Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FOOTY)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

RM notification[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at CCCF, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvyjack23 (talkcontribs)

Team names and piping[edit]

I have had a discussion at my talkpage with User:Klõps regarding piping of team names in {{2015 Meistriliiga table}} and since we can not agree any input would be appreciated.

The discussion is mainly about how to pipe the clubs Tartu JK Tammeka and Viljandi JK Tulevik.

When I created the table I made these pipings:

I made the pipings based on different pages and how other display the teams, according to

Team\Site UEFA FIFA Estonian league Soccerway Flashscore Livefootball
FC Flora FC Flora Tallinn Flora Tallinn Tallinna FC Flora Flora Flora Flora Tallinn
FC Infonet FC Infonet Tallinn FC Infonet Tallinna FC Infonet Tallinna Infonet Infonet Infonet Tallinn
FC Levadia Tallinn FC Levadia Tallinn FC Levadia Tallinn Tallinna FC Levadia Levadia Levadia Levadia Tallinn
JK Narva Trans JK Narva Trans Trans Narva JK Narva Trans Trans Narva Trans Narva
Nõmme Kalju FC Nõmme Kalju FC Kalju Nõmme Nõmme Kalju FC Nõmme Kalju Kalju Nomme JK Kalju
JK Sillamäe Kalev JK Sillamäe Kalev Kalev Sillamäe JK Sillamäe Kalev Sillamäe Kalev Sillamäe Kalev JK Sillamae Kalev
Paide Linnameeskond Paide Linnameeskond Paide Linnameeskond Paide Linnameeskond Paide Paide Linnameeskond Paide Linnameeskond
Pärnu Linnameeskond Pärnu Linnameeskond Pärnu Linnameeskond Pärnu Linnameeskond Pärnu Pärnu Linnameeskond Pärnu Linnameeskond
Tartu JK Tammeka JK Tammeka Tartu Tammeka Tartu Tartu JK Tammeka Tammeka Tammeka Tartu Tammeka
Viljandi JK Tulevik Tulevik Tulevik Viljandi Viljandi JK Tulevik Tulevik Tulevik Tulevik Viljandi

Looking at the table above (undisputed top 8 first), FC Flora is mainly known as "Flora Tallinn" internationally and when playing in UEFA competitions (Champions league and Europa league) and the top 8 seems pretty standard. Perhaps FC Infonet should be piped to "Infonet Tallinn" instead of just "Infonet"?

But the two last teams are in dispute. Not a single source, except the estonian league, lists Tammeka as "Tartu Tammeka" that User:Klõps tried changing to but all seems to start with Tammeka and to list as "Tammeka Tartu" doers not seem wrong? Same for Tulevik.

Also if/when they will play in Europa League or Champions League I feel like many sources, like BBC, will just follow UEFA and they will be Tammeka Tartu as WP:COMMONNAME just like FC Flora is known as "Flora Tallinn".

User:Klõps does not agree, referring to jktammeka.ee and jktulevik.ee to verify their real name and say we should follow the real names on the estonian association page and not rearrange the words (while I think WP:COMMONNAME). I will let him respond with his arguments more himself, if he feel it is needed.

Please help. Do you have any input? Qed237 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that WP:COMMONNAME should be used for any piping, e.g. Flora Tallinn or Levadia Tallinn. Number 57 13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: So how would you pipe the last two teams? And "Infonet Tallinn" or just "Infonet"? Qed237 (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I confess that I have no idea what the common names of those clubs are. Number 57 14:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This table is too chaotic to make any meaningful conclusion. All we can say is that no one cares how these clubs are called really... even UEFA has different names in different seasons in their competition history. So no commonname here. What I can say is that Flora Tallinn and Levadia Tallinn are quite common. Nõmme Kalju FC decided to make their name more international few years ago, they were called JK Nõmme Kalju (JK Estonian for FC). Tartu JK Tammeka used to be JK Tartu Tammeka [1] until the club become insolvent before 2014 season and in the final moment the academy part of the club took over the league entry making only this small change in the name. So I don't see any point in this commonname thing... just leave them as they are. --Klõps (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Probably worth mentioning that many of these clubs put the city name before the actual club name in the Estonian version, (Nomme Kalju, Narva Trans - the cities are Nomme and Narva) which may confuse international readers.-BlameRuiner (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Table is chaotic? How? Both UEFA and FIFA has very similar ways of naming the teams and we should follow thoses (removing FC and JK). WP:COMMONNAME is clear. BlameRuiner has a good point which is why we should go by their most common name. Qed237 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, of cause they are similar, there aren't that much options after all. Still only UEFA and FIFA only agree in 5 of 10 cases. I'd agree there probably is no common name for them in English. It doesn't really matter, Nomme Kalju, Kalju Nomme, most people will see that as the same club. -Koppapa (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

