Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Australian football (soccer) task force.
 

Contents

Missed Penalties in Infobox[edit]

Just wanted to get a general consensus regarding having missed penalties in the infoboxes. The way I see it, a missed penalty is a significant part of a game, a standout point if you will that effects the game, and should be included. The A-League official match centre uses it in their summary (Example Here & Here) and having it in the info box would give more info to the reader looking through the season pages, instead of seeing just the goal where there could possibly have been one before the goal is scored. Also, if a player is sent off because they give away a penalty and the penalty is missed, it only adds confusion to why the player was sent off. Confusion is the complete opposite of what is desired on Wikipedia.

Additionally, it has its own wiki markup for the match info box: Here, Here & Here.

A way to rule on a missed penalty would be if the direct penalty itself is missed (the first shot), regardless of if the follow up shot is scored if the keeper saves it. Below is what I mean assuming the follow up goal is scored (dates, goal scorers etc are random):

23 September 2014
Friday 19:40
PSG 0 – 1 Manchester City
Aguero Penalty missed 42' (missed pen.)
Aguero Goal 42'
Parc des Princes
Attendance: 30,216
Referee: Ben Williams

Protenpinner (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Missed penalties should not be included in a concise infobox and I will go through your claims and answer them:
1. a missed penalty is a significant part of a game, a standout point if you will that effects the game, and should be included Don't agree, a missed penalty has no more bearing on the game than any other missed shot. Do we mark them? No we don't.
2. The A-League official match centre uses it in their summary They also use yellow cards and substitutions which are not included in concise infoboxes.
3. having it in the info box would give more info to the reader looking through the season pages In the concise infoboxes we do not want to overwhelm the reader with information, but rather concise it to only goals (which affect the final scoreline), and perhaps red cards (which affect play as one team is disadvantaged from that point on).
4. instead of seeing just the goal where there could possibly have been one before the goal is scored. I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say here.
5. Also, if a player is sent off because they give away a penalty and the penalty is missed, it only adds confusion to why the player was sent off. sending off of a player and giving are penalty are not necessarily related. A player could receive a red card (or a second yellow) anywhere on the field and not only in the penalty box. Also a player conceding a penalty, could get a yellow card or no card for the offence.
6. Additionally, it has its own wiki markup for the match info box That markup is used for games decided on penalties (together with Penalty scored) and also in extended footballbox summaries (for important games such as finals). Having a wiki markup does not by itself mean "use wherever you want".
7. A way to rule on a missed penalty would be if the direct penalty itself is missed (the first shot), regardless of if the follow up shot is scored if the keeper saves it. Below is what I mean assuming the follow up goal is scored (dates, goal scorers etc are random): your example is confusing, and the fact that the first shot on goal (happens to be a penalty) missed and was scored on the follow-up has no bearing on the game at all.
As a conclusion, let's keep the concise infoboxes concise with goals and red cards only (and the red cards is open to debate).
--SuperJew (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Protenpinner: this is something that should be discussed at WP:FOOTBALL, if it hasn't already. Hack (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going on vacation[edit]

Hi guys,

Just wanted to let you know I am taking a wikibreak of around half-a-year, going on vacation to Australia and New Zealand. I will be hiking, seeing family and also hopefully manage to watch some matches instead of just reading/writing about them and watching highlights :) You are more than welcome to follow my travels on my new blog.

Keep up the good work, and don't let the internet break while I'm gone ;)

--SuperJew (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, seems like the best time for me to really step-up my game for Aussie soccer. Have a good trip, I will try to keep up. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

AfD on A-League season results pages[edit]

For those who haven't seen the WP:Football discussion, an AfD discussion has opened on the 2013–14 A-League results and 2014–15 A-League results pages. Rjbsmith (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability of National Premier Leagues[edit]

Hey guys.

First and foremost, sorry to have pinged a few of you twice in a week, but I have a question and I know that you lot are currently active. @Chuq, Hack, 2nyte, TheSelectFew, Ciaran106, Datasmack, and Matilda Maniac:@Arbero, Macosal, HiLo48, ArsenalFan700, and Rjbsmith:

Seeing as how you get a lot of bureaucratic people on Wikipedia, who need to see written proof of everything, Unfortunately, I feel like pushing an idea for a basic consensus amongst the Aus Football Project needs to be done before any issues can be caused.

I know that Wikipedia has notability of leagues set to any professional level, or should a professional level not exist, the highest amateur level is deemed notable. The issue I see with this rule does not cover the NPLs, unless a general consensus on notability could be voted in. I feel as though these clubs should be deemed notable. - J man708 (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

That the ~90 clubs partaking in the National Premier Leagues, the ~20 qualifiers for the FFA Cup and the ~100 clubs in various secondary state divisions shall be deemed notable.

  • Support as proposer - So far, all ~90 clubs have articles. We'd only need to make new articles should teams be granted NPL licenses or gain promotion to the NPL - J man708 (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would suggest that any Australian club that has played in the top division of a state league (NPL or equivalent/predecessor) at any point would be able to satisfy WP:GNG. Clubs below that level would struggle with this requirement in a lot of states. I realise that some states may have more lower division clubs that meet this requirement but in these cases it should be no problem demonstrating notability. Hack (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Hack: Do you reckon that Australia Cup and NSL Cup teams should be added to this proposal? - J man708 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Most of those clubs would have played in the NSL or the top division of their respective state league. Hack (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Touche. - J man708 (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:FOOTYN, pretty much all Australian clubs will become "notable" in the next few months as they compete in the FFA Cup qualifiers (the Cup has expanded from 32 teams to encompass the entire qualification process). I've started a thread at WP:FOOTBALL - see here. Hack (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would also like for us to perhaps incorporate teams playing at a third division nationally (or equivilant) to be deemed notable. This would include comps such as the NPL NSW Men's 2, the NPL Victoria 1 and the NPL SA State League. At very least, these three competitions also have the NPL titles. Surely all NPL clubs can be deemed notable? @OAlexander: I forgot to ping you when I first proposed this, btw. I've noticed that you're quite vocal on this topic. - J man708 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
How much media coverage do they get? Hack (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The Men's 2 comp gets shitloads. I have no idea about the Victoria 1, perhaps someone from Vic like @TheSelectFew: might be in a better position to answer. The amount of coverage of the SA league is fair, nothing great, but enough that each club has its own page on Wikipedia already. The issue I have here @Hack: is that the pre-existing rules for Wikipedia are ALWAYS quoted as a reason to delete pages about Australian football clubs. By only having one professional league in Australia and only maintaining that these clubs and these clubs only deserve articles takes away from the knowledge pool that we could reasonably create. I'm not advocating that clubs in the ACT's 10th division or whatever deserves teams. Not at all. What I am however suggesting is that we stop being pedantic Bureaucratic Nazis and fighting ever club article to the letter of the law, and allow ourselves to actually create club articles with the information available. I think Wikipedians often forget that Wikipedia is here to be an information database for users. - J man708 (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Implying people who disagree with you are Nazis is not a productive way of looking for a consensus. Hack (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess I didn't explain myself, @Hack:! Sorry, dude. My bad.
I'm more than happy for people to disagree with me and throw up better ideas than my own. What I dislike is when every policy on Wikipedia is utilised to justify the deletion of articles that don't quite tick all the notability boxes. We've all stumbled across far worse pages than the ones we're arguing over, you know? The types of pages about something like someone's garage band, or a L-grade actor from Outer Mongolia or something. These are the articles I think people should be AFDing, not the ones that are of decent quality and only slightly fail notability guidelines.
Of the ~95 teams who are in third divisions (not including Queensland or Northern Territory), six of them do not have articles. I'm not advocating that these need to be created, just that the ones that already exist shall be deemed notable through a consensus and shall have a bit of a leg to stand on through any potential AFD discussion. - J man708 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
If you want articles to survive, having well-formatted references from sources outside of the club or league is vital. People see a page with the history lifted from the club website and see a non-notable club; and they're not always wrong. Hack (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with J man708. (TheSelectFew) — Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support with inclusion of 3rd division - Given that clubs from this division will regularly appear from the Round of 32 it makes sense to have articles for them. Rjbsmith (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

persistent vandal[edit]

For the past couple of weeks there has been a persistent vandal editing A-League, Soccer in Australia and related articles.

I've summarised the IPs I've found at User:Chuq/A-League vandal. They are almost all from the 14.97.0.0/16 range. Occasionally it will be a newly registered account, but it is undoubtedly the same editor.

Content is typically one of two forms (sometimes both at once):

  • Edits to suggest that association football is the most popular sport in Australia, and exaggerating crowd figures (average of 39k, crowds of 100k at the MCG, etc) [1]
  • An extremely unusual message stating that "Due to changes in wikipedia's privacy policy, the information on this webpage of wikipedia will not be available to users of ..." and list IPs, countries (typically "India, China, Japan & New Zealand") and dates - followed by a suggestion of fake crowd figures being displayed to these countries. [2]

Sometimes the editor will make the change and then revert his own edits. [3] This is a pain since rollback doesn't work, and thus the vandal's edit appears as the most recent edit on the page, making it harder to track which articles have been "fixed"

Once reverted the next edit will usually come from a different IP. The range belongs to an ISP in India. [4]

The articles keep on changing and the IP keeps on changing, so unless you have a lot on your watchlist it will be hard to follow - you can use this link to recent changes, filtered to IP users only, Article namespace, last 5000 edits (approx 5 hours worth) [5] - you can Ctrl-F for "14.97" here. (I'm sure there must be a search by IP range equivalent to this?)

I've checked a few times over the last couple of days, only once has there been a "real" edit from the 14.97.0.0/16 range. (can't find the link to it now). If it wasn't for this I'd be requesting a rangeblock - but a /16 range is a lot to block. -- Chuq (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There were some earlier edits from 121.245.70.214 and similar IPs (eg at Melbourne Cricket Ground here). Hack (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Hack: - I've added those details, as well as all other known IPs, usernames and affected articles to User:Chuq/A-League vandal. You can use related changes to monitor those articles. I'm not sure if semi-protecting all those pages will help - they'll move onto other related ones. -- Chuq (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This one appears to be the grandparent of the whole family User_talk:Jay22041995

Another incarnation has appeared http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LFC22

Is still around in the form of [[6]], [[7]], and probably [[8]]. A bit more subtle, but still pushing the same barrow i.e. mostly altering crowd figures and other metrics to the advantage of soccer.

I'm often the only one reverting this junk, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009%E2%80%9310_A-League&diff=686948606&oldid=666870589, ain't bothering any more.

Zebras and identity[edit]

The Moreland Zebras FC and Brunswick Zebras FC histories both claim to be the club that played in the NSL. Someone may want to start on an Italian soccer clubs in Melbourne article to fully explain this mess. Hack (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

National Premier Leagues Finals Attendances[edit]

Most of the matches involved in the 2013 and 2014 NPL series have attendances, but a few are missing. I've tried and tried to find these, but have struggled. If you can come across them anywhere, please add them! I think it would look better if they were all mentioned (like the FFA Cup). Does anyone have any good NPL Finals Series sources that we could check out? Thanks! - J man708 (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Crowd figures are notoriously unreliable at this level, if they're even available. Hack (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I get that, but if we can include extra information about the NPL matches, that would be awesome. Thankfully, with the league being as young as it is, retroactively finding this information should be a lot easier than figures for something like the NSL. BTW - Do you know of any good sources for this sort of stuff, @Hack:? - J man708 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Had a look at the 2014 NPL and struggled to be honest. A lot of the FFA match reports don't include crowd figures. Hack (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Laaaaaaame. I've been looking at things like the Capital Football "End of Season Review" or whatever it's called. I'm surprised that they've given attendance figures, but NSW hasn't. - J man708 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian FourFourTwo - website restructure[edit]

At some point in the recent past, the Australian FourFourTwo website was redesigned with a lot of older articles no longer being available. Anyone know if the content has been cached or archived anywhere? Hack (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Maclaren - persistent vandalism[edit]

I have been in engaged in an editing battle with someone who persistently keeps removing information from Jamie Maclaren's infobox relating to his appearances for the Perth Glory Youth side in NPL WA. This has been ongoing for quite sometime. Need assistance in dealing with this. Simione001 (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Any help guys? Simione001 (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The team is not Perth Glory Youth, it's Perth Glory FC and it's not a domestic league so the stats should not be in the infobox. Hack (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Perth Glory Youth team play in the National Premier Leagues Western Australia. It's senior football. Simione001 (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a domestic league. State league appearances don't appear in infoboxes. Calling it Perth Glory Youth is not accurate - they are referred to as Perth Glory FC by Football West. Hack (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
State league appearances don't appear in infoboxes? Are you serious? Have you seen the 1000+ articles with state league appearances in the infobox. Just about every single Australian soccer player related article ever created has this. I'm completely perplexed by your response. Simione001 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
"Adelaide United will compete in the NPL State League and will feature a senior team consisting of players currently competing in the Foxtel National Youth League, as well as an Under 20’s team."[9] So logically we call it Adelaide United Youth as all the players involved are coming from the youth the team. The name also helps distinguish between the A-League side and the NPL team. Simione001 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Simione here. The state leagues may only be state leagues but they are still senior football, a part of football pyramid in Australia. They're not separate like say the National Youth League is. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a domestic league though. Stats for state leagues are not counted for the likes of India and Brazil; what makes Australia different? Hack (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you can really compare. In Brazil they have a completely different league structure than what we have here in Australia. All the state championships are played pre-season before then national league competitions start eg Serie A, B, C and D. The state championships in Brazil are not the second tier of Brazilian football, they are separate, unlike the NPL which is 2nd tier to the A-League. I'm not familiar with the Indian structure. I could also point you in the direction of the German system where many clubs have reserve sides which play senior football in state competitions eg Regionalliga West, you can see many reserve team playing in this competition.Simione001 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the stats should definitely be there - that team is playing in a senior competitive league. I've never seen the fact that a league isn't domestic be relevant to whether or not something is included in the infobox, and even then it could be argued that the National Premier Leagues is a domestic competition.

On a related note, something needs to be done about the fact that there are pages for both Perth Glory FC Youth and Perth Glory FC (NPL). Only one of those two teams is notable (the other being just a youth team). Maybe merge into a new article, Perth Glory FC reserves and youth team? Macosal (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that Perth Glory FC (NPL) should be deleted. I can't see why Perth Glory FC Youth cant double for both the NPL and NYL side. Both leagues can be displayed in the infobox. Simione001 (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Just noticed that the NPL side has an age cap so "youth" is not a bad descriptor. Macosal (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues to hash with transfers' pages[edit]

Hi everyone, (I'm back for a little while (about a month))

I was going over this season's transfers' page and continuing what seemed to be the consensus, when a player joined a new club after being released from his A-League club, the date I used was the date he joined the new club. For example: Mensur Kurtiši left Roar on 15 January, but joined Varese on 5 April, the date used is 5 April. I wanted to bring this up. I think it's wrong and we should only use the date relevant to the A-League (in this case when Kurtiši left Roar on 15 January). Also I think the brackets should go around the club which picked him up. Thoughts?

