Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

Matches for the reserve team in infobox

I have a discussion with User:TonyStarks about if the matches of Luca Toni for Bayern Munich's reserve team should be listed in the infobox. Luca Toni (who was undoubtedly playing for the first team) played two times for Bayern Munich II (at that time in the 3. Liga which is fully professional in Germany) to regain fitness after injury. Tony says that adding these two matches to the infobox "... gives the wrong impression and implies that he left Bayern's senior team to go play with the reserve team, which is not true. Plenty of well known first team regulars play games here and there with the reserve team, most notably after an injury, but you will never see that included in the infobox, even if the reserve team is professional."

For German footballers / footballers playing in Germany the reserve team stats are usually included in the infobox, so for me this doesn't imply anything except that he was playing for the reserve team. We both agree that the stats for the reserves should be included in the infobox if the player is mainly playing for the reserves, but I don't think that it is correct to have one and the same match counted for one player (e.g. Diego Contento) and not counted for the other one (Luca Toni). This topic was already discussed a year ago but there were only two responses disagreeing with each other, so no consensus was reached. --Jaellee (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The infobox should account for apps/goals in competitive/senior leagues, which the German third tier obviously is. So, it would seem wrong to exclude this information from the infobox. I can think of a few players who have these stats included; Peter Løvenkrands and Dimitar Berbatov come to mind. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• In Spain, several reserve teams (have) play(ed) as high as in Segunda División for heaven's sake (last example, Real Madrid Castilla, promoted)! Those stats HAVE TO BE in the infobox people. Also, JAELLEE makes a great point, if it's included for some players (CONTENTO) it's included in all (L.TONI, etc). Cheers --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Vasco, you're missing the point with your first sentence. I did not say it should not be included because of the level that reserve teams play at, I'm just saying it should not be included for first team regulars who play a game or two with the reserve team. Also, not sure what the "heaven's sake" for, we're having a discussion, I don't think I've said anything that warrants that sort of response. As for the rest of the conversation, let's take France for example. I'll say about 50% of first team players there play games with the reserve team during the season, whether it's in the CFA, CFA2 or DH division (D4, D5 and D6 respectively). Should these stats be included in the infobox of a player? If it was a notable player playing exclusively for the reserve team the stats would be included in his infobox. Yet, you'll never seen an article with that information. TonyStarks (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to my message. I had a quick look at the PSG squad. Momo Sissoko, Luyindula, Erding, Sakho, Chantome, and Arnaud all played for PSG's B team in CFA (D4) this season. Last season, it was Ceara, Sammy Traore, Arnaud, Rothen and Kezman. Yet, you will not see this information in the infobox of the players, and rightfully so in my opinion. For me, for senior players, this is the equivalent of playing in a Cup game, it has no place in the infobox. TonyStarks (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• "For heaven's sake" was just me saying i thought this was a very clear issue, NEVER wanted to belittle your efforts TONY, apologies if i did. As for the examples you put forth in PSG's squad, i thought the reserve teams in France played in the national championships (in case they promoted), the only example i know where B-teams do not play in any league is in England, they have the RESERVE CHAMPIONSHIP do they not? As per the number of matches played, Martín Demichelis only played once with FC Bayern Munich II, should that be out of the infobox? No.

Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

@Vasco: Like I replied on your talk page, sorry for misinterpreting, we don't have the luxury of tone and body language on the internet, just our interpretation of what's written. Back to the discussion, clearly it's not a straightforward issue if at least two members object to it (me and the user in the previous discussion), that is why me and Jaellee decided to bring it here, maybe a few more opinions can help sway us one way or another. TonyStarks (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Like in Spain and Germany, French reserve teams play in the country's football pyramid, however, unlike Spain and Germany, the reserve teams are amateur and play in amateur leagues, which makes playing for them not notable per WikiProject rules, which is why I don't think French reserve teams stats should be in the info-box like here, for example, but mentioned in the prose like I do myself. — JS^{Rant Away} 02:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There was the amusing situation in Turkey a few years ago where a reserve team played in the same league as the first team. Hack (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

@Joao10Siamun: I mentioned the Cadamuro case when the article was first created and I said that I disagreed with listing reserve team stats in the infobox. However, I was reverted and told that that was how we do things, even though that type of information is absent from 99% of French footballers, who all began playing for the reserve team in CFA/CFA2. You work a lot on French football and I'm not surprised to see that you agree with me. TonyStarks (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say Toni's Bayern II apps should be included, expecially since 3. Liga is a fully professional league. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 04:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I understand TonyStarks position here, in fact, when you add in the infobox the B squad year, name and stats (even if only a couple), it is somehow implied that the player was with the B squad and left the main team, I mean, there is some dubious situation there about possible (miss)interpretations. From what I see, seems to me that we have different practices for different leagues, and seems that it depends about the B team playing in a pro league, or not.

For exemple, recently I had a doubt related to this issue at David Manga. The thing is that Manga was TSV 1860 München player between 2008 and 2011, and he played 3 seasons with TSV 1860 München II although during his last season he got to be in several ocasions a non-used reserve in the main team. Now, how should be displayed in the infobox:

• Should we focus in the fact that he was TSV 1860 München player who played for their II team and put it like this:

2007–2008 SC Eisenstadt 00000000000000 3 0(0)

2008–2011 TSV 1860 München 00000000000 0(0)

2008–2011 → TSV 1860 München II (loan) 73 (14)

2011–0000 Partizan 0000000000000000000 9 0(1)

• Or, should we simplify it and make it like this:

2007–2008 SC Eisenstadt 00000000000000 3 0(0)

2008–2011 TSV 1860 München II 0000000073 (14)

2011–0000 Partizan 0000000000000000000 9 0(1)

• Any thoughts? Also, should the period in the B team be considered a loan? FkpCascais (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to your last question, no; unless of course the move is explicitly mentioned as a loan. All in all, I think #2 is the most accurate version for Manga. – Kosm1fent 05:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, but then in sequence comes a final question that can create a consensus at least on this matter: can we conclude that if a player has failed to make an appereance for the main team, it is safe to add only the B team in the infobox? FkpCascais (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, if you sign to play for the first team and fail to make any appearances, your infobox should say, using your example, TSV Munchen 0 (0). Because you signed to play for the first team and made no league appearances for that team. I mean if we're adding reserve team appearances, what's stopping us from adding cup and continental appearances to the infobox? For example, new lines and arrows saying TSV Munchen B 10 (0), Cup 3 (1), Europe 1 (0), etc. To me it's just another cause of over-complicating things for ourselves. PS. Sorry for the general appearance of that last message, I know it's a mess but I'm sure I got my point across. TonyStarks (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

But Tony, B teams do play in leagues, so there is the difference between league appereances for B teams, and Cup and continental competition appereances... For exemple, David Manga played in the Regionalliga Süd against teams such as Holstein Kiel, Chemnitzer FC, VfB Lübeck or even 1. FC Magdeburg. FkpCascais (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what FkpCascais said, the reserve club plays in a league which is part of the main football system. It's not a cup nor international competition. Wouldn't his appearances count if Manga played for another 3.Liga or Regionalliga Süd team at the time? – Kosm1fent 12:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, it seems easy when a player have only played for reserve team, but what about players that have played half of the matches for the first team and half of the matches for the reserve team? For consistency, I'd say we skip league-games for reserve teams for everyone. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistency with what? If the appearances are made in a league that is part of that county's football league system I really don't see what the issue is. It doesn't matter whether the appearances come for the second team of a club in a higher league (e.g. VfB Stuttgart II) or for a team operating soley at that level (e.g. SC Preußen Münster); they're of the same statistical and historical value. If anything, removing these appearanes would make biographies more inconsistent as we would be picking and choosing what appearances to include on the basis of what club a player played for. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, we are taking about players that are contracted with the first team, but have played one or more matches with the reserve team, which happens to play in the same league as other teams. It is not needed to transfer between those two "clubs", and hence we shouldn't give the impression through the infobox that the player have played for two different clubs. If there are players that are contracted to the second team, then it would be a different story, but I'm still reluctant to include reserve-team matches because of consistency. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

But I don't see why contractual status should act as an impedement to the inclusion of senior, first team appearances; having a contract with the senior club doesn't make appearances at the reserve team's tier any less noteworthy. Also, I don't see why it should matter whether the impression is given to the reader that the player played for two different clubs. I agree it might be confusing for those unfamiliar to the concept of a reserve team competing in a major league, but would these reserve appearances not be noted in the article's prose anyway? I don't think it should be too difficult for readers to understand what the deal is. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In a perfect world, the infobox only sums up the articles prose. But, this project have 130k articles (with a big portion of player-articles), where 4 of 5 are stubs, with most of those stubs having more information in the infobox then in the prose. If we are to include reserve team matches in the infobox, a minimum should be that it is included in the prose. On the other hand, Template:Infobox football biography says A list of professional clubs that the player has been contracted at, so I can't see any reasons to include German, Spanish or French reserve teams just because they happen to play in the league system. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ummmm, reserve clubs in Germany and Spain are professional as when they can play in leagues which are considered fully professional. They wouldn't be considered fully pro otherwise... – Kosm1fent 18:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait the minute, what about a player who has played both professional and semi-professional football? The semi-professional clubs shouldn't be included?! – Kosm1fent 18:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Further, I would question whether the "A list of professional clubs that.." note at Template:Infobox football biography is relevant, considerng it's barely adhered to. If it were, infoboxes for players in England, for example, would be limited to about 100 (professional) clubs, when in fact hundreds more (semi-pro Conference National clubs and below) are, in practice, included. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Whops - I didn't read "professional", only "contracted too". I'm not for removing those clubs not professional, but I still think an infobox would be a mess if we include reserve team appearences. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake that I didn't check it myself. xD – Kosm1fent 18:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Are Germany and Spain the only two countries where reserve teams can play at the professional level? If so, I'd be willing to accept having reserve team appearances for players in those leagues included in the infobox, and removing that information from the infobox of players in other countries (notably France). At least this way we comply partly with the note in the infobox template. Does that work for everyone? Can we at least reach a consensus on that? And just to reiterate again, I'm referring to cases similar to the one of Luca Toni mentioned in the original message, a first team player who plays games with the reserve team while still being contracted to the first team. TonyStarks (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a consensus yes. I know that in Norway, and I believe it's the same in other Nordic countries, the reserve teams can play at the third tier which is at amateur-level, but matches on this level are hard to find a good source for, and shouldn't be included. If it's easy to find sources for it in Spain and Germany, and it is at professional level, I guess we can include it. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As with my comment on the note at Template:Infobox football biography, it shouldn't matter whether it's at the fully professional or semi-professional level. If the infobox stats can be appropriately cited by reliable sources then, in my view, they're good to go. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agre with all Mattythewhite said till now. So, seems we reached a consensus about adding B team stats when those are in a professional league, like in the cases of Spain and Germany. FkpCascais (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be a straight-forward issue where the reserve team also competes in a fully-professional league. I'm inclined to agree with Mattythewhite, on the other issue too: if a player plays for a reserve side in a match that forms part of a national league pyramid (ie, not in a separate league in which appearances are restricted to reserve teams only) then why not include them? Pretty Green (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm: as long as they are appropriately cited by reliable source, we agree to include any reserve team stats, or only the ones played in a league within a national league pyramid? It´s because there are separate reserve team league, as in Serbia for exemple. FkpCascais (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Liga MX and Ascenso MX