So as we had no consensus here. I removed the place names from Tammeka, Tulevik and Infonet (as it has been in Estonian league articles before) and which I think is clearest to understand for people from other countries. And the place names aren't commonly used in Estonia. Two seconds later Qed237 undid my edit and the matches update. --Klõps (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It was said COMMONNAME should be used and looking at the table above, Tammeka Tartu is the commonname used in English media. Qed237 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the conclusion that there is commonname. You say that these are commonnames. Besides me there are two others who say no commonname and one person who did not disclose their opinion. --Klõps (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I count to one editor to use commonname, one does not say and the last one saying commonname but not sure if any exists. Qed237 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok You count them this way, but how does this don't know what the commonname is support Your pushing of these names that You like... No one has supported Your claim. --Klõps (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Any more input on this? "Tammeka" or "Tammeka Tartu"? "Infonet" or "Infonet Tallinn"? "Tulevik" or "Tulevik Viljandi"? Qed237 (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I would use the names in the Soccerway column for piping purposes as a compromise. They just seem to be the smallest common denominator of all options, yet may perfectly fit the mould. Plus, people interested in the club will follow the link anyway. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 18:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
That is how it use to be before Qeds table template update.--Klõps (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I would go with "Tammeka Tartu", "Infonet Tallinn" and "Tulevik Viljandi". Kante4 (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, I dont see why we can not list "Tartu" when it is a part of team name and they all have it except Soccerway and Livefootball. Nothing wrong with more info. Qed237 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You know very well, that this kind of table-ing isn't the way these things are decided... reading one, two three in a table does not give valid result as there are n-number of sources and three out of n is inconclusive result. Btw if you go by the table then just Tulevik has three votes against two for each Tulevik Viljandi and Viljandi Tulevik, same for Infonet table gives priority for just Infonet. "when it is a part of team name" takes us back to square one... You say, without any conclusive evidence, that the commonname is Tammeka Tartu but not Tartu Tammeka. --Klõps (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Qed237 still continues the edit fight. I can't see a clear support for his versions of commonnames here as he claims to have. --Klõps (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, and I have explained to you that the majority of source above use "Tartu" and the so should we (and it also exists in their real name). "Tammeka Tartu" is then the most common. Qed237 (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Most people here have said no idea what the commonname is. The table is inconclusive. You can't use the table to back up your claims for Tulevik Viljandi and Infonet Tallinn which You are also doing. --Klõps (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As Qed237 asked me to read the discussion again with neutral eyes [2] then...

  • Qed237 made a table and an argument that as Flora Tallinn has Tallinn, the location, in the end the teams he mentions should have commonname this way... but then he mistaked that in Nõmme Kalju and Sillamäe Kalev Kalju and Kalev to be locations[3] but actually Nõmme is a a district in Tallinn and Sillamäe is a industrial town in east Estonia.
  • Number 57 said that he as no idea what the common names are.
  • BlameRuiner remarked that it's confusing for international readers as there are teams that have town name in front and others that have it in the end.
  • Koppapa noted that UEFA and FIFA only agree in 5 of 10 cases and agrees that there probably is no common name.
  • Soccer-holic noted that the Soccerway column would be the best for piping as they have smallest common denominator.
  • Kante4 is the first to support Qed237s version of the common names.--Klõps (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: You are an administrator active in this project but have not had any involvment in this never ending discussion. Could you please get an end to this somehow? What is the consensus according to the discussion above? Or do you have any personal comment you would like to add? I fresh set of eyes in this discussion would be appreciated as this dont seems to end. Qed237 (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Pipings should be based on the article location (i.e. the club's actual name!), not colloquial/tautological names. If reliable sources support such a colloquial/tautological name, then a move discussion should take place. GiantSnowman 14:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: So in that case how would you pipe Tartu JK Tammeka and Viljandi JK Tulevik. Klõps wants only "Tammeka" and "Tulevik" while I want both names included in the piping "Tammeka Tartu" and "Tulevik Viljandi" as that is most common. (Also what Kante4 said above.) Qed237 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In those examples, I'd have 'Tartu Tammeka' and 'Viljandi Tulevik'. GiantSnowman 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

Lets make a summary:

