Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football.

Special:Contributions/Retepretep

Does anyone have a constructive suggestion on how to deal with this user? —WFC— 14:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left a few messages on his talk page in the past and never had a response. Jogurney (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left another message, and am quite prepared to block him if he continues. Number 57 15:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the powers of the internet to find out his name and location. I will try leaving a message referring to him by name to see if this peaks his interest and encourages him to respond to his messages. I hope this does not break some sort of rule. It is a long shot but other than blocking him there is not much else that can be done.--EchetusXe 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It certainly does break some sort of rule. WP:OUTING. Oversight requested. Please do not do that again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Without an appropriate format publicised it is harder to encourage consistency in the case of this user's squad list edits. To that end I have interpolated consensus and put sample code into the MOS guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/National_teams--ClubOranje^T 00:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ps, doesn't look so good in the sample as the section comes in before the infobox finishes, but on most articles that doesn't actually happen.--ClubOranje^T 00:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I think that is uncontroversial.--EchetusXe 01:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Continues to ignore policy and consensus: has today overturned AfD decision at List of football clubs in Liechtenstein, and posted "current" squad at São Tomé and Príncipe national football team (who haven't played since 2003) in his own preferred tabular form. Kevin McE (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's time to block him as he has ignored all warnings and is determined to carry on regardless. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The squad edits didn't bother me too much, more the fact that he didn't discuss them when challenged. Creating rubbish, de-prodding rubbish and ignoring AfDs which decided to redirect the rubbish to something useful is another matter altogether. The latter is block-worthy even in isolation, given that he is an experienced user and was made aware of the specific AfD from day one. I would also request that the block be made indefinite. Not because he necessarily deserves it, but because the problem is a lack of engagement, and an indefinite block would solve that by requiring him to engage. —WFC— 09:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Effectively the user is gaming the system, and I think there's a clear consensus that his editing is disruptive. Let's see if he makes any requests to be unblocked and move on from there. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Football in X" stubs

So we're left with the issue of what to do with all these useless stubs. I PRODded a few before realising that a better solution was needed. IMO leaving one-line stubs around for all of these is counterproductive as it discourages people from writing proper articles on them, and encourages them to create copycat stubs with no content. Should these be mass-deleted? What about the pointless "list of football clubs in X" pages? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are lists of clubs in X pointless? Timbouctou 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

While our guidelines on list articles say that it is not prohibited to have both a category and a list for the same purpose, it is evidently not a good idea for someone to go creating new lists for every single existing category, especially as the list is very likely to then sit and rot. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If the lists are likely to contain more information than what is available elsewhere (for example if the list of clubs in X is more comprehensive than the list of clubs currently competing at top level in X) I see no reason to remove them. Whether an article or list are likely to rot is not their fault but ours. In this case it is the evident eurocentricity of WP:FOOTY editors. Also, your argument above against marking articles as stubs ("it is counterproductive as it discourages people from writing proper articles on them") is hardly solved by mass deleting them and is akin to curing a headache with a shotgun. Cheers. Timbouctou 02:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think they can be worthwhile. Of course, that's only the case if they actually give more information than provided in the category, or the redirect that the "creator" decides to break. —WFC— 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words, I'd say mass delete this user's creations, but with no prejudice to better developed articles being created in future. —WFC— 13:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The en dash

Greetings all!

I may be raising past issues, but why do we not use the en dash ( – ) properly for scores in the template:footballbox? I know the common rationalization is that it doesn't look good (unless there is something I don't know), but it's the only place we do not use the en dash properly and I think it's time we should. Digirami (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a long discussion of the issue on that template's talk page: template talk:Football box#WP:ENDASH. Indeed it appears both of us were involved in it at the time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Longstanding convention is generally for spaces, the MoS is generally against, and I frequently see both in stable articles. No argument can be made that the presence or absence of spaces has any effect on understanding, so it's pretty much a dead issue IMO. If an MoS stickler takes issue with a specific article, you may as well just go along with it. On a wider scale, if two people care enough to edit war over it on dozens of articles, Wikipedia will probably be a better place for the pair of them being blocked. —WFC— 10:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any other guidance, we should follow the MOS. But as WFC says, it's not worth an edit war. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the "score" parameter in {{footballbox}} isn't prose (strictly speaking), I don't see why we need to follow the MOS in this instance. Also, including the spaces makes the score slightly easier to read, due to the amount of whitespace in the template anyway. – PeeJay 16:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on that discussion at Template:Football Box, has anything been done or is there anything in the works that will make all football box templates in articles be inline with MoS? If not, then I agree with PeeJay, why we can't just continue on with the spaced endashes? I think it looks better and it's been that way for some time in practically every football article. I also say this as I've contributed to quite a few football articles and in particular the 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup article, there were other users there that are also currently contributing at 2012 AFC Challenge Cup qualification. They weren't following the MoS for endashes in the Suzuki Cup page or any other football page they've contributed at but have all of a sudden been enforcing it for the Challenge Cup. Banana Fingers (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Gunn

TRM and I are looking to take this article about a thoroughly likeable man to FAC.

Anything you can do to help would be greatly appreciated. As usual for one of our FAC collaborations, I'm going to work up a to do list on the article talk page.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is growing, nicely. Come on in, the water is lovely. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-playing staff

Approximately 50 association football clubs have a sub-category 'Foo F.C. non-playing staff'. So, should the category for these categories be Category:Association football non-playing staff by club or Category:Non-playing staff by association football club? Two rugby union clubs have similar sub-categories, but that is too few to warrant a new category. Coyets (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The former, I think, although alarm bells immediately go off at the thought of us having a deep category tree for club kitmen and physios, or any specific categories for them at all. Got a few example articles? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the articles in these categories seem to be people notable for something else, usually playing football before they became non-playing staff. Adam Sadler and Bob Wall (football administrator) appear to be notable for being non-playing staff. Coyets (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward: examples include Category:Arsenal F.C. non-playing staff and Category:Chelsea F.C. non-playing staff. —WFC— 18:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Further examples of such categories are Category:Stockport County F.C. non-playing staff, Category:Hull City A.F.C. non-playing staff, Category:Persepolis F.C. non-playing staff, Category:Heart of Midlothian F.C. non-playing staff, and Category:Bradford City A.F.C. non-playing staff. So, should there be a Category:Association football non-playing staff by club as a subcategory of Category:Association football people? Coyets (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Category:Association football non-playing staff by club is better. And agree with Category:Association football non-playing staff by club as a subcategory of Category:Association football people. But I've seen assistant managers in manager's categories. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Adam Sadler is an example of a person who doesn't appear notable enough for an article.--ClubOranje^T 09:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps naming issue

Can someone please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Blake Wagner about the link piping issue for the Vancouver Whitecaps. I'm pretty sure I have the policy correct, but I'd like some second (third, fourth, fifth...) opinions. Thanks. JonBroxton (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you don't have the policy correct. The Portland Timbers situation is the correct one to follow. In either case, you'll have to change the Timbers to match what you think is the "policy" or I'll be changing the Whitecaps to what I think is the "policy". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You are discussing the way the two Vancouver Whitecaps are presented in the infoboxes. From what I understand Jon wants to leave the "FC" at the end of Vancouver Whitecaps FC so that way they are differenciated from the Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010), presented simply as Vancouver Whitecaps in infoboxes, having in mind the precedent of Seattle Sounders/Sounders FC. I just don´t understand what Walter proposes, or why oposes, or in other words, how do you Walter propose the two clubs to be differenciated in the infoboxes. I understand you mention the Timbers/Timers situation, but I don´t know what you mean by that? FkpCascais (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Walter wants to have "(USSFD2)" at the end of the pipe for Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010), so it would read Vancouver Whitecaps (USSFD2). The old Portland Timbers and new MLS Portland Timbers have identical names (i.e. no FCs or other abbreviations), so somone took the decision (or there was a discussion somewhere and a consensus was gained) to add "USL" to the end of the old Timbers pipe. If my memory serves me correctly, this is against the standard policy of not having league abbreviations in the link pipe, but in the absence of another sensible option, seemed like the best choice for this team. For the Whitecaps, it just makes sense to me to have just "Whitecaps" for the old USL team, and "Whitecaps FC" for the new MLS team, following the idea set by the Sounders. JonBroxton (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No I don't want that Jon. Adding (USSF-D2) was my suggestion for the last league. I'm open to suggestions. I'm not really open to excluding the FC.

The club took on the name "Vancouver Whitecaps FC" in 2003, when they were playing in the USL. They played in that league for seven years and the league dissolved and was replaced with the USSF-D2 in its final year. That league also no longer exists.

