Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football.

2010-11 Supercopa de Espana

First leg on the right side should be "Real Madrid vs. Barcelona" and the reverse in the second leg since Madrid won the copa del rey, whose winner always have the first leg at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.170.145 (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2011

New club page : Al-Jaish

I created a new article for a club in Qatar that just got promoted to the top flight (Qatar Stars League): Al-Jaish (Qatar). There's not much info out there but I managed to add some details (and some of their signings). The article needs a lot of work, so if someone doesn't mind taking a crack at it I'd appreciate it! Thanks.

WikiProject or task force?

I've probably brought this up before, but why do we have WikiProjects for Argentine, German, Hong Kong, Iranian, Irish and non-League football, but task forces for everything else? And that's not even mentioning the WikiProjects that have decided to set themselves apart from WP:FOOTY, such as WikiProject Real Madrid, WikiProject Sheffield United, WikiProject Sheffield Wednesday, WikiProject Association football in Australia and WikiProject Persepolis F.C. The members of those WikiProjects will no doubt disagree, but surely they should all be brought under the WP:FOOTY banner? – PeeJay 12:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

They all seen pretty inactive. -Koppapa (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth does an obscure Iranian club have its own WikiProject? The Sheffield clubs' projects are pointless as well. BigDom 12:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for seperate WikiProjects, any relevant ones (agree that The Iranian club, while not "obscure", doesn't merit a WP) should become task forces. GiantSnowman 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay and GS that they should become task forces. There's no shame in "just" being a task force, nor does it have any real bearing on the independence of discussions. I would note that even when a task appears stale, as WP:SOUNDERS now sort of does, a semi-active task force still serves as a valuable resource for a small group of editors who are still actively working on the topic (Steve Zakuani became a GA very recently). Using WP:SOUNDERS as an example, the task force specific assessments, showcased content and proposed featured topic serve as valuable pointers for what there is to do. —WFC— TFL notices 13:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there's nothing wrong with clubs having their own task forces as they can provide a good overview of the standard of articles associated with a particular team and allow centralised discussion between interested editors. All the relevant projects should be turned into Task forces under the WPF banner. BigDom 14:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I don't actually remember there being any discussion about the formation of a Persepolis WikiProject. There certainly isn't any record of an official proposal at WP:WPPRO, and I can't find anything about it in the archives of this page other than to discuss whether or not it was still active. I'm not really fussed about the existence of the others, just their status as WikiProjects when they would definitely be better off as task forces, if only to streamline the use of talk page assessment banners. – PeeJay 14:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the mechanism for changing projects into task forces then? —WFC— TFL notices 16:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:MFD states that "It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable" - but not how to actually do it, which is super helpful I know. We could maybe nominate them at MFD, as some (e.g. Persepolis) shouldn't remain in any form, and state which ones we feel need to become taskforces. GiantSnowman 17:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't regularly check our list of football-related deletions and page moves, I've listed Wikipedia:WikiProject Persepolis F.C. for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WikiProject Persepolis F.C. along with its subpages. I've also nominated its disused talk page banner (Template:WikiProject Persepolis F.C.) for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 25#Template:WikiProject Persepolis F.C. as its use has been superseded by a parameter in Template:WikiProject Iran. – PeeJay 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody with the appropriate skills please update {{WikiProject Football}} to reflect the change in taskforces? Cheers, GiantSnowman 16:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this back to this page, but I'm about to go through our daughter WikiProjects and suggest to them that they become task forces under the WP:FOOTY banner. However, before I do, does anyone have any opinions regarding WikiProjects I should ignore when putting that suggestion forward? – PeeJay 15:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion on all of them should be held in one place; much like a multi-nomination AfD, if for some reason one or two of them are special cases, participants are free to point that out. And I would note that despite having at a glance achieved sod all in five years, at least one of the aforementioned projects is not likely to take this lightly. —WFC— TFL notices 16:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, because they're extremely active... GiantSnowman 16:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we should give a damn about it, just thought it was worth mentioning. In any case, the person who wrote that is still editing today. —WFC— TFL notices 16:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but why should they edit as part of a seperate WP instead of as part a WT affiliated to this WP? GiantSnowman 17:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the main reason why WP:SUFC rejected adoption by us before is because they were founded as a daughter of WP:SHEFF. Why they can't be a task force of both WikiProjects, I don't know. After all, the Bayern Munich task force belongs to both WP:FOOTY and WP:MUC. – PeeJay 17:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be the sensible suggestion, although sense doesn't seem to count for much these days. BigDom 17:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it would. I had no idea Sheffield United had a task-force so this is news to me. One of its key articles has one reference for 2,133 words. The statement of intent was quite something... Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