Also, there is a debate, including discussion about dates with Macosal on next season's transfers' talk page and I'd appreciate the input of more people.

--SuperJew (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that this is an issue which could use some clarity. I think the exact use of brackets is not well-established nor consistent here or anywhere on WP. My personal view is that the second club should not be included if the transfer is not simultaneous with the club releasing the player (or relatively close, given that often players are released only to sign with other clubs within 24 hours. To be semantic about it, I say this because that is really 2 "transfers" (leaving one club and then signing with another some undefined time later - potentially many months/years away).
Worth noting also that articles on this topic on WP generally don't include player releases/contracts lapsing. I feel the A-League ones should, given the frequency of such events, and the fact that this article is a comprehensive listing of all player movements in the A-League. That being said, the convention when referring to free agents/uncontracted players is just to use "unattached" (rather than a club which again, a player may not have played for in a considerable amount of time.
My issue is that the fact that, for example, Kurtisi has signed in Italy (months after leaving Brisbane), is of no relevance to his "A-League transfer" about which the article is focused. As such I'd be in favour of using "unattached" rather than the current, inconsistent bracketing system. If the current system is retained, I think that it should be the date relevant to an A-League club which is used. If a player is released by one A-League club and signs with another some time later, I'm not sure how that would/could be resolved (I think this highlights one of the issues with the brackets system).
Macosal (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015[edit]

Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:

  • indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
  • add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to attend the football finals instead :-) Kerry (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern Fury season articles.[edit]

Do you guys reckon it's worth trying to create a 2014 and 2015 season article about the Fury? I mean, they want to get back into the A-League and it may happen in a few years' time. They already have an article from their inaugural NPL Queensland season, going along with the pages they have from their time in the A-League. Do you guys reckon it's worth conjuring up, or is it just a waste of time? - J man708 (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to keep the records going (although you might have trouble finding sources). I can't find where, but I recall seeing on WP:FOOTY that as a general rule only top tier or fully pro clubs, or club seasons with some specific notability, should have season articles (Fury may qualify I guess as the only former A-League club still playing outside the A-League). Macosal (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Good to get a little positive feedback, even if I predicted people's attitudes towards it would be apathetic. Hahaha. I feel as though they would qualify. The sources seem reasonable to find (even if they're achieved). I mean, if it's done to a certain quality, I can't see it being nominated for deletion. The club openly has aspirations of a top flight return, and it's not as though they're requiring a promotion system to do so. - J man708 (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

South Australia problem[edit]

I've come across a continuity issue with the redirects and things relating to the FFSA leagues.

Tier Competition name up to 2012 Competition name from 2013
First SA division FFSA Super League NPL South Australia
Second SA division FFSA Premier League NPL State League
Third SA division FFSA State League NPL State League 1 (from 2016)

The competitions on the same line are the same flight, however the colours currently show where the original league name redirects. The Super League still exists as its own article, the Premier League now directs to the NPL and the State League to the new State League. I think the words Premier and State have thrown whoever moved these articles off when the NPL was created. Unless anyone has any issues, I'll do some work in the following days to rearrange them.
- J man708 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

J man708, are the second and third tier of SA football currently called the National Premier Leagues State League and National Premier Leagues State League 1 or FFSA Premier League and FFSA Premier League 1?--2nyte (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty in readjusting these pages, by the way. I figured that linking the former SA Top Flight page to the current one was probably the best way to go about it. If any issues arise from that, just tell me. @2nyte: Confusingly, NPL State League and colloquially just State League. Although, the more I think about it, the more that a name change for the article to revert back to the FFSA name would probably be a better option for disambiguation. - J man708 (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@2nyte: Dude, why undo those redirects? You've got it so if people were looking for the old second division, it now redirects to the NPL and the old third division redirecting to the second division, ala the table above.
Surely top flight to top flight, second div to second div and third div to third div would be better? - J man708 (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought we were following the table above. It makes sense that the FFSA Premier League redirects to the NPL SA and the FFSA State League redirects to the NPL State League because those competitions superseded each other. Much like the Football League First Division becoming the Football League Championship.--2nyte (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I personally disagree that this is how it should be done, but I can see the logic and reasoning behind it. I'll leave it the way it is currently. - J man708 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Riley Woodcock number of caps.[edit]

Here in after is a current discussion about how many apps Riley has made for various national team of Australia. No consensus has been reached. Please discuss further.


Hi,

Re Riley Woodcock, I was looking back at some older Young Socceroos games and noticed he has been around a fair while now so I did a count. Turns out he's been playing for the side since 2012 and has indeed made 15 apps:

I can provide sources for these matches if you need. Macosal (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that the L'Alcúdia International Football Tournament is not a full official tournament. It involvesclub sides as well as international. The apps in 2013 AFC U-22 Championship qualification would come under the u-23 national squad. Simione001 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure about the Spain tournament - in the year we went it was only national sides (we played Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Spain and Qatar). The U-22 quals side we sent were all under 20 and identified by the FFA as the "Young Socceroos" so these games should be classified as such (e.g. here). Either way he definitely has more than the 7 games he's currently credited with. Macosal (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The L'Alcúdia International Football Tournament definitely is an unofficial tournament. The 2013 AFC U-22 Championship qualification is only mentioned on the Australia national under-23 soccer team article under history. This tournament does not relate to the under-20 side. Also is you read the last lead in paragraph on the under 23 page you will see that it mentions that "The team also represented Australia at the AFC U-22 Championship."Simione001 (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What makes you say that re the Spain tournament? It's not a FIFA tournament, but matches may still be treated as you would any other friendly. As for the U22 champs, I agree that the U23 team, generally speaking, represents Australia at that tournament. However, it was without a doubt an Australia U20 team which played in the qualifiers for this tournament. In the FFA's words: "Although the upcoming tournament is for U-22 players, Football Federation Australia took the decision to field the Qantas Young Socceroos (U-20 players) in the competition as part of their preparations for the AFC U-19 Championship". They (and reliable sources) consider that it was the U20 team who there participated in this tournament (source). Macosal (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Because club sides are involved in the tournament. Simione001 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
But not the year we played (we didn't even play against any anyway). Also I take it you see my point about the U22 qualifiers? Macosal (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No I can't say I agree. The age of the players is not whats important here, It's the team they played for. You cant have an Under-20 team play in an Under-22 tournament. Simione001 (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You have to look at 1. WP:RS and 2. How the FFA allocated caps. Both indicate U20. For an analogy, the Australian Women's U20 side are playing in the 2015 AFF Women's Championship right now, but the players aren't considered fully capped internationals merely because the competition is one for senior players. Likewise re L'Alcúdia International Football Tournament the presence of non-official teams doesn't render a tournament "unofficial" - at the 1980 OFC Nations Cup, Australia played several non-FIFA nations, but the games against other FIFA recognised teams were still recognised as full internationals by the FFA/FIFA/reliable sources. Macosal (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry mate but I simply don't agree with you for the reasons already stated. This topic should be discussed further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force. Simione001 (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


Further discussion[edit]

I agree with Simione001 that the L'Alcúdia International Football Tournament is an unofficial tournament and shouldn't be counted to the caps. It's a mixture of clubs and others, and even if Aus U-20 didn't play against clubs that year, that does not change the officialness of the tournament. Regarding the U-20 team playing in an U-22 competition, I agree in principle with Macosal that a team can play in a higher age competition (if the officials allowed it of course), but this case the team are referred to same as the other teams (with no qualifiers), while in 2015 AFF Women's Championship the Young Matildas are referred to as "Australia U-20". --SuperJew (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the extra opinion - a discussion has already been started at WT:FOOTY#Youth caps. Probably worth adding your opinion there. Macosal (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
To me, it doesn't make a difference that it was an U20s team playing in a tournament designed for U22s. They played as U22s (or whatever it was) for the tournament. It's not inconceivable that one or two of those U20 players could've made the U22 squad anyway. Besides, overage Olympic players are counted as gaining extra U23 caps. Hell, Ryan Giggs captained an U23 Olympic team at nearly 40. - J man708 (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Again I'd point you to the discussion at WT:FOOTY#Youth caps. That these players could have made the senior squad is not relevant here. What is relevant is the determination of the FFA, who are responsible for handing out caps. Thus their explicit decision to send/identify the U20 team is what is important here. Macosal (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Repairing dead embedded links[edit]

I was looking at 2009–10 A-League National Youth League and noticed that all of the "Report" links for each round are embedded links. That citation style may have been acceptable at one time, but its use is no longer recommended according to WP:CS#Avoid embedded links. Not only are these links embedded, they are also all dead and lead to www.a-league.com.au. I'm pretty sure that I can find archived versions for these links (like this one) and don't mind doing the busy work, but I think they should be converted from embedded links to inline citations using citation templates (most likely {{cite web}}). I'm not sure if this Wikiproject has any specific guidelines regarding the linking of match reports, so I figured I'd just ask first before taking the plunge. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the guidelines is to use embedded links, as is done in all sporting competitions. --SuperJew (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
And in all seriousness, how many people do you think go into a youth league season from 5 years ago and from those who do how many of them want to read the reports? --SuperJew (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The guidelines seem to say exactly the opposite. Did you read WP:CS#Avoid embedded links? It says: "Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation, because they are highly susceptible to linkrot. Wikipedia allowed this in its early years—for example by adding a link after a sentence, like this [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html], which looks like this. [1] This is no longer recommended. Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations, even if placed between ref tags, like this <ref>[http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html]</ref>. Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the body of an article, like this: "Apple, Inc. announced their latest product...". Is there some other guideline that says the use of embedded links is preferred?
Also, what's wrong with repairing dead links? Are you suggesting it's better to leave the links dead or simply mark them with {{dead link}} templates? WP:DEADREF says "Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible". Older articles tend to have more problems with dead links and repairing these links makes it possible for a reader to verify that information cited is accurate. How is that a problem? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you go find yourself a different project to harass? --SuperJew (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
How is discussing ways to repair dead links in an article harassment? I'm just discussing an article in a civil way. Since the article is old and since there are dead links in the other individual season articles as well, I thought it best to ask here than on the article talk pages. Not sure how that equates to harassment. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's harassment because you're bringing up antiquated articles which hardly anyone looks at anymore and therefore is not very good use of anyone's time to work on and harassing the members of the taskforce to change them, when the members can be using their time to work on more current and important articles. Furthermore you barge into this project with no knowledge of it (or at all of sporting articles) and throw out heaps of questions. Why don't you spend some time around this project and other sporting projects, familiarise yourself with the norm for them and then maybe it'll be legit for you to start discussions about them. --SuperJew (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I asked a question and there was nothing in my post that even implied I was demanding anyone (including yourself) take action, make edits, or immediately answer. I made no comments about any editors or their edits and even said I didn't mind finding the archived versions of the links and adding them myself. So once again, I'm not sure how any of that constitutes harassment in either a non-Wikipedia or Wikipedia way. I apologize if my question seemed silly, but if you're going to continue to say I'm harassing you or others, then please provide diffs per WP:AOHA at the appropriate venue so that others can evaluate my behaviour. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
As I already told you your questions just show how much of a child you are and have no clue what's going on in this or other sporting projects. I already told you, sit tight for a bit and look around without commenting until you get a feel of the project and sporting projects in general before you go along with questions about stuff which has been working for ages. --SuperJew (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why you feel it necessary to comment on me as a person, especially since I've made no such comments about you. The problem I pointed out was simply that the links in that article are dead links (i.e., they are not working). Dead links are not a problem unique to any particular project; They are a community-wide problem. Discussing ways to best fix them is not childish or inappropriate in any way and not something requiring "a feel" for any particular project. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not sure if this Wikiproject has any specific guidelines regarding the linking of match reports": That style of referencing is the one recommended by (and very consistently used in) template:footballbox collapsible. You'd probably need to raise this there before changing the style/layout. As for the links, unfortunately the links from the A-League official website do have an unfortunate habit of eventually disappearing and redirecting to the league's homepage. If you've got the drive to replace all or some of them then you should go for it. Macosal (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Having just looked at it, I note that the page uses template:footballbox, but the same applies. Maybe easier just to bring it up on WT:FOOTY. At present this format is used on thousands of pages across WP. Macosal (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the input Macosal. FWIW, I'm not advocating the scrapping of any templates. I am just trying to figure out the best way to repair the dead links. Replacing the embedded links with inline citations will not, as far as I can discern, affect the operation of the footballbox templates in any way (it doesn't cause problems in infoboxes templates), but I am not claiming to know all about how that particular template works. So, I will ask at WT:FOOTY per your suggestion. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You're looking at a LOT of work here, if you wish to. No one here will stop you if you're willing to convert these old, dead links, but you might find it difficult getting assistance. As bad as it sounds, it's a lot less rewarding of a job to do than an article based on this year or last year, especially if we're talking about the National Youth League or the W-League. We'd definitely appreciate the effort though, knowing how much of a bitch of a job it will be, but I don't think many people will be willing to assist you on this, I'm afraid. I also do agree with Macosal, aswell. Any major issues should be dealt with by WT:FOOTY. - J man708 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Forget it J man708, there's no talking to this guy. If it goes in his ear at all, it goes straight out. --SuperJew (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@J man708: Thanks for the comment. I realize that it's a lot of work, but I don't mind looking for the links and adding them myself. I tend to be a bit of a gnome and kind of enjoy doing this kind of clean up. FWIW, I wasn't asking others to drop whatever they were doing and take care of this for me so my bad if it came of as such. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A-League transfers[edit]

Hi all,

I've slated a number of issues regarding the A-League seasonal transfer pages at Talk:A-League transfers for 2015–16 season. Any input would be much appreciated.

Cheers, Macosal (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Youth caps as senior caps[edit]

In a couple of profiles of Australian players, some (or maybe just one) editor has been adding youth team caps to the senior section of the infobox.

I get that some of these appearances were in senior comps, namely the NPL structure, but I think it's disingenuous to the reader and unfair on senior NPL players from other clubs to list these as senior appearances if they were not for a club's first team with an open selection. If it was a non age restricted side like Barcelona B or Borussia Dortmund II in a lower division then fine, but as these appearances were for an age restricted youth/reserve side I do not think that this is appropriate.

