Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WPF)
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 and 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)


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)

Tautologous Nordic club names[edit]

User:Qed237 has been changing a lot of articles about recent Champions League/Europa League seasons to include tautologous names such as VPS Vaasa, RoPS Rovaniemi and ÍF Fuglafjørður. For a start, the article titles are horribly inconsistent, but my main concern is that these names are tautologous and therefore wrong. As one editor who moved HJK Helsinki to Helsingin Jalkapalloklubi a few years ago said, referring to HJK by the name "HJK Helsinki" is like referring to Manchester United as "Manchester United Manchester". Article titles are one thing, but can we at least agree that we shouldn't be piping to wrong names in article text? – PeeJay 17:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The article name should be at the WP:COMMONNAME (whatever it is) and the piping should then reflect that. Also Sporting Lisbon, AZ Alkmaar etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talkcontribs)
Then what the hell do we have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) for? WP:COMMONNAME isn't the only criterion by which articles should be named. – PeeJay 17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The COMMONNAME for football clubs being, for example, 'Manchester United F.C.' and not 'Man Utd' or 'Manchester United Football Club'...jeez, calm down! GiantSnowman 18:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said on my talkpage, look for example at Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho, the article states Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho (or SJK Seinäjoki or SJK) is a Finnish football club and UEFA and others say "SJK Seinäjoki" then why should we not pipe to what UEFA use and what is COMMONNAME in a UEFA competition? Qed237 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
For example I also looked at BBC, as an example to see commonname in English media. Qed237 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, but the whole Inter Milan farce has got me pretty ticked. Are you suggesting that "Sporting Lisbon" and "AZ Alkmaar" should be used or not? – PeeJay 18:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
No they should not. GiantSnowman 18:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: so "SJK Seinäjoki" like UEFA use or just "SJK"? "HJK Helsinki" (where article is) or just "HJK"? and the others mentioned above? Qed237 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Either the proper name (e.g. Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho) or the abbreviation (e.g. SJK (football club) - but not SJK Seinäjoki. GiantSnowman 18:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Then we should look at a whole lot of articles, that is probably in the wrong place. Qed237 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@GiantSnowman and PeeJay2K3: If no one here opposes I can move "HJK Helsinki" to "Helsingin Jalkapalloklubi"? Should ÍF Fuglafjørður and similar also be moved and to what? "Ítróttarfelag Fuglafjarðar" or "ÍF (football club)", and the other as redirect? Also, I will go through the articles again and remove the edits I made if that is what we decide. Qed237 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer it if they were at HJK (football club), ÍF (football club), etc. The name "Helsingin Jalkapalloklubi" isn't exactly recognisable, per WP:NC, nor is it particularly natural or concise, whereas "HJK" is recognisable as part of "HJK Helsinki", it's concise, natural, precise and consistent. If it weren't for the presence of Hærens Jegerkommando, I'd suggest moving it to HJK, but that's a dab page. – PeeJay 19:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I would imagine the football club is a fairly obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the HJK location (and there's only one other article on that DAB pages, to WP:TWODABS applies too). Perhaps also worth mentioning the unanimous support for the RM at AZ Aklmaar, which Mr Snowman was amongst those voting in favour of ;) Number 57 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I can agree with that. And with those article names, the piping is very natural and there wont be discussions like this one (or at least fewer discussions). I will await a few more response (or at least some time) though to let others have a say. Do you think a move would be controversial so we have to go through RM? Qed237 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
By the logic above we should request a new move for AZ? We can not have AZ Alkmaar, but say HJK Helsinki is wrong. We need some consistency here. Qed237 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I've learned that inconsistency is something you have to put up with here, mainly due to the fact that the sources we use aren't even consistent among themselves. But no, we can't accept Alkmaar Zaanstreek Alkmaar without also accepting Helsingin Jalkapalloklubi Helsinki. After all, we already have N.E.C. (football club) instead of NEC Nijmegen (Nijmegen Eendracht Combinatie Nijmegen). – PeeJay 20:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3, Number 57, and GiantSnowman: So what is next step here to get consistency? A new move request for AZ Alkmaar to move to AZ (football club) and then start moving the other Tauntologies? Or should we move Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho to "SJK Seinäjoki" to be consistent with the AZ article? Qed237 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes - and AZ was at 'AZ (football club)' at one point as well... GiantSnowman 09:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3, Number 57, and GiantSnowman: Now move requested at Talk:AZ Alkmaar#Requested move 21 July 2015. Qed237 (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Uche Ikpeazu[edit]

Born in England to Nigerian parents, he hasn't represented any country yet at youth level. However in this interview he is asked "Do you see yourself as Nigerian or English?" and he says "I see myself as a Nigerian". So do we put a Nigerian flag rather than an English flag?--EchetusXe 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No I would say stick with country of birth until its proved otherwise. If he is called up and accepts for any Nigerian international squad then sure. Paul  Bradbury 12:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
As he hasn't represented any country, no flag is necessary. Johnlp (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I think Soccerbase gives the answer. Number 57 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
As a living person his view on his nationality has to actually be considered. if there is a reliable source stating he is Nigerian through an interview with him then that has to be acknowledged in some way. Also he is probably eligible for dual nationality.Blethering Scot 16:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
He is asked explicitly here if he sees himself as English or Nigerian, and he says Nigerian. In my view we should respect this, at least to some degree, as this is a WP:BLP. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
FIFA do not take into consideration personal views when assigning nationality to players. His views can be mentioned in his article, but where he is listed in squads, it would be under his nationality as described by reliable sources. Number 57 16:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Number 57. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Chelsea big squad[edit]