We should keep in mind that the Montreal Impact may have to deal with the same issue next year when they move from the NASL to MLS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So this solution may effect Vancouver, Portland, and Montreal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, wouldn't it be simpler just to merge the two articles? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would be, but Jon leads a contingent that feels that because the MLS holds the contracts for all the players and the clubs, that the team is a franchise and only a name. It would mean changing a lot of other articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not leading any contingent. I'm just following the consensus that was established when the Sounders left the old USL1 and started a new frachise in MLS. I don't have a vested interest either way, other than to ensure that all teams in the same circumstances are treated identically. But let's not have this discussion for the 767th time, please... it's been done to death already. This is about link piping and ONLY link piping. JonBroxton (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, we have to solve this disambiguational factor for future cases to come. Walter, you proposed the league initials to be included, you mean, USSF2 was the last league the club played in? Do we have any other options? For exemple, I know the NK Olimpija Ljubljana (1911) that was disbanded in 2005 and NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005) was created. Here the year of foundation was used as disambiguational factor. However, I haven´t checked how the two clubs were displayed in the infoboxes for players that played for both... FkpCascais (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Whitecaps team that existed from 1986-2010 was piped as [[Vancouver Whitecaps FC|Vancouver Whitecaps]] as per the usual standard of not including FC/AC/SC initialisms, until the name change to make way for the new MLS team; it's now (usually) piped as [[Vancouver Whitecaps (1986-2010)|Vancouver Whitecaps]]. The new MLS team is now at Vancouver Whitecaps FC. I'm proposing to leave the link pipe for the 1986-2010 team like that, without an FC, and not pipe the link to the new Whitecaps team at all. This follows the precedent set out when the Seattle Sounders folded their USL1 franchise at the end of 2008, and moved to MLS as Seattle Sounders FC. JonBroxton (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon, you're misleading the project with the statement above. The Sounders were called the Seattle Sounders until they joined the MLS at whict time the adopted the FC. That was five years after the Whitecaps, who remained in the second division not only changed their name, but the club structure. They include the Whitecaps Women and a development programme in 2003. So it's not as clear-cut as the Seattle example. I have written that several times and I'm disappointed that you continue to misrepresent the case. The FC must remain in the club name in some form, at least for any players who were on the team after 2003. I also don't have problem with merging the articles of the last two teams who were known as Whitecaps FC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Walter, that has got nothing to do with the link piping issue. When the Whiteaps adopted FC, or didn't adopt FC is completely immaterial, and I'm not "misleading the project" or "misrepresenting the case". All I'm trying to do is come up with a sensible way of differentiating the old Whitecaps and the new Whitecaps with a link pipe so that readers don't get confused over which club is which. Until this year, the Whitecaps club that existed from 1986-2010 was piped without an FC, simply as "Vancouver Whitecaps", as per the standard manner for omitting initialisms in team names that don't need them. All I'm saying is that we continue to do that for that link, and link to the new club as "Vancouver Whitecaps FC". That's it. Nothing else. No other issues to do with when the old club adopted the FC, when they changed their namem, what the club structure is. All that stuff is totally irrelevant to this discussion. JonBroxton (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy mark the name in the infobox as Vancouver Whitecaps FC (D2) or even Whitecaps FC (D2). They played for a longer period in the USL1. The problem is, just as with the Portland Timbers infoboxes, they didn't finish in that league. They have players listed as having played with USL who never did. This is what we get for splitting the articles around financial structures. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wait, so a team with the same name, same colours, same players, same staff, same owners etc. becomes a different one when it moves leagues? Huh, interesting. GiantSnowman 12:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Different players, different staff, different owners, different *legal status*. The Whitecaps (and Sounders and Timbers and Impact) didn move leagues - the old team was dissolved and no longer exists, and the new team came in to take it's place. Think of like when Aldershot, or Newport County, or Halifax Town, or more recently Chester City folded recently in England and re-started as a new team with virtually the same name; the difference here is that the US teams CHOSE to fold so that they could join MLS, instead of being forced to for financial reasons, and were re-born in a higher, rather than a lower division. JonBroxton (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of the same players, but additional players. Players are signed to contracts by the MLS whereas before they were signed to contracts by the club.

Ownership group is the same. The ownership deal was struck during the USL years and the investors were investing at that point, but at a lower level. MLS is the only new owner.

Most of the staff is identical. The additional staff are former Whitecaps players (Nash).

Different legal status.

The old team may not exist, but in the case of the Whitecaps, the old club still does. It is running the womens team and the development teams. The club did not fold. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• That seems to be the case. Crazy isn't it? Could only happen in America. BigDom 13:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Different colours. Otherwise, it is crazy. Is there a consensus on an action, aside from committing all of "the colonies" to an institution for commercially insane? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Same colours, non? Blue & white → white & blue? GiantSnowman 16:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Colours includes the kit design, no? The old kit was a wide horizontal stripe with "Whitecaps" inverted in the stripe. Home kit was white background, blue stripe, white text. Away kit was blue background, white stripe, blue text. New kit is all white with room for a sponsor name on the chest and incorporates two different shades of blue in the shield which is over the left breast. The colours themselves are the same. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, by "colours" I meant "colours" - name a single team anywhere in the world that has kept the same design over the course of their history. Anyways, a moot point, and my original assertion still stands i.e. why on earth do we have two articles about the same club? GiantSnowman 16:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason that we have two articles is because Jon, and others in the MLS group, feel that the legal status has changed. All players and clubs are owned by the league, the MLS, and the local representatives are franchisees. He argues that they ceased to exist as a separate entity. This has happened with several other teams (Seattle and Portland being two examples) and says to allow the Whitecaps to be merged would not be following the precedent of those club articles. I don't think it's necessary however, but after months of MLS people arguing to the contrary, I relented and agreed that two different legal entities should be sufficient.

So how do we deal with the name difference in the article infoboxes? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In comparible English examples there's scope for ambiguity (Chester City were playing in 2010, Chester FC started playing in 2010). In North America this isn't the case (one stopped playing in 2010, the other started playing in 2011). So in my view this only becomes an issue when a player played for both. In that instance, I'd go for (USL) and (MLS) appended to the teams' names. Unless there is someone who played for the Whitecaps before 1997 and is now in the MLS roster, that should work. —WFC— 12:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I will follow this suggestion. There are only a few players who transitioned between the 2010 side and the 2011 side. I will mark them as being part of the appropriate division: (USL) and (MLS). For players who did not make the transition, I will mark as Vancouver Whitecaps FC only. Jon: is this acceptable or do you have a counter-proposal? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No complaints from me. I just wanted to make sure we were consistent. Just one clarification: are we piping it with the FC as part of displayed name (as per Seattle Sounders FC), or without the FC (as per, for example Manchester United)? Historically, we piped the old USL Whitecaps without the FC. Either way is fine by me, I just need to know which one to use. JonBroxton (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point Jon. I was thinking of including FC since there was a Vancouver Whitecaps and then they became Vancouver Whitecaps FC, but recognize that the latter is usually not used. Suggestions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Before this falls off the radar

I am still seeking input. My plan was to make all post-2003 Whitecaps articles read Whitecaps FC with a link to the appropriate article. I would not include "Vancouver" in the title since to the best of my knowledge, there is no other professional Whitecaps franchise in the world. In the few cases where a player played for the second division Whitecaps and the MLS Whitecaps indicate that by adding (USL), (D2), and (MLS) to the infobox. I don't know if I would extend this to the main articles yet. I would appreciate feedback before starting the changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Shall I take the lack of response as tacit approval? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think having them simply as "Whitecaps FC" is a good idea, because that's not the WP:COMMONNAME. 99% of the articles I have read about the team has called them Vancouver Whitecaps. For the post-2003 Whitecaps, I would pipe Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) as Vancouver Whitecaps, omitting the "FC" part of the name as per the standard practice of not including abbreviated initialisms in the pipe. For the current MLS Whitecaps, I would do the same - Vancouver Whitecaps FC piped as Vancouver Whitecaps. Then, as you say, for the few players that have played for both the USL and MLS incarnations of the team, add either USL or MLS in parentheses in the pipe as appropriate. JonBroxton (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They call themselves that. All of their tickets are as Whitecaps FC http://whitecapsfc.com/tickets

I won't belabour the point, I'll just drop it. I have understood what you want since you first suggested it a week ago. That's why we're here Jon. However your suggestion is the worst possible idea for the Whitecaps. That naming scheme fits your club but not the Whitecaps. So I'm going to do what I think is best on the Whitecaps-related articles and you can do what you want with the non-Whitecaps-related North American football articles. To avoid conflict, may I suggest that you stay away the Whitecaps-related articles? No one else seems to care which way it's done and your way does not honour the Whitecaps. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what your complaining about, Walter. The name of the club is Vancouver Whitecaps FC as per, you know, pretty much everything you see about the team, everywhere. All I'm suggesting is doing what we do for the vast majority of other clubs which has an FC initialism, and pipe it as Vancouver Whitecaps. How is that the "worst possible idea"? How does it not "honor" the Whitecaps? What makes the Whitecaps so special and unique that is has to be treated differently from all other clubs? Also, don't tell me what I can and can't edit. You do not WP:OWN the Whitecaps articles. JonBroxton (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And you don't WP:OWN the MLS and other North American football articles, but you certainly act like you do. You impose your will on almost every NA Football article I watch going so far a changing article without references just because you think they should be changed much like this edit.