SOI is indeed something.. This position remains intact until such a time that the members of WP Sheffield United agree otherwise... how exactly would they agree otherwise without "further discussion or consensus within these project pages or elsewhere"? --ClubOranje^T 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sheffield United doesn't have a task force... it has a WikiProject ;-) But anyway, I'll get started on linking the WikiProjects to this discussion and suggest to them that they begin the process of becoming task forces. – PeeJay 18:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think if Bladeboy doesn't already writes press releases for Colonel Gaddafi then he should probably start sending his application off to the various dictators of the world.--EchetusXe 18:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a message to the discussion pages of the Real Madrid, Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday and Association Football in Australia WikiProjects inviting them to comment on this proposal. I've also given them a deadline of this time on Saturday to respond or I will assume that their silence implies agreement and begin the conversion process. Oh, and by the way, I also found a couple of minor task forces attached to WP:MUC that you guys might find to be of interest; I've nominated for deletion here. – PeeJay 18:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed the message on the Australian WP page. How will changing from a project to a taskforce materially alter the status quo? Are general WP:Football users actually going to care more about a taskforce than a related project? The process is still is reliant on users monitoring their watchlist. Hack (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is true; however, by virtue of the increased association with the parent WikiProject, your WP will have greater exposure, and therefore access to a greater number of willing editors. As you say, this does all rely on editors actually working on the articles, but if a certain percentage of editors who view your articles go on to edit them, then surely more exposure means more helpful editors. – PeeJay 08:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It will also mean when you discuss fundamentals - for example; whether to use "football" "association football", "football (soccer)" etc naming conventions, it will get discussed by wider community and garner true consensus, rather than clique consensus.--ClubOranje^T 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to peejay's comment. How will the level of cooperation change? In terms of collaboration, this page seems to be the most successful means of communication.Hack (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In all honesty, the level of cooperation may not change that much, but at the minute it seems like the separate WikiProjects are intentionally distancing themselves from us by not coming under the WP:FOOTY banner. By doing so, you may be alienating people by implicitly refusing to accept WP:FOOTY guidance. It also seems like you're separating yourselves from us in order to say "we don't have to accept consensuses from WP:FOOTY because we're a separate WikiProject", when in fact the only distinguishing feature about your project is that you cover a microcosm of the articles covered by WP:FOOTY simply because of the location of your subjects. But instead of us explaining why you should integrate, can you explain why you should remain separate? – PeeJay 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. The Australian project page describes itself as a sub-project of WP:Football and is included in the WP:Football category. I'm just trying to work out what the change to a taskforce entails. Is it just a title change or this something more substantial? Hack (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is more substantial. By naming yourselves as a WikiProject, albeit a sub-project, you are setting yourselves apart from the parent project. As noted at WP:TASKFORCE, a task force is "a non-independent subgroup of a larger WikiProject that covers some defined part of the WikiProject's scope". The page also says that task forces should "rely on the parent project to provide much of the procedural and technical infrastructure", which is what we would do. There is no point in the Australian project using a different infrastructure to WP:FOOTY when there is no part of the Australian project that lies outside of WP:FOOTY's remit. To be honest, I don't think we really want you guys setting your own standards for articles when they are just as much a part of WP:FOOTY as they are a part of your project. Finally, I should add that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects explicitly states that we prefer the use of task forces over sub-projects. – PeeJay 13:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I say go ahead given this appears to be just an administrative change and the apparent apathy on the part of the rest of the project members.Hack (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but I've got a bit of an issue with the Australian WP. Apparently, they have their own task force dedicated to the improvement of A-League player biographies; the problem is that I don't know how I would integrate that task force into the WP:FOOTY banner. Is it worth doing, or should it just be merged with the Australian task force (when I get around to moving the pages)? – PeeJay 11:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A merge seems pretty sensible. Hack (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Real Madrid to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Real Madrid task force (and requested the appropriate template and category moves). Now for the Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday projects. – PeeJay 22:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, the Australian WikiProject is now done (pending a few procedural CfRs and TfDs). Next on the list are the Argentine, non-league, German, Hong Kong and Irish football WikiProjects. – PeeJay 00:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

IMPORTANT - Can an admin please update Template:WikiProject Football with the code in the sandbox. There's been a request on the template talk page for ages now! – PeeJay 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost done now. It's only the English non-league football project left to convert. – PeeJay 15:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Germany task force for a more project-specific discussion. Calistemon (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've raised another discussion here in regards to this project "swallowing" up other projects without consulting them. Calistemon (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

upgrades in Template:International football base in others templates of the "Category:International sports navbox templates"

Base on the Template:International athletics, Template:International baseball and Template:International basketball (Women) we can split in some way the long list of links in the top of the Template:International football, maybe split in Defunct, "minor" and "mayor" world event, show some descrition of its, show that they are not all the same and everything means something diferent, also add Football at the Summer Universiade maybe in the minor events list? we already have a "non-FIFA" which is weird in someway but always more info is better that less --Feroang (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

upgrades in Template:International football first try

--Feroang (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you like it new version?--Feroang (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the world map to the right of the box (resulting in lots of white space) and why does the map say 'See also International women's football', what is the link there? GiantSnowman 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

changed the position of the See also International women's football.--Feroang (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but the white space that the map adds to the article is slightly concerning. GiantSnowman 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

all the Games in--Feroang (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Games added to the official template--Feroang (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football biography discussion

FYI Usage of the dagger (†) in the Template:Infobox football biography is part of a discussion here. Comments are welcome and wanted.--Kevmin § 05:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If people want to get their knickers in a twist about typography then that's up to them, but good luck forcing us to do anything about it. We generally don't change things here even when there is good reason to. —WFC— 13:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian VANDAL

Here's the latest one in a series of almost 20 (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/177.0.204.119), this Brazilian anon "user" continues: he removes stuff in box without explanation (in José Ángel Valdés, he even removed a bit in intro which contained a REF! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_%C3%81ngel_Vald%C3%A9s&diff=446577612&oldid=444027049), writes no summaries and is virtually impossible to reach, as he's: a VANDAL; someone with various IPs, which makes it (near) impossible for him to read the messages.