  • Klõps wants only 'Infonet', 'Tammeka' and 'Tulevik' as that is how they have been displayed in the past (WP:OSE?)
  • I (Qed237) want to include 'Tartu' and 'Viljandi' and make it 'Infonet Tallinn', 'Tammeka Tartu' and 'Tulevik Viljandi' as those are the most common names and as this is how they will be known if they would enter a UEFA competition. Also both names exists in article names. Also seeing in the table above 4 of 7 use 'Tallinn' for FC Infonet (weak majority), only 2 of 7 does not have 'Tartu' and 3 of 7 does not have 'Tulevik' (majority to use both names).
  • Number 57 then said that the WP:COMMONNAME should be used, just that he does not know what the commonname is.
  • BlameRuiner said that Estonian club names could be confusing, without letting us know his opinion on these teams and how they should be piped.
  • Koppapa says there probably is no common name for them in English also without letting us know his opinion on these teams and how they should be piped.
  • Soccer-holic then was the first and only editor to agree with Klõps as to use the smallest common denominator (not how we usually do it).
  • Kante4 supported the view of using both names and said I would go with "Tammeka Tartu", "Infonet Tallinn" and "Tulevik Viljandi".
  • GiantSnowman was the latest to answer and said that Pipings should be based on the article location and to use 'Tartu Tammeka' and 'Viljandi Tulevik'. Also this is using both words in the piping.

Does anyone has anything to add? The most common is to use both words and both are also in the article name. "Tammeka Tartu" or "Tartu Tammeka" does not make much difference but it seems like both should be used, although Klõps still disagrees.

More comments? Qed237 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are You so ignorant and hostile against me??? Even so that You will even lie? As You know very well from the long discussions and edits my first choice was Tartu Tammeka and Viljandi Tulevik [4], second choise was just Tammeka and Tulevik.. and I was just against using Tammeka Tartu and Tulevik Viljandi... I said You in the discussion that your versions are like using United Manchester etc. As discussion here showed tendency towards simplest way I changed to just Tammeka, Tulevik and Infonet.--Klõps (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Therefore I object all that Qed237 said to be my opinions. --Klõps (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a comment but rather a clarification. My suggestion of using the Soccerway variants was mainly meant as a compromise solution in order to mediate between the involved parties over what is a very tedious discussion with little to no point and slowly begins to become rather fishy. COMMONNAME is definitely the way to go here. If the most common English variant of a club name also involves including its place, so be it. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That was a compromise I was also going, but which was turned into my rocksolid only opinion in Qed words. --Klõps (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Klõps: I am not more hostile than you, stop attacking me. You are the one threatening me for "edit warring", persistent commenting that only one editor agree with me, and so on. I have had many good discussions with many other editors and also some more aggressive, but I must say that your way of attack in every message is impressing. Anyway, lets get back on topic. Can we agree that both "Tartu" and "Viljandi" should be in the name? Qed237 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: Let's make things clear – in the same time when we had this discussion here You were the one already making hostile comments on Your edits in 2015 Meistriliiga table [5], [6] etc and had an attitude, that what ever I said Your answer was that this discussion here already has consensus supporting Your claims and what ever was said only what supports your claims is right. I was so tired of your attitude that I have made some not so polite comments today. You said to me that I refuse to get facts.. but I have given you facts, facts and more facts but You only take those that support Your theory and dismiss all those that don't... perfect example is how you twisted my words in the beginning of this summary.
My opinion was from the very beginning that as the clubs call themselves [7]Tartu Tammeka, Viljandi Tulevik– or to avoid confusion leave out the town names at all when this opinion for consensus was named I supported it with a remark that this is the way it has been before.. and Qed237 turned it into a sentence that this is what I want.--Klõps (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The interesting part I brought up is that the articles themselves uses Tammeka Tartu and Tulevik Viljandi in the prose. Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Now this is OSE... so what? In both articles this is used in two places, in Tammeka it is category title. It is there from the old times 2007 Meistriliiga (as it was in 2007) As I told You in the time these articles were created there were people who, in good faith, belived that there should be a single format for club names. FC(JK) - Club name – Town name. I said clearly that i think this isn't a way to go. There was an Estonian champion once FC TVMK, with T for Tallinn... they were named TVMK Tallinn in tautologous case. Tammeka once merged with other club called Maag.. and formed JK Maag Tammeka [8].. somehow Tartu appeared in the name which was not used by the club as Tammeka itself comes from the name of the district Tammelinn... I support what GiantSnowman said. Can You now make a note that You have interpreted my words incorrectly in the introduction of the summary? Do we have any chance to move on or do I have to repeat some ten times more that I support the original names Tartu Tammeka and Viljandi tulevik etc and that I only supported Tammeka and Tulevik without town names as a compromise! --Klõps (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
New Summary should be like that :
  • Klõps interfered with Qed237 edits and noted that club names should be as they are originally. Qed237 talk page: [9] so Tartu Tammeka, Viljandi Tulevik etc.
  • Qed237 wants to have the names other way around 'Tammeka Tartu' and 'Tulevik Viljandi'. he created a table to show that some sources support this. Though just Tulevik for example has three sources against two for Tulevik Viljandi and two for viljandi tulevik. --Klõps (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
As there is no established common name I'd go with the official name the league uses, (without JK or FC). And I'd uses two words over one, more info can't be bad. -Koppapa (talk)

