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.
 

RfC: Having league division in lead section[edit]

Should the division a player plays in be included in the lead section of the article? TeaLover1996 (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • No. GiantSnowman 09:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why not. If it's included, there is no point in deleting it. -Koppapa (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It gives such little information as to be near-useless. GiantSnowman 10:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not isn't technically a vote.--EchetusXe 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It should not be mandatory to include it. As well as it should not be mandatory to delete it. -Koppapa (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a request for comment, not a vote. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Kante4 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. It provides additional at-a-glance information, particularly for players playing for clubs in countries or leagues unfamiliar to casual readers. Madcynic (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Qed237 (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes--EchetusXe 14:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No-- TeaLover1996 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. What happens when 3 sides from every division get relegated (and sometimes 6 in case of relegation and promotion in lower leagues) at the end of the season? We run around doing unnecessary edits for tens of thousands of players. To put it in perspective, according to FIFA here there are 327,000+ clubs and 38 million+ registered players in the world. Obv not all are on Wikipedia, but still it leaves us with potentially alot of extra editing that is unneeded. Most people know where club are located, and if they don't then a simple hover over the clubs's name usually reveals it. --Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Same argument could be used for the club of a player, there are so many transfers each year. Or career stats... -Koppapa (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I came across some players from Freiburg a couple of weeks ago which still had them as "Bundesliga" team. Don't see why this is important to have it included. It just makes more work after a team is relegated/promoted. For each team about 20-25 pages have to be updated, this work can be saved. Kante4 (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The answer is more complex than a yes or no. I do think that mentioning the division is good for an article that presents a thorough research of a retired player (along the lines of: "Bob played most of his career in the third division, but had one season in the first division"). Doing this for an active player would clearly be a problem, except if that player is a notable one. So, to make it a requirement would be wrong, but to say it is inappropriate would also be wrong.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No – While a player is still active, the division they currently play in is too fluid to warrant such regular changes. As well as being relegated or promoted, a player can be transferred between clubs in different divisions. I don't see a problem with mentioning the division at the time of the player's transfer in the main body of the article, but not in the lead section. As MarshalN20 suggests, it could work as part of a summary of a player's career once he's retired, but during an active career there's too much potential for change to warrant the inclusion of information that's barely relevant to the player's career overall. – PeeJay 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak yes It's a case by case thing but in general, it's relevant information and it's certainly changes not any more, in fact usually very much less, than club for most players. It's really not that much of a burden. Also it's not a vote you need to give a reason for why you have that opinion consensus is based on reasoned arguments not voting. A simple yes or no doesn't cut it. Paul  Bradbury 21:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No JMHamo (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Koppapa, Marshall2N20 and Paul Bradbury. If it's there and not outdated then I don't see a problem with it and it does help inform the reader of the current level of the player. The reasons stated against by Peejay and Shreerajtheauthor are strong reasons for not making it mandatory, but I also don't think that they're reasons for prohibiting it, and if it's accurate, let it stay. If it's outdated, remove it. It's also important to remind editors that this is not a vote. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. SuperNintendo agreed! While I don't think we have to retrospectively change every player's template, I think we should all make an effort to start displaying the nationality of the club instead of the division in the intro. And in the body most players are broken out by season now, so saying Premier League side would be fine as it's taken in context to the club's standing in that given season/date range.