Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Template:WPF navigation

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

Something I'd like to disclose so as not to be mistaken for a role account

I don't know anything about football - in fact, I hate the sport! I have a friend, however, who's really into it. He doesn't know much about Wikipedia so I agreed to incorporate facts he knows into articles - mainly those of Grimsby Town players. This was not me acting as a role account - Ii did all the editing, he just read me the facts. Just thought I'd disclose that, and here seems as good a place as any...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of role accounts, but perhaps you should persuade your friend to tell you the sources of his information, and then you could add those at the same time. However knowledgeable your friend may be, I don't think "facts he knows" quite constitute a reliable published source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

m:role account. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Irish season articles (both NIR and IRL) for 2008-09

1. I just completed the setup of the IFA Premiership 2008-09, but I had problems filling the "Team changes" section due to the recent competition changes applied by the Irish FA. So, could somebody more familiar with the topic please provide the necessary information for this section?
2. Would it be OK if I adapt the FAI League of Ireland 2008 season article to the use of fb templates? This is currently the only article not using those structures, so it would add to the uniformity of UEFA league articles for 2008. However, I do not know if such a change would be accepted. I already left a comment on this article's discussion page, but nobody has answered so far.
3. Speaking about the FAI League article, wouldn't it be better to split up the article into three smaller articles? The current format includes the first three tiers of football in Ireland, which, in my opinion, creates an information overkill and prevents quick and easy access to the desired facts, not to mention the confusion that may arise over three different (although related) competitions in one page. Hockey-holic (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, I wouldn't split the article. We manage perfectly well with the likes of The Football League 2007-08. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "season" at the end of FAI League of Ireland 2008 season be removed? All other spring-fall leagues have it that way (except 2008 LFF Lyga which maybe should be moved as well) — chandler — 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the word "season" should be removed, but when referring to a league season, don't we usually say "the 2007-08 Premier League" or "the 2007-08 Premier League season", rather than "the Premier League 2007-08" or "the Premier League 2007-08 season"? Therefore, wouldn't it be prudent to put the date first in all season articles? – PeeJay 16:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to have the year(s) after as it's easier to list them together in categories wither other leagues etc. — chandler — 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about at least removing the word "season" for consistency; I had actually been thinking about this as well. I don't see anything in the MOS or elsewhere regarding whether the year should come first or last, is there no standard defined? This does seem to be inconsisitent across competitions. SunnyDSunnyD (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

International competitions football squads

Wouldn't it be better to have a standard template? In the Olympics squads I've seen three different ways to show selected players:

• The useless one
• The World Cup one (used in all World Cup squads articles)
• The massively used too specific one

Obviously I would like to use the World Cup one, also 'cause is the only real template (others are not-user-friendly tables) and it's far the easier to handle. Plus doesn't provide useless informations (mostly left blank, like in the too specific one) and it has automatic redirects for roles. A squad list must be a squad list, with nothing more than player's name, shirt #, role, DOB with age, caps (optional) and the club as of the end of the preceding season (and not like the 2008 one updated daily... we've debated about this since ages but someone still wanna misunderstand...). You know, like the one we use for World Cups. --necronudist (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The "World Cup" one should be used. The others are just awful. Truly awful. – PeeJay 15:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

World Cup template for sure. The rest are bad. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. And players should be sorted by squad number once they get them (positions are fine until then, sorted by last name within the position). Also, we should look at a better way to do overage players than simply an *. Bolding might be good. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I think that we should continually update the players' clubs until the tournament is over. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to convert all the Olympic squads to the World Cup template, but I think I'll need an automatic tool, or it will take ages! Something useful for Linux? --necronudist (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the world cup template is the best template, that is my opinion. The first one violates wikipedia policy by using colour to denote info. The third one seems to be unecessary. However this discussion seems to follow a worrying trend that seems to happen regularly at WP:FOOTY, that is the following

• A point is raised
• People agree or disagree
• No reasons or logical arguments are given just POV (e.g. The "World Cup" one should be used. The others are just awful. Truly awful)
• A revision is made
• It is then considered consensus

Bottom line, deleting things or sudo-policy should be discussed more thoroughly and cogent arguments should be made before people start mass changing or deleting. Obviously some people are not aware of the project or all WP rules, but regulars at this talk page should try and hold themselves to that standard. Remember wikipedia doesn't work by votes. Paul  Bradbury 23:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you've used my POV comment to make a point, I think I'd better respond... I agree with Necronudist with regard to the content of the table (name, shirt number, position, date of birth/age, caps, goals and most recent club), and the "World Cup" style table does that perfectly well. Any other information is superfluous and therefore unnecessary. – PeeJay 23:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanna remember that a consesus was reached before the 2006 World Cup to keep the clubs as of the start of the tournament, with optional footnotes for the transfers occurred during the tournament. Just like the age is the one at the start of the tournament, so is the club and caps. It's a widely used standard who reached a consesus as well. --necronudist (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. You often see news reports saying that a player will link up with a new team after their involvement in the tournament is finished, indicating that players rarely switch teams mid-tournament. Therefore we should only use the team the player was with before the tournament. The problem comes when a player has been on loan. Do we list his parent club or the team he was on loan with? – PeeJay 09:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the club on loan, with a footnote saying he spent the run up of the tournament on loan from y club. --necronudist (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is unlikely that a player would fly home in the middle of a tournament overseas to sign a contract with a new club....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Contracts are signed before but takes effect after. For example Ronaldinho must be listed as a Barcelona player and Vanden Borre under Genoa (on loan from Fiorentina). --necronudist (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about the upcoming Olympics, I would say that Ronaldinho should be listed as a Milan player as he has already signed with Milan before the Olympics started. Furthermore, Barcelona weren't even willing to let him go to the Olympics, so that would make things even more complicated. – PeeJay 09:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

AC Milan too, Galliani said that he left Ronaldinho 'cause "Barcelona already gave him permission"... a bit complicated, yeah :-) --necronudist (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with necronudist and PeeJay on this point. About squad templates; well, as I'm currently working on past Olympic squads, I will use WC templates in the future, as everyone seems to prefer it. I would have prefered to know this before, however... In that case, could we use a bot for what I've already done? I used what Christian called "the too specific one"? It would take some time to do it manually...--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll help you. I didn't think before at this template issue... --necronudist (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I didn't realise the "The massively used too specific one" one existed! I was looking at squad articles the other day, and I was actually thinking there was room to include some of the stuff in that template. Not the minutes or reds and yellows, but tournament caps and goals might be a useful addition to such articles. The only problem, as far as I could see it, would be confusion between the caps pre-tournament and the caps in it.

I do wonder why we bother, actually, with including the date of birth in such templates. They're unnecessary, and they look ugly with no unified length and the age in brackets. I'd prefer it if we just used a template that displayed just the age at the start of the tournament - which is what the DOB is there do but would be neater and save room.