@Klõps: Could you please stop bringing up the past all the time and focus on the future? Man you are annoying. Can we agree on 'Infonet Tallinn', 'Tartu Tammeka' and 'Viljandi Tulevik' ? Qed237 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Just wanted to get things clear as you brought up that the articles had Tammeka Tartu and Tulevik Viljandi in the prose (both two times).
'Infonet Tallinn', 'Tartu Tammeka' and 'Viljandi Tulevik' are ok for me. (if you insist adding Tallinn to Infonet.. the club itself do not use it.)--Klõps (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Klõps: Yes, for the same reason we have Tallinn for Flora. I have asked now for table to be unprotected as this is now solved. Qed237 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237:This is ok for me I'll accept these names. But I don't understand Your logic... one club name does not determine rules how others should be written, but this is another discussion... --Klõps (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry[edit]

I'm still having issues at the above-mentioned article regarding the major/minor status of various competitions. User:Chrisuae and User:Autonova aren't happy about the fact that the inclusion of the Community Shield in the list of each club's honours puts Manchester United ahead in terms of overall trophies. We're trying to resolve it on the talk page, but given the presence of such diametrically opposing views, we really need a third opinion. – PeeJay 17:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a question of sources. Which source do we refer to when giving each club's total honours? This is the edit that User:Chrisuae and I support: [10]. It is far more neutral and comprehensive than the current incarnation: [11]. In the more neutral edit, FIFA is used as the source, since it was decided to be the most neutral and reliable, and attributed in the content itself. Nine other sources are described after the table, each giving slightly different totals, since they count a slightly different set of trophies. Of these nine, there is only one neutral source, a BBC article, which lists the Community Shield as a noteworthy trophy. This is the source which PeeJay, above, insists is the only one worth including in the article, simply because it puts Man Utd ahead in total trophies. Even the Manchester United official site lists the Community Shield as Other Honours. Even the article for the Community Shield recognises its lower status relative to other trophies. And even Alex Ferguson said: "It's always a game we never quite use as a do or die thing; we use it as a barometer for fitness". It is biased and detrimental to the quality of the article to only use one source, presenting only one tally, as opposed to ten sources, which list many. Autonova (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a question of sources and ensuring neutrality. The BBC source that User:PeeJay2K3 has used is the only one that has a combination of trophies that fit his/her preferred outcome. I find it particularly problematic that references to the club official websites are included in the current version [12] but, due to cherry-picking trophies from the different tables on those sites without mentioning that some of these trophies are not in the main table of honours, may be misleading. The edit that User:Autonova and I support: [13] uses these references without editorialising their content and also mentions the BBC article along with other media sites. The inclusion of such authoritative and neutral sites as FIFA and UEFA add significantly to the reliability and quality of the article. Chrisuae (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Chrisuae

Break[edit]

Seriously, guys, this has somehow managed to make it to WP:DRN. While we have two equally valid views on the matter, neither side has any reason to back down from their opinion. A third opinion on the matter from established WP:FOOTY members is required if this stand-off is to be broken. – PeeJay 21:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

statto.com[edit]

appears to be down. Clicking on the main page gives a webhosting page, and any other page comes up as 404. Given how much it's used for sourcing tables, results and the like, I do hope it's nothing terminal. Anyone know anything? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2: After a quick research, it seems that it'll be back soon. Just some problems with the server, I guess. MYS77 15:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, hope you're right. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It's still down. The placeholder text refers to their Twitter account, but the latter is empty. 213.156.113.58 (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Verona or Hellas Verona?[edit]

I noticed that in the 2015–16 Serie A article Verona is now called Hellas Verona. "Hellas Verona F.C." is the actual complete official name, but the club has always been referred (either on other articles here and in common language) simply as Verona. How should we call it? CapPixel (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hellas Verona F.C. seems to be the name of the article, as Verona is a city (with an article) it seems appropriate to leave it as it is for disambiguation purposes. It is listed at the Verona disambiguation page. Paul  Bradbury 18:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@CapPixel: Thanks for letting me know about this discussion since it was you and me arguing (ironic). Anyway now that I spotted it anyway I can respond. As User:Pbradbury say the article is at Hellas Verona so that is the natural piping. Also sources like Soccerway lists them as "Hellas Verona". Qed237 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: You're welcome. I just forgot to add the ping, I'm sorry. Of course I'm not talking about changing the article name, but the name in the table. The club is never referred to as Hellas Verona in common use, just as Verona, and it has always been like that here too, until the 2015-16 Serie A season article. That's because the club was for a lot of decades, the club was the only professional team in the city and it's still the one that draws the majority of fans. If we follow the disambiguation "rule" almost every team names in the season tables must be changed. CapPixel (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Before the rise of Chievo, Hellas Verona seems the only professional/top division team in Verona thus it is acceptable to refer it as just Verona, just like Milan. Matthew_hk tc 09:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be Hellas Verona. GiantSnowman 09:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • How 'bout Verona and Chievo? Should we needlessly complicate things? --84.90.219.128 (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hellas Verona is the way to go. Kante4 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's the "F.c." that I still don't understand in these names. I thought that the project was going to follow WP:COMMONNAME guidelines unless a new project MOS guideline was determined and made official. Please send me a note if there is a new MOS guideline that I am not aware about. Otherwise, the name "Hellas Verona" should be the correct one per the MOS. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams). – PeeJay 09:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Great!--MarshalN20 Talk 15:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Port Vale F.C. third kit[edit]

