Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

League season MOS

Greetings all,

A while back in the season article task force, several members of that TF and this project came together and developed a template (outline, if you will) for a league season article (see here, here, and here). Seeing as this is a very common and simple article that is already pretty standardized (perhaps as per the above discussions), I think it is time to codify this to one of the MOSs. It also helps to have a easily accessible reference point for any possible disagreements and possible future changes. What does everyone else think? Digirami (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Seeing that we have a couple of regular IPs and new editors contributing to these kind of articles, a reference page would be more than helpful. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

While we are at it, we should create a MOS for club season articles. This would be useful for making sure that new articles comply and we can achieve some level of standardisation. 03md 16:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Door closed, horse bolted. - Dudesleeper talk 17:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and create one based on Soccer-holic's sandbox since, at least in my opinion, it the only version that was agreed upon by consensus in a talk page (among other things). Digirami (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I added some comments but I just noticed that sandbox2 has changed to something about Germany. --MicroX (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just resored Sandbox2. Feel free to hack/edit as you like. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I created this a couple weeks back so we don't have to mess with Soccer-holic's sandbox and to eventually link it to the main project it page. It incorporates the vast sum of what's in the sandbox. Digirami (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: The league season MoS has been added to the project main page and navigation box in the meantime. The only major thing to be ironed out is the grade of inclusion of stats à la 2009–10 Premier League#Season statistics. Should we conduct the respective discussion here or move over to the league season MoS talk page? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

World cup records templates on nft articles

Mr Hall of England has taken it upon himself to turn the World Cup summary table on each national team article into a template, and I don't think he's done a great job of it.

Compare his template: Template:Ecuador FIFA World Cup record

With the previous version:

Year	Round	Pos	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA
1930 to 1938	Did not enter
1950	Withdrew
1954 to 1958	Did not enter
1962 to 1998	Did not qualify
2002	Round 1	24	3	1	0	2	2	4
2006	Round of 16	12	4	2	0	2	5	4
2010	Did not qualify
Total	2/19	12	7	3	0	4	7	8

Why do I think the template is a backwards step?

• it is enormously wasteful of space,
• causes multiple breaches of MOS:FLAG,
• contains ungrammatical capitalisation,
• suggests that teams can meaningfully be said to have a record in an event that are still more than 10 years away
• the asterisk by the D in the header is unexplained,
• loses the qualification data was incorporated into the table in many nft articles.

So what to do about it? Kevin McE (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverting them all back to how they were before looks good here. Just one question: all of the articles in Category:Countries at the FIFA World Cup use them in their otherwise similar tables. Should these go as well? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My template looks better because there is a lot of inconsistency with the articles and they look better than the old ones.Posted by Mr Hall of England at 20:39, December 31, 2010

World Cup results sections are inconsistent because different teams have very different records. A degree of consistency can be acheived while conforming to the principles in the pre-existent Ecuador example that I quoted. I understand that considerable time was spent on these templates: I would recommend running a proposal past the relevant project to check whether it is worth spending the time on in future. Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The new one looks awful for all the reasons Kevin McE stated. Revert on sight. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the new template, as all the blank years (for many teams) results in it taking up too much space. Eldumpo (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur with above comments. It's a backward, probably even unnecessary, move. Brad78 (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I also dislike it for the reasons already stated by others. I am also mystified as to why templates are being used when they will only ever be used on one article. I sense an imminent TfD. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The original layout is far more clear and concise. I too cannot see a reason for a template which will be used on only a single page. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

James Elliot/t(s)

Something I've asked before, but the answers produced just ended up confusing the situation more! Basically, are English football managers Jimmy Elliott and James Elliot one and the same - the former's career seems to end in 1934, and the latter's seems to start in 1935. And are one (or both) the same as Spurs and Brentford player Jimmy Elliott? My suspicion is that all three could be the same...GiantSnowman 16:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What can be done is to merge Jimmy Elliott (footballer born 1891) with Jimmy Elliott (footballer) who are the same person.--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And you will need to add James Elliot Donnelly's playing career details as shown in Joyce as per my reply to your original query. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So two seperate people? GiantSnowman 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As James Elliot Donnelly played for Blackburn in 1920-21 and Jimmy Elliott (footballer born 1891) was with Brentford that year, I think they are not the same person. Donelly joined Brentford in 1925. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. And is JED's surname 'Elliot' or 'Donnelly'? - I've seen him called both...GiantSnowman 15:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

