former league clubs not to reflect that there used to be a team in Edinburgh called Meadowbank Thistle would be incomplete. Now, by way of a compromise you could have a separate section for teams that changed identity (i.e. location and name). I think that's fairly unnecessary, but these teams have to be on the list - they're part of Scottish football history. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Having a whole separate section just for two clubs who moved location/name would be silly, in my opinion. I've added Meadowbank into the main table, with a note explaining/clarifying their situation ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bojan Krkić or Bojan Krkic?

Is his name definetely "Bojan Krkić", and not "Bojan Krkic"? By looking at a google search, most websites give the c without the accent. Also, his profiles at the Barcelona website and playerhistory do not include the accent. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He was born from a Krkić, indeed. Are diacritics admitted at Spanish birth register? --necronudist (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: we at PH aren't so attentive to diacritics, his Serbian father is without accent too. --necronudist (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a fact that Krkić is a Serbian name and is spelled with the ć. It doesn't matter how many lazy sources spell it otherwise. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 19#Diacritics in article titles and talk:Nikola Žigić, where it was decided to have the article at the correct Nikola Žigić despite the number of lazy sources spelling it "Zigic". - MTC (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Krkić is a Serbian name, diacritics and all, but Bojan was born in Spain, and presumably registered in Spain. Therefore, as necronudist says, we need to consider whether or not "ć" is a legally accepted letter on Spanish birth registers. Anyone got access to Bojan's birth certificate. – PeeJay 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bojan's father was also a player by the same name who is notable enough for his own article - see Playerhistory, but what should it be listed under? Bojan Krkić, Sr.? GiantSnowman 12:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of Bojan Krkić (Yugoslav footballer) or Bojan Krkić (footballer born 19XX) ← chandler 13:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Bojan Krkić (footballer born 1965), with Bojan Krkić, Sr. as a redirect (this form seems to be used very often in the English media). There is already an article about him in the Italian wikipedia, by the way. [3] --Angelo (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Darron Gibson – flags, Wolves

Myself and User:PeeJay2K3 are having some problems with above article. All I am interested in doing is making better articles but it is this sort of pedantic enforcement of MoS that ruins Wiki. Any comments

• • Regarding flags. First of all I am not a big fan of using flags willy nilly but I think that in this, and similar cases, it is justified. It helps distinguish between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. PeeJay may know the difference between the two, but not everybody else does. I wish had a pound for every time I saw a Wiki article were an Irish player was linked to the wrong national team. It is not just a problem with Wiki. This Man Utd site incorrectly refers to Gibson as an Northern Ireland U21 international. In addition I cannot find any particular guideline against using flags here.
  • Regarding Wolves. The clubs own website is called www.wolves.premiumtv.co.uk and it displays the word Wolves prominently. So if the club use the name why can’t it be used in Wiki. Even the Wiki article on the club states that the club is well known by this name. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding flags, they are a no-no in player's infoboxes. However, I see no problem in using the colloquial 'Wolves' to describe that particular club. GiantSnowman 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing against using "Wolves" in the main text of the article, but to use it in the infobox (a slightly more formal setting) is a bit inappropriate, especially when the infoboxes of Matt Murray, Jody Craddock, Seyi Olofinjana, Michael Kightly and Jay Bothroyd all use "Wolverhampton Wanderers". – PeeJay 17:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, in infoboxes the full "Wolverhampton Wanderers" should be used; keep "Wolves" for the article itself. GiantSnowman 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Where exactly does it say using flags is a no no in infoboxes. If that is the case why were these Germany, Israel and Northern Ireland etc designed in the first place. Plus what difference does it make if Wolves is used in infobox. Your answers just prove that you being pedantic as I suggested. Please give a proper logical explanation and don’t just quote MoS Djln--Djln (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And your logical explanation as to why we shouldn't abide by the MoS is...? - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FLAG#Use of flags for sports people is what you're looking for. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Where flags are used the table, it should clearly indicate that the flag represents sporting nationality not nationality

MoS are just guidelines. They are not law and cannot cover every single issue that exists. Does the way I used the flags not fall within the above guideline anyway ? I have used the flags to help clarify Gibson's sporting nationality and to show that it changed Djln --Djln (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked the bit about infoboxes, i.e:

Flags should not be used on sports peoples individual infoboxes

This appears to be fairly non-negotiable. The bit you quote refers to squad lists. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous. Can someone please explain why flags are allowed in some places and not in others. The MoS guidelines are confusing and contradict each other and I don’t find them particularly helpful. The Darron Gibson article is now being vandalised by several editors, making petty and trivial changes that have undermined its quality. Some of the info, unrelated to flags, has been removed and when I tried to restore it I was threatened with blocking. This is very disillusioning and not particulatly fair. Why do so many editors have to be pedantic and resort to threats. Is there no room for civilised discussion. This the ugly face of Wiki that destroys the fun. I will leave article as is for now. Hopefully in a few days thing will have cooled down and I can repair the damage. Djln --Djln (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No, you were threatened with a block because you have made four reverts of people removing the flags in less than a day. If you find the above statement confusing (Flags should not be used on sports peoples individual infoboxes) then I'm quite concerned. And I would seriously not advise returning to the article to "repair it" in a couple of days; accept what you've been told and move on. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• At worst, you have just proved my point by your threatening and insulting behaviour. Or at best you have just misunderstood. This statement clearly (Where flags are used the table, it should clearly indicate that the flag represents sporting nationality not nationality) the one you have quoted. That is the confusing issue. Just compare the article before I initially edited it and tell me I did not improve it. I can live with the article not having flags although I think it is better with them. As I seem to be out voted I will accept the majority view even if a satisfactory explanation has not been forthcoming. However this does not explain why whole chunks of the text have being altered for the worse. This is what needs to be repaired. I don’t object to people improving it further but that is not what has happened. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll explain again: The statement you are referring to refers to tables (as it says). Tables are not the same thing as infoboxes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick point on "Wolves". I really think we should use the full name, Wolverhampton Wanderers, certainly in the infobox and the first use in the article. Otherwise it is far too informal. Otherwise we'd have Man U, Sheff Wed, etc, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the samples you gave, which are abbreviations, the word Wolves is widely used within the English language. It is also widely used beyond the scope of any other club nickname I can think of. I would even suggest that it used far more used than the clubs full name. So much so that even club uses it more prominently on the their website then the clubs official name. While I would discourage the use of nicknames in articles, I think this an exceptional case Djln --Djln (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You could, however, say the same about West Brom. – PeeJay 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

West Brom again is just an abbreviation and the Brom part is not used elsewhere unlike Wolves Djln--Djln (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree there. I'd say West Brom is used in place of West Bromwich Albion just as much as Wolves is used in place of Wolverhampton Wanderers. – PeeJay 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said of Spurs. I don't necessarily disagree about using them, but I would rather the full formal name be used first time. Peanut4 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Host countries in the infoboxes

I want to propose a small change, which I think will make the infoboxes look better. If you look at for example UEFA Euro 2000, 2002 FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro 2008 and UEFA Euro 2012 (can't come to think of any other shared championships at this moment). They all have

[host country 1] / [host country 2]

What about changing this to {{flagicon}} [host country 1]<br />{{flagicon}} [host country 2]

[host country 1]
[host country 2]

This is how the shared top goalscorers are presented. ← chandler 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good suggestion. It seems nice and more consistent. Salt (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan dos Santos

page: Jonathan dos Santos

I created the page for Giovani dos Santos' brother, but i need help, i'm certainly no expert at making articles, but i was surprised that there isn't an article about him, so i did my best to make it, and would appreciate someone to carry on from where i left off. thelastone36 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't an article about him because he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE criteria. Hence it's been prodded. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

League play-off games and goals

Are these included in the stats within the infobox or not? I ask as at least two Football League players have play-off games and goals included in the stats - Richard Garcia and Stephen Gleeson. With Garcia there was disagreement at the time over whether to include the stats with two uses reverting each other, but it has been left to stand with the games/goals from the Play-Offs. I thought though that they weren't included in the stats? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