In danger of breaking the 3RR User:RichardOwen97. He is basing his edits on this source. I have emailed historicalkits.co.uk to correct them mistakenly listing the purple alternate kit as the team's main away kit. The amber kit is listed as the away kit here, with the purple strip as the third kit. The purple strip was released as an alternative kit for one match last season, with the club's website stating "a shirt which we will continue to use occasionally both this season and next". Speaking in May 2015 chairman Smurthwaite announced that "I have also made the decision not to replace the away shirt because I understand the costs associated for fans supporting a football club". No source states that the purple kit has replaced the amber/black kit as the club's away kit for this season.--EchetusXe 21:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You should have sent that second link to me on the first revert, haha! I'm surprised, Historical Kits is normally very reliable. I apologise for this little event :) --RichardOwen97 (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's fine, your shade of purple is better.--EchetusXe 23:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Enoch Barwuah[edit]

New article about Enoch Barwuah. His brother, Mario Balotelli, is notable. I'm not sure this subject is. Someone more informed on Italian football should investigate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I did BLPPROD the article when I saw it as it is completely unsourced, but I can not imagine it being notable either, although I have not taken a closer look. Qed237 (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Refs have been added, so I removed the BLPprod. Probably worth taking it to AFD. Hack (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I have taken it to AfD as a fundamentally non-notable footballer who's only current claim to fame is to be someone's brother. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Flesh out an article/notability?[edit]

Hey, can someone go take a look at Jeff Reine-Adelaïde? It was up for speedy deletion via A7 and I'm just familiar enough with football to know that the Arsenals is a professional team, which is a good assertion of notability. However I'm not familiar enough to know if the Emirates Cup would be enough to have him firmly pass NFOOTY, although I will note that a quick glance at news coverage shows that he was fairly well lauded as a golden boy by the team's manager so even if it isn't it looks like there may be enough coverage for him to pass as a whole. This definitely needs some TLC from someone who is more familiar with the sport than I am. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A 17 year-old player who has now played in a friendly game and no games at all in a pro-league (or cup). Much is expected of him but his career so far amounts to very little. --Egghead06 (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
A case of WP:TOOSOON. Not notable as has only played friendly / youth games. have taken to AfD. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Carrow Road up for FAC[edit]

As we run up to the 80th anniversary of Carrow Road, and a celebratory match against West Ham, the article's had a good old polish and is now almost as glorious as the team that plays at the ground. ;-) I'd welcome some supports or constructive criticism at the review page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carrow Road/archive1 Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Asian U-19 national team competition being treated as U-20[edit]

On player profiles, editors have been treating appearances in the Asian U-19 age group competition as U-20 appearances. Appearances in the AFC U-19 Championship are being added as U-20 caps to player's infoboxes. Football Federation Australia makes no reference to having an U-19 team on the FFA website, only an U-20 team so I can understand why they're being added as U-20 caps, but it still doesn't seem accurate to me. England, for example play in the UEFA U-19 Championship and sometimes qualify for the FIFA U-20 World Cup, both U-19 and U-20 caps are listed separately on the infobox (Harry Kane is an example of this). Should the Asian player articles be following the same rule?

The links on the following U-19 competition pages all link to U-20 articles:

Should they be linking to U-19 articles instead? TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The convention is to agree with the national associations' cap allocation. For example, in Australia, there is no under-19 team - the "Young Socceroos" (U20s) are treated by the FFA as the team which participates in these notionally "U19" tournaments (which act as qualification for the next year's U20 World Cup). It may well be that other nations' associations do things differently (such as England, as you say) and I've seen rumours that FFA will add more youth teams in the future but as it stands they are crediting players in these tournaments with appearances for the U20 "Young Socceroos" and as a result that is how it should be represented. Macosal (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it. :) TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

POV in regard to Porto 2002-03[edit]