He is listed in Joyce under Donnelly. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think having 'Eliot' in the article name is confusing matters more, I'll move it to James Donnelly (footballer). And if an admin can please merge Jimmy Elliott (footballer born 1891) into Jimmy Elliott (footballer), that'd be appreciated. Many thanks everyone, GiantSnowman 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think the article on the person known as James Donnelly/James Elliot Donnelly is accurate, can somebody please take a look to make sure I've interpreted everything correctly? GiantSnowman 16:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Same with Jimmy Elliott - the two articles are now one. GiantSnowman 16:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You added Fenerbahce manager to the wrong player/manager. I wouldn't add Turkish national team manager to any of these players. It's unreferenced. The rsssf list of managers is useless, there is no information on that site that links the manager to the Brentford players. That means you can also remove the Elliot middle name (it's completely unreferenced) Cattivi (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The RSSSF list of Turkish national team managers says he was called James Elliot Donnelly. GiantSnowman 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Even when one of the Brentford players was called James Elliot Donnelly (I doubt that, but that's not important) you still need a reliable source that says "The Turkish national manager who previously played for X or managed team Y". Then I think it's reasonable to assume that they are the same. When you don't give such a reference you're only guessing. Even well known writers (Tony Matthews) like to do that, you're in good company, but it's not something everybody should do. To be honest the Brentford who's who , only mentions a coaching job in Sweden, not a specific club. Cattivi (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, ignore ther 'Elliott' part of his name - a James Donnelly (player) is known to have been in Turkey in 1935; a James Donnelly (manager) is known to have been in Turkey in 1935. Are you saying this isn't the same man? GiantSnowman 13:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fenerbahce manager was James E. Elliott (ex Tottenham, Brentford), the Turkish national team manager could be James Donnelly (can't find a reference for that) 62.194.188.112 (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing FIFA.com

I want to cite the website FIFA.com to show that it includes fixtures for the 2011 Nile Basin Tournament. How can it be done? The page that contains the information on the site uses a query but the url does not not change despite the content changing due to a script. TheBigJagielka (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC) This is the url for all fixtures. TheBigJagielka (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. What's more, the fixture list on FIFA.com only marks these matches as friendlies rather than a tournament. Why not just use the Soccerway page link at the bottom of the article instead? Bettia (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

International notability question

I may have missed this when it was decided but the following from Wikipedia:Notability (sports) limits notability to those who have represented their country in competition. Why are friendly matches excluded?

Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.

Hack (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They aren't.--EchetusXe 12:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Friendly matches and "officially sanctioned senior international competitions" are usually mutually exclusive. Somebody will go to town on football articles using that criteria. Hack (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Officially sanctioned international competition means FIFA "A" internationals - which includes friendlies (not all of them because some a "B" or "C" internationals). Jogurney (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why not just say "A" International and use the FIFA description?

An international “A” match is a match arranged between two Members of FIFA and for which both Members field their first representative team.
"3 International matches". FIFA Statutes (PDF). FIFA. August 2010. p. 58.

FIFA use phrases like international competitions to describe a specific sub-grouping of "A" International excluding friendlies eg in the section on player eligibility.Hack (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Jogurney (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Youth career in Infobox

Is there a limit on the number of rows in the youth career section of the football infobox 2 ? I'm trying to add the youth career of a player who's been through 7 youth clubs but only the first 5 are showing. I've seen a work around on here but I can't find it right now. Otherwise, is there a specific approach to which clubs should be listed ? More recent, more notable ones ? TonyStarks (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We should not be trying to include parks teams who someone was with aged 8. IMHO, relevant youth teams are those with a professional coaching set up, or at least those requiring a major commitment from the child and family, not just a training kick around on Saturday morning and a match on Sunday. If the youth team is not a section of a professional set-up, there should be extraordinary reason to include it, although some boys' teams with a strong history of producing professional players (Senrab F.C. leaps to mind) might be worth a mention. Kevin McE (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What if he's played in the youth ranks of 7 professional clubs? :D TonyStarks (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

has_asked_afore...see_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_50#Help.21.21...refer_Nuno Santos (footballer born 1980)_for_a_'ethod..dirty;tho_works._(sorry;lost_lower_row_of_key'oard)!--ClubOranje^T 11:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup venue images