From past discussions, it's been decided that they shouldn't be and my opinion is they shouldn't be. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So would I be ok changing the stats for those two? No idea about any other players, they were just two that I noticed. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Play-off games aren't part of the regular league season and so don't count towards league games. A league is one where each team plays an equal number of games. So I'd say you would be free to correct the players. I think a fair few Darlo players' have them included. I've already corrected Ben Parker and Guylain Ndumbu-Nsungu as they are on my watchlist. Peanut4 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe clubs would include those games inside their league appearances. Alexsanderson83 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Some clubs possibly would, but it's impossible to know if every club would. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The statistical publications in the UK - e.g. Rothmans, Soccerbase, etc, don't include them, so it makes sense for us to be consistent with that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the two players I mentioned above. I will also have a look at other Hull City and Stockport County players.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Under current practice, it seems like they should be excluded. It begs the question though as to why? They are a direct follow on from the league season and are used to settle league outcomes (i.e. promotion). In my opinion, they are just as relevant in a player's career as the games leading up to the play-offs. - fchd (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Leagues tournaments in Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay and elsewhere the league championship is/has been decided with a playoff or playoff series. appearances(goals) from these games are included in player profiles in most local sources. We should not exclude these games on the basis that soccerbase (which doesn't even cover football across the pond) wouldn't include them. If it is decided not to include them for English teams, it should be made clear that English playoff games are not "league games" not implied that all playoff games are not league gamesEP 19:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Different leagues, use different systems. English play-off games aren't part of the English leagues and don't count towards league statistics in all leading sources. That's not to say, the same doesn't apply in other countries. Peanut4 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Eric Hayward

I'm looking for an admin to move "Eric Hayward (footballer)" to "Eric Hayward", since the current occupant of the latter link (via a re-direct) is a Salvation Army bandleader. I would hope appearances in over 300 League games and two FA Cup Finals makes the former more notable. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All sorted hopefully, let me know if I missed anything! -- Chuq (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"xxxx in association football" articles

From browsing through 2004 in association football through to 2008 in association football, particularly the national league winners section, it seems every article uses a different style - from multiple columns vs single columns, flags or no flags, colons or dashes - I'm happy to change them but don't know which format is preferred by the majority. Suggestions? -- Chuq (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I swear this was brought up last week, but I'm having trouble locating it. Thanks for sorting out the Eric Hayward move, by the way. - Dudesleeper / Talk 02:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the 2007 in association football#National champions (which I'll admit I did) as each continent isn't just a big list that doesn't fit on a single screen like this. Someone tried to insert flags into it, but I thought it looked hideous. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the flag look nice, but in general I do hate flag clutter so I'm certainly willing to let it go. I replaced {{col-break}} with {{col-3}} which spaces the columns evenly. Apart from that I'm happy to modify the other years to match the 2007 article if no-one is against this layout? -- Chuq (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wereld van Oranje

{{Wvo}} is used to add external links to articles about dutch players (example). I don't think these kinds of links add anything of value to the article, yet I'm seeing them being spammed across lots of articles. Personally I only include the official website and club profile as external links. Anything else (like career statistics) should be in the references. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-9 07:17

By the same token, would you be asking for the removal of soccerbase.com from thousand of player articles' external links sections. There might, however, be an argument against this specific site, which apart from being in Dutch, offers, as far as I can make out, only data about appearances for the national side. Kevin McE (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tbh, I wouldn't be opposed to deleting links to Soccerbase. That site is fraught with errors and inaccuracies and, personally, I only ever use it as a last resort. – PeeJay 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I also wouldn't be opposed to soccerbase links being deleted, for both the above reasons, and the fact that soccerbase is a commercial site without official connection to any football governance body.--ClubOranje^Talk 07:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Soccerbase is particularly bad at Scottish lower league level with several clubs at least seven or eight managers out of date. PeeJay, what other sources do you use instead? •Oranje•·Talk 07:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually like to use club-specific stats websites where possible. – PeeJay 08:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

theFA.com as listed on many english players' sites also only gives data about international stats--ClubOranje^Talk 08:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

van, le, de, di, dos

No, not The Sound of Music, this is about naming conventions. I'd always assumed, that when a surname begins with van, or similar word, it is written in lower case in the full name, but capitalised when the first name is omitted - e.g. Marco van Basten, or Van Basten. But on Wikipedia, we always seem to use the lower case variant (such as on squad templates), and it's always looked odd to me - most media I've seen uses the method I described, as apparently does Dutch Wikipedia. Thoughts? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your way is the right way. --necronudist (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the nationality of the individual. IIRC, Dutch uses lower case at all times, except at the start of a sentence, whereas Italian names are capitalised (e.g. Alessandro Del Piero or Daniele De Rossi). – PeeJay 12:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it depends on the national customs... neither all Dutch have always the lowercase tussenvoegsel. Dutch players of Belgian heritage have them uppercase. --necronudist (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On a related topic - in Defaultsort, a player named John van Smith would be sorted under Smith, John van; what about players such as De Boer, Dos Santos etc.? GiantSnowman 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about this too, at least with English clubs - I mean, aren't Arsenal fans likely to look for Van Persie under V, not P? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the English custom should be kept...but I'm not so sure. For my stuff usually I use native sorting method, even with many footballers born in different nations. But this is an English Encyclopedia (I don't agree, but...), so I don't know. --necronudist (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As the tussenvoegsel article says, people in the Netherlands are sorted in telephone directories as though the tussenvoegsel were not present (e.g. "Smith, John van"), but in Belgium the names are sorted with the tussenvoegsel left in. I would assume that other countries that capitalise the surname prefix, such as Italy, would also sort names including the surname prefix. – PeeJay 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do. However, I think that keeping the England customs should avoid problems and misunderstanding. But, I repeat, I privately use the national standards. --necronudist (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Case for Merger

Should these the articles 1950 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA - Group 1) and 1950 British Home Championship be merged ? Both articles are about the same set of games with the 1950 BHC doubling up as a 1950 World Cup group. I never nominated articles for merger before, so I’m not aware off procedure. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - they clearly cover the same ground. If the consensus agrees, I suggest that the articles are merged at 1950 British Home Championship, with the other page becoming a re-direct. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely the correct course of action. – PeeJay 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed with Daemonic Kangaroo that they should be merged to 1950 British Home Championship being the annual competition.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Djln has now completed the merger, and has done a great job. Only one quibble - does anyone know where there is a report/summary of the Wales v. Ireland game on 8 March 1950, or where the Wales squad is listed? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with page move vandalism

User:ShotsDRIFTWOOD has just made some page moves that are blatant vandalism. Please could someone revert as I really need to log off now. Thankyou. --Jameboy (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to take that to WP:ANI. Not exactly your bog standard vandalism there. Peanut4 (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Woody (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it. Peanut4 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No hes not, I've blocked him. Woody (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. Much appreciated. --Jameboy (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Help required from someone with deletion powers

I'm wondering if someone who has the ability to delete articles can help me. Someone added a load of circular links to the Kalamazoo Outrage page, in the player roster. Could someone please do me a huge favor and delete all the circular redirects for all the players EXCEPT for Terry Alvino? When people add circular redirects it makes keeping track of future PDL-MLS draftees almost impossible. Thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, there are a few options here:

1. Change the redirects into full articles about the players
2. Remove the links to the redirect pages from the club article
3. Delete the redirects, leaving redlinks on the club article

Personally I think #1 is the best option, unless there are notability issues, in which case #2 the best alternative. -- Chuq (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the third option of that's OK - of the Kalamazoo players only Terry Alvino fits any kind of notability guidelines, and the redlinks are actually useful for this purpose as it helps with back-linking if and when any of the players turn pro. If someone could delete the articles for every played EXCEPT Alvino, but leave the redlinks, I would be very grateful! --JonBroxton (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that's a good suggestion, but just wonder is it suitable to create red links for some footballer who cannot fulfill the notablility criteria at the moment. Since a red link seems to be suggesting a article on the subject should be created, but it is obviously not because the players are not notable at the mean time. So maybe #2 is a better option for those players who can't reach the notability threshold. Salt (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances I would entirely agree, but the thing about the PDL specifically is that it is a development league, and the only players who are notable NOW are ex-pros like Alvino. However... the useful thing about redlinks in the context of this league is that 60-70 or so of the players who are playing in the PDL *this* year will play in MLS *next* year after the MLS draft, and as such will have articles created about them. Keeping the redlinks in place now makes adding PDL stats to their future pro bios much easier because the structure is already there through the "what links here" function. You can just move the player's name from the roster to the 'notable former players' section when they turn pro without having to spend hours searching for the right player and the right team. It just helps keeping track of pro players' PDL careers SO much easier. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So... um... is someone willing to help me with the Kalamazoo Outrage page? The whole project shouldnt take more than 15 minutes for an experienced editor.--JonBroxton (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple clubs with the same name

Birchills United have announced they are changing their name to Bloxwich United for their first ever season at Step 6. We already have an article on Bloxwich United, but it is a completely different (defunct) club and (other than playing at their old ground) the current club has no formal connection to it. Should the current club's content be merged into the article and the article rewritten to cover both clubs, or should their articles be kept separate? And if the latter, what form of disambiguation is best....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in the same way as Crystal Palace F.C. and Crystal Palace F.C. (founded 1861) ← chandler 11:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gets my vote. Sorry, gets my !vote. Sorry, I agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What he said. – PeeJay 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the current club's website they specifically seem to have chosen the name Bloxwich United A.F.C. Would having both Bloxwich United F.C. and Bloxwich United A.F.C. as separate articles (with appropriate dabbing hatnotes and Bloxwich United as a dab page) be acceptable.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! GiantSnowman 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that sounds the best solution for now. - fchd (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