The rule is that British clubs don't use FC in their titles. That does not extend to German clubs. I have seen examples of other clubs including the FC, or the national equivalent, as part of their name. I see no reason why the Whitecaps FC should not be one of them. You're the one who has insisted on multiple articles for the club, there has to be a way to distinguish them from the other franchises that run in NA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Current suggestions

1. Whitecaps FC - Rationale:
   1. There is only one professional Whitecaps football team so it would not be confused with the Minnesota Whitecaps
   2. There is a history of using "FC" in non-English teams, it is being used by the Seattle MLS side and the Toronto MLS side, so team there is no reason to exclude this team for a rule that does not apply to their country or their league.
   3. The club itself is attempting to brand themselves as Whitecaps FC as can be seen from their ticket sales site.
2. Vancouver Whitecaps - Rationale:
   1. "FC" is excluded from names of English team names unless it's integral in the teams name.
3. Vancouver Whitecaps FC - Rationale:
   1. Full team name as is displayed by other MSL franchises.

• Only players who played in two incarnations of the Whitecaps at different league levels would require identification. In other words, if they played for the second division side and the MLS side a (USSF-D2) and (MLS) would be suffixed to title to differentiate the financial differences.

Just a reminder, if option 2 is accepted, then Sounders articles must also be changed because they are playing at the same level and in the same league and cannot be different just because they changed their name when they entered the MLS as opposed to the Whitecaps who changed their name and structure in 2003. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the rationale of Option 1, especially the assertation that the club "is attempting to brand themselves as Whitecaps FC as can be seen from their ticket sales site". The TV broadcasts this weekend, the wording on the club's logo, and virtually every media report I have read about the team includes the word "Vancouver", and removing the city name from the pipe IMHO would be stupid. I also don't agree with the rationale that only English team names exclude initialisms - if that was the case how do you explain the way we pipe AC Milan, Melbourne Victory FC, Internazionale Milano F.C., R.S.C. Anderlecht, PFC CSKA Moscow, and dozens of others? (I'll give you a hint - it's without the initialism) - or that piping the Whitecaps this way would somehow affect the Sounders. However, my choice, as has been the case all along, would be Option 3, with the caveat that the old USL Whitecaps continue to be piped as Vancouver Whitecaps, as they always have been until this year. JonBroxton (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The broadcast this past weekend was done by TFC and Sportsnet. Milan has two clubs so that explains those two. Don't know the other three clubs. I don't mind dropping the point however.

The Sounders are affected if we go with option 2 since they are in the same league and their full name is Seattle Sounders FC just as the Vancouver Whitecaps FC are, so if one is changed the other must be as well. It's only logical. You can't change one without the other.

So one vote for Jon. Others? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Futbol Club de Real Bigone

Can I invite you to read the article about Futbol Club de Real Bigone and then add your comments to the AfD. I'll leave you to make your own minds up - either way. Enjoy! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I spent much more time looking into this prank than was worthwhile.--EchetusXe 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Atletico Ladrid??? FkpCascais (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get that one either.--EchetusXe 18:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Real Bigone, Atletico Ladrid, there must be also a FC Farselona, Tosasuna and Retis :) FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of another apparently real team – A3 Milan; playing next to the motorway of the same name in Surrey. According to facebook: "A3 Milan is a team made up of legends that come together on Tuesday nights to demolish whoever Powerleague can throw at them!" Jared Preston (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Major says [1] that not only the club deserves an wp article, but our support as well! FkpCascais (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd of thought an administrator would have closed it down by now and deleted the article. They are just "Rickrolling" now. Any further attempts to converse with the group will only encourage them so I won't bother trying to reason with them any longer. A3 Milan is a fantastic name btw.--EchetusXe 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, they went way too far and a strong admin intervention would be fair. They are making fun of all of us and generally of WP. An admin intervention delay gives definitelly a wrong message t them. ANI? FkpCascais (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted it here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Case closed, with perfect rationale for the ocasion. FkpCascais (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aw, I missed all of the fun. That has to be the most pathetic AfD I've ever seen. xD Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Real Bigone is now gone... FkpCascais (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability of RAEC Mons players

Can anyone tell me if players that play for Belgian club RAEC Mons are notable? The notability article says a player is notable if :

"# Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional."

As far as I know, RAEC Mons is a professional club having spent the last few seasons in the Belgian top flight. However, they now play in the second division which is not considered fully professional, based on the list of professional leagues anyway. Does this mean they lose their professional status? What about notability? I'd appreciate some input from other members regarding this. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Like in all similar cases of clubs going trough promotions and relegations, their players are notable if they played in a pro league, and non-notable if played for the club only in lower leagues. It doesn´t really matter the club a player playes for, but the league. You may have a A.C. Milan player not being notable because he was never used in a pro league match... However, if a player has international caps (played for any A national team) he is automatically notable whatever the clubs, or leagues, he played for. FkpCascais (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So players who played in the league for the club in either 2002–03, 2003–04, 2004–05, 2006–07, 2007–08, on 2008–09 are notable.--EchetusXe 21:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, appreciate it. TonyStarks (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tus Hoisdorf

The article TuS Hoisdorf states correctly that the full name is Turn- und Sportverein Hoisdorf e.V. von 1958, and it is correctly named with the most commonly used shortened version thereof. However, the Category:TUS Hoisdorf players uses a capital U, which is clearly wrong because it stands for 'und'. What is the correct Wikipedia procedure for changing the name of the category to the correct one, which is Category:TuS Hoisdorf players? Coyets (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CFD. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Expecting more activity on 2010–11 UEFA Champions League knockout phase later today

A per past weeks, I expect activity on 2010–11 UEFA Champions League knockout phase later today and tomorrow. Could a few members please assist in paroling the updates in light of the group's decision to avoid infringements of WP:RECENT? A few editors have decided that they would mark the scoreline and goal scorers as comments, but a few other editors either remove the comments or don't bother using them at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll never understand the obsession of updating matches as they happen. Marking them as comments until the final whistle is an adequate compromise. It avoids WP:RECENTISM while allowing editors who like adding facts as they happen to do so. I'll keep on eye on it and do what yourself and Nmk829 do if required. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be people who don't have access to broadcasts of the matches. One comment from an anonymous editor (from the US) was "some of us have blockers at our jobs and Wikipedia is the only place to go to get score updates". However that means that their employers want them to actually work during the matches. We may run the risk of having Wikipedia blocked =)

For some World Cup matches I updated at full-time because my computer is next to the TV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Use this.--EchetusXe 20:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Match in progress template was used last week, but as soon as there was a goal scored, it was removed and a scoreline was added. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Recopa Intercontinental 1968

Some vandal has deranged the article. Can anybody please fix it? I think that it's a simple work, but I am not so expert... Thanks! --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Number 57 20:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And overworked. Digirami (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! --VAN ZANT (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the status of this tournament? Why is it notable at all? Looks like a number of (admittedly) fancy friendly matches to me. Anyone have background beyong beyond the intro? Madcynic (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave Anderson (footballer)

I've just significantly expanded this article based on what references I could find; for once, a variety of disparate Web sources on a non-League personality don't appear to contradict one another, which is nice! However, it's still seriously lacking in some areas, most notably statistics. If anyone can chip in please feel free! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Anderson has never represented Northern Ireland's B team according to the NIFG website [2] (I think it's reliable?), but a "D.Anderson" did represent the country at youth level on four occasions.[3] J Mo 101 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've seen two separate AFCW sources make that claim (the other is this one, straight from the horse's mouth). Any thoughts on a cast-iron source which could establish this for good? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Players heights