So, thoughts? I'd certainly be pro adding/removing the above to the World Cup template. What is important though, is that everything is standardized, and the World Cup one should definetely be rolled out across the articles. HornetMike (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hey! I didn't realise the "The massively used too specific one" one existed!"- Me neither, and I have looked at A LOT of squads lists, and this is really the first time that I saw this one. So "Massively used", I'm not too sure about that. UmutK (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should change the "World Cup template" to have DoB in one collumn and Age in another collumn right next to it. That way everything will be relatively standardized in width so the table doesn't look like poop. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The "poop" comment is a bit of an overstatement, tbh. It looks fine to me, but if you want all the column widths to be standardised, you should set a width parameter in the template. – PeeJay 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree on using the World Cup template as the standard template for football squads. Now two issues remaining:

• I wouldn't agree on a separate column for the age. I'd keep the current DOB column filled with the {{Date of birth and age}} template.
• How can we massively convert the various tables to the World Cup template? --necronudist (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should not be a separate column for age. As you suggest, the {{birth date and age}} template is perfectly suited for this task. As for the mass conversion, we first need to establish how many articles currently use the incorrect ones. If it's not too many, the task can be done manually, but if there's a lot, we may need to get a bot to help, although I don't know if a bot could cope with a task as complex as this. Otherwise, we can always change them as and when we see them. – PeeJay 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Where to find tutorial or help page on kit (pattern) design?

Where can I find a tutorial or help page on kit design? {{Infobox football club}} is not much help. I specifically want to fix FC Barcelona's kit which shows as blue-red when it should be blue-maroon (C32148) as stated in the Talk page, but though I tried I did not get satisfactory results due to lack of kit template (pattern) design information. -- Alexf⁴² 12:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The instructions for editing the kit are on Template:Football kit. You may be experiencing problems though due to the pattern being set as "| pattern_la1=|pattern_b1=_redhalf2|pattern_ra1=", that is - the underlying colour for the shirt is set as blue but it has Image:Kit body redhalf2.png sat on top of it. The easiest way for you to then edit the kit would be to upload a new image (possibly Image:Kit body maroonhalf.png) as per the instructions on the template and use that. You can then set the right colour for the right arm and socks. Hope that helps. Nanonic (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That's the template I was looking for and couldn't find. Thanks! -- Alexf⁴² 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

INVESCO Field at Mile High a priority article

With the Democratic convention weeks away, and the nominating acceptance speech to take place at INVESCO Field at Mile High, this seems like a good time to get this article in shape. If anyone knowledgeable about the stadium and its history could improve the article's references and perhaps expand the article, it would be helpful for the curious who wander onto the page. ThanksJohnelwayrules (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you, my friend, have wandered into the wrong "football" discussion page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not - if you look at the image on that page you can make out the markings of a football pitch. It has previously housed Major League Soccer franchise Colorado Rapids according to the article, and Johnelwayrules did ask for anybody with knowledge of it's history.--ClubOranje^Talk 06:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Football and nft articles

My inclination would be to avoid anything other than the most fleeting of references to the Olympic football competition in nft articles; in particular, squad lists and recent results sections, or details of captaincy/management in the infoboxes should not reflect the events of Beijing over the next few weeks. However, 10 of the 16 teams in the men's competition have links to the main team rather than an underage side. Is there general agreement with my sense that the Olympic team is not the top national representative side, and that therefore Olympic details should not be on them (maybe a summary sentence, but not the sort of section already appearing at the Korean team's article)? And if there is consensus that such details should be excluded, is it appropriate to have <!-- a remmed out note for editors to that effect --> ? Kevin McE (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Gustavo Poyet page

Over the past 24 hours User talk:Regozcan and User:86.162.69.29 (the latter I believe has also previously used several related IP addresses) have been edit warring at Gustavo Poyet over the appropriateness of an image of Poyet here. The image depicts Gus and another person who it turns out is Regozcan. There was at least one earlier round of tit for tat reverting by these two editors on 18 /19 July but this stopped when I suggested they discuss their respective points of view on the Talk Page instead. But today sadly it seems although they have started discussing their points of view ( Options ranging from removing/ replacing the image to cropping the image to leaving it intact) as their skills in polite debate are severely lacking they have just wound each other up by reverting each others' edits. I have advised both editors I will report them for 3RR if they repeat they 'revertings' which will hopefully call a temporary halt to their editing spree. Please could someone with some experience of image protocol cast a look and suggest a way forward. I will point both Editors to this posting here. Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to crop the image to only show Poyet. matt91486 (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done BanRay 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable players, or notable FORMER players?

Something I’ve been wondering about for a while is the tendency to add players to the “notable players” list when they still play for the team in question. I’ve always thought it was a bit redundant, and overly-repetitive, to have players listed in both the current roster and in the notable players list. Although it is clearly not specified as such, in my mind, the notable players list should only include players who no longer play for the team. Does anyone else agree? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable players sections really shouldn't exist. They are POV, and strictly any player with a wikipedia entry is notable. Peanut4 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken... but given that they DO exist, should players who still play for the team in question be in the list, or should it be only former players? --JonBroxton (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be of the opinion of deleting them for the reasons above. You won't see any football articles at WP:FA or WP:GA with such lists, certainly not ones without any proper criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Assuming you mean notable players lists within football club articles) where they exist, there should be very strict criteria, like being members of the club's Hall of Fame or something equally objective (and restrictive). Then so long as a player fits those criteria he should be in the list whether he's still at the club or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we sort of agree. In this list, for example, I would remove Segares, Blanco, Frankowski, Brown, Mapp, McBride and Rolfe, as they all current members of the Fire roster. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Assuming you would,) on what grounds would you keep the others? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you know... international caps, played a significant amount of games for the club, did something really important like scoring the winning goal in a major game, or something. I appreciate that the list is totally subjective, but I didn't add the players to the list. I really wasn't thinking about criteria for inclusion; the lists already existed before I even thought about this. I was more thinking that still being an active player for the team in question should be criteria for EXCLUSION from the list of notables. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>The need is to set the criteria and then note players who meet it, whether or not they are still playing for the club, I think. A player who makes over 1,000 appearances for a club will be a notable player in the history of that club even if he still plays for the club, for example. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The point I'm making, though, is that while he remains an active player with the club, he's not part of it's history yet; he's part of its present. When he leaves the club, or retires, or whatever, THEN add him to the notable players list, because otherwise it's repetitive and rendundant to have him listed twice.--JonBroxton (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the way to go about "Notable (former) player" sections is for them to be blank in cotent, but provide a link to a seperate article for the notable players, e.g. "List of X F.C. players". Also, by doing this, the redundancy would be eliminated. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Matty's right, obviously. But where such lists do exist, I'd disagree about active players. An active player with 1000 appearances is making part of the club's history now. Incidentally, that Chicago Fire list includes Brian McBride, great player without doubt, but he's never played for them... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about Brian McBride illustrates exactly the point I'm making... but whatever. I'm not overly concerned one way or the other. Consensus always wins :) --JonBroxton (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If a player is in the current squad list then they don't need to be listed twice. If the criteria used is , for instance, having played over x number of times, then a note can be at the bottom of the list stating that a current member of the squad has also exceeded this. I've been having problems with the equivalent section for Grimsby Town F.C. One editor seems to think that a player who played less than 20 games for the club should be listed, for example. Dancarney (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the "Notable players" lists are only for former players; at least most articles I've read/edited/created follow that criteria. Bruno18 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Dancarney, the problem is why isn't 20 games notable? Without any set of criteria, any person can list / delist a player, because it is totally POV. There has to be some strict criteria such as Hall of Fame, or internationals, or players with 500 games. Peanut4 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Without citation and reference, any list of "notable" players or definite stated criteria, whether former or current, appears to be WP:OR to me. - fchd (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree Richard. If we take "notable" literally then every player who has played a pro game must be listed, which is the purpose of List of XYZ F.C. players, so I feel that these sections are best avoided unless a reliable source has published a list of "legends" that can be referenced. There used to be a list on Sheffield Wednesday F.C. which was not referenced and was constantly being changed depending on each editor's point of view, so it was removed when the article was being improved in order to gain FA status. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I opened a can of worms that I had no intention of opening, didn't I? --JonBroxton (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

