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.

"Player representation by club"

Further opinions on the addition of sections like this in FIFA World Cup squads, by Barryjjoyce (talk · contribs), would be welcome. GiantSnowman 15:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is already added to the 2011 AFC Asian Cup squads page. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The flag icons hurt my eyes and probably falls afoul of some sort of accessibility guideline. It's interesting but not especially necessary to understanding the topic. Hack (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Barryjjoyce: your comments would be appreciated, otherwise I intend to remove the content again based on this discussion. GiantSnowman 12:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Do other sources typically break down the squads in this way? If not, neither should we. – PeeJay 12:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

IF this is to be included we should definately not use all those flags in "Player representation by club"-section. It is just confusing for the eye to look at that mess. QED237 (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks for raising this issue for discussion, and for pinging me. These "player representation" sections appear in squad articles for several tournaments — World Cup, AFC Asian Cup, the Euro, and others. And it's not just a Footy thing — international tournaments from other sports, such as the Rugby World Cup, also have them. These sections serve a useful function in that they provide some summary statistics regarding the players, leagues, and clubs. Various media articles such as this one discuss the same topic — how many players from which leagues are playing on World Cup squads. I don't detect any persuasive arguments and certainly nothing approaching consensus in support of your proposal to erase these sections from the World Cup squads and possibly other various football tournament squads articles. I think this discussion is headed for a no consensus close.

One issue where there does appear to be a consensus is on the overuse of flags. I have no objection to an editor toning down the use of flags, at least from the "player representation by club" part of the section. I'll even volunteer to do that myself, although I will wait a day or two before doing that to see if anyone objects. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Would the following table be an improvement over the current version of the table? There are fewer flags, less visual clutter, and easier to quickly identify the clubs and leagues that are supplying the most players. I'll wait for feedback from other editors before making the change in the article itself. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Players	England	Spain	Italy	Germany	France	Holland	Other UEFA	Other Regions
13		Barcelona
12	Chelsea Liverpool
11				Bayern Munich
10	Arsenal Tottenham Hotspur	Real Madrid C.F.	Internazionale				Panathinaikos
9			Juventus	Wolfsburg		Ajax
8	Portsmouth		Udinese
7	Everton Manchester City	Valencia	Milan	Hamburg Stuttgart			Benfica	April 25
6				Bayer Leverkusen Werder Bremen	Lyon	Twente	Porto	Olimpia
5	Fulham West Ham United Wigan Athletic Manchester United	Sevilla	Napoli Roma		AS Monaco Marseille Valenciennes	AZ	Galatasaray Basel	Guadalajara Motagua Wellington Phoenix Amrokgang

I don't think we need the old format, and I don't think we need the new format. It smacks of WP:OR and WP:NOTSTATS. If there is a reliable source which says "8 of the France squad play at Y club" or "7 of the Germany squad play club football in Y country" then we should have prose that reflects that, but nothing else. GiantSnowman 10:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Several articles discuss the makeup of the national squads. For example, this article discusses the makeup of the U.S. squad: ("Seventeen players are based in Europe, with just four from Major League Soccer and two from Mexican clubs. Of the European group, eight play in England, three in Germany, two in Scotland, and one each in Denmark, France, Italy and Norway.") and this article discusses which English teams contribute how many players to the various World Cup squads.

As for your suggestion that the information be in prose and not tables, I am not aware of any such requirement on wikipedia. Indeed, the WP:NOTSTATS policy suggests that summary tables are encouraged ("consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists."). Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem I have with this table is that it is incomplete, both in the current article version and the revised version above. It does not contain all of the clubs supplying players to the North Korean squad. Such a table needs to be complete or not there at all. There is no note to indicate that 5 players is a minimum requirement, nor do I think such a note is desirable as essentially a random cut off point falling foul of OR. Essentially, I am not sure what the table is meant to be doing in it's current incomplete state, it is confusing and fundamentally misleading for people who look at the page at a glance. It would be useful I think if Barryjjoyce (talk · contribs) could redo the table so that it includes a list of all clubs, even if they only supply one player. I think this would then show a far too cumbersome list. My preference is along the lines of GS's view. For clubs such as Barcelona, they probably warrant sourced prose comment as they are providing a significant number of players, for many of the others, I do not think it is a point that has received a great deal of coverage. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this table was ever intended to be a complete listing, nor do I think that would be desirable. I think the original intent of the section was to identify the clubs that contribute the most players to World Cup squads. A number of articles on major tournaments — such as this one and this one include tables that measure the top ten something or other. Perhaps if we re-name the section "clubs with most world cup players" and limit the table to the top ten or something like that, you may find that clarifies things. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Football records in Spain