User:Jaellee and i (at least) are getting fed up with this situation, but it's very hard to offer advice/make the wiki-legal machine run, due to the question of the dynamic IP which i mention above. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ahah! Checking the contributions list better, found out he has used this address on three different days, left him a concise message in his (mine) mothertongue. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In the last hours he was active again. I'm cleaning up behind him for weeks now (and he seems to get on the nerves of other editors as well from what I see). As he is quite active in German footballer articles, I even left him a message in German (even if I'm quite sure that it is useless). Any ideas how to deal with this? --Jaellee (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• The IP shown above continues to be active today (fourth day then), nice job Jaellee! Also, i've learned that User:Struway2 has left User:Bruno corinthiano - a username so Brazilian it hurts, it might be him! - a warning message regarding that same "pack" of actions, unexplained removal of contents. I think that this IP should be blocked. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Brazilian football champions

It's pretty simple: something more like this or something more like this? Digirami (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would probably keep the original list of champions table, but add Srawberry on Vanilla's "By state" and "By club" tables. But if the flags are the problem, perhaps replacing those with text can be a better compromise (I mean Rio Grande do Sul instead of , as most non-Brazilians do not recognize the flags). Anyway, the info regarding the titles by state is very relevant in Brazil, and should stay. --Carioca (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

By state and By club tables are in both version. They only difference is my version, it only extends to the winners, not those that finish 2, 3, and 4. As for the flags and mentioning what state a club comes from (except for the "by state" table) since it bears no relevance in any way to the national league in Brazil (unlike the Copa do Brasil). Digirami (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I said above, I agree that flags are not needed in the list of champions tables. In the other tables, the flags can stay, but using {{flagicon}} instead of {{flagicon}} or using just text (maybe adding a separate column for the state in the "by club" table). In the by state and by club tables I would also include the first and the second placed teams. --Carioca (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is important to know which state the team came from outside of a "By state" table (which is already included and complies with MOS:FLAG). What state a team comes from bears no relevance to the league in any way, shape, or form. It's not worth mentioning it outside the aforementioned table. Besides that, I wouldn't extended those additional tables beyond the winning statistics. It is a champions list, after all. Digirami (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The "by state" table lists the winning clubs anyway so, yes, there is no need to repeat the flags in the other tables. I noticed that the List of English football champions page include the winning years column in the total titles won table, but it is absent in the List of Brazilian football champions page. --Carioca (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally feasible. I would suggest mentioning which editions of the Serie A or Robertao or Taca each club won. Digirami (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --Carioca (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better without flags. I say remove. Portal did this for Japanese clubs too. -Koppapa (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The page is protected for the time being (a week). Digirami (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I found these in the archives 1, 2, there should be a longer discussion about Japanese state flags but i can't find it. -Koppapa (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Gutierrez from Atlas Club on loan to Rijeka

I have found this 2 players on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Guti%C3%A9rrez_Armas and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Alberto_Guti%C3%A9rrez both playing in Club Atlas and both are on loan in HNK Rijeka. Both are born on same day and Atlas wiki refers to one, while HNK Rijeka refers to another. So it's question is this the same person.

Skizlin (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Same name, same date of birth, same career .. I'll go ahead and say yes, 99% chance that it is the same player!TonyStarks (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles will beed to be merged by an admin. GiantSnowman 11:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Venezuela national football team

There are some major edits being made to the Venezuela national football team article over the past couple of days, with no sourcing. Could someone knowledgeable check it out, please? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically only squad changes. Should be easy to check and refd. Won't do it though. -Koppapa (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If nobody involved in the football project is concerned, then I won't be either. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Couple things: 1) You can't force us to take a look at the article. 2) You asked for someone knowledge on the Venezuelan national team to look it out. Perhaps no one took a look because no one is knowledgeable on that topic. 3) Did it also occur to you that the rest of us do have lives outside of Wikipedia and did not have the time to take a look at the article? This is a WP on football and a lot of it is played on the weekend. We are all probably out watching games and having drinks in the process (individually, not collectively). And sometimes if you want it done right, do it yourself. Wikipedia:Be bold. Digirami (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

FC United of Manchester GA nomination

I've nominated the FC United of Manchester article for GA status. If anyone is able to review [1] the article it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Delusion23 (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Strike action in association football

I have started this article, currently it mainly focuses on the recent Spanish conflict, so if anybody can help expand, please do. Cheers, GiantSnowman 16:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! —WFC— 17:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So is this an attempt at documenting every strike-related case in football by country? --MicroX (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's obviously open to change. GiantSnowman 16:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WFC, great idea. Certainly merits an article. Have started sections for Norway & USA. Deserter1 talk

12:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian league apps / goals

If someone has a moment, can you go through these contributions and make sure all the players have accurate apps / goals for the domestic league? I noticed he kept changing Ideye Aide Brown's apps / goals (presumably to reflect other competitions). The website soccerway.com is reasonably accurate for this. Thanks! ugen64 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Munich air disaster

There was a short edit war on Munich air disaster. Members of your project might have some input. Agathoclea (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Player nationality/flag representation question