Since the new leagues are official should Mexican Primera División be moved to Liga MX and should the Liga de Ascenso be moved to ASCENSO MX or should new pages be created. GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The name of the articles should reflect what the reliable English-language sources call the leagues. Soccerway refer to it as Primera Division; if the sources do change over time then it may be appropriate to move them. Eldumpo (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The league name change corresponds to changes in the format as well. Reliable sources (e.g., Medio Tiempo) are already using the new name Liga MX. I think we need to have a strong link between the Primera history and the new Liga MX - so maybe moving the page is best. Perhaps we should wait until it is close to the start of the new season? Jogurney (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The official FMF website officially announced it. [1] GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 22:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We should wait and see what the English-language sources (e.g. Soccerway, ESPN) are calling them before we think of moving the pages. Eldumpo (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the English-language media have been slow to use the new name (the league doesn't begin until July), but the Spanish-language media certainly have (including all of the Spanish-language US media outlets like Univision, ESPN Deportes, FOX Sports). I'm okay with moving the articles now, but it won't hurt to wait a few weeks and see if the English-language sources start picking up on the new name (I wouldn't worry about Soccerway - that isn't a reliable source, is it?). Jogurney (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe Soccerway to be a reliable source, and others at Footy have said the same. Have you any reason to think otherwise? Eldumpo (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Soccerway is a reliable source, but seeing that it was a statistics database, I was unsure. I'm willing to consider it as one if there is a concensus that it meets the standard, but I would weigh more heavily what sources like ESPN or Fox Sports call the new league than Soccerway. Jogurney (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tournament squad templates

So I switched UEFA Euro 2012 squads from Template:National football squad player (goals) to Template:National football squad player as the former is sortable. Someone switched it back, pointing out that template omitted the "goals" column (which I hadn't noticed, I didn't look at the template names, just omitted a "g" in the code). Surely the best of both worlds would be to make the goals template sortable? Is that possible?

Also, while I'm here, I've thought on occasion it might be nice to put in a tournament squad list a player's appearances/goals in the tournament itself. There's space, but the question is whether "pre-tournament caps/goals" and "tournament caps/goals" would be too confusing a concept? Especially as you'd probably want to split starts and goals in the latter appearance column, but not in the former. Anyway, what are people's thoughts on all that? HornetMike (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the ability to sort to the goals template. TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ta! HornetMike (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Zanzibar women's national football team

Resolved

Hi. I nominated Zanzibar women's national football team for featured, with the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar women's national football team/archive1 because I thought it would be the easiest article of about three available GAs about African women's national teams to get passed featured as there were more independent sources for it. I've gotten a little bit stuck. Can anyone help address the comments there and improve the article to help it get passed FAC or at least continue to improve? --LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the FAC has now been closed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 players

Someone (who hasn't anything to do) could add Category:UEFA Euro 2012 players to articles (i think that there should be more than 369 players as it is now in that category). --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

23 players in 16 squads is 368 players (so someone who hasn't anything to do, could find the one player that shouldn't be in that category) :P Mentoz86 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, then it is much more intereseting :) --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone who withdrew through injury? --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a user talk page. I've removed it. HornetMike (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Player born in country x who played for country y

Hi. I've seen some edit warring developing over what is Chris Hughton's nationality (he was born in England, but won a bunch of caps playing for the Republic Of Ireland). I presume WP:FOOTY has consensus over how we handle these things...? --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Avoid using adjectives to describe the nationality in the lead (especially the execrable "English-born Irish" of which the BBC seems so fond) and take the time to fully explain the nationality later on. That's basically all there is to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that works for the biog. What about on lists of managers, etc, which tend to have flags bunged all over them? --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Go with their football nationality if possible. Hack (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Try to avoid it if possible. Representative nationality is only important in the slightest for active professionals. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a clear cosensus for what to do in these situations. I think saying there is is wrong. Adam4267 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there are many editors who would choose to emphasise one aspect of an individual's nationality in order to bolster national pride, and they will probably be able to find journalists operating to a similar agenda to provide citations to back that up. But as an encyclopaedia we are not about choosing one aspect to emphasise, we are about presenting the whole truth without preference or prejudice. That means that if we cannot present somebody's nationality accurately and without oversimplification in one or two words, then we shouldn't try to. Kevin McE (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds magnificent, but doesn't help with this, or the section that follows it. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You put Bruce Rioch a Scottish flag, so for consistency Hughton should have an Irish one. Whether managers in lists need nationalities at all is another question. If they do, then the criteria used for assigning them should be defined in the key. And no, I haven't done that at List of Birmingham City F.C. managers :-) though on the players lists, I've replaced the country/nation/nationality column with an international selection column: the players only get flags and countries if they turned up to play for one (or two, or three). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I really can't see the problem with using phrases like "Scotland-born Irish international footballer". It's clear and unambiguous, and doesn't necessarily stake a claim to nationality. Number 57 17:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is ambiguous, because there is ambiguity as to whether Irish international footballer means an international footballer who is Irish, or a footballer who has represented Ireland internationally. Eduardo is Brazilian, and is an international footballer, thus he could be described as a Brazilian international footballer, and probably has been by some journalist somewhere, but it would not be a useful description of him. This ambiguity would be removed by the phrase Scottish-born Republic of Ireland footballer, but I'm not at all sure that either the emphasis on birthplace, or on international representation, is justified. Why would we describe Eduardo as a Brazilian born Croatia footballer rather than a Brazilian born Shakhtar Donetsk footballer or a left footed Shakhtar Donetsk footballer.

I would however suggest that Yish-born Xish can be justified, when there is no doubt that the place of birth was a temporary relocation of the parents and other than accident of birth there is no other complication in attributing nationality. I suspect that there could be no factual objection to describing Terry Butcher as Singaporean-born English, but Wikipedia lacks large numbers of Singaporean editors wishing to add that description in order to either bolster their own national pride or dilute that of English supporters. Kevin McE (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it should be Scottish-born Footballer, who used the ruling of parents/grandparetnst nationally to play for IrelandAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In Hughton's case, I don't see why we can't call him Irish in the lead. He chose to represent Ireland and as such as, preference should be given to his Irish nationality. The fact that he was born in England can still be mentioned somewhere in the intro, especially if it has a line or two about his international career. For me, a footballer's most notable nationality is the team he represents internationally. I'd think cases of players with triple nationality that have yet to play internationally are the tough ones, not cases like Houghton's. Anyways, seems like this issue comes up every cuople of months now and everyone has their own opinion. TonyStarks (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally speaking, in these cases I tend to omit nationality from "Player X is a footballer" and go with "although born in Country A, Player X played international football for Country B", and you can tack on "after qualifying through residency/whom he qualified for through his gran etc." if you want. With someone like Terry Butcher, whose parents were presumably ex-pats and moved home fairly sharpish I wouldn't even bother mentioning the fact he was born in Singapore in the lead.

With regard to managers in lists, it's a bit more difficult. I think in something like List of English Football League managers it's useful to have it, as it gives perspective on the make-up of those employed. Going with "footballing nationality" is the most consistent approach, but I do think it's a little daft we're claiming Owen Coyle's Irish in that context. I'd say the majority of people looking at the list will have no memory of Coyle as a player, and would be thinking "Hold on, he sounds pretty Scottish on Match of the Day!" Plus there was plenty of press last season about x number of managers in the Premier League being Scottish (and more specifically, Glaswegian) which that list doesn't tally with. But then, you couldn't go with country of birth as an absolute, because you'd be claiming Terry Butcher was from Singapore. So I think any note in the key would have to be about managers who qualified through another nation through relatives/residency etc. being categorised by nation of birth. HornetMike (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Managers don't have footballing nationalities though, so really Hughton is English Coyle is Scottish etc. Unless there is some other reason for them not to be called by the nationality of birth, eg Terry Butcher. With players, they do have footballing nationalities so it is correct to say they are the nationality of whatever country they play for. Adam4267 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

THEY DO NOT HAVE MULTI NATIONALTIES. Football players are no different to a bank a bricky etc, there nationally uis the country there born in, but football rules means they can play for another country if they satufy the criteria, there no expections for footballs if there born in england there english full stop the nation they play for does not indicated nationallyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nationality is not defined soley by place of birth; as an example from HornetMike's message above, Terry Butcher would then be described as a Singaporean footballer/manager. Doesn't work quite as simply as that. But on the issue of what to write in the opening sentences of biographies, I agree with Chris that it should just read "...is a footballer who plays...". The nationality should be detailed later on the lead, which is a more accurate and useful way of demonstrating a subject's nationality in cases of ambiguity. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

no nationally is defined by place of birth for footballign terms, but oin ever other aspect of life it is, its only because fifa has contunied to move the goalpost that now we have peopel with multi nationally but it ainta multi nationally it just the eligible to play for co7utnries, and that is the key ELIGABILTY not nationally, nationally is country of birth, that why someone nationally who is born on plane or a ship at sea ( and potential eventally in space) is very hard to determine and can be argued for many years after birth and this goes for any person not just footballers. i repeat FOOTBALL ARE NOT A SPECIAL CASE THERE LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLDAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Umm no, nationality is not defined by place of birth. Plenty of countries will not give you nationality if you're born there. I was born and spent 11 years in the United Arab Emirates, yet my nationality is and always was Algerian. 80% of the population of UAE is foreign, many born there .. but almost 99% of those people do not have and will never get the nationality. The same can be said about plenty of other countries (Algeria included). So no, nationality is not defined by place of birth, and it has nothing to do with FIFA. TonyStarks (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

nice statement :d so your now saying anyone can claim tobe any nationally wrong but clearly no one here cares and just want to call the nationally by the ocuntry the playr plays for so do so i have put my opinion across im no logner goign to comment since appearntly i am martian :D--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What did you catch feelings cause I proved your statement wrong? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. TonyStarks (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbBreak

Breaking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris Hughton represented the Republic of Ireland, therefore his nationality should be included in the lead of his wiki page as "is an Irish former professional footballer". You can't just make assumptions based on his place of birth, because that doesn't reflect his nationality and Chris will always be known as an Irish man, due to representing the Republic of Ireland. His brother Henry, and son Cian have also represented the Republic of Ireland. Wbel (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To declare that he will always be known as an Irish man is pure POV/OR. Our job is to deal with facts, and the fact is that he is English by birth and upbringing, Irish (and possibly other as well) by blood through his mother, and possibly other nationalities by blood through his father. That complex reality cannot accurately be summarised by the single word Irish. Kevin McE (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

He is notable for being a football player and manager. As a player, he represented Ireland internationally. The third bullet in WP:OPENPARA says that opening paragraph should have "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)" and goes on to say "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." My interpretation of that is as a footballer he is notable for being an Irish international, not English. I'm not taking away the fact that he is also English but I don't think that should be mentioned in the opening sentence but later on the opening paragraph. Something along the lines of "While born in English, Hughton represented Ireland .." TonyStarks (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that he is not notable primarily for past events: he's still a current manager, and a very high-profile one (currently in charge of his second Premier League team). Indeed, at present he is more likely to be known for his ethnicity (being one of the absurdly few black managers in British football) than for his past national team performances, not unlike the dozens of other players who received ROI caps in their playing days and who subsequently went on to notable careers outside of Ireland (because they're, like, not Irish) after retiring for playing.

Quite honestly, I have no idea why so many people continue to allow themselves to be manipulated by Wikipedia's nationalists on this particular subject, when the alternative (simply omitting misleading statements from the first sentence) is so straightforward.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A famous example of a football player who played for Ireland, but didn't have an Irish passport: Tony Cascarino I don't know Hughton very well, so I don't know if he has an Irish passport or played for them with an UK passport. Cattivi (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

How on earth do you claim to know what passport a person might or might not have had? That is not generally in the public forum. His mother had every right to take the nationality of her adoptive parents, and that made Cascarino equally entitled. Kevin McE (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In this case there are sources for it like: [2] Granted an Irish passport in 1996 Cattivi (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Chris: My opinion has nothing to do with "Wikipedia's nationalists", whatever that means. To me, a footballer's nationality is defined by who he represents internationally. Let's take the case of Messi, arguably the best player on the planet right now. He is born in Argentina, he's of Italian descent and he has Spanish citizenship. Should we omit his nationality from the lead since it could be misleading? Obviously not, Messi is Argentinian and you'll rarely find someone that would argue against that. Now, of course, you can argue that Messi's case is different from Houghton's in that he was always Argentinian and went on represent his country of birth .. but still, I think when you have a player that represents a country internationally, nationality should be a straightforward thing. TonyStarks (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are personally pushing a nationalist agenda. However, you certainly are lending credibility to those editors who would do so, and you don't appear to be taking on board exactly why that is a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris's brother Henry, and son Cian have also represented the Republic of Ireland, doesn't that add any weight to this debate? even commentators refer to Chris as an Irish man. Wasn't Chris at the 1990 FIFA World Cup? aren't you supposed to be a national of that country to represent it? Wbel (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not before 1996 when FIFA changed the rules. Another example John Aldridge [ http://irishecho.com/?p=50558] Cattivi (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

<reduce indent> OK, let's focus on the facts shall we? FIFA allow you to play for any country for which you are a national. How a country defines nationality is entirely up to that country - FIFA does not get involved. The one exception is with teams that do not represent independent countries. The best known case of this is of course the home nations in the UK, where clearly it is not possible to have English, Welsh nationality etc. The four UK teams, and Ireland, have an agreement among themselves that makes a player eligible for a particular country if: they were born in that country; a grandparent or parent was born in that country; they spent at least 5 years at school in that country prior to 18.Pretty Green (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

With regards to a couple of specific, more pedantic, points:

• Prior to 1996, you still had to qualify as a national to play for a country. The only change in 1996 was that you had to go through the administrative process of taking out nationality. As is in the article that Cattivi links to, ""Since 1964, if you were eligible for citizenship you were eligible to play for Ireland. You didn’t actually have to take out citizenship."
• Cascarino qualified to play for Ireland. He later found out that his mother was adopted by Irish people, but this still entitled her (and therefore him) to Irish nationality. Pretty Green (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cascarino is a notable case precisely because multiple reliable sources have pointed out that he is about as Irish as he is Egyptian. It would be absurd, and playing right into the hands of the nationalists who spend their time pushing this sort of thing, to describe him as unambiguously "Irish" based on his football career. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That may be true in terms of Cascarino's blood: I would dispute the implicit denial of the right to the nationality of one's adoptive parents. But I agree that it is misleading to simply describe him as Irish. Kevin McE (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong: I'm not making a judgement here on the suitability of taking said nationality, and it would be quite improper for me to presume to. I'm just pointing out that reliable sources made note of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protection taskforce

Have in the last hour reverted about 5-6 player articel and atleast 2 squads back to the original following IP number vandalism based mainly on simply roumers of transfers or the cheer wish of having the player in the club, see Robert Lewandowski, Luka Modrić and Galatasaray S.K.. Would like to suggest a taskforce consisting of editors with the ability to add protection to articles, to be created and active during the upcoming transfer window, which looks out for such vandalism and quickly stops it (protecting the article until transfer confirmed or window closes). --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 16:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Troll at Hull City A.F.C.

Hi, just a heads up over the re-emergence over a malicious, foul-mouthed troll at Hull City A.F.C.. Here are the IP's contributions: 1 and 2. His edits consist of incorrect amendments; first time round he insisted on-loan Péter Gulácsi had left Hull to return to Liverpool, when in fact he remained with Hull, and now he's claiming the club have released a number of players when in fact no official declaration has been made regarding out of contract players. Further, he has a habit of dishing out abuse on my userpage (this and this as examples). Here is a copy of the latest message left on my userpage:

"Thanks for meddling (again) on the Hull City page. The players removed earlier have all been released by the club and are now listed on the official PFA page as free agents. http://www.thepfa.com/transferlist

High time wikipedia had a Hull City fan responsible for the page rather than a York fan who seems intent on running the page as a dictatorship."

I think it goes without saying that this is the type of character we do not need contributing to our project. He seems to use the fact I follow a rival team (York City) as a reason and justification for his tirades. I find this behaviour especially astounding considering the great deal of effort I have put into Hull City-related articles (e.g. Hull City A.F.C. to GA status, List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons to FL status). That he can dish out such abuse to someone who has given this level of effort into something involving his club speaks volumes about his character. If anyone would mind reverting any future edits by this IP at Hull City that would be greatly appreciated, as I'd rather not have any contact with him. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Harsh way to describe their new manager... *reads post*... Oh. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend the IP one bit - he's clearly being very unhelpful, but an unconnected admin or other observer might view this edit summary [3] as descending to the IP's rather low level. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Red mist I guess. Just really got my goat. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it would me too. Maybe it's worth trying to get the page semi-protected if he thinks he can carry on making a mess. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

List of football clubs' appearances at the Millennium Stadium

What do people think about the notability of this article. It's unreferenced, and I'm not aware of reliable sources collating clubs in this way. In any case, it is actually only a partial list of clubs that have played at the ground. Eldumpo (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem notable. -Koppapa (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced and, more importantly, pointless! TonyStarks (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now subject to an AfD. Cloudz679 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Vintage football kits website

Resolved

 – Thanks, Daemonic --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There used to be a really good website with drawings of all kits ever used by [certain] teams in their history, including all the minor changes you'd expect. I thought it was called "vintagekits" but either I'm wrong, or their name has been bought out, or I'm just being stupid. Can anyone help me find it? At the moment, I'm particularly looking for help with some English club sides and Scotland, if that helps. --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Try www.historicalkits.co.uk. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusing it with Vintagekits? Kevin McE (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there such as site for other European leagues? I'm particular looking for Swedish club kits. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Season article start/end dates

Hi, just a quick question regarding when club season articles (e.g. 2011–12 York City F.C. season) should be regarded as having started and ended. I've tended to use the specific dates of seasons starting on 1 July and ending 30 June the following year. But, I'm wondering whether if it would be better if the season is classed as having ended when the final game has been played? This allows all summer activity to be filed under the one article, rather than separating summer transfers due to the adherence to a rather arbitrary date. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Similar issues have been discussed before (usually with regards to promotion/relegation dates) and in the past, consensus seems to be that the season ends at the end of June. In practice, I think it's best to treat everything that happens after the end of the last game as part of the next season/summer off season period. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep your dates, but don't be bound too literally by them. Players are released as of the end of "this" season, so detail that in "this" season's article; their departure is relevant to this season, not next. If the club signs any new players before the end of June, put the detail in "next" season's article, because their arrival is relevant to next season, whenever they actually sign the bit of paper. In my opinion, obviously :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with Basalisk - although June is technically still part of the 2011-12 season putting transfers made during it as part of that season doesn't really make any sense, signings (and departures) made in June have no effect on the season that has gone before, they are only relevant to the following season so fit better in the subsequent article. Similarly most readers will view the season as ending with the last match so splitting summer transfers across two articles would appear confusing.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Struway2. Contracts for autumn-spring seasons usually begin on 1 July and end on 30 June of the following year, so anything regarding transfers between two seasons for a team should go into the article to which the respective transfers are relevant, regardless of the actual signing date. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Kettering F.C.