One thought though, are the new version notable enough for an article yet? They've not played at Level 10 or above, and while they may be up for promotion as winners of WMRL Div One, but applying the same standard to clubs as we do for players, until they've actually PLAYED at a notable level, perhaps they're non-notable at this point? - fchd (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I don't really care either way, but the word from the club is that they've definitely been accepted into the Premier Division, so it seems a bit pointless to delete the article now and then recreate it in six weeks' time. It's not like the case of a youth team/reserve player, where there's no guarantee that he'll ever actually crack the first team squad, in this case we know for a fact that (barring some ridiculously unlikely turn of events) BUAFC will definitely be playing step 6 football in August.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's also two independent, reliable, in-depth sources in the article, meaning that it passes WP:N..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Shirt name

Hi! I would like to ask the members of this project what they think about the idea to add a column "shirt name" to the UEFA Euro 2008 squads? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I see no use in having such a column. Sorry! GiantSnowman 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No great advantage, and opportunities to argue about diacritics and capitalisation (I hate that some of these shirt names ignore the rules of capitals for proper names) Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I think shirt names are specific for a tournament. E.g. maybe it is interesting to see that Fernando Torres uses "TORRES" as shirt name (in 2004 and 2006 he uses "F. TORRES"), but David Villa uses "DAVID VILLA" and Andrés Iniesta uses "A. INIESTA". Maybe it is also interesting to see that Giourkas Seitaridis uses "GIOURKAS" as shirt name in 2004, but uses "SEITARIDIS" in 2008. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see any reason whatsoever to include this column. Peanut4 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I can't see what encyclopedic value this would add -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the same, although don't let that put you off proposing other ideas here. •Oranje•·Talk 08:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much faith in shirt names, especially since David Beckham played the 1997 Charity Shield as "Beckam".[4] I think Bentley's (pictured in link) tops that, however. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Amusing as those errors are, shirtnames are important, and should be used - for example, as the display name in squad templates. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that, kinda, for example it would be unnecessary to use "F. Torres" if there isnt another Torres in the Squad, but "David Villa" might be more useful. And if a player uses his first name instead of his last name the first name could be on the template. ← chandler 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[Re-indent] - having shirt names on templates is not the issue, the issue is having a shirt-name column on squad lists. GiantSnowman 15:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

I've just created this article. I have some questions on the article's name. Is the current name "Copa Argentina de Fútbol" a suitable one? It is the official name but it is in Spanish. Should I translate it into English? Or just call it "Copa Argentina"? Salt (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't see any need to translate the name..cosme. (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done the right thing - you could always create the English name equivalent as a redirect to the proper (Spanish) name. •Oranje•·Talk 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessive level of detail on kit icons

I always thought the football kit icons were meant to give a general idea of how a kit looks, without too many of the bells and whistles on modern shirts. However, look at the ones now on Charlton Athletic F.C.. Should this be the way to go? (If it is, we might just as well have dedicated pictures for each club, as the sponsorship details will differ almost every time). - fchd (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There really is an excessive level of detail on some kits. Details in the actual design of the kit are OK, I would say, but adding club/country logos and sponsor logos is overdoing it. – PeeJay 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sponsor logos and decals should NOT be on kit icons.--JonBroxton (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, should certainly be no badges, logos, etc. - the idea is that kit designs should be generic enough to be used for more than one team. •Oranje•·Talk 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

something that might have to do a bit with sponsor etc, off the top of my head I can come up with Lyon (sponsor) and Russia (numbers) where their desgin is "cut" by the sponsor/numbers but here in WP they are not cut what to do about things like that? ← chandler 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

From Template:Football kit/doc:

To create a new pattern template follow the examples below. When you have created a new pattern please add it to the list below. Do not create patterns for minor details on a kit, the template is for showing basic team colours. It is not supposed to be an accurate drawing of the kit.

Crystal clear. Get rid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty with far too much detail. But they're the worst two I've seen. Peanut4 (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, get rid of them. As pointed out above, if the kits were "personalised" for each individual club, there'd be no point having the basic patterns, as every team would be different...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So, so horrible that I had to change it straight away. Dancarney (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, my work has been undone, and the user has left an upset comment on the talk page. Dancarney (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Kits should only have basic colours & designs. GiantSnowman 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed Crystal Palace has the same issue..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And the England national football team, all done by the same user in good faith. - fchd (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The new Crystal Palace home kit does need a (logo and ad-free) template making for it, however. Is anyone able to do this? Dancarney (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for England away. Dancarney (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's about time the whole template was overhauled as it's totally out of hand. With some clever templating we could have more than one colour specified which would greatly reduce the number of templates - i.e. white stripes, black stripes, blue stripes images etc. could be replaced by a general 'stripes' image and the colour is specified as an optional secondary one if need be. Qwghlm (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2008 Group tabels

A little idea I thought I'd run by here, at the moment we have the group tables in the group articles, the main article and I've seen some national teams with the groups in. Now it would be easier to just update the group table from one place, but I don't really think its necessary to create separate templates for these groups. So what about adding <noinclude></noinclude> around everything in the group articles except the group table and then use {{:UEFA Euro 2008 Group A}} etc. in UEFA Euro 2008? ← chandler 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but it seems like a lot of effort for something so minor. I will say, however, that I don't think the tables should be included on national teams' articles. – PeeJay 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to just update from one place even if its just used on one other place. ← chandler 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and did it ← chandler 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup

Ten days at FLC with nary a comment other than one little grammatical quibble, anyone want to have a look before the FLC fails due to lack of interest.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League season listing

I don't know about you guy's but wasn't the old format on the UEFA Champions League page better when it had the most current season at the top of the list? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All timelines should start with the current season last on the list. Peanut4 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Peanut4 - oldest first, newest last. That's how it is virtually always shown in printed sources as well. - fchd (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. – PeeJay 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys I read a lot of what gets written on here (usually by the same group of people) and there seem to be some very definate opinions about things without much explanation. The question asked was, do you think it was better? You didn't answer that question you simply said it should be done in a certain way without an explanation. I could make a case for why it should be done that way. However I could also make a case for why it should be done the other. Personally I don't have a strong opinion, but probably prefer most recent at the top. But please stop stating things as defacto fact and try and enter into the spirit of this by providing some reasoning behind your argument. BTW I don't buy because it's always been done taht way. Paul  Bradbury 22:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For a start try Wikipedia:Timeline standards. It's a given fact that timelines and such lists should start at the, well, start. Secondly Madrid's win in 1955 has an effect on 1956, on 1957, etc, etc. But Madrid's win in 1957 has no effect on 1955. The past dictates the future, not the other way round. You wouldn't write a history of the Champions League starting with the most recent season, so neither would you write a list on the history of the Champions League starting with the most recent season. Peanut4 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree, although I can still see value in writing it the other way around (for both lists and a prose), I think as a standard that makes sense. Just asking for explanations instead of opinions. Paul  Bradbury 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

English seasons

As a result of a minor edit war on the Premier League 2008-09 page, I thought it best to bring this point up here. Am I right in thinking the current unwritten rule is that English seasons run from 1 July to 30 June the following year? And is it a good idea to include this somewhere in each season-orientated entry. Peanut4 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes to both counts - seasons begin on 1st July, and it would be advisable to have such a fact present on season articles. GiantSnowman 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure if the English season has an officially-defined end date, but I know each new one officially starts on 1 July. Some people say that there is a "pre-season" period from 1 June to 30 June, meaning that the season proper would start on 31 May. However, the pre-season stuff has to be included somewhere, so I usually stick it on the end of the previous season. – PeeJay 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The official end of the season in England is 31st May. The period of June is a "close season", officially neither belonging to the previous one or the following one. I'd certainly be favour of standardising our approach though, leaning slightly towards including it in the previous season. Explanatory notes are certainly a good idea though. - fchd (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Leeds City Vixens L.F.C.#taggs

Could someone try and understand what User:Roosterrulez is trying to do here exactly? And he's clearly just trying to retaliate against me after this. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments needed

Can members of this project have a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Templates#.7B.7Bfb_end.7D.7D Gnevin (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Games ending with penalty kicks