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Koncorde (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No Cant it just be in the infobox? MQoS (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    • So you'd favour changing the player infobox to include division as well as club? Wouldn't that cause a huge amount of work? What if a player was promoted and/or relegated multiple times with the same club? They'd end up with loads of different rows in the infobox for their time with that one club..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It's one thing forthat kind of stuff to be required where it's a one league system (NFL, NHL etc) but problematic in multi league / competition systems. Having looked at an awful lot of articles that exist - very few even mention the division in the narrative unless there is a reason to do so (i.e. promotion, change of division when transferring, final league position etc). The use of "Premier" in Cristiano Ronaldo and Gareth Bale's profiles is quite telling. It is almost never in reference to the club - and always to some personal achievement, goal, or to differentiate between a league game and cup game. Koncorde (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, if I must choose one or the other. Why not is closer. It's relevant information, the answer to the sort of question readers ask when they start reading about a player. Most people don't know what division most clubs are in: we're not writing for the football expert, we're writing for the general reader. What harm does it do to include a small piece of helpful information somewhere where that reader can see it at a glance? After all, a player's up-to-the-minute stats are apparently important enough to include in the infobox, which is supposed to be an at-a-glance summary of the player's career. How much time do editors spend 40/50 times a season updating infobox and career stats? Yet once a year, or less, is too much time for our poor overworked editors to spend on updating a change of division. If it's outdated, fix it: that's what policy would advise. I'm not arguing that it should be mandatory to include it, but I am saying that if people want it in, I can't see any justification for removing it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No "Nationality club" is sufficient. SLBedit (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No It's overkill. We will have to update a lot of players only because of promotions/relegations. Only Country club is enough. MYS77 04:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, The league the player currently plays in is most definitely applicable. As long as they are kept up to date which they should generally be then there is no issue. However there is no need to systematically add them, just as there is no need to systematically delete them. This should remain principally an editorial decision. I however would be against us including every league a player has played in, just the one they currently play in. Most leads will have the club and that is enough when they no longer play there.Blethering Scot 17:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Very relevant information which a reader looking up a player potentially, and often likely, doesn't know, which will inform in turn their opinion of the player. To those saying "it will require too much updating", I think the scale of such changes would make it a very small issue when compared to the thousands of players who play matches each week (or even season) which require more updating/research. Macosal (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes same reasons as Struway and Macosal. BigDom (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes same reasons as Struway and Macosal. "Too much editing" has nothing to do with it. The same way you need to update caps is being a lot of consistent editing we must keep up with, the league name is nothing compared to that. What does it take to change it if a player leaves. Nothing at all. Very relevant information, more so than just the club nationality. It is much more important for the major players of major teams. I understand that the lower league team players may not get updated as often, but they already do not as it is. Most if not all Serie D clubs' still have the 2012-13 positions in the infobox, for example. Where are editors then that need to run around and edit? Might as well get rid of that part of the infobox then right? Too much editing right? Come on guys. That cannot be an excuse. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why? Why not? it seems to me that this should be a case by case issue. As long as the club is listed, the information is readily accessible. Still, why not? I don't see why it should be mandatory, but it can't hurt. K90sdrk (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No I'm not sure what value this would add to the articles, particularly given how easy this info is to obtain by checking out the page of the club they play for, which is listed quite prominently.MichaelProcton (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What conclusion have we come too then? TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a process flow around dual nationality players[edit]