User:Δ is claiming that non-free content polcies, specifically numbers 1 and 8, preclude the use of the non-free venue images in 2014 FIFA World Cup. I think the issue is that the images are not free. I have provided fair use rationale for the images that the editor removed and then restored the images. Comments? Suggestions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your usage of the images fails WP:NFCC#8. I am in the process of removing the images, if you re-insert them against policy you will be blocked for violating the non-free content policies. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only does using the non-free images fails WP:NFCC#8, it also fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is possible for anyone to take a photo of any of those stadia and therefore the images are replaceable; also see WP:NFLISTS as this part of the article is effectively a list. Non-free galleries are deprecated at Wikipedia - do not replace them. However, I notice there appears to be a Brazilian press agency which releases its photos via Creative Commons (there are some examples on the World Cup 2014 page) and it is very likely that there are some photos of the stadia at their website or obtainable by contacting them. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Δ and Black_Kite. There is absolutely no reason that would comply with WP:NFCC policy that these images should be in the Venues table. Δ was correct for removing them. See also WP:NFG regarding the use of non-free images in tables. This usage Walter proposes just isn't the way we handle non-free content here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Δ, please don't threaten Walter Görlitz with blocking - educate as to why the images are unacceptable (which I agree they are) so that he may learn for future edits. Regards, GiantSnowman 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried, and pointed out the relevant policies, when a user does not listen, escalation is needed. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Free or not there is no need to show each location as it really does not add to the article. If one really has a need to see the venue they all seem to have their own article, which is linked - meaning all one would have to do is click on the link to find out more information on the venue itself - including images. As for the specifics of why use of a non-free image is not acceptable here it is because of a few reasons - one is most such images could be freely replaced, thusly failing NFCC 1 - No free equivalent. The second is Contextual significance - and as I have already stated, free or not, images in this section don't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Another possible failure to meet policy is NFCC 6 - Media-specific policy. In this case the Image use policy - Placement:Image galleries says, in part: Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis). While the list of venues is not a gallery the addition of an image of each venue listed makes it appear to be one. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Oxford United F.C. records and statistics peer review

Don't want to be a pain, but if anyone would care to take a look through and make any comments i'd be very apprecative. Its been up nearly ten days and only had one response, and im keen to push it to FL. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Input needed

There is a discussion here and below it about if FIFA.com can be considered a WP:RS. Please have a look Gnevin (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Aras Özbiliz

How do we list Aras Özbiliz (AFC Ajax)? He apparently was born in Turkey, raised in the Netherlands, and is an ethnic Armenian. He was previously listed on AFC Ajax as both Dutch and Turkish, but a user changed that to Armenia. I can't find any footballing affiliation, as far as I can tell he hasn't played for any national youth team yet. So what do we go by? Country of birth? It's safe to say that Armenia/Turkey is a sensitive issue, this might turn into an edit war. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Although born it Turkey, Ajax, and UEFA both list him as Dutch. I wouldn't list him as Armenian unless there is a source to verify he has decided to play for Armenia. I'm inclined to say Dutch, simply because that's the nationality listed in sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to neutralize the issue for now. If forced I would probably go Dutch too, but a lazy source covering a Dutch competition will inevitably default to Dutch. For most players this isn't a real issue, hence we accept Dutch until something else comes along. But where it's an active matter of contention, we should simply leave it blank until there is something solid to go on. —WFC— 02:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "Turkish-born Dutch footballer of Armenian heritage". LOL very long, but should (probably not) temporarily appease the warring editors until it can be determined if he will represent Turkey or Armenia, then can simply be shortened to just "Turkish footballer" or "Armenian footballer". — Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if there is verifiable evidence that this is the case though: we cannot say that someone is "of Armenian heritage" simply by virtue of his surname. Can you imagine how many players would suddenly be "of Scottish origin" if every surname with a Mac prefix was edited on that principle? Kevin McE (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of denoting nationality provided that it's done properly (i.e. provided that we're not asserting something to be a fact when we aren't confident ourselves). Without anything concrete, what is wrong with "professional footballer"? —WFC— 06:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried. If I thought that we had admins competent enough not to block me for 3RR, I'd try harder. But best to stay on the safe side. Call him a citizen of Earth and be done with it, I say. —WFC— 06:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Same user has also edited Denis Tumasyan, Russian, ethnic Armenian, born in the SSR Ukraine, no caps for any national team. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I live in the Netherlands, and all the media around refer to Özbiliz as Dutch. Ajax website does not list nationalities, but Eredivisie's does and describes him as Dutch indeed: [1], as Voetbal International does, he grew up in the Netherlands and has always played in this country. So, he should be named as Dutch, regardless of what a single user is trying to WP:POINT. --Angelo (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I had a number of similar cases, and from my experience, I can tell you that the best way to have the article as stable as possible is the way Joao10Siamun proposed. I know simply "footballer" would be enough, but then we´ll allways have a number of IP´s every day adding ("Templetonian"... then "Mars-born"... then "Mars-born Templetonian of Cosmic origin", then, an IP will delete all and put "Cosmic player", then the other IP´s will revert him, and... and ...) see the point? FkpCascais (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So now we've got three users who have listed Özbiliz as Armenian:

• 66.214.240.21 (talk · contribs)
• 66.214.128.70 (talk · contribs)
• 96.251.7.109 (talk · contribs)

I'm starting to suspect meatpuppetry. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article. If you use a GeoIP tool, you will discover that all the three IPs above are based in California, and the first two actually belong to the same IP range, so it's quite possible they all refer to the same user, but making edits from different places. --Angelo (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Squad template

What do you make of this: Template:Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. squad--EchetusXe 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted; these templates are for first-team members ONLY. GiantSnowman 17:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• See for instance Template:Gimnàstic de Tarragona squad. User:MYS77, when a player plays his FIRST game for the club - in some cases it might be the ONLY ever - creates the article and adds player to "Current squad" (in team's article) and squad template. Oh boy... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: what is the difficulty with that? By virtue of having played for the team, it is demonstarbly true that the player is, at least on occasion, a member of the squad, which is what these templates list. Kevin McE (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2009 COSAFA U-20 Cup

Please could somebody help and track down results for this competition? TheBigJagielka (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think RSSSF has all of the results here. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

fb template

I'm trying to create a fb template for Algeria's A local team (Algeria A' national football team) but I haven't been able to figure out how to do it. I took a look at the documentation here Template:Fb but that wasn't much help for me. The team is currently participating in the 2011 African Championship of Nations and the article uses the fb template for the A team and not the A' team (for all the teams in fact). Since Algeria has its own article for the A' team I figured the article should be using that one.

Can anyone help me in creating this? Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Youth international tournament templates

I believe consensus is that such templates aren't notable...? If so, does someone with a better knowledge of TfD want to take a look at {{England U21 Squad Euro 2002}}, {{England U21 Squad Euro 2007}} and {{England U21 Squad Euro 2009}}? GiantSnowman 16:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I like the U21 templates. I wouldn't vote to remove them if requested. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fussed either way, but we need a community agreement on the matter - if we say they are acceptable, then what other tournament templates are allowed as well? GiantSnowman 17:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think AFC, CAF, UEFA, CONCACAF and COMNBEBOL organised tournaments should be allowed. ;) TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So just about everything then...? GiantSnowman 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe we should allow a vast array of templates for tournaments, but only for senior ones, in my opinion. I feel the youth career of any player is an "crawl before you can walk" approach, important in a player's development, but a bit in "the shadow", like the infoboxes (which do not contain stats, and sometimes not even years, as they are not available) and some storylines. Happy weekend all! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that if we allow youth templates, will there be a cut-off point? Or will we see under-13 international tournament templates getting made? It's a slippery slope...GiantSnowman 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Methinks the only ones that should be created are: FIFA U-20 World Cup and UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship, pretty much all the players there are seniors, and many are already established in their countries' top division. Just a thought... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be seen as Euro-centric and biased. GiantSnowman 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Euro-centric? FIFA anyone? But thanks for that tip mate, that allows me to throw all the U-20 international competitions throughout the world "into the mix". Thanks. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be happy with the Under-21/20 tournaments organised by AFC, CAF, UEFA, CONCACAF and COMNBEBOL as the cut-off point. GiantSnowman 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Prior concensus was that youth tournaments need not have squad navigation box templates. The templates will normally have lots of redlinks which encourages the creation of many non-notable footballer biographies since few youth players will initially meet our notability standards. I don't think there is a good reason to change the concensus, but I'm open to discussion. Jogurney (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A tournament that would not confer notability for its participants probably should not have a template, because there is no assumption that all members merit an article. Kevin McE (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