I recently been working on the 2002–03 S.L. Benfica season, and the lead I added "With a stronger Porto,[clarification needed] and eliminated from the Taça de Portugal by third division side Gondomar, Benfica soon focus on the battle with Sporting for the second place", Those words are written in the club own Almanaque, but other user concern that writing Porto was a stronger team in 2002-03 is a POV in my part. To put in context, it was the first full year of Mourinho and sadly, won every competition they entered (league, cup and UEFA Cup), besides they won both games against Benfica. What is the WP:footy opinion?--Threeohsix (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you reference this opinion to a reliable third party source? I would not say that the club's own almanac was necessarily the best place to be taking such comments from as they are unlikely to be neutral. Fenix down (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I can get opinions from Simão or Rui Costa about Porto superiority, but I think that's going overboard just to have the "stronger Porto". The almanac is pretty neutral, it's Benfica almanaque, and it's written by the same author of Porto's and Sporting's almanac, so it is just a business for him.--Threeohsix (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You didn't even bother to ping me. I still don't understand what you mean with "stronger". To me it's just WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV. SLBedit (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Basaksehir[edit]

I have a question on how to do with İstanbul Başakşehir F.K. that has been moved to Medipol Başakşehir F.K. after On 25 May 2015, İstanbul Başakşehir F.K. signed a sponsorship agreement with Medipol Eğitim ve Sağlık Grubu (Medipol Education and Health Group) for four years and team's name changed to Medipol Başakşehir, accoring to the article. At sources I usually look at like Soccerway, UEFA, current UEFA Europa League and BBC Sport all lists them as 'İstanbul Başakşehir'. Should we really change the article name due to a temporary (4 years sponsorship agreement) namechange to a commercial name? We do not do that for leagues, for example we have 2015–16 Croatian First Football League instead of commercial name MAXtv Prva Lig. Qed237 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we should not use sponsored names for anything (club/league/stadium) (exceptions for e.g. Red Bull teams), though we can mention it in the intro. GiantSnowman 14:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, the move should be reverted. However, only an admin will be able to do that, as the original mover messed around with İstanbul Başakşehir F.K.. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Can you make the move back as only an admin can do that? Qed237 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. GiantSnowman 08:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability check for three players[edit]

Something for our experts in American and/or Asian football – have the players from the stub articles below already appeared in a match of a professional club? Unfortunately, sources seem to be very scarce, so it is a bit difficult to determine such notability.

  • Jacson da Paixão Neponuceno – Brazilian player who was recently transferred to Iranian Pro League outfit Gostaresh Foolad
  • Russell Hulse – retired Belizian player who played for a club called Maccabi Los Angeles around 1980, winning the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup three times in that span
  • Tiri – Spanish defender currently active for Atlético de Kolkata in the Indian Super League

Help appreciated. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jacson yes: played in Brazilian Serie A for Vitória and in Serie B for Oeste: see Soccerway
Tiri no: hasn't played above Spanish Segunda B: see BDFutbol, Cadiz fansite
Hulse don't know. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hulse I'd say no from a WP:NFOOTBALL perspective, but he might meet WP:GNG given the claims in the article - although currently there is no evidence of that, and a quick Google search does not seem to bring much. So I'd say non-notable as well. GiantSnowman 16:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about Hulse, there is at least one lengthy article about his career from a Belize national newspaper, so iwth a bit more digging, I think a case might be made for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have PRODded Tiri now; however, the page has been a disambiguation page until two days ago, so the PROD might already be obsolete. I guess the DAB page should be restored, then? As for the other two, I might try to put a bit of work into these tomorrow evening or so. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
For the record, Tiri has been reverted to the dab page. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 21:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Parma[edit]

There's debate over whether or not the new club is a continuation of the old club, please see Talk:Parma Calcio 1913#Merge with Parma article. GiantSnowman 18:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Doubt[edit]

Can you teammates discover what competition is this one (seen here http://eu-football.info/_match.php?id=25379) please? I can't make heads or tails of it and, in the search engine, Carlsberg Cup redirects me to the Taça da Liga.

Attentively, thanks in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lunar New Year Cup. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 MLS All-Star Game[edit]

Just wanted to know how 2015 MLS All-Star Game and other previous seasons All star games deserve its own page as it is just a friendly page? NextGenSam619t@lk 14:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

In the same way 60th National Hockey League All-Star Game, 2015 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, 2015 NBA All-Star Game and 2015 Pro Bowl deserve their own page despite only being friendlies or exhibition matches. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Or for that matter the 2015 FA Community Shield, which is basically a glorified friendly..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

League division in lead (again, sorry)[edit]

As far as I'm aware, there's no consensus as to whether the league division of a player's club appears in the lead section of the player's article. The last discussion on the matter here was in November 2014, as far as I've been able to find, and previous ones were August 2014, May 2014, January 2014, August 2013, Sept 2011, and July 2007. Some people think it shouldn't, some think it should, and some don't care.

