Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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

International football match titles

Is this projects naming standard for international matches "Country A v Country B (Year)"? I ask because I came across an article at WP:GAN with that format and initially thought it was a mistake. It looked like it should be an article on some legal case. If this is the convention I would be surprised if it met WP:Title as it is not recognisable or unambiguous. It at least needs "match" added to it to turn it into a proper descriptive title. AIRcorn (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe that article's even at GAN, it basically just recounts the wacky story of the deliberate own goal and doesn't tell us anything else about the game - only 3 of the 22+ players involved are even named! There's no way this is the depth of coverage I would expect to see in a GA, and in fact if this is all that reliable sources tell us about the game I'm curious as to why it even needs its own article separate from that on the overall tournament..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

For reference - the article in question is Barbados v Grenada (1994), and it was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 62#Notability for matches. GiantSnowman 20:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus at the previous thread mentioned above was if there were enough details, then the article could be created. It passes GNG. The article does have enough detail about the game. Reading the article 1994 Caribbean Cup, seeing paragraphs of information on one game made me think that it was out of place. Why does one match get paragraphs and the others just a score? To me, the article is a legitimate encyclopedia entry. About the title, see England v United States (1950), England v Ireland (1949), England v Hungary (1953), Scotland v England (1872), and Scotland v Wales (1876). BCS (Talk) 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

While it is going into a bit of a tangent I will take the opportunity to request more interested editors to review football articles at GA. One of the requirements is broad coverage and members of this project are probably in the best position to assess this. The sport category is almost always backlogged and there are usually a few football topics waiting review. I would be more than willing to help anyone with their first few reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to the title. I realise other articles are titled this way, but that doesn't mean they aren't wrong as well and that is why I brought it up here. I don't think it meets WP:title, but this is just an outsider opinion and I won't be changing anymore titles or monitoring new ones. If there is a relatively recent previous discussion deciding on this format then fine, otherwise it may be worth doing so here. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If the example titles are wrong then why have none been moved except for Scotland v Wales (1876) once in 2010? Some pages have been around for four to six years now without any argument about the name. Therefore, the name abides by the consistency bullet at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (which is the same page as WP:TITLE). BCS (Talk) 22:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Because certain articles get more attention than others here. As I said above the only reason I know this one exists is because it was nominated for WP:GA. Consistency is good, but can easily be achieved by changing the other titles (there are not that many[1]). What is important is that I have raised an argument now, so unless it has been discussed within the last year it is perfectly valid to discuss it now. AIRcorn (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay put in a requested move at Talk:Barbados v Grenada (1994)#Requested move to get some more opinions. On a side note, I don't know what your inclusion criteria is, but some (especially England v Rest of the World (1963) look a bit suspect notability wise. AIRcorn (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion needs more input. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• As a result of discussion at Talk:1994 Barbados vs Grenada football match#Requested move the pages have been moved as requested. Example format is 1994 Barbados vs Grenada football match which covers ambiguity of sports involved and that it is a match and not a season or series. I will assume that this applies to the international matches and not clubs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Would 1994 Barbados v Grenada Caribbean Cup qualification match not be a better title. Seeing as football match is a fairly ambiguous term and doesn't tell the reader what competition it is. Adam4267 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Chicken and egg

How do we distinguish between club article history sections copy-pasted from club websites, and situations where a club has copy-pasted its own website history section from Wikipedia? I'm wondering because the Bracknell Town history section is very similar to the one on the official website and I'm not entirely sure which way round it is. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be the edit in which the info was put on. Seeing as it was all put on in 1 edit rather than a series of smaller edits it suggests that he copied and pasted it. However, that is not definitive it just seems very likely that it was copied. Adam4267 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd delete the wikipedia one. There are no sources anyway in the text. -Koppapa (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual giveaway of a copyvio history section is the use of "we" to refer to the club, I see that quite a bit. That doesn't apply in this case, though, as far as I can see..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'History' section was added by an IP in September 2007; the first appearance of the same information (or the first time it was captured) ion the club's website appears to be March 2008. Take from that what you will. GiantSnowman 10:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That archive capture is dated November 2007, not March 2008 (it says in the bar at the top, and in the url), and if "the club are looking forward to a new challenge in the Southern League" is anything to go by, that version appears to have been last updated in 2004. If I had to guess, I'd guess the wording was copied from the club website, in which case, as there's no evidence for the text being free to use, it should be removed. Or edited down and sourced to the current website history page would be better, if anyone was keen enough to do it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I clicked on 'March 2008' on the Wayback Machine as that was the earliest one available - odd. Good spot though, as always. GiantSnowman 10:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a go at re-writing the history section some time later today. Had to do the same with Chippenham Town the other day, so this one is similar. Thanks for the help in working out which way the copy paste occurred! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the copyrighted material and replaced it was a proper history section now, plus stadium and colours sections. Squad was in need of a big update too. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Some task

There is one task: User:Pakhtakorienne doesn't tag his created pages, so... --84.245.231.134 (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it that important? Who cares about the levels anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree Koppapa that the point of the project is to improve football-related articles? If we can't find them, we can't improve them... Cloudz679 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a part of the Project, yes, but only a minor one. A better idea would have been to assume good faith - the editor in question probably doesn't know that that is expected; I have now advised them of this. GiantSnowman 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged nine recent pages that the user created, just in case. Cloudz679 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, appreciated. GiantSnowman 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Match articles and the OVERUSE OF CAPITALS