How can we get a ruling on this either way to have a clear way forward? Paladisious (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It was already discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force#Jamie Maclaren - persistent vandalism. It is in fact the reason why Jaime Maclaren's article is presently semi-protected. In my opinion the age of the players is not import and it may also be worth noting that senior A-League contracted players have played for these A-League affiliated NPL sides. What's important is the fact that these teams are playing in a senior semi-professional competition and that's just what it is "senior", senior football can never magically become youth football. It is what it is; appearances in a senior semi-pro league. I could also point you in the direction of DeAndre Yedlin, visible are his apps for the side named Seattle Sounders FC U-23. This is a similar scenario. Simione001 (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
NPL & A-League are 'senior' football. Caps in both competitions should be included in a players infobox, as a player who moves from say, the NPL side of an A-League team to a 'regular' NPL side should have the benefit of his previous NPL appearances for an A-League NPL side being noted. The A-League clubs that compete in the NPL (which will increase to virtually every A-League club in the next few years) do not consider the teams in the NPL as being the same level as their A-League teams, such like the European styled "B" or "Second" sides that play in divisions further down the league structure. My suggestion is that these caps should be noted in an infobox, but not as the "A-League" side, but instead a 'disambiguated' version such as "Perth Glory NPL" or somesuch. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Are they listed like that already? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Some are, some aren't. It's inconsistent, which is a problem Paladisious (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
If there is inconsistency please show me where. I've been keeping a close eye on this since inception and I have routinely fixed any inconsistencies. Currently representling the NPL sides are the Youth Team articles eg. Perth Glory FC Youth, Adelaide United FC Youth etc. I think what confuses/irks some people is the use of the word "Youth". Perhaps it should be discussed again if it's necessary to create another separate article for the NPL sides or whether the Youth Team article will suffice in representation of the NPL side. Perhaps it is just a case of displaying the team name differently in the infobox or maybe the use of a template eg Template:ALeague SFC, Template:YLeague SFC, Template:NPL SFC. Simione001 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The NPL teams aren't youth teams. It's senior football, though the wording used in the infobox suggests that the infobox contains only domestic appearances. There's a similar situation in Brazil where state league appearances for contemporary players are not included at all. An option is to have a stats box counting all appearances in the various competitions. Hack (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Worth noting that many clubs NPL teams are either based on their youth squad or are restricted to fielding mainly/only youth players. That being said, this is no different to somewhere like Germany where many sides "II" sides are U23 and are uncontroversially listed in infoboxes. The best standard is surely to look at whether or not players are playing in senior, competitive competition which these teams are. Macosal (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the German (and Spanish) second teams compete in the proper national league structure so the stats should go in the infobox. Hack (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Club colours[edit]

Does anyone else see the coloured boxes used to represent clubs as a breach of WP:ICONDECORATION? They certainly don't tell the reader anything they don't already know. I will probably bring this up at WT:FOOTY soon but am interested in what people here think. I also see them as pretty clearly breaching WP:TOOMANY in places like A-League transfers for 2015–16 season. Macosal (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Shit dude, I only just saw this now. I think they're absolutely overused. We should do something about slowly phasing them out and making it retrospective for the previous seasons. The Premier League doesn't have them, the National Soccer League doesn't have them, but the A-League does... Yeah, I reckon it's time for them to go... (Except fromimages like the map of Australia and New Zealand) - J man708 (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been trying to remove them, but they keep getting added to articles. I don't think they're necessary in any circumstance.--2nyte (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I find them to be a very helpful visual aid to skimming through and editing season articles. --SuperJew (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
See WP:ILIKEIT - the fact that you find something helpful (to editing? how?) doesn't necessarily justify including it. In fact from discussions here and elsewhere, it seems that you are the only person in favour of them. See WP:ICONDECORATION (andWP:TOOMANY for things like season fixtures) for reasoning as to why these shouldn't pervade A-League articles as they have been used in the past. Macosal (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not an issue of liking it or not. It is helpful to some readers. As I've mentioned before, not every person in the world is a text-based learner. Some people learn better through images or through sounds. But this discussion will not go anywhere until the people in it stop placing people together in little boxes. --SuperJew (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Two Azzuris in Darwin ?[edit]

Currently there are two articles relating to University Azzurri FC and Nakara Azzurri FC. Based on the size of football in the NT I am guessing these are the same club? I am guessing a merger occurred some where, in which case, which one is the current naming? Can someone find out?

If so the articles similarly need to be merged together with an appropriate redirect. --TinTin (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nakara Azzurri FC and Uni Rangers merged in 2007. The club is known as Univerity Azzurri FC but is run by Nakara SC.[10] Hack (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Cool I've placed a merge proposal on both articles to be discussed here Talk:University Azzurri FC#Proposal to Merge Nakarra Azzurri FC into this article --TinTin (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I added some info to each article. I think they can both remain as they are without merging.--2nyte (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I just don't think there is enough information to warrant an article soley on Nakara Azzurri, particularly when the club hasn't done anything significant on a national level, it never participated in the NPL Finals, Australia Cup, FFA Cup, NSL Cup or similar. By merging we can move relevant information about the club onto the University Azzurri article, with a section or sub-section dedicated to Nakara Azzurri if there is sufficient information. Also University Rangers is set-up as a redirect to the University Azzurri article, so this seems to replicate that. --TinTin (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No comments to rebut my arguments above therefore I will merge these two articles when I get time over the next few days. --TinTin (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
DonE!--TinTin (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Seasons in Australian Soccer[edit]

I think we have some inconsistency with the Seasons in Australian Soccer pages (eg. 2010–11 in Australian soccer). Obviously the seasons are setup to follow that of the national top tier league (A-League). Now obviously the National Premier Leagues operate through the winter months so the seasons are out of sync. In the above example, if we take 2010–11 to mean July 2010 – June 2011, then we have a problem as the "2010 NPL" starts in March 2010... Similarly, the 2011 AFC Champions League starts in March 2011. In previous discussions re: ACL we agreed tournaments should remain in one season even if it crosses into the next. I am fine with the 2011 ACL being put into the 2010–11 season but for consistency I think we should really put the "2011 NPL" (i know state leagues weren't NPL at this stage) in this season too as it begins in 2011. Therefore the "2010 NPL" season should really be pushed back to the 2009–10 season (again as it begins in 2010). I would be happy to change my mind on this but I think having one tournament start in Feb-March one year and a different tournament start in March-April the following year (12-13 months later!) to be placed in the same season article odd and confusing to readers.—Eccy89 (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey man, cheers for the PM. The article you brang up is quite outdated. I personally have the intention of creating something soon, when I can find the time and effort which is a season by season list of each state league, rather like the NPL pages, but for previous years. Here's an idea of what I mean User:J man708/2011 Australian soccer state leagues. Hopefully when I complete enough of these pages, I'll set them onto the proper article space and from there we can work out an easier method of fixing the page you suggested.
Do you have an issue with the category listing down the bottom of the pages, listing both seasons of the NPL? Because to change things like this would probably require a greater consensus above Australian-only articles. Take UEFA for example.
Template:2014–15 in European football (UEFA)
What we have here is the majority of leagues (and the major ones at that) conforming to the norm of 2014-15 seasons, but several countries have leagues played during one calendar year, which leads both to having been mentioned (ie. Estonia, Finland, Rep. Ireland, Sweden etc.) To change the Australian pages only itself would end out breaking the general protocol that is used for football article creation. We've got a unique and interesting position in Australia, with the FFA Cup, National Premier Leagues and ACL Champions League being played during a calendar year, but the A-League being played during a financial year. Because of this, we're always gonna find inconsistencies between our setup and a much more organised set up, like Europe has. - J man708 (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi J man708, thanks for the reply. I didn't really have an issue with the categories at the bottom, although now that you point it out it makes sense if the 2014–15 in Australian soccer had the category of the same name. (Although, if you were referring to the template, then no, both tournaments must be listed). My only real problem (and it has popped in more recent articles too e.g 2014–15 in Australian soccer), was that the NPL season starts on 21-Feb-2014 and that we mention the 2015 ACL which starts on 24-Feb-2015 (over one year apart). It's getting pretty late, so I'm not really thinking that straight at the moment, but I guess it just has to be that way as the 2015 AUS qualifiers are from the 2013–14 season. So obviously, 2015 ACL must go in this season. (Which I never had a problem with, was more the NPL season). I originally thought that we should be putting 2015 NPL tournament in this season too as the season also begins around the same time as the 2015 ACL. Though, it doesnt really make sense to with FFA Cup and the overlap into the next season of the A-League. I'll just deal with the crappy structure and move on :-)
Decent work on the 2011 season BTW. Great effort! I'm going to be spending time focusing on Football NSW seasons/tournaments if you want my tables etc. —Eccy89 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, dude. I'd rarely say no to additional information in articles! I think it's what pisses @Matilda Maniac: off the most about me (I don't blame him!). :P - J man708 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Chill'd. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I like J man708's idea of separate article for the state league seasons. Maybe have in the Australian soccer season (example 2010-11) only a quick sentence about duration and winner of both years (example 2010, 2011) and link to the separate articles? --SuperJew (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
We can easily link in those pages I was slowly making that were like "NPL before NPL", once they're done. I'll try and find the time to make them look better soon, before I send them live. :P - J man708 (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why no NYL in seasons articles[edit]

The XXX in Australian soccer articles from 2013-14 - 2014-15 no longer have the results of the National Youth League in them? Prior to this the results where included each season. Is there any particular reason for this or can I add the table to these articles? --TinTin (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There was a little discussion about it last year. I think in the end it wasn't burning enough for anyone to add, but I don't think there are objections if you wish to add it. --SuperJew (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Well my thoughts are that all national competitions should be included, ie. A-League, W-League, FFA Cup, NPL National Finals Series and NYL. Also this would make it consistent with the previous articles. So I'll add this to my to do list. --TinTin (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I added this to the articles, but for some reason I couldn't get the infoboxes to work..... --TinTin (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Calvin Mbarga[edit]

I am considering nominating Calvin Mbarga article for deletion. There appears to be no evidence of him making any appearances for Al Jazira Club or Baniyas Club. These are big clubs and i would expect to find some info if it was the case. As it stands all his apps in the info box come from his profile page on his agents website which since has been deleted. The agency appears to no longer exist. I suspect that these stats were made up. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Naming of women/youth teams[edit]

Hi,

Have been thinking about moving a few of the A-League club's youth/women's teams so thought I'd come here to get some opinions. In most places on Wikipedia, the women's teams of clubs which field male sides are entitled "Club FC (women)" rather than "Club FC W-League" as is used here. For mine this change would make team names more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia and is a more natural title (see WP:TITLE). Related issue I haven't looked at as much is naming teams "Club FC NPL" rather than "Club FC youth" or equivalent. Opinions? Macosal (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding youth teams, I'm not sure if it is correct to have the Youth and NPL together as they sometimes field different teams. And the youth teams can also field 3 senior players.
About the women's teams, there seems to be a confusion in general over Wikipedia. In England we have mostly team L.F.C or team W.F.C., but then also exceptions such as Sunderland A.F.C. Ladies, Durham Women's F.C. (which I'm not sure if they field a men's team), Oxford United Ladies F.C. (should it be moved to "Oxford United L.F.C."?) and Reading F.C. Women. In France they are mostly team (Ladies), except for Paris Saint-Germain Féminines. In Spain the teams are mostly team (women) apart from Atlético Madrid Féminas, Fundación Albacete, Valencia Féminas CF. In the Netherlands they are all team (women) apart from PSV/FC Eindhoven.
--SuperJew (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

NYL Changes[edit]

The National Youth League format has changed considerably from season 2015-16 on wards. The new format use two groups of 5 teams who play the other teams within their group twice, home and away with a grand final of the top teams from each group. I have updated the article National Youth League (Australia), but some more work is probably required. --TinTin (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yell out if you need any assistance. - J man708 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

T-League to NPL Tas[edit]

It's been written a few places but I am yet to find a definitive reference that the Victory League / T-League will be disallowed to continue with a sponsored name from 2016 onwards and will need to fall in line with overall naming convention and become the NPL Tasmania. If / when I find a reference I will need to move this article and make minor name changes as appropriate to related articles....--TinTin (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - J man708 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Colours in Member Federation Map[edit]

The following map of Australia is used in quite a few articles to identify the Member Federations of the FFA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FFA_state_member_federations.png

It is used in the following articles:

I just don't know why the colours have been used that way? Why not use traditional state / territory colours? The only area where this would be an issue is the two NSW federations, but I can see no reason why the other states/territories shouldn't use the traditional colours? If there is no objection here I will alter the picture to use traditional colours. --TinTin (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TinTin. The colours while useful aren't in any way related to the state colours. I'd be happier seeing them changed to something more fitting. - J man708 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I did my best. It's a little bit harder than originally thought as WA and ACT both use Yellow as their state colour and also choosing whether Football NSW should be light blue or not, I think overall though a step in the right direction. --TinTin (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
First time I saw this conversation. Not saying that you didn't do a good job @TinTin: because it is good improvement! However, I would have thought it would have made more sense to use colours more akin to Australian state colours i.e. maroon for Queensland, yellow/gold for WA, then you could have just used lime green for Canberra (various sporting teams, e.g. Canberra Raiders). (Or if super keen for gold ACT, then use black for WA). I probably would have went for ochre for NT as the brown would be a little similar to maroon (and is also the official colour on the state flag). Then for FNNSW again can choose whatever, I guess if you use navy blue for VIC then you can use royal blue for "Newcastle". —Eccy89 (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Slavia Melbourne[edit]

Just wondering if anyone knows what the deal is with Slavia Melbourne and Laverton Park Soccer Club? OzFootball's profile on them shows that they are the same entity, but the archived version of their site shows no direct history, although both share the same interim names, leading me to believe that they were/are in some way the same entity. Does anyone have more info? - J man708 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Using decimals in the league system[edit]

In the Australian soccer league system article, where a promotion playoff is involved there is a use of .5 and .25 promotion spots. I dislike this as to me only entire clubs can get promoted or relegated, 0.5 of a club doesn't get promoted. I would prefer Promote 1-2 or Promote 1 or 2 more than Promote 1.5. This is just a personal prefference. Is this taken from another format else where? --TinTin (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The meaning and intention of 1.5 is fairly obvious; there doesn't necessarily have to be a different format just because editors who maintain articles for another league do it a different way. Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with TinTin. It's a confusing wording and in my opinion the meaning is not fairly obvious. --SuperJew (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It's taken from the World Cup qualifiers pages, wherein the teams are shown with Oceania getting .5 World Cup spots and Asia getting 4.5. The rest of the world doesn't seem to see too much issue with it. - J man708 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Olyroos stats[edit]

Does anyone have info to update the Olyroos' stats after the last two friendlies?