Motherwell F.C. player Tom Hateley who was born in Monaco while his father was playing there is represented as English despite the fact he has never represented any of their national teams. I don't really know what flag he should have. I assume he self-identifies as English and left Monaco at a young age after his father moved but he was born there so should technically have a Monaco flag, surely? Adam4267 (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

He is English, per [2] and [3]. I was born in Canada, it doesn't make me Canadian. Well, I've got a passport, but you know what I mean! GiantSnowman 18:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

GS is correct. Although if he hadn't identified as English, technically he would have had a France flag, as Monaco is not a member of FIFA. —WFC— 18:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

But I thought our policy was to put a players footballing nationality. Which would surely be French/Monegasque. As an English flag suggest he has either played for or was born in England. Adam4267 (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Our policy is to use reliable sources to verify information, and if they say he is English, then we do. GiantSnowman 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a snowman would stand more chance of survival in Canada than Bradford. Anyway self-identification trumps theoretical FIFA nationality. Unless he has represented France, which he hasn't.--EchetusXe 20:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well we are on the subject, Hyde striker Matthew Berkeley was born in Manchester but has represented St Kitts and Nevis U20s through his parents, what flag should he have? LiamTaylor 20:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

SKN, as that is the nation he chose to represent at international level. GiantSnowman 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though theoretically he could still play for England. Here is a list of considerations in order of importance:
1. Country with which player won senior caps.
2. Country with which player won youth caps.
3. Self-identification (within reason).
4. Place of birth.
5. If none of these are known then technically no flags are to be used, though in practice people seem to just assume that an English non-league club is full of English players etc.--EchetusXe 22:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, regarding #3: Marcelo dos Santos Cipriano was born in Rio de Janeiro from Portuguese parents, but said he's always felt Portuguese, hence he would have that flagicon in his squad if he still played...

However, in #1/#2: Hassan Yebda has won caps for France at youth level, now he's a senior Algerian international. Yet, the "current squad" in Granada CF only has his Algerian flag listed (which makes total sense, has he has "denied" his French background, to which he was entitled for birth reasons). Speaking about identification with a nation, Yedba too has stated he feels 100% Algerian. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have often used the example of Romeo Beckham as a putative example of where place of birth should not determine our assumption of nationality because of short-term displacement of the parents: now we have a real example. But to comment on some contributions here: Vasco seems to ignore the fact that the template only allows for one nationality (a situation that so simplifies the reality of some people's situation that it renders such flags severely misleading); Echetus cites "theoretical FIFA nationality", presumably in reference to the header on our club templates, but of course, there is no such thing. FIFA have no presumption as to whom Tom Hateley should represent, only rules identifying a number of nations that he could represent. That header is very misleading. Kevin McE (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Which flag would you use on Jermaine Jones? Hack (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Great point in the JJ issue! I'd list him as German because he was born there and one of his parents hails from that nation, but that only until the point where he decided he would represent USA (which he had already done with the Mannschaft, in friendlies - confusing stuff!). And yes Kevin you are correct, i did not know only one template was permitted. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

When a player has represented more than one senior national team, the flag that should be represented to him is of the national team he represented more recently. :) FkpCascais (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You might get some flak if you applied that to Ferenc Puskas... Hack (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Or Michel Platini, whose last cap was for Kuwait [4]. In historical examples I think it is common sense to go with the country the player represented for the vast majority of their international career rather than the most recent. Deserter1 talk

11:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Was that Kuwait match an official international? I doubt it... GiantSnowman 17:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is listed among Kuwait's results at FIFA.com, which I guess is as official as it gets. Confirmation that Platini played in it is harder to find. Kevin McE (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Honours again

Anthony Griffith appeared for Doncaster Rovers in the First and Second Round of the Football League Trophy in 2006–07. These were just 2 of his 5 appearances for the club that season, and he went on loan at Darlington and Stafford Rangers for the rest of the season. Donny won the final and Griffith watched on from the stands. Yet despite this he said "I still got a winners' medal, though, and my commemorative final squad shirt was signed by all the lads."

I never included the trophy in the player's honours section as I only ever include cup honours for players who appeared in the final itself (including substitutes). I just wonder how this fits in to the philosophy that 'where there's a medal, list the honour'.--EchetusXe 10:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

His team may not have won the cup ifhe didn't play in the first two rounds. ;) How do you honour a league title then? Playing all the matches only? -Koppapa (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Well what if he transferred to Bristol Rovers half-way through the season? Then he would be eligible for both a winners and runners-up medal. Suppose seen as this is sourced I will list the honour for him in this case. Though it seems strange we have some players have an first round League Trophy appearance listed as an honour when other players don't have runner-up appearances listed as an honour.--EchetusXe 17:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just goes to show that the rules on who gets a medal when a team wins a competition are a bit of a dark art and not well publicised at all. Does anyone, for example, actually know definitively who is eligible for a medal when a team wins the Premier League.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember people suggesting various minimum numbers of appearances, but I'm not sure whether that is guesswork or not.--EchetusXe 09:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Player transfer/ ips adding content prematurely

Baba Diawara is being linked with Celtic and help reverting the ips would be helpful. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wales task force