When we post the scoring details of games ending in penalty kicks, it is not always obvious which team kicked first. Can someone think of a simple way to note which team was the first to kick without confusing the reader with too much detail? Juve2000 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it significant.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not overly so, but in the case of team A kicking first and team B missing one, the final penalty count ends at 5-3 due to the final penalty not being required and team B only has taken 4, whereas if team B kicks first and has a miss, the total count would reflect 4-5, both having taken 5. in the first example, not knowing who went first may leave the impression 2 were missed. Juve2000, could you point to an example where this would be used?--ClubOranje^Talk 09:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the example I was thinking of when I made this comment. Assume team A and team B are at 4-4 going into their 5th penalty. Team A misses and Team B scores, thus all 10 penalty kicks are listed on the wikipedia page. When reading the data, I cannot tell if Team A kicked last knowing it HAD to score, or if Team B kicked last knowing a goal would mean victory. And to answer a previous question if its significant, probably not to most, but you can make that same arguement about 80% of the data.Juve2000 (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that - by point to an example I meant show me a page where it shows penalties being taken so I can see how it is currently presented and consider a solution to the issue. --ClubOranje^Talk 06:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Examples: 2008 UEFA Champions League Final#Match details or 2008 Scottish League Cup Final#Match details. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be worth indicating. Perhaps by specifying 1st kick / 2nd kick above each team's list. I tried a mock up of numbering the penalties, but it looked a bit manky.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal selected images

I nominated some images for the portal at Portal:Association football/Selected picture, but I don't think many people watch that page, so I thought I'd leave a message here. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-12 19:48

Numberless players

What should the number be shown as for players who have not been designated a squadn number? I would say "––", but User:Spurs 2008 says "--" looks "more better and professional"... I find that quite ridiculous to be honest. Opinions? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and that is the convention I use. I don't see how two minus signs are more professional and more better isn't even grammatically correct so I am not sure I would trust their reliability on the use of a long dash over a minus sign anyway. Just my 2 cents. Paul  Bradbury 19:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not "—" (one character versus your two)? But yeah, definitely not what Spurs 2008 suggests. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-12 20:01

I go against the majority here, and prefer "--", i.e. hyphens. Just my personal preference. - fchd (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "--". It looks quite poor and unprofessional. I much prefer a single "—" emdash. Peanut4 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, one dash is better than two. GiantSnowman 21:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think -- two dashes is better than one. It looks better.

Referees

You are trying to improve the quality of notable players, clubs and sttadiums articles. Surelyyou should do the same for the referees of the game, or don't you care about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.23.219 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We care, we care!. It is probably just most people have more interest in the players, managers, clubs etc. Feel free to contribute by improving referee articles. You will find it easier to track your own edits etc. if you register a username and edit under that. Just click Log in / create account in the top right corner.--ClubOranje^Talk 10:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several articles about referees - see Category:English football referees. Unfortunately, unless a ref "screws up" they don't generate a lot of comment, so there are few reliable sources. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Football League article

Someone has posted a rather hypothetical approach at Scottish_Football_League#Beyond_2008-9 which has no sources or references, and seems to be nothing more than soomeone's grand idea. What would be the most appropriate action? •Oranje•·Talk 10:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and delete it! I just did. Qwghlm (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Captainbeecher

The above user has recently been making rather a lot of edits to player articles regarding FA Cup shocks most of which are referenced to a site that he himself appears to have created. See, for example, his latest edit to John Devey which is referenced to http://www.freewebs.com/captainbeecher/number18.htm. I suspect that this is the same guy who created the FA Cup Final articles such as that at hometown.aol.co.uk/captainbeecher/1890FACUPFINAL.html preceded by http://. As these articles are deemed to be Spam, I cannot link directly to it.

Most of the edits appear to be accurate, although the language verges on the PoV such as "sensationally beaten". Should his references be removed? I've copied this query to his talk page. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will defend this statement myself as I regard spam as being something that bears little reference to the statement it is being pointed at and is being done purely to advertise without providing any further reading benefit to the reader. The vast majority of bios I have edited {and may I point out here that most of the edits do not appear to be accurate-ALL of them are - and are also carefully researched against newspapers of the time were either mere stubs, containing virtually no career details of the player at all, or were heavily overloaded with detail from a particular players time with one particular club, virtually ignoring time with other clubs that was often more significant or thirdly, the detail in some cases was just plain wrong. To provide examples. Adam Haywood-his club details were wrong and only his Arsenal appearances were added. While Peter Meehan's bio, dealt solely with his time at Southampton, ignoring completely that he was a title winner with Sunderland and a cup finalist at Everton. Every edit I have made is 100% accurate and deals only with games that at the time were major events in football. For example the Millwall vs Aston Villa game was the first ever time the sporting life carried a banner football headline, a feat not repeated until Crystal Palace defeated Newcastle seven years later {'sensationally beaten' was how the Times put it and it is my oversight not to have referenced that}. If the edits were incorrect or the reference to which they are pointed did not provide further information of interest to a reader then I would agree that it is spam but not only are the edits correct, but they add more information to what are often little more than stubs and also point to further reading for the reader. In addition I would also state that these edits are being provided by an accredited soccer historian, though that is a point I only raise now when the validity of my edits is being question, hence my not adding a bio to my own home page. In closing I state that if the references are removed than all the text that has been added should also be removed, which will revert many player bios back to the mere stubs they were. Captainbeecher (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it is very bad form to add references to your own site(s). If they are considered relevant enough, others will add the links. - fchd (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Very very bad form. A conflict of interest. Self promotion. And beside that, can you explain how the site you link to meets WP:RS please? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the pages that John Devey or Adam Haywood link to and form an opinion of your own. I'm more than happy to share the research I find in newspaper libraries regarding these players with Wikipedia but find myself between the devil and the deep blue sea. Much of the information I have sourced it not available on any other internet website, otherwise Im sure it would have made wikipedia by now. I have supplied information of players before but seen it deleted because the source, often a newspaper from 18?? has been challenged as not being reliable. yet this information is good enough for books on the subject {I am a researcher whose information is collated in books e.g. The F.A. Cup The complete story by Guy Lloyd and Nick Holt. My efforts and expert knowledge on the competition is credited on page 415 of said book while many of the previously unpublished soundbites contained in it were researched by me, some of which now appear on wikipedia {many without source or reference I might add - wouldn't it be cat amonst the pigeons if I asked for those to be sourced with a reference from elsewhere or face removal?}. So in answer to the question, tell me how anything published in wikipedia meets WP;RS? It becomes an individual opinion what is a reliable source and what is not and I can assure you that there are dozens of statements on wikipedia that have come from official histories and actual club websites that when investigated are actually incorrect. So sure, I'm linking to a web site created by myself but at least it's an accurate historical record.Captainbeecher (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Captainbeecher can be right...Reliable doesn't work like: FIFA = reliable, anonymous website = not reliable. It's a matter of sources and accuracy in researching. Maybe it isn't reliable, but I think a different approach is needed discussing this issue. --necronudist (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought this obvious - if one's website is dealing with factual claims (e.g. who won what or what place a team finished) and it is accepted by the rest of the community, then I don't see a problem - I am thinking of users such as User:Richard Rundle, who is one of our most invaluable contributors. However for subjective or PoV claims (e.g. this was a "shock" or a "thrilling" match) or ones that are disputed (e.g. someone was a "legend"), then it is very poor form to use one's own website as a source. So delete the PoV and keep the factual ones. Qwghlm (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the information on your website is also in the above mentioned book (or other books) why not cite the books? They are likely to be more regarded as reliable due to the publishing process, than a personal homepage could have been slapped together with fantasy information (not to infer your page has been, just that many homepages are, hence the WP:RS issue). Even better if you can reference an additional source or review of the book which gives some backing to its authenticity. Reliable source does not need to be easily verifiable, just verifiable, and if that means a trip to the library for someone, so be it.--ClubOranje^Talk 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of reliability could be resolved with a page on the site about sources, explaining how the information has been collated. Or perhaps an "about the author" page. To continue the example of fchd, something like http://www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk/sources.htm. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I see no problem if the sources you use for your website are cited in your website.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but doesn't WP:SPS go against that by saying that generally, Self-Published Sources should not be used? D.M.N. (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a self-published source. If the problem is that he is adding his own website, another person can add it. But I think we're desperately searching a way, a little obscure rule in the middle of nowhere, to say he's wrong. Bad approach, this isn't discussing. --necronudist (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The guy did say that he has stated original newspapers as source but that these sources were deleted because there couldn't be checked {If I read it right. I've visited the site and to be honest found the content very interesting. There doesn't seem to be any money to be made in the site {re advertising} so i fail to see a problem here. Just as long as the links are credible to genuinely factual and informative material. All I would ask is that when placing your own site as a reference you also site these newspapers as well.Norniron (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

Can we mention commentary changes for clubs? EG ITFC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc+canes=me (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that significant which radio station provides the local commentary. If Radio Suffolk is mentioned then it'll need to be changed of course, but if it's not there, it probably doesn't need to be. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Ramsey

Could someone please explain to User:Minkythecat how Aaron Ramsey is now an Arsenal player, which has been confirmed by several major sources? [5] [6] [7] Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also had a polite word...GiantSnowman 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