At least people responded to your query. There've been a few times when I've raised a topic in here and I haven't had a single reply. – PeeJay 19:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

True, and people have raised some interesting related points. However, given that the consensus seems to be slightly in favor of not having players in both the current roster and the notable players list, and acknowledging that the existence of notable player lists in the first place is debatable because of point of view, I'm going to start deleting active players from said lists when I see them, citing this discussion. Thanks for your time everyone! --JonBroxton (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable or not?

Knowing little about the Scottish pyramid system, how notable are Welfare League clubs, i.e Buckie united? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That link is a redirect to an article that doesn't actually exist?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Think if you capitalise it, it does. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! Silly me! Anyway, to answer the original question, there is no pyramid system in Scotland at all - see Scottish football league system - so we can't make the same "club has to have played at level X" calls as we do in England. However, looking at Buckie Utd's website, they appear to play matches in a local park, which would suggest their level of football is below that which we would consider notable in the English pyramid. The cut-off point in England, level 10, tends to generally be the lowest level at which teams play at proper stadia, as opposed to park pitches, and charge for admission. All of the above is based solely on gut feeling, though..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say they are not notable. Try prodding them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New article bot

Doesn't seem to be working anymore. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Its owner, Alex Bakharev, is on holiday at the mo. Should be back on 9 August. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics - Day −2

Let's have a laugh! --necronudist (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not too sure we should have a laugh at a new editor's expense to be honest. Why not talk him/her through the fact that this article isn't exactly ideal instead? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm too old to be kind. --necronudist (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've prodded it. – PeeJay 14:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"It was announced that"; grrrrrrrr

The phrase "It was announced that" is rapidly becoming my greatest bête noir on Wikipedia. Typical instances might be

   "On 31 July 2008 it was announced that Fred Bloggs had signed for Melchester Rovers FC."

Either it was announced by a reliable source, in which case we simply state it as a fact, giving the appropriate citation, or it came from a dubious source, in which case it has no place in an encyclopaedic project. It is the fact of something happening, not the announcement of that fact, that comprises encyclopaedic content. Occasionally, the circulation of a rumour is worth reporting, but if the phrase is widespread, it ceases to serve as a warning that the press may have been muck-spreading, and simply diminishes the apparent confidence of an encyclopaedia in its facts. Am I right? If so, is there any way that this can be established as a house style, at least in the articles under this project (which is where I have seen it most), so that we can free ourselves of this feeling of being uncertain and denying responsibility for what is posted on so many statements? Kevin McE (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, I would agree with you. However, there are some instances where a future event is announced in advance, in which case "It was announced that..." would be appropriate. As an example:

   "On 31 July 2008, it was announced that Fred Bloggs would be signing for Melchester Rovers FC on 6 August 2008."

Do you see my point? – PeeJay 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted, but in that case it should be changed after he signs, or fails to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally with you Kevin McE. It doesn't matter that it was announced. The relevance is he did it. In your above example, it should simply say "On 31 July 2008, Fred Bloggs signed for Melchester Rovers." Simple. Peanut4 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But that information frequently (usually) isn't available, as contracts aren't public. All that is frequently (usually) known is the date on which the signing is announced. See the thread on WT:MOS on the same issue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But why on earth do we need exact dates? In three years time, all that will be relevant is that he signed in time for the 2008/09 season. If these dates are important, is anyone going to go back and add such minutiae to the articles of retired players? Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And if it's sourced then the source will most likely show the date of the announcement, should future generations be desparate to know that Fred Bloggs' signing was announced on August 1st as opposed to July 31st....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dating is a little over done but it's massively helpful in constructing timelines - it's frustrating when you just get a month and it's not clear if it happened before a certain other event. Anyways - The "announced that" thing is indicative of all Footy player articles: recentism to the extreme. Is anyone really looking at wikipedia to see when something new has happened? Still you get the random people who "announce" complete tripe. On a separate note: it has been announced that Xabi Alonso is move to Fenerbahce! greatly turkish team! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes to show manager's nationality etc

Is there a local consensus here to ignore the provisions of WP:MOSFLAG in club infoboxes? My removal of decorative flags from Heart of Midlothian F.C. sparked an interesting conversation at User talk:John#Hearts/Flag icons. I'd be interested to know if this has already been discussed; I was sure it had. --John (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, the general consensus was that flags were not necessary in players' infoboxes, but were acceptable in club infoboxes for the chairman and manager, as the chairman and manager are not always from the same country as the club, whereas a flag is not required to identify a player's place of birth, national team or club team in the infobox. – PeeJay 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay's summary of previous consensus is spoton - flags are not to be used in player's infoboxes (mainly because of issues some browsers seem to have with it), but can be used in club/nation infoboxes for chairman/managers. GiantSnowman 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bored?

Have a read of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#30,382 articles related to soccer players if you haven't already. Some interestingly ludicrous points. Enjoy. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good time for members of this project to expand some of those stubs. Earlier this year a fair number of football articles were at FAC and most passed. However many weren't footy bios. By my quick maths we have just two football bio FAs, and 40 football bio GAs. That's 1 in 15,000 at FA and 1 in 750 at GA. Peanut4 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Good analysis, Peanut. --necronudist (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Gene Vincent, that EconomistBR really doesn't want to let it drop does he? Shall we have a sweep on where he'll next raise his "point".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Witch and hunt were the first two words that came to my mind. I thought the discussion at WT:N had finished so took it off my watchlist, only for him to raise it somewhere else. Peanut4 (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

At some point, I feel as though he's nearing crossing a line with his constant crusade against athlete articles. It's a relatively minor inconvenience, but he's gone so far as to state, but then recant and merely strongly imply, that we're a dishonest cabal. matt91486 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

He seems obsessed with the idea that footballer articles are all "permastubs", however he's way off the mark there - only 10% of articles on English footballers are stubs at the present time....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Who decides the Golden generation?