Are there any members of WP:FOOTY who would be interested in helping out with a new task force focused on Welsh football? The scope of the task force would include all Welsh players either born in Wales or to Welsh parents, as well as anyone who has played for a Welsh national team (any age group or women's football), or for a club in Wales and/or in the Welsh league system (so as to include Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, Newport, Merthyr Tydfil, Colwyn Bay and The New Saints players). The clubs themselves would also be covered, as would the national teams and all the related football grounds. Finally, Welsh football competitions would also come under the task force's umbrella. The structure of the task force would be based on the successful task force model employed by this WikiProject, which would be the primary parent project for the task force. If I can get five people on board for this, I will create all the necessary pages and categories, and I will begin tagging article talk pages with assessment tags. I hope this will spark some interest in the project. Looking forward to hearing from you all. – PeeJay 14:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As an honorary Welshman, count me in. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have you on board. Btw, "honorary Welshman"? How so? – PeeJay 15:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was called that by another user following my efforts with the list of Welsh international players. Also, my parents named me after the patron saint of Wales. In reality, I'm a bit of a mongrel, but let's not go there! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That list article should be moved back to List of Wales international footballers over redirect per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (Conciseness) as this is now a sortable list and the only complete list as far as I can tell.--ClubOranje^T 09:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That alphabetical list was always sortable. List of Wales international footballers with 25 or more caps was subsequently created and I later moved it to its location now.Eldumpo (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll happily join it (as I have the Scottish one) - not out of any massive interest, but because I occasionally happen to edit in those areas. Plus I'm part-Welsh, so I kinda owe it to my mum... ;) GiantSnowman 17:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I do a fair bit of editing on Welsh football articles and am happy to be involved further.Eldumpo (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

James Welford

Having created an article for the cricketer James Welford, I noticed his Wisden obituary said he played football for Aston Villa. I don't particularly follow football, nor really know where to look for reliable sources on it, so I thought I'd post it here for someone to complete information on his football career. Thanks, AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

He played for Villa in the 1895 FA Cup Final; his Villa career is summarised here. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. There appears to be a glitch on the infobox as he is shown as aged 142 years! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Brazil football club season

The above seems a bit much since we already have this. Merge? Digirami (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, definitely. It reminds me of when somebody create MLS-specific player infoboxes, and they were merged. GiantSnowman 17:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I went ahead and merged them, but they were reverted by the creator of the template citing "delibrate vandalism". Anyone else wants to give merging them a try, it'll help. Digirami (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on its talk page inviting anyone interested to either argue for its retention or allow consensus to be acted upon: it does seem a little harsh to run what seems to be virtually an accelerated TfD without notification to the author. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he is interested in discussing this. His recent edit history after both you and I informed him of this discussion (you on the talk page of the template and I on his talk page) sees him expand the usage of the redundant template. Digirami (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As I suspected, there is no chance of getting to this editor. PeeJay tried to get through to him, I did the same, so did Kevin... and he continues to refuse discuss the matter. He also seems to think that I want him kicked out (truth be told, if he continues acting the way he does, I won't even have to try). I have no idea how to continue with this. Advice? Digirami (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Over-detail

One anon user has taken upon himself to write about EVERY match in (some) Blackburn Rovers players (i mean EVERY match: "on the x day he played so minutes against y team", "the next match he played z minutes against q team", so on, so on). At least i found it and reverted it in Rubén Rochina and Míchel Salgado, in the light of what i heard more than once here at the WP:FOOTY forums (no overdetail, just the highlights: debut, sending off(s), milestone game/goal, etc).

In the latter player, more problems: the anon UK user most not have liked one of my "legendary" edit summaries, and has chosen to edit-war with me over the INTRO, where he removes, without explanation, the competition in which Blackburn is inserted (Premier League) and the player's position (right-back). I don't know what to do, because: 1 - i don't talk to vandals; 2 - even if i did, his dynamic IP would make it nearly impossible for any conversation to happen. In Rochina, he also removed the reference to the competition of the club.

Suggestions please - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you really want a suggestion, it would be to tone down your edit notes, not to threaten actions beyond your authority, not to refer to people as idiots, etc etc. Kevin McE (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Incredible (even tough i know i very often fail in the civility aspect when dealing with trolls and stuff - have i insulted anyone who is not one or a downright vandal?)! I ask for suggestions, get patronized, when it's obvious i'm being harassed in the Salgado article (stuff removed in article without one word just to aggravate me), and no proper fields to where redirect my query? Gee, "thanks" - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the point that Kevin was trying to make is that you shouldn't insult anyone, vandal or not. GiantSnowman 22:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes i know, WP is not my private website for that kind of outbursts, but what's your opinion on over-detail please? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that about Blackburn players before and just removed the mentions of run-of-the-mill appearances. WP:BEBOLD. --Jimbo^[online] 22:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's annoying, yes, but not really vandalism. Be WP:BOLD and remove it, and invite the IP to discuss the matter on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 22:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for help fellows! As stated above, i can't talk to the IP because it's dynamic, either i catch them red-handed or no deal (and even if i got to them, would they engage? most certainly not). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You try to engage and reason with them first, and then you get an admin involved. Think of it this way: you are a young Blackburn Rovers fan and you want the players you see out on the pitch to have detailed biographies so that everyone remembers the 87 minutes you saw of the midfield star on Saturday afternoon (or a Monday evening to please Rupert Murdoch and the gambling industry). So you edit their articles in a way that doesn't necessarily please the WK:Footy community. A lot of established users first edits aren't particularly useful. Try to take a civilized and understanding approach when IPs are making edits that don't question a person's parentage or speculate on the size of a person's genitals.--EchetusXe 23:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Small? Adam4267 (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually Adam I have occasionally had to remove speculation that the genitals were of an impressive size. A personal friend, a fantasist, or just a really enthusiastic fan - I'm not quite sure.--EchetusXe 09:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just speculating on the size of Michel Salgado's. Surely no one could be that angry without unkess they were overcompensating for something. Adam4267 (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You tell him that, see what he says.--EchetusXe 13:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• That made me smile and/or laugh Echetus :) However, the bit about Míchel Salgado in which the anon user consistently removes the bits in intro which i have mentioned (namely PLAYER POSITION!), i have counted 5 or 6 times so far, is a clear case of provocative edit-warring.