Hi, Could someone take a look at 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season#First Team Squad? It is more than 40 players (league has max 25?) and a lot of unsourced info not needed, like transfer fee. Qed237 (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well yeah, most of the info in that table is irrelevant. What difference does it make to that season how many appearances each player has made for Chelsea, or the club they joined from and what year? See if you can tally the squad list against Chelsea's first-team squad on their website, and delete the unnecessary columns. – PeeJay 22:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Will do. I have already deleted a section for "pre-season squad" and a section for the stats of loaned out players (their stats at an other club). Qed237 (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: Should players on loan be on that list or is it only players that has been in actual squad during the season? Qed237 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if I have the right to say join the discussion here but pls let me say a few words here. So first of all the premier league allows unlimited number of under-21 players to represent the first team without registration (out of the 25-players-list), and most of the under-21 players have been training with the first team through the last season so they may represent the first team this year as there is no limitation on the registration of the players. Therefore the under-21 players should be kept in the first team list. If you really think the squad is to big and is unacceptable, pls edit them after the close of the transfer window as some of them are believed to be loaned out. It's not late to edit it after 1st Sept right? (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
What always irks me is the transfer fee column, most transfers fees are undisclosed by the club, so the transfer fees listed are no more than a guess. Get rid! JMHamo (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this is acceptable to show the transfer fee, appearance and goal etc as they give a full picture of the squad such as the years of service, value and contribution etc . And as a Chelsea fan I think it would be a great if I can see most of the information in one page. (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
While for the stats of the loan players, yes they are loaned to other teams but they are still Chelsea players so I think their season stats can be showed at the page. But it is not bad to delete it. (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Finally pls let me apologize to User:Qed237 as I didnt know there is a discussion here and I treated your edition as malicious. (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted, no problem. Qed237 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Will people please remember this is an encyclopaedia and not a football magazine. If there are no reliable sources, then it should go, it doesn't matter that you think it looks nice. JMHamo (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You can always compare to 2014–15 Liverpool F.C. season and how that list looks know after we discussed very well how that should look. Transfer fees are unsourced speculations and players should only be added if they can be source as a part of first team squad. Also what team player came from is interesting in transfer section but not for this season (if the player came a long time ago) and same applies for total appearances and goals, it does not belong to this season but can be seen at the player articles. Qed237 (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not even sure the players' dates of birth and ages need to be included. I don't see how they're relevant to the season. – PeeJay 19:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A little off point, but First Team Squad should read as First team squad as per WP:CAPS. --Jimbo[online] 12:55, 22 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


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)

Keylor Navas[edit]

User:Kante4, as he is perfectly entitled, removed the cited fact that Navas has inherited Iker Casillas' #1 shirt. I would like a discussion as I see this as a worthy edition: Unlike most number changes which are added in, this is sourced, and the number is symbolic not just as it was worn by IC, but that it is often associated with the main-choice goalkeeper. Then again you can call that synth, but the number change itself is sourced '''tAD''' (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I just don't think it is important to their career(s) and just trivia information. If people agree to have it in the articles, ok but i'm not for it. Kante4 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you please discuss this at Talk:Keylor Navas. JMHamo (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Guti Ribeiro[edit]

Is this guy notable, teammates? Per this source (see here, Portuguese as him), only top flight competition he appeared in was the Indonesian Premier League, does this grant him notability and/or WP article? Other than that, we have Spanish fourth and fifth level, Greek/German third level, Maltese second level and Cypriot second level, not your average full pro, hey?

Attentively, thanks in advance -- (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Indonesian Premier League is the 2nd division in Indonesia and is not fully-pro. Therefore he does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and is non-notable. GiantSnowman 16:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The original poster is mistaken: the club Persijap Jepara were in the Indonesia Super League in the season he was with them. Additionally, the Greek 3rd tier is listed as fully pro. Some of the content looks invented, though. The FDJ link provided doesn't mention his playing for Sportfreunde Siegen, but the article claims 33 apps/7 goals. Fussballdaten lists nobody with a name like his in either their 04/05 or 05/06 squads, so it's unlikely he did play for them. Nor does FDJ mention Anagennisi Karditsa, who were Greek 2nd tier in the season he was supposed to be with them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
How come is the Greek third tier fully pro? I honestly thought (me again, not doing my wiki-homework...) that the only case where anything below the second division was fully professional was England, and maybe Scotland. Are there more countries Struway, please? -- (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:FPL and sources listed there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, according to (which I have now retrieved to his page), he did play pro footy in the Greek second tier (Anagennisi), well mentioned by you sir. Also, some of the stats seemed well toyed with (especially those 112/72 in TWO seasons with Almada), I adjusted them with the help of (mainly) FDJ.