There appears to be a significant number of player articles that are having the height changed from imperial to metric first and adding a reference, the new height supplied is often different from that on Soccerbase. Soccerbase uses imperial in most cases and is the source that I have been using for the heights. Is Soccerbase the most reliable source for this and should we stick with it or go with other sources? Keith D (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen many of the heights given at Soccerbase aren't accurate. They'll input it when a player makes his debut as a teenager, but they don't tend to update it if and when the player grows taller. If there's a difference between the heights given by Soccerbase and the club's official website, I would almost always go with the latter. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with J Mo 101. The player's club will have measured him at the start of the season, so assuming they keep their website up-to-date, they will be more reliable than a general website whose info comes from who knows where (and one that rarely goes back to correct mistakes). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should prefer metric (with convert template ofcourse), imperial only when player is from country that uses it and played there most of his/her career. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We should use whatever format our reliable source uses - if somebody is said to be 6 foot 1 inch tall, then they are 6 foot 1 inch tall; if they are 1.85m tall, then they are 1.85m tall. Either way, use the {{height}} template, which is simple to use and displays both metric and imperial heights. GiantSnowman 14:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nominations on WikiProject main page

Why don't we use automatic ArticleAlertbot (lot of WikiProjects use it) instead of manually adding and removing nominations? I think it looks better and it even shows number of participants. It kind of bothers me if always somebody changes the page just for nominations. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Because ArticleAlertbot only finds articles tagged with {{WikiProject Football}} on their talkpage; also, what does it matter how many participants there have been? Just because something annoys you doesn't mean you can remove it from Wikipedia - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point. Probably not all football related articles aren't listed here. Basically it would be easier to tag the talkpage with {{WikiProject Football}}, football-related articles should have it anyway. Alertbot lists all, including Good article nominees, Featured list candidates. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

But if we're tagging an article just so that Alertbot can pick it up on its next round, isn't that highly, highly inefficient? Why not manually list the nomination - it's quicker & easier. GiantSnowman 15:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not just for that. This is WikiProject Football, so all those articles should have already tagged. If something is nominated and we notice that talk page isn't tagged then we should do it anyway (somewhy many editors don't like to tag articles, could change though). (There's a bot for finding new articles also.) And I don't agree that it is easier. If I nominate something for deletion, I wouldn't add it to main page. But what other editors think? Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I regularly check the ArticleAlertbot report for football article, but it rarely has all of the articles related to this project. If we can be certain the bot will collect all of the information that is manually entered on this page, I'll be happy to use it exclusively. Jogurney (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I tagged all the articles on the main page. The "time loss" for AlertBot is lesser than a day, so basically it doesn't matter. No page is being deleted so fast. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a very famous saying - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I still don't see why the current system - people manually adding to the list, with AlertBot adding any we may have missed (and in actual fact duplicating existing information in many instances!) onto a subpage - needs changing. GiantSnowman 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What Snowman said. I use both the Alertbot report and the talk page list, and the quicker a proposed deletion appears on the list, the more time there is to do a decent search for sources before the thing gets deleted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I echo the above. I appreciate all of the effort people put in to tag articles and list them on the page. It's quick, easy and isn't hurting anyone. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with the notion that we should stop making work for ourselves over this. I personally gave up adding my own nominations to the project page years ago because unlike the rest of the XfD process it wasn't automated, and I imagine that a great many people have never bothered with it in the first place. If there are problems with the bot (and I don't consider it only seeing talk-tagged pages as a problem) then those should be addressed upstream, rather than WP:FOOTY working around them by doing the entire thing itself. As a WikiProject WP:FOOTY is really very good at following established project-wide conventions when they're pointed out, and this one seems like a big win for personal productivity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Fb round2... and others

Could someone add this kind of templates with dashes so they can work. Because if on the article is "fixed dashes using a script" it ruines Champions League and Europa League links. See [4], normal is 2011 Meistriliiga. On some older seasons it also changes a bit the link: [5]. Thanks! Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If I'm reading this properly, all you need to fix the templates in question if the page move function. For example, {{Fb round2 2012-13 UCL QR2}} should be moved to {{Fb round2 2012–13 UCL QR2}}. Any editor can do this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh shit. There's about 500-600 of them - Category:Fb round templates (+Category:Fb round templates UEFA, Category:Fb round templates England, Category:Fb round templates CONMEBOL). Do you agree that I make a bot request to move them? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why move it? Most people don't have an en-dash on the keyboards (like me), which makes implementing the template with a regular dash easy... So long as the link the template provides has the en-dash properly, I think that's all that matters. Digirami (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually en-dash should be between years, so the name is wrong anyway. When moved, you can still use it with regular dash. You can find en dash from the below the editing box from "Wiki markup" if you have monobook outlook. Also you can start using the script. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The counterargument is that because redirects are cheap, there's nothing stopping people from continuing to use hyphens if they want so long as there's a redirect to the dashed title in place. In general I believe the battle against dashes in titles by preference has been lost by now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know the en-dash go between years. But since this is a function template not the name of a proper article, I don't see why we should go through the trouble to make it grammatically correct. But, whatever... I can't remember the last time I used one of those templates that had a dash of any kind in it. Actually, I've been more perpelxed as to why "round2" templates exist when "round(1)" worked fine. Digirami (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The link from "round2" and "round(1)" is different, it's not the same. My first comment says how i crossed it. Why not grammatically correct if it is preferred in wikipedia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Buchtmann

Could someone please look if this a recreation of the page deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Buchtmann. He still does not appear to have played 1st team football...--ClubOranje^T 02:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he has only played for their reserve team in the Regionalliga. So he has gone from Liverpool reserves, to Fulham reserves and now 1. FC Köln reserves. Nothing notable about that. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Remind me: Winning an UEFA Under-17 Championship does not confer notability, no? Madcynic (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you achieve in your youth career doesn't make you notable, per WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Halo?

Rather ironic photo for Kristian Nicht whose name could be interpreted as "Not Christian"...I wonder whether that was accident or design?--ClubOranje^T 08:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

haha, ClubOranje are you Dan Brown is disguise?--EchetusXe 09:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

He is a saint without knowing it... :) FkpCascais (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Managers and non-playing staff

Managers are a special type of non-playing staff, and Category:Celtic F.C. managers is a sub-category of Category:Celtic F.C. non-playing staff. However, Category:Arsenal F.C. non-playing staff states "Category for people who have worked as non-playing staff (e.g. assistant managers, youth/reserve coaches, trainers, physiotherapists, kit managers) for Arsenal Football Club. First-team managers are excluded; they have their own category in Category:Arsenal F.C. managers". Would it be best to (a) keep some clubs organised like Celtic F.C. and others organised like Arsenal F.C., or (b) add all Foo F.C. managers categories to their respective Foo F.C. non-playing staff categories and remove the second sentence from the text or change it so that it is similar to the text in Category:Middlesbrough F.C. non-playing staff, or (c) remove all Foo F.C. managers categories from their Foo F.C. non-playing staff categories and add a text similar to the one in the Arsenal F.C. non-playing staff category to all Foo F.C. non-playing staff categories? Coyets (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said a week or so ago, my preferred approach would be to remove the "non-playing staff" categories entirely, as this is not a notable role in itself in the vast majority of cases. Non-playing staff who do not take management roles can be categorised by club and left there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think the current system with these categories strikes a good balance, and I have seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they are encouraging non-notable articles. Heck, if we are going to delete things for that reason, we surely have to start with WP:NSPORTS. But let's for argument's sake say that Thumperward's view is accepted. If the categories are deleted on the grounds that the roles are relatively unimportant, why bother adding the club's category? —WFC— 20:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that seperate cats are pointless for those. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is to remove those cats but leaving them categorically linked to the club, trough Cat:FC Club. I am definitely undecided on this matter, but I think that was what Chris meant. FkpCascais (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having a non-playing staff category to capture notable coaches, assistant managers, physio's etc, although the majority of these will be in the players (or managers) category anyway. However, it may not be appropriate to have this for all clubs. If the numbers of such staff with articles is quite low then maybe they could go in the main club category, but you would not want the club cat filled with a load of former coaches and scouts etc. Eldumpo (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

FKP: I'm pretty sure that's what Chris meant. And it's proof that even he knows that this is a completely stupid idea. If a non-playing role is not worthy of a sub-category at a club, then it is not worthy of being categorised in relation to the club. There is simply no logical way to argue otherwise. Frankly, this proposal makes about as much sense as deleting Category:Crawley Town F.C. players, on the basis that you don't become notable by playing for Crawley. Incidentally, this all comes from a user who believes that playing a game for Dumbarton makes you notable. —WFC— 16:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My logic is that there are relatively few of these people relative to the number of players who might exist under a club category, so we should not be sub-categorising them by default as this will inevitably result in a huge number of nearly-empty categories. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, been a bit busy this week. I'll address your point at the end of this post, but bear with me. Category:Arsenal F.C. is very well maintained. The vast majority of articles in that category are fundamental to the topic (the club, the stadia, rivalries, sub-articles of the club), and the few others are there because the alternative would be near-empty categories. Throw in 54 pages from Category:Arsenal F.C. non-playing staff, and it becomes a very different story. Furthermore, these categories are growing. Firstly because there will be past staff who either have articles but haven't been categorised, or who were notable for their playing/managerial careers but don't have articles yet. Secondly because clubs have more backroom staff than ever, and are turning over management teams at the quickest rate ever. Let's take Watford. Currently there are 47 articles. I need to review a few of those as there is no mention of Watford in the articles, so admittedly the tally could be a bit lower. But of those, I believe that 20 have had non-playing roles at Watford in the 21st century, and our manager turnover rate is fairly typical for an English club.

