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.

Runners-up in league as an "honour"?[edit]

So, Rpo.castro (talk · contribs) has reverted me 3 times in S.C. Braga because he wants to include a second place in Primeira Liga as an "honour". The article already mentions that achievement in the lead and ranking box. Furthermore, the honours section also lists minor honours such as Taça Ribeiro dos Reis and Taça Federação Portuguesa de Futebol; both are unsourced. They should be removed from honours. SLBedit (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@SLBedit: this is not new (case 1, case 2, case 3) and it doesn't have some consensus. MYS77 19:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hence the question. Finishing second in Primeira Liga is not an honour. No medals received (like in any league). Nothing. SLBedit (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Remember having a long debate about this before- no, it's not an honour. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Being or not being a honour is a subjective question depends the "taste" of the person. If you have 20 titles, runner-up is not a big thing. If you don't, that its remarkable for that club. WP is not original research. Being runner-up in a national/international official competition is considerer as a honour oustide WP: Yes like: [ here], here, here, here here or here.

If this runner-up is removed from "honours" its information removed. If stays what could harm? And like the notabilty criterias, you cannot make and article just because some club was runner-up (like you cannot made an article because some guy is spanhish). But if the articles exist, that information can be included. You cannot remove "player X is spanish" just because being spanish is not notable.

This was discussed so much times without consensus. The "defeated" will keep trying to re-open this issue until wins by tiring the opposition?Rpo.castro (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC) is a tertiary source. and are primary sources. The "defeated" shouldn't add a second place in league as an honour. SLBedit (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
....1 2, Sky Sports Football Yearbook (former Rothamns Football Yearbook). Discussed in late december 2015, Discussing again 1,5 months later? Better open another discussion topic just in case...Rpo.castro (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If reliable sources count runner up as an honour then so should we. GiantSnowman 21:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem is that no reliable sources will because IT IS NOT! I remember reading in some articles in players in England receiving runner-up medals in Football League One/Football League Two, but in Spain/Portugal/Italy/France/Germany only the first is an honour, and that's it. -- (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Look links above, or just look into libraries and google. There are plenty sources which considerer (and which don't). Since there is no definition by any organization (FIFA or UEFA) where honours is defined (which per se is a subjective thing), we have to strick to what sources mentionate. I really don't understand where is the discussion. There is any doubt that club A was runner-up? So whats the problem of being listed aas a honours or a major result instead? Its just to make other clube to have a better record? WP is about information, not about "club A is better then B".Rpo.castro (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not want to imply any club was better than another, just gave my opinion. This discussion is probably as old as WP itself, getting really tiresome. However, since I don't edit club articles (only individual players), S.C. Braga or any other club, I won't edit war with anyone. -- (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Luck you, because everyone in WP can face an editor who wants to edit warring. I would like to understand how can you say there is not reliabale sources, when there is...Rpo.castro (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, those sources may not indicate it is an honour, just that the team finished second in this or that season. Again, like I said, you don't have to worry about me reverting anyone. Cheers -- (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Vanderlei Luxemburgo: template include size[edit]

The Vanderlei Luxemburgo page has a problem in that it includes too many templates and the page is in the hidden Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. That means some of the templates did not work, and any further templates added will cause other templates to not work. It has to be fixed, and the easy way would be to remove several of the "managers" navboxes at the bottom. That would possibly be a good idea because they are an overkill. However, if they are wanted, the navboxes needs to be fixed. For example, {{America Football Club managers}} includes lots of {{Football manager list entry}}, as do the others. That puts a zillion of the "entry" templates in the main article. The navbox might be replaced with a module that would reduce the number of templates down to a small number. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This subject was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 99#Template:Navboxes and Template talk:Navboxes#Limit of templates?. Cheers, MYS77 11:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Taking {{America Football Club managers}} as an example, it calls {{Football manager history}} which calls {{Football manager list entry}} and {{Football manager last}}; it finishes by calling {{navbox}}, and that invokes Module:Navbox to do the work. I could provide a module to replace {{Football manager history}} and the templates it calls. {{America Football Club managers}} would use a greatly simplified syntax for the list parameter (no templates would be called). The new module would call the navbox module directly. Is this approach wanted? Something else? If wanted, we would need to mention the proposal somewhere (some of the template talk pages?), and if no problems raised I could slowly work on it. @Frietjes: Do you have an opinion on how these navboxes should work? Is the problem already solved in another area? Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq, there is some precedent for creating navbox wrappers in module-space, without going in-and-out of module-space. for example, Module:Team roster navbox (which is really just another version of Module:Navbox with nowrap lists as far as I can tell). I recall include size exceeded issues with {{documentation}} before it was rewritten. and, I imagine that whatever is done could also be done to template:navboxes? so, after providing many tangential topics, I really don't have any examples that exactly match this situation. by the way, it would be great if we could finally merge Module:Navbox with nowrap lists and Module:Navbox with striping into Module:Navbox with these features triggered by an additional parameter. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
another possible option would be to create a 'navboxes top' and 'navboxes bottom', which would avoid passing the entire stack of infoboxes through the navboxes template. Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Frietjes for that info which I will digest.
@MYS77: thanks for the links, but would you mind saying what you think should be done now. Due to my lack of familiarity with this project I can't follow the comments. Should I fix the manager navboxes so they appear as currently intended without error? Or, are people here wanting some other solution such as removing the excessive number of navboxes? Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I don't know, honestly. In the other threads, somebody just pointed me a "temporary solution", which is currently used in Dorival Júnior's article. MYS77 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes, @MYS77: I have written a module and done some testing. Assuming no problems are raised I will finish implementing it, and it should eliminate the template include size problem. More information is at #Template:Football manager history below. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