Hey project. I've noticed that in a number of match articles which feature team lineups etc, we seem content to use the team names three times, one of which is usually in capitals. I don't see the point in this at all, so unless otherwise advised, I would advocate we just don't do it. For instance, see the edit I made here. Both Zenit and Rangers are mentioned above (in the score summary) and below (under the kit description). Do we really need ZENIT and RANGERS below those? Also, why is the score in the final spaced (e.g. 2 – 0) while all other instances of score lines in the article unspaced? Consistency please... Note: I've changed a few, but will change all the others (and there are many!) unless there's a consensus against it... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The score in the {{footballbox}} template is spaced because it looks silly unspaced. – PeeJay 21:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay, so it looks "silly" in the template if unspaced but the rest of all the prose everywhere else is unspaced. I think your argument is silly. MOS suggests unspaced en-dashes. Why should this be any different? And actually, the template doesn't put a pair of spaces in, that's just down to the user. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The MOS suggests unspaced endashes in prose; the footballbox template isn't prose, so the same rules need not apply. It really does look truly ridiculous to have the score unspaced in the footballbox, especially when there's so much whitespace around it. – PeeJay 21:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So you'd go just one single scoreline in an entire article spaced? Where's the logic in that? "Truly ridiculous"? Really? Your only argument is that "it looks silly"? And it doesn't "look silly" in the prose, but it "looks silly" in the summary? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would. Consistency is fine, but we're after a good-looking encyclopaedia here (as well as being factually accurate), and you can call it my own subjective opinion if you want, but I do think it looks silly to have the score unspaced in the footballbox template. – PeeJay 21:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So your argument is 100% fundamentally subjective to the point of "I like it better than that"? Well considering all other score lines in all articles use an unspaced en-dash, I would suggest your "good looking" encyclopaedia argument is ill-founded. I like Comic Sans (who doesn't?) but I don't insist on imposing it on all articles that I like. That's why we have a manual of style and why we should strive for consistency in our article formatting. Not "because I like it", more "because it fits the style guide the entire project is based upon". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen many other people complaining about the use of spaces in the template before, so that would suggest that a fair few people here have no problem with it. TBH, your argument is very similar to my own in that you seem to prefer it aesthetically unspaced. Nevertheless, I suggest you leave the spaces as they were until some other people comment in this discussion. – PeeJay 21:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. Why have every single score in an article unspaced bar one? It's not a template issue either, it's just the fact that some spaces have been added. The template is free text so it is very easy to make it align with the MOS and align with the rest of every single article per WP:DASH. Of course, if you could offer an objective argument why the only scoreline in an article to use spaced en-dashes is good and fine, I'm happy to hear it. There are many dozens (maybe hundreds) of articles like this with just one single spaced scoreline, with unspaced score lines in the infobox in the lead, unspaced score lines in the body of the text, and just one single spaced scoreline in the summary. Why is that a good idea for a professional, consistently formatted encyclopaedia? You don't seem to have any substantive argument other than "I like it that way". Unless I've missed something? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TRM on this they should be unspaced, it is inconsistent, and goes against MOS. I changed this in a few of the articles I got to GA a while back, but by the looks of it, those edits were reverted, based on the argument Peejay states above. I also agree the use of team names above the players should be scrapped, it's overkill having the names repeated three times in close succession. NapHit (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing I can find in the MOS that suggests it applies only to prose. The advice to editors in this older version of MOS:DASH (that isn't there any more, but the point still applies) "Editors should consider recasting complex measures; particularly where space is not at a premium (i.e. body text and not tables)" (my highlighting) made it explicit that it does apply outside prose. Personally, I do use unspaced endashes in scorelines in order to comply with the MoS. And have reverted changes to spaced where the changer cited the instructions at Template:Footballbox_collapsible#Usage. The matter was raised some time ago at Template talk:Football box/Archive 1#WP:ENDASH, and appeared to come to the conclusion that the template wasn't MoS-compliant and should be be made so, but it was never done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's inconsistent yeah, but there are other bigger things in WP:Sports in general that don't fit with MOS. Date ranges in season articles according to WP:YEAR should be separated by a slash rather than an endash as they are periods of 12 months, not 2 years. I personally prefer the endash use as it fits with all other date ranges used in, for example, birth–death ranges or career ranges on football player articles. But yeah, MOS seems to be quite flexible at times. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well just because other articles don't fit with MOS, it doesn't mean they're right. We, as a project, should do our best to produce a professional set of articles, which means going with the MOS wherever possible and producing internally consistent formatting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like everyone is agreed that the USE OF CAPS should be deprecated. That's a good start. Cloudz679 10:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm absolutely certain that User:Tony1 has raised the issue of spaces within football templates before. I'm not particularly bothered about the MOS on dashes, but whether we comply with it or not, I do agree with the argument for internal consistency within individual articles. —WFC— 20:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

So, are we heading towards a consensus to (a) remove the repetitive and over-capitalised team names and (b) at least maintain an internally consistent format to scorelines e.g. either all unspaced en-dashes or spaced en-dashes or whatever? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I believe that there's a reasonable argument now to remove the overcapitalised team names and make sure internally that score lines are consistent. I will commence a sweep tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Africa Cup of Nations - statistics

The table at Africa Cup of Nations#Overall team records (permanent link), which currently takes into account tournaments up to and including 2010, is obviously wrong because there is a difference of one goal between the total goals scored and the total goals conceded. I dug out all the match results from the articles on the past tournaments and, using MS Ecxel, I calculated the records of each team - and several errors in that table showed up. While there's no guarantee I haven't mistaken anything, there is not a single difference between my results and de:Fußball-Afrikameisterschaft#Ewige Tabelle (permanent link) - except that it gives 29 losses to Algeria instead of 20, but that looks more like a typo than an error in the calculations. Both tables will require updating tomorrow. Shall I change the figures in Africa Cup of Nations according to my calculations? --Theurgist (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If your table is right and the original table is wrong then yeah, go nuts.--EchetusXe 14:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it not be WP:OR though? Since it's the users work and unreferenced? Although I do agree that it should be updated .. TonyStarks (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I did edit the table. I double-checked the figures, and I'll be watching it from now on. The version prior to my edit wasn't referenced either, and data that is unreferenced but almost certainly correct is preferable to data that is both unreferenced and mathematically impossible. On the one hand this is original research, but on the other it's pure 'rithmetics. --Theurgist (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ghana doesn't add up: 96-59 is not +38. -Koppapa (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem is these tables are really hard too keep track of and the meaning of them is very little. Many all-time tables were proded and deleted for that very reason. I linked two sources in the article, both are consistent in number of wins/losses, and goal difference by itself. They differ however slightly. RSSSF is only up to 2006 and has 1116:1116 goals, which should now be 1116 + 99 + 71 + 76 = 1362:1362. the-sports.com has 1366:1366. The OR-wikipedia one is now, with 76 added from 2012, 1364:1363. I'd say either find which is right (if even possible) and follow that one, or delete that section completely. -Koppapa (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I did correct Ghana, but someone found it nice to undo my edit. --Theurgist (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of updating it to reflect 2012. Again, it perfectly coincided with the German Wikipedia, except for a couple of technical errors there which I also corrected.