There is still general consensus needed for dual nationality players. There are some people who see this as black and white issue when it is in fact not. If you achieve notability in two different countries while being a citizen of those countries how can you in fact just be listed as a citizen of just one of these countries. This is in fact illogical and misrepresents many football players for many different countries.

Let's classify dual nationals as players that meet the notability requirements in Country A as a citizen of Country A. While later meeting notability requirements in Country B as a citizen of Country B. The goal of this consensus is the following:

  • Neutrally define dual national players.
  • Properly portray the subject's career and life experiences.
  • Avoid edit wars and conflicts by individuals who feel nationalistic pride or bias around the athlete's countries of origin.

There are many factors to account for when categorizing a dual national player. Birth country, what country the player first met notability requirements, and what country the player represents in international competition. Please see the below flow:

 Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = Yes > Notable in Country B = Yes > Country A and B can be listed

 Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = No > Notable in Country B = Yes > Only Country B can be listed
 
 Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = Yes > Notable in Country B = No > Only Country A can be listed

 Citizen of Country A and Country B > Notable in Country A = No > Notable in Country B = No > Notable in Country C = Yes > Country where the player plays internationally is listed > (if no senior national team) > birth country is listed

As you can see, the subject would have had to meet the notability standards in each country for dual nationalities to be listed. Synthfreq (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So long as we don't use that God-awful "X-born Y" wording, which is a pet peeve of mine. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought FIFA nationality is all that we report on.
What exactly does "notable in country" mean here?
Also, MOS:BIO, §Opening Paragraph, item 3.2 "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, 'previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." This clearly argues against this proposal.
Finally, we should clarify that no linking of countries, links to "German People", "Americans" or similar demographic articles should not be made. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I am basing notability on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability
So lets say a player is born in Turkey to American parents and is a citizen of both countries. Let's also say this hypothetical player is a Turkish youth player and plays for a Turkish pro club. When he plays for the Turkish pro club it would make him a notable Turkish Football Player by both WP:FOOTY and Wikipedia standards and he should be listed as a a Turkish footballer. However, let's say that same player decides to play for the United States internationally he would then meet the new notability requirements while also being American Citizen as well. To define this player as just American would be somewhat incorrect since he was first notable as Turkish. However, to just call him Turkish is also incorrect as he plays for the United States in international competition and is a United States Citizen. Therefore, I believe both countries must be equally recognized to logically represent the players career. I think that country the player represents in international competition should always be the main country the player's nationality is listed as and next would be the the country the player was born/first notable in. So in the case of the example above the player would be described as a "Turkish-born American soccer player" or something along those lines.

Synthfreq (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We have to base our decisions on MOS:BIO first and foremost. We dare not go against that guideline.
Using your example, the current process, as I have read it, would list him only as an American player (because he plays for the United States) who plays for Turkish club Galatasaray (as an example).
But what if the reverse is the case. Born and raised in Florida, he joins and plays for a marginally notable US club, say one in the United Soccer League Professional Development league — not one that has any affiliation with MLS. He gets no press while on the team. He then is called-up and plays for the Turkey U-21 side. Again, no press. Which then is the "notable country"?
That is the crux: without defining "notable in country" this is a worthless proposal. No offence. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
So in your example you said the player only played for U-21. This does not fit the notability requirements of playing at the senior level. Again, please read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability
So the player you described would be just American. However if he plays at the senior level for the Turkish National Team he would then be called an "American-born Turkish footballer" or something along those lines. Based on the current FIFA international eligibility a system like this works and would keep things unbiased. Synthfreq (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This seems reasonable to me but only if the player was notable before they represented either national team at a senior level. Otherwise, you may have edits noting the player's ethnicity or where the player was born when it's rather irrelevant. But in the case you described, I believe this makes sense when using "notability" as a standard. 74.120.223.150 (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that if the person hasn't played international football and there is any doubt, then we should not mention nationality in the lead given that it's not relevant to their notability. Hack (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. The header should remain neutral simply stating "a professional soccer player" or "professional footballer". This would only apply in the cases where the player competes internationally for a different country then the one they were initially notable in. Synthfreq (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
That goes against MOS:BIO. This suggestion should be floated past that project before any final decision is made. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's very simple. If there's no doubt, then use the nationality in question. If there is doubt, then don't. If a player was born in X but represents Y then don't include nationality in the opening sentence, but explain the situation later on in the intro e.g. "John Smith is a professional footballer who plays for Wiki FC, as a midfielder. Born in X, he represents Y at international level." GiantSnowman 17:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What if the fact that a player was born in a certain country is essentially incidental—for example if he was born while his parents were living abroad, and returned home as a small kid? See Terry Butcher, Shaun Maloney and Cédric Soares for just three examples. Placing so much weight on the place of birth in the basic descriptions of these people is in my view over-simplifying things and against MOS (see WP:OPENPARA), as outlined by 208.81.212.222 above. In the case of Butcher, for example, the fact that he was born in Singapore is more a pub quiz question than anything. It's actually much more pertinent where these people grew up, went to school, played youth football etc. To clarify: I agree with GiantSnowman where a player was born, raised and schooled in a certain country, and started their football career there, but then plays international football for another country; but I don't agree in cases where a player just happens to have been born in a different country. Seems to me like undue weight. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Although not footballers, I think it's useful to compare the cyclists Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome. Wiggins was born in Belgium to a British Mother and Australian Father. He moved to the UK at 2. His birthplace is mentioned in the infobox and early life section, but not elsewhere. It's essentially not relevant to him - Wiggins career and personality has been shaped by being British. Froome was born and raised in Keyna to British parents and then moved to South Africa. He road with African teams until 2008 and represented Kenya in his early career. He's described as 'Kenya-born British' (a phrasing I have no issue with!). His birthplace is much more relevant to him, shaping the progression of his life and career. Most sportspeople will fall somewhere between these relatively two extreme polls, but what they offer are useful case studies of the variety of the relevance of otherwise of birth place and sporting nationalities, and as such stand as good reasons for not having a policy beyond Wikipedia's current stance of not emphasizing nationality/birthplace if there is no good reason to. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion Super Nintendo Chalmers has it about right. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I get the sense that this project does not want to discuss this with the biographies project. I'm not entirely certain why that is. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone bothered to discuss with the biographies project? Could we be pointed to that discussion? Should they be pointed here? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Block colours vs lines[edit]