Does Kettering F.C. meet this project's notability guidelines? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I can't find any evidence for an application to the United Counties League. The make-up of that league for next year is here and here. --Pretty Green (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If it existed, and if it played in the United Counties League as the original idea suggested, then it might be on the margins of notability. I think the idea might have been to set up an alternative to Kettering Town F.C. if that club were wound up, which it hasn't been (yet). As there's no apparent evidence that the team does exist, let alone admitted to the UCL, then definitely not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that it is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering F.C.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Šarūnas Stančaitis

Can anyone verify whether this guy has actually played for Lithuania? Transfermarkt seems to think so, but I doubt that can be considered reliable. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not even Transfermark does it say that he played for Lithuania... – Kosm1fent 11:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I am an idiot. Kthanks. 14:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This (linked from the RSSSF international matches page) would say not. Unless it spells his name significantly differently, anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for that, looks pretty conclusive to me. Sent it to AfD. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This site says he played twice at U-21 level. He is not listed on www.eu-football.info. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In Transfermarkt, on players main page it says "Lithuania 4 (0)" but they don´t have match reports to back it up: match reports... That is what I say when I say that only the part backed by match reports (which are admin inserted) is usefull. FkpCascais (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY Euro 2012 competition

I thought we should mark the Euro 2012 with a little competition. Obviously we can't play for money so the winner/s gets a barnstar/s. I know I should have suggested it before the start of the competition but wasn't on-line much. Basically Users place their name beside the numbers below. I will assign teams to users once all numbers are selected which correspond to a list I already randomly generated. If more then 16 people are interested them I'll start a second list with the same structure. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that once you've revealed the details, we all take some responsibility for updating the national team pages...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion but up to the individual users I can't say yes or no given fact I'm not entering. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, what is this all about? FkpCascais (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a little random competition a way of us acknowledging the Euro's in a fun way. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• 1) – Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Denmark
• 2) – Adam4267 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Czech Republic
• 3) – The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Portugal
• 4) – Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — France
• 5) - Dweller (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Sweden
• 6) – GiantSnowman 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Russia
• 7) – Kosm1fent 18:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — England
• 8) - Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Republic of Ireland
• 9) – NapHit (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Netherlands
• 10) – Mattythewhite (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Spain
• 11) – PeeJay 19:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Italy
• 12) – EchetusXe 21:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Croatia
• 13) – Jared Preston (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Ukraine
• 14) -- Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Greece
• 15) - FkpCascais (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Poland
• 16) – Jaellee (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Germany

	Quarter-finals				Semi-finals				Final
	21 June – Warsaw
	Adam4267
					27 June – Donetsk
	Runner-up of Group B
					Winner of quarter-final 1
	23 June – Donetsk
					Winner of quarter-final 3
	Winner of Group C
									1 July – Kiev
	Runner-up of Group D
									Winner of semi-final 1
	22 June – Gdańsk
									Winner of semi-final 2
	Winner of Group B
					28 June – Warsaw
	Arsenalkid700
					Winner of quarter-final 2
	24 June – Kiev
					Winner of quarter-final 4
	Winner of Group D
	Runner-up of Group C

Comments

Teams now assigned & good luck. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't argue with that! Mattythewhite (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How will the winner be decided? I pity Arsenalkid700 by the way, LOL. – Kosm1fent 16:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why pity. Greece shall be champions! They need to win as the money they get shall help there cashless country. ;) --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RE:Kosm1fent which ever User has the team which corresponds with the winner in the real competition wins. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My money's on Jaellee to win! – PeeJay 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Russia in this and the Netherlands at work - I have no chance ;) GiantSnowman 18:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait to see GS ;) FkpCascais (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

France ain't bad, I can't complain :D I'm also supporting Poland at work, great game today. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And................. I am out. Well not really but you get what I mean. Do I have to update the Greek football wiki page now. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Croatia won't win but on the other hand the article already has GA status :)--EchetusXe 21:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What shall happend for the national teams which will be going to be eliminated first? Any kind of punishments? :P FkpCascais (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh gosh, should I hope that England don't fail? xD – Kosm1fent 06:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Look what passed trough my football obcessed mind:

FC Wikipedia

• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ----------------------------------------Jack Bornholm----------------------------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ---------------------------The Rambling Man-----Del_♉sion23-------------------------------
• ------Adam4267--------------------------------------------------------------------Dweller--------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• -------------------------------------------GiantSnowman--------------------------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ------------Kosm1fent-------------------------------------------------Soccer-holic------------
• ---------------------------------------------------NapHit-----------------------------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• -----------------------Mattythewhite-------------------------PeeJay----------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserves:

• EchetusXe - Goalie
• Jared Preston - Defender
• Arsenalkid700 - Midfielder
• FkpCascais - Winger
• Jaellee - Striker

I specially like the fact that we have great names. For instance, Jack Bornholm our Danish goalkeepr, the successor of the great Peter Schmeichel! Rambling Man and Delusion23 as our rocky center backs, Adam4267 and Dweller (LOL) as spidy full-backs, GiantSnowman as defensive midfielder (hahaha, no one gets trough Giant Snowman!!!), Kosm1fent and Soccer-holic the danger on the wings, NapHit our creative playmaker, and Mattythewhite and PeeJay our Yorkish/Welsh striking force... and the best possible bench! Come on!!! We´re the best! FkpCascais (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PS: I hope you all see it the way I do because the way I see it in my laptop it looks just great! FkpCascais (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A Greek winger? Perhaps you'd like to reconsider? :P – Kosm1fent 12:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on Stelios, don´t be shy. :D FkpCascais (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The bench is the right place for me. I can watch the matches from one of the best places. :-) --Jaellee (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of playing up front, although if Kosm1fent wants to swap, I'd be happy to go right wing :P – PeeJay 15:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Our manager is DuckisJammy (Duck Advokaat hahaha), he set the numbers, must ask him. FkpCascais (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hand in my transfer request. I have been with the club for many years and am on the form of my life. Instead of starting and playing I am on the bench. I dont know why but I think our manager, DuckIsJammy, does not like me enough because if he did he would start me. Also I have repeatedly asked for increased wages as my current wage of 20 pesos per week is not enough to feed my starving task force. I already have offers from Arsenal wikia and Major League Soccer wikia and I would like you to consider them. Anything else should be looked after by my agent Manuel Almunia. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, the worste is that I already seen such requests in real life in the most unexpeted places comming from unhappy players (even on Wiki we had some cses of these if I remember)... About the playing positions, I hope no one gets md at me cause it wasn´t me who choosed them, I just used the numbers ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ attributed to us all, so blame him if any of you wanna change positions :) FkpCascais (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't want me in goal, believe me. I'm more of a "see how fast they can limp" style defender.--EchetusXe 17:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WHAT DID I TELL YOU! WHAT DID I TELL YOU! GREECE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM STILL IN IT! --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianFootballPlayersWiki (talk • contribs)

Well no one expected that talk about a shock, Aresnalkid is still in it somehow. Poor Snowy must have thought it was a sure thing to get to the KO phase. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.

Following today's Announcement that Green is pushing ahead with Luqudation there is a discussion on the talk page of what to do once or when this happens.

There have already been unsourced changes made to this article and its disambiguation page. It will need watching, and possibly protecting, until the situation becomes clearer. Britmax (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers page is already long term protected. It appears to be happening now anyway. [4]. There was debate on whether it could be said its a company Liqudating or whether it's the club but sources now clearly indicate club and new name. It's just a matter of best way I to handle it. More input eithier way would be helpful. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For the time being it doesn't make sense to use the past tense, or declare the club "defunct", anyway. If it were as straightforward as that the newspapers still wouldn't be in overdrive churning out potential future scenarios. I've reverted recent changes to that effect: this is going to need very close monitoring even above the semiprotection. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I may be reading the situation incorrectly but I believe that the club itself isn't being liquidated, the company that owns it will be - which means the club will remain intact? GiantSnowman 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why this is going to be a problem the club an company are intertwined since the late 1800s. Things weren't official when the club was formed but were later.

Sources dont distinquish the two at the moment see link above. Also its the club holds the licence which it looses and also see new name. The main problem as I see it is there will be two camps one who deems it as a continuation and one who see the old as defunct and a new club formed. Sources indicate the later but there are so many different precidents. Most of the English clubs were Dealt with as a continuation and kept same page, however the Scottish ones have mostly become separate clubs such as Airdrie and Gretna. I actually don't have a preference but we must go with ultimately what the sources say once this sorry saga has concluded. Going to be tricky either way. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

this BBC piece from yesterday quotes one of the administrators who says "the history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club." GiantSnowman 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And now do you see the problem. In that way the club is still liable for previous issues which is what we have been debating about. . We need to wait and see but most say club only ones directly quoting the admins say that. Also half the statements issued by those twits have been false. For instance player contracts don't transfer and no club has ever been allowed in the Spl following Liqudation contrary to their statements. . They make statements that are lies so will need to wait and see. It is possible for the deal to transfer history and them still be a new club. Airdrie we and most deal with as a new club but they see themselves as a continuation of Airdrieonians. Now given the club hold the licence not the company in that way they would still have it which is why the previous bidder wanted to do it that way however he would still of had a claim with HMRC for the yet announced tax case. The issue is whether we accept it as a new one or keep as the old we are going to have edit wars eithier way and source won't help because they contradict each other. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There's little point in us arguing over what it means. Nobody actually knows what it means, which is why the Scottish media is going crazy right now. Suffice to say that we should be conservative in our approach and not going altering the main article (especially the lead) in light of every new news conference held by the administrators, potential buyers, supporters' groups et cetera. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree just needs to be kept a very close eye on. And honestly if we believed everything those admins said we would be in trouble. They don't know what's happening any better than we do. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Stoke City LFC

Hi, I just declined a CSD on Stoke City LFC, but I'm not sure if the team is notable. Do you guys have a guideline for football teams? P.S. Hope you guys took a break from the Euros to watch the Australia v Japan World Cup qualifier – absolutely bizarre refereeing in the second half! Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If the club has played in either the FA WSL or FA Women's Premier League then the club is 100% notable. For future reference see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. And no I did not see the match but I kept track of it. Very good from what I saw from the stats. Japan should have won. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Persistent editor

There is a persistent editor MonkeyKingBar (talk · contribs), who keeps reverting edits made I have made to 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season the last few days. I've tried to notify him about why his changes are unacceptable via his talkpage and Talk:1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season (on the basis that what he has added is largely unsourced, a Goal.com poll holds no significance and if he was going to add an 'Aftermath' section, he may as well add a 'Background' one for balance -- yet it would probably be unsourced too and could jeopardise it's GA standing), yet the user refuses to agknowledge. After doing some digging, he has some previous; could it just be that he is a sock puppet? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Next match day scenarios

Is it okay to remove this stuff on sight? I think they are not referenced and are a violation of WP:NOR. Some claim that this falls under routine calculations part, which states that: "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." Same page also states the following: "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material....The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Dr. Vicodine (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think they are a clear case of original research and should be deleted on sight, they go beyond simple calculations. – Kosm1fent 19:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Definitely remove it. GiantSnowman 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not Okay WP:NOR does not disallow these calculations, they simpel calculations made from well sourced simple rules. They are only used in highprofile tournaments, such as currently in the EURO 2012, where they are updated on a daily basis and they are all removed after the end of the tournament. It is a fine way to keep the tournament articles updated. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So, this is okay???