Thanks to both for your inputs, continue with the good work -- (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[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. (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Adam Barton's nationality[edit]

This guy represented Northern Ireland and then later Republic of Ireland under-21s, but was born in England. What's his "correct" nationality? According to FIFA, he would be Irish, right? Because ThePeoplesGame is insisting that he is English. MYS77 15:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, the user mentioned above failed to provide any sources and breached WP:3RR. MYS77 15:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
ROI, I would say. GiantSnowman 15:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. It's whoever he played for most recently. Number 57 15:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, Number 57: Thanks for the inputs. That's what I told the guy, but he reverted me a lot of times... MYS77 15:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've warned him for 3RR. GiantSnowman 17:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Firstly I would appreciate it if you wouldn't delete the comments that I am making on this talk page, I would rather have a mature conversation about the matter so please stop. Secondly I am politely asking for somebody to cite a reliable reference for the changes made regarding Adam Barton's nationality & for the FIFA rulings that determine one's nationality. I would also ask you all to stop making the rather ignorant assumption that I am male. I ask for you all to demonstrate at least some degree of maturity here in the interests of providing an accurate Wikipedia page. Thank you ThePeoplesGame (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@ThePeoplesGame: It doesn't appear that anyone has deleted any comments, the above is the only edit you have ever made to this page. As far as wikipedia goes we use the flag of the nation the player is eligible to represent, if there are several of these and the player has played for one or more of them the nation they most recently played for is the nation that is used. In this case that would be ROI. Paul  Bradbury 17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @Pbradbury: for your reply however I had left comments this time yesterday that no longer appear here. Thank you for clarifying the situation re: FIFA nationality & Adam Barton's nationality however in the interests of accuracy a citation/reference would also help. Kind regards ThePeoplesGame (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You have not left a message here before - see this list of your contributions. Maybe you typed it but it didn't save? GiantSnowman 18:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Giant Maybe not ThePeoplesGame (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

American NWSL categorization of players[edit]

Can one of you football experts take a look at Category:National Women's Soccer League players? It appears to include the same players in this main category, as well as the subcategories broken out by team. As a general rule of Wikipedia categorization, we do not include a subject in both a parent category and a subcategory of the parent -- am I missing something here that is specific to football/soccer? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That is normal for football/soccer - being in Category:National Women's Soccer League players means you have played in a league game, being in a team's category means you have been on the team's roster. GiantSnowman 18:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, some teams like Boston Breakers and Chicago Red Stars have played in multiple leagues. For example, Boston has played in WUSA and WPS, and obviously, many early Breakers players are not NWSL players. Mosmof (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Got it: there is some logic for it in the case NWSL teams and players. Thanks, y'all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


The Athletic Bilbao official website has changed configuration for the umpteenth time. User:MYS77 has already kindly "revived" all the links for the current players, but is there any way to do the same for the HUNDREDS of old ones? Or do we have to do it manually?

Attentively -- (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQUEST. GiantSnowman 12:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Season articles and youths[edit]

Hi, I have been under the impression that season articles are for the senior team, but User:Parxpower does not agree and re-added development squad, youth transfers (in and out), pre-season friendlies and U21 league matches. Can we get some clarity here? Are these articles for senior team only or youth also? Qed237 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NSEASONS says quite clearly that individual season articles are acceptable for teams in top professional leagues. Only the senior team fulfills this criterion. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree I think the articles should contain only the matches of the first team, the players and transfers are more of a grey area as its not always clear that they are not signed for the first team and also if they are under 21 are eligible without being listed in official squad lists. Paul  Bradbury 11:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd also note that NSEASONS is is also clear to stress the importance of sourced prose. If there are notable interactions between the senior and youth teams they can of course be discussed, but with an eye on WP:NOTSTATS we should definitely avoid excessive listing of minor results / transfers / squads. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course only the main team stats/results/squad should be added. Kante4 (talk) 13:44, 24 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? -- (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)

Tomáš Kalas[edit]

Kalas has had two loan spells at Middlesbrough. The first ended, and he returned to Chelsea and could not train at Middlesbrough (I assume he trained in some aspect at Chelsea from then on). Months later, without playing any more games for Chelsea, he returned to Boro. Should the infobox feature two loan spells at Boro, or one? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's two distinct spells. The contract for the first one was time limited to mid-April (due to FL regulations), which meant he couldn't play in Middlesbrough's last few games of the season (his last club game of 2014/15 was on 17 April). So at that point he was no longer in contract to Middlesbrough. The second loan just started. The fact he did not play for Chelsea in the interim is immaterial. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiener AF[edit]

Hi, we have an issue with an editor that has several Drafts declined but he goes ahead and move article himself to mainspace anyway. I reported to ANI. For that reason I started to look at his creations (please help) and saw Wiener AF. Is this article notable? Qed237 (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's about a club that won the Austrian championship and the Austrian Cup. I don't see how it's notability can be doubted :s Number 57 13:28, 24 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 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)