This stems from a discussion at the talk page of User:TeaLover1996, archived here, which I started because that user was repeatedly removing league divisions claiming a consensus of which I was unaware. Since then they've persisted with such removal, either without edit summary at all or still claiming as a matter of fact that the division shouldn't be there, as at Bafétimbi Gomis and Gianluigi Buffon, and more recently using the argument that it'd cause extra work for editors when the division changed, as at Tomasz Kuszczak, Will Buckley (footballer) and elsewhere.

I'm not particularly after another discussion as to whether it should be in or not, because I don't think we'll get a consensus either way (though if people want another go, please feel free). What I am asking as a matter of immediate concern is: does the fact that there is no current consensus mean that editors shouldn't try and force their personal preference into articles. Which is what appeared to be implied at the last discussion. @TeaLover1996 and PeeJay2K3: I'm pinging the user mentioned above, and also PeeJay2k3, who suggested bringing the matter to WT:FOOTY. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As I keep saying friend in is that having the league division in the lead section, would create unnecessary work for editors if the team were to be relegated, for example if all the players at Sunderland AFC had in the lead section Player X is a footballer who plays for Premier League club Sunderland, if Sunderland were to be relegated editors would then have to go round changing Premier League club Sunderland to Championship club Sunderland therefore by not having the division in the lead section it saves editors time and doesn't create work that really doesn't need to be there. Exceptions would be with players who play for Swansea as the club is Welsh whereas the Premier League is an English League that also includes a Welsh team, and saying Welsh club Swansea would imply that the Premier League was Welsh and not English, so that would be an exception. Many articles about footballers who play in the Premier League don't include the division in the lead section anyway. TeaLover1996 (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Struway2, PeeJay2K3, Qed237, Mattythewhite, and JMHamo:: Any thoughts appreciated. TeaLover1996 (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that there is no consensus, then anyone acting as if there is is clearly being disingenuous. If someone wants to go around adding or removing the league then my that's up to them, but they might find more productive editing activities! I'm slightly in favour of including it, but I don't see any reason to make it a mandatory or even 'best practice' feature. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it should be included, given the propensity of editors to use sponsored names and/or not update it when there is a promotion/relegation. GiantSnowman 10:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly ambivalent about whether it should or shouldn't appear, but if we've discussed something and found there's no consensus, then mass changes should not be undertaken and status quo should be maintained. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it should NOT be included, since sometimes it's forgotten when a team is relagated/promoted (saw it for some Freiburg players a few days back). Extra work for editors to correct them, so if we don't include them it makes it easier. "French/Spanish/German" club can be used. Kante4 (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
One might think that's an argument for encouraging and educating editors, not for removing useful information from where it can be easily accessed by readers... But if people want to have a fresh discussion to try and establish a consensus once and for all as to whether the division should be included, please could they start one separate from this thread, to avoid confusion. Maybe as an RfC, so that whatever the result, it can be easily found again and people can't pretend it never happened and doesn't apply to them?
The question here was, given that there is no current consensus, should editors be edit-warring to push their own preferred choice, whether they're removing the division from articles where it has been long-time present, or inserting it in articles where it has been long-time absent? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
No they should not, status-quo should be maintained, as with other things there is no consensus on. Paul  Bradbury 11:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I am one of those that thinks it should not be included as it both creats extra work and many articles are not updated after a team has been promoted/relegated, but team may not be only "Premier League" club but could also participate in other tournaments like Champions League or Europa League as well as domestic cups. However as said before, if there is no consensus there is no need for mass edits. Qed237 (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who has ever played for Port Vale has the league they are currently playing in in their lead, except where other editors have taken ownership of an article (I don't mean that in a negative sense). I won't get into an edit war over it. However if someone went round removing it from articles en masse I wouldn't be happy about it.--EchetusXe 18:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
After a long while of favouring exclusion, I've started to see the benefits of including the division. As Struway say, it's a way of providing "useful information from where it can be easily accessed by readers". Mattythewhite (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kante4, GiantSnowman, Qed237, Mattythewhite, Pbradbury, Struway2, and Dweller: It looks as if most editors think the division shouldn't be included, however I don't think the discussion is over yet. TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
My train of thought is simple: The player is not the club, the club may change divisions, the clubs play in multiple competitions, competitions change names (historical vs current), the player may change clubs (transfer, loan, part ownership, temporary contract), the player represents more than one club in more than one competition (club / country), the player may be a youth player at a team but never have played in the respective division or competition...when you can resolve all those permutations then you can begin to consider how to include the information.
For instance take a historic player / manager such as Kenny Dalglish who played in the First Division (Liverpool), managed in the First Division (Liverpool) and Premier League League (Liverpool, Newcastle and Blackburn). Do we need to mention the division of each one? What do we write for Liverpool where he was there for multiple instances? Do we go with the historic league, or the current league, what happens if the team is relegated - do we go back and edit "Managed Championship team Blackburn Rovers to the Premiership"? Who would be right if that argument came up?
From an encyclopaedic point of view, I can't imagine any encyclopaedia that would list the relevant divisions for current or retired players unless that division was somehow notable (such as mentioning Ryan Giggs, Gary Speeds and David James record number of appearances / seasons in the top flight).
If we're saying that this rule is only for current players, at current teams, in current leagues, then it's just further cruft to be maintained. Koncorde (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I for one think the division should be included. It provides additional at-a-glance information. League changes do not happen that often (only a minority of clubs change leagues each season), especially compared to players transferring. It is additional info that must be taken care of, but so what? One has to update a player's stats at least once a year - a good opportunity to look at the lead as there is no way to just edit the infobox anyway. Madcynic (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm pro inclusion. Doesn't mean i'd add it to any players, but if it's included, i'd see no reason to remove it. That "it creates work" argument can be made for any other useful info. Why include a career stats table, why include the club at all and so on. An good article should be updated with some prose once a year anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest an RfC on the matter is started and all participants here should be invited, as well as being open to the community. In the meantime, there's currently no consensus. --Dweller (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:SPFL medal winners[edit]