I brought this up before but the article has managed to get list trivial "records" such as "Most Hat Tricks". My initial concern was that there were many trivial categories and my second concern, which I addressed on the article's talk page, was that many of the records were unreferenced. I finally removed them when after six months no references had been added and more trivia had been added. An anon from Madrid (88.3.146.134) removed more two additional sections. Edamian (talk · contribs) then reverted the material twice The first time he stated undo impolite activity of WalterGorlic and the second time without comment. It may need some eyes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Trivial" according who? According guy who alone decided to destroy lots of hard work of many people. Work that has been created since many years. If you noticed that sth is unref then mark the fact. Your policy to remove over 40.000 letters is wrong because stats in football is dynamic and is changing every week. Returning to "trivial" statistic. What does it mean? What of ctiterion decides to consider that sth is trivial or not? Firstly, this stat comes from official site - Secondly, Lots of statts wiki pages describe hat trick, f.e. even champions league, how many sb strike during the season, etc thirdly stat of hat trick is original and easy to calculate, fourthly There is a difference between stat of number goals and number of hat trick. Prima facie you see that looking at both. Hat tricks refers to the most prolific goalscorer more than generally stat of number of goals, because only some of best goalscorers were/are able to score three or more goals lots of times. fiftly, issue of hat trick is the subject of bookmaker, spending money isnt trivial Finally, have to repeat. What does it mean, number of hat tricks is trivial more or less than other one. What of criterion decide? I think the only criterion is ambition of WalterGorlitz. Edamian (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Trivial by standards of other articles.

Unreferenced = removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, there's an anon in Madrid and one in Sydney (Australia) who feel the same way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, define these standards

If unref=removed then most of wiki' matters should be removed, the adequate solution is to signalize this fact not destroy big work of :: many people. Stats are very dynamic issue and difficult to continous ref Edamian (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Much of the material on Wikipedia could be removed if it's unreferenced and it is challenged. See WP:RS and WP:V. Stats are dynamic and that's why we only list those that have reliable sources so that we're not adding trivial material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed your earlier request. Football records in England is a good benchmark of referenced, non-trivial statistics. In some cases, the articles act as references. In other cases, there are actual references.

Similar discussion have been conducted previous: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 75#Football records in England and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 77#Someone Stop this Circus please !! Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

talk Explain us when sth is trivial or not. Define what is the criterion of trivial. What does it mean or what standards mean? Prove that you gives that words deeper meaning. Edamian (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather discuss references since most of the "records" are trivial in my mind. Why not list highest number of dives per season or minutes played? Why not list most penalized team? Why not discuss most number of offsides per season? Why not list the most bribes per team? The reason they're not listed is that most reliable sources won't list them either (and they're rather negative statistics). So if we focus on what reliable sources list as statistics rather than what we think is interesting then at least we'll avoid trivia. In fact, if two sources list it, then we know it's not trivial. So most goals per season is likely going to make that list. As will undefeated, winning streaks, winless and losing streaks. Attendance figures are usually reported, but that's also a function of the ground. I'm not sure if the consecutive number of at-capacity matches is reported, but that's interesting. And most articles restrict to the top ten in any category so a category such as "Most effective team in a La Liga season (at least 3 goals per game)" that list 14 club seasons is a bit over-the-top as is "Top 30 highest goalscorers, all-time" just below it. And when "Top ten goalscorers, still active (Primera División only)" lists eleven players that tells me that the Spanish can't count. Some obvious pruning is required in other areas as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Görlitz on this issue, there is much unsourced trivia in this article. At the very least the unsourced content should be removed & the remaining content pruned. NB offering input after seeing this discussion flagged at wp:AN. regards 94.195.46.224 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult to agree with somebody who doest't even explain what he say. I agree with this point that there should be the rules which allow to decide that sth is trivia and needless. Walter cannot justify his thinking. The historical records are always interesting like most goals, matches, effective team, team with 3 goals per game. You cannot caompare that to speculative cathegory like dives per season, bribes. But most offsides and most penalized could by also interesting. WalterGorlitz distinguishes that sth is interesting and sth is not, but he forgot that this is his point of view. Other one can say "under me interesting are hattricks offsides per season and not interesting are Most effective team in a La Liga season, Top 30 highest goalscorers. Everyone has hisown opinion. 85.221.143.112 (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless I agree with Walter that unsourced cruft should be removed and have done so again. Edamian it is obvious that you are also editing as 85.221.143.112 - the 'tells' are clear. You are editwaring and run the risk of being reported & perhaps blocked at WP:AN/EW, note that logging out to editwar is functional socking which is also subject to sanctions. rgds 94.195.46.224 (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Walter, unreferenced trivia / stats should be removed, per WP:V, a fundamental principal. Nothing is gone for ever and can always be added back if references to significant, reliable sources can be provided. The only counter arguments seem solely to be along these lines, which is not really relevant. Fenix down (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a similar concern about trivia creeping into records in Lionel Messi#Records. I think most of it's fine, but then there's what I see as trivia like "Only player to score in 21 different cities in the European Cup" and "Most international goals in a year (club and national team)" (!?!?).