@Simione001: maybe? --SuperJew (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Twitter is sometimes helpful but not on this occasion it seems. Simione001 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Liverpool Legends v Socceroos Legends[edit]

@Macosal: @Matilda Maniac:

yep, Liverpool Legends, led by Stevie G will be playing Socceroos Legends in January!

First off, sounds great. Secondly, anyone have ideas where it should be on Wikipedia?

--SuperJew (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest as a non-competitive game featuring two non-competitive teams (ie. 'legends'). I don't think it's notable. --TinTin (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to meet notability guidelines echoing TinTin's reasons - despite the fact that it will draw a crowd and there will be media hype to help promote it. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
How does the notability differ from the annual A-League All Stars Game? --SuperJew (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't think that twice-off event really meets notability guidelines either. Calling it annual is a bit misleading now - its been ditched by the expansion of the International Champions Cup to include China and Australia in 2015. Matilda Maniac (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think comparison to All-Star games is appropriate. There are plenty of other All-Star Games on Wikipedia in multiple leagues and sports. The difference is All-Star games relate to CURRENT professional players and are not once off games. This appears to be a once off game featuring all retired players. I think a more relevant comparison would be a Testimonial match. I don't think there are any testimonial matches on wikipedia? --TinTin (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a fair point TinTin! Thanks. --SuperJew (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I expect it will receive notable coverage at which point someone may collate said coverage into a notable article.Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 FFA Cup Final[edit]

Hey guys, if anyone is looking for a bit of a project, this page is in serious need of some love. The 2014 FFA Cup Final has ended out as quite a well polished article, but the 2015 FFA Cup Final page lacks a lot of information. If you can help, you're a champ!
- J man708 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

NPL Format[edit]

I was trying to tidy up the NPL format in the National Premier Leagues article. I was trying to add more detail to the format. I am certain that all A-League aligned NPL teams are ineligible for the NPL national finals series but I can't find a confirmed reference for this anywhere. Can anyone else confirm this and do they have a reference? --TinTin (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

for the NPL-WA Competition Rules, see Article 15, section 3.
for the NPL in the ACT Competition Rules, see 5.2.1.(d). Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

South Melbourne Yellas[edit]

The kit on the South Melbourne FC page doesn't look quite right... Hack (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This has now been resolved. Hack (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on "Youth" vs. "NPL" teams and their articles[edit]

Just wanted to bring up a frank discussion on whether there is a need to have both "Youth" and "NPL" team articles for each A-League club. As every team (bar Wellington) now has their own NPL team competing I thought it would be a good time to bring up this discussion. Obviously there are some minor technical details regarding both teams - can field some over-23s and senior players that have played more than 10 games etc. in the NYL whereas you cannot in the NPL. Therefore the squads can be slightly different. Another reason for this is obviously the timing so I think the 'contracts' are only restricted tournament to tournament. Baring all this in mind, I still think there probably isn't enough information for there to be two separate articles per youth team. Even the English Premier League teams on wiki use a "Reserves & Academy" article and separates from there e.g. Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Academy and Manchester City F.C. Reserves and Academy. In all reality they are essentially the same team/same function just competing in different competitions. Also, it can be a little confusing for some as sometimes the NPL is being reported as Youth (and linked to the Youth team) e.g. 2016 Football NSW season#2016 National Premier League NSW Men's 2. I'm happy to go with consensus, but I'm leaning to merging the articles... Love to know your thoughts @J man708, @Matilda Maniac, @SuperJew and @TinTin and please invite others to the discussion. Eccy89 (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to just have one main article with both squads perhaps listed and a note mentioning why there are two squads. I'm with you, Eccy. I don't think too many people would be against it. You're right by saying that not enough information would be out there for two articles, as opposed to simply two sections of the one article. While we're on the NPL Youth topic, if anyone wants to create the proper page for the Canberra United Academy FC, I'd be really thankful! - J man708 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed someone mentioned this a fair while ago with Perth Glory FC Youth. I looks like they have merged those two teams. However, the Melbourne teams still exist (and somebody has recently created a Sydney FC one too!). Not sure how to proceed with merging though, never done it before. Eccy89 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, we have already touched on this topic (and other related issues and queries) in above discussion on this page. I don't believe there is a need to have two separate pages for both the NPL and Youth side. Perhaps we need to change the name of the NYL/NPL pages to eg Perth Glory FC Youth & NPL or something to this effect. Simione001 (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
That would probably be the best way of doing it. It would probably be most effective for consistency across all pages. I believe Central Coast is currently Central Coast Mariners Academy and I know that term has been thrown around at Sydney FC too. Probably would need to change this name for consistency (or use "academy" for all?) Also Simione001, how did you guys merge the Perth youth one ages ago? Just adjusted the "Youth" one and put a redirect in the "NPL" one? Eccy89 (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I would hold of from taking any action until a consensus is established. Simione001 (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hehe, I wasn't going to do anything tonight. Was just interested in the merging process. I had a peek through edit revisions for the Perth stuff, looks like they just cut and redirected like I suspected. Eccy89 (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Youth should suffice. The Olympic teams are called Under 23's, despite being allowed three over-age players. If they're referred to as Under 23's, then surely we can just keep them as "Youth" - J man708 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Previously I wasn't sure about merging these, but reading your discussion it sounds the best option. I think "Youth" would be enough to cover both teams, as in the NPL the youth team competes. Academy should only be used IMO when that's the official name, as in the case of Central Coast. Regarding Phoenix, I'm not sure they should be named like the rest as they are in a different boat. --SuperJew (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Wellington Phoenix FC Reserves. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd support one Youth article per A-League club with sections on each competition they send teams to. Being generic in this way also allows such articles to cover ad-hoc and pre-season competitions which may not perfectly fit with either NPL or NYL squads. --TinTin (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd support one Youth article per A-League club with sections on each competition they send teams to. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd say we have reached a consensus then :-) well in! —Eccy89 (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge Melbourne City NPL[edit]

As part of the above proposing the merger of Melbourne City FC NPL into Melbourne City FC Youth with separate sections for each team in the same article. --TinTin (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I know that a discussion was previously held over this, and I'm too late to the party to take part in that - my loss, but whatever. I have to oppose this, though, for Melbourne City in particular (I honestly haven't looked at the other clubs to see if the circumstances are the same). I would be all for it if the club itself were treating the teams for the two competitions as two aspects of one team, but it's quite clear from looking at Melbourne City's website that it believes they are two distinct units. They've been given separate squad lists (Youth) (NPL), separate fixture lists (Youth) [http://www.foxsportspulse.com/team_info.cgi?c=0-10178-160768-337121-21800675&a=SFIX (NPL - yes, this is where the official website links), and it's very noticeable that when they hired a manager for the NPL side in its first season they did not choose their youth manager (Joe Palatsides) although he now does fill that role, but instead they opted for the man who ended up as the W-League team manager (Joe Montemurro).
Going back to one of the arguments raised in the section above, by the way, if we are talking precedent then using the Reserves and Academy articles from England is a poor example. The reason these two (i.e. clubs' reserves and their academies) were grouped together originally is because neither team played in competitive football, or particularly as part of the national league structure. That for a start does not apply to Melbourne City NPL. However, the bigger picture is that I believe the trend among English teams and their articles is going to increasingly looking towards favouring the splitting up of U-21s and the rest of the academy. We already have articles such as Arsenal F.C. Reserves which specifically does not include the Academy but is solely for the U-21s. Furthermore, in a parallel of what we are looking at here with the creation of NPL teams in Australia for A-League sides, the talk right now is that very soon the U-21 sides of Premier League clubs are going to start playing in the Football League Trophy - not even a league competition, just a cup, but a competitive one against actual league pyramid sides - and when that happens then I guarantee you you'll see all of those teams creating separate articles for those teams now that they have a background of competitive competition. I will be leading the way in that regard - I've considered making a separate Manchester City Elite Development Squad (i.e. U-21) article for some time and right now I'm just waiting for the announcement that they will be playing in the said cup competition before I do it. Falastur2 Talk 19:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you are right you are both too late and outnumbered. Unless you find many other users to back your opinion I think you have been outvoted and the two articles need to be merged and your new text about the U21s included within the existing article. --TinTin (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Support merge.Simione001 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

End of year transfers[edit]

Today Jacques Faty transferred from Sydney to CCMariners while Mariners released 3 other players.

My question is should these transfers be listed under this season's list or next season? (personally I think this season).

Also should the be listed on the clubs' 2015–16 season page or 2016–17 season page?

With for example Faty and Heffernan should they be moved around in the foreigners table on 2015–16 A-League page? After all neither are in contention anymore.

Pinging @Macosal: @Rjbsmith: @J man708: @Jono52795: @2nyte: --SuperJew (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd say next season. Notably, Heffernan, Stella and Uskok are still contracted to the Mariners until the end of the season, the club's announcement today merely means that there won't be a new contract at season's end. As for Faty, despite the fact that the transfer was immediate, as both teams are eliminated, I wouldn't alter the 2015–16 A-League page to reflect this, and would include this under next season's transfer page too (functionally, this is an off-season transfer). Worth noting that Sydney do have a few Champions League games still to play (so maybe worth including Faty on both this and next season's transfer pages). Macosal (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Faty wasn't selected for Sydney's Champions League squad anyways. --SuperJew (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Has a similar issue occurred in the MLS that we could use as a guide? - J man708 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
As Macosal said they are functionally off-season transfers. The issue with Faty was that he was signed to a one-year deal with Sydney FC (for 2015–16) with an optional one-year extension triggered if he played 20 games. He ended up playing the amount of the required games to trigger that clause but both parties declined to take it up. This resulted in a mutual termination essentially before the season has technically ended (in terms of A-League finals) but it has ended for both clubs... I would think it more appropriate to keep as a next season transfer with the note that the transfer occurred on 11 April 2016. Also, today it was announced Mariners have also signed Mickael Tavares from Sydney FC (mutual termination of a two-year deal). —Eccy89 (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Waratah Cup Questions[edit]

Just a quick question about the 2015 Waratah Cup which may also apply to the 2016 Waratah Cup. Past the FFA Cup qualifiers 5 teams go through to the Waratah Cup specific matches; 2 conduct the playoff round with 3 teams going straight to the semi finals. Is there any formula or seeding to which teams have to play the playoff round and which go to the semi finals or is it just a luck based straight draw? Second question. With Blacktown City not participating in the FFA Cup qualifiers this year (2016) as they've already qualified by being the NPL 2015 champions, is there any chance they will get re-added into the Waratah Cup after the qualifiers? If so, I guess this would mean 6 teams in 2016 going playing the Waratah Cup specific matches, therefore 2 playoff matches prior to the semi finals. Have I explained this well? Does this make sense? Does anyone know the answers? TinTin (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

1. For 2015 the draws for the final 4 games were a part of the overall mega-draw for the whole of the competition, so they were pre-determined.
2. For 2016 I have been regularly looking at Football NSW website for updates specific to the Waratah Cup but none yet. I have had confirmation today from one of FNSW's competitions coordinators that:
  • Blacktown City FC will be part of this year’s Waratah Cup.
  • The draw will be done after the conclusion of the Westfield FFA Cup Preliminary Rounds, Date TBC
  • Draw mechanics will be released closer to the draw date. Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability of W-League players[edit]

WP:NFOOTBALL makes it clear that playing in a fully professional league is the general requirement for footballers. WP:FPL lists the W-League as NOT being fully professional. Are W-League players then generally not notable, if they haven't played for Australia, won awards or had long and distinguished careers? Jodie Bain is the article I found - only 9 games in 1 season with no significant coverage that I can find. I PRODed her, but it was removed without reason by a IP editor. Before I take it to AfD, I'd like to check if there is any assumed notability attached to playing in the W-League or not. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous for us to have the same notability requirements for men and women leagues, as (unfortunately) they don't get the same treatment by the sporting world. In general men's leagues are considered higher, more professional and get more funded. For example just look at all the battles the Matildas have had this past years to try to get a decent salary. On WP:FPL There are 75 countries listed with fully professional men's leagues (with some countries having more than one league listed) as opposed to the 3 fully professional women's leagues. Even in the "Top level leagues which are not fully professional" list there are 35 men's leagues and only 4 women's leagues.
Australia is one of the leading countries in the world regarding women's soccer and it is astounding in my eyes that by "official Wikipedia rules" the players are not notable enough.
--SuperJew (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I have seen this several times over last 6 months on individual players articles already undergoing AfD (where the talk discussions get repeated, but then get removed as the article gets removed), so I'm also going to raise it in a Talk Page that wont be deleted : WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues - HERE, and try and promote some meaningful discussion about whether the same guidelines developed for one gender necessarily apply to the other. (and @The-Pope: thank you for making the effort to ask rather than launch straight into AfD). Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a pretty straightforward failure of WP:GNG based on what I can see on Factiva, EBSCOhost and the Fairfax News Store. I'd also note that there'd be some male players would also struggle to pass WP:GNG even though they would pass WP:NSPORTS Hack (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The reference for the Australian W-League on the WP:FPL essay is dead and has been for awhile. WP:SPORTCRIT states (w/ emphasis added) "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." It's not the Olympics, but it is the highest professional competition for women's football/soccer in Australia. Hmlarson (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that its not "professional", strictly speaking. All players are not given a professional salary - in fact, until the reforms last year which resulted in 20 or so players being given a professional wage, all players are semi professional. Macosal (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
"Fully professional", "professional" and "semi-professional" - the terms have different connotations in different countries. What "fully professional" is hasn't been cited anywhere in WP:NFOOTBALL nor it's perpetually incomplete and poorly referenced essay of "fully professional leagues" which also indicates its outdatedness and need for revision.Hmlarson (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right, however, the W-League wages are actually very low (around $7.5k per player per season on average) so by any definition to call it a "fully professional league" by any definition is probably a bit of a stretch in this context. Macosal (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
No one called it "fully professional". Professional... now that's a different story. They get paid to play a sport. They devote their lives to developing their skill as a professional athlete. They compete at the highest levels in their country. Hmlarson (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
These points by @Hmlarson: are spot-on, and why what I'd really like is to just remove the 'requirement' of "fully professional league" from the criteria about whether female players are notable or not. Why does the actual amount of money matter - $7.5k per player per season on average? is $20k satisfying that threshold? $40k ? $110k ? AUD/USD/ZIM$ ? also the W-League season only goes for 3 months, and a number of 'professional' players compete in Europe / USA during the long off-season ; and conversely, a number of foreign 'professional' players compete in the W-League during their northern hemisphere off-season : they're competing year round, but not in the same way as an 8-month long European Men's league. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - the exact wage is not important, however, most of the Australians who go overseas either have played for the Matildas or go to a fully pro league (I can't think of any counterexamples) and so in such cases the system does work. My only issue is that, as far as I can tell, there are a number of players with (maybe significant) W-League experience who simply do not have enough reliable 3rd party coverage to write a full article about them. This is, as I understand it, what the GNG is there specifically to avoid - i.e. articles which are not and cannot be "full" articles. For that reason I think that merely playing in the W-League should not lead to a presumption that a player passes the GNG, although of course W-League players may well be notable. Macosal (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you mean by counterexamples? What you are saying is not quite clear. Does every World Cup and Olympic athlete have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG? No. Based on your argument, they should be excluded as well. Hmlarson (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
By counterexamples I mean that I can't think of any Australians currently playing overseas who don't satisfy NFOOTY. Of course not every Olympic or World Cup athlete has enough coverage to meet GNG, but the consensus is that enough do such that they should be presumed to. Definitely they would seem more likely to meet GNG than a W-League player. See below for some actual analysis of this. Macosal (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


I thought I'd try to make this a bit more real by putting some numbers on it. Just did a quick survey of the Victory, Jets and Wanderers W-League teams re players who played in the most recent season:

  • 13 players satisfied NFOOTY. Of these, one was rated C-class, seven start-class and four stubs.
  • 39 players did not satisfy NFOOTY. Of these, one was rated C-class, two start-class, 17 stubs and 19 had no article.