Would it be possible to replace the block colours in this template and its friends with appropriately coloured lines until qualifications have been decided? We used to do that, but I don't know why we stopped. It's just that a block colour implies that qualification is already assured, whereas the line simply indicates the position(s) where the team(s) must finish to qualify for the next stage. – PeeJay 10:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That has been discussed in length. The current format has consistency between league articles and tournament articles. One gets used to it. -Koppapa (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Surely the same could be applied to league articles as well? Then as soon as qualification is assured, you can change it to a solid block colour... – PeeJay 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course it can be changed but consensus, after very long discussions, says we should do it this way just like the league tables always has been. Also this way with text on the right and not only a line, better works with MOS:COLOR as some readers may be colorblind. When teams have qualified, statusletters are added. Qed237 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Viv Richards playing in World Cup qualifiers?[edit]

See this edit. The edit obviously needs to be reverted, but is there a way to find team list for these matches in a reliable source? --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

RSSSF has listings, which indeed do not feature Richards -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
FIFA also has a comprehensive list. GiantSnowman 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I can find match results on fifa.com but not line-ups, unless I'm missing something........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
In the meantime I have amended the article to make it clear that the claim is in doubt....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Should these two articles have their title changed to be season specific?[edit]

The two articles are well referenced and no doubt satisfy the appetite of stats fans. My concern is that the articles don't specify which season they are taking into account. Is it the most recent season or is it their record average attendance? For example, what does it mean for Boca Juniors to have average attendance of 40,600? Is it their average attendances of all time or just their average attendance last season?

I would welcome any input as I've not been active on Wikipedia for a few years now and a lot has changed. Many thanks. Spiderone 10:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also add
The season should be stated in the articles. It should be the average over one year. There is no need yearly articles. Koppapa (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
My only concern is that some leagues run their seasons as 2014-15 while others use the calendar year. So if I changed each of the articles to '2014-15 season' then this would not be true of some leagues. Spiderone 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
These should be taken to AFD really, pure WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 11:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Isn't attendance one of the most important aspects of football? Spiderone 11:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't really have to be the same season for all clubs. As long as the difference doesn't span 5 years i doubt it matters. -Koppapa (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Spiderone: Not really. It's a trivial stat that we just happen to record for each game. The attendance doesn't have any effect on the result. – PeeJay 12:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I have created an AfD here which you are all welcome to participate in. Spiderone 12:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Parma article merger[edit]

Unless anyone has any opposing views to those already aired, how do we get an admin to complete the merger discussed on Talk:Parma Calcio 1913? mgSH 17:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review of Harry Kane[edit]

Hi, is anyone interested about the Peer review of Harry Kane to make it a FA? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's too soon to even think about promoting that article to FA status. Kane's career is still in its infancy and many things can change in the next few months/years. All it would take is for someone to stop updating the article for its FA status to be taken away again. Unless they're extremely prominent players, no current player should have an FA-class article, IMO. – PeeJay 09:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Britain matches[edit]

I try to develop a french article about Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics but I haven't got informations about Great Britain. For Sweden, India, Italy, I have but not for GB, whereas GB finished 4th. Have you got informations about 4 matches of GB? Thank you. --FCNantes72 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@FCNantes72: Have you seen this reference? Eldumpo (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Héctor Herrera requested move[edit]

I have made a request for Héctor Herrera (footballer) to be moved to Héctor Herrera. The discussion is here if anyone is interested. GoPurple'nGold24 22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A map for UEFA member countries?[edit]

Is there any thought of making a map for UEFA member countries? Right now the European map used by UEFA articles does not cover cities such as Astana (problem for the 2015–16 UEFA Champions League) and Baku (problem for UEFA Euro 2020, the location of Baku in that article is definitely not correct). There are actually maps for AFC, CONCACAF, and OFC, so I think it may be worth asking. As far as I can see, we can make three improvements from the current European map:

  1. Include more territories. Obviously we need to make tradeoffs between how likely a team qualifies for these group stages and how big the map becomes. To the East Baku should definitely be included, and perhaps Astana, but certainly no need to stretch it all the way to Eastern Russia. And to the West, what about Canaries, Madeira and Azores? Teams from those islands did qualify for the group stage (Marítimo for 2012–13 UEFA Europa League). How many teams from these islands are (or have been) in the top divisions of European football?
  2. Grey out the territories that are not part of UEFA. So white colour for Turkey, Israel, Kazakhstan, etc. Grey for Syria, etc.
  3. Add borders between England/Scotland and England/Wales since they are under different UEFA associations.

I have discussed with @Qed237: but neither of us know how to make a map, so we are raising the issue here. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bmf 051: Thanks. Let us know if you have a preliminary version (no need to be perfect). Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Chanheigeorge: I don't think I'll be able to do this one. Location maps have two parts: the image (usually an LAEA projection using a tool like GeoTools) and the equations for calculating (x,y)-coordinates using the (lat, long)-coordinates (look at Template:Location map America to see what I mean). I know how to do the math part, but I don't know how to generate the image. For CONCACAF, I just used the image from Template:Location map America, zoomed in, and adjusted the equations. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bmf 051: Thanks for your try. I'll look around to see if anybody else can help. @Qed237: Do you know anybody who knows how to make a map? Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. – PeeJay 11:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:European Cup Winner's medal[edit]

Is there such a cat/similar cat for players ( not clubs)? MyTuppence (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Good news, everyone![edit]

It seems like our faithful friend, statto.com, is back online! I can't guarantee it's got all the same functionality as before, but it does seem to have a new interface. – PeeJay 10:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Faithful friend :-)) I'd be happier if they told us what happened, rather than popping back up as if they'd just been offline for a few hours. If we're expected to think of it as a professional, let alone reliable, source again, I'm not sure "apologies for the down time" quite covers a six-week absence with no info apart from suggesting we follow a Twitter account that never tweeted... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean I can go around and add it as a source again for "results by matchday" section again (Man Utd example). This was used previous season and it is a very good to source that section (if we see it as reliable again). User:PeeJay2K3, what would you say about going back to using it at 2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season again, instead of BBC reports to source every position iundividually? The only difference is that statto lists united as 3rd (instead of 4th), because they has same goal diff and goals scored as team above (they were "tied for 3rd"). Qed237 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather use the BBC, tbh. Struway makes a good point about Statto's unreliability, given their lack of a proper explanation for their recent downtime. Who knows if they'll have any sort of longevity in the future? At least with the BBC they're almost guaranteed to keep their articles in place in perpetuity. – PeeJay 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Proven FA Cup medal winner despite not playing in final[edit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2632644/Wojciech-Szczesny-parades-FA-Cup-medal-famous-trophy-despite-failing-play-single-second-en-route-Wembley-triumph.html

Here proves players who didn't play in the FA Cup Final get a medal anyway, so all you lot who keep removing honours from players pages as they didn't play in the final can stop doing that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.97.80 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately as a tabloid newspaper, the Mail is not considered a reliable source.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Look on the page. It clearly shows Szczesny with a winners medal despite not playing in the final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.97.80 (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

All you're showing is the importance of using reliable sources to verify honours, and not just making assumptions about who has and has not won a medal! GiantSnowman 13:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How am I assuming? It shows a photo of him with a winners medal in his hand! How is that assuming? Click on the page and see for yourself! He won the FA Cup despite not playing, it's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.97.80 (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You may not be assuming now, but people were assuming he was an FA Cup winner despite having no evidence to back that up. Obviously a photo of him with a medal or a source listing the FA Cup among his honours is acceptable, but you definitely can't just assume someone won a medal just because they were part of the squad earlier in the tournament. – PeeJay 13:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This proves that Szczesny received a medal, it doesn't prove anything with regard to any other player..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

vandal?[edit]

this user exchanged 1 player per squad a lot. Some are false, Arenal, umea,paris, no idea about the iranian ones, best way to revert the edits? maybe block him? -Koppapa (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Premier League and flags[edit]

On article 2015–16 Premier League there is an editor, User:Pbradbury, that insists on adding flags despite edit notice on that page saying not to add flags per MOS:FLAG and I know this has been discussed before. Now he accuses me of edit warring and suddenly gave me a level 3 for disruptive editing?. I feel like WP:BOOMERANG or something as he is just as involved in the editing as I am and he has now started with threats just to make me stop. What is "right" and "wrong" here? Flags or no flags?