So coming back to your original point, I agree that there is a theshold below which these categories cease being useful. But for bigger clubs, they are steadily expanding, and have potential for further growth as explained above. To get rid of all of them would in many cases be counterproductive, and swamp the parent categories. —WFC— 18:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm prepared to accept that these can be a good idea in exceptional cases. It's important that they are considered individually, however, as I'm sure you're aware that perceived precedent is a powerful thing on here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of people being able to think for themselves, precident and tightly lettered policy and guidelines is all we have. Which can be a bit of an issue when the policy and guidelines themselves are at best inconsistent, at worst knowingly and deliberately going against the project's wider intention. But anyway. The best thing we can do is write this down on a project essay somewhere. If it included the phrase "dozens of viable entries", we would in effect be drawing the line in the sand at 24 non-playing staff, which I think is approaching the level at which a club category (which is usually reserved for top-level stuff, as outlined above) would be glad to get rid of these distracting articles. —WFC— 15:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Review please

I'd appreciate a review of the C class for the Bryan Gunn article.

If the reviewer could possibly leave a gloss at the talk page for what's missing from the article being at least GA class (which it ain't yet, but we're hoping to get to FA eventually!), I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Create, delete... over and over again.

This user (Ludanoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) creates the same articles over and over again. He must be a fan of a second league non-notable club FK Novi Pazar (non-notable because never in its history it played in top league), and insistently makes articles of the club players. Most of club players that are notable already have an article (a couple of them) while the rest definitelly should be speedely deleted. Rather than this, the user seems to completely ignore the style for the articles, as for exemple he now makes infoboxes with seasonal club stats (while surely clearly knows that is not how is donne). I bet he´s just a kid. What shall we do? His artlcles were deleted before, and he is certainly aware of that. What´s the best way to deal with them, what you guys think? FkpCascais (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This user should get a warning (But we should respect every user's contribs and not block them too easyly.). The recreated non-notable articles should be protected. The club itself is ofcourse worth an article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I´m not meaning to block him, and the club article is obviously not a problem. I just touth to ask what´s the best way to deal with this kind of users that recreate same articles over and over again. The guy seems not to speak english either, so I could speak with him in Serbian I supose, but that is not the point on en.wiki, isn´t it? Neither I want to encourage a child to continue making articles here without him having capacity to understand what he is writting (he copy/pastes other articles and changes the clubs and stats)... FkpCascais (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE. If the user is not able to work collaboratively within our rules and social framework, we are not obliged to humour that user indefinitely. You could try asking him to contribute to the Serbian Wikipedia instead, which like all foreign-language versions could certainly do with another helping hand. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that´s a perfect idea! I mean, I can´t tell him to just give up and go away. And he probably doesn´t even understand what notability means (he must think WP dislikes his club, so if Chelsea has no red links, so his village club shouldn´t either!). If I start explaing him what is he doing wrong, he may understand part of it, then he´ll continue creating articles but never well, and without ever completelly understanding all... I can be accused of being pessimist and not giving a chance to newcomers, but I simply saw this moovie too many times... Trying to fix the problem and explain him everything just delays the inevitable. If he wants to edit, he should do it somewhere where he possibly can understand things, in this case, not here, but in sr.wiki. Many thanks Chris! His pages will be deleted now, and perhaps he´ll just give up, but if not, I´ll certainly follow your plan and send him to another wp (universe) :)))) FkpCascais (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know he won't understand? Nothing hasn't been told to him. You'd better explain, if necessary in Serbian. I think one day he will get used, learn rules and contribute articles that are much more needed. He may create his articles from footballers that are not yet notable User:Ludanoc/.... Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh Palmeen, Palmeen... a guy who´s name in translation means "crazy night" (luda noć) and that knows so well English that he wrote "Kapten" instead of "Captain" [6],´simply doesn´t give me much motivation to motivate him... One day when you wake up and see that you started spending more time correcting other people´s errors than creating, you´ll start feeling like this as well. FkpCascais (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Today he made the same edits again, and he even reverted me. Now, Palmeen, I know your intention is good, but we are not charity here. I wan´t talk to him in any other language here but English. If he doesn´t understand me he simply shouldn´t edit here. That is crystal clear. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want to do with him. Let's see if he starts following the rules. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, after leaving him a notice pointing him out the usefull links and policies he just ignored it (or doesn´t understand it) and continued doing the same making further 3 articles completelly against all I said to him, and surely speedely deletional (Adnan Bektašević, Elvis Holić, Amar Plojović). And he will continue. The guy even removed Speedy deletion nominations from his talk page ([7]). The guy just doesn´t care, reverts corrections, further makes nonsence articles, and ignores completelly everything... Can someone please help and finish this? I did my best and I basically lost time... FkpCascais (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Google Translate any good at converting English into Serbian? If he doesn't get the message soon then something has to be done because he is ignoring all accepted guidelines and is creating work for others. I see that he has created 15 articles and odds are that none are notable. It isn't fair on the rest of the project having to clean up after someone when they could use that time to improve the encyclopaedia. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Argyle 4 Life. Since the user is not responding to any English input, give him/her exactly one stern (okay, perhaps not that harsh, but you hopefully get the idea) comment on the guidelines the user is continuously neglecting in Serbian, and perhaps point him, as Chris already suggested, to the Serbian Wikipedia as well. However, if this move is not successful as well, then a block might be the only option left. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Argyle 4 Life, you mean, if he can use google translate to understand the comments left in his talk page? Well, google is good to have a general idea about the subject, but since it translates word by word, many times the correct meaning is confusing and many sentences became senseless because obviously the grammar structure is different for both languages. For exemple, I had cases where people made a google translate for historic sections of certain clubs, and the text is so bad that it took me hours to fix it, many times not being worth having it at all.

@Soccer-holic, but I already left him a message on his talk page exactly pointing him out the principles and explained him why was all this happening. I finished the comment asking him in Serbian if he understands English. But I also noteced the following, he seems not to know English: he copy/pastes other articles just changing the stats and personal things, but when English is needed, as exemple he wrote "Kapten" instean of captain. But that´s not all, a funny (and quite strange) thing is that he seems not to know well Serbian either, since he wrongly writes the names in Serbian cyrillic in the lede sections! I really suspect we are dealing here with a very young person here (child), or perhaps he has some other problems...

Anyway, I thank you both very much for your inputs here. It seems he has cooled of a bit, but he menaged to do all redlinks from his club by now, so his "job" is donne. However, when the articles get deleted I suspect the guy will do the same old thing... FkpCascais (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

1991 European Cup Final

An anonymous editor has arrived on the scene and decided to change the flags in the 1991 European Cup Final article to reflect modern nations instead of the contemporary Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Since SFR Yugoslavia didn't actually split up until 1992, this is obviously incorrect, but the anon is insisting that since FIFA recognises Serbia as the "successor" to SFR Yugoslavia's records, this should apply "retroactively" to historical articles. I have tried explaining this to the anon, but they simply accused me of taking the issue "personally". I would appreciate it if someone else would add some input to the article (or here). – PeeJay 23:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No discussion on either the talk page of the article or the editor in question? Interesting. However, I have left a note with the IP regarding WP:MOSFLAG. GiantSnowman 01:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting that edit summaries don't count as actual discussion. – PeeJay 01:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha, don't worry, we've all been there... GiantSnowman 01:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally suffer a lot with this constant IP´s changing countries to the current ones, and not the ones that existed at time we are talking in the articles... and I keep on reverting them, and keep on leaving a notice, but each day a new one comes... like if we didn´t knew that the map changed since then, dahhhh... But, we can´t do anything, but just keep on. FkpCascais (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but this guy was even more stupid, Marselles??? Hahahahaaaa... FkpCascais (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I've never seen any source using "Olympic Marseilles". "Olympique Marseille" is far most used in English sources...--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Giovani dos Santos

He was runner-up for FIFA World Cup Best Young Player Award and there are IPs and users adding it. Is it notable enough to be added, there are other users that said it should not be added. Two users called it vandalism because I removed it, even though I gave a reason. GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 20:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is, quite properly, included in the prose. If a medal or other presentation is made for being runner-up, I would suggest that it should be in the honours section: if not, it shouldn't. Kevin McE (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:LINKSPAM?