While most of these templates would probably just be red/blacklinks, there are definitely some that wouldn't. What I would suggest is to factor usefulness into notability, i.e. if a squad has enough bluelinks to be useful as template, then why not create one? Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That has always been my opinion. If a Conference National/North/South team has five to eight bluelinked players, surely a navbox serves a purpose. On the other hand, there's no point in having a navbox for the under-20 Tahiti world cup squad for "fairness", unless several of them happen to do something notable. —WFC— 04:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But we can all anticipate insistence that if England U21s in the hypothetical 2013 Euro U21s championship has a template, then the Finnish U21 team that reaches the same tournament merits the same. That is why I think the "ruling" should be on the basis of the level of tournament, not the individual teams in each tournament. Kevin McE (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Navboxes are very different to articles though. If we created articles on the individual teams for the tournament, England and Finland would merit the same coverage, as they are competing at the same level. If on the other hand only one or two of the Finnish players ever went on to pass this crock of shit, the Finnish template wouldn't be a Navbox. At best, it would be a decorative banner. —WFC— 10:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree. The English template at that tournament would be worthwhile, the Finnish one would not. But any argument against the existence of the Finnish template/navbox would be undermined by the existence of an English one: WP:OTHERSTUFF would probably not be considered strong enough to calm the ire of those sympathetic to the cause of the Scandanavians. So which is the lesser evil: lack of an England navbox for that tournament, or the presence of a functionless Finnish one? Kevin McE (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

From my experience, if you allow one of them (English for exemple) you will inevitably have a bunch of fans from all over the world making ones for their youth squad as well. FkpCascais (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would be much of a factor. In most countries that qualify for the tournaments we're talking about, players go on to have pro careers nowadays. Including Finland. I find it hard to believe that someone would create a Tahiti template in good faith, without at some point realising just how useless said template would be. —WFC— 10:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So is it OK to produce a template full of red/black links now, on the assumption that they will become blue over the next few years? Kevin McE (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No. But by the time a good faith user realises that a player they're working on could have one of these templates but doesn't, the balance of probability is that the template itself will be worthwhile. I bet that even at the start of last season, around half of those Finnish players had articles. Your argument is that this causes too many potential problems to be workable. Aside from the obvious (that nothing is less workable than tens of thousands of living people who once made a pro appearance before fading into obscurity having articles), mine is that you will only be proven correct if someone goes out of their way to create knowingly useless templates en-masse. —WFC— 11:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Turkish fans are hardcore, we all know that. Apparently Mauro Formica is close to becoming a new Galatasaray player, and his article is suffering from excessive vandalism/premature confirmations. Could someone semi-protect please? Fache (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Duggie Lochhead

Hi! Can anyone please confirm former Norwich City manager Duggie Lochhead coached Galatasaray S.K. from 1950 to 1952, as I suspect ? It also looks like he played for Walsall F.C. coming from St. Johnstone F.C..[2] Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same person born Partick (Glasgow) 16-12-1904 died in Leeds 29-8-1968 coached in Holland (Heracles) dec 1953-1956 source Canary Citizensby John Eastwood Mike Davage Cattivi (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Milliyet 22-10-1950 : Mr Lockhead, St Lohnstone (spelling errors as usual) [

http://gazetearsivi.milliyet.com.tr/Ara.aspx?araKelime=lockhead&isAdv=false] Cattivi (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!!Article improved with infobox and new datas, thanks to Cattivi. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also had a spell at Norwich as a player: [3]. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Information added to the article, thanks . If anyone has his career stats, that would be perfect.Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Liam Palmer

Does anyone know if Liam Palmer is the son of Carlton Palmer? There is a passing resemblance (see[4] and [5]) Oddly the youngster appears to be qualified to play for Scotland whereas Carlton was an England player. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He probably has a mother as well, who could be Scottish. Worksop (Liam's birthplace) is a plausible commuter zone for Sheffield (Carlton's place of work in 1991), but that is far from probative. Kevin McE (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I know message boards are not reliable sources, but this one [6] has someone posting that knows him and says he isn't Carlton's son, but some others say that he is. Swaddon1903 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This article gives a bit of family background (Scottish granny and some Jamaican heritage) and doesn't mention Carlton. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely some source will have mentioned it if he is a relative?--EchetusXe 16:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Both people are black; both are footballers; both are called Palmer. This does not make them related, though it certainly does raise some suspicions. If nobody has mentioned it yet, then I doubt they are father/son or uncle/nephew or whatever. GiantSnowman 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Araz Abdullayev

This one is complicated. Araz Abdullayev has or hasn't signed for Everton depending on the source. Everton say he's only training with the club as he doesn't have a work permit.[7]. Whilst Azerbajani sources say he has signed for Everton from January 1st and he's loaned to Neftchi Flavinyo with the player himself saying he's proud to be transferred to a Premier League club. [8] and [9].