I think the-sports.org may have mixed up the two Congos somewhere.

DR Congo

	Apps	Pld	W	D	L	GD	+/−
the-sports.org	13	50	16	14	20	62:70	−8
RSSSF	15	56	16	15	25	64:80	−16
me and the German WP	15	56	16	15	25	65:81	−16

Congo

	Apps	Pld	W	D	L	GD	+/−
the-sports.org	8	28	5	7	16	24:45	−21
RSSSF	6	22	5	6	11	21:34	−13
me and the German WP	6	22	5	6	11	21:34	−13

Apart from that, the-sports.org gives one more goal in favour of each of Tunisia and Ethiopia and one more goal against each of Nigeria and South Africa than I managed to calculate. --Theurgist (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Bean

Ex-footballer Bobby Bean is reported in my local paper to have died recently. He played professionally for Bexleyheath & Welling F.C. 1952-57, and had one trial match with West Ham Utd in the 1952-53 season. He had the option to sign professionally for Chelsea in 1953 but decided to continue his apprenticeship as a printers' engineer. From 1957 he played for Tunbridge Wells F. C.

As a Kent-related subject, I have a passing interest here. Does this player meet the notability requirements to sustain an article? Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not, Bexleyheath & Welling and Tunbridge Wells have never played in fully professional leagues (in fact I'd question the paper's claim that he played professionally for B & W, who only played in the Kent League at the time - at best he would have been a semi-pro, not an actual professional), and having a trial or being offered a contract with one which did is not sufficient to pass WP:FOOTY. So, unless an exceptional level of coverage could be demonstrated to meet WP:GNG, he does not meet any of the notability requirements.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Chris, did you mean "have not played in fully professional leagues"? I just want to be completely clear as I don't want to waste time by writing an article that has no chance of surviving an AfD. I'm not interested in the fact that he was a footballer per se, just that he is a possible Kent-related bio. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've corrected that whilst I was typing my question. OK, thanks for the info. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If he meets the WP:GNG then he would be notable, regardless of what level of football he played at. GiantSnowman 11:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There is probably lots of coverage in local papers, but I haven't the time to research these. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think local papers count towards the GNG. Otherwise we could have articles on many semi-pro players and Sunday league teams. Number 57 09:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no distinction in WP:RS between local, regional and national newspapers. They are all reliable. That established, this WP could have many articles on semi-pro players, iff an editor was to take the time to do the research. Sunday league team players would be much harder to argue for on notability grounds, but there is possibly a case to be made for semi-pros. That said, I'm not going to write Bobby Bean's article. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't reliable (I've used them to source notable subjects), but rather that local news coverage does not confer notability. I was also referring to Sunday league football clubs, not players. Number 57 15:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Years in European association football navigational boxes

Does anyone know why the templates in Category:Years in European association football navigational boxes all have a "(UEFA)" suffix? Even if the type of football was considered ambiguous (which I don't think it is for these navboxes) "UEFA" is not a code of football. --Jameboy (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Previous CfDs have concluded that "English football" is sufficient to identify the sport without further disambiguation. I suspect a similar nomination for "European football" would result in a similar outcome. —WFC— 13:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like UEFA is used as a constraint (used only for countries which are UEFA members), which is not exactly the same as Europe. So it looks like UEFA is defining Europe, not football. Cloudz679 13:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cloudz is exactly right. Since "Europe" is not the same geographically as it is in footballing terms, the "UEFA" suffix merely serves to define the scope of the templates. – PeeJay 00:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Years in UEFA football then? -Koppapa (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to change something that doesn't seem to be broken. I say leave it. – PeeJay 10:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment backlog

I noticed that at the Requests for assessment, there are two articles (Northwich Victoria F.C. and 2010-11 Juventus F.C. season) which have been waiting more than one year for an assessment. There are five more which have been there more than six months. These are Mansfield Town F.C., History of Mansfield Town F.C., List of American and Canadian soccer champions, 1903 German football championship and FC Nordsjælland. If anyone has time to assess them, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. - Cloudz679 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Mattythewhite for blitzing the entire list in one go! Cloudz679 17:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:UEFA Champions League seasons

Aren't the Knockout phase, Second group stage, Group stage, and Qualifying rounds rather excessive?--EchetusXe 20:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd delete all but season and final. Everthing else is easily accesssed though the main season article. -Koppapa (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Second that. Considering the competition format has changed a jillion times, would be best to delete all bar final and season. – Lemonade51 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Players in the First League of Montenegro

Greetings everyone, there's just an issue that I would like to bring to light here. Any footballers who have played solely in the First League of Montenegro can't get articles due to speedy deletion. Apparently, the justification for such speedy deletions is that "the league in which these players play isn't a fully-professional league." Now, this is on the basis of one news article from several years ago (back when sports were just being reformed after the nation's independence in 2006) that an "amateur league had been formed in 2006." Players who have only played a single minute in the first-tier Bosnian or Macedonian leagues can get their articles, so how is it that players who are having remarkable careers in the first-tier league of Montenegro can't get an article too? If professionalism is the sole barrier here, it is still not an excuse for keeping editors from making articles on players in the 1.CFL because players who have only played in USL Premier Development League get articles even though the league's article clearly states that it itself is not a fully-professional league. I think this should be brought up to attention. Thanks in advance guys. Balkanskiredneck (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The USL PDL is not listed at WP:FPL. If you have more recent sources showing that the Montenegrin league is professional then add the source. Eldumpo (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that any articles exist where a player, who doesn't meet the general notability guidlines and has only played in the USL PDL, has a page. Do you have an example, Balkanskiredneck? Any football article which doesn't meet GNG or WP:FOOTYN can be reasonably deleted. Cloudz679 08:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the clubs from this league states that their players have signed "professional" contracts, is this a proper source or on the right path? http://www.fkbuducnost.co.me/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=338:nika-golubovi-vukevi-i-jovovi-vjerni-matinom-klubu&catid=19:vijesti Zastavafan76 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom football derbies