This account Themacor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), looks like a single purpouse account. His only edits were adding a new website to articles. I left him a message on his talk page, but I got no answer and after that, he added the website in another article. The website is new, and its addition seems unnecessary in most cases because the info that contains is already there on other references or external sources already found in those articles. Is this WP:LINKSPAM? FkpCascais (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hungary National Team of the 1950s

I'd like to invite the participants to this project to express their opinion on this discussion [8] (Iaaasi (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

It seems odd that such a high importance football article like this would be effectively unreferenced. Hack (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a byproduct of the way the article was developed, starting as it did as an essay with prose so gushing it would have looked awkward in the national stadium's trophy room, let alone an encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian results grids

Does anyone know how to edit these grids so as the vertical names at the top do not take up so much space - e.g. see 1979–80 Serie A#Results. Eldumpo (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a design error within the underlying template to me. You will have not much choice but to manually convert these tables to either a plain wikitable or a fb r-based solution. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you got an example of a results grid in wikitable format? The 2009-10 Serie A results grid [9] uses fb r2 but this is in a very different input format. Please note the fb r link you posted above has a number of error/unrecognised characters comments. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Example: 1988–89 2. Fußball-Bundesliga#Results; however, no need for place numbers, just pipe the club names to a three-letter abbreviation in the first line. As for the link to the fb r header template – I intended to link to the documentation, but somehow messed up the link. The latter has now been fixed. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish autonomous teams

We currently have 16 teams (including a couple of dubious ones) in the category 'Spanish autonomous football teams'. From what little I know there appears to have been a move in the last decade or so towards each region's team playing a match against another region or a national team at Christmas. Some, eg Catalonia occasionally play twice in a year. Does anyone have any more info on these teams? Some have virtually no information at all, or appear to be defunct, eg Balearic Islands. There's a brief mention of these regional teams on the Football in Spain article, but not how regularly they play, if there's a team for each region or if only some are taken seriously etc. Some articles also seem to conflate amateur regional teams which compete in the UEFA Regions Cup with the 'national' team, eg Asturias. Do the amateur teams merit a separate article if they're competing at a continental level? Should there be a separate article on, say, Autonomous football teams in Spain?Stu.W UK (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Catalonia is the only one that I could name off the top of my head as being notable, mainly thanks to the influence of Barca; merging the others into one article sounds like a very sensible idea. GiantSnowman 00:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't made this very clear - maybe one day I'll learn 1am on a Monday morning is not the time to post this stuff! I think most of them are notable, I was thinking of a separate article in addition to the ones on these teams. Some of them played regularly in pre-Franco Spain so are notable for that era, even if not now. I think as well as asking for more info I really should have asked if anyone knows what has happened in recent years to these teams, because a lot of them have not had fixtures added for a few years. Was there a brief resurgence in the idea of regional teams, or were these articles created around that time and just not updated since? Did they play at all between the 30s and the late 90s? It would also be interesting to know what people thought about these teams regarding notability though, so I've included the template here to make them easier to have a quick look through. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I'll have to learn not to try and answer stuff at 1am on a Monday morning! Your best bet would be our Spanish-language editors (Vasco, Mega60 are just two that spring to mind), to give you both context and information. Regards, GiantSnowman 01:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know perfectly well Spanish and I have plenty of translation experience with all languages I know weel. But I lack time right now to seach the web about this teams, but if you find anything you can post it here and I woudn´t mind at all helping. Now, perhaps the Spanish wiki would provide more info on them. Check: es:Categoría:Selecciones autonómicas de España. FkpCascais (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Help urgently needed

Can anyone provide a reference or a comment to establish ForaDeJogo as a reliable source? There is a GA review ongoing and I need to demonstrate that it is reliable for the article to pass. From what I can tell, it involves a lot of volunteers who collaborate to achieve a rather exhaustive database about Portuguese football, but it doesn't say exactly where they get it from or whether a respected publisher is involved. It has been invaluable to me because statistics for the LPFP don't go any further back than 2004 at the moment and the FPF isn't easily navigable to me. Without ForaDeJogo, as far as I can tell, I have no other way to track the players progress. So, if I can't show it's reliable then the article will fall agonisingly short which, to put it bluntly, would suck. If anyone can help then I will be extremely grateful. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• For Portuguese footballers, it's as reliable as it gets, alongside ZEROZEROFOOTBALL.COM. Of course, none of them are official, as the ones you refer to above, but those are the only ones available now, as far as i know. From my extensive searching in both, i can also add that more often than i would like, the stats in both sites do not match, albeit slightly...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the site on several ocasions, and it is definitelly a very complete website regarding all footballers that have played in Portugal. Even for non-Portuguese players, it already happend to me to find more info and stats in ForaDeJogo than on any other website (Playerhistory, WorldFootball, etc.). The website however ocasionally lacks international information for less known foreign footballers that played long time ago, but I mean, come on, what website doesn´t? I definitelly think that ForaDeJogo is the most complete website for Portuguese football (alongside ZerozeroFootball as Vasco well said) but sometimes going even further and having more historic data and even more relativelly unknown players that played a long time ago. I would support you Argyle on this and I´ll try to see what else can I do to help you. Now, regarding what Vasco said about stats not allways matching, I must say that Zerozero often provided me discrepances with other websites more often than ForaDeJogo, altought it happend to me to find rarely slight errors in both. But generally is quite acurate FkpCascais (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say zerozero is necessarily "as reliable as it gets". It says that Jose Belman spent a season with Gillingham, which I know for a fact isn't true...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see your point Chris, but Belman isn't Portuguese, he's Spanish. I'll browse the web and see if i can find anything regarding those years, as it's quite evident from your approach he did not play for Gills. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I tried to find anything that might suggest it is a reliable source. I found that the data is taken from other publications and websites, but some is user supplied, and there is some kind of review process (people are thanked for error detection): http://www.foradejogo.net/about.php?&language=2&language=1. A regional version of a newspaper website used foradejogo.net as a source, which suggests it was viewed as credible. User supplied data is not automatically published and goes through a moderation process, with the site owners having the right to choose what data to publish: http://www.foradejogo.net/about.php?&language=2&language=1. I'd say it's close to a reliable source, although I wish I had more evidence. Jogurney (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help so far guys. The link to the newspaper using the website as a source is a big help I think. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Players called up to the national team squad but who haven't played

What was the consensus regarding this? Matt Jarvis very quickly had "0 England apps" added to his infobox yesterday...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Na, wrong. Remove. We discussed this many times and from what I remember the agreed was to add the info in the article, but not in the infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you already did that. Well done! FkpCascais (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have 0 caps for England (for now...!), can I put that in my infobox? GiantSnowman 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have zero caps for hundreds of countries... gets coat Darigan (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think GiantSnowman should have displayed in his infobox England 0 (1) cause with this joke he definitelly scored without playing! And Darigan can do the same for all the countries he wants! FkpCascais (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure it wasn't an owngoal?! GiantSnowman 16:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Na, it was definitely a classy goal. A long free-kick, or something similar. :) FkpCascais (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think i thaw (Looney Tunes homage) an offside there...Naw, nice work folks! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris: a clear majority of WP:FOOTY members believe that zero caps doesn't belong in the infobox. Although the numbers are a bit less clear-cut if we strip out those just turn up and vote, or those who are only capable of saying something more than "per X" if they're being sarcastic, which appears to be the case with two or three of those above. The argument against is that we never have, and they're not contracted to their countries. The argument for is that it is easily verifiable if someone has been in an international squad, and that being called up to a squad and not playing is no different to going out on emergency loan and not playing. I've yet to see a convincing rebuttal for either argument, and therefore the decision should rest with the primary contributor(s) to a given article. —WFC— 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WFC, you are not being fair with your comment. If you want we can perfectly go trough a entire new debate over this issue. But, Chris just asked a short question about what is the consensus, and I unswered him. So I don´t think that short answer make us deserve to be put in the category of "sarcastics" or "not capable of saying more than per X". What just happend here? FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WFC - imagine a player who is called up by his country at every international level (U16 all the way up to senior squad, for example) but for whatever reason never actually makes ANY appearances. Would you have six or seven 0 (0)s in the infobox? GiantSnowman 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fkp: There were four posters between myself and Chris. The phrasing I used was two or three.