Here's what I see as non-trivial record: benchmarks recognized by a sanctioning body or a widely recognized record keeper like the Guinness Book of Records. So the record entries should mention which entity recognizes the record, or link back to La Liga/UEFA stats articles. What do you all think? 13:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Include penalties in result or dont? (i.e. footballbox collapsible)

Hi everyone. There has been a slight disagreement between me and an IP on the result in a cup-match and as I have seen it before I thought it was best to see what footy has to say. The question is how we decide color for a finished match either in fooballbox collapsible or other table. The problem occurs when there are two legs and team X wins first match (example 2-1) and then the opponent team Y wins also by 2-1 and the match goes to penalties were team X wins. On the team Y article shouldn't it be green because they won match (even if they lost penalties?). Then it must also be the same if game is drawn and then someone wins on penalties, then it should be yellow for draw. To me I have always considered result without penalties but what does everyone else think? QED237 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The above example can be seen at 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season#League Cup and my minor dispute has been on 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season. QED237 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The penalty shoot-out is not part of the match, so if a team wins the second leg of a tie but then loses on penalties, the match should still be considered as a win. – PeeJay 11:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats just how I feel. The same applies if a match ends with a draw before penalties (when there is only one leg)? QED237 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. – PeeJay 12:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The debate only happens because someone has the misconception that a shoot–out determines the winner of the match. But it only determines who advances. As mentioned above, the shoot–out is seperate from the match and only the score prior to the shoot–out determines if it's a win, draw, or loss. Kingjeff (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

sharkscores.com and rsfa.info are good sources for ELs?

Gavrilov Sergey (talk · contribs) has made a series of edits like this one where sharkscores.com and rsfa.info are added to the EL section. sharkscores.com has a link to about us but the JavaScript function doesn't connect to anything so it's not clear who is supplying those results and of they're either accurate or fact-checked. While rsfa.info is copyrighted by Radu I. Siminiceanu and has the same problems of not being clear on where the material is gleaned or if it's fact-checked. Any comments or concerns? I removed the Champions League additions but there were many, many more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not come across either, but I don't think they are suitable, and that editor looks to be involved with WP:SPAM. GiantSnowman 19:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Siminiceanu is a contributor to RSSSF (a reliable source), but I don't have any information about rsfa.info. Jogurney (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

sharkscores is another frontend for mackolik.com (w/English interface), so refer to that website for copyright terms (it's in Turkish, with no English version). Simiceanu's membership in RSSSF does not automatically make anything he puts on the web reliable (excepting maybe Romania-related stuff if he's shown to be knowledgeable in that area), especially since RSSSF itself is only a loos organization that is, apparently, not managed in any quality-guaranteeing fashion; it just accepts individual contributions without delving into details 46.238.126.143 (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Atlético Madrid at GAR

Having discovered that in my humble opinion, the Atlético Madrid article is not as deserving of GA status as it was on its promotion in 2010, I have put it up for GAR, if anybody wants to review it. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Vinicius de Freitas and Vinicius de Freitas Ribeiro

Can someone delete these pages? Both are redirects (unnecessary, very unknown player). Cheers, MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

They seem to be valid redirects for a player who meets WP:NFOOTBALL - if you disagree please use WP:RFD. GiantSnowman 12:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josh Coulson

Once more I have found an old Afc submission that may be worth fixing up. What do you think about this fellow? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't see any indication that he has played for a pro side in a pro league so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and by the look of it, WP:GNG. Both the Cambridge sides play in non fully-pro leagues and have done (in United's case) since just after he started playing. He has played for England C but this is for non league players.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looks to be non-notable. GiantSnowman 12:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for sharing your expertise. Sorry I have to post so often about these old drafts, but I am learning - I have passed over at least a dozen that I decided all by myself were not notable. Now, if you ever need to know the difference between tremolo and vibrato, or how to tune an octave mandolin... —Anne Delong (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Kelantan FA