His response, let's say is pretty straightforward. <sigh> D.M.N. (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, can the move be completed outside the transfer window? I don't know if youth players are exempt or something. Beve (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the window opened on 1 June? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the window opens on 1 July. However, Cardiff may have released Ramsey from his contract so he could sign for Arsenal early. – PeeJay 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Really?! I always thought it was 1 June... but, I've seen it be stated that it opens when the season ends, on 1 June and 1 July... can't find any clear source for its opening date. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this link, transfer window is from the last playing day of the season. This link, however, implies it opens beginning of June (based on article date and "With the transfer window having reopened at the start of this month"--ClubOranje^Talk 01:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure players aren't allowed to register with a new club before 1 July. The transfer may be complete before then, but the player isn't officially a player for his new club until 1 July. – PeeJay 08:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Forrest (footballer)

I've put this article up for peer review. Is there anyone who would like to have a look, as I think it deserves better than a "Start" rating. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Coventry City articles

I'm interested in what people think of Coventry City 2007-2008 Championship Match Facts and Coventry City 2007-2008 League Cup Match Facts. I am concerned at the ever-increasing level of detail and recentism in Wikipedia football articles. Do we really need line-ups for every match? Any comments/suggestions welcome. --Jameboy (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The results etc could be merged into Coventry City F.C. 2007-08 season or whatever the standard naming format is for club season articles. However, I agree that the level of detail is excessive, and would support a prod. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would back that up Number 57. If links are provided to either BBC reports or Soccerbase, on the Coventry City F.C. season 2007-08 article, then that would provide all these facts anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To get a firm consensus on this, I've opted to nominate the 2 articles for deletion. The discussion is here. D.M.N. (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be far too much detail on the Coventry City F.C. page too - every single Cov player who's ever played an international, tables of greatest no. of appearances for every season since 1968, etc. Dancarney (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

third kit in {{Infobox football club}}

Don't know how active the templates talk page is, so i figured more ppl would be here. What about adding the option for a third kit in {{Infobox football club}}, many clubs have third kits and it doesnt take up that much extra space, see this test. ← chandler 04:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me – I'd say be bold and add it as an optional kit in the template. •Oranje•·Talk 12:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK: couple of minor qualms: Would it make the infobox considerably wider in many instances? Is it appropriate to describe kits as home, away and third? Many clubs are not so predictable, and might wear the home kit for away matches, and the third kit where there would be no clash if they wore the away kit. But it's a good idea in principle. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well on my screen it's about 30px wider when you have the thirt kit. Well what team's wear might be different, and ofc some clubs have Home/Away/Euro Away. But i still think third is the best name, you could however add another option {{{third-name|third}}} or something like that, so ppl could name it "Euro Away" or "Alternative away" or something like that on a article-by-article basis ← chandler 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go one further and let all three strips be renamed. Some clubs might use home/away/third, some might use first/second/third, etc. •Oranje•·Talk 17:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go and add parameters for that, eventhough I don't think most clubs think of / bother explicitly saying "these are not our home shirts, these are our first shirts" ← chandler 19:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think having a third kit is a great idea, three kits isn't that much bigger than two on my browser. And I think they should be called First/Second/Third. GiantSnowman 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lineup template

Hi. I have created a template for football lineups. The template is located at User:Kalaha/sandbox2 and an example is made at User:Kalaha/sandbox3. Will somebody please take a look at it, and please comment it. Thank you. kalaha 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to devalue your work, but I cannot see any advantage of your example over the format already in use at, to use the same match example, this article. There is a minor glitch on yours with positioning of the third substitutes' names. But I must confess I don't like any match article that gives a representation of players' positions, as these are far more fluid than such a diagram implies. Kevin McE (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it's the point that it doesnt look any different, only put into a template... Kevin, about number and position, they are in there under home1pos, home1no. The only problem I see is the last sub. ← chandler 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards the templateness (sic), I hadn't realised that the others did not follow a template. If it makes it easier for the building of pages to have it as a template, then I'm not going to argue against it.

As regards the players' names on the pitch "map", I appreciate that it is determined by the text: my issue is that it does not show the fluidity and flexibility that exists in reality, with wingers switching sides, or midfielders having flexibility for playing flat or as a diamond. It may well be that I'm in a small minority on this one, and I made it clear that is is my dislike, not a fault in the template, but Kalaha asked for opinions... Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, most of the matches that we add lineup images to are organised by UEFA, who provide a convenient "Lineups" press release an hour before the match. This press release includes a diagram of the players' positions on the pitch at the start of the game, making it easier to tell who is playing where. – PeeJay 17:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In defence of lineup diagrams, my practice is to display lineups as they were at the start of the game, rather than to show where the players actually played throughout the duration of the match. This negates any fluidity of the actual lineup and is also infinitely more citable.

In relation to the actual lineup template, I don't like the way all the icons next to the name default to the left-most column. I like it so that all the yellow cards line up, and all the substitutions line up. It makes it easier to read, for one thing. Also, do you think you could increase the number of substitutes to 12, just in case we feel the need to list every substitute in a World Cup or European Championship team? – PeeJay 17:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the pitch diagram in the middle, it is way too big in relation to the size of a normal match article. In fact, I think even over-categorising players into DM, etc is too much as one of the best things about the sport of football is that everyone but the keeper doesn't stick to a single position through the game. - fchd (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't like pitches on Wikipedia - playing positions are fluid, constantly changing throughout the game. GiantSnowman 19:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well these are the starting lineups ← chandler 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really like the pitch images. They provide a free image that fills up what would otherwise be whitespace. Most people visiting these articles would probably realise that football positions are not strictly defined and that players don't have to stick to the positions shown. The image is only meant to show the starting lineup, as defined by the official squad lists given to the organisers before the game. – PeeJay 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If the text was at 100% size (as it should be for accessibility reasons), there would not be very much white space to fill! - fchd (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true. But from a stylistic point of view, the smaller text looks a lot better. Text can always be increased in size using the "increase text size" function of one's internet browser. – PeeJay 21:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Disagree 100%. The small text looks horrible, and why when I've set my default text size within my browser should I have to enlarge it to read important information on a web page? No content less than 100% size please. - fchd (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Starting lineups are not necessarily the same as starting positions. GiantSnowman 20:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but where we have press releases like this one it seems appropriate to me to copy the lineup shown. By the way, surely the definition of a lineup is the way the teams "line up" on the field, and hence it would be their starting positions. – PeeJay 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The way teams "line up" is determined by where the ball is, and at kick off are not as shown on these charts (what if a team with one striker takes kick off?) You are well aware from this discussion that the perception of those watching can be very different from the press release. Do we include that which is verifiable, even when empirical evidence shows it to be wrong? Kevin McE (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't want a discussion about the table, as I have not made it. I just wanted some ideas to fix the smaller errors there is. kalaha 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the only evident issue is that third sub. What's your opinion on the pitch map? Kevin McE (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Three points on User:Kalaha/sandbox2.

• It would only work for international games. But it either needs to be modified or a fresh template, for domestic or continental games, e.g. FA Cup Finals, Champions League Finals.
• The starting positions look on first appearance to be pre-defined to GK, RB, LB, CB, CB, RM, LM, CM, CM, CF, CF. This isn't always the case.
• I think subs and cards could do with separate columns. Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not care about that pitch map. I think it is too hard to make for every user, as it demands .svg-knowledge. That is why I made it optional.

I know the issue with the third sub, but I don't know how to fix it.

To make it fit club matches, the big flag must be optional, and optional player flags can be added.

I just chose the 4-4-2-formation as default tactic, as it is the most common.

I'm not sure, what you mean on the separate columns for the subs and cards. The template is made from the already used ones, so after the player name column, there is a column for cards and thereafter a column for subs.

Hope you understand my terrible English. kalaha 08:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a few points to try clarify things. PS No worries about the English.