The page notice was added by User:Black Kite so I also inform you about this. Qed237 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237:There is a discussio about this on the article talk page which you have refused to participate in, also please provide a diff where I have added any flags to this article, other than the one revert I did to your edit warring. Paul  Bradbury 16:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I personally don't think the page is violating any Wikipedia policies, and according to MOS:FLAG: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. In these tables, the flags are relevant enough. In other hand, I'm considering that this discussion between both of you is unnecessary, as Bradbury's warning. MYS77 16:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll accept that, I am tired and possibly overstepped with the warning, I have tried discussing several times with this user what I consider his disruptive editing. I think I'll just step away from editing football. Better for my sanity and maybe the project. Paul  Bradbury 16:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with MYS77 - the flags seem like useful information here. Number 57 22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, flags can/should be used. No violation. Kante4 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

On a related matter, why in the table do the managers sort by country but team captains sort by surname? 77.130.197.6 (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Retire sub talk pages[edit]

This discussion was archived, although no action was taken despite what seemed like an agreement. Should I execute it myself? I was waiting because I expected someone with more authority to take action :)
(if someone believes more discussion is needed, I suppose we need to take it out of the archive) —Sygmoral (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect, and I think your proposal for them to be read-only is the best action. However, this action would need an explanation, or at least a direct link to this page. MYS77 00:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

CSKA London[edit]

Why does "CSKA London" redirect to "Chelsea F.C."? --Theurgist (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

According to this, its a reference to the club's Russian owner. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I guessed so. That was more of raising the question if the redirection should exist than of asking a factual question. --Theurgist (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it? Even if it is meant disparagingly, it is a plausible search term. Wikipedia is not censored, after all. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
So how about redirecting "Manchester Shitty" to "Manchester City F.C.", "Loserpool" to "Liverpool F.C." and "Germoney" to "Germany"? --Theurgist (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Go for it, be bold. --Jimbo[online] 14:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2#CSKA London. GiantSnowman 17:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Football box/football box collapsible[edit]

Nabla raised an issue at the non-League task force talk page that has quite wide effects. In numerous articles the football box and football box collapsible are corrupted and causing one or both teams' names to display twice (see e.g. here). This appears to be caused by the use of </b> before one team's name in the coding (removing this resolves the problem). However, this doesn't appear to have been added recently, and this seems a little odd - either the articles have been corrupted for a long time and no-one has ever said anything, or somehow the </b> has only just started causing problems, which suggests a coding change somewhere has affected it.

But anyway, it looks like this may affect a lot of articles, so perhaps better to try and work out the root cause before spending a lot of time removing the </b> from articles? Number 57 07:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the templates need to be changed, because it's those pages using an unsupported hack -- which by the way looks incomplete: it closes a <b> tag but does not reopen it later. What you may be experiencing is the browser that stopped supporting this (or maybe the Wikipedia parser). It might be fixed by putting a <b> later in the same parameter that starts with </b>, but still, it's a bit ugly. Note that it does display correctly on 2014–15 FA Cup#First Round Proper, without any html tags! :) —Sygmoral (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
As TheBigJagielka pointed out at the task force page, the issue is indeed with the hack – the box automatically bolds both teams, but should only bold the winner. The </b> hack was one way around this - i.e. to debold the losing team. The other one (that doesn't cause the problems) is to bold the losing team using ''' ''', which is then reversed by the template code – this is the solution used on the 2014–15 article.
Sygmoral, I would suggest that the template itself does need to be changed to allow for the winning team to be automatically bolded using a coding function, rather than relying on backwards hack to debold the losing team. This must be possible somehow. Number 57 13:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
It should indeed be possible, and is in fact the most recent suggestion on the Football box collapsible talk page. —Sygmoral (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Guiseley A.F.C.'s stadium[edit]