Who decides which players are part of the Golden Generation as people just seem to be including favorite players without references. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources, of course. Anything unsourced, feel free to nuke. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloody war at Gökhan Inler

It's a real siege. He HASN'T signed with Arsenal, neither Udinese ever talked with Arsenal. Sorry for Arsenal vandals... Please somebody protect the page...there are something like thousands edits in a day. Pretty exhausting. --necronudist (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Amaury Bischoff

This article doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, does it? If so, Why? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The article claims he has played in the UEFA cup, if that is true then I think it would pass WP:ATHLETE Natcong (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, I found a minute by minute report on the UEFA website that lists the appearence, here Natcong (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me. I was just unsure if the statement was true or not. How many players play a UEFA Cup match before making a league debut? If that link works for you and it says he played then all is good! Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the link (and it does confirm he came on), cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

With Werder Bremen, the number of players who played UEFA Cup before making a league debut is three, IIRC. Kevin Schindler, Martin Harnik and Amaury Bischoff were all part of the Werder reserve team, but were used in the UEFA Cup before playing for the first team, if my memory serves me right. Madcynic (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Klasnić

I was just wondering, since Klasnic was born in Germany and did live there for his whole life until recently, how is he an Expatriate footballer that played in Germany? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would guess it's probably because he plays for Croatia. – PeeJay 22:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Added to the tendency of some editors to go over the top when it comes to nationality, ethnic origin, or religion. He isn't an Expatriate footballer playing in Germany, nor is he a Bosnia-Herzegovina footballer. Foreign-born footballer who played for Croatia, and German-born footballer who played for another national team, yes. A helpful guideline is at WP:BLP#Categories, which says that "the article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question: Ivica Grlić, born in Germany, played for Bos-Herz. Understandably the category "Bos-Herz international footballers" is listed. Same with "Germans of Bosnian descent", a true statement. But then the category "Bos-Herz footballers" is listed (I'm getting confused just typing this so bear with me). Is he really a Bos-Herz footballer? If so then how can he be German of Bosnian descent? I hope that makes sense. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - a player can have more than one nationality, and this can be represented in categories. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatia national football team - is this paragraph POV?

Currently there is a small edit war going on between some users (including myself) on this page. The SUPPORTERS section keeps getting changed, and the reasons specified is that the mentioned incidents are a 'serious breach' and should not be written in a praise-worthy manner. Although I would partly agree with this (partly!), I dont think it is written in a praiseworthy manner at all. Need some suggestions on this then, and would really appreciate it seeing as it is a nominee for an FA!.

QUOTE -

Despite such infamy, Croatia have also earned popular attention for their supporters. During the 2006 World Cup, a Croatian supporter managed to evade security and make his way onto the field, approaching the Croatian players and interacting with former striker Dado Prso. The trespassing fan was later caught and arrested, despite being respectfuly noticed by the media.[58][59] Such passion was repeated during Croatia's away fixture at the new Wembley Stadium, as their fans made notice amongst London prior to the victory. In comparison, the English fans were surrounded with criticism.[60]

Similar success was further pursued at the final tournament, eventually leading to Turkey's shock victory in the quarter finals. The national football federation prompted to hire professional assistance for distraught fans.[61]

- UNQUOTE

I think that communicates the events in a really professional manner, with no direct signs of praise or biased language. Any suggestions or thoughts on this? Or would anyone else agree that this is too biased and praise? Domiy (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What does "their fans made notice amongst London prior to the victory" actually mean???!!?! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It means they made notice amongst London prior to their victory. In other words, they were remembered in the media and by English fans for making a supporting atmosphere in celebration of their victory in London. Especially worded like it is, I detect no biased language there. Its really worth mentioning that it was actually the Croatians celebrating in London while the English fans were criticized and upset. If you could think of a better way to word such content then I'm more than up for suggestions or feedback. Domiy (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it worth mentioning? Croatia won, fans were happy, England lost, fans were sad. Happens everywhere - winners happy, losers sad. I agree with the implication of User:ChrisTheDude that phrase is not great English. Add to that being respectfully noticed by the media and Similar success was further pursued at the final tournament. I also think the comment that Turkey's victory was a 'shock' is POV. Who considered it a shock? certainly not me.--ClubOranje^Talk 12:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you approach a native English speaker for a thorough copyedit. I'm afraid just about every sentence in that paragraph needs work. And yeah, per ClubOranje, some you win, some you lose. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the fellow involved in the "small edit war" although I would hardly characterize it as such. Domiy, everything makes it to media notice these days. The appearances of the Croatian team in the media are not especially noteworth in any way. If you go to the sources cited, I don't frankly see how you can extract from them what you're writing. Oranje had it right - winners happy, losers sad - nothing more than that. From reading the source cited for the "national federation hiring professional help for the distraught fans" you're making a huge stretch. It reads more like an tabloid newspapers drumming up a tale to sell more papers.

There is more than one comment here about the need to fix up the language of the article. The English is not particularly good and when married to a clear attempt to cast the Croat side in the best possible light rather than taking a neutral, encyclopedic approach you're getting something of a mess. As stated above, several parts of the Supporters section just don't make any sense to read as written.

I've not just worked in the Supporters section. I've copy edited (as a native English speaker) two or three other portions of the article to make them cleaner and easier to read, as well as to remove peacock terms or bits that might be construed as POV. I did it at the Zambia national team article, at the German team article - all over as a matter of fact. I don't have any kind of axe to grind here, I'm justing taking my turn at patching the article up. I replied to your earlier note at my talk page and you may wish to consider the points I've made there. Wiggy! (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiggy, I appreciate your copyedit. Its really helped the article and I thank you for that. But there are small points which I feel are worth putting forward, also based on your reply on your talk page. I'll start with Oranje's comment of Turkeys 'shock victory'. While the terming may be considered POV (MAY!), it certainly needs to be mentioned in a distinguished manner besides the ordinary victory. Croatia, on top of being billed as favorites prior to the match also had a fatigue advantage as they rested players for their previous game wile Turkey fought to the death and even had a number of players suspended or injured. On top of that, they dominated the entire game (literally!) and scored in the last minute of play. With a refereeing error, Turkey managed to stun everyone and score with the last kick of the game and then win the penalty shootout. If thats not a shock to you, then you must have really seen everything to consider that anywhere near a normal victory. Just like I said with Wiggy, football is emotional but such emotions shouldnt be mentioned on wikipedia. Although I think that you need to include such relative information to help users really understand the point. Like for example if San Marino beat Brazil, I'm certain that it wouldnt just be a simple case of saying "San Marino earned their first victory by beating Brazil". You need to mention the fact that it was an unlikely surprise and that Brazil are 5 time World Champions while San Marino have never won a competitive match. Things like this need to be considered. Hence, it was a shock that Turkey won. I think the statement that the federation hired pro help for the fans is a big issue. Part of FA criteria is that the article does not neglect any major facts. This I feel is a major fact worth mentioning!