I think there are a number of derby articles linked at this template which may not be notable. I've glanced at a few and they don't appear to demonstrate the derby has sufficient coverage, as opposed to just listing matches that have been played. Particular examples include M4 derby, Humber derby (check out the use of colour) and South Lancashire derby. The parent article at the top of template appears to contain many other such 'derbies'. Any other views? Eldumpo (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, this is purely from life experience and anecdotal evidence and not backed up by sources, but I, too, struggle to see how the M4 derby is notable, especially as there's no article for Swindon's (much fiercer) rivalry with Oxford. On a related note, This and this are a mess, both in terms of sourcing and consistency. Perhaps Local derbies in the United Kingdom could be split into four articles and a link thereto could be left at List of association football club rivalries by country and the relevant section blanked.  Omg †  osh  13:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that it contains derbies from the top 2 divisions in each country (possible 3for England) and that new pages be created for all the derbies in each country eg- English football derbies and Scottish football derbies etc. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It should only contain derbies that can be shown to be notable. The tier is not important. I suspect that Luton v Watford is far more notable than Swindon v Reading (agree that their derby is with Oxford Utd) despite Luton now being in the fifth tier of English football. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I of course would be biased to comment on the Watford derby's notability in isolation, but agree with the point Ilikeeatingwaffles is making. The important thing is to take into account a derby's current and historical importance, not the size of the clubs involved or the current or historical level at which it is played. I'd say for instance that the Bradford derby was notable in its time, even though it's of little relevance to either club today. Despite being between two massive clubs, Arsenal-Chelsea is more borderline in my eyes. Arsenal have historically seen Spurs as their main rivals, and their second has generally been the most successful team of the time from the North West. Chelsea would usually put Spurs, West Ham and the other teams in Hammersmith ahead of the Gooners. (EDIT: I forgot to mention Millwall, but no-one cares about them and they don't like it —WFC— 16:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC))

I'm also dubious of "circumstantial" derbies: ties between two clubs that have no obvious reason to be considered a derby other than the fact that they happened to be successful at the same time and have one or two high-profile matches. Specifically I'm thinking Chelsea-Leeds and Arsenal-Manchester United. —WFC— 15:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose me standardising everything in this category to 'Association football rivalries in X'?  Omg †  osh  17:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean WP:CFD to 'Association football rivalries in England' etc.? GiantSnowman 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with consistent use of the "(appropriate name of the sport) in (country)" format, although not necessarily using "association football" universally. While we're on this subject, I think Category:United Kingdom football derbies should be deleted. The one article in it can just go in Category:Association football rivalries. —WFC— 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to completely disagree and say that the template is fine as is. It's a template to navigate across different derby matches. If the derby match is notable enough to have a page, then why not contain it in the template for completeness. Brad78 (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangers

Just a heads-up, Rangers have announced an intention to enter administration. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangers have now entered adminstration and will be deducted 10 points. I'm guessing the 2011–12 SPL table needs to be updated and anyone with time to add the administration bit into the Rangers article should do so. – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

James Jennings

Would someone mind casting an eye over James Jennings? An editor insists on readding unsourced information and unlicened images, claiming that the details have come from the article's subject. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding representative league appearances to infoboxes

I started a post on this topic a little while back, whereby I queried the addition of representative appearances (e.g. at Billy Steel) to the infobox. There were a number of comments made, but the discussion ended without agreement. There are four main approaches that I can see:

1. Amend the 'National Teams' section of the infobox to say 'Representative Teams', so that the heading would allow for the inclusion of these League XIs.
2. Add new coding to the infobox to allow a new 'Representative Teams' section to cover these appearances i.e. this would be in addition to the National Teams section, and representative apps should move to the new section.
3. Remove all instances of these matches from the infobox.
4. Allow inclusion of these games without any additional labelling i.e. as the Billy Steel example.

It may be there are other solutions. Can you indicate your preference so we can take things forward. Whatever the outcome the template doc will need to be updated accordingly. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with the third one: "Remove all instances of these matches from the infobox." I don't see any reason why we should include these in the infobox, especially considering it only applies to a select few players (among the tens of thousands of footballers out there), whereas club and international football apply to every footballer. I suggest you add the information to the body of the article with a stats table similar to the national team one.TonyStarks (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I take the opposite view - that representative appearances should be included in the infobox. Of the "tens of thousands" of footballers, the percentage with any form of international appearance is quite low, so that argument is a non-starter. Personally, I would rank the options in order 1, 2, 4 (never 3). -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Third one for me. The infobox is a quick way to find out about league club and international team appearances. Any appearances of another sort, e.g. World XI, matches against Hong Kong which don't count as FIFA-recognised matches, etc can be integrated into the main article, with the stats table similar to the national team one if absolutely necessary. "Representative Teams" is too PC for me. Cloudz679 06:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think they should be included. Although I don't see any major problems with 1, 2 or 4. I think option two would be the best to make it as clear as possible. Edinburgh Wanderer 08:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh Wanderer Mobile (talk • contribs)

I would prefer option 4, and if not then option 2 - the seperation of 'International' and 'Representative' in the infobox, just as we have seperate sections for 'Youth' and 'College' career.... GiantSnowman 09:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd not mention them, they are just friendlies. Most stars play a last goodby-friendly agaisnt a world 11 or national 11 or league 11 with their frieds. Should those all be included? -Koppapa (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Option number 4 is easier. Lets go with that.--EchetusXe 09:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Kangaroo, what I meant by "tens of thousands", I meant that these League XI's are only used by a select few countries and only at a select point in time (if I'm not mistaken). Therefore, this issue only applies to maybe a hundred footballers. I really don't see how we can justify adding that to the infobox. According to this template , only 9 such teams exist, and half don't even have articles. On the flip side of my earlier comment, when I said tens of thousands, I meant that every single football has the potential to represent his country, meaning every footballer is "affected", that is not the case with these Select sides. Long story short, I'm completely against it and it makes absolutely no sense to me to include these. But as is usually the case, our euro-centric approach to football related matters will probably push this through. TonyStarks (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I will go for number 3 mainly because, like some other users pointed out, these matches are just friendlies and most of the time are just testimonials or charity games. Also if we add the representative caps it would make notable articles, like Gary Neville, Patrick Vieira, Robert Pirès etc have the wrong information as all three of those players were in the Paul Scholes testimonial which was a match between Manchester United and the New York Cosmos. These three players were on the Cosmos for that match. Does that mean we should add New York Cosmos 1 (0) to the infobox? I would hope not.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think people are misunderstanding what we mean by "representative" - not just any old charity/friendly match, but official league teams, such as Scottish League XI and Irish League representative team. GiantSnowman 12:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not official. They are friendlies, albeit organized by the leagues themselves. They are not FIFA sanctioned matches, they don't fall under club or country, they are just gala matches, no different than "Zidane's friends vs Ronaldo's friends" friendly that took a place a couple years back. TonyStarks (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You've kinda contradicted yourself there - officially sanctioned by the league is waaaay different to Zidane getting his jet-setting mates to play 90mins for his charitable foundation. GiantSnowman 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the contradiction? At the end of the day, they are both gala matches, the teams are just assembled differently. TonyStarks (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Option 4 is fine, it's clear enough from the text of each article what the term means. There is an awful lot of recentism in the argument that the inter-league internationals aren't important. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for option 4 as well. BigDom 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 4 would be my first option actually - have clarified my earlier comments. GiantSnowman 15:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I would support 4 in the absence of sufficient support for 3. Cloudz679 17:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a weak preference for 3. While I do accept that these games were significant, IMO trying to put them in the infobox is more trouble than it's worth. If we are doing this, I think it should be options 1 or 2. I'm strongly opposed to 4: I don't think we should inaccurately label these matches as internationals in the name of simplicity (especially when it would be simpler not to have them in the infobox at all). —WFC— 23:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary

Most people have provided reasoning for their choice, and there is a slight preference for removing over keeping them without changes, with a couple of people choosing the 'extra labelling' options. Given that these are to a degree a halfway position between keeping/removing, what do people think about choosing one of these as the way forward, in order to try and achieve overall consensus. If you haven't already provided your order of preference, which of the two labelling options do you prefer (Option 1 or 2), and do you agree that trying to progress with one of these is the best way forward, given the outcome. Eldumpo (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Big Jock Knew" article.

Hello everyone, I came across this article after User:The C of E talked about it on the Jock Stein page. I don't think its an appropriate article because firstly, it isn't even about the song (that word being used loosely, the lyrics are just shouting Big Jock Knew) and the word song isn't even in the title. It just seems to be a way for The C of E to try and get his views onto Wikipedia after he wasn't allowed to put them in the Jock Stein article. Also it seems to be lacking inherent notability on its own and the majority of sources don't seem to be mainly about that song. Even still its not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article. What course of action, if any, should be taken. I personally think it should be AfD'd but I could be completely wrong. Thanks.Adam4267 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but unfortunately the song has had significant coverage in the mainstream media (eg1) and would almost certainly be kept at AfD. Anyway, you may not have to worry too much longer about Rangers fans singing anything! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well according to SSN they'll be in administration in less than 90 mins. Anyway regarding the article, do you think it should be moved to Big Jock Knew (song) and maybe tidied up a bit. Adam4267 (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any point moving it, since there isn't any ambiguity in the title. BigDom 14:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you check the history as I did not try to put it in the Jock Stein article before I made it and only suggested that afterwards. I do object to the notion that these are my own personal views, I simply wrote what the sources said. After all, if I was so for it, then I wouldn't have included the bit where it was called repugnant. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Im of a similar view to Jmorrison. I don't like it all but thats not a reason for deleting. It is covered in multiple sources so probably not going anywhere. I would prefer it to be moved to Big Jock Knew (song) however.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of unpleasant football songs. Occasionally they get mentioned briefly or alluded to in mainstream media. Very few of them are notable. To me the article reads like a compendium of minor media mentions tied together with synthesis. At most, a redirect (not merge) to Old Firm is warranted. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Old El Paso, distasteful songs sung by many English clubs are often covered in the media yet don't have articles. This article isn't really about the song, its about this supposed Big Jock Knew incident. The majority of the sources mention it in passing and do not confer notability per WP:GNG. Adam4267 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Its up to you but if you strongly feel that way take it to AFD and see what happens. Yes there any many tasteless songs in football not just in england but from other Scottish clubs as well Rangers certainly aren't alone. And personally i don't think they have a place here but I don't like it is an argument to avoid. have you looked to see if there are other sources out there as i can see it scraping through and if there are any other sources out there then its highly likely to stay. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be moved to Big Jock Knew (song)? What other meanings of Big Jock Knew are there that would mean disambiguation was required? --Jameboy (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Jacopo Sala (footballer)

Could a sysop please move Jacopo Sala (footballer) to Jacopo Sala? The latter was salted back in 2010, but the player has since made his professional debut in Germany and the article was created with the disambiguator. Jared Preston (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Jared Preston (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

LFC in Europe FAC

Hey guys the article Liverpool F.C. in European football has been at FAC for a while now and has only had reviews from two users. I would be extremely grateful if anyone could have a look at the article and give a few comments, cheers NapHit (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about templates

Hello, I have just a quick question regarding how to change the way a template works. Here's the issue:

• {{fbw|ASA}} should link to the American Samoa women's national football team, however when I put it in an article, it comes out like this American Samoa, instead showing the men's national team. Can anyone tell me how to fix this problem? Thanks in advance, --Spartan008 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Might be it was this addition other countries don't have taht parameter. -Koppapa (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's right, as USA has the parameter too, and {{fbw|USA}} works fine United States. U+003F^? 11:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a FYI, that addition was done upon a request of mine. I didn't think that would do anything wrong, because I hadn't thought of the American Samoa women's team. Template:Country data United States has a "United States {{{age|}}} {{{mw|men's}}} national soccer team" value for the {{{link alias-football}}} parametre. Maybe this would be the correct addition for the American Samoa template too. I'm not sure though... --Theurgist (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which names are correct, but for American Samoa and Samoa football team articles, the naming convention should really be standardized to either all use "national association" or just "national" in the titles so these templates can work for any instance without creating redirects. So that everyone knows, American Samoa uses "national association" for men's but not women's and Somoa uses "national association" for both. However, both use just "national" for the "under-nn" links in their navboxes (the pages aren't actually created yet). The simplest thing to do is move the American Samoa's women's article to use "national association" and update the redlinks in the navboxes, since that's just one page move. Then both countries' templates can use the |link alias-football= parameter set up like some of the other countries' country data templates. Just need a consensus on the appropriate naming. — Bility (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your course of action in order to solve the problem. --Spartan008 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree but ... is it possible to change the value of the alias to get a temporary (but quick) solution to the problem? I don't understand the intricacies of these templates. U+003F^? 10:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've already proposed a solution at the template talk page that will work, only it creates redirects in the case of American Samoa men's football. This note was to suggest some football experts clean up a title standardization issue—we'll take care of the template functionality. — Bility (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Petko Vasilev

can someone check this article? someone is continuously trying to remove all the references and change it to another individual with a different birth date. I can't tell if any of these corrections are legit. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone already reverted, but I went to the talk page of the user and it looks like he is trying to create an article for a different player. I've left him some information at his talk page, so hopefully the original page will now be ok. - Cloudz679 15:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I just noteced an equal case with Aleksandar Vuković, where the page was sistematically blanked so another (btw, non-notable) player content is put in place... FkpCascais (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Font size