And again, yes, i must definitely work on my edit summaries (how many times have i promised this?) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:FIFA Clubs of the 20th Century

Necessary? Digirami (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Especially if 2 votes 1.02% means you are in it and 1 vote less means you fall under other. -Koppapa (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we even need the article FIFA Clubs of the 20th Century.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A quick google search suggests that it may not meet WP:GNG. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, article itself could go in my opinion. No info besides the clubs listed. -Koppapa (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've nominated it for deletion. Digirami (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Council notice

There is currently a discussion here involving this project and ones related to it and there merger.Moxy (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Link -- Agathoclea (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Faroes player about to be deleted

Resolved

 – Deleted. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Gondim expired Prod. Is he notable? Any sources? --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If he had played for Hammarby, then yes, he would be; however, I can't find any sources to support that, so I think the article can be safely deleted. – PeeJay 10:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; the article is unverifiable. GiantSnowman 10:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Premier League Transfers

I guess this should be either deleted or redirected to List of English football transfers summer 2011. Don't know which way to go, though. Luxic (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick note, and it may just be me, but many of the "Dates" listed in the "Date" column on that page are being picked up as phone numbers by skype for me(c. 15-20% of them) Darigan (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Just disable skype plugin. Thats on many websites. -Koppapa (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely Prod (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 15:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC))

Alan Sealey correct date of birth

Hello guys, if you please take a look at the article, two different dates of births appear. So how can we do in these cases? --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Now corrected and referenced. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You can find the other date (24-2-1942) in the more recent 2005 edition of Hugman Cattivi (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The West Ham stats site [5] also has 22 April 1942. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would Hugman change it? What source did westhamstats use, an old one or a more recent one? When someone makes an error, these errors are copied over and over again, and can go unnoticed for many years Cattivi (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Neil Brown also has the date of birth as 24 February 1942[6] as does the Plymouth Argyle player database[7]. I guess someone either needs to contact Hugman for an explanation or find Sealey's birth certificate. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have copied the above thread to the article's talk page for information. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Serie D