On the next match day (16 June):

• Russia will win the group if
  • they defeat Greece OR
  • they draw with Greece and Poland draw with Czech Republic OR
  • they draw with Greece and Poland defeat Czech Republic by 1 or 2 goals† OR
  • they lose to Greece by less than 6 goals and Poland draw with Czech Republic.
• Russia will qualify as a runner up if
  • they draw with Greece and Czech Republic defeat Poland OR
  • they draw with Greece and Poland defeat Czech Republic by at least 4 goals.†

• Czech Republic will win the group if
  • they defeat Poland and Russia do not defeat Greece.
• Czech Republic will qualify as a runner up if
  • they defeat Poland and Russia defeat Greece OR
  • they draw with Poland and Greece do not defeat Russia by at least 6 goals.

• Poland will win the group if
  • they defeat Czech Republic and Greece defeat Russia OR
  • they defeat Czech Republic by at least 4 goals and Russia draw with Greece.†
• Poland will qualify as a runner up if
  • they defeat Czech Republic and Russia defeat Greece OR
  • they defeat Czech Republic by 1 or 2 goals and Russia draw with Greece.†

• Greece will win the group if
  • they defeat Russia by at least 3 goals and Poland draw with Czech Republic.
• Greece will qualify as a runner up if
  • they defeat Russia by 1 or 2 goals and Poland draw with Czech Republic OR
  • they defeat Russia and Poland do not draw with Czech Republic.

†If Russia draw with Greece and Poland defeat Czech Republic by 3 goals, the team between Russia and Poland with higher overall number of goals will win the group. The other team will qualify as a runner up. If they still level on the overall number of goals, Russia wins the group and Poland is the runner up. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not okay, because it's an endless list of indiscriminate information, not because it's unverifiable. Just because something isn't cited straight from an inline reference does not mean it's unverifiable or original research. I would limit them, perhaps to "if x wins or loses".. scenarios, but the idea that this counts as "original research" is silly. The rules for calculating group stats are perfectly clear and verifiable, it is a routine calculation. - filelakeshoe 21:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that and support it. Don't see why this can't be used. Kante4 (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if the rules/materials for making the calculations are available, it's still original research to do the calculations if it has not been published elsewhere. Due to the short-lived nature of such 'what ifs', however, it seems easier to let them stay if editors insist on doing them. Pretty Green (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely OK I think. The next day stats follow clear reason, because the rules that define the ranking are known before hand and published. This does not mean that the first person to edit a list similar to the above always gets it right immediately. However, more than in most other topics, differing opinions here are always resolved easily. Another reason for me to allow this is the simple information content. People are simply happy to find this information in our articles. Last point to consider: The whole stuff is deleted again within one week. Is it really worth fighting for it exclusion based on OR? I think not. This policy aims at excluding baseless claims. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So because people are happy it's fine to include this. And how do that people know if the information is correct? They need to run every possible outcome listed to verify that, and how is that no original research. Second thing, it maybe gets deleted within one week but it's not used only on Euro 2012, but on every qualifying competition out there plus European competitions. What's next? Soon there will be something like this on league season aticles: On the next match day this team will qualify for Europa League if blah-blah yada-yada... Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing is simply to overcalculated any event possible when a simple next matchday scenario is nothing more than to give a overview over the situation. In this case who will qualify to the quarterfinals. It can be done, and are being done, much more simple. I fully support the scenarios. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't overcalculated anything, I just copied what was on the page. And it's funny that you can't agree who can qualify to quarterfinals in Group A Dr. Vicodine (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

True, it is fun. Why not let the people have their fun. It is only a matter of math so it will be correct in the end. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A list like the above would be too detailed as per my own taste. When I edit such an article, I would try to keep the content reduced to the basic information, i.e., what do team's need to do in the last match in order to qualify for the next round. However, I understand this discussion to be rather about the fundamental question: Should we allow people to publish consequences of future results. Here, i think yes, because it does not hurt and, which seems most important to Dr. Vico, it is clearly not against the spirit of WP:OR. these editors are not trying to publish unbased claims. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand the focus of some people on the Wiki rules to the point of appearing to be a rules nazi, but I apologise for using this term since it will not appear to be polite of me.

As stated in the OR page, Routine Calculations are excluded from OR. Why would next day scenarios not be routine calculations, when they are just a result of the calculations based on published tournament rules? No doubt, it often requires a meticulous person to do it correctly, but it is much easier for others to verify any answers, and this again can be done by anyone without the need for any secret mathematical formula. Kiwi8 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is another one of those "effort outweighs the benefit" situations. Yes, these are pointless, amateurish, ephemeral, and generally non-conducive to the long-term improvement of articles. But on the other hand, the fanboys who are responsible for them aren't magically going to work on something which actually does benefit the project if they're prevented from adding this cruft. So yeah, don't feel bad about removing it on sight: on the other hand, don't waste precious moments of your life holding a vigil over articles to prevent its return. That said, no regular members of this project should be wasting the community's time defending these (or, God forbid, contributing to them). They're no more defensible on the grounds of being "simple mathematics" than adding weather forecasts would be. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of thumperward's points. The matter really needs discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research rather than here. Anything complicated enough to need a proof worked out on the talk page is not a routine calculation, it's an elementary theorem, and hence OR. jnestorius^(talk) 22:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As somebody who have been editing and/or watching these articles for a while, let me offer some (very long) perspective of how these "next-day scenario" came to be: They are originally computed to answer the "green or red" question as soon as possible; i.e., during the progress of a tournament and before its completion, we color a team green if they have certainly qualified, and red if they have certainly been eliminated. Sometimes the calculations are quite difficult, e.g. for Euro 2012 qualifying, it involved head-to-head records and cross-comparison between groups on the best runner-up. For example at some point an editor concluded that the Netherlands were certain of qualifying either as group winner or best runner-up (see Talk:UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying#Netherlands Qualified?). After some debate and calculations back-and-forth, the editors seem to agree that Netherlands have qualified, even though UEFA still said they were "on the verge of a finals place". The next day, UEFA also confirmed that Netherlands have qualified. That is good, but well UEFA is pretty well-organized. Let's say we have the CAF, which never tell you about those stuff. So I read that "team X still needs one more point to qualify" or "team Y is on the brink of elimination", where in fact, based on my calculations (maybe a lot, maybe not a lot), team X has definitely qualified and team Y has definitely been eliminated. Or what about if one newspaper claimed that team X has qualified while another newspaper claimed that team X has not yet qualified. So we need to do some calculations to verify those claims, right? And then somebody thought, "well let's just pre-compute all the next-day scenarios, so we can answer this green or red question as soon as the new results come in". Full disclosure: once I even wrote a computer program to do these kinds of calculations. So this becomes a trend for all the pages of the tournaments. The calculations become so good that you can be reasonably sure that news sources are using wikipedia as some sort of "confirmation" that a team has qualified (for example, Libya as one of the best runners-up for 2012 Africa Cup of Nations qualification before the completion of all groups; pretty doubtful that the journalists know how to calculate themselves or can find any source elsewhere). Oh, so where am I? Well, I guess most people will agree that the "green or red" question is quite important (they are not next-day scenarios since they are not hypothetical anymore). We kind of want to know whether a team has qualified or not, and they involve calculations that are sometimes "original" (as in nobody else have published them) and complicated, as for whether they are OR then that is debatable (as in many things in wikipedia). As for next-day scenarions, I am sort of ambivalent nowadays; sometimes I am interested in those, say what result Greece needs in their last match to qualify, so I compute the calculations in my head. I do not actively publish them, but if somebody publishes them I check whether they are correct to verify my own calculations; if I find them incorrect I edit to correct them. I do not think they are OR per se (they are just calculations, complicated or not), and on the one hand there are certainly enough people interested in calculating, reading and discussing about them. But on the other hand you can argue that wikipedia should not really be discussing so much about possible future scenarios (which will be deleted once the future arrives) that can read like a math textbook. Chanheigeorge (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything close to a consensus here yet, so I don't know why Dr. Vicodine (talk · contribs) and IPs are continuing to edit war on the group articles, it's getting a bit disruptive and it would be most beneficial to the project if these articles were NOT fully protected. Has anyone tried looking for sources which list next match scenarios? - filelakeshoe 13:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see who's edit warring here, I removed this shyte only two times. The only thing that's disruptive is 200 edits of constant changing of next match day scenarios and players positions. Btw, I'll be tagging this as OR since there's no way these are routine calculations. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

what part of it isn't routine? Group A example: Russia have 4 points - that means for them not to qualify, two teams have to get past them. since they two immediately below are playing each other, a win or draw clearly puts them through. You can then do the calculations for a loss - a loss puts them and Greece both on 4 - and since results is the first tiebreaker, they'd lose that - thus they need both the other teams to be below them. again, both the other teams are playing, so that match would clearly need to be a draw. this now puts 3 teams on 4 points. results is the first tiebreaker - so look at the results. since each team would have drawn with Poland, head to head is simple - the net GD among teams = overall GD, therefore Russia's GD would have to go to less than Czech Republic's GD in order to not qualify- thus they need to lose by more than 5. it's simply doing additions and looking at the tiebreakers along with remaining matches. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you need a paragraph and a significant understanding of the tournament tie-break rules to understand it, it isn't routine. We get this all the time from people who assert that anything they can work out on a napkin during a flight is too trivial to warrant sourcing. It isn't. This isn't a news blog, and people should be strongly discouraged from making it so. It's not like there aren't already sites on the Internet that publish these predictions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. These go way beyond simple calculations as instructed by WP:NOTOR, especially for someone who is not an avid football fun... – Kosm1fent 14:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding 3 points or 1 point is very routine. The tiebreakers are sourced on the main page - and like I said, results is the first one. Looking at a result is not that difficult. GD might be slightly more difficult, but that is just adding and subtracting the goals in the results. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, one can argue that even applying tiebreakers at the end of the competition is not routine. Have you seen the UEFA tiebreakers, listed here? And what happens when the only source we have of who have qualified are the "smart" people of the South African Football Association? I know I may be taking it to the extreme here, but I think so are some of the arguments listed here (e.g. that everything listed has to be verifiable). Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