The above category has been created. I think this is much too obscure, particularly as it collates a bunch of different competitions (Scottish League Cup, Premiership, Championship, League One and League Two). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I was just coming here to start a thread on the exact same thing - and I am in complete agreement. Not a defining characteristic, unreferenced for many entrants, simply not needed. I'm busy this weekend otherwise I'd take to WP:CFD myself. GiantSnowman 12:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Fabien Robert[edit]

A journalist has just asked Fabien Robert about his brothers Bertand and Laurent, only for Fabien to tell him it's a mistake on Wikipedia. Duly corrected. ;) TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Why it's so so important to remove anything unsourced like that on BLP articles... JMHamo (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, though, it was sourced in the article, to a news story on the Doncaster Rovers website relating to his signing for them. That URL now seems dead, but plenty of other very reliable sources have reported it as fact, including the BBC, the Swindon Advertiser (who actually put it in the headline!), TalkSport, the BBC again and so on...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting.. I've added the Soundcloud link to the Talk page.. Talk:Fabien Robert. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Randal Oto’o[edit]

Should Randal Oto’o be renamed to Randal Oto'o? SLBedit (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes, so I've renamed it to use the correct apostrophe. JMHamo (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Baba Rahman[edit]

Couple of things - expect a flurry of premature activities on Baba Rahman, what with Bild reporting that Chelsea and Augsburg agreed to a fee and Italian media reporting that the player has already agreed on personal terms[14], which will be enough for newer editors to make the change before he's signed and delivered.

Second, should the article be moved to Abdul Baba Rahman? Mosmof (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar lesson[edit]

Given that a football club is not a living thing (it is composed of breathing organisms, aka humans), and given also that I am not a native English speaker, will I be completely off-hand if I address clubs as "it" instead of "they/them"?

Attentively, from Portugal --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually, at least in UK English, the club (as in the off-field organisation) is referred to as "it", but the team (as in the players who take part in the game) are referred to as "they". No British football fan would ever say "Manchester United is winning 1-0" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"Manchester United are ranked ..." or "Manchester United is ranked" in UEFA club rankings? SLBedit (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
are. Number 57 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Shaq(uille) McDonald[edit]

Shaquille McDonald or Shaq McDonald? The articles has one version, the talkpage the other?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help assess a new draft at AFC[edit]

Please review Draft:Penang FA President's Cup Team, is it a notable subject and if so can the draft be accepted in its current state? If you do not wish to, or don't know how to do a full AFC review, please post a comment on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season[edit]

New issues at 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season. Chelsea has today released a list of Jersey nunmbers so an editor added all players on that list to "First team squad" but all of those players are not listed under "First team" at the official Chelsea webpage. Should we follow the list of squad numbers in a released article or the list of first team players. Qed237 (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, some youth players are not listed under "First team" at the official Chelsea webpage. But if they are not playing for the first team this season there is no need to give them a new kit number, as they have their own kit numbers for the youth team matches. I beleve that Chelsea announce their new number because of the first team promotion. If they are not promoted to the first team there is no need to give them a number. Immback (talk) 13:25, 1 Aug 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who has a first-team squad number should be listed. Also, I think at least one editor needs a 3RR block for their behaviour on that page. Take this as a hint to stop. Number 57 13:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't disagree with you more, #57. Just because a player is given a squad number doesn't mean they're part of the first team. – PeeJay 17:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, just because they get a number is not proof that they are in first team squad. Qed237 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Football in Brazil task force[edit]

I created the page for a new Football in Brazil task force in cooperation with the Sports task force of WikiProject Brazil. The Football in Brazil task force is long overdue. There has been lots of interest in the past but no one has taken this step of actually setting it up. Many articles have already been tagged with Brazil=yes. giso6150 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)