It wouldn't surprise me if Everton have signed him, as they signed Anderson Silva de França without a work permit. What is the consensus here, is he Everton player on loan or still belong to Neftchi Flavinyo in the eyes of Wikipedia? TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally think should always go with what the club's official website says. That's what I do. Until the club confirms it, the news isn't official. According to Everton, the club only have a first option agreement with Neftchi Flavinyo similar to what Manchester United have with Giuseppe Rossi. The Everton source even debunks the Azerbaijani reports. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Laos

I suspect the article Laos national football team has been vandalised. I find it hard to believe that a team ranked 169th on the FIFA ranking has players from Paris Saint-Germain and Olympique de Marseille. These players are not listed anywhere, as are more foreign-based players of Laos. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be common to more Asian national teams. How about this image, allegedly of the national kit of the Maldives. Looks like it's been made with MS Paint. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the players with French teams for now after checking the recent page history; however, it would be good if someone with more knowledge could check the current squad for factual correctness. Regarding the file, I have no idea if this is copyright violation or not, but it might not be needed on the Maldives national football team article anyway since there already are minikits which should satisfy the current standards. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 02:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Laos. My concern about the image of the Maldives kit is not that it might be copyrighted, my concern is that it's a fake. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Following a recently exposed question (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#International_notability_question) just to clarify, if a player has played a friendly for an A national team, he pases notability? FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read NSPORTS as considering people who played in FIFA "A" internationals as notable. Jogurney (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How exciting. I'm brushing up on my knowledge of The Other Final as we speak. —WFC— 08:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Very funny. Jogurney (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, you're the one asserting that all 22 starters plus substitutes are notable! —WFC— 03:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I will conclude that all players with caps for senior FIFA national teams pass notability, even if the ones from WFC exemple, althought, those are really not encouraged to be created as article... :) FkpCascais (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's not much point in starting an article about an amateur footballer who played in one "A" international for Monserrat. However, if there are reliable sources which can be used to write a decent article, I wouldn't complain. Jogurney (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:West Germany Squad 1980 Mundialito

Template:West Germany Squad 1980 Mundialito has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oddity

Just found out that there seems to be one category of players that reads "AEL FC players" and another that reads "AEL Limassol players". Pardon my ignorance, but aren't both the one and the same club?

Also, could anyone enlighten me on why, EVERYTIME i write, with my anon account, the word "sacked" (or "fired"), to convey info on dismissed managers, i am accused of vandalism in the edit summary? Quite bizarre, to say the least...Kind regards, happy week! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Does one category maybe refer to AEL 1964 FC? If so, it will need renaming...

Also, who is accusing you of vandalism? GiantSnowman 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• No Snowy, you're confusing yourself there :) AEL Limassol is a Cypriot club, and i have seen players who play (or played) there with the cats inserted in different ways in their pages. The team you refer to is from Greece (also known as Larissa). About the second item, please check Luís Filipe Vieira Carvalho or Gonzalo Arconada Echarri to see what i mean. Maybe just some technicality... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no I meant that one category is meant for the Greek team, one is meant for the Cypriot team, and over time editors have got them mixed up...

As for the accusations of vandalism I'll have a look for you and see what's happened. GiantSnowman 23:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation on the AEL cats, turns out I was the one getting confused, not YOU... :( :( Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no problems! As for those two articles, are you referring to the message of "Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism" that comes up? I think those are automated messages, have a look at Special:Tags as for why you have been the 'target'. Regards, GiantSnowman 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Double thanks! Take it easy, happy week! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I believe the AEL FC players and AEL Limassol players categories are both for the Cypriot club. AEL 1964 FC's players category is Larissa F.C. players (the club was also at Larissa F.C. until recently). I'm not sure which category/club naming is best, but Larissa F.C. and AEL Limassol F.C. would be my preference for the clubs/categories. Jogurney (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you about the Greek team, for the Cypriot one "AEL Limassol" suffices very well i think. Moreover, that's the name of the WP article. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The category names should match the club names; based on current article locations, we should have categories at Category:AEL 1964 FC players and Category:AEL Limassol players. GiantSnowman 00:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the better choice is to move AEL 1964 FC back to Larissa F.C., but perhaps we should have a discussion on the article's talk page? Jogurney (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Time to stop

About Festus Agu, i'll ask it AGAIN, last time i brought this forth, received ZERO input, have no idea why...