• This link has optional positions for subs. Can you do the same for the starting line-up so that modifications can be made when it isn't 4-4-2?
• Your current sandbox has the yellow cards and substitutes aligned in one column. But if you look at UEFA Euro 2008 Group A#Switzerland vs Czech Republic and other such matches, yellow cards and substitutes, etc. have their own separate columns to ease alignment. Peanut4 (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the things should be fixed. I have also made an example with a club match here: User:Kalaha/sandbox4. kalaha 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Now, using this match as an example, what functionality does your template provide for players who are substituted off after being substituted on themselves? – PeeJay 17:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, a simple space could do it:

|away12pos = MF | away12no = 23 | away12player = [[Vladimir Bystrov]] | away12sub = {{subon|46}} {{suboff|70}}
kalaha 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What about if I wanted to get the subon to line up with the suboff, like in the amendment I just made to the example match (which I should have done before)? – PeeJay 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Sorry. kalaha 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, you see how Bystrov was subbed off after being subbed on? His suboff icon is further to the right than his subon icon because it's in a separate column in the table. I have now made it so that Adamov's subon icon is in the same column as Bystrov's suboff icon in order to make it obvious that Adamov was coming on for another substitute. Is there a way that this could be implemented in the template? – PeeJay 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no referee in the User:Kalaha/sandbox4 example. He'd be on United's side too, naturally, along with his assistants. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

*quashes joke* There's no need for the referee to be included in the template, as he's already listed in the {{footballbox}} template =P – PeeJay 20:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd either move the referee out of the footballbox template, or move the assistant and third official into it. Not sure there needs to be a separation, since (as I demonstrated) it might lead editors to assume a mistake has been made. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should make the lineups an optional extra for the footballbox template, and move the referee to the bottom with the assistants and fourth official. Obviously this would be prone to overuse, but we can't just not do something because we fear it might be abused. – PeeJay 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary? Further it is so rare, that I don't think it matters. kalaha 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you think, then I'm afraid I can't support this template just yet. If it can't provide the functionality of a simple table like the ones we use now, then what purpose does it serve? – PeeJay 17:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It can be (easily) fixed, but I personally don't think it is necessary. kalaha 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If it can be done easily, then you should do it, regardless of whether you think it is necessary or not. – PeeJay 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have also created 5 more subs for each team. kalaha 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, cheers. – PeeJay 19:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I will move the template to Template:Football lineup and slightly start use it. kalaha 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about anyone else, but I think it will need some instructions how to use it? Peanut4 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't have experience with making "/doc"-pages. I would prefer somebody experienced user would help with that. kalaha 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that template is in use, so the title is: Template:Football line-up. kalaha 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

European Cup / Champions League seasons template

We have {{Champions League Final}} for both the European Cup and Champions League finals (1956-current), but for the seasons we have {{European Cup Seasons}} (55–56-91–92) and {{UEFA Champions League Seasons}} (92–93-current) Wouldn't it just be better to merge them into one or the other. Or split the finals template, so we have consistency. I would at least be for merging the seasons templates ← chandler 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree on merging the season template. It's not like UEFA differentiate a whole lot between the old EC1 and UCL, albeit some news media do. I think a hint in the season article for the first UCL should be sufficient to explain what's going on. Madcynic (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kettering Town F.C.

Anybody understand what's going on with Kettering Town F.C. and Former Kettering Town F.C.? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a fork to me. The Kettering Town F.C. page looks also to have a lot of unnecessary detail on. Peanut4 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the whole thing looks a mess to me. Peanut4 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically it would appear that User:Footballfan07 was making a mess of Kettering Town F.C. and kept being reverted. As a result, he moved the article to Former Kettering Town F.C. and started a new one the way he wanted. I've deleted his "new" article and moved the old one back over it, tidied it up, and left him a little note. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Should probably delete the redirect too, as I can't really imagine anyone searching for "Former Kettering Town F.C." when searching for "Kettering Town F.C." – PeeJay 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Former football league members

I brought this up a short while ago and it seemed that no-one was particularly in favour of its existence. However, it then went to TfD and was kept with one keep and one delete vote. Was it just that people ignored the TfD, or does anyone believe it should be kept? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just been wondering about this. Mainly because it seems to be lacking a few teams recently relegated from the Football League. I can't really see what purpose it serves to be honest. Peanut4 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My main problem is its size, and the fact that it will continue to grow reasonably quickly. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the content of the template can easily be covered in the form of a category. GiantSnowman 20:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard Webb

There is impossible to edit Howard Webb but tere is lie in Euro 2008 section. "Polish prime minister Donald Tusk, who was at the stadium, said he felt like he wanted to kill Webb [23]." - it's not true. Polish prime minister wasn't in Austria - he was in Poland at that time. he said before Euro2008 "It's enough to see matches in TV for me." - ("Wystarczy mi oglądanie meczów w telewizji"). At the stadium Was polish President Lech Kaczyński and he said "It's not way to win a match!" ("Tak nie wygrywa się meczu"). In Howard Webb article as the sours is Sunday Mirror shown - i don't think it's an reliable source!!! XtraVert 2008-06-15 23:51

I have removed thetext "...who was at the stadium," as it is not actually supported by the citation. No comment on the Sunday Mirror! But I'll look for a BBC citation or something. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: I've swopped the citation for one to The Scotsman and expanded the quotation to make it clear that Tusk was describing his emotions rather than making a death threat or something! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly he didn't say he wanted to kill Webb, he said he wanted to kill. John Hayes^talk 11:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Custom kits

_fmgtest

Ok, I know this might not be totally allowed, but wouldn't it be a bit nice to be able to have higher detailed kits. I play fm quite a lot and there are very many different version of fan-made kits, now most of these are shirts only, but recently some guys over at FMGLive created a kit with shorts and socks, now they release the templates in .psd form free to the masses (but I'm not sure of the copyright, but could ask). To avoid some problems I striped the corporate/club logos of this one, if that does it any good. You could probably also create such standard templates as Image:Kit_body.png so you fill in the colour yourself. Now I know it would be too hard to try and update every club... but if it would be allowed at least, it would be great. Though these might all be under copyright from like nike, adidas etc who own (probably) the designs for the kits, even though these templates here have been made by internet folks. Just thought I'd throw the idea out, even if it wont get through ← chandler 05:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See the relevant section above. - Dudesleeper / Talk 08:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with copyright from Nike/Adidas etc. - the representations are very low resolution and we can claim fair use. There is definitely a problem with the copyright of their representations as made by the users of FMGLive, unless they all licence them under GFDL/CC-by-sa. So I think - a nice idea as it is - it's not workable. Qwghlm (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2008 controversies

This article seems to have been created in advance on the assumption that some controversies would probably occur, and so far all it has to report is that there was one questionable offside call and one dodgy penalty award. Does that really merit a full-blown article.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not in my opinion. It's clairvoyance to create it in the first place, and surely any controversies worth mentioning would be covered in articles higher up the chain? --Jameboy (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree this doesn't deserve an article, if anything some of these should be mentioned on the main euro page but i don't think those "controversies" deserve even that to be honest Prem4eva (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The title almost suggests WP:OR especially when you consider how early it was created. It should be contained within the relevant UEFA 2008 pages. Peanut4 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Degree of controversiality is POV. One man's controversy is another's clear cut decision. Should it include controversy about whether Greece should have played 3 up front? About which goalie Germany should have chosen? Lots of marginal decisions, otherwise footie fans and pundits would have nothing to discuss, but they are not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Stipe Pletikosa

There is a slow edit war there - Croatian users removing all mentions of Yugoslavia, others reverting them. Please share your thoughts on which variant for his country of birth is more accurate. My opinion is that there were no such country as Croatia in 1979, so we should write Yugoslavia. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Same problems in Darijo Srna and likely on numerous other footybios. People are pretty active now due to Euro. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is quite clearly Yugoslavia. Croatia was not a country in the 1970s or 80s. I have blocked one IP for clearly disruptive editing and warned another user. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You're the 1000th user to ask this! You win an original 1971 Cuda. --necronudist (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

SFR Yugoslavia (now Croatia) is what I revert to, which can't be too far wrong as it has lasted more than a week without reverts on (xxxx) page (name withheld to prevent immediate revert!) - although I must research the official change date to Croatia - it won't be long before there are notable players born after Croatia became an independent state--ClubOranje^Talk 08:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatia declared independence on June 25, 1991. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixtures

The fixtures for the English 2008-09 season were released yesterday. They are copyrighted to the Premier League / Football League, yet several seasons' articles in Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2008-09 season have already included all the fixtures for the current season. What legal position does wikipedia have to including these fixtures? Peanut4 (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't even understand how you could copyright fixtures, It's just lists of "Man U - Man C [date]" And there was ppl can't remember who, took out the upcoming fixtures (not the played ones) for "copyright issues" last season, So after they are played they are free or what? ← chandler 01:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how they can be copyrighted, they are only dates. I guess I can't help you.Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From the bottom of here:

Copyright © and Database Right 2008[/9] The Football Association Premier League Ltd / The Football League Ltd / The Scottish Premier League Ltd / The Scottish Football League. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any way or by any means, (including photocopying, recording or storing it in any medium by electronic means), without the written permission of the copyright/database right owner. Applications for written permission should be addressed c/o Football DataCo Ltd, 30 Gloucester Place, London W1U 8PL.

- Dudesleeper / Talk 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But the question still remains, are you really allowed to copyright things like these... I mean they are just dates, between teams. Do we have to do some sort of thing like they do in Football manager / Pro Evo Soccer etc. for clubs they don't have licenses and call the matches "Merseyside Red - Man Red, 13 sep 2008, English Top Division"? ← chandler 02:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They are the property of the relevant authorities, but it seems to be one of those things – like waiting until July 1 to include transferred players in squads – that isn't clamped down on around Wikipedia. - Dudesleeper / Talk 02:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not qualified to comment on the legal basis of their copyrightability (sic), but I know from people who have run fansites that they are vehement and litigious protectors of their copyright material. So be careful. Kevin McE (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not possible that it could fall under some sort of fair use? They would probably have similar copyrights for these fixtures (and I still cant understand how you could copyright fixtures) and pictures like this one Image:Premier League.svg — chandler — 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• According to leading statto Tony Kempster, the Premier and Football Leagues require a payment of "over £9,000" to reproduce their fixture lists. I somehow suspect they wouldn't be able to do this if it was not possible to copyright fixtures, therefore we must assume that it is.