By that assertion, anything short of differential equations is routine. Anyway, you're going to stop edit warring on this matter immediately regardless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, first - see WP:BITE (then WP:AGF) - second, are you really comparing adding 1 or 3 to differential equations?!!! 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, you have a list of integrals that is sourced, so it's now routine to give me the result for:$\int _{4}^{7}{\frac {3}{2x+3}}cot3x\;dx$. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

wow - so we really are comparing 3+1 = 4 to differentiation? ok then - I'll go delete every thing that says "1+1 = 2" that doesn't have a source. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

in actual fact, can we even have the group tables? - that involves working out that one win (3pts) + 1 draw (1 point) means a team has 4 points - that's OR (!) they also have stuff like "5 goals scored - 2 against = 3 goal difference" - that's OR (!) - heck even working out that teams have played two games after they've won one and lost one is OR too (!) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going with your reasoning that if we have some sourced rules like tiebreakers, every mathematical and logical operation used is routine calculation. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

except that you're still comparing adding (such as adding 3 points or one point to an existing total) to differential equations - when there is no comparison. if the tiebreakers invovled calculating differential equations then you'd have a point - but they don't. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Basic calculations are indeed considered simple, but tiebreaking rules are not. And since we can't only include scenarios in groups where no tie-breaking will take place, for consistency we remove scenarios all together. Simple. – Kosm1fent 15:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:These are not original research for Simple calculations clearly states: "Any relatively simple and direct mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce. For example, if given the population and the size of a specific area, then the population density of that area may be included. Complex calculations (for instance, those involving statistics) should not be used to build an argument, because they require skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors." How can anyone quickly and easily reproduce this when you argue for a half a day which version is correct? And I think this is a classic example of complex calculations part. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what's the next step here? People are removing OR tag repeating same bullshyte: This is standard in wikipedia, This is routine calculation, Discussion is over. To start a section at Wikipedia talk:No original research or Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading through this debate I see no clear consensus made, only you trying to push your opinon through and a lot good discussion with different opinions. You are making your own opinion to be standard for Wikipedia. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's because my opinion is based on Wikipedia Core content policies and the only ones against it are obviously the ones which are putting this crap instead contributing with something useful. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dudes. Half the internet has got its calculators out doing the Euro 2012 maths. Can't we just find a reference or two? I already put one for Group A. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

But you are the only person who really want to avoid those scenario sections. People giving good opinions but you just don't want to hear it and want to make your opinion the only one that counts. Like i see it from raeding, most people don't care if there is such a section with you being the only one against them. So the consensus is leaning towards allowing them, different from your edit summaries. Kante4 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And here's a ref for groups A AND B. [5]. Sorted. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a ref for Groups A, B and C from ESPN. Yesterday they only includes Group A and B and now it has been updated to include Group C. I expect them to update it with scenarios for Group D soon after today's matches. — 125.161.247.198 (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Retain (until redundant) but simplify: the sources above give details of what is needed for teams to qualify for the knockout stage. The example section above makes that situation far more complicated by adding analysis of what is necessary to top the group. That greatly extends such sections, and makes them far more daunting to read. There is no additional reward for topping the group, and no certainty that doing so will result in an easier semi-final. Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that the only objection above was based on working out tiebreakers, Can we agree that Group D as it is just now is not OR, since that DOES only only involve adding points (1 or 3) and not doing tiebreakers. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The problem is with making forecasts in general. The specific difficulty of the mathematics involved is irrelevant. We have no need to tell readers what might happen a week on Tuesday: if the calculation is as elementary as you constantly profess it to be, they should be able to work it out for themselves. All it does is make our articles look like fan pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

which is another debate entirely, and not one about whether the stuff is OR or not. Also, the line

"if the calculation is as elementary as you constantly profess it to be, they should be able to work it out for themselves"

could apply that to any 'easy calculation' that WP:OR currently allows - so is a debate for that page. this debate is about the current interpretation of the current OR page. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Addition and subtraction is really easy, but no one wants to spend an afternoon calculating shit just because.

I think this entire discussion casts the wiki-community as a bunch of retarded aspergers.

What should I do with clubs that play in the national league and state league?

I probably should have brought this up before my project on Indian football but never late then ever. Anyway in India we have the national league (I-League) which has 14 clubs but all 14 clubs also play in there respective state leagues in which most of them also use there first-team players in. Now I am wondering how I should write it on a player article. For example Dempo S.C. play in the national I-League and the state league (Goa Professional League)... now what if one of the players play a match in the national league and state league. Do I state the state league stats as Dempo B (to indicate state league stats) in the infobox and career stats box or do I not put anything in the infobox (cept for caps and goals in national league) and add an extra column in the career statistics box saying state league. And just so people dont get confused on what I am asking...

Should I do this...

Romeo Fernandes

Personal information
Position(s)	midfielder
Team information
Current team	Dempo
Number	42
Youth career
2010-present	Dempo
2010-2011	Margao
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2010-present	Dempo B	19	(12)
2011-present	Dempo	3	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

Or do I keep it like this....

Romeo Fernandes

Personal information
Position(s)	midfielder
Team information
Current team	Dempo
Number	42
Youth career
2010-present	Dempo
2010-2011	Margao
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2011-present	Dempo	3	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

And then for career stats box do I keep it like this....

Club	Season	League			Cup			AFC			Total
		Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists
Dempo	2011-12	0	0	0	0	0	0	—	—	—	0	0	0
Career total		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

or should I do this...

Club	Season	League			State League			Cup			AFC			Total
		Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists	Apps	Goals	Assists
Dempo	2011-12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	—	—	—	0	0	0
Career total		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Thank you. Cheers. And Sorry for the complicated question. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a similar situation in Brasil where beside the national leagues (exemple, the top one Campeonato Brasileiro Série A) you have the state championships (exemple: Campeonato Carioca). What was agreed here was to add only the national league stats in the infobox, and if necessary to make a separate stats table in the article where the state stats are also included. See exemple Bruno Mezenga and see how the national stats are the ones included in the infobox, while a separate column is added in a career statistics table for the state championships.

Is the Indian case similar to this Brazilian one? FkpCascais (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what you've done in the second career stats box is best; include the state league info separately. However, do you have sources for his assists in all those competitions? Eldumpo (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Assists should never be included in stats tables. Ever. GiantSnowman 21:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not, if they're suitably sourced? Eldumpo (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Because not every source agrees on number of assists, and stats are not available for the vast majority of players. GiantSnowman 07:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. I see a lot of people relying on the Premier League fantasy football site for assist figures as well, and they give assists to the guy who wins a penalty! There is no universal definition of an assist, and different sites all have different figures. Get rid. – PeeJay 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying back earlier (work) but the way it works in India is weird. Dempo, Salgaocar, Sporting Goa, Churchill, East Bengal, Mohun Bagan, and Prayag United are the only clubs to admitidly play in the national I-League and the first-team in the state leagues as well. United Sikkim, Shillong Lajong, ONGC and Air India are unknown (lack of match reports from there respective state leagues. And Pune FC and Mumbai FC have admitted to using "B" teams like FC Barcelona B. So basically what I plan to do is only have "B" team caps and goals for players with Pune and Mumbai (as they admit they do that; and of course source will back it up) then for clubs in a state league and unknown I will not add to infobox and just write those stats in the carrer stats box. This shall be applied to all Indian footballers but of course I still need the opinion of someone else. So if I did this career box like Giantsnowman wanted...

Club	Season	League		State League		Cup		AFC		Total
		Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
Mohun Bagan	2011-12	8	0	6	2	0	0	—	—	14	2
Career total		8	0	6	2	0	0	0	0	14	2

or should I do one with the state league name in them like this...

Club	Season	League		State League		Cup		International		Total
		Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
India		I-League		West Bengal		Federation Cup		AFC		Total
Mohun Bagan	2011-12	8	0	6	2	0	0	—	—	14	2
Career total		8	0	6	2	0	0	0	0	14	2

--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

TV commentary on Michael Laudrup goal

I think I remember verbatim a British TV commentator saying "Laudrup, Laudrup, still Laudrup, still Laudrup, Michael Laudrup... brilliant." as Laudrup scored a goal for Denmark. I loved the commentary so much, I memorised it. I think.

It was probably in the 1986 World Cup, but I can't find the goal or the footage. I thought it might have been one of the six Denmark got against Uruguay, but the YouTube video I found with British voiceover wasn't what I was after. Can anyone help? --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This? Thought it was Barry Davies at first. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was Barry Davies, he has a far more distinctive voice. – PeeJay 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed it was Davies, but his voice is recognisable as you say. Turns out it was David Icke doing the commentating. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Lemonade, still Lemonade, still Lemonade... brilliant. If we give you some CO2, maybe you'll be fizzy, but either way, you're brilliant. And my memory has held that almost perfectly for 26 years. --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember another commentary of exactly the same goal with the commentator saying "this boy's got class" maybe on the other channel? Valenciano (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On ITV, they said "The boy's a genius!", might have been that. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Gender equality in national team names

Just a passing thought - all current men's national teams are at 'xxxx national football team', while the women's teams are at 'xxxx women's national football team'. Is there an argument saying that we should move all the 'national football team' to 'xxxx men's national football team'? It could certainly be argued that this naming policy is non-neutral? Looking at the five principles of naming - Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Conciseness; Consistency - I'd say that the current situation favours naturalness and conciseness, while changing to include men would favour precision and consistency. Recognizability, I'm less sure - arguably, as clearer, "men's national team" is more recognizable; however, as "national team" is generally recognised as being men, I'm not sure if this point holds.

Frankly, I think they should be changed - what do others think? I realise that this may have impacts on other national sport articles too. Pretty Green (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to the prevalence of the men's game compared to women's, it should stay as it is. GiantSnowman 11:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Technically women are not excluded from playing in a national side (as far as I know at least), it's just that none do. The Women's national side does preclude men so is specifically different. Changing the titles as suggested would be akin to changing the Olympics to be the 'Able-bodied Olympics' to fit in with the convention of the Paraolympics. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bladeboy makes a great point. I don't think there's anything that says women can't play in the England national football team (for example), whereas men are specifically excluded from playing in women's teams. – PeeJay 12:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think technically FIFA does ban women from playing in men's teams (at least national teams) after a few certain high-profile female players said they wanted to try to join men's teams. Can't remember the names (I think Brazilian, Mexican and/or Swedish?) and sources though. But I agree that in most countries, the national football team is the men's team. Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right - certainly in England mixed football cannot be played over the age of 11 or 13 by the rules of the Football Association. Number 57 14:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[6], 4.1: "For FIFA men's competitions, only men are eligible to play. For FIFA women's competitions, only women are eligible to play." Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

<reduce indent> They are indeed separate, and over a certain age men and women cannot play together in FIFA football. Equally, the Olympics/Paralympics analogy doesn't work - they already have different names. I also wouldn't want to invoke any changes to named competitions or clubs eg FIFA World Cup, which is the name of the men's tournmanet.