My question is, do we feel the disambiguation convention of F.C. on all football club articles outweighs the policy of WP:Commonname. For instance take Manchester United F.C. If you search for that term you only get 73,300,000 but search for Manchester United you get double at 156,000,000. In this case there is no need for the disambig as there is not likely to be any confusion with Manchester and there are no other articles with the same name.

Ive been advised in the Talk:St. Mirren F.C. move request that for WP:Commonname to overrule the standard disam for all football clubs an RFC is required. Im not sure thats the case, however I am willing to start one to debate further, but would rather see what the opinion of the project is. I agree its a difficult one, but if we have a common name policy it should be used properly and not just when we feel like it. So my question is if no disambig is required why do we insist on there being one.Blethering Scot 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Consistency. This is one of the five key WP:NAMINGCRITERIA – some clubs need the F.C. for disambiguation purposes (e.g. Liverpool F.C.), so it's much better to use it for all clubs rather than have a mishmash of different club name formats. Number 57 23:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yet we are not consistent. Take Kerala Blasters FC, Gauhati Town Club, Bharat FC, Eastern Railway FC for instance all Indian club but the point stands we are one of the lest consistent projects around. I agree that when disambiguation is needed consistency is key between F.C. and FC, even though we aren't. However can we seriously argue as a project that when no disambig is required such as with Manchester United that we are above common name. I dont see how we can.Blethering Scot 17:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Whether deliberate or not, you have chosen an example that is entirely misleading – FC is not part of Gauhati Town Club's name, so is not included in the title for a reason.
The F.C. on the end of Manchester United is not a disambiguation tool, it is part of the club's name. And then it goes back to the consistency argument. Number 57 18:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we are being disingenuous to a tea. There are plenty of clubs who do not have football club as part of their name and we force F.C. after their name. As for Manchester United there common name is clearly simply Manchester United. I will say it again User:Number 57, as a project do we believe we are above the common name policy. You say we need consistency, but clearly we do not have it, so exclude Gauhati Town Club you still have Kerala Blasters FC, Bharat FC, Eastern Railway FC and plenty of others who use football club and we show no consistency on.Blethering Scot 21:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe I've seen any examples of where F.C. is used in a club's article title when it's not part of it's name, certainly not any English clubs. I also don't see any inconsistencies in the Indian examples, because we use the clubs' names in each case. And regards the common name policy, no, I don't believe we're above it. However, you need to understand that common name is not the most important naming policy – consistency is equally important. Number 57 21:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I do understand consistency is key, however there is inconsistency above. Yes FC is official name but we use F.C. for hundreds if not thousands of clubs who are Football Club and don't use F.C. anywhere in their name. So we either use F.C. or FC if football club is in their name. We are not consistent at this time. Common name if proven meets other key points of our naming policy such as recognisability and naturalness. Equally important parts. Im going to start a RFC on the subject of local naming conventions as i feel policies such as common name should not be disregarded at RM simply because a local convention exists. Blethering Scot 21:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • sigh* Consistency is not a "local convention". But if you're insistent on pursuing this agenda, at least please ensure the RfC is done on this projects' page. Number 57 21:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Number 57 No consistency is part of Wikipedias naming policy, as is recognisability and naturalness. F.C. is a local project convention on naming, if I'm wrong tell me now. Im being clearly advised by User:BrownHairedGirl that policy of common name does not overrule this projects local naming convention. If i was to start an RFC it would not be here but at Wikipedia:Article titles as the subject of whether a policy is overridden by local convention is a subject for the whole community as it effect every project.Blethering Scot 22:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
F.C., A.F.C. or whatever is part of clubs' names that we use in order to get consistency in how we name club articles – this is an agreed convention that follows the naming guideline. Many projects have agreed conventions on naming formats, and as long as they are within the bounds of the naming guidelines, that's not a problem. Number 57 22:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Number 57 I agree it is not a problem, but if common name is proven should those local project naming conventions overrule. I don't think they should and I'm advised they do, specifically this projects ones do. Whats your opinion? Blethering Scot 22:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you're confusing things here. The use of F.C. is not a "project naming convention" – it is an agreed application of the naming guideline, specifically WP:Consistency. Common name does not overrule this. Number 57 22:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you feel common name does not overrule this. It is part of Wikipedia:Article titles as much as consistency is. Are we saying that consistency is more important than recognizability and naturalness or what reliable sources call something.Blethering Scot 23:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Because it's one of the five key naming criteria (the top level rules) – none of them overrule another; it simply comes down to a choice of what is preferable when you can't hit all five. In my experience, in topic areas where there are hundreds or thousands of articles, consistency is usually the option that editors go for. For example, look at Category:Railway stations in Suffolk; some of them are town names, and require disambiguation, but others are names that are only used for the station (e.g. Oulton Broad North). However, the railway project has obviously decided that it's better to go for consistent naming in order to avoid the aforementioned mishmash. Number 57 23:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Kerala Blasters FC and Bharat FC are all officially named with the "FC" at the end (not F.C.). Gauhati Town Club is literally Gauhati Town Club. Eastern Railways might have had F.C. but official sources just has them as FC. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
User:ArsenalFan700 not all clubs use F.C. as part of their official name. My team certainly do not, they use FC but we list them F.C.. The project has almost always used F.C. either as a disam tool or to signify football club. You mentioned official sources that marks my point to a tea. We are not consistent either on what official sources use of what the club's common name is. To me it is clear, where common name is clearly proven it should be used unless their is significant need to disam from what they are named after. Blethering Scot 21:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that this Football Project is unusual in having a local convention which clarifies how the policy at WP:AT applies to its topic area. As noted in the policy at WP:MOSAT, there are many such naming conventions, and they can be controversial. In my experience, naming conventions are most successful and most likely to retain broad community support when they don't stray far from the general, Wikipedia-wide conventions.