I'm coming here from User_talk:Mattythewhite#Stadium_notability. It'd be appreciated if anyone could take a look at that conversation. Could it have a page? Does it pass the GNG? On the talk page, I've listed some media coverage but I'm not sure whether it is notable enough. Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The talk page linked: User talk:Mattythewhite#Stadium_notability. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The general rule is that the stadium should have hosted national-level football, so I would say the Guiseley ground should be notable. Number 57 22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Leeds United FC fan: I've restored the article (it had been converted into a redirect by myself some time ago) – see Nethermoor Park. Number 57 22:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

1930–31 Dumbarton F.C. season[edit]

Do articles such as 1930–31 Dumbarton F.C. season meet notability guidelines, being a second-tier part time team? --  20:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You're being a bit selective there, as Dumbarton have oscillated between mostly fully-pro upper divisions and the largely semi-pro lower divisions. Also, I don't think there was such a distinction between part-time and full-time in that era. The article appears to be sourced. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Has the team ever been a full time professional team? I suspect the answer to be no, but if you know better, source? --  22:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
By the modern definition, probably not. But that was probably also true when they won the Scottish league championship in 1890/91 and 1891/92. I don't think it could be reasonably argued that those seasons are not notable. I think they're an example of a club where you can't draw a hard and fast (professionalism) rule as to what is notable or not. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The difficulty I have is in seeing how a league win in the 19th Century justifies the inclusion of minutiae about a modern season when they were part-time team in the third tier, and were never pro at any time. See 2010–11 Dumbarton F.C. season. I raised the query because it looks suspiciously like excessive detail to me compared with our treatment of other non professional clubs. But if that's how things are really meant to work around here, so be it. --  11:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Design Kits[edit]

Hey guys, how are you? I was looking for someone who update kits for clubs here... Corinthians is launching its new kits this week (1st and 3rd kits, actually) and I'd like someone to create them so we could update the articles related. As soon as I get in touch with that user, I can send the pics for those new kits. The third is based on the template Nike's using for this season. Anyway, thanks! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:VEO15 has always done very good work with Manchester United kits, so I'd be inclined to ask him if I were you. I can't guarantee his availability or willingness, however. – PeeJay 22:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Just remember that these kits should not have any sponsorships, per WP:PROMOTION. MYS77 23:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Just managed to do them by myself. Thanks! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, if anyone more technologically talented than myself wants to have a go at making the new Central Coast Mariners kit (featuring unique/prominent palm tree) then that would be much appreciated. Macosal (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't all this suffer from WP:Recentism, I remember in the past kits where meant to be typical kits not the current season's palm tree number Gnevin (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
What is a "typical kit"? In any case, this season's kit should be used at 2015–16 Central Coast Mariners FC season at the very least. Macosal (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
For the Mariners a standard kit would appear to be yellow basic on my very fleeting knowledge Gnevin (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I am well aware what colours the Mariners wear... My point was more that even if you say the standard kit is "yellow", that hardly translates into a full kit/kits to put on the clubs page. Any "typical" kit will be more similar to some seasons' kit than others, in fact, determining what kit is "typical" sounds so subjective it is probably usually impossible. Macosal (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
In fairness that's good point. Better to have WP:V kit than a WP:OR 'typical kit' Gnevin (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is no issue with having more detailed designs to match a season's new kits - just no logos or sponsors please. GiantSnowman 11:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Colourful Navboxes[edit]

Per the MOS I made this edit [1] (admittedly I made a mess of the edit summary). Given sports projects tenancy to have local consensus to ignore parts of the MOS, I thought I'd ask what users think .