And again, I appreciate the effort of your re-wroding, but you have turned it into another statement that slightly neglects some facts. The supporter that entered the field during the 2006 World Cup wasnt really seen as a celebrity or hero by his countrymen as you stated. I specifically initially wrote such info based on what was true (and the refs can back this up). It was actually the general World Cup media who promoted him more. He wasnt really proclaimed much in Croatian culture. It was the media who actually said that such passion hasnt been seen for a while and that the fans support and athletic ability deserved to be awarded as he pointed out numerous security flaws. We'll never know how many future field invasions that fan has stopped by alarming the security so much that their barriers are easily passable. I dont think such needs to be mentioned as it is way to hypothetic, but you need to make sure you dont neglect the major facts. He was NOT a countrymen celebrity, he literally was a worldwide celebrity for that short time. I'm just going by what the references say and what pretty much every news story said, so I think that deserves to be slightly changed.

Again, as it may sound like I'm making excuses for the actions, I'm just trying to ensure that all the facts are known, thats part of a good article. Another example is the Nazi shape during the 2006 friendly. It needs to be considered that such actions have never occured before and strangely enough only took place in Livorno, a state full of communism past and present. Thats why I initially noted them as 'domestic Croatian fans', I think that sums it perfectly. While its not good to make it sound biased, its also even worse to make it sound like you are giving a bad name to the subject article. Consider the rightful facts before you decide on the prose wording! And I mean that in the most kind of manners, just sharing my opinions. Domiy (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I happen to agree that there should be some sort of mention of Turkey's victory. (I watched that game and couldn't believe my eyes.) It just needs to be framed up right and put in the proper place. The follow up stuff on psychiatric support for the fans doesn't wash and isn't supported by the reference that was cited.

I don't see the guy on the field being such a big deal. It was just a guy on the field. But to describe him as being lauded by the world media is kinda silly. The problem is that the incident was described in an over the top manner in an article full of other incidents/events being described in an over the top manner. Its not reading as encyclopedic or evenhanded. You can't write the article like the team or the country is at the centre of the universe and expect it to be taken seriously if everything is some kind of magnificent. If the field invader wasn't a celebrity in Croatia, he sure wasn't any kind of global celebrity. It boils down to a trivial incident being overplayed by the media. I just don't see that portraying him as some sort of global hero works for the article. CROATIAN FAN SAVES WORLD FOOTBALL! RESTORES GOODWILL BETWEEN PLAYERS AND FANS! RETURNS PASSION TO THE GAME! IDENTIFIES SECURITY BREACHES AND SAVES THE FUTURE OF THE SPORT! WORLD PEACE FOLLOWS! Um. No. If everybody pulled that sort of stunt there would be no football. He's already had his fifteen minutes of fame and served his "purpose" by providing some fresh copy for the reporters at the tournament. The rest of the world has moved on.

As for the swastika, that was another incident in a string of unsavory incidents involving Croatian fans. What makes it a big deal is the fact that the team and the federation ended up being fined and facing sanctions over repeatedly uncivil behaviour by the fans. It is part of a pattern of off the field behavior that could have affected the team on the field. And that's not something unique to Croatia. There have been similar problems in Italy, Germany, and other footballing nations. "Domestic Croatian fans"? "Only in Livorno"? That's putting too fine a point on the whole thing for the average reader. I don't recall any more recent problems of the sort involving Croatian fans, but it was clearly an issue early on. If its resolved then maybe the section should end with some sort of comment about how Croatian supporters have conducted themselves in a more positive manner in recent years.

Again, I think its important to be evenhanded and non-sensational. The tone and content of the article should be encyclopedic and the really trivial stuff has to be weeded out.

I'm sure it'll come together over time. Wiggy! (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Due fairness, fair enough. Alas, I dont know why you keep saying that he approached the Croatian players "there". I think that stating more specifically that he 'interacted' with Dado Prso is a more revealing prose. You even went ahead and stated he was accompanied of the field by the player, again failing to mention his name. At least give me that. Domiy (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tranquillo Barnetta

Can anyone have a look at Tranquillo Barnetta? An IP and and a user want to insert (unsourced) transfer speculations. I tried to talk to them but the user only claims "it's true" and the IP doesn't answer at all. --Jaellee (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this article was rather 'busy' when I was looking at wikirage some hours ago. No doubt there are reports that Barnetta may be moving to Middlesbrough but a) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and b) being true does not mean these reports are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Persistent insertion of these unencyclopedic edits is vandalism in my book though I see it has been quiet since midnight. I have put the article on my watchlist. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have just reverted User:Mitch884 for placing the same speculative 'report' about a move to Middlesbrough on the article and given him a polite message to stop doing it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe he'll see reason if other users also tell him that Wikipedia is not the place for speculations. --Jaellee (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just reverted him again and given him a final warning. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree that wiki is not a newspaper. No matter how certain the move is to occur, restrain from mentioning it until it is actually confirmed. Even when a player is constantly being targeted, its not worth mentioning one bit. Speculation (no matter how strong) has no place on wikipedia articles.

And just of this case, this article could use a very quick and basic re-wording cleanup. I'd be happy to expand it as much as I can but I'm really busy on other articles lately. I'll consider expanding some time in near future. Domiy (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Professional?

Are the Major Indoor Soccer League and the USL Second Division fully professional? Punkmorten (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

USL-2 is fully professional. --JonBroxton (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the MISL is as well, but I'll wait for more assured statements from someone else. matt91486 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MISL was a professional league before it ceased operations, yes. –  LATICS  talk  22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistant-manager templates

We're not starting these, are we? - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, that's too much... Mattythewhite (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD it then...! Nothing as entertaining as a fight over pointless templates or navboxes! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable players sections

Are there any guidelines as to which players can be included in the Notable players sections of football club articles? A few days ago I came across the article AFC Ajax, where someone had listed just about every player who has ever been signed by Ajax. I'm sure this is not the intention of such a section, but where do we draw the line? Aecis·(away) ^talk 11:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually it's 100+ league appearances or an international-team appearance(s) while at the club. There may be others, but that should help weed out a few over there. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another useless squad template

I think this squad template is way too much. A template for all squads playing in the Olympics is really unnecessary, we already keep templates for World Cup and Euro squads, and that's quite enough. Opinions? --Angelo (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in Olmypic templates. I'd also like to hear opinions on the Annan Athletic squad template, where only one player has an article, I find it pretty pointless. Also, the Gretna squad template, which is useless as they are no longer in the SPL or SFL. Ck12 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the result of accepting Continental templates... Why a Continental competition yes and a World competition no? Pretty comprehensible... --necronudist (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Football at the Olympic games is open only to under-23 players, with no more than three over-23 additions, so it's a different thing. And, actually, I can't frankly remind of the Italian squads at the Olympic games, as well as other teams. --Angelo (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:2008 Summer Olympics squad templates just adding this, too show that there exist (at least) 3, there might be others uncategorised. — chandler — 15:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

These squad templates are annoying ... can't wait for {{Players in the 2008 Olympics who put on their left boot first}}. I can somewhat see creating templates for the winners, but not for every team in every competition. –  LATICS  talk  16:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with necronudist. Your argument, Angelo (open to U-23 players), is correct nowadays: but in the past, nations sent their best team to Summer Olympics, for example Hungary in 1952 and most notably other Eastern Europe countries. Olympic templates cleary match the current consensus on squad templates, but not the former (WC + current club team squads).--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers F.C.