The football club approach seems to me to have very broad support, because it is simple and minimalist. So simple that I am not sure if it is even codified anywhere, because it doesn't need to be. AFAICS, it amounts to roughly "If a football club's name includes the words 'Football Club', then the wikipedia article's title should always include the initials 'F.C.'. This creates a consistent naming structure, and in the vast majority of cases it creates a unique and stable title which avoids timewasting arguments over ambiguity".

The "Foo F.C." format may not always be the most common name, but it is always a widely used form in reliable sources, and it is only a very minor variation on the most common name. So it meets all of the 5 points set out at: WP:CRITERIA:

  • Recognizability — Most sources use "Foo F.C." (or a variant thereon) when discussing the club in a non-football context
  • Naturalness — the initials are self-evident, and the clubs themselves usually use "Foo F.C." in their own materials
  • Precision — the "F.C." suffix nearly always creates a unique title
  • Conciseness — it adds only 5 characters to the shortest form of the title
  • Consistency — it allows all clubs to use the same format

So I'm not sure what the basis is of Blethering Scot's objection to this convention ... apart from BS's unwillingness to accept that that like most en.wp policies, WP:AT isn't about one single principle. It balances several principles.

I am somewhat bemused to have been dragged into all this. I found 3 Scottish football clubs titled "St. Foo", and quickly nominated them all at WP:RM: St Cuthbert, St Johnstone, and St Mirren. It's a fairly simple issue: the MOS says don't use the dot, common usage in reliable sources doesn't use the dot, the clubs themselves don't use the dots in the text on their own websites (tho some use it on the logo).