However, England national football team is not an official name, it's a description. The FA, for example, just use England Football Team, or 'Men's senior' team to differentiate from other national selections. On FIFA's website, you click on England and then select 'men'. The only serious argument against the change, I'd have thought, would be WP:COMMONNAME - which GiantSnowman sort of invokes. I agree that under commonname we wouldn't probably change it. However, this is just one of the principles of naming that Wikipedia follows, and one we often ignore (eg Manchester United Football Club rather than Manchester United). It is a guide, not a rule. I'd suggest that under the majority of Wikipedia's naming principles, and under the principle of general objectivity, these should be changed to "...men's national football/soccer team" Pretty Green (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We use a particular per-country naming format (i.e. with the "F.C." for British clubs) because it's the least-worst way of enforcing some degree of consistency above what would be a difficult situation if we defaulted to an unmodified COMMONNAME. There does not appear to be such an argument in this case, as we already have a consistent presentation. As the men's international game is in general vastly more popular than the women's at this point in time, the least-worst option is to use the present format. Any argument to revisit that would need to be accompanied by some evidence to the contrary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely we don't have consistency across the two genders though? --Pretty Green (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Be wary of mistaking "consistency" for "equality". We are not obliged to assign equal weight to each sex's football, but due weight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but I do get the point - there's clearly no appetite for the idea, which is how Wikipedia ultimately works! Cheers for your comments. Pretty Green (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with you, Pretty Green, but Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) also makes a decent point about due weight. As long as women's football articles do start to get due weight around here. Incidently, no-one should assume that men's football ascended naturally to its current dominant position; women's football (in the UK) was forcibly suppressed in the 1920s. It was one thing for them to draw huge crowds when they were raising money for injured "servicemen" - quite another when they started supporting striking miners! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

EURO 2012 fully protected

Just a note, Euro 2012 has been fully protected. There is an unprotection case at WP:RRP. Adam4267 (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Excessive lists

Hi, would someone mind keeping an eye out at Jordan Henderson; there are some IPs and a newly-registered user who seem intent on adding an unsourced table listing each of the player's England caps. And there was this addition by one of the IPs at Simon Mignolet too. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that something which is not allowed. I've seen it in other articles and personally don't like it. However, I didn't realise there was actually any reason not to have it. Adam4267 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

International goals tables are relatively common. They're not too impractical when one considers that the vast majority of international players never score more than a dozen goals for their country (if they score any). Caps is a different story, especially when accompanied by all the flagcruft that Just Won't Die. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I do not see a problem listing all international caps. The record of most caps is below 200, and only a small percentage of players go over 100. Verifiable and manageable. I have also found it weird to just have tables of listing international goals, seems to me quite biased towards attackers and against defenders! Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Good lord, the idea of having a table in an article detailing every one of a player's professional appearances is insane! Can you imagine what the article on Terry Paine would look like..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Or Tony Ford/Steve Claridge? I'm not keen on listing every internatioanl match on a player's article either really. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I put a table listing all the caps for both David Healy and Andy Townsend. The Townsend one is a bit out of fashion and has an unnecessary flag column on the end which I can't be bothered to remove but yeah, cannot see how they can possibly be a bad thing. They go to the trouble of stitching together a cute little hat for the occasion so a table recording them all is no bother at all.--EchetusXe 21:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that if these tables have are hidden so they only take up one line there's nothing wrong with them. Every match a player plays in is probably listed somewhere so its feasible to do for most players. Altough I personally wouldn't go to the trouble of making one and don't think they add much, I don't think there is anything wrong with them if someone wants to add one that's ok by me. I actually quite like the idea of a table with every players' club appearance though. If it was formatted the same way as David Beckham's Awards £ England templates. So you have one line; David Beckham club appearances. Then that opens up and you have each season which can be opened up further. So it doesn't take up to much space. Also these could have goals, cards, sub appearances etc for each match. For most modern players these things are all notable and widely reported on, so I don't see the problem with it. Of course you dont have to have it, it would be optional. So please don't say to me, "What about player X who made loads of appearances." Adam4267 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't hide tables in the article body. See MOS:COLLAPSE. So that particular way to duck the issue is off the cards. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I didnt know about that policy. I thought it was ok because I'd seen it before in other articles. I think, seeing as we have club career statistics, that we should have international statistics listed in some way. Some articles just have a very small list with the number of apps made in each year. Adam4267 (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For me a table listing caps/goals year-by-year, as Adam refers to, is the way to go, as it is analogous with the club career stats tables. Whereas, listing each international cap leaves a disparity between what we list; it seems unequitable to list each international cap while not listing each club app (not that I would advocate that). Personally, I'd forward this type of format for career stats sections. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 Nehru Cup

Can somebody undo the redirect on 2012 Nehru Cup because when you click it, it just leads to Nehru Cup. The tournament dates have already been announced thus meaning that an article on the 2012 tournament can be created. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Not sure if I did it the proper way but you can go ahead and create the article now. TonyStarks (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've gone a step further and restored the first version of the article which has an infobox and a small intro. Have a look and please fix/update/reference the article. Take care. TonyStarks (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

According to a previous AfD, the article was redirected due to a lack of reliable sources and being WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. Are there any sources now, other than those which got the article redirected? [7] – Kosm1fent 07:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD or PROD

When proposing an article about a non-notable football player to get deleted .. should it be done through AfD or PROD? I don't see the difference and the list of WP:FOOTY has both. I know unreferenced articles about living people go through BLPProd but I'm talking about referenced ones that don't meet notability guidelines. I thought AfD was the way to go since PROD just seems like it can be removed without discussion if someone disagrees with it. TonyStarks (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

PROD, then AfD if the PROD is removed. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just had a look at WP:PROD and WP:AfD (which I probably should have done before asking) .. and you're right, PROD first! TonyStarks (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, the only articles I'm taking directly to AfD are borderline WP:N cases per WP:COMMONSENSE, as common sense doesn't fare well at a PROD and will certainly be rejected. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 07:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Josimar

Watching the video link given above from the 1986 World Cup reminded me of this extraordinary Brazillian rightback who scored two of the best ever World Cup goals in that year's competition. I thought his first name was Paulo, and the video linked above does indeed give that name. But our article doesn't. Help welcomed at Talk:Josimar. --Dweller (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Really needing some eyes at Rangers F.C. now

Hey folks,

This has kicked off a bit. Anyone fancy lending a hand on talk to establish what exactly is going on and (if possible) to rein in some of the hystrionics? I'm massively too involved to use tools here, but it's well past that point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that if the club were actually going to be liquidated then it would be front page BBC News, let alone front page BBC Sport News. Someone always comes along to save the big dawgs so talks of "Rangers F.C. were a football club" are premature.--EchetusXe 16:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems like canvas to me but even if it aint to say you would use admin tools if you wasnt involve seems like a threat to me. ive already said the article needs correcting what that will be is hard to say, you have said yourself the sources are contradicting each other there no way to really establish until more is know over the new few weeks what is really correct and what is really wrongAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:55, 15 June 2012 (U

Chris has abused everyone on that page. He cant use his tools A) because he forced a change through against consensus on that page and he knows it. B) He hates me and isn't ashamed to bring that into every situation that he gets involved in, he is an admin that pushes a pov against consensus and attacks other editors. So what did he do he ran to his mates. Well Chris you have proven what you are. If anyone is thinking about getting involved you will see that the consensus was massively against a new article and for keeping as one entity and explaining the situation i.e transfer to new company and the new company not having a licence to play or a league. This was all done yesterday and it stopped an edit war, today chris removed all that and now we have a massive edit war started by an admin who is supposed to be impartial and go with consensus. Plus a new club article The Rangers Football Club which he has also edited falsely he has no proof that company cant use the old crest he just assumes they cant. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just a restructuring. The new company is a reorganization of the legal, ownership and operational and to reduce tensions between debt and equity. I dispute the 2012 disolving because the decision on if the new company is a new club is the Scottish Football Association's decision. They decide if the new company can continue the history of the club. Kingjeff (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's rather more that that, actually. The club really is being dissolved, which is quite a bit more serious than e.g. what Leeds went through. The question of whether a phoenix club will be allowed into the SPL, or Scottish football at all, is very much still a live one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

EchetusXe you removed Andrews comment nor have you read the talk page no one wanted the article to be like that apart from Chris we wanted that page to be a continuation of the old after there liquidation chris does not want that and has went against consensus.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not restructuring they are being liquidated we cant deny that but we did not want the page like that chris did.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately a POV editor has come along to exasparate the situation. We had some form of consensus yesterday but that has changed today. Adam4267 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As we speak he is going against consensus making edits to the infobox and leads he is out of control and won't follow consensus that had been bult, if this was a non admin the would have been blocked for pov pushing and ignoring consensus that was built for several days before he got involved today. He clearly used the above statement as a threat. This is getting ridiculous and we all know Chris is the pov pusher so you can say that. Admins cant do that its unbelievable behaviour. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

EchetusXe this is the version that had consensus[8] that should a the club the entity still had some form without having to go down the route of creating the new article and closing the old one. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if a club finishes its league programme for one season and turns up the following season in the same league with the same name, the same stadium, the same fans, the same manager and the same players then I don't think media sources are going to consider it a new and separate club and therefore neither can we. Burslem Port Vale F.C. were liquidated in 1907 and Cobridge Church F.C. changed its name to Port Vale F.C., bought the club's old stadium and began a new league programme in a league several steps below on the pyramid. It says 1876 on the badge (even though evidence points to 1879 as the founding date) and all media sources state that the club has existed since 1876. De facto is a greater concern than de jure, whether you like it or not.--EchetusXe 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Where are you getting i want them to have separate pages. I don't i want that the consensus we all agreed on which is to keep one article. Chris has said they should be treated as separate because they are not one in the same i.e. newco and oldco. He forced changes against that Edinburgh Wanderer 18:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Most people so think they should be kept at the same page. They might be in the 3rd division nest season though. Adam4267 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

yip parts of the article will neeed to be updated when the information is known but there no need for serperate article since they are all the same according to sources and if we are to use sources and then go against that it is POVAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

All well and good: the problem is that it hasn't actually happened yet, and there's still a significant chance that it won't happen. The most recent example of a club's parent company changing was Leeds, who went to extraordinary lengths to avoid liquidation, for instance. In the Football League, it means automatic demotion to Step 5 at best with at least some degree of visible club name change. Even assuming that the new club is voted in in place of the old, there's still a significant chance that it will be stripped of its titles and forced to change its name, and there's more than one vote to get through to get back into the SPL. If either the SPL member clubs or the SFA refuse to transfer the old club registration then they'll be out, and have to find a new league to enter (there is no procedure by which they would automatically enter the SFL). And yet despite all this, you've got EW insisting (with no lucid argument at all, save "we all think this") that the new company be treated as if it's already the same thing as the football club, despite having made no petition for a membership transfer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