Are Serie D teams notable? A recent AfD resulted in a delete (even though consensus seemed to be to keep, but whatever), and there is an ongoing AfD to which this is relevant. GiantSnowman 21:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they're definitely notable and I am puzzled by the AfD closure. Deems like a justifiable DRV or at least ask the admin why (no reason was given). Number 57 22:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to approach the closing admin following this discussion, and then take it to DRV if needed. However, why are they notable - i.e. what guidelines do they meet for the non-FOOTY members of Wikipedia? GiantSnowman 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How exactly they are notable, that's what i want to know. And by the way, on the Todi deletion discussion, there was no consensus at the very worst; apart from Snowman's vote, the rest were made by one editor with a dynamic IP. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 04:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming WP:FOOTYN is no longer current? Though even by that standard, this club isn't notable. Hack (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As there are 168 teams in Serie D (see the current season article), I am at a loss to see why S.S. Todi Calcio and F.C. Calcio Acri seem to be the only ones nominated for deletion. Surely, if one goes on grounds of notability, they all fail (other than those that have played at a higher level). Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For that exact reason it is difficult to nominate every non-notable page for deletion at once. I have gone through only 2 groups (H and I) so far and have PRODed quite a few articles. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 06:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For me, clubs playing in Serie D should be considered notable. As I argued in this AfD, excluding Serie D would leave just six leagues in Italy in which all clubs can be considered notable, compared to almost 50 in England. As Italy has only 78 teams competing in its national cup, it is unfairly punished by WP:FOOTYN criteria. Other editors agree this inconsistency is highly problematic, especially when compared to the 6000+ teams in France's national cup. Deserter1 talk 13:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful when nominating current Serie D clubs for deletion - you should never have nominated Turris since they've played many seasons in Serie C in the past. Jogurney (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who had this genius idea of nominating Serie D clubs for deletion. Some of those clubs have significant history, even representing important realities such as big cities of 50,000 or even more, and Serie D is definitely a nationwide league by the way. It used to be called Campionato Nazionale Dilettanti in the past (National Amateur Championship, please note the National word), they assign a national title. In addition, please keep in mind the number of non-professional teams is soon destined to increase, since there are plans to disband Lega Pro Seconda Divisione within two or three years and have only three fully professional leagues. What is important is WP:GNG mostly, so please think twice before nominating articles randomly - such teams receive regular regional, if not national, coverage. --Angelo (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Jogurney, i apologise for that mistake, it was silly of me not to check it (i thought i had). Angelo, according to WP:FOOTYN (which nobody seems to follow, but anyway), all teams that played in the national cup are considered notable. It doesn't matter if the league is called "national" or whatever, they just have to be eligible to play in a national cup. As far as i know, Serie D teams aren't eligible for the Coppa Italia. About WP:GNG, i couldn't find anything about any club article i've nominated for deletion. Surely if those clubs receive regular regional or national coverage, you would be able to embelish their articles with such links, other than their official websites i see in every bloody article. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 15:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Serie D teams are actually eligible for Coppa Italia appearances. See 2011–12 Coppa Italia for instance. --Angelo (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm okay. It is not every Serie D club, though... Only those who have played in the Coppa Italia are considered notable per WP:FOOTYN. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 16:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I think the point that Angelo is trying to make is that all Serie D teams are eligible for the Cup, but not all enter it, for whatever reason (financial etc.) GiantSnowman 16:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. By the way, only a minority of Lega Pro Prima Divisione and Lega Pro Seconda Divisione (both fully professional leagues) are admitted to Coppa Italia as well, so you understand this might automatically make a majority of fully professional teams (including newly-promoted ones from Serie D) from Lega Pro non-notable as well. Namely, rules to choose Serie D teams who qualify to play Coppa Italia change regularly, this year it is supposed to be the second-placed teams from each Serie D round of past season, before that it was the playoff winner instead, some time ago it also included finalists from Coppa Italia Dilettanti but now it doesn't anymore... And, to make things even more complex, Coppa Italia admission rules themselves (including the number of allowed teams) have changed quite frequently in the last few years as well. --Angelo (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Where does the Coppa Italia Lega Pro fit into all of this? Hack (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I see Angelo's point, but whatever the Coppa Italia format might be, WP:FOOTYN recognises notability only for those teams who have actually played for the Coppa Italia and not those who can potentially enter (a.k.a. the whole Serie D). And by the way, mere professional status does not justify notability. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 17:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed WP:FOOTYN is a draft, not even an official guideline. Which means refering to it is just pointless, since it has no consensus (yet) from the community. And, regardless of anything else, it is full of flaws still (there is no definition of "national cup", for instance). And, in any case, we deem players to be notable if they played professionally for at least one game, so I can't just understand why we shouldn't do the same with clubs too. --Angelo (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's the only guideline we have and can refer too, since most Serie D articles are non-notable per WP:GNG. I agree that we must reach consensus on football-related notability ASAP. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 17:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the process of deprodding the Serie D club articles listed in the article alerts section on WP:WPF. Proposed deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions which are unlikely to be contested. That is clearly not the case here. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

if this can help you, on it.wikipedia teams with 10 or more seasons in Serie D are elegible. 93.56.45.94 (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

FA Vase entry = club notability?

I've seen a couple of mentions (here and here for example) to English clubs being considered notable under WP:FOOTYN by virtue of their entry into the FA Vase. When and how was this decided? Hack (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

FA Vase entry is a requirement for FA Cup entry, so the two are fairly analagous - the only difference is that the FA Cup is now limited to clubs finishing below a certain position at level 10 due to a lack of space in the draw. It's also fairly analagous to being at level 10 - only a very small number of clubs enter from level 11. Historically there were also a few cases in the past of there being leagues at level 11 that really should have been level 10 but were constrained by geography or the fact that there were no level 10 leagues in the area - the clubs from these leagues frequently entered the Vase despite the fact that they were technically a level below most other entrants. However, these with the creation of the South West Peninsula League and East Midland Counties League, these anolmolies have largely been ironed out. Number 57 08:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So the Vase is considered an extension of the Cup for club notability purposes? Hack (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you could say that. Whilst it is hardly a "major" trophy, the latter stages of the competition do receive a reasonable amount of media coverage and I believe the final (which often attracts crowds of five figures - one recent one had an attendance of over 37,000) has been televised in the past. Number 57 09:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Then that's indeed not fair for the other countries if even level 11 clubs get to play at (some kind of) a national cup and thus justify notability per WP:FOOTY. However, in Italy, the Coppa Italia Serie D/Dilettanti cannot be considered a notable national cup event, can it? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 10:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've brought this up in the past and all you'll get is a few replies from editors who think that every club in England should be notable and anyone who challenges them can piss off. Number 57, I don't know where you get the idea that the FA Vase is some kind of "extension" of the FA Cup. We already have articles for the several hundred clubs that participate in the Cup, far more than would be allowed for any other country. Why is this not enough for some people? As you say, the majority of clubs playing in the Vase also play in the Cup, so why use the former as a measure of notability. Would we really miss a few articles about some level 11 clubs? BigDom 10:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that I've prodded several clubs playing in lower leagues recently, I hardly think you could say that I think all clubs in England are notable. As for why there are more articles "allowed" on English clubs that other countries (I don't believe any other countries have actually had strict limits set?), perhaps it is because football is far more popular (and therefore notable) at lower levels in England than it is in other countries? Most of the (many) matches I have attended at level 10 clubs in England have more spectators than some level 2 clubs in Israel (which certain editors have tried to claim is fully professional). Number 57 10:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the level of media coverage for your average Level 11 club? Hack (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My experience would suggest that short match reports and occasional longer articles in the local paper are the norm. I've recently referenced Nettleham F.C. using (amongst other things) a ocuple of local newspapers. Number 57 11:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The "national cup" club notability rule certainly favours England and France, which have many hundreds of teams participating in their national cups each year, over Germany and Spain, which have only 64 and 83 teams respectively. At this discussion and this discussion, it was recently agreed that this was not fit for purpose, but no alternative suggestions were agreed. One was to build up a consensus on club notability criteria on a country by country basis, e.g.: User:Soccer-holic/Club notability criteria. Deserter1 talk 12:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - I thought I had earlier included a comment that WP:FOOTY is an essay that should be ignored (as it always is in reference to players), but I must have closed that window without saving! If it were applied to the French situation (6,000+ clubs) it would be absurd, and it is also unfair that it would only capture 64 clubs in Germany. Country-specific agreements are probably the best way forward. Number 57 12:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're suggesting we solely go by WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No - country-specific criteria like this. Number 57 14:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There are only two countries in that list. Shouldn't it be expanded with more countries and then be put somewhere in common sight? (WP:FOOTYN?) Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 15:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That was the plan, but everyone forgot about it. Number 57 15:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Well then, everyone should remember this and build a list based on consensus, before more misunderstandings or misintepretations of (outdated) WP guidelines happen. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 16:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Added some more countries with what hopefully most will agree are sensible criteria, though I'm not sure the FA Vase or FA Amateur Cup should be notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Proxy club in infobox