Standings tables with clubs have the default value of the text font size (example), while standings tables with national teams usually specify a 90% value (example). Why? --Theurgist (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen a similar thing with career statistics tables for players; some are set at default while some are set at 90%. Going by what WP:Font#Font size says default-sized text should be used in this instance; it says that "large tables may require a decreased font size in order to fit on screen", but this is not the case here. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

To me, too, rendering the text smaller seems needless, but there are already awfully many templates that are having the font size decreased. Shall we begin to gradually change them? --Theurgist (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly; I've been changing font size back to default on a number of articles, this, this and this being a few examples. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But what shall we do upon such an occasion?

Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central African Republic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turks and Caicos Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Micronesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bosnia and Herzegovina — 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 Central African Republic 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 0–0 Turks and Caicos Islands 0–0 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 Northern Mariana Islands 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 Micronesia 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 —

There needn't be all six of them, one is fairly enough. --Theurgist (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

With the 90% value these tables look like this:

Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central African Republic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turks and Caicos Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Micronesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bosnia and Herzegovina — 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 Central African Republic 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 0–0 Turks and Caicos Islands 0–0 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 0–0 Northern Mariana Islands 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 — 0–0 Micronesia 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 —

That makes a difference, although not much of one. Yet, it made me think that decreasing the font size hadn't been an inherently bad idea despite the inconsistencies it produced. --Theurgist (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The template could be edited the way it has no fixed width. -Koppapa (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fan Chun Yip

The years in the infobox for Fan Chun Yip don't add up. The infobox says that he played for Hong Kong from 1998 to 2008 and for Hong Kong U-23 from 2005 to 2006. That would mean that he played his first senior international 7 years before his national youth team debut. But since he was born in 1976, it would also mean that he made his U-23 debut at age 29. Which obviously is impossible. Most likely explanation is that the years should be reversed, that he played for Hong Kong U-23 from 1998 to 2008 and for Hong Kong in 2005 and 2006. But that is also impossible. Because it would mean that he played his last U-23 match in 2008, at age 32. Does anyone know the real dates? 83.80.170.157 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears he played football at the 2006 Asian Games. Now I don't know about the Asian Games, but I presume each team is allowed to nominate three "over-age" players, similar to football at the Summer Olympics. Jared Preston (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Cup notability

I was just wondering if a player who appeared in the qualifying rounds of the UEFA Cup (now Europa League) qualifies as notable. I had always assumed that it was a fully pro competition but there's nothing to confirm that on the article or here. Does anyone know? BigDom 20:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My experience is that it does not grant notability. Over the past two years, I've nomminated for deletion some 20 articles on footballers whose primary claim to notability was having played in the qualifying rounds of the UEFA Cup, Europa League or Champions League. All of them were deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks for the reply. I think the player in question, Thierry Steimetz, will be notable come the weekend anyway as he should make his Ligue 2 debut. Was just wondering because he played (and scored) in the UEFA Cup for Grevenmacher a few years ago during his time in Luxembourg. BigDom 20:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely if they are both fully pro teams and its a notable competition it would. Could you explain why it wouldn't.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:NFOOTY says nothing about this, but my impression is that if a player appears for a fully pro team against another fully pro team (or was it only when two teams from FPL's? meet) in a cup match, they are notable. Not if one of the team are not fully professional.Mentoz86 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is true, there are literally hundreds of Irish footballers whose articles could/should be deleted. BigDom 21:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel if its a notable competition like Uefa/Europa league which does receive heavy coverage then they should be notable especially if they are pro teams.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that any UEFA qualifying match receives as much media (be it local, national or even continental) coverage as say, an English League 2 or German 3. Liga match, players in both of which are considered notable. BigDom 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case, particularly in the early rounds in which you can have clubs from the Faroes and Andorra playing each other. But back to the original question, I was under the impression that any competitive appearance for a club in an FPL (league or cup) confers notability, even if the opposition is semi-pro (so, for instance, someone making their Liverpool debut against a Conference team in the FA Cup would meet the spirit of WP:ATHLETE, if not the letter of the law. To EW, the reason why cup matches between two fully pro clubs does not count, is that they might both be from non-fully pro leagues (so, for instance a cup match between Luton and Wrexham does not lead to WP:ATHLETE passing as both clubs are in a non-fully pro league). Number 57 09:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was meaning fully pro leagues teams not just lower league teams who happen to be pro. I agree about the Liverpool comparison as we'll. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a player from a FPL, playing against a team from a FPL in such a competiton is notable. However, if either team is not from a FPL, then they are not notable. We need consensus on this though - I've just come across Alex Darlington. I don't think playing for a Welsh semi-pro team against an Irish semi-pro team makes you notable... GiantSnowman 12:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither do I - I've prodded that article. Number 57 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If there both semi pro then to me there not notable. If they are both from FPL then they are. I've always felt though that if in the example above Liverpool play a lower league team in the cup then to me that should become notable but it's obviously a grey area given the number of times we've discussed it. My reason for that is being the pro team they will receive a high level of coverage. Wouldnt work the other way around though. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Notable?