A third account has been created (almost 99% sure it's the same "user"), proceeding to insert unreferenced stuff in the player's article. The last account "raised the bar", removing the reference that existed. I have browsed the web extensively, and found NOTHING about the stuff that keeps being added to the page - what on earth is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Festus_Agu&diff=327928434&oldid=327927993 - especially this account), this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Festus_Agu&diff=385764088&oldid=385763953) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Festus_Agu&diff=406330353&oldid=406329501)?!?

Does anyone have any info on this obscure Nigerian player (only time he had any relevant impact was in Germany's third level), especially after his playing career? If not, i think maybe this page should be protected for a few months...Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything which confirms the Nigerian league statistics so I think they should be removed. It's odd to list anything more than he played in Nigeria for NITEL Vasco da Gama and Enugu Rangers - there is nothing I can find to show more about his experiences in the Nigerian league. He certainly joined Bolivar and then there is sufficient sources to verify his career in Spain and Germany. Jogurney (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Again, i am either ignored or misunderstood. Jogurney, i did not even pay attention to the stats (most must be truth, he played several years in Germany and Spain, and the links are there), i am talking about the (possible, more than possible) vandalization of his page, over and over again (please see the diffs i provided)! If no one can attest to that, measures must be taken, i think - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! Reading the article´s revision history is quite an event... :)

P.S.: Despite lack of sources, it doesn´t necessarily needs to be untrouth, I´m talking about the early career inserted by those redlink user(s). It would be strange to have people loosing time to made up such a detail football story... However, it also doesn´t mean that it isn´t (a joke). FkpCascais (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.2:Regarding your diffs, I beleave the edits are quite tipical and usual among unnexperinced editors, as the case here seems to be. FkpCascais (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

::The only diff that is a problem is the first because of the unnecessary bold, POV terms, and un-sourced material. However, it could be easily copy-edited by an experience editor as it provides more detail, albeit not sourced, on his career than the current revision. The others seem to indicate that the user(s) are simply new; one having trouble with the caps and goals and the other fixing grammar, but in the process removing a reference. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. Looking at the diffs provided, I'm not sure those were intentional vandalism as much as a new user who doesn't understand how to made edits properly (but it's no less frustrating when new editors remove references and other content). The detail about his early playing career was hyperbolic at best and I don't think we can keep it when it's totally unverifiable. Jogurney (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• No need for apologies Jog ;) I am glad "the force" is reaching a consensus on the matter! Regarding Joao's input, yes most revisions contain more info than the current one, but are they verifiable? No! At least at this point...I prefer a short but sourced storyline to this load. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeap. FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gai Assulin

A situation has arisen between two users, and now i will act as: 1 - their mediator; 2 - someone who also wants to learn more about the (football)ways of WP...

This player never appeared for FC Barcelona's first team, in La Liga that is, spending three seasons with FC Barcelona B. One of the users inserts "FC Barcelona" in his box (with 0 games and goals), the other - i agree with this one - removes it, on the grounds it is unnecessary.

I also feel that his connection to the main squad should only be referred to in storyline and categories (Category:FC Barcelona footballers), but not in box. Also, the user that agrees with having "FC Barcelona" in box has been providing me with examples of other players (Steve Slade, Mickael Buscher), but i feel the "situation" with the B-clubs in Spain (they also compete in the professional level, but some players do not have professional contracts) surely have another approach. Or am i DEAD wrong :)? Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the article, in 2009/10, Assulin started in a Copa del Rey match for Barcelona in the October, and was called up to the first-team squad (and presumably given a squad number) in the December. That made him a Barcelona first-team player in that season, whether he played in La Liga or not, so IMO that team should appear in the infobox. I'd agree the Buscher case isn't comparable, don't know enough about the situation with Slade, though I'd have thought he'd have to have some form of registration before turning out in the FLTrophy. Have you notified the editors concerned about this discussion? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes i have, thanks for your input. Regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinions on a trio of Newcastle United match articles appreciated

• Article #1: Hereford United v Newcastle United 1972 – "The mother of all FA Cup upsets"
• Article #2: Liverpool F.C. 4–3 Newcastle United F.C. – "Match of the Decade" at Premier League 10 Seasons awards
• Article #3: Stevenage F.C. 3–1 Newcastle United F.C. – latest FA Cup upset

What are the project members' opinions on each of these three articles? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The first two matches have potential but both need cleaning up and more sources; the third match seems to have received lots of coverage and so probably passes WP:GNG. Happy to be proved wrong though. GiantSnowman 15:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The first one is a definite keep, since it frequently gets mentioned as one of the greatest ever cup upsets. The third article screams recentism, and I'm not convinced it will be notable in the long-term. The second one isn't so clear cut, and the article itself needs sourcing, but a quick Google search seems to suggest it has the "lasting significance" needed to satisfy our criteria.