Firstly, many footballers of South America were owned by agent and investor in majority, as Hulk (footballer) and Thiago Silva (However is another case, Flu cannot receive foreign transfer and Flu receive nothing for Silva (only solitary contribution) but TOMBENSE did give some player to Flu as return).

And for Gustavo Franchin Schiavolin, Filipe Luís Kasmirski, Rafael Moura and Felipe Mattioni , they were never played for his parent club, which some merely a football club but a proxy for the agent. So how to reflect them on infobox? Is there any rule?

For the permanent deal the current practice is not show, but for the loan deal were show. IS there any suggestion to form a MoS?

(Reply to unsigned comment above) Non-football clubs shouldn't be in the infobox; it's a breakdown of a player's career, not for the minutiate of contract details, which can be described in the article if need be. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with ART, box is for clubs and akin. As for the user, without checking edit history, i think it's User:Matthew hk. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

National Football Teams website

On the National-Football-Teams.com website, can someone shed some light on what the "Exch." column stands for in the player stats? For example, for this player: Samad Oppong, it says 0 games, 1 Exch. and 0 goals. However, at the top of his profile, it says 1 International Game. So, I can't for the life of me figure out what it could possibly stand for ... thanks! TonyStarks (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be that it means "substitute appearances". Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It does (stands for Exchange). Compare Ben Foster's NFT and Englandstats pages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah makes sense and pretty straightforward .. thanks guys. TonyStarks (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Another question with regards to this site, how complete is it? For example, Alex Asamoah's Wiki article says he has 1 cap for Ghana, but when I try to find him on the NFT website he doesn't show up. I tried to find his caps for Ghana on Google but couldn't find anything either. Am I safe in assuming that his Wiki article is wrong?TonyStarks (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr Asamoah played against Nigeria in the CHAN qualifier in December 2008 [8], but I don't think that counts for full caps. Can't find any other international appearance for him.

In general, if NFT says a player has caps, then he probably has, but the number may well not be correct, especially for less well-documented countries. If it says he hasn't been capped, it's not necessarily correct, again especially for less well-documented countries. It's good, but it's still just some bloke's personal website... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. CHAN matches are not considered "A" internationals by FIFA (and you won't find them listed at FIFA.com), so the editor probably thought Mr. Asamoah had a cap based on that appearance. It's quite possible he appeared in some other "A" international Ghana has played as it's pretty difficult to find a full set of match reports for their "A" international friendlies (let alone the CAN qualifiers). Jogurney (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as I thought, it was a cap for Ghana's local team .. which isn't considered a full international. I'll go ahead and change his article. Thanks for the help.TonyStarks (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

List of football players with a Football League Championship winner's medal

What do people think about the appropriateness of this article? In any case, it's unreferenced at present. Eldumpo (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It will probably remain unreferenced and unverifiable. PROD/AfD candidate. GiantSnowman 12:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User persistently adding false information

Are any edits made by User:Dundas2011 worth keeping? I just reverted this at Go Ahead Eagles, having noticed he added false information to a page on my watchlist. I am tempted to undo them all, but some might be accurate, I'm not an expert on where to look for the latest news concerning Dutch football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Toolserver down?

What's up with all the Template Maintainance links like http://toolserver.org/%7Emerl/specialpages/enwiki/NavigationTemplateMaintenance/1._FFC_Turbine_Potsdam_squad that you find on many Squad templates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:1._FFC_Turbine_Potsdam_squad .Those don't work like since 2 months. Did the address change or is it down that long? Is there an alternative? -Koppapa (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Where are they now?

Just thought I'd give a heads up on this interesting new site: http://www.where-are-they-now.co.uk/

Unfortunately the Port Vale page appears to be broken! Because of this I can't tell whether most of its information is simply taken from Wikipedia to begin with or whether it is a useful website. So check it out!--EchetusXe 13:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Had a quick look and the players I read didn't seem to be taken from Wiki, but is the source of the data just input from random people, so can it be described as reliable? Eldumpo (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)