This chap - I've been watching the page because he was once on the Canaries' books... Sam Habergham. (Ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Habergham, which pre-dates his Tamworth days. --Dweller (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, he's not notable, playing at the Conference level does not confer notability. TonyStarks (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article which was recently re-deletedusing CSD, doesn't appear to meet GNG either - we could userfy it for you if you want to work on it to bring it up to scratch? GiantSnowman 09:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Newcastle United - stadium name in infobox

Following all the news about the signs being removed at St James' Park, Leaky caldron (talk · contribs) changed the infobox on Newcastle United F.C. to list the stadium as Sports Direct Arena. I reverted and noted consensus on using non-sponsored names. They then simply removed the name of the stadium from the infobox. I reverted again, was threatened with being reported, and was reverted (on the faulty premise of BRD). I have asked them to bring the issue here to discuss, but the response was to label WP:FOOTY as a "obscure little workshop page"/"little old group of editors". Can someone else intervene, as currently the infobox is missing a stadium name! Thanks, Number 57 11:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the name, and advised them to discuss the matter here. GiantSnowman 11:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Hopefully this issue will die down soon. Adam4267 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The stadium currently has no name - end of. I did not, as 57 states, change the name to the sponsored name. I simply reverted to a previous version which happened to contain only the sponsor name. When it was pointed by 57 that you have some local agreement about not using sponsor names I immediately removed the sponsor name so as not to upset that agreement. The fact remains that as of yesterday the stadium has no formal name [2]. Giant, please explain why you insist on continuing to call this place SJP when the whole of the North East is up in arms because the stadium names were removed yesterday? Are you ignorant of the facts here or just intransigent? Leaky Caldron 11:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because signs have been removed doesn't mean that the stadium is not still called SJP. Having the name of a stadium written on it is probably a moderately recent development. I would guess that most football stadiums of a similar age will have not had the name written on them for decades. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is still called SJP - it is merely temporarily the Sports Direct Arena for sponsorship reasons. There is absolutely no consensus for your edits. Oh, and I lived in Newcastle for a number of years so am fully aware of the issues surrounding the name/club. GiantSnowman 11:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Have you actually read WP:COMMONNAME which has been pointed out to you several times. Regardless of the name change people will still call it by its original name. Unless a source shows that the prevalent term used to describe it is something else. The article shows the sponsored name/former names and has appropriate redirects. One way in which this situation could be helped is by introducing a Also known as section in the infobox. Rather than (or aswell as) former name or nickname which doesn't always accurately show how many stadiums have more than one name. Adam4267 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Giant. You are incorrect. The official club website describes it as "formerly known as" SJP [3]. Leaky Caldron 11:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I am correct. The BBC says "The club said the change was temporary and it hoped to "showcase" the sponsorship opportunity to "interested parties." (my emphasis) GiantSnowman 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The only time it will be officially called SJP will be during the Olympics. It is "formerly known as SJP" by the club itself. It has no signs on the ground. How can you possibly maintain that it is still currently officially called SJP when you have no source to support it. Do you think that the earth is flat as well? Leaky Caldron 12:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying it's definitely not SJP, even though that is what it will be for the Olympics - in the future? And even though that is what the fans and media call it? Official name doesn't matter - I'd advise you to acquaint yourself with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS. GiantSnowman 12:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - The Premier League does not use sponsor names. [4].--Egghead06 (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Egghead: I think you'll find that that link proves exactly the opposite of what you sought to demonstrate: see the large blue box at the right of the screen. Kevin McE (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Kevin: scroll down to the 'Stadium Information' section, where it is still SJP. GiantSnowman 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a field headed as the address of the ground. The name of the ground is given as Sports Direct Arena, and is given far greater prominence on that page. There is no way that that page supports the position that Egghead claimed it did. Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The club website calls it "formerly SJP", the media reports it as no longer SJP, the official league website currently calls it something else but WP has to be held hostage to SJP by a few zealots who care more for history than reliably sourced fact. You couldn't make it up. Leaky Caldron 13:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To those clinging to the notion that WP:COMMONNAME supports continuing to call the stadium SJP despite all the contemporary evidence to the contrary, can I suggest "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change.". By the way, that insightful piece of policy comes from WP:COMMONNAME. Leaky Caldron 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not open a WP:RM? GiantSnowman 15:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move? Of What? I'm not looking at the SJP article. This is about an incorrect mention in the NUFC article infobox and refusal to describe it as "formerly SJP" in the lead, both of which contravene content policy. It will end up as a NPOV dispute unless it's changed to keep up with the WP:RS which clearly show that the stadium has changed name (or has no current name). I don't see what WP:RM has to do with it. Leaky Caldron 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The stadium is located at SJP, so that is how we should refer to it in other articles. If you wish for it to be referred to as DSA, then that's where it should be located. As a compromise, why not follow the lead of Valley Parade, which is a FA - "SJP, also known as the DSA through sponsorship rights..." GiantSnowman 15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your actions in reverting good faith edits this morning, without absorbing all of the facts, are a disgrace. For a veteran editor and newly appointed Admin. they are reprehensible. I've a good mind to go straight to ANI, not about the content dispute but regarding your actions. If you cannot accept good faith edits made based on policy, i.e. WP:RS and WP:NPOV without knee-jerk reverts I hope you show better judgement when it comes to your Admin. responsibilities. You make the change, and stick by it when your footy pals revert it. Leaky Caldron 16:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If anything here is reprehensible it is your attitude. I began the discussion with you on the subject in good faith, and it quickly deteriorated when you started making threats and misrepresenting guidelines. As GiantSnowman suggested, if you want the Newcastle article changed, start a WP:RM on St James' Park. In the meantime, any links to that article should reflect its title. Number 57 16:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The stadium is officially the Sports Direct Arena, the rights were bought by Sports Direct and all signage with the former name of St James' removed. Stop referring to it by its old name as it has been rebranded. You might want to place the address of the Sports Direct Arena as St James' Park but the stadium name has changed. Peoples personal views should not be allowed to continue giving out misinformation, this is Wikipedia not a fans site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.130.113 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest it might be an idea to decide how to deal with these stadium namings which, I suspect, will become a bigger part of the football scene. For example - JJB Stadium redirects to DW Stadium, Whaddon Road does not redirect to Abbey Business Stadium, if fact the opposite. We also have the problem of timeline. The Wigan Athletic F.C. article says they have played at the DW stadium since 1999 when they have played at the JJB Stadium and the DW Stadium since 1999. It's obviously emotive - any change on deciding on a Wiki naming and usage convention?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We have had a convention for years - that sponsored names are only used for stadiums that have only ever had sponsored names (the DW Stadium fits into that category). I don't think the timeline in the Wigan article is an issue, as it is the same stadium. Number 57 16:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Conventions are not a substitute for policy. St. James' Park is history - I'm watching the rebranding to SDA now on BBC Look North. You can live in the past with your outdated convention - WP needs to reflect the facts, with an obvious reference to the venerable history. Leaky Caldron 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest renaming it to The Stadium Formerly Known as St James' Park. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems strange how heated debates on this project always seem to be ended by someone making a bad joke. Nice one doc, hehe.--EchetusXe 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