Well lets not recreate tha whole thing, just team for team, and beat the system, YEAAAAA! — chandler — 07:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From talking to the guys who maintain the Gillingham fan site, the leagues also charge a smaller (but still substantial) fee to reproduce a single club's fixtures....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Still don't understand how something like "23 september vs Arsenal" can be copyrighted — chandler — 07:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

< Yes, the fixture list are copyrighted and thus should be removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But how are upcoming fixtures considered copyright protected and have to be deleted from here, but played fixtures are allowed to stay? And again, can someone try to explain how something like this is copyrighed — chandler — 07:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Matches which have occurred are a matter of historical record ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough... But still how can it be possible to copyright listing matches — chandler — 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They are regarded as the intellectual property of the respective leagues. Fortunately, I think it's just the Premier League, Football League, Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League who reserve this right, so we can still list the fixtures of Serie A and La Liga clubs. – PeeJay 07:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We couldn't do a "PES" and list the matches "North London vs. West Midlands City, 15 October, English Top Division", and get away with it could we?.... Still think its really strange that you could copyright fixtures :P — chandler — 07:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly that would look completely ridiculous, and could also be considered to be misleading readers by including false information (ie there is no such team as "West Midlands City") ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, just trying to beat the system ;) — chandler — 07:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Any legal system that would allow you to copyright something like that is a stupid legal system. Just more proof that Britain is Stupid. Also, just for the sake of argument, how can news agencies discuss upcoming fixtures? Surely they don't have to pay thousands of pounds in order to say "Rooney will miss the following games due to injury: Arsenal (A), Man City (H), etc." Again, if that's the case, I have a punch in the crotch with somebody's name on it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

News agencies can discuss upcoming fixtures because they pay the Premier League (and other leagues) exorbitant amounts of money for the license to publish the fixtures. – PeeJay 08:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess we'll have to settle for filling in matches after they happen, maybe we could do something like this. (Here after the first match has been played) and ofc Link to the clubs page where they keep the fixtures, or if the club dont have them to the Premier Leagues page — chandler — 08:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming Premier League Fixtures are the intellectual property of the Premier League. For upcoming Premier League fixtures see Liverpoolfc.tv

Some related discussion here ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What if you'd not specify which league or which date, just have it say "Hull - Chelsea" etc. — chandler — 08:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Would that not be tantamount to subterfuge? – PeeJay 09:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are so desperate to get the fixtures onto WP (seemingly by any means necessary) in the first place. I mean, it's not like there aren't 273 other places on the web where fans could get the info...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: a simple thing to do would be to provide a link to the fixtures on each team's 2008-09 season page. Like this: Hull City A.F.C. season 2008-09#External links. We just need to decide which source to use as standard (and where to place the link in the article, and how to format it, and whether this is a good idea...). Beve (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the UK now - there's a thread on a well-known English football forum about a French High Court ruling here - fchd (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As a Swedish law student I'm certainly not an expert on British intellectual property law, but I would be very surprised if prohibiting people from reporting on upcoming fixtures could be legal. My guess is that what's prohibited is reproducing fixture lists for commercial use, and not forbidding mass-media and others to report the fixtures on a non-commercial basis. Might I also point out that even if something is copyrighted it's still allowed to quote or in other ways use parts of the protected material (for educational purposes it's even allowed to copy pages and pages of books). I might also point out that there is no legal form to achieve copyright (such as patents for example) so anyone can "copyright" anything, if a judge would agree is another matter... I'd say we go about as usual. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a news story about this very subject. I quote some relevant chunks:

“ The Football League wins a case against Littlewoods in 1959, successfully claiming copyright in the printed fixtures of their clubs ”

and

“ when [BSaD, a Watford fansite] received what Grant and Rowson felt were threatening legal letters demanding the removal of offensive content they were shocked. They refused, their server was contacted and BSaD was taken off the internet until Grant and Rowson backed down. The heinous material that caused the problems? Watford FC's fixtures for 2005-06. "We were extremely surprised and did feel bullied," Rowson says. "We do the fanzine for the love of writing about football, with about 1,000 regular hits weekly. We never thought the outside world was even aware of us." That was reckoning without the keen commercial enforcers at DataCo. This is a company owned by the Premier and Football Leagues, whose job is to charge for publication of the fixture lists, as well as the increasing volume of other data, including match statistics, to which the clubs claim copyright. The operation makes £7m-£8m for English and Scottish professional clubs, paid by 22,000 newspapers, bookmakers, websites and broadcasters here and worldwide. The fee is standard: £266 plus VAT to print the fixtures of one English club. Newspapers printing the fixtures of all clubs, plus a delivery fee, pay around £6,000 plus VAT to DataCo. BSaD, oblivious, printing their own club's forthcoming fixtures, were asked for £266 plus VAT or told they must take them down. ”

So in essence the concept of the clubs claiming copyright over their fixtures has been upheld in a court of law, albeit fifty years ago..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out that all the people arguing in favour of including fixtures seem to be doing so on the basis of "I think the system is stupid", "someone might be able to challenge it" or "I can't see how this could work" - the quote above proves that the leagues have, in a court of law, successfully proven their case for owning copyright on the fixtures and therefore we must abide by that, however "stupid" we think the system might be...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris sums it up well. We may not like the situation, but we are bound by it. The fixtures are copyrighted, and the ability to copyright them has been upheld in court. Thus edits adding them need to be reverted. The law is an ass, but contesting it should be done by joining a lobby group such as the Football Supporters Federation or writing to your MP, not on Wikipedia, where the goal is produce content which can be freely reproduced without copyright wrangling. NB: See [8] for the full BSaD story. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems no-one here have read the actual cases (I haven't, but I'm certainly curious), so no-one can say how the copyright of British football fixtures are to be interpreted. If a court has upheld the copyright in the case of a League club (who for example has a contractual relation with the League), it doesn't necessarily apply in our case since judgments can have broader or more narrow applications on other areas or subjects. Even if some form of copyright protects this material, the UK have freedoms of speech and information etc, so discussing or writing about future fixtures can impossibly be all-together prohibited. All we know is 1. the fixtures are not completely free (in some way copyrighted) and 2. the fixtures are not completely protected (so that they can never be uttered on Wikipedia). Now, we could take the cautious approach that ChrisTheDude advocates, that we might infringe on a diabolical copyright, so we'd better not risk it, or we can go about our business thinking that the copyright couldn't in a sensible society apply to us (which I would guess it doesn't) and wait for the League to come to us if they think we infringe on their copyright. On a side-note, if we were to have this preemptive approach shouldn't we stop referring to clubs and competitions by their name (both Manchester United and Euro 2008 are protected)? Sebisthlm (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Material copyrighted as "all rights reserved" is incompatible with the GFDL. Discussion of fixtures is not prohibited, but publishing them in full is. Manchester United and Euro 2008 are trademarks, not copyrights. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You're of course completely right (I was perhaps a bit careless with my examples), but that doesn't affect my point, since trademark rights are even stricter. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how trademarks, as symbols of the origin of a product or service, are relevant here. We are not claiming to be a football club or tournament, nor are we claiming endorsement.