User:Tombo1984's edits at Blackburn Rovers F.C. seem quite concerning - he persists that "team" starts with a capital T, which it clearly doesn't and removing players who are in the team's first team squad, as according to their official website's squad list. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

List of leading goalscorers for the German national football team

Should this list be merged into the German national football team article? Seems a bit pointless having a seperate article just for the top goal scorers of a particular nation or club. --Jimbo^[online] 20:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Alpaslan Erdem

Does this article qualify for speedy deletion or AfD since it is basically a duplicate of Alparslan Erdem? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Set up one as a redirect. But why does the source spell his name another way, i.e. Alperslan Erdem. Peanut4 (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have set Alpaslan Erdem up as a redirect to Alparslan Erdem. – PeeJay 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Alpaslan article is spelled differently because I kept reverting edits relating to his transfer on the original article. Once I found a valid source, I added the transfer info into the original article. Then I went to add him to the Galatasaray S.K. Squad and found him linked their already. Compare my edit to the edit previous on the Galatasaray article. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Caps - what qualifies?

With international caps, a number of players are listed as having caps which exceed the actual full international appearances. What is Wikipedia consensus on cap count - full A internationals, or appearances for the national team. To clarify, New Zealand (and many smaller back water nations) pay their national team agains visiting club sides from bigger footballing nations - eg Southampton visited NZ and played against the national side. Steve Sumner, who was captain for several years is listed as having 105 caps, yet only actually played in 58 full internationals against other national sides (as far as I can tell). England perhaps has similar situation with so called B internationals. I would think only full A internationals shouldd be noted as caps.--ClubOranje^Talk 01:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it had to be a FIFA recognized senior cap to qualify. B teams are sometimes listed seperately, if listed at all. But as far as I know, National sides against Club sides aren't FIFA recognized and thus shouldn't count toward a players caps. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the above statement. Only full A internationals should be listed as those are the only ones that are officially recognized by FIFA. The.Narko (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in principle with Hubschrauber and The Narko, I wonder about how that fits with the display in the infobox, where the field enquiry is caps, but the display is Apps {appearances). Steve Sumner made an appearance for NZ against Southampton, but did not gain what FIFA (or I) would regard as an international cap that day. Does the infobox display need to be changed? And what do we do with a case where the only international appearance was in a non-international? Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is why I asked the question. I have been noting total appearances in the text, and updating infobox to full international caps only, but I then noticed Sumner was listed in All Whites article as cap record holder - which I believe actually belongs to Vaughan Coveny according to this information. The caps vs apps argument for infoboxes could be carried through to club appearances too, but we have a consensus on league appearances only qualifying for that (although I believe it should be official competitive appearances for club stats, but that is a different argument).--ClubOranje^Talk 10:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• There was a similar discussion in Scotland after we played a friendly against a Hong Kong Airport Workers XI (or some such) when the dreaded Berti was manager. The SFA argue that the game should count as an international (probably because it was one of the few games we won while Berti was around) but FIFA told them otherwise. I think the consensus has been to keep that game in their appearance totals, but to qualify it (see Lee Wilkie for example). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gambrinus liga

This appears to be the only remaining article on a league which is under the sponsored as opposed to unsponsored name. A move request has, however, been rejected twice, in large part due to an inability to agree on what the unsponsored title of the article should actually be. Could we try and thrash out a definitive unsponsored name and then put in a fresh move request............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say 1. Liga (Czech Republic) or Czech 1. Liga, which matches Czech 2. Liga. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would second a move to Czech 1. Liga. Alternatively, I would suggest Czech First League in order to get rid of the ordinal in the name. However, if the latter is deemed acceptable, Czech 2. Liga would have been moved to Czech Second League as well for consistency matters. Hockey-holic (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Czech 1. Liga is not bad.--Latouffedisco (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex Brash

From reading the article, it appears that Brash played in Scottish League First Division for (at least) the 1984-5 season. Is this accepted as a fully-professional league, in the spirit of WP:FOOTYN? CJPargeter (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Scottish First has always been fully professional -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For info, it's worth looking at the league at the time; Scottish Football League 1984-85. From what I can see, the league contains what are today four semi-pro clubs and ten professional clubs. If this was the typical composition of the league until the restructuring in the 1990s, I would suggest no. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only really in the last 10-15 years that most of the SFL1 teams have been fully professional. In the 1980s it was the exception for teams to be fully pro. St. Johnstone won the First Division in 1990 and 1983 as a semi-professional club. The player concerned would more than likely have played in a Scottish Cup or Scottish League Cup game between two fully professional teams, however, and he also played in an unusually good Forfar team in the early 1980s. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this rather expose why professional/non-professional is a fairly useless basis for judging notability, and that we should be concentrating on a level of football instead? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm dismayed that somebody who played over 500 senior first-team league matches – including the second-highest level in Scottish football – would be considered for deletion. This feat alone is surely worthy of encyclopaedic value? Disappointing that so much effort goes into deleting new articles. •Oranje•·Talk 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Importance scale

On the imoprtance scale it says that "Teams with nationwide notability. Players or managers that have participated at international level or in a top-level league. Mid-level leagues." get mid-importance. The question I have is: How exactly do you assess nationwide notability? Just by playing in a nationwide league seems inadequate to me, as teams such as 1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig certainly have that notability, in spite of playing tier V. So, historic feats must be taken into account too. Would that mean that for instance, any team that has won a European competition (no matter which one) is mid-important? Would you go so far as class a winner of national championship or cup as md-important automatically? I'm asking, because there are a large number of articles on German clubs that lack an importance rating, and I'm trying to get the hang of it, so to speak. -- Madcynic (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say they are still of mid-importance due to their record from the GDR period. It would be similar to a club in a major country that had significant success in past decades but has fallen on hard times in recent years, eg Nottingham Forest. Mid-importance is quite a broad spectrum really. Only the top 20-30 clubs in Europe should be high importance. Most professional teams will have mid-importance because most professional teams have a nationwide notability, even if they are not in the top division at that time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Points for being the successor club to Germany's first national champions? A founding side of the DFB. So they at least inherit some of that glory, I would guess, and that should maybe get them mid importance? Wiggy! (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 79.77.111.24

The above anon editor seems to be working their way through Category:Darlington F.C. players, adding some very useful stuff (infoboxes where there are none, honours) but at the same time removing anything they don't like such as WP:Persondata and unused parameters in existing infoboxes. I've pointed them at the infobox documentation, hopefully they'll take note, but people may want to keep an eye out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember an anon who was editing Darlington player articles and was removing Soccerbase links. Probably the same person. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a different IP doing the same a few days ago. Peanut4 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Might rephrase the bit about useful addition of honours. This diff has Andy Crosby winning a 2004 playoff final with a club he'd left in 2001... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

MLS All-Star Game?