Snowman: Find me one example of a player who has been in that situation in three teams, without having played for any other team. I consider your example to be so nonsensical as not to be worth consideration, but I'll take it seriously if it's shown to be even a remote possibility. —WFC— 01:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it's deliberately nonsensical - read my edit summary - but it has to be. Suggesting we include international call ups in the infobox is equally ridiculous. Club and country football are quite different, and so making analogies to 'emergency loans' isn't valid. If you wish to pernickity, you should question why Kenny Dalglish's loan spell to Cumbernauld United (in which he scored 37 goals!) isn't included in his infobox, or why Chris Smalling's one-month spell at Boro isn't in his. By all means, feel free to include zero international caps in infoboxes, but please don't get offended when the "clear majority of WP:FOOTY members" (your words, not mine) remove it. Regards, GiantSnowman 01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You admit that your example was ridiculous. You have yet to provide an alternative reason, other than pointing out that Kenny Dalglish's infobox is incomplete. Quite frankly, you can't defend your position. But because you believe every discussion boils down to a simple yes/no vote, you believe that that is the end of the matter. Please correct me if any of that is wrong. —WFC— 03:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In one of our more recent discussions here on the matter, you agreed with the view that callups shouldn't be in the infobox, what has made you changed your mind? Also, please don't belittle my contributions here. GiantSnowman 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What I said was that I agreed with Struway and Mattythewhite that that was the convention. In the very same post I questioned said convention. While apologising for the tone of the previous post, I stand by the content, and would point out that none of it has been refuted. If it's going to be dismissed because of my choice of words, let me rephrase.

Three people in this discussion have argued why there may be value to 0 (0), some or all of the time. More than three people have disagreed. But of those, only Jogurney has made any sort of argument for why we shouldn't. And I would counter that by pointing out that it's little different to a Manchester United or Chelsea player turning pro at 17 in 2002, suffering a career-threatening injury shortly before his 21st birthday in 2006, and retiring after failing to recover at 23 in 2008. From the infobox, we haven't got a clue whether he was a regular in the League Cup (possibly also feature in a couple of Champions League dead rubbers), whether he was a frequent non-playing substitute in the Premier League, or whether he was nowhere near either. We haven't got a clue about when he was available or unavailable. All we have is 2002-2008... 0 (0). The situation is analogous to being called up for two friendlies vs frequent callups and being included in tournament squads. —WFC— 16:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology. I didn't feel the need to refute any questioning of my conduct in discussions because I'm happy with it and haven't had any complaints until now (even though all I did was crack a bad joke AFTER the discussion had seemed to be ending...); also, I haven't made any argument for my view because a) others have already put it way more eloquently than I could and b) I'm sick of this debate coming up again and again. If you want, let's have a straw poll, once and for all, so we can all move to more important things. GiantSnowman 21:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion of a straw poll very much highlights my previous point. —WFC— 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WFC, I can´t remember who defended what on those discussions, do you actually defend the inclusion of the 0 (0) national team stats? (I´m not asking this ironically at all because I quite understand well the arguments for both sides. When I was unswering to Chris, I was answering what was agreed by the "consensus" and not my POV on the issue. I am quite divided over the issue because being called for the NT, even without actually playing, is quite an archivement. That is why I said to add it in the text, because I think it is definitelly worth mention, just that the consensus was that it would not be included in the infobox) FkpCascais (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the infobox is supposed to provide biographical and career highlights "at a glance". Showing call-ups in the infobox is at least a little confusing (someone could have a call-up as a youngster and then not be called up again until age 30, and show a 10-plus year international career, with the "0 (0)" entry not doing much to explain what happened). I'd rather have the infobox give concise, easily understandable information, rather than things that can easily confuse the reader. Jogurney (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't support adding 0 (0) to infobox either, but I think those players are worth an Wikipedia article (and not being deleted). Pelmeen10 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Don´t worry Pelmeen, deletion was never in question here. Regardiing this issue, as curiosity, National-football-teams website had for years created the pages of all players that were called up for their national teams. Obviously part of them ended up never earning a cap, but they were still having their pages there for years. Obviously by doing this, the website ended by having houndreds of article about footballers that have been called but never appeared. The curiosity that I mentioned is that somewhere about January or Ferbuary this year, they seem to have made a major clean up and removed all those articles from their database, and I alrady found some NFT death links and removed them from the articles of footballers in that situation. The only ones of the 0 (0) kind they left were the ones that are part of the current year national teams. FkpCascais (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's wierd. Estonia NT call-ups Rene Kaas and Stanislav Pedõk was deleted. Can I make them again? Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No. They would need to play for Estonia or in a fully professional competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier comment. Generally speaking, a standard call up should not appear in infobox if the player does not play - but is fine in the prose. If, however, a player is listed as part of the official squad for a major international _finals_ tournament (being FIFA WC, FIFA Confederation Cup or Confederation Championships ie EURO,CAF etc) there is a valid reason to include with "0 (0)". The obvious problem with this approach is that some editors will see players that have it and think any player that has been called to a training camp should have it in the infobox. I notice New Zealand had a few called up to the preliminary squad for this week's internationals, several of which were not included in the final squad for the matches, yet all had NZ added to infobox. They and others are now were listed under New_Zealand_national_football_team#Recent_callups despite not being included in the travelling squad for a game that doesn't wouldn't take place for another 4 days!--ClubOranje^T 06:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point WFC is making, as it does create a degree of inconsistency when international call-ups are not shown in the infobox but non-playing club loan spells are. The difficulty with just including 0 (0) for internationals is that it doesn't explain that the person was called up, and thus editors could try and 'complete' the entry for various players. If any input in the infobox is included for called-up players it would almost be better if something like 'called-up' is included as text to try and accurately show the situation, although this could be a bit messy for an infobox. Eldumpo (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had pretty much agreed that the international appearances section covered caps. In fact, if this discussion is going to continue to come up, why don't we alter the infobox to reflect that? It'd take two minutes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What should it look like? Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean add something simialr to the club section's "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only", saying that only actual caps should be included in the infobox? I'm down for that. GiantSnowman 12:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No need for a new disclaimer. Cap is unambiguous. sandbox updated, examples in test cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If we were not including caps, that would be a good solution. But the more I read of these discussions, the less convinced I am that the balance of arguments is in favour of that. —WFC— 16:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "if we were not including caps"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. Make that "if we are not including zero caps. I agree that sooner or later a line needs to be drawn under this. But the more of these discussions I read, the less convinced that I am of the case for going that way, other than ancient history. —WFC— 17:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I always thought of the box as that who "kept a score/count on X or Y figures", if the player has none, why should it be in box? As Snowman put it well, if a player is called up from the U16 to the seniors, but appears the grand total of zero times combined, the box (in case it's granted) would look really odd methinks... I am in favour of "only" the due notes in storyline.