Playing devil's advocate by publishing the fixture lists and waiting for a takedown notice is not an option, simply from a licensing point of view, as every page states "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" at the bottom. In any case the default position of the Wikimedia Foundation is to comply with any copyright requests. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) This is what happens when you make careless examples. I'm not asserting that trademark rules are applicable here, I'm just saying that trademarked and copyrighted material both are protected and that we despite this protection use trademarked material. Since the legality of using these fixtures are uncertain, I don't think the way to deal with this issue is to apply self-censorship as a preemptive response to a legal issue we at this point can't evaluate properly. I haven't read the GNU Free Documentation License either but I'm not saying that we should continue doing something illegal and stop only when we get busted. I only say that, as we don't know if we are infringing on copyrighted material, it's not our job or in our interest to unilaterally censor ourself by judging our actions illegal. Sebisthlm (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the legality of using these fixtures (based on case law) is not uncertain - it's a breach of copyright, and by having this discussion here we are recognising that copyright. Unless someone wants to take a test case against DataCo, I think we need to act with extreme caution, and not list them. - fchd (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to argue with apparent intellectual property law experts, I'm not informed enough on the subject at hand or what kind of company DataCo is (it seems to be something like SPECTRE...). Let's just say I'm not convinced that this is as clear-cut as you seem to think. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Watford fans case, DataCo don't seem to have a problem with publishing results. Their problem seems to be with printing upcoming league fixtures. Therefore shouldn't the upcoming league fixtures just be hidden and then added when the result is known? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the emails from DataCo says: I can also confirm that there is no problem with showing fixtures and their results once the match has been played. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't just hide fixtures because they are easily visibile by looking at the source code. They must not exist on this site in any form. – PeeJay 19:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems we agree that we're not going to test the relevant authorities and anyway case law also suggests WP would have to pay to use them. So I presume we should just delete fixtures when we see them. Anyone know what the copyright is one Cup fixtures? Peanut4 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The F.A. do not enforce any copyright over FA Cup/Trophy/Vase fixtures. Don't know about the Football League Cup though. - fchd (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume the FA run the first three, and the Football League run the League Cup and Football League Trophy? If it follows from above, it wouldn't surprise me if they copyrighted those fixtures. I've not looked yet, but guess last week's draw is at Football League Cup 2008-09. Peanut4 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should test the water! hehe, as Sebisthlm said "Might I also point out that even if something is copyrighted it's still allowed to quote or in other ways use parts of the protected material", can't this have some similarity in quoting books, or writing articles about books where you probably have to use copyrighted material as the source/reference... Also if things like non-commercial has any relevance, a perhaps similar case (though I've never studied law so I might be wrong) I know of just because I'm a big hp-fan is a case between Warner bros. and RDR where as I have understood it seemed to be Ok when I was posted freely on a website but they've sued when I was suppose to be printed into a book (though the last I've heard no verdict have come in this case yet) — chandler — 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we shouldn't. It could get Wikipedia in all sorts of trouble if it's seen by DataCo. – PeeJay 20:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Media outlets pay several thousands of pounds to pay for the licence. There's no test case to guide how much court damages could be. Then you've got court costs on top. The fixture lists aren't available under a free lience, so I can't see why and how WP can use them in the current format. Peanut4 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The following comes from an email I received from the Football League one year ago on this very topic (expands on some of the above): --Jameboy (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

“ The issue of copyright in fixture lists was resolved by the High Court in the reported case of The Football League Limited v Littlewoods Pools Ltd. A copy of the case report can be found under case reference [1959] 2 All ER 546. The simple rational for the court's decision was that The League was entitled to copyright in the chronological list as a result of the fact that it was produced by the skill, labour, judgment and ingenuity of The League. A fixture is no longer copyrighted when the match has kicked off it is now a matter of public record and history. The League also acquires further intellectual property rights through the Database Directive. ”

Here is a letter to a Football Forum site I found with little difficulty via Google just now and sent I believe this time last year which is what WP can expect to receive I guess! Tmol42 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

“ We write on behalf of the Football Data Co Limited which is the appointed licensee of the FA Premier League, the Football League, the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League ("the Leagues") in respect of the licensing of certain intellectual property rights of the Leagues, including those in the fixture lists for this season August 2007 - May 2008 ("the Fixture Lists"), for use by third parties.

We have noticed that your website http://www.arsenalfcweb.co.uk/Fixtures.php is displaying Football Fixtures. In order to display the Fixture Lists you must obtain the necessary licence from the Press Association.

We wish to make you aware that we have a good faith belief that your present use is an infringement of the Leagues' legal rights and that all such unauthorised use must cease immediately. Please confirm by return your agreement to this and give your undertaking to cease all such infringements on any and all of your web sites. Pending your response the Leagues' rights are fully reserved.

The Leagues have appointed the Press Association as their official agent for the licensing and distribution of the Fixtures List. If you have inadvertently infringed our clients' copyright please take immediate steps to contact the Press Association (Email customer.services@pa.press.net) to obtain the appropriate licence. Please confirm to us by e-mail that you are now seeking an appropriate licence. Because of the time sensitive nature of the Fixture Lists you are required to remove them immediately from your site pending the granting of a licence.

We thank you for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Stubbs

NetResult A Division of Projector NetResult Ltd Mulberry House, 583 Fulham Road, London UK SW6 5UA

Head Office: Projector NetResult Ltd, Harley House, 2 St Johns Street, Hereford, UK HR1 2NB

”

Bot category to project population

A couple months ago someone (I can't remember who) compiled an index of all the football related categories together to show how many articles we had amassed, and also how many of these weren't marked with the project page. As I edit articles, I still very frequently encounter articles, and major ones about leagues and federations, that aren't marked with the WP Tag. I was just wondering if anyone had a bot that we could get to just go and auto-tag all of the articles in football related categories; it'd be the easiest and most efficient method of tagging them all. matt91486 (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion; there is actually a page somewhere where you can put in requests for bots, but I can't remember where...Sorry. GiantSnowman 01:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is at WP:BOTREQ. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, cool - does anyone have that list handy? I can try to dig it up if no one does. matt91486 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, Elissonbot was created specifically for this purpose. Johan Elisson isn't quite so active these days, but it'd be worth asking him. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ShepBot was also created for this task and just finished up a WikiProject Composers run; so I'm free. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Qualification for Champions League berth 2008-09

I have today added a note about the different way FC Twente qualified for the UEFA Champions League 2008-09 but it was reverted almost immediately. I have now put it back in a different format, but am sure it will get reverted again pretty sharpish. What is the general view out there on having a footnote in the article about this? The article before implied that the runners-up of the Eredivisie are the second placed team, which would be Ajax, and therefore incorrect. - fchd (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A footnote seems OK. D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Layout

I was just looking at this. The colours seem OK, but then if you click "Show" the colours look "messy" as such, and don't exactly look professional. I notice, by clicking [edit] that each match is in it's own seperate box. I'm no good at templates, but maybe making a change to Template:Fb cm3 match would solve this problem. D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Anyone who can lend a hand at this discussion? It will be much appreciated, as you may well know more about this person than we do, but at the moment, the article completely fails WP:BIO. Many thanks, Lradrama 19:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article, about a rather dubious "player" Zlatko Kartal has now been deleted. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Bradford City Peer Review

The History of Bradford City A.F.C. has been at peer review for a couple of weeks now. Jameboy has helped to improve the article. I'm trying to get it towards FAC, and wondered if there's any more editors who can help out with the review. Thanks. Peanut4 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit of F.C. Copenhagen

F.C. Copenhagen has needed a copy-edit since January. Last time the article was GA-nomineed, which it failed, a copy-edit was required in the review. Since the article has been listed, but nothing have happend. kalaha 09:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to let people know.........

The Miracle of Geneva has gone to deletion review..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Same person twice

Johannes Gandil and Johannes Gandil (athlete) are the same person. --necronudist (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect into Johannes Gandil? GiantSnowman 16:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the redirect is useless... nobody will ever search Johannes Gandil (athlete) instead of the simple Johannes Gandil... --necronudist (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF Club Teams Task Force

I was noticing the sad state of the Central American and Carribean leagues and seasons. I thought that a task force for the purpose of updating CONCACAF Club pages would be good. Bornagain4 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Third-party ownership

Following the whole Tevez/Mascherano debacle, it was revealed today that Jo of CSKA Moscow cannot yet sign for Man City because of third-party ownership; as this is an increasingly common phenomenon in football should we have an article on it - Third-party ownership in association football or similar - or is it not worth it? GiantSnowman 17:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that would be a good idea for an article. There's probably plenty of info about the topic out there, so you should be able to source it adequately. Go for it! – PeeJay 17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks PeeJay, I'm going to have a crack at creating the article then, I'll let you all know when written something. Cheers, GiantSnowman 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been bold and created the article, it's pretty basic at the moment and so any help in improving the article would be greatly appreciated! GiantSnowman 17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a controverse and quite foggy argument, a sandbox preview would have been a better thing. --necronudist (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Spanish league question

Quick question on the Spanish leagues - am I correct in assuming that Segunda División is the lowest level of individual player notability and Tercera División is the level that much be attained at some point historically for club notability? Looking at the leagues, that's where I'd logically set it, anyway, I just wanted to see if that was a general consensus or if I was crazy. matt91486 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Primera and Segunda are notable for players, and Primera, Segunda, Segunda B and Tercera are notable for clubs. – PeeJay 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blimey!

I've just discovered that the WP College American Football project considers any match between two notable teams to be worthy of its own individual article. Can you imagine if that was applied to "our" football? You'd have things like Category:Matches between Rochdale and Bury...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Really?! That's insane, surely! And it's not even senior football. If that was applied to association football, you'd get "Matches between Cardiff University and the University of the West of England"! – PeeJay 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, those aren't notable teams. You can't really compare US college football, with its 50,000+ crowds and live TV coverage, to uni sports in the UK...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus there are only 120 teams in the top division of American College football, while there are thousands of soccer (football) all over the world.