CAF U17 women

I created an article about the CAF tournament determining the African qualifiers to the U17 FIFA world cup, but have now redirected as i became aware it already existed: African U-17 Cup of Nations for Women. That name sounds strange, should it be moved to African U-17 Women's Cup of Nations? There also exist two articles for the 2010 tournament 2010 African U-17 Women's Championship, 2010 African U-17 Cup of Nations for Women with the first the better article. So should we move the main article and the the individual tournament, redirecting all the others? -Koppapa (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

First we should decide on the correct name, then request a WP:HISTMERGE. GiantSnowman 20:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've googled "Cup of Nations for Women" , but apart from Wikipedia mirrors and unreliable websites, there were no sources naming the event as such. "African Women's Cup of Nations" was more successful, as it produced two reliable links [5] [6], among others. – Kosm1fent 20:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, you are talking about the under-17 event. – Kosm1fent 20:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

CAF website calls it mostly just AFRICAN PRELIMINARIES OF THE U-17 FIFA WORLD CUP, the section is called CAN though, which is short for Coupe d'Afrique des Nations. Fifa doesn't name it. -Koppapa (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The U20 has the same naming. After some googling i guess "CAF Women's U-20 Championship" or "CAF U-20 Women's Championship" should be the name. CAF used it, FIFA too. -Koppapa (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Filip Filipov

I've skrewed up some page moves and need the help of admin to fix it. I came across Filip Filipov (defender), which is obviously the wrong disambigutor. Realising that the article at Filip Filipov was also a footballer, I moved it to Filip Filipov (footballer born 1988). It wasn't until after the move, that I realised the two articles are about the same person. I can someone please sort this out. Sorry about the mess. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

All sorted - all the histories of the various pages are now merged into that one. I left the one with the picture as the current version. Number 57 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Games: Football events

If you're participating or considering in participating in Wikimedians to the Games, you may be interested in attending the events below. They may provide an opportunity to get information to write a Wikinews article or to take pictures for points on Commons. If you're not participating, it would still be great to see people attending these events to take pictures for use on Wikipedia and Wikinews. If you do decide to attend, consider hosting a Wikimedia meetup at the end or the evening of the event, or even just letting HOPAU organisers know you are planning to attend. If you leave a message on my talk page, I can help you promote the meetup. :) If you need help with organising attendance because of transport cost issues or accessibility in terms of wanting press access, again please get in touch. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disability football in Queensland

• Sunday 8 April National Championships TBA Rockhampton [7]

Blind futsal in South Australia

• 17 March 2012 - National Champtionships, Campbelltown Leisure Centre Adelaide, South Australia[8]

Disability Football in Western Australia

• Sunday 26 February WA Paralympic Session (with match) Cambridge [9]
• Sunday 4 March WA Paralympic Session (Competition preparation) Gibbney Res[10]
• Sunday 11 March WA Paralympic Session (with match) Gibbney Res[11]
• Sunday 18 March WA Paralympic Session (Competition preparation) Gibbney Res[12]
• Sunday 25 March WA Paralympic Session (with match) Gibbney Res[13]
• Sunday 1 April WA Paralympic Camp TBD[14]
• Friday 6 April WA Paralympic Camp TBD[15]
• Saturday 7 April WA Paralympic Camp TBD[16]

The return (?) of Antony1821/1994

Prokingsley (talk · contribs) is showing disturbingly similar editing behaviour (editing predominately Olympiakos F.C.-related articles) and also disturbingly similar aversion to policies and guidelines (he has recreated the recently nominated-for-deletion article Nikos Papadopoulos twice so far). Could someone set an eye on him, because I'm 80% sure this user is a sock? – Kosm1fent 20:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated an WP:SPI to look into the matter. Please place any further comments here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1821. Sir Sputnik (talk)

Thanks! – Kosm1fent 08:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh (but still very far from the record holder and his 70+ accounts)... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Premier League Manager of the Season FLC

Just a quick reminder that this list has been nominated for little over a month and could do with a consensus being reached. As it currently stands, the nomination has two supports as well as comments from two different reviewers which have been addressed. I would appreciate if anyone can give some input, preferably making a final decision. The Manager himself is a rather fast black man Thanks -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this move correct.

The page Celtic 9-0 Aberdeen was moved so that it was an en-dash between the two scores rather than an ordinary dash. Is this correct, to me it doesn't look right because the dash it too big but I've never really paid to much attention to WP:ENDASH. Could someone who understands it please tell me if the page is titled correctly. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes the page move is correct, as en-dash is the correct way to separate the scoreline. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Excess detail in player articles

Some of the player articles are turning into commentaries that note every goal a player scores because some editors don't know the difference between an encyclopedia and Match of the Day. The project may wish to keep an eye on this. Britmax (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Feel free to do something about this yourself in any pages you watch. I certainly do that myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I will do that but cannot stem this tide alone. (Ha! Where did that amusingly dramatic sentence come from)? Britmax (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I remember when i first edited Pedro Rodríguez Ledesma, there was a sentence for EVERY MATCH he played in two seasons or similar, i duly arranged it but still think it's too long. Also, one anon editor took it upon himself last year or so (he seems to have ceased since) to write about EVERY GAME played by Blackburn Rovers' footballers. Quite the tide to be stemmed indeed! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Squad templates

I dare say this question has been asked before but does anyone know if there is a policy regarding how a players name should appear in a teams squad template. i.e should Robin van Persie appear as van Persie or as it apppears on his shirt v. Persie. Any help gratefully received. Quentin X (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignacio Pérez Tella - AfD all over

User:MYS77 and another one of his creations, i am 99,999999% sure this chap as not played in higher than Tercera División! Could someone help me out please? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

PROD'ed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)