On these numbers I find it hard to argue that playing a W-League game should lead to a presumption of notability. Of course stubs do not mean that there aren't enough reliable sources to write full reliably sourced articles about players; but given that only three of the 39 who didn't satisfy NFOOTY as it currently stands had better than stub class articles, I think it's fairly hard to argue that we should be moving towards more articles on W-League players - especially given that those who pass NFOOTY seem substantially more likely to have longer, better sourced articles. Macosal (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

How often do you as an editor or other football Project editors go through women's football articles to re-assess class yet alone check for additional references to improve stub articles or create new articles about women's footballers that meet notability requirements? The answer to this would be helpful in assessing the reliability in the numbers you've presented.Hmlarson (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Understand your point about lack of reassessment but these stubs are really as stub as you'll find - i.e. a single sentence with one reference in most cases. E.g. from the Wanderers the 6 stubs of players who don't satisfy NFOOTY are Rachael Soutar, Helen Petinos, Jordan Baker (footballer), Michelle Carney, Linda O'Neill and Hannah Beard. Those 6 articles contain a combined total of 11 sentences. My concern is that if you say "all W-League players are presumed notable" you will see a significant rise in these very short articles. Of course editors should try to add sources and expand these articles, but I can't support broadening the threshold of presumed notability when there is no evidence that such players can or will be developed into full articles. Of course, should a full article be created on such players that is a different story (I note your good work on Cassandra Dimovski, Briar Palmer and Jamie Pollock (soccer, born 1989) amongst others) but the unfortunate truth is that such articles are a small minority at present. Macosal (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Macosal, you mentioned here that based on the fact that due to stub articles, there shouldn't be presumed notability of W-League players. However, don't you see many fringe players who get a handful of games have stub articles in the men's senior leagues too? You do because of this presumption. I just think what we're trying to say here is it should be the same case for the top level league of both men and women. Either presume notability for all of them (and hopefully having the stubs will push for more referencing and work on articles) or also for men who haven't done much not presume notability, but rather have to have them comprehensively referenced. Some examples: Tom Slater, Jacob Poscoliero, Trent Buhagiar, Alastair Bray, Josh Bingham, Jake McGing, Matthew Fletcher, Bruce Kamau, Stefan Mauk, Mark Ochieng, Dylan Smith, George Mells, Ben Warland, John Hall, Daniel Margush, Antoni Trimboli, Riley McGree, etc. etc. etc. (that's only players from this season from Adelaide United and CC Mariners. I can find many more from other teams and previous seasons). --SuperJew (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I know what you're saying, but am also wary of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here. My issue is simply: I am not convinced that players in the W-League who don't satisfy NFOOTY are likely enough to have been covered sufficiently by reliable sources that there should be a presumption that they are notable. One way of attempting to assess whether or not this is true is by looking at such articles. On doing this, it becomes clear that the vast majority of the articles contain only one source. As such, I cannot see any evidence of why such players ought to be presumed to be notable. It may be that the average W-League player does have enough media coverage to write a full article. I'll look into it myself too, but should there be evidence that most players who have played in the W-League yet do not satisfy NFOOTY do in fact satisfy the GNG, I would be all in favour of presuming that such players are notable in the future. Macosal (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Kamau nationality[edit]

His nationality has been changed on the AUFC page from Australian to Kenyan by an editor who apparently likes to do such edits. Initially, I thought that was incorrect, however he was born there and grew up here, without having played for either national team. He's obviously an Australian citizen, no issues, but is he to be considered Australian or Kenyan? The only other player I thought of was Jamie Young, who is shown as English, as he played for their national youth side. Does anyone have thoughts on this? I can see both sides. - J man708 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Just checked. Seems similar to Vedran Janjetovic, who is listed as Australian. I'll change Kamau now, if anyone has any thoughts about this, feel free to add them. - J man708 (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
On his page it should be as it is of the time of my writing this "Bruce Kamau is a Kenyan-Australian" having both nationalities, and later on (infobox/rest of article) elaborating where he was born, when he moved and so on. As far as FIFA nationalities on squad and club pages go, it should be first by the most recent senior team he has played for. If no senior team, then the most recent youth team. If no international football then in a case such as this, I'm pretty sure he should be listed as Australian since he has an Australian nationality and is playing in an Australian league. If he was in a Kenyan league, I would say to list him as Kenyan. In a league which is different from either of those I would go by the majority of the media references. --SuperJew (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense. He moved here at the age of 4, aswell, so he's spent 80% of his life here. - J man708 (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
He is considered as an Australian player in the A-League. I think that should be used here. So Australia. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think what is pertinent here is where he started his pro/semi-pro footballing career. He never played football in Kenya and started his pro footballing career in aus therefore should be considered an Australian footballer. Makes no sense to call him a Kenyan footballer when he hasnt ever played there. Simione001 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree with all above. If he starts playing for the Kenynan national team, or one of their youth teams then he should be listed as Kenyan but if this doesn't occur Australian flag sounds correct, noting in the text his Kenyan heritage. --TinTin (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes in club icon colours[edit]

@J man708: You seem to have recently changed all the club's icons. I would like an explanation why this seems to you better than the current status. And in general, I think there should be a discussion to reach a consensus about the status in general of when, if at all, we use these icons. --SuperJew (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but my eyesight isn't 20/20. I personally struggle to differentiate the icons and having some form of pattern about it seems like a much better solution. The clubs gain their identities, they're easy to differentiate and they all appear to be a lot more accurate this way. Initially, I'd seen the edit by Yoka Genkaku and figured that this change was being implemented all over the Australian articles, I also then personally edited the maps (due to them having 10px versions of these icons and immediately was able to differentiate where one colour ended and another began (Melbourne for instance with the vertical lines contained the same shade of blue for City and Victory), thus my edits. I agree that we should reach a consensus about the use of these icons, however these cosmetic changes seemed quite logical to me.
As for changing the icons themselves, surely not every single change requires a vote? Nobody seemed to care when I added the newer map image with the newer icons on the season articles. - J man708 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
But there already has been considerable discussion over the years about the need or appropriateness of their use at all. To me, maps seem the single most appropriate place (rather than the default little coloured balls), and most of the rest is WP:ICONDECORATION. Depending on what consensus if any was reached, I would be looking at removing them out of a whole bunch of the older A-League season articles as I do not think they generally contribute to an article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd be with Tildawg on this one, but I'd add that the first table under the "Tables" heading on the appropriate articles should also be included. - J man708 (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

NNSW FFA Cup Qualifiers article[edit]

The format of NNSW FFA Cup Qualifying table makes no sense. It has eight clubs within three categories all list as 'qualifiers'. What have they the eight clubs qualified for?? Only the two clubs in blue qualified for the FFA Cup? I think this needs major format changes and rewording. I guess they have made it to the later stages of the preliminary rounds, but in my mind this doesn't make all eight 'qualifiers'. Not sure if anyone else has any better wording to recommend? --TinTin (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm intending to edit it once the format of the 2016 edition is known (only a few weeks I guess - the games apparently on the weekend of 18th-19th June), make it more consistent with all of the other satellite competitions which are a part of or further rounds to the FFA Cup. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It might even be more sensible to merge it with the NNSWF State Cup article, and better highlight the teams that made it through to the FFA Cup Round of 32. Don't think a separate article for each year is warranted, as all rounds are contained within the FFA Cup preliminary rounds (as they also are for some of the other member federations - Tasmania, SA, NT and the ACT). Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Jaime Maclaren[edit]

Does anyone have the authority to permanently lock this article? I have been reverting the same edit by the same individual for years now and I'm getting fed up. Time to put an end to this. Simione001 (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A-League PFA Team of the Season templates[edit]

The current format of these templates is having the full name for the starting XI and surname only for the subs. User Be Quiet AL brought up on his edit on one of the pages and my talk-page that this is a bit different to other squad templates.

In his words "If you notice, squad templates for EVERY club season, as well as those for European Championships, World Cups or Copa América, only bear the surname of the player (if that's the way he's known by, that is, sometimes it's the first name or a nick, in the case of POR/SPA/BRA players mostly). Also, I fail to see the coherence of having starters with name/surnames and the subs with only surname."

I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. --SuperJew (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I made these templates by the best analogy - that is, the Premier League PFA Team of the Year templates where full names are always used. In fact the same is true for the all English PFA Teams of the Year. As for the substitutes, there is not such a clear precedent there (not awarded by the English PFA). If anything, I made the call to include only their surnames in order to keep the template succinct and based on the lesser importance of those positions, but admittedly this not a very scientific approach and I couldn't object to somebody changing that part of the template to full names instead if so desired. Macosal (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems a good analogy to me. I'm fine with it either way (subs with full names/family names only). Though I do agree with your point that the subs is a lesser importance, and it also reads lesser importance in the sources. --SuperJew (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

FFA Cup appearances table[edit]

Firstly I think this is a great addition to the article, good work User:TheDudist. A few recommended changes though:

  • I don't think listing every year of appearance works, if the comp goes for many years the current years column will look a bit silly.
  • I recommend adding two columns called Winners and Runners-up with the number of wins, runners-up for that team.
  • Recommend adding in brackets () after the best result the years the best result was achieved with a comma between years if result is achieved multiple times.
Team Appearances Winners Runners-up Best Result
South Australia Adelaide United 3 1 0 Champions (2015)
Victoria (Australia) Melbourne Victory 3 1 0 Champions (2014)
Western Australia Perth Glory 3 0 2 Runners-up (2014, 2015)
New South Wales Central Coast Mariners 3 0 0 Semi-finals (2014)
Victoria (Australia) Melbourne City 3 0 0 Semi-finals (2015)

Do you think this is an improvement? --TinTin (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that if every club is listed this will eventually get unsustainably long. Maybe limit to clubs who have reached the semis or quarters? Also as an aside, not sure how useful the state flags are here. Macosal (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks TinTin! I figured it would be easier to monitor which Member Fed teams have qualified over the years.
Yeah I thought listing every year was probably getting a bit much. I was just basing it off the Fifa World Cup results table. I originally just had the Appearance column and that was all, but thought I'd add a bit more.
I'm torn with the Winners and Runner-up columns. They look good, and add a bit of history to the teams who have won. But the only concern I have is that 99% of teams will have a 0 next to them permanently, especially as more and more new teams will qualify. How about if we just have 3 columns: Team, # of Appearances, and then Best result with the year(s) they achieved said result?
Also, how about if we remove the 'Round of 32 onwards' title from the Results table? I feel that it probably isn't needed since the FFA Cup itself doesn't officially start until the R32 anyway. If the page included all records from preliminary rounds, I'd be all for it, but since it's a page for the Cup Proper, it might not be needed. What are your thoughts?
And yeah I'm not fussed about the flags either. I was just copying from NPL page. Would prefer logos if it was possible to do.
If you like all that, I'd be happy to make the adjustments. -- TheDudist (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)TheDudist
Alternatively if the list is too long, I could always make an entire new page for just appearances Macosal? -- TheDudist (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I actually like all the appearances, the original idea of cutting it off was just to show a small excerpt of the table, because I was too lazy to update it all. My idea was just to get rid of the year listing of each appearance and concentrate on the winners/ runners-up. But moving the full table to a new article is probably a good idea. Also I think the Round of 32 IS required because the qualifying games are advertised as, and are becoming increasingly looked at as qualifying games, and less related to their original competitions.--TinTin (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
A-League teams qualify every year, so that's almost a given. I think it would be better than having a list of all member federation clubs that make the Rd of 32, to have a table showing Most Appearances, in a similar fashion to how some League lists of goal scorers list the top 10-15 or so, not every goal scorer. At the moment, that list should be for those clubs that have qualified 2 or 3 times, and not just once.
Also this article (and associated prelimianry round articles) is currently free of the meaningless 'bling' of logos and should be kept that way. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
So maybe: we move the complete table to a new article called FFA Cup appearances, we abbreviate the table on the main article to just have member federation clubs who have qualified more than once and create a new table on the main article showing number of wins and runners up without flags and icons? Does that make everyone happy?--TinTin (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll get onto it. -- TheDudist (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, FFA Cup appearances is now a page, although it could probably use a little introductory paragraph, and it'll need a link from the main page. I've made the change on the main FFA Cup to the Results table. I kept the quarter-finalists for now, although I'm open with that. With the Member Fed appearances, where's the best place to put the table? At the end with the other stats? Or earlier on with the 'Eligible teams' section? And what coloumns should we have? Just Team name and Appearances that are 2 or more? -- TheDudist (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Great Work. I've done a bit of tidying up: I added two introductory sentences to the new article, added a talk page to the new article, added the template to the new aritcle, added the link to the new article on the template and added a further information tag on the main FFA Cup page under eligible teams. --TinTin (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Awesome job! I'm still only new to Wiki editing, but I'm loving it. Thanks heaps. Since we've made a whole new page, should I go one further in making it a 'Full' table? Eg, should I add new columns such as: Winners, Runners-up, Semi-finals, Quarter-finas, R16, R32? (King of like what we've now done on the main page) Obviously this would be way too much on the main page, as we've said, but on the separate Appearances page it might look alright. -- TheDudist (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I think as it is a new article, there is certainly more scope to add additional detail. My only caveat being that you probably want to make it manageable so that it doesn't take too much work for future editors to keep it up to date. A couple of people already spend a lot of time / effort keeping the current qualification pages in particular up to date and accurate. So maybe keep the additional columns to Semi-Finals and /or Quarter Finals appearances, to reduce the amount of maintenance? --TinTin (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
That's fine by me. I'll keep it to just those 4 additional columns (Winner, RU, SF, QF). Agreed about the maintenance not getting too out of hand. I'll happily keep that page updated throughout the qualification process and Cup Proper. If there's any other columns that people want in there feel free to let me know. I briefly pondered a column for each team's 'league', but that'd be impossible to keep up to date, especially with NPL and NPL2 clubs being promoted/relegated every year. -- TheDudist (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed the table up a bit on the appearances page. Looks a bit more sleek now. I also got rid of the 'Years' column, as you suggested, and replaced it with 'Debut' instead. 2 things though:
  • Would it look better to have dashes for the columns in which there is no results (like on the NPL finals page)? Or does it look neater to have them blank?
  • And I like having the year of the achieved result in the 'Best result' column, but it looks a tad messy because the results aren't in alphabetical order. I like the look of the NPL finals table where it just has columns for their results, and the year in that column. Eg, Champions, 1, (2014). The only problem is though that I can't do this for all the teams without having an R16 and R32 column. Or does it just look fine and polished as it is, and I should just leave it? -- TheDudist (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You could feel free to finish the table on my userpage. - J man708 (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: Should I add the old Australian Cup/NSL Cup teams to the 'FFA Cup Appearances' page? On one hand, they're separate comps. But on the other hand, the FFA said they were going to merge the A-Leauge and NSL records. What is everyone's opinion? -- TheDudist (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This competition commenced in 2014, this is the THIRD year of the FFA Cup. It is not the Australia Cup, or linked in any way to it. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the Maniac. Umarghdunno (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Club Colours/Icons revisited[edit]