But BS is furious about this, and has generated a huge amount of heat over these simple dots. So the third RM remains open as BS's indignation continues. I hope that the RFC is more productive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most nonsensical debates I have read. Brown haired girl sums it up perfectly, I really don't see why we need an RfC, when there is obviously clear consensus about this issue. If it ain't broke, don't fix it NapHit (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Completely agreed. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Football manager history[edit]

Per the template include size discussion above, some articles exceed the template include size because they use many club manager navboxes, and each navbox uses many subtemplates. I have converted three navboxes to use the new syntax of the sandbox template. Assuming no problems are raised, I intend to convert more navboxes and the main template. Please have a look at the sandbox link above for documentation. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, good work! Number 57 17:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have converted 16 of the navboxes to use the new system (a list is temporarily here). While doing that I noticed that different styles are used for the note which appears at the bottom of some of them. Examples:

The issue is very minor, but if there are any opinions on what the note should be, I will make the navboxes consistent when I edit more. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think (c) = caretaker manager looks the best and has the relevant info. GiantSnowman 12:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I agree that looks best and will standardize on it when doing more editing. What about (i) interim — is that different from caretaker? Some navboxes like {{Fluminense Football Club managers}} use "(a.i.)". I won't try to change that because those who maintain them clearly like it, but I'm curious if it is another way of saying "temporary" (t?) or "caretaker". Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: A caretaker manager is usually someone from inside the club who holds the fort until someone else is appointed. An interim manager is usually appointed from outside the club until a permanent replacement is found (e.g. Guus Hiddink at Chelsea). Number 57 20:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess you are happy with (c) = caretaker manager? If I'm editing lots of the navboxes I may as well improve consistency, so which of the following should be used for interim?
  1. (i) interim
  2. (i) = interim manager
Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Team Captains succession box: use or no use?[edit]

Continuing from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 99#Succession boxes.
Seems like the discussion ended in favor no use. However, I do think that team captains deserve to have a succession box. To be chosen as captain is not a small deal for any footballers. -Bijak riyandi (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • No as has been discussed multiple times before. It's not considered a notable position, and changes too frequently. GiantSnowman 13:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No – As per GiantSnowman and earlier discussions. Qed237 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No – As per above. Kante4 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No - to be honest it is a "small deal" in most cases. The fact that I have several books on the history of my club and not one bothers to list past captains or even mention who was captain in any given season is quite telling -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No per above, and they're largely unsourced. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - As an interested friend of the WP:FOOTY family, I would like to note that none of the other major sports WikiProjects sanction navboxes for team captains. While these positions may have had more substance to them in the early 1900s, with the rise of professional managers and coaches in the 20th Century team captain became a relatively meaningless, almost honorary position on sports teams in most of the English-speaking world. In 2016, the position does not rise to the level of a notweworthy honor that merits a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No – As per consensus.--EchetusXe 16:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No - per previous consensus. I will note (in response to Dirtlawyer1), however, that there is at least one sport where the position of Captain is not merely honorary; in ice hockey, only the Captain (or an Alternate Captain if the Captain is not on the ice) may address rules interpretations with the officials. As there is no captain succession box in a sport where the position actually means something, how can we justify it in a sport where the position means almost nothing? — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've found a sport which does use them - cricket! Still, though, no.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

D.C HILL C.F[edit]

Hey guys, came across D.C HILL C.F in my gnoming capacity. Not sure if it's notable or not, but it is currently unsourced. (I had to remove a poor blog reference.) It's also unclear to me if "under-16" means that it's a kids' league, (probably not notable) or if that's some special football lingo. Thanks for looking at it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Article PRODded and template at TFD. GiantSnowman 12:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Tracking category for template errors[edit]

As mentioned above, I'm planning to replace {{Football manager history}} with something that uses a module. A module can check its parameters to detect errors. I haven't put in much checking, but for example, it could reject invalid years such as "from 1970 to 1968". The module does check that a year is given and will show an error if it is invalid. When working on {{convert}} it was decided that a discreet error message should be displayed, but I've found that editors often miss such messages. Therefore, the navbox module won't show anything except a big error message if there is a problem. A hidden tracking category should be added to help locate such errors (like Category:Convert invalid options).

I found the following hidden tracking categories but they don't seem suitable for reporting a template error.