It seems this Malaysian club, Kelantan FA, has been making some rather amazing signings over the past weeks.......... Don't have the time to go back in the history to work out the correct playing squad, as it seems this has been done by a few ip users. So would someone have a look please? thanks. *Edited to add this: There is also this page: Kelantan F.C. which seems to overlap much of the Kelantan FA page. Plus there is a fair bit of what seems to be dubious content. --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted Kelantan FA to a version without the novelty signings. The current squad section on the team's website is here, will check it later if no-one gets there first. And have redirected Kelantan F.C. to Kelantan FA. It was one of several copypaste creations by the same editor and as far as I can tell, the only one left unreverted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The official website link you provided shows players who have been transferred to other clubs i.e. Indra Putra Mahayuddin, so it is not up to date. The 2014 Kelantan FA season article has a squad section with some sources if you wish to start your check there. EddieV2003 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just found out that Indra Putra had moved, and was trying the stadiumastro.com site before I read your post. If it's used as a source for the season article appearances, it should be ideal. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Now checked, I think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Champions League goalscorers

This list of Top Champions League scorers appears to be missing Wayne Rooney. I would change it myself but am unsure of how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.200.220 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Looks like someone accidentally took him out while trying to fix vandalism. Mosmof (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

László Szőke

László Szőke is dead recently.--79.21.34.75 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC) In the page there's this error: Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{" Can someone see the page?

 Fixed GiantSnowman 16:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:ClubFootballFan1

This user appears to be yet another sockpuppet of User:Newestcastleman who has been blocked multiple times. At present, his edits seems rather trivial and somewhat pointless, but perhaps we should keep an eye on him. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have re-opened the SPI for this new sock - Newestcastleman SPI. Feel free to add to it. JMHamo (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:TwoLegResult

Brought up in the champions league article. Should team 1 and team 2 be changed to home team in leg 1 and home team in leg 2? Or are there instances where that doesn't apply? -Koppapa (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first thing to my mind is when the order of ties is reversed, which seems to be a fairly commonplace situation. C679 22:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In those cases we have previously changed place of "team 1" and "team 2" with a note saying they switched places. QED237 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC on naming

Please see the further RfC here. --John (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

CAF U17 Championship

Someone has nominated the following articles for deletion:

• 2011 African U-17 Championship squads
• 2013 African U-17 Championship squads

Obviously I'd rather keep them on Wikipedia, but I'm not entirely sure of the rules about whether they meet the criteria for articles. The European equivalents have articles. TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I nominated them, as there is a growing consensus that lists of non-notable players participating in junior competition is a WP:NOTSTATS failure, especially with the number of redlinks contained. JMHamo (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

José Vásquez (Peruvian footballer)

Could some help me verify if José Vásquez (Peruvian footballer) is notable? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Name appears to be José Luis Vásquez, nicknamed "Camote" (which should aid finding sources), refs include this and this and this. Seems to have had a decent career in the Peruvian top-flight, so I would say he is notable. GiantSnowman 23:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Article should be renamed to Jose Luis Vasquez, to reflect its common name.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Premier League Golden Boot FLC

The Golden Boot FLC page has now been opened for about a month now. This is my first football FLC nomination, so feel free to comment on it, especially on any "football-specific" aspects I might've missed. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

2014_Latvian_Higher_League

Could someone help me fix the map at 2014_Latvian_Higher_League#Stadiums_and_locations. Two teams were originally excluded but readmitted on appeal. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks ok now, 10 teams on map. -Koppapa (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

AFC needing some help!

Hi folks. Please take a look at this article rotting away in Articles for Creation. Perhaps someone here can review it. Thanks :) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Erik Palmer Brown -- SarahStierch (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi @SarahStierch: - the article is about a non-notable player, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

To space or not to space

Let me start by saying that this is the dumbest thing to edit war over. A user, who has been adding archived URLs to several football articles, has also been removing spaces used for visual cues and to make selection of words in tables easier. This has happened on articles such as Mehmet Ekici (which is where I first noticed it), Michael Ballack, Oliver Bierhoff and Oliver Kahn. The editor has been asked by several editors not to, but it doesn't seem as though that has helped sway the editor. Should we care? Should we just leave it as the archives are helpful and the players are for the most part no longer active? In a project that has very few formatting guidelines, should we create such a guideline to help editors? Asking for feedback. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Honda, Error?

When Keisuke Honda has scored a goal for AC Milan?((SERIE A))--Lglukgl (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

15th Jan against Spezia in the Coppa Italia. --Connelly90 09:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)