They have requested a meembership transfer though. The page yesterday said basically that Rangers had been liquidated (or on the verge of it) and a new company had been formed which owned the assets and was trying to transfer the membership across. But that that might not be accepted by the authorities. I do not see what's wrong with that. Adam4267 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

rangers football club plc have been liquidated the rangers football club isnt this is what people do not get there heads round, ill be honest i thought the club was liquidated yesterday and in my own personal opinion they have been but the sources are contradicting some suggest the club hasn't been liquidated but the plc has and not interconnected other than the plc owned the club and the newco now own it as the newco bought the brand and are hoping for what you have said, adam good work on trying to et edinburgh and chris to either work or not work instead of the fighting good luck :)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think (I may be wrong) but this is the current situation. The club, in terms of the body that holds a licence to play football. Has not yet been liquidated but is in the process of it. Rangers still listed as a club on SPL's website. However, that "club" has no stadium players etc. All they have is the licence and £5.5m in there bank (from Charles Green) to pay off creditors then go bust. Green's company owns the parts that were used to make up Rangers (maybe not the players) and want to trasnfer the old membership over. That might or might not be accepted by either both SFA or SPL (they need a licence with both). If that is the case they will have to apply to the Third Division as a gap will have opened up through teams being promoted. (That again may or may not be succesful as other teams will apply) Adam4267 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the problem with what was there, there was no speculation and we had worked towards it via consensus. Now we have two articles The Rangers Football Club & Rangers F.C. the first one may never get of the ground. Neither article makes any sense at its making an arse out of us all. They have requested a membership transfer and that was sourced. The new article is not needed nor was the change in line with the consensus which was to keep them together until we knew what was happening, only detailing facts not speculating what may or may not happen, just the pure facts that they are currently applying for their membership to be transferred and currently do not have any league to play in until that has been accepted or not. It also explained properly that green had purchased the assets and was reforming and the process is ongoing. Sourced info and consensus if being ignored that is the real problem we cant put in what we don't know so where is the issue as adam says with the consensual text we had.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All you really need are sources per WP:RS for all that and you've got some content that can be included. Leaky Caldron 18:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you believe it we actually did and it all got removed.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

From an encyclopaedic point of view I think the best thing is to wait until the football licensing authorities, the SFA & the SPL recognise the newco (or not). The football aspect of the article will then take care of itself. Haggling about oldco, newco, crests and shares is rather mindless from a football article perspective. Of course, if there are credible WP:RS for the status of every aspect of ownership that's fine but it seems rather elusive. There seems to be a lot of POV being pushed on all sides, not much of which is neutral. Leaky Caldron 19:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem now is we have an edit war one group who wish to close the oldco and list as defunct and another who would rather wait and see what happens. All the old co hold is the licence the newco hold everything else. The best way was to say they had applied for the licences to be transferred and then see what happens. Only citing the facts and waiting to see what happens as we cant speculate whether they will or won't get a licence or say they are in a league that they technically are not. this[[9]] was the version we had but it wasn't perfect but at least there was no edit warring over it, that allowed us to wait and see how it played out and whether the club continued in the same form with the same perceived identity in sources or a totally new club and start a new article. There was consensus for that for the time being. The main feeling was we shouldn't consider them as two separate entities until that actually happened but yet we have it.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In regard to neutral it had been requested that the page be protected until we all could agree on the best option and make it neutral. However i was basically told its me thats in the wrong despite the consensus. This means its open to edit warring and pov pushing. Ill be honest i don't care less which way it happens but it needs to be done properly and not have lies or censored info. I do not support Rangers nor do i dislike them either. As long as its done properly an we aren't misleading people which we are now then I'm happy. What dosent make me happy is misinformation and casing confusion all we need are the basic facts and no speculation like they will play in the SPL. We don't know that nor do we know if they will ever play again.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I cannot see much wrong with the current version [10]. "The Rangers Football Club" certainly has no football licence yet and it would be incorrect to imply that it has. Leaky Caldron 19:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It depends whether we accept that Rangers are a continuation or they will be a new club. Consensus was they will be a continuation. If we go with that the problems are a) We cant say they play in the SPL because we cant factually say they will again. b) It lists Craig Whyte in the infobox if its a continuation then we can factually say Charles Green owns the majority share. C) It fails to mention they are currently in the process of applying for their licences to be transferred and do not in fact have them. If we go with that is the old Rangers then it should be in past tense and players and stadium details removed as they have no ownership over these and new article updated although that will always be speculative. So whatever way you look at it there is a problem. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham and Edinburgh Wanderer, I still think it is debt restructuring. The new owner is using insovency of one corporation and created a new corporation to deal with the current debt. Kingjeff (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Manuel Gomes (football coach)

Okay I should have done this earlier. I am trying to do my own work with Indian football but yet my watchlist is filled with edits on this page by Mgomes neca (talk · contribs) who admitted that he is indeed Manuel Gomes himself. He made a lot of edits and all of them are not referenced or constructed at all. I told him that I would come back and revamp his page when I can. Sadly I have been busy I will get to it. I just manually undid his edit again and would like the page protected for around a week so I can revamp it. I should have time to do so. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 Statistics

I noticed that the UEFA Euro 2012 statistics does not list assists. The information about assists is widely available for this competition, should it be included or is there a reason it is being left out? TonyStarks (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Template instead of infobox

A user has gone and created a template (like the ones we use at the bottom of competition pages to link to past editions) and transformed into an infobox and added it to every single related page. The template in question is the following {{Qualification for championships (CAF)}} and can be seen on pages such as the 2013 Africa Cup of Nations qualification, 2012 Africa Cup of Nations qualification, etc. Not only is the wording retarded but the template is just a redundant version of the one found at the bottom of the page, and has no place at the top in my opinion. Thoughts? Approach to fix this? TonyStarks (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's super ugly. TonyStarks (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, it combines two competitions in one template !! Someone please answer, or else I'm going to keep pointing out flaws lol. TonyStarks (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are two possibilities – either keep, but under a different name and as an navbox, or delete. I tend to lean to the latter as the benefit of having a navbox containing every qualification phase for a competition is questionable at best since the qualification stages are not linked to each other. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, it certainly doesn't belong at the top of the article. It is clearly a navbox, and they go at the bottom..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean the top right infobox type template found on this version of the article? It could be usefull as both are being played now, so one interested in seing African ntional team results could jump from one to another, but still fails to be an ideal solution. A delete in my view, as the two competitions are unrelated. FkpCascais (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

He announced those here. -Koppapa (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That was for the AFC one and by a different user .. nevertheless, I didn't know they had them for the other associations as well. What is everyone's thoughts on these? Keep or delete? Seems like most people so far don't see the need for them since they involved different competitions. TonyStarks (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hovhannes Hovhannisyan

There is a bit of problem with the above AfD obviously he plays in a non-notable league that isn't up for debate. But national-football-teams & Soccerway state he has played for the Armenia national team which means he would pass WP:NFOOTYbut UEFA seem to think it was Kamo Hovhannisyan that played against Kazakhstan. I don't think we should take UEFA's word as gospel further clarification is needed. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you, I can´t recall exactly which, but I do remember finding a few mistakes specially among players with same surname, on behalve of FIFA.com and UEFA.com. The best way would be to consult some local Armenian sources like daily or sports news websites which cover national team events, the problem is that Armenian is written in a different alphabet which is quite hard to read and understand, and while one can spot a player name in a foreign-language report of some latin-scrypt language, in this case it is impossible. I´ll try to see if I can find one Armenian football website which had individual players pages in English and then see if I can find him there. FkpCascais (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I alraedy said on the above deletion discussion, there is Armenian Weekly (an English-speaking source) which states that Kamo was the one who got in: [11] It's the only source I could find that featured the full squad & substitutions of the game (apart from Soccerway). – Kosm1fent 10:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did exactly that, I should have checked the discussion first before posting here. Case closed then! FkpCascais (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Archives of the oldest sports newspaper in Greece now locked

Bad news... the electronic archives of Athlitiki Echo (an invaluable source of information for pre-2007 Greek football) now require authorisation. Don't know why, especially as there is no announcement for that closure. Damn. – Kosm1fent 09:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Help on Nehru Cup 2012

You guys fixed the redirect because there is information from the All India Football Federation about the format and dates of the tournament which thus make it notable but Spartaz does not agree. The page has been once again redirected as for some reason this says that the Nehru Cup 2012 page should not be made till the tournament starts BUT only 1 user on that Afd said so. Snowman said it to but he also said that if more information comes out it is notable. Anyway could use some help for this. Cheers. --RedBullNewYork2012 (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"says that the Nehru Cup 2012 page should not be made till the tournament starts" -> NONSENSE. If there is enough reliable sources talking about the 2012 edition then an article can be made. We don't wait until kick off to make pages for the World Cup/Euro/ACN/etc. and it's not any different for this tournament either. TonyStarks (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an invitational friendly tournament organised by the All India FF, so with respect, their announcement of format and dates doesn't remotely count as significant independent coverage. We don't have to wait until it starts, just until there's a decent amount of independent coverage, i.e. not just other sources reproducing the AIFF info about format and dates. But until there is a decent amount of independent coverage, it isn't notable by definition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, more independent reliable sources are needed in order for the 2012 edition to stand as a stand-alone article. Undoing the redirect without providing such sources goes against consensus established in the previous AfD. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 15:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you go... [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. That should be enough. I mean everything about this tournament is out, format, amount of teams, prize money, dates. The only things missing are venue and 3 teams. Still till then it would be best to keep the article not on redirect to Nehru Cup. I could then make a section outlining the teams invited but not confirmed yet and I could also make a critical section based on what the new India coach said. --RedBullNewYork2012 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

More than enough sources for an article in my opinion. If others are not still convinced, you can always create the article in your sandbox with all the relevant information and references .. and that could convince the skeptics with regards to the notability of the tournament/article. TonyStarks (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Conversation here... Talk:2012 Nehru Cup --RedBullNewYork2012 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

help with the categogy with a articel

Hi I have problem with a articel Raymy Doria Medina Pozo he was a fotballer from Bolivia and i had information tha is the true the problem I have is att the put his name in the category "Bolivians fotballer" put his name in the List. How I can do please ? help me thanks--Alexdalesandro (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)