Nice work folks in this discussion, you must be knackered, good effort - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but as I said to Snowman above, that would never, ever happen. Point to a real-life example where a player was called up for even three teams without playing, and the argument suddenly becomes a lot stronger. —WFC— 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How's about the more obvious point that while international caps are extremely well-recorded, there is not a hope in Hell of getting reliable figures for non-playing call-ups for the vast, vast majority of our BLPs? That's a deal-breaker by itself IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider the case of Aaron Clapham...who could feasibly have won the World Cup without having a national team entry in his infobox under this scenario.--ClubOranje^T 18:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's yet mentioned the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 48#Kevin Davies and other England fringe players, in particular this case where a player was called up by two teams simultaneously... Alzarian16 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the difference is between a player being called up for his national side and a player being signed for a club side. First example off the top of my head, Leigh Palin, has two rows 0 (0), in his infobox. Should we delete those? I'd say no, because taking them out shows an incomplete picture. Matt Jarvis has a physical call-up to the England squad so in comparison he should have 0 (0) for the England team from 2011 onwards. Brad78 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would personally prefer to have caps only. The infobox only has league appearances for clubs so isn't exactly a full picture as it is. The problem I would foresee would be that every player would have 0 (0) added by an IP trying to be useful. Anyway, I'm off to have some WP:TEA. I'd thoroughly recommend it! Stu.W UK (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that we should not include international teams if the player has not actually won any caps. While information about non-playing call-ups is easily available for recent squads in countries where football is fairly popular (e.g. Europe and the Americas), there are hundreds of players past and present for whom this information would not be available. This would especially be true for players from, say, more than 20 years ago. Caps, on the other hand, are very well documented and widely available so we don't have this problem when a player actually makes an appearance for their country. BigDom 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolute trouth. And that is basically where any discussion about this ends, whatever our personal stand on this issue. FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Thumperward: While I accept that you intended to use it in a slightly different context to how it comes across, "vast, vast majority of our BLPs" exaggerates the issue. This would affect fewer than 1% of our BLPs. By default, we should be leaving an infobox's parameters blank unless we have references, but that is true for everything in any infobox. Infoboxes are meant to be a snapshot of the sourced material in the article. If it is sourced that an uncapped player has been called up, I don't see the issue with it going in the infobox. If it's not sourced, it should not go in, but then that's true of anything in a BLP.

@Thumperward & Dom: (I know this is an aside) I'd query the idea that caps themselves are always widely documented. I've had a lot of "fun" trying to reliably source caps for African players during my time here. In some cases, it is impossible. Should we therefore remove all caps from the infobox? —WFC— 21:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

But WFC, I was undecided on this, but for practical reasons I understand that is better not to use 0 (0) for nt´s in infobox. Just think on this (it´s hypotetical, but quite real), we do so much effort in trying to keep the articles "in order", right? If we accept that calls are used for infobox, I garantee you that we´ll have many many editors and IP´s adding all NT, U21, U23, U20, U19, U18, U17, U16, calls, many of them hard to confirm. As you said, even caps for some nations are hard to confirm, even worste would be with calls. If we accept it, it would enthusiasm a number of IP´s and we´ll have a "hell on earth" trying to fix, confirm and correct all of that. It´s really the "practical reason" that makes me think this way. And also, it would be recentism, because only the recent calls would be many times comfirmable. FkpCascais (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's more a point of practicality, than of why leaving infoboxes blank is a positive thing. It's hard to really apply that thinking to a specific infobox parameter: what's the difference between an IP adding rubbish to an infobox, and an IP adding rubbish to prose? —WFC— 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Of some of the arguments above, two can be thrown out.

• What if IPs add spurious lines? If it's unsourced or incorrect or both, remove them; just as you would an incorrect height, or anything else incorrect.
• It looks silly to have lines of 0 (0). If that's a player's record then put it in. We would for club career, so why not international career.

I'm unsure what is the correct decision, but those two arguments against, really don't have much substance. Brad78 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, on the club/NT relation, just to start, the two can´t be compared. A footballer when representing a club, he is contracted by the club, and even loans have contracts included. On the other side, representing a national team is a non-contractual relation. The club career is actually a list of professional contracts the person had (like a professional CV), and a NT is different, basically more like "awards" section in a CV. Perhaps this looks silly comparison, but someone please try to find better wording if possible. FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Both James Hanson and Matt Jarvis have 0 (0) international caps. Can I add 0 (0) to Hanson's article as well then? This is the slippery slope we are perilously close to sliding down. GiantSnowman 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when did James Hanson receive an international call-up to any international side? There's no slippery slope involved. Brad78 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh but there is - first it's international call up, then it's international training camp, then it's everybody who hasn't played at international level - because, technically, Hanson having 0 (0) is 100% as accurate as Jarvis - I mean, both players have the same amount of international caps i.e. ZERO. GiantSnowman 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And they both have exactly the same number of appearances for Manchester United, but we don't put that in their infobox. You're putting up an argument for argument's sake, not a valid argument. I'm not saying that international call-ups should be counted, but your argument, I'm afraid, is weak and invalid, as far as I'm concerned. Brad78 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - and you wouldn't include Manchester United in the infobox, just as you wouldn't include England non-caps. Why has there been such a burden on those who say not to include it - let's hear some strong and valid arguments from those who want to include non-caps in the infobox. GiantSnowman 00:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So why does Robbie Savage have 0 (0) in his infobox for Manchester United? The difference between Jarvis and Hanson, is Jarvis has had a full international call-up to the England squad. Brad78 (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Savage was actually contracted to Man Utd, although I wouldn't lose any sleep if anybody removed that line from his infobox tbh. As for international info - the infobox displays number of caps, it doesn't display number of callups. GiantSnowman 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Only people who were deliberately undermining Wikipedia, or someone writing a new article who assumed that we do it that way, would actually make that Hanson edit. There is a very good way of dealing with the former, and if new people are writing articles, I don't see any issue whatsoever with the latter. —WFC— 01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(rsp to GS) It was a rhetorical question! The argument isn't yours - that Hanson doesn't have any caps, or that we could see IPs add spurious lines to everyone's infobox. The decision whether to add the info to say Jarvis' infobox, is whether the infobox should provide a complete picture to a player's international career, including call-ups and matches not just matches, just as the infobox provides a full picture of a player's club career, including youth clubs, loan clubs and clubs where they may not have played. Brad78 (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@WFC: You would block somebody for adding that Hanson has zero caps for England? Why? - it's both factually accurate and easily verifiable.

@Brad78: Club and country are not the same! I'm all for as much information on articles as possible, and believe that every contracted club should be represented. However, I don't see any benefit to having 0 (0) in the infobox of the international section, when that same information in the prose will more than suffice.

GiantSnowman 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You ought to have said that in the first place, because that's what it comes down to. Should the infobox provide a complete picture both club and internationally, or will the text providing information about call-ups suffice?

Oh, and as for blocks, I think Wp:POINT would suffice. Brad78 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has answered what would happen in the case of Eric Lichaj, mentioned earlier by Alzarian 16. If you are called up simultaneously for 2 national teams do you get a permanent 0 (0) for the country you choose not to play for? What if he still hadn't played for the US but had announced they were the team he wanted to play for? Would the two 0 (0)s be equally informative? What about a player who gets multiple call ups but never plays, do we need a way to distinguish between them and the one-off? Is there a difference between a call-up where a player gets injured and returns home and a call-up where the player just doesn't feature? The most interesting point raised by Lichaj's case is that until he actually featured in a match for the US senior team he could be selected for Poland. It feels to me like adding a Tottenham Hotspur 0 (0) in Beckham's infobox. Also Brad78, while the infobox only provides league appearances it hardly gives a full picture of a player's career. Ignasi Miquel hasn't played yet according to his infobox, for instance. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible, Gerrit Bals

somebody has some sources about him? He was the goalkeeper in 1969 Champions Cup in Madrid, when Milan won Ajax 4-1; I created his article on it.wiki some minutes ago and I'd want enlarge his article.. 93.32.233.182 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be known as 'Gert' in his native Netherlands. GiantSnowman 00:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Needed info? / Player positions

I remember discussing the same contents regarding Pedro Rodríguez Ledesma, and now it has happened in David Luiz: how encyclopedical (and needed) is a match-by-match detail of the player's career in Esporte Clube Vitória? I mean, come on, User:Buí even inserted info regarding the games Luiz MISSED (some sentencing included: "he played five games in a row", then "missed one game", then "played nine games a row")! After i reverted him, he re-reverted me, claiming "it's referenced". I remind my teammates that so were Pedrito's games for Barcelona (see said discussion here please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_45#Storylines_on_players).

After i posted the discussion regarding the FC Barcelona player, i was told that no, two much info was not good (i also remind that, before i cleanedup Pedro's article, there were references to ALL the games he had played with the first team, EVERY SINGLE ONE), so i think that we should compose D.Luiz's article in the same fashion, no? I have already notified the other user about this. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Item #2 (i also saw it wrongly added in D.Luiz), hence it being included here: he is NOT a right-back, just because he played some games/minutes in that position (managers often do that to "confuse" the opposition, the same goes for wingers), the only Portuguese players (or players operating in that country for years) i know that have successfully made the transition to the position are Jorge Fucile and Paulo Ferreira, no one else. I would like for the user(s) to stop adding that to Luiz's article if you please.

Does anyone think Javier Farinós or Paulo Sousa are goalkeepers? They played once in that position, but it is not inserted in their articles as a player position is it? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)