Hi Guys,

The Club colours/icons situation has always been a bit of a mess, but lately it has become a real clusterfuck. There are colours and icons (with little drawings) all over the place and it's pretty ridiculous. Initially I was for the icons, because I do believe for some people it's easier to comprehend colours than words. But lately, some of them have been switched to icons with drawings (like planes and Sydney harbour bridges), which is beyond and seems to me against WP:ICONDECORATION.

I'd like us to reach a consensus on the subject and act accordingly (if it is to remove colours/icons from all pages, or if it is to decide on one set of colours/icons and use them and delete the unused ones).

Pinging regular contributors who are most relevant: @J man708: @TinTin: @Matilda Maniac: @Macosal: @2nyte: @Simione001: @Hmlarson: @Eccy89: @Rjbsmith:

Cheers! --SuperJew (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to see them go, bar the icons on the map itself and the subsequent initial box showing cities, stadiums and capacities (or possibly if they were placed on the Personnel and Kits table). This allows the teams and colours still to be easily distinguished, without being a clusterfuck of decorations. As for the little drawings, the original three stripes method was difficult to differentiate teams with similar colours. We had the early version of CCM's and WP's looking almost identical, ditto the later version of CCM and CGU. Simply put, the three stripes method was fine when Reebok created those shit-house kits back in 2005, but they haven't aged well and are no longer relevant to the clubs in question (MC's didn't match, NCJ's changed from season to season etc.)
As for those club colours anywhere else on the articles in question, I think they're overused (ie - season articles). I also feel as though the state flags are pretty repetitive on all pages, bar the initial FFA Cup table. - J man708 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove, apart from icons on the maps and the subsequent initial box showing cities, stadiums etc. Keep state flags for the FFA Cup table showing where federations have qualifiers from, but not on each team. For the NPL Finals series, keep the state flags for each team. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I totally forgot about the NPL finals series. Keep those aswell. +1 Tildawg - J man708 (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not too fussed. It's probably a bit over the top at the moment I guess. --TinTin (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
If we are talking just about USAGE in the A-League page, IMO they should only be used for map and the table underneath. I don't even think they should be used in the rivalries section and they look pretty silly in the Honours section too. Again on USAGE on all other pages, I really think that their use in the list of matches sections (matchday boxes) is fine, but pretty much no other sections.
If we are discussing STYLE - i dont mind the recent changes, the Sydney FC icon might be a look little OTT, but the others are fine. I guess for Sydney FC it helps differentiate from Melbourne City, so probably not much else can be done. As a couple of you have pointed out, the old ones can look so similar to other clubs that there is pretty much no point in having them as they do not help improve a reader's comprehension or aid in navigation (as set out in the MOS for icons...) Therefore, remove old ones... —Eccy89 (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be snowballing now. I'll remove the excess ones from last season's and this upcoming one now. It seems pretty unanimous (except for TinTin) :P - J man708 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand in the first place why the colours were changed. As they were in their simple form I think they were fine as a visual accessory to help people who process information visually better, but the embellishment of it makes it ridiculous and severely go against WP:ICONDECORATION. I saw the claim that the new icons make it easier to tell the clubs apart, but tell me when we add flags to we do anything special to tell apart countries with similar flags? (like Australia and New Zealand? or Poland, Monaco and Indonesia?) --SuperJew (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Difference between clubs and countries flags are that they ARE the countries flags... i.e. how they choose to represent their nation. A club's representation is their badge. The new ones technically represent the badge a heck of a lot better than the old ones. TBH, if you are super AGAINST the new ones, I would prefer that we didn't have ANY icons. This is because the old ones, as previously stated, don't help improve a reader's comprehension/navigation etc. which to me, are the main points set out in WP:ICONDECORATIONEccy89 (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are we leaving the icons on the initial boxes? It should be all or nothing? It is either against WP:ICONDECORATION (which it is) or it's not (and then the icons need to be simplified). --SuperJew (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

So that the ones on the map have a icon to correspond to. The icons are only used in one place wherein the original, simplified icons were exceptionally hard to differentiate and used everywhere. This is a much better combo of both the frequency of usage and the icons themselves. - J man708 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
C'mon you have to admit the icons are ridiculous. Sydney has the picture of the Opera House, Mariners have this weird yellow splotch. The old versions were basic tricolours with the club's colours. What are these new patterns based off? It seems to me against WP:NOR. --SuperJew (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
And Victory has a giant V! What's that about? CCM's is the middle of their logo and SFC's has what is also shown on theirs. They seem to be based off of what identifies them. Let's look at it the other way. How did the previous tricolour Melbourne City icon identify the club better than the current? And what about GCU, CCM and WP's closeness in colours? For me, it seems a no-brainer to keep the icons as they currently are. They can be easily identified. As much as it's an Australian article, I'd be sure to say that these icons (and the subsequent map) are informative to the standard international reader. It's not as though we're plastering the pages with them. It's two sets, one to identify and the other to show the location. The previous icons caused ambiguity issues. This is just logical, surely? - J man708 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Get rid of them. They are not helpful. And state flags shouldn't be used for FFA Cup or NPL finals. Clubs aren't representing states, they are representing federations. Umarghdunno (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Could even get rid of them on the map. EPL, La Liga, Serie A, Ligue 1 and Bundesliga seem to be managing without. --SuperJew (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The NRL and AFL's pages also use icons on the map and they're also representative of their clubs' logos and colours, a lot better than the tri-colour set-up we had earlier - J man708 (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Firstly imo it is more important for an Australian soccer league to be consistent with other soccer leagues than with other Australian leagues. Secondly if you brought up the NRL, their icons are simple bi-colours or tricolours, as was in A-League until recently. --SuperJew (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
We could continue this til the cows come home. It's an impasse. We both know where the other stands. My vote's wholeheartedly with Tildoggy Dogg's proposition - J man708 (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

New question, which came up here but wasn't really answered: The use of state flags? It was written by someone that in FFA Cup/NPL the teams don't represent the states (but rather federations). First of all I'm not sure of the difference, care to elaborate? What are the federation flags? Secondly, for example in continental champions league, clubs don't represent their countries, they just come from there, yet we still have their country flags by them in continental tournaments. How is this different? --SuperJew (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to ping @Umarghdunno: --SuperJew (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No difference whatsoever. Matilda Maniac (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The difference is that there is a stricter guideline for state flags than national flags - per WP:MOSFLAG: "Subnational flags should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. Such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article" and "if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state (e.g. Canada) not of a subnational entity". I don't mind what is done at 2015 FFA Cup too much, where the flags are only used once when the teams are first mentioned and I can see that although not perfectly, there is some correlation (and therefore relevance) between states and teams (not perfect however), but I think this guideline would suggest against using them. The issue you mention about clubs not representing their countries but just coming from them is a common and controversial one (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 71#WP:MOSFLAG in friendlies again) but I would be more cautious still using state flags given their lower recognisability. Macosal (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the NPL regional winners, going into the finals series do indeed represent the state they're from. Obviously they're playing for themselves and not Capital Football or the FFV, but with each state getting one team, I think we can justify their usage on the NPL season articles. - J man708 (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Well to put it simply, in FFA Cup & NPL finals they represent their federation, which admittedly is usually, but not always a state. The obvious exception is Northern NSW and Football NSW (which represents Central Coast and south from there.) When I look at the page with FFA Cup appearances I would prefer to be able to sort and see who represents NNSW (for example) rather than just NSW as a state. The sort function operates on the state flags. There are also clubs such as Tweed Heads that are geographically in NSW but play in a Football Queensland competition.Umarghdunno (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding what you said about clubs that are geographically in one state, but play in a different competition, it is a similar case to Cardiff City and Swansea City playing in the Premier League. In international competitions they're marked on wikipages with a Wales flag (and usually with a note too - see for example Euro 2016). --SuperJew (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
TBH template:sort should be used here to sort alphabetically rather than by state flag on the page FFA Cup appearances. For mine an extra column, "Federation" should be added to allow that sorting and to disambiguate as mentioned above (and removing state flags altogether from this list). Macosal (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
That's an inconsistency with Wikipedia which should be fixed. The Champions League teams list shows AS Monaco as French, not Monegasque. Ditto the Europa League showing Swansea City as English. Even the link you provided SuperJew has this on the talk page. The consensus seems to be "Represent the country's league you play in, not the country your team is from. If the Nix somehow got into the Club World Cup (by being hosted in Australia and them winning the previous A-League), then they'd be shown as Australian, not Kiwi. - J man708 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Going by those discussions we'd need the member federation clubs to have state flags next to them, with a different flag for the NNSW clubs. and the ALeague clubs would have an ALeague flag next to them? --SuperJew (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I have solved this problem (at least in the context of FFA Cup appearances) by replacing the flags with the federation names. Much less ambiguous, no MOS issue, more sortable. Macosal (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

WNSL Records in W-League Article[edit]

In the W-League records and statistics article someone has placed the WNSL winners of the Julie Dolan medal, plus the WNSL rising star and the WNSL Golden boot in that article. This clearly currently makes no sense to have WNSL record in an article about the W-League. There are a few options:

  • Option 1 - Expand the article from W-League to Australian women's soccer records and statistics and add heaps of WNSL stuff.
  • Option 2 - Blow away the WNSL stuff and leave the W-League stuff in peace
  • Option 3- Move the WNSL stuff to a new article WNSL records and statistics and keep the existing article to W-League
  • Option 4-Move the WNSL stuff to a new section on the existing WNSL article and keep the existing article to W-League only

I prefer option 4 as I am unsure the enthusiasm or availability to create / work on an article about the WNSL? --TinTin (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

How about
  • Option 5 - split the Julie Dolan medal table into 2 (one for W-League and one for the earlier competition) - this is the only compilation of the winner of the medal, so it really doesnt 'hurt' a W-League article having this existing background information. I would do the same thing for the Golden Boot (two tables).
But I would blow away the WNSL rising star award. In general though, if there's someone with enthusiasm to improve the WNSL article, then at that point the information can get moved, rather than remove this information now. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't include the WNSL features on the current page. I think the Julie Dolan Medal is notable enough (as the premier accolade for female footballers in Australia) to have its own article, but the W-League stats page shouldn't go beyond the W-League for mine. Macosal (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I prefer option 3 or 4. I'd also add a hatnote or disambiguation page for WNSL. Hmlarson (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Option 4: I would agree with Macosal that there should be a Julie Dolan Medal page, include all winners there and only the W-League winners in the honours sections of W-League records and statistics. (Similar to what is done with the Johnny Warren Medal). This would be in addition to Option 4 (clearly the only real option!) which can be done right away. Obviously, if someone is enthusiastic enough / can find more records and statistics for WNSL to justify its own page (Option 3), then move it there. —Eccy89 (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I've pretty much fixed this now, although a few minor things probably still need to be updated. I've changed the Julie Dolan Medal from a re-direct to a new article containing both the WNSL and W-League winners. I've moved all other tables that relate to the WNSL from the W-League records and statistics to a new section on the WNSL page individual honours. Thanks for everyone's confirmation and input. --TinTin (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Sweet. Well in @TinTin:, good job! —Eccy89 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

State article formatting[edit]

Small wall of text incoming, lads! @SuperJew: @TinTin: @Matilda Maniac: @Macosal: @2nyte: @Simione001: @Hmlarson: @Eccy89: @Rjbsmith: (SuperJoob, I stole your ping list! :P )

The current league system table seems to imply that the regional associations of WA are positioned lower than the Perth-based metro league. I find it a bit hard to fathom that a club from Broome would only be able to apply to join this league. I feel as though the top flight of football in Broome would most likely be considered a third tier (behind the NPL) or a fifth tier (behind the two "State" Leagues). I can't quite understand why WA's clubs are shown also in the FFA Cup article with their tiers shown as dashes, rather than the specific number. If clubs in QLD's competitions can have their tiers shown easily (ie. FNQ clubs, GC clubs, etc), then I can't quite understand why WA's don't?

Also, the state league season articles lack a bit of consistency from WA to the other states. The QLD seasons show the largest zone's (Brisbane's) sub divisions behind the NPL; the NNSW's seasons show the largest zone's (Newcastle's) sub divisions behind the State League 1; but with WA, the article shows the NPL, both State Leagues and then the top amateur league division, but nothing further down? I feel as though we should show the lower divisions for Perth's Amateur League, to match the consistency of the other state articles. I'm more than happy to put in the hard yards and make sure that all the relevant info is placed in the articles, but I just need to know that my changes won't be undone and rendered moot. I honestly think that it would be easier to convert the WA articles to match the others (I'm sure Tildawg will love that!), but honestly, I don't understand why WA's articles need to be different to the other states and maintain a different infobox and article set up.

The WA season articles previously showed these lower leagues, but were deleted as what I thought was a knee-jerk reaction to the deletion of my incorrect addition of the Collegiate Leagues in the SA article (the reason why that was incorrect to add was because that comp is only open to College associated teams, with regular FFSA aligned soccer clubs being only open to the State Leagues [or their regional sub-leagues]).