So in short, keep #1 and #2, prod/afd #3. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

#1 is the benchmark FA Cup upset, discussed in written and broadcast media regularly, reasonably written but needs sourcing;

#2 might be notable, because of the Match of the Decade award thingy, but as all we have is one sentence of unsourced prose and a flag-strewn match template, it should be redirected to the appropriate Premier League season article, with no prejudice against re-creation as a proper article;

#3 might be notable in time, but it only happened 3 days ago, and the contents though well-sourced are basically routine reporting; assuming lasting significance would IMO be WP:CRYSTAL. Comparisons with #1 are inevitable because it was an FA Cup upset, #1 is the standard comparator for FA Cup upsets, and Newcastle were the victim in both cases. I'd merge it into the 2010-11 Stevenage season article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My 2p: 1 is definitely notable, 2 is possibly notable and worthy of AfD, 3 is probably not notable. But seeing this, I learned something - I had no idea Stevenage had been renamed. --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another 2p - yes 1 and 2. Notable, memorable and much shown and written about. 3 - was it so big a deal? Far too early to judge the impact of this match - to Afd.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

One is for keeps. I wouldn't vote either way in an afD for number two because it has that award yet does not seem to be that notable otherwise. It would be a shame to delete number three because it is well sourced and it also includes information on the first encounter giving it some sense of history. On the other hand pundits aren't even saying Pardew is 'under pressure', so how significant is the match really? Would probably be deleted on an afD.--EchetusXe 18:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

1 - definitely notable. 2 - dubious. Definitely needs more than it's got now. 3 - recentism. AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Afd 3 now, per WP:NOT#NEWS. Brad78 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup Qualifying

I was wandering if anybody could help me with these football articles?

• Champions and Runners-up
• UEFA
• CONMEBOL
• CONCACAF
• CAF
• AFC-OFC

I want to make them right before I put them on the respective football articles? Mr Hall of England (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have the full totals but I want the qualifying campaigns from 1934-2010 please Mr Hall of England (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Flag use is a bit excessive, probably contravenes WP:MOSFLAG. A lot of the ones for nations that didn't compete for many years don't need rows for every competition they didn't enter. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What about just doing the ones where the countries HAVE qualified? Mr Hall of England (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an article on UEFA teams qualification record for World Cups etc? Or that one of these tables should be posted on each National Football Team article? There were discussed and thoroughly rejected recently when they were being posted on articles as templates. If the former, do we really need several dozen links on one article to the (for example) 1986 World Cup? If the latter, why do we need a link to the first 14 World Cups on Slovenia's article, when they didn't exist as a team for any of them, or a long list of flags of places that the Wales team didn't go to?

Apart from the MOSFLAG issue, there is capitalisation that is, to say the least, unstandard, and there is no merit in placing future events in the records section of an article. Kevin McE (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me or are the above articles re-inventing the wheel but in a very bad way. There's nothing wrong with the current tables on the respective entries. Brad78 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Martin Gritton

Could someone knowledgeable take a look at this massive edit? I have no idea if it's correct or not, but it's a pretty big change from what was there previously. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It all looks fine to me - and was made by a highly respected member of this project. The previous version was pure fantasy. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, like I said, I didn't have a clue.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 20:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Clubs name in player infoboxes...

Greetings all,

While browsing Ronaldo's article, I sought to change the way the way his clubs names are displayed in his infobox as follows based on the fact that that is how the clubs' names are displayed in other player infoboxes across the board (among other uses):

• Inter Milan → Internazionale
• PSV Eindhoven → PSV
• AC Milan → Milan

An editor decided to revert that since it was agreed upon in Ronaldo's talkpage, even though there is a case where clubs names are displayed across the project, especially for such well-known clubs. I was hoping someone else can resolve this. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I see your point but I think it'll be better if it stays how it is now. For the more amatuer users, people aswell. How it is currently is good aswell because we all know Inter Milan Is Inter Milan and PSV Eindhoven is PSV Eindhoven. I think it's a good structure already and it dosen't need to be changed. Also, there may begin to be names that some people aren't familiar with, even though it's the same club. Some amatuer users could start calling Inter Milan Milan. So people will get confused if a situation like this happens. I don't think it should be changed.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Stub cateogry names - striker vs. forward

I have nominated the striker stub categories for renaming to "forward". Feel free to participate in Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/12#National football striker stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)