Junior Stanislas‎ played in the MLS All-Star game for West Ham, but has not played in a competitive league or competition, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Is this game notable enough to keep the player as I prodded the article and it was contested saying he played in this game? --Jimbo^[online] 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it was just another pre-season friendly though no doubt the MLS All-Stars are a big deal in the States. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Faroese Premier League

Are players from this really notable? I assumed the answer was so obviously no that it wasn't even worth asking, but the way this AfD is heading would suggest otherwise... пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

On a different but related note, I've just noticed that there are individual season articles for this league for every season from 1976 onwards, but all under a sponsored name which wasn't adopted till 2005. I really can't summon up the energy to move them all right now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved all the articles accordingly. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not eager with amending WP:ATHLETE for all top-flight players regardless of the country they come from. Playing with teams such as S.P. Tre Fiori of San Marino, UE Sant Julià of Andorra or USV Eschen/Mauren of Liechtenstein is not a proof of notability, and it just cannot be. These league receive little or no coverage at all, it's just ridiculous. --Angelo (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've uncovered six more foreign players from this league with articles: Milan Kuljić, Vlada Filipović, Rafał Kwieciński, Levi Hanssen, Ralph van Dooren and Jacob Bymar. All but one have been created by the same user (User:Shustfan), who has !voted keep on the article currently at AfD. I'll prod them all, but he'll almost certainly de-prod them. We seem to be really getting bogged down in AfDs at the moment, not helped by a certain user doing a lot of de-prodding, keep !voting and DRVing... пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rafał Kwieciński was a long-time pro in Poland, Ralph van Dooren played in Eredivisie and Eerste Divisie, Jacob Bymar is an Under international for Denmark and played in Superligaen. So? --necronudist (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's not what the articles say. They only list appearances in the Faroese league. If you can add their stats, please do. Also, youth caps are not deemed to confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually articles don't tell the whole story: see Rafał Kwieciński, Ralph van Dooren, Jacob Bymar. --necronudist (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've deprodded and added the stats. Can anyone with access to Playerhistory.com say if Milan Kuljić has played professionally? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

He played in Druga Liga Istok (Div.II East) and Druga Liga Zapad (Div.II West) in 2001-02 season and was on Bosnian Radnik Bijeljina roster in 2002-03 season (stats unknown). --necronudist (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Division in Serbia and Bosnia - I don't believe they are professional leagues. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue. --necronudist (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Edition"??

There's a teeny tiny thing which is annoying me about some of the articles on football competitions (such as the 2007 FIFA Club World Cup, various FA Cups and some Champions League articles. Please note: these are not "editions" of competitions. There are no edits made. There are no editors to make edits. These competitions are not books or newspapers, and the word "edition" is utterly and completely wrong when used in the context of a football competition. Please stop using it: use "competition", "staging", "season" - anything but "edition". El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a stab in the dark but I guess this is courtesy of our US friends. For what it's worth, I agree - it's annoying. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"There are no editors to make edits" - how do we correct it then? :-) Agree with you though, I'll try to amend this where I encounter it. --Jameboy (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that seasons of competitions should not be referred to as "editions". I usually change this wherever I see it, and I will make an extra effort to do so from now on. – PeeJay 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Edition is not derived from to edit; the verb is derived from the noun, which in turn is derived from the Latin dare (to give) with an abbreviated version of the prefix ex-. An editor was originally therefore someone who puts out a publication (not someone who hones and adjusts it) on puts on an event. It is perfectly valid, etymologically, to describe the 2006 World Cup as the 18th edition of the tournament, even if it is not to everyone's taste stylistically. Kevin McE (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps a common use argument should apply here. But I'm unsure as to whether the rest of the world (outside the US) use such a turn of phrase. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is, etymologically, ok to use (although I have actually seen no source whatsoever that links the latin to putting on an event) it, but all that basically means is that you would be fine to use it at the Roman World Cup in 10 AD instead. In no dictionary that I have found is the word "edition" in any way linked to any type of competition, including American ones. To use it for competitions, in the modern world, is wrong, regardless of the history of the word. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is frequently used by journalists and commentators, so it is rather arrogant to declare it to be "wrong". My reference to the etymology of the word was to refute your illogical assumption that it is necessary to have edits made in order to have an edition,and I refer to an English words with Latin roots, not the Latin language, so your sarcasm is ill-directed. It is a valid word choice, even if not to everyone's choice. Kevin McE (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, it's entirely unnecessary to use it when there are so many equally cromulent alternatives, so we should still avoid it if it's going to raise some people's hackles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a reply that incorporates the word "embiggen", but I just can't do it :( – PeeJay 12:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Weeeeell, it's not really a valid word choice, even if it is "frequently" used by journalists and commentators (and if we're going to roll with the anecdotes, then I can honestly say I've never heard it being used when referring to sporting competitions), because the lack of dictionary-ratified use as a reference to sporting competitions would suggest that it's a neologism, and should therefore be avoided. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 12:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was unaware that there was a big difference between British and American usage with edition. In the US, it's pretty acceptable to use and there is no connection in that context between editing and editions. matt91486 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Footballer of the year articles

In Germany the Footballer of the Year title has just been awarded. As I was looking at the list I was wondering why its name is not 'List of German footballers of the year'. Actually all those articles (from all countries I mean) are named xy's footballer of the year, but most of them are just lists and there is no reason why they should be anything else. But per Wikipedia:SAL naming conventions their name then should be 'List of xy' if anyhow feasible, which is actually not the case. To make my point, I was wondering whether these article should be renamed.

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Hall of England

Is moving season articles against policy again. I've left another warning on his talk page. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent seasons

User:Concertmusic has been adding "Recent seasons" tables to a number of German clubs. They cover the last ten years of the club's history. Is such a table necessary or should notable league positions rather be explained in prose? -- Madcynic (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the very definition of WP:RECENTISM? I would advise either having a table showing all club's history (better in a separate article entitled X F.C. seasons), or nothing at all. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in it, especially if there aren't articles on the seasons in question. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and if you're going to have a reduced list, it makes sense to have the most recent seasons, as it contextualises the club's current state. It's also fairly commonplace in the football media. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Definitely seems like WP:RECENTISM to me. By all means create individual season articles and move the info there, but it has no place on the main club pages. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like recentism to me too. As Number57 says, I would suggest putting all, preferably in a separate article, or none at all. Peanut4 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be nice to marry the two ideas outlined here and include a section that lists the ten most recent seasons (which is short and simple) and ends with a wikilink to a page which includes a complete historical record for the club. That would be a pretty neat resource in a standardized format. Wiggy! (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Wiggy's solution is a good one. For some clubs, we don't have the resources to have all seasons listed some places, so it's best to get down the information we can. We have lots of issues with Recentism in the project, but we shouldn't be overreacting to things. We just need to do the best we can with expanding historical data with the manpower that's willing to do it. matt91486 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested page move Assistant referee (association football) → Assistant Referee

Just dropping bu as I recently came accross the page named at the top. You'll probably be able to guess from my username why. I thought that given the redirect page would appear to be a shorter title without the brackets that it would make more sense for the current redirect page to be the name of the current title and the current title being the redirect page. BigHairRef | Talk 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this title came about because of the merge discussions on Talk:Referee (football)#Merger and the potential conflict with Asst refs in Ice Hockey. Also can some admin or whoever merge Talk:Assistant referee (association football) and Talk:Assistant referee together, it seems the latter talk page was forgotten on the last move. 81.79.98.52 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it in Ice Hockey the officials are still named "linesmen"? In either event having the page Assistant referee as a redirect dosen't seem sensible.