So, what do I suggest?

I suggest we have the men's league tables listed first, initially introduced by two = signs, then with each tier with three = signs). After that, we should probably list the relevant cup competitions listed, as they still are a men's competition, followed by the women's league tables (introduced with two = signs). Currently the tables kinda look as though the women's league tables are a tier below the men's comp. If we add the spiel about the state league cups, it can act as a bit of like a windbreaker between the two sexes, somewhat like this. Thoughts about this proposal? Sorry to once again write up a novel's worth of text! Cheers! - J man708 (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

One thing that stuck out as incorrect is the point you made about the South Australian Collegiate League. It is not only open to college affiliated teams as NPL clubs Croydon Kings and Adelaide Comets both participate. There will be more NPL clubs joining in the next few seasons as all NPL clubs will eventually be required to enter a CSL side. Simione001 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'll be damned. When I played (which wasn't that long ago), the only clubs which took part were affiliated with a college. Do you know when this has since been the case, Simione? - J man708 (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Comets Croydon and Vipers all joined in 2016. Simione001 (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
And yet, Raiders' lower grades play under the Croatia moniker in the rebel SAASL? Weird... I reckon the shit will hit the fan pretty soon. - J man708 (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I still cant fathom why there is so much interest and intent to IMPLY that formal 'tiers' exist within certain states - when they don't - and that in turn they have to belong to some notional current league system table that is comparable between states. Why are WA's clubs . . . shown also in the FFA Cup article with their tiers shown as dashes, rather than the specific number? Because they dont have a specific number ! Hypothesizing about whether Team X (let's call it Broome FC) is theoretically level 3 not level 5 is not based on fact, it is based on belief. Editors (in this thread) who have assigned tiers (e.g to Queensland) on the FFA Cup qualifiers article, can have their tiers shown easily, but it doesnt mean that it is correct for an encyclopedia.
A lot of this discussion has been had over the past year on (J man708's talk page). True, I was involved in removing some of the lower amateur league divisions in WA from last year's article. But that was on the basis of WP:GNG, and my assessment that only the Amateur Premier Division and above gets any coverage in the media and the local football community here. Below this level, crowds and coverage is down to the level of wives/girlfriends/mums n'dads. If J man708 is prepared to add information on many lower leagues into these articles, then thats fine.
I will concentrate my efforts - when i can - on adding the top flight female leagues into these state articles - from my Perth perspective, I think they have as much 'exposure' as probably the two State Leagues here in WA; i think that if separate articles were created for the female leagues, they would (rightly?) be removed as not notable; so I feel that they best belong under a member federation's season article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Broome FC would play in the Broome Soccer Association's top flight, from there, they and others can nominate to be included in whichever tier Football West deemed necessary. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that IF a team from Broome were to survive, it could only do so in the NPL (relegation would almost certainly kill it). But, I refuse to believe that if Broome FC dominated their league on many occasions, that they'd not attract the interest of Football West, especially if they were financially set and also had their sights set on semi-professional football. If they genuinely cannot be included in the NPL, then surely they'd be a (2), as the only league higher than theirs which they could enter would be the A-League (much like the NT). If you look at the maps of Australian football, each member federation includes all the areas of the state they occupy, which makes me know that this league (like the other middle-of-nowhere leagues) still fall under the NPL, as they are a sub division of the NPL, which is why it could be seen as a (3). The reason for it possibly being a (5) is the same, but placing the competition underneath the STATE leagues (which is where I'm pretty sure they'd be classified). To me, the name State League seems to be a give away of where the statewide leagues end and the regional ones start. - J man708 (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
After studying our Australian soccer league system table again, I would agree with J man708 that the WA structure appears odd comparatively. I think the main issue would be that the "Metropolitan League" and "Regional" should be placed next to each other (like Northern and Southern Leagues in Tasmania). Though we are seriously running out of room on the page to do this! Alternatively we could just add it as "Metropolitan League and Regional Leagues" / X clubs (from 6 Divisions) + 17 separate associations. (Football NSW for instance just groups the metro districts and the regional districts together). But I really do think that it should be changed to the aforementioned Tasmanian example.
Barring that, there seems to be some glaring issues surrounding the WA structure and their pages overall. Now, I'm not pretending that I know anything about the WA Leagues and their structure because I don't. But, I'm not really convinced that the WA "Amateur Leagues" Divisions 1-5 are even notable enough to deserve their own wikipedia pages. Perhaps these should be merged??? I have had a look them are they are nothing more than stubs at this point. They aren't even deemed important enough to be placed in Template:Soccer in Western Australia, nor in the page Soccer in Western Australia etc. It seems to me that there has been an attempt to create a structure and have pages filter down just because the information available. Although, I just checked out the ACT ones and they all redirect to the same page!!! I also says that there are 9 divisions (so not sure what's going on!) For the moment I'm leaving my comment about the merger so that we can bring it up as a discussion point, but there may be bigger issues at hand? —Eccy89 (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Eccy89: Bingo. I think it's a case of finding where it fits in. I daresay that the State League 2 would be the lowest statewide league, personally (I mean, the name seems a bit of a giveaway, tbh). This leads to regional league first tiers being Level 5. For the issue of space, I created a very rudimentary page, showing the lower FFSA affiliated leagues. I daresay that the lower tier competitions aren't themselves that notable, BUT seeing as how we're in a spot wherein the organising bodies have season articles, the lower tier league tables themselves should have a place. Only a pro player gets an article, only a semi-professional team get an article, but pretty much most competitions get an article. It's a staggered pyramid, really.
As for the ACT, the lower divisions are part of the same step of the ladder (much akin England's EPL being Step 1, The Football League being Step 2, The Conference being Step 3, etc). Because of this, I figured that it was better to have them redirect to the Capital Football State League page, rather than simply red linking. - J man708 (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@J man708: So ideally, you are saying that on the table, we should really be merging the WA Amateur League / Metropolitan League / Regional Leagues all together? Probably not a bad idea. That also leads me back into my previous train of thought of merging the Amateur Leagues into a single article also...
Re: ACT. Any particular reason why you stopped at Division 3 then or felt the need to go all the way to Division 3? (or someone else did it?) —Eccy89 (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Eccy89: Precisely what I was getting at. To me, the situation is very similar to what we have in like NSW, where past the lowest statewide division (in that case Tier 5), the clubs are then in the next highest divisions, which is where you get comps like the Bankstown top flight, which would be Tier 6. Ditto the Sydney Amateur League and the Wollongong League. All those teams can nominate to the State League, but they'd be accepted into the lowest state league, (like the Wagga City Wanderers, St George Warriors).
As for the ACT, it initially was down to about the 8th tier before, but it was honestly exceptionally difficult and tiresome to attempt to keep track of things. As much as their competitions are statewide all the way down to the umpteenth division, realistically past about Division 1 or 2 gets to a point where the game is taken less seriously. A friend of a friend plays in like Div 5 and yeah, apparently it's moreso social down at that point. Not that it's not worthy of being mentioned on the page, just that teams come and go so often and can just nominate directly where they'd like to be placed. There's nothing stopping a team of misfits being accepted into about Div 3 or possibly even higher, it's just that keeping track of what clubs has what grade in what table is pretty tiresome. It's easier to draw the line somewhere, which is what I did in this case. If anyone has any objections to where I drew the line, I'll happily change it, but I just didn't want to keep putting in info for a clubs' L grade team at Div 19 or something just as pointless. - J man708 (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@J man708: So should we put it to a vote to merge the info in the table? Re: ACT. Wouldn't it just be easier to just do one Capital Football State League square then? I.e. don't worry about ANY of the divisions. I mean, realistically they do all just redirect to same page anyway. I think would look a bit neater for the table. —Eccy89 (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes and No. I think it should be noted that steps and tiers are two different things. The ACT State League is more of a step (like The Football League) rather than an individual tier (like the Football League Championship, Football League One, Football League Two). Including just the term "Capital Football State League" seems (according to the article) to relate to the step rather than the tier. Because of the ACT's tiny size, it is quite unique that competitions from NPL all the way to Division 10 (or wherever it goes) are statewide. The correct thing to do would be to show the ACT State League Divisions all the way down to 12 or wherever it stops, because it fails to further break apart regionally, unlike every other state.
Getting back on track, I definitely think that WA's outback competitions have tiers. If the top flights of the Bankstown League, the Gladesville-Hornby League, the St George League all are positioned under the lowest "State League" in NSW, ditto the Collegiate Soccer League, Riverland League, the Silver City League are positioned behind the lowest "State League" in SA, then why aren't the teams in the top flights of the Broome League, the Geraldton League and the Goldfields League positioned behind the lowest WA "State League". Surely they should have their numbers shown also in tiers on the FFA Cup qualifiers page? I fail to see how it's different for WA. - J man708 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Eccy89: Forgot to ping you last post - J man708 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@J man708: It's ok dude. ACT makes sense I guess (still not sure if three is necessary but all good, main concern is WA). I would agree about the tiering thing for the FFA Cup prelims. However, I think we need to sort out the structure first on the league system page with everyone agreeing first. From there it is very easy to add the tier number. At the moment the "system" is unclear so just using a dash makes sense :-) Hence why I wanted this thing to go to some sort of vote. Nobody else seems to be getting involved though. Should we start a new topic about voting to merge? —Eccy89 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Eccy89: Yeah, there's no major reason for all the clubs not to be tiered. We just need to make it clear that the term "State League" doesn't mean that it sits at a specific tier, but rather is utilised as the lowest statewide step. In SA it's a (3) and also (4); in VIC it's a (4); in NSW it's a (5) for example. Definitely best to start a new topic. I start enough of them on here which don't end out getting much in the way of responses as it is! - J man708 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Australian state tier system[edit]

@SuperJew: @Macosal: @J man708: @Matilda Maniac: @TinTin: @2nyte: @Hmlarson:
OK. So here is the fallout from the above section (State article formatting). J man708 and I have been querying the tier system of the Australian soccer league system and certainly by looking at the list most would agree that the WA section seems off. It is of our belief all other states have their corresponding leagues tiered down to the last state league competition (i.e. NSW State League for NSW, National Premier Leagues State League 2 for SA etc.) and finishes with a "regional leagues" component. However, currently WA goes past the final state league competition (Football West State League Division 2) to include Football West Amateur League Premier Division which does NOT promote to the state league. Therefore, it really sits alongside the "Metropolitan League" and the "Regional leagues" which have been placed well below it! Both J man708 and myself believe we should merge those three leagues inside the table. (And to be honest I'm not even sure that the aforementioned Amateur Leagues are notable enough to devote six pages to them in the first place and should probably be merged, but that is for another day). Please discuss and ping anyone else that would be able to contribute :-) —Eccy89 (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If you go back to the Australian soccer league system article history at say February 2016 - before the edits by @Knowledgemaster2000: - you will see a more realistic summary for WA in the Table. The series of stand-alone articles created by User:Knowledgemaster2000 on all of the amateur divisions could quite well fail WP:GNG - maybe they should be deleted instead of merged together? I have tidied them up a bit, but they're unlikely to progress beyond stubs.
The winner of the Football West Amateur League Premier Division league season can promote to the state league, but the club has to want to ! As amateurs, the move from Sunday to Saturday is an issue. Of late, Joondalup United have gone down that path, so it is certainly possible, but it is not an automatic promotion - Gwelup Croatia elected to stay in the Amateur ranks in 2015, for example. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the input Tily. Just so everyone knows, a quick mock-up would look like this. —Eccy89 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
If the lack of space looks unnerving, perhaps we could merge it all to say "Regional" like the others, and use the page of "Amateur league" to discuss all three...? —Eccy89 (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that clubs can also decline promotion into the very top state leagues, aswell. As for the physical table, I reckon merging the three WA leagues would be the way to go. Also, rewording the "internal promotion and relegation", as that's step based and not tier based. Perhaps we should base tiers 3 and below on the English system's 9th tier and below. This allows us to not have to stress about fitting in the relevant leagues. I'd be happy to do the hard yards on that one. - J man708 (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean about the step thing (internal pro/rel)? If you are keen to do the hard yards then sure, go for it. Give us a look and if we like we vote yay! —Eccy89 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Listing them on the same line implies it's the same tier. Internal promotion and relegation should be shown as additional leagues, not by placing them all in one box. - J man708 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@J man708: haha, well. ok then. you do the hard yards as promised and i will definitely back you up on it! —Eccy89 (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

representative Nationality[edit]

Bringing up here this discussion between Macosal and myself so more people will be likely to contribute. This started out from the recent transfer of Mitch Austin. Austin was born in England and moved to Australia at the age of 10. Hasn't played international football for either country. In Macosal's opinion he should be marked with an Australian flag on squads (or not marked on transfer page per Australians), while I think he should be marked with the flag of his birthplace (in this case England). (Macosal feel free to point any points I might've missed in your eyes). People of Aussie Task Force, Please add your thoughts and improve the discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