I propose using Category:Football template errors for a generic title in case other templates for this wikiproject want to track errors. Any thoughts on that name? Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have created the above category page and redirected its talk page to here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Club season article naming[edit]

What is the consensus for season articles in clubs that changed name. Is that SLBedit moved 1906–07 Sport Lisboa season and 1907–08 Sport Lisboa season to 1906–07 S.L. Benfica season and 1907–08 S.L. Benfica season with the rationale For consistency across season articles. Also, S.L. Benfica is the subject of the article. The problem is, there were no such thing as SL Benfica until September 1908, when Sport Lisboa merged with Grupo Benfica. It's slightly comparable to Newton Heath F.C. or Woolwich Arsenal F.C., the former names of today Man United and Arsenal, but in this case, Sport Lisboa and Grupo Benfica were 2 different clubs, who played 2 different sports. Both Man United and Arsenal also have their older seasons named after their former name, 1886–87 Newton Heath LYR F.C. season or 1886–87 Royal Arsenal F.C. season, so there must a consensus to only change the season article name, when the club also changes.--Threeohsix (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, articles should definitely be titled with historical accuracy. If the club wasn't called SL Benfica prior to the 1908-09 season, the articles should use the former name(s). – PeeJay 10:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with PeeJay. Articles should be titled according to the club name at the time of the season. Number 57 10:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with PeeJay and N57 - it needs to reflect the historical name of the club. GiantSnowman 13:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree 100% that the name in use at the time should be used -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Dito. Kante4 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Also agree due to historical accuracy. We don't retro-fit to 1965–66 Premier League for the same a similar reason. C679 20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's actually slightly different, since the Premier League was a brand new league formed by a mass resignation of First Division clubs from the Football League, forcing all Second/Third/Fourth Division teams to be automatically "promoted". It feels like a renaming of divisions, but it wasn't. – PeeJay 10:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I concur. C679 10:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Montsy Piggont[edit]

Has anybody heard of "Montsy Piggont", apparently a French third-tier football team. Google only shows four results, all either at the Alieu Darbo page or the reference of the particular statement used at the page itself. It talks about 2–0 win in what was apparently the 2010–11 Coupe de France, but the only 2–0 win for his team was against AC Plouzané, according to our article, although I haven't been able to verify details of that match, either. Any ideas? Thanks, C679 16:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it must be Plouzané. "Monsty Piggont" is part of a direct quote from Darbo in the source, so I assume he just got confused. The match against Plouzané also occured around the time of the game he mentions. Number 57 16:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks 57. I have been taking the article apart and it looks like Alieu Darbo hasn't played in a WP:FPL, is anybody able to source any French league stats for him? C679 20:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
He appears to have one appearance in the Egyptian Premier League (which is an FPL). Do you think this stat is incorrect? Number 57 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't verify it. Seems to meet GNG regardless, but concerned as article (and even the photo) is all from a WP:SPA. C679 20:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

identifying a club registered as another club[edit]

This seems to me in the "you've got to be kidding me!" category, but here goes. In 2015–16 Primera División de Fútbol Profesional season, between Apertura and Clausura seasons, Juventud Independiente sold it's spot to Segunda División (and former Primera División) side C.D. Luis Ángel Firpo. The issue is that for whatever reason, Firpo was forced to register as Juventud, so all official league records (and sites such as Soccerway) indicate Juventud, but it's actually Firpo (players, stadium, colors, etc.). Juventud is actually sitting out the Clausura season, supposedly having not registered in time for Segunda Division's Clausura.

We have a referenced note of this at the end of the section about promotion & relegation after last season, and what's basically a copy of that at the top of the Clausura season, noting that in that section Juventud really means Firpo, but I'd like some input as to whether that's the best way to do it, or if the entire Clausura section should just reference Firpo, or something else. Thanks!--John, AF4JM (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

From our perspective, I'd suggest that the current explanations in-text are quite clear. I'd be tempted to change the links in the Clausura table and fixture list to Pipelink to Firpo, so that it reads as Juventud Independiente but takes people to the Firpo page. Alternatively, you could just enter it as Firpo, with the note above the table explaining. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Fb team[edit]

Hi, can anyone explain to me the purpose of this template: Template:Fb team? I've seen it used as a substitute for pipelinking, like in this edit, but I really see no actual need for such usage. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Zero purpose whatsoever, from what I can see. I think the original argument was "if the team article is moved, we only have to update the one template to keep all the links from other pages accurate", but that makes zero sense when we have redirects to do that job for us. If the change of an article title is that problematic, a bot can do the job instead. The template should be subst'ed and deleted. – PeeJay 10:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of FIFA rules required[edit]

A player has represented his nation at the U-20 level. He subsequently moves to another country. Sources indicate he may elect to appear for that nation at the senior level. I have an editor who states FIFA will not allow it. Please confirm what the rules actually are at Talk:Gershon Koffie#Gershon Koffie's eligibility for Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)