It would make more sense (IMO) for it either to be the main page for the association football officials with a {{for}} tag at the top of the page to the Official (ice hockey), or for the page to be a disambig for all the potential uses of assistant referee? BigHairRef | Talk 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Player History

Would it be helpful to set up a subpage somewhere where an author could request help from someone with Playerhistory access? We could just do it by sections, where someone requests and someone with access can quick just respond with team - app - goal data for them to incorporate in their own article? matt91486 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, what makes Playerhistory a reliable source? Insofar as I can tell from the outside, it's a collaborative resource which invites contributions from those with "good knowledge of soccer (football)". Some months ago, so you'll have to take this as purely anecdotal as I doubt I could find the thread again, I was reading the forum, where what appeared to be established editors were arguing the toss about sources for a particular player's clubs/apps, and the "sources" were largely stuff I wouldn't consider remotely reliable. Now I may have got the wrong end of the stick, and without having access I couldn't see what actually appeared on the site for the player in question, but it gave me no confidence at all in their methods. Perhaps someone who knows how it works could put me right on this? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In essence, playerhistory.com is just a wiki - it's people adding stuff. There also seems to be little/no verification needed for adding information about a player, which is something that worries me about it. So I'd take quite a lot of what is on there with a pinch of salt. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I was also under the impression, you shouldn't really add sources which are for subscribers only. While, it's useful to add the stats where they don't yet appear, they will eventually need a separate verification anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's a pity, though; a reliable source of stats for more obscure players/teams would be nice... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be one of the benefits to we Americans generally having a more enthusiastic view of statistics that most of the American professional sports have pretty solid databases online. I suppose it's not ideal to have to use playerhistory, but sometimes it's all we have to double check something. I thought on their application for submitting stuff they required a source listing though, which is at least something to factor in. matt91486 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a PH contributor and I can tell you it isn't a wiki. Members are the most "reliable" in football research (like Pierre Lanfranchi) and the work we do is extremely sourced. We've solved many obscure cases and we've found rare data. PH si for football what ISOH is for the Olympics. However, I can't spare data 'cause it's all copyrighted, and it is a pay-site so as you can easily understand it's not possible to share it. --necronudist (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How can statistics that are taken from other sources be copywritten by that website? That doesn't make a bit of sense. Especially so if we're referencing it as the source of the statistics. matt91486 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ask to the admin... --necronudist (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity then, how has it been used as a source at all before? matt91486 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just looked at the "Disclaimer" on that site - their terms and conditions are absolutely amazing! Basically you have to agree that all your contributions are your own work (yeah, right!) and then "waive any moral rights to your contribution" so that from the moment it is submitted, you are giving away the copyright from your hard work to www.playerhistory.com! I certainly won't be signing up for that, or to view at a minimum of 99$ (I presume USD?) for 6 months. - fchd (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems a little ridiculous to me. All we can do with that attitude is hope that the sports-reference network starts to put together a site on worldwide football. I've never heard of, say, Baseball-Reference being against being cited as a source. matt91486 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt: I'm the admin and owner of Playerhistory.com It's very easy to take copyright on data when you collect it from old newspapers. We have data which no one else have in many countries. If i see anything copied to other sites without my permission i'll be very angry. We have spent almost 7 years making playerhistory so i hope you understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, if you get information from newspapers, the newspapers retain the copyright. You do not have the authority to claim copyright over a) facts in the public domain, or b) other peoples work. That's how it would be in the UK at least, it may well be different in Norway. - fchd (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That depend how old the newspapers are, same about photos. They are not copyrighted forever. And i can assure you that we NEVER use Wiki as source. A site with more errors and wrong facts is hard to find. An example is Bovar Karim. First of all Mohammed is NOT his middle name. Second, Bovar has never heard of Mohammed Karim (His so called father) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about the expiry of copyright, 75 years or something. That still does not give you the right to then claim copyright over that information AT ALL. Also, I've had a quick look around your forum - sources being quoted there include the RSSSF and www.tonykempster.co.uk - how do you have the bare-faced cheek to claim any sort of copyright of data picked up from those sort of websites? - fchd (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cheap shot at us. Much appreciated. matt91486 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I totally was not intending for this to become a big thing. I just was hoping someone might be able to help figure out the career path and appearance data of Emílio Peixe a little better than I've been able to. Sorry for accidentally opening a whole can of worms. matt91486 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I promise you Matt that is NOT a cheap shot. That is a fact. Try to check up on Bovar Karim then you see my point. Even many of the football logos you have are fake. Most lightly have they been taken from brandsoftheworld which have 40/60 in favour of fake logos. The problem with wiki is that it's to easy to contribute. People don't give a shit to check their facts and they are mainly copycats.

Emilio Peixe
União de Leiria 2003-2004 2/0
Sport Lisboa e Benfica 2002-2003 2/0
Alverca 2001-2002 Loan 7/0
FC Porto 2001-2002 0/0
FC Porto 2000-2001 2/0
FC Porto 1999-2000 21/0
FC Porto 1998-1999 13/1
FC Porto 1997-1998 1/0
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1996-1997 10/0
Sevilla FC 1995-1996 5/0
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1995-1996 10/1
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1994-1995 21/1
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1993-1994 26/0
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1992-1993 29/1
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1991-1992 27/0
Sporting Clube de Portugal 1990-1991 Apprentice 1/0

I've corrected Karim Bovar's article. --Latouffedisco (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bovar Karim is NOT son of this Mohammed Karim. Bovar does not know who this person is. I spoke to Bovar personally as he is playing in my city for Tromsoe

WikiProject Football Guide

With what seems to be a recent increase in articles being created which are either clearly non-notable or simply poorly referenced, I've been thinking that perhaps we should create a guide for both new and established editors which could list the following:

• A quick guide to what makes players notable, perhaps in the form of a table of teams fully-pro legaues, arranged by country.
• A list of useful external links (e.g. Neil Brown, Player History, National Football Teams, Weltfußball, Soccerbase)
• Possible exceptions to standard notability rules.

What are people's thoughts on this? Any other suggestions for things that should be included? Cheers, GiantSnowman 13:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been sort of working on the league part earlier, it should be in the first archive now, so we can start work on that portion from there. matt91486 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Manchester United F.C. records and statistics

Hi guys. I don't normally canvas like this, but after initial interest in this FLC, the discussion seems to have stagnated a bit. If people could take a look at the article and make some more comments, that would be awesome, and some Support votes would be even better. Also, to those who have already commented, I have responded to all of your concerns, so feel free to reply to me. – PeeJay 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)