For me honestly it is difficult to read this template when it's coloured and it's not even one of the worst. For the minor if any value of having the same colour as the team's kit would it not be better to keep these clear? Gnevin (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit, input the values Foreground color: #00a050 , Background color: #f7f408 from {{Norwich_City_F.C.}} to see a fail on the contrast checker [2] . Gnevin (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
True, some color schemes could provide a WP:ACCESS issue. In general, I think that the schemes should be amended for better contrast; if that is not possible with the club colors, either incorporate white as background or text color or switch to the default. As for the particular template in question, how about just switching red with black? Or is it equally difficult to read? – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Black on Red or Red on Black both result in 3 fails Gnevin (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Use white text, it is contrasting against both red and black and it's the club's tertiary colour. VEOonefive 11:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Why use the colours at all? Gnevin (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow...?[edit]

Could we perhaps white out the following deletion discussion on Friendly Cup? The article should have been speedied as an obvious test page or hoax, and also was proposed for this; nevertheless, the proposal got contested by the original author without providing any reason (see talk page of the article). – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • isn't this comment crossing the line a bit? --  13:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The articles should be deleted (WP:HOAX), but the above comment is a bit like canvassing (campaigning). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Point taken and understood. Won't happen again. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Moving the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup qualification (CONCACAF play-off) article[edit]

Should the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup qualification (CONCACAF play-off) article be moved to 2015 CONCACAF Cup ? CONCACAF are now branding the one-game qualification play-off as the "2015 CONCACAF Cup Presented by Scotiabank". TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've gone and done it myself (Wikipedia:Be bold!) TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Qualifying / qualification, what is the difference?[edit]

Why do we say 2018 FIFA World Cup Qualification and 2016 UEFA EURO Qualifying? Is there an important difference between these two words or is it merely a conventional use (so qualifying for European tournaments and qualification for the rest of the world)? Sofeshue (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no difference as far as I am aware – it's two words with the same meaning. Number 57 08:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, we titled the articles based on what FIFA and UEFA refer to each phase of their tournaments as. UEFA use the word "qualifying", whereas FIFA use "qualification". Maybe that's changed now, or maybe we should be consistent here, but that's the reason I remember from years ago. – PeeJay 09:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Quique Sánchez Flores - Page move[edit]

Feeling absolutely gutted with this outcome, if I knew then what I know now I would have stayed pat as can be. Several years ago, several people sided with the argument that his common name was Quique Flores, not just me, and I was subjected to vitriolic abuse by a Colombian punk for several years for doing so (only me, mind you!).

Moreover, if you check the ref someone else has added to the article (PERSONAL LIFE section), he is addressed as Quique Flores by the ENGLISH press. They call him Q.S. Flores once, then the rest of the article only Flores.

Lost for words, but I still wish the community a merry weekend. Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Can WP:GNG be passed using one source (albeit from a national newspaper)[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianluigi Donnarumma for full details.

In short, there is a Daily Mail article provided in the AfD that provides extensive coverage of this footballer. There is no doubt that it gives him more than just a passing mention. My issue is that, in my opinion, he still doesn't meet WP:GNG since my interpretation was that there needed to be more than just one source providing extensive coverage. Can anyone enlighten me please? If proven wrong, I'll happily withdraw my deletion nomination for Donnarumma. Spiderone 17:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Generally, it's accepted practice to wait until he's played a first team game for either club or country, even Raheem Sterling's article was removed until he had played a first team - his page was receiving thousands of views at the time too. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
To answer the question you asked. That article is far from being 'extensive coverage' of someone's biography. The newspaper in question is an unreliable source for BLP articles. Even if these first two points were not so, one article is insufficient to establish GNG. --  18:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
the Daily Mail is not a RS and one source is insufficient for GNG. GiantSnowman 19:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: just out of interest, why is the Daily Mail not a reliable source? It is written by full-time journalists and is a national newspaper. Admittedly, it is a Tabloid but then would that mean the Metro, Mirror, Sun etc. are not reliable also? Spiderone 21:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Those aren't reliable either. None should be used to add material to biographies of living persons per WP:BLPSOURCES. --  21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Manager stuff[edit]

Any Canadian soccer fans out there? António Fonseca's infobox, previous to my last barrage of edits, said he coached the Vancouver Whitecaps from 1999 to 2004, but all available sources only mention from 2002 onwards. If it was 1999, that would overlap with his playing career; thus, I quite probably jumped the gun and wrote in storyline he was a player-coach, but in the light of the sources I provided (and read better now!) have removed/adjusted that bit now.

A strong possibility is that the 1999 in the infobox was nothing but an error, no? Maybe he was an assistant before taking over in 2002 (again, nothing mentioned in the sources)? Attentively, thanks for any inputs in advance --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)