On looking through a number of discussions, some key points:
  • MOS:FLAG suggests that flags should be used "to show the representative nationality" of a player. Of course, we know that Austin can play for Australia or England (although it also seems far more likely that he would play for Australia than get a chance to play for England). BUT note that there is of course no inherent link between birthplace and national eligibility/representation given the ways in which those rules work - which I feel makes using birthplace as a sole consideration unhelpful.
  • Reliable sources are always useful. Soccerway, Soccerbase ALeagueStats etc etc all call him Australian. I'd be very surprised to find any reliable source (or even any website other than this one) identify him as English rather than Australian. I don't think it is desirable to have such a disparity between the sources we use to make this encyclopedia and the encyclopedia itself.
Hope this clears this issue up somewhat, Macosal (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC).
Soccerway also says he was born in Sydney, so I don't know how reliable it is..
This is the FIFA statue regarding nationality (as is on FIFA eligibility rules)
Any Player who ... [assumes] a new nationality and who has not played international football [in a match ... in an official competition of any category or any type of football for one Association] shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfills one of the following conditions:
(a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association.
sounds like birth is pretty much the first precedent. Also, as far as I know Austin has not declared himself wanting to play for Australia, which means he is still considered English. --SuperJew (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
(Sidenote) If we do however go back to Soccerway, here are more examples of players with nationalities beyond birth place:
Henrique was born in Brazil, received Aussie citizenship and is listed as Brazilian (birth place)
Ali Abbas was born in Iraq and played for their national team, in 2012 received Aussie citizenship and wasn't considered one of 5 visa players from then. listed as Iraqi (birth place).
Dan Heffernan was born in England, though I'm not sure if he got Aussie citizenship or not.
Terry McFlynn was born in N. Ireland, recieved Aussie citizenship and is listed as N. Irish (birth place).
I'm sure you can look for more examples worldwide --SuperJew (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The FIFA order of eligibilities in the FIFA statute means absolutely nothing. The order does not have any "precedence" - players can (and do) meet multiple criteria and are therefore eligible for different nations - there is no need to prioritise with regard to which of the qualifications they meet. Austin was and always has been eligible for both England and Australia (his father is an Australian and therefore he has been an Australian citizen since birth). He is also playing in the A-League as an Australian player, not counting towards the foreign player limit etc. I think there is a need for a reasonable/case by case approach here. Re Henrique, for example, he has always been Brazilian and only recently became Australian, I can understand why in the absence of rep honours you might refer to him as Brazilian. But re Austin, he is literally universally referred to as an Australian. I cannot find a single website save this one which refers to him as English rather than Australian. I really think we are losing sight of the bigger picture if we prescriptively continue to unthinkingly apply a rule with no rational precedent/basis which results in Wikipedia having different information to the rest of the world. As a side note, re the other players you mention, Heffernan is not an Australian citizen; McFlynn and Abbas played rep football for their respective nations (and unlike Austin, all these players were not born Australians). A better analogy would be Tom Slater (universally described as Aussie despite being born in France). I gather you would also call him French but this seems equally strange to me. Macosal (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@J man708:@Matilda Maniac:@2nyte:@TinTin:
I think we have had these conversations many times before with different players, I don't have the time to find them at the moment though. Off the top of my head, I believe the players involved were Awer Mabil and Bruce Kamau. Granted these two players moved to Australia when they were about 4–5, I don't really see the difference between these two and Mitch Austin, other than the fact that he moved back here at age 10 (which some might argue is a HUGE difference...). I think as a minor coming back to Australia (his parents are Australian, yes?) and every major article that I have read about him reports him being Australian I would be happy for his flag to also be Australian. I also seem to remember that a deciding factor of Mabil/Kamau was that they were "playing in an Australian league" so it "seems logical" to be regarded as Australian. The only thing muddying the Austin waters is that he played quite a bit of football in England before returning home (again!). Other player examples include Labinot Haliti - moved to Australia at 14 years (though he did represent Australian youth team) and Vedran Janjetovic - born Croatia, unknown when came to Australia AND played for a Croatian league side NK Bjelovar. In summary, I can see points for and against for both sides. He is certainly a very unique case! I would be voting for Australian, primarily due to precedence set out by the aforementioned examples. —Eccy89 (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Both Mabil and Haliti represented Australia in youth teams. Kamau seems to be the same case as Austin, but as you said he moved when he was 4, while Austin was 10 and has played his football in England since the age of 18. --SuperJew (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
As stated before however, Austin was an Australian citizen from birth (and I suspect the Mabil issue was before he represented the Young Socceroos). One real issue is WP:V - does any source identify Austin as English? We know he was born there and it is a fair assumption that he has citizenship, but literally every source positively identifies him as Australian. Easier for that objective fact to be a starting point rather than looking subjectively at ages. Macosal (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, like a said before, probably the closest example is Janjetovic - and he is Australian. re: the FIFA eligibility listed a few points above, I took "new nationality" to mean switching nationality... i.e. youth team to senior, yeah? For something to be new, there must be an old right? Anyway, to be honest, I am not sure it really matters. Even though the Mabil/Kamau ones aren't exactly the same, I do recall the consensus around the time was, as mentioned before, "logical to be Australian as playing in Australian league." I'm also pretty sure the comments followed on to say "If they go play in Kenyan league maybe look at changing then." —Eccy89 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:V: Austin, who was born in England --SuperJew (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course he was born in England, nobody is denying that. There is a difference between birthplace and nationality, however. Not one source calls him English. Macosal (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If they've not been capped at youth or senior level, just go with what they're described as in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Are there sources calling him Australian? --SuperJew (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Soccerway, Soccerbase, ALeagueStats, Eurosport, goal.com, Ultimate A-League etc etc. Macosal (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more it's the same as Vedran Janjetovic. Taking the article from SuperJew, it can be directly translated as the same for Vedran. "Janjetovic, who was born in Croatia, spend his juniors playing in Sydney. He moved back to Croatia to play for NK Bjelovar, before returning home to Sydney..." Also, not to sound like a broken record or anything, but after re-reading the Kamau discussion everyone voted for Australian nationality including SuperJew because "he has an Australian nationality and is playing in an Australian league. If he was in a Kenyan league, I would say to list him as Kenyan." Not sure why the change of heart? —Eccy89 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, the difference is that Kamau moved at the age of 4 and didn't play football in Kenya, while Austin did play youth football and the beginning of his career in England. Out of interest, does anyone know how he was listed when he played in England? --SuperJew (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between age 4 and age 10? I don't like the subjective nature of many of these assessments (it seems pretty arbitrary) (what if it was age 7?). Many of the sources above were created when Austin was playing in England. I would assume they always said he was Australian. Seriously, if you can find any source claiming he is English not Australian post it here but in the absence of that I just don't understand how we can go against what every reliable source says based on some ad libbed system based on birthdays and club histories. Macosal (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The main point, which was also brought up in the Kamau discussion: He never played football in Kenya and started his pro footballing career in aus therefore should be considered an Australian footballer. Likewise Austin started his footballing career in England. and again does anyone know how he was listed (on wikipedia) when he played in England? --SuperJew (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that was the main point there - it was mentioned by one editor you contributed before that and made no mention of that concept. When Austin was playing in England he was listed as Australian. Macosal (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, what you're saying makes sense and there is pre-existing consensus for it in that case. --SuperJew (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
If there is genuine doubt about nationality for a non-international player (which I don't see here), the nationality can be omitted from the lead given it is not relevant to the notability of the player. Hack (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the primary nationality should always be place of birth, unless they do not have citizenship in the country they are born in, or are otherwise capped by another country. Kamau and Austin should not be Australian unless they are capped - of course they are Australian citizens and call themselves Australians, but for FIFA purposes you can only have one flag on your profile.Ortizesp (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
If the sources describe the player as a particular nationality, you have to go with that flag. You can't just make up rules to suit your world view. Hack (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The footnote to the table says "Those players who were born AND started their professional career abroad". If we stick by both these forms of criteria, then we lose the ambiguity. It's really not that difficult, surely? - J man708 (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Assuming this is re 2016–17 A-League. I agree with you - the footnote, logically, contains three conditions to be satisfied:
1. Born overseas
2. Started their professional career overseas
3. Have SINCE gained Australian citizenship
I think this is meant to capture players like Reinaldo Elias da Costa or Henrique Andrade Silva rather than Mitch Austin, who was born with Australian citizenship or Bruce Kamau, who was an Australian citizen well before he started playing professional football. Macosal (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Direct transfers[edit]

(Moved here to create broader discussion)

I am hoping to discuss your [SuperJew's] recent reverting of my edit on the 2016-17 Sydney FC season page. Although you said that these were not direct transfers, that would mean that no transfer in the A-League is ever direct due to the fact that paid transfers cannot happen between clubs. In the case of Andrew Hoole, Ali Abbas, Jacques Faty and Mickaël Tavares, they were obviously released so that they could directly join the clubs they did. Whilst I can understand these are not direct transfers, I believe it is still important that the page show which clubs they have joined as a result of their contract terminations. Fudgy budgy (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Fudgy budgy, this has been discussed last season. It's a little vague the situation. @Macosal: @J man708: you guys have any addition to this convo? --SuperJew (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
And while I agree that Faty, Tavares and Hoole might be obviously released to join other clubs, Ali Abbas was released for opportunities overseas and it took a few weeks until he signed with Pohang. --SuperJew (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This scenario was raised in that discussion but never conclusively settled. Personally I think where it is clear that a player has been released purely to sign for another club, or signs with another club before the expiration of his contract, it is effectively a direct transfer and should be represented as one. Agree re Abbas - was less of a direct connection there, for whatever reason. Macosal (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

reason for concern?[edit]

so we often quote WP:V and WP:RS on Wikipedia. For this project for many things we source things through the FFA site, and their A-League and clubs offshoots. Looking at the latest signing article, I noticed that the "senior career" section seems to have been lifted directly from Wikipedia. Could this not result in circular referencing if this happens often? --SuperJew (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Chris Herd's Perth "transfer"[edit]

Given that Chris Herd never played or even trained for Perth after signing his contract, should he still be listed on the transfers page? Rjbsmith (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I was also debating that, but seeing as both transfer in and transfer out are sourced, and it appears on his infobox I say keep it. The first transfer was a legit transfer where he signed and everything and the second one is also a mutual contract termination. A contract was signed and then terminated, not like Chris Naumoff story at Numancia where he didn't officially sign because he didn't pass the medical. --SuperJew (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - the two distinct transfers did actually go through and Herd was contracted to the club, if only for a brief time. Macosal (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

NPL Season Articles -Sate Finals Inclusion[edit]

There is discussion of whether or not each NPL Season article (ie. 2016 National Premier Leagues)) should include the state finals series, as the state finals series don't impact or are not involved in the overall national NPL finals series. Discussion of this topic is here

Tom Rogic[edit]

@Hack, 2nyte, TheSelectFew, TinTin, Macktheknifeau, and Matilda Maniac:@ArsenalFan700 and Rjbsmith:@Macosal: @J man708: @SuperJew:Recently someone has been moving the page to Tom Rogić diacritic (comma) on top of the C. It's my opinion that since Tom is an Australian and this letter does not exist in the english alphabet that the page should be moved back to Tom Rogic without the diacritic. Thoughts?

I could see arguments either way, but currently the consensus is as you say, that Australian players are written with English letters (even if the source is not-English). I def think if someone wishes to change this it should be opened for discussion here or on WP:FOOTY and not just move on whim. --SuperJew (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Well that's whats happened. Some user has moved it twice in the last two days.Simione001 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Galekovic's doesn't and that's the same concept. I'd rather see them without, but moreso I'd rather see a blanket rule across all. Also, Ned Zelić contains the diacritic, just for the record. - J man708 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, shouldn't have the diacritic. If need be, should be the same as Ante Covic and Jason Culina but with the "Serbian language" link. That should please all users. —Eccy89 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not really fussed if I am honest as long as it's consistent. --TinTin (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Jai Ingham nationality[edit]

Samoan or Australian?

Personally, I vote Samoan. Don't get me wrong, he's an non-Visa citizen and all, but he was indeed selected for the Samoan national side for the 2016 OFC Nations Cup. Granted, he was listed as an absentee in the Nations Cup, but that's just it, he was a part of the Samoan team listed on the OFC's official match reports and hasn't yet been listed as an Australian national team squad member in any matches. - J man708 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I would stick with Australian. That is what the vast majority of sources say and further, his absence from the Samoan squad at the games could be indicative of anything from slight injury to an intention to play for a different national side. As a result I think we should stick with Australia for now. Definitely a bit of an ambiguous case and one to keep an eye on in the future either way. Macosal (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Australian. No indication he intends to represent Samoa. Simione001 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
He was listed in the Samoa squad for 2016 OFC Nations Cup, Soccerway list him as Samoan, and he was listed in the squad in the match against New Caledonia ([11], [12]). I don't understand what further indication you're looking for apart from actually playing. --SuperJew (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but he didn't he didn't even travel for the tournament. In my view that puts his allegiances in doubt.Simione001 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Had he traveled, or had he made some statement that he intended to play for Samoa in an interview, for example, I wouldn't hesitate to suggest Samoan. But being called up to a squad and then not showing up is just as likely to mean that a player is not intending to represent that nation as vice versa, in my view. Macosal (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Players table[edit]

Simply put, I added the Foreign players table to the 2011-12 A-League season article. Does anyone object to them being created to go back to the 2005-06 A-League season? - J man708 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Just pay attention that the foreign status is by that year and not current. (For example Ramsay was only called up to Philippines in 2015, and McDonald was called up to PNG in 2014) --SuperJew (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If that's the case though, we'd have players such as Connor Pain listed as from Hong Kong, until 2013? As listed above with Jai Ingham, we'd surely have him listed as Samoan if he made his debut today. By your reckoning, a player born in Sudan, who moves to Australia at a young age should be listed as Sudanese and only as Australian after they've played for the NT? - J man708 (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If a player hasn't played for either national team, but came to Australia at a young age, they have Australian citizenship and should be listed as such on an Australian page. If he plays/is called up to a national team other than Australia, from the year he is associated with that nation he should be marked as that but not before. SuperJew (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, McDonald was born in PNG and represented them without ever playing for Australia. Surely that's an open and shut case, right? The main issue is of retroactivity. Should the player's new nationality dictate their old nationality? Should a player have chosen to represent Sudan over Australia, then that's just it. They themselves have had the opportunity to choose which nationality they want to be identified as and thus, should be retroactively included.
Fair enough the issue of players playing for one country, then another, but this is about them simply playing for one country and NOT Australia. - J man708 (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not sure about McDonald now. Why isn't he under category 1 then? Or did he go to Australia at a young age? If so it is irrelevant where he was born. No it should not be changed retroactively. The page is to show the snapshot of the season at the time of the season. --SuperJew (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Because while he was born there, he started his career overseas from PNG. He's an Australian citizen, who has chosen to represent another national team. I disagree that a Filipino international should be listed as Australian at any point (unless he'd played for Australia). I'd like to get more input from others. Also, if he had lived here since 1985, why is Miron Bleiberg listed as Israeli in the 2011-12 season article? Surely he should be listed as an Aussie, if players in similar spots have to be listed as Aussies and not their other nationalities? - J man708 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly the point though. At those points in time he wasn't a Filipino international, was he? Regarding Bleiberg, I could see arguments in either direction about listing him as Aussie (got an Aussie citizenship) or as Israeli (grew up and was the first 30 years of his life in Israel) though I think the best way would be a reference stating how he sees himself. Anyways as a manager it is less relevant than a player, because players have to adhere to the foreign player policy (only 5 foreign visa players), so their nationality affects how they're registered for the league. --SuperJew (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Macosal, Eccy89, Matilda Maniac, Hack, Rjbsmith, Simione001, and TinTin: Can you guys add any insight into this? Also SuperJew, you've gotta stop editing information because it doesn't show what view point you necessarily want until after an answer has been found. It doesn't naturally revert back to what you specifically want to see. (BTW - Deleting information to avoid undoing and inturn not notifying them is a pretty shitty thing to do mate, tbh). - J man708 (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the foreign players table, currently we have the current status of foreign players, so by the end of the season the table only shows the foreign players who were playing at the end of the season. Do you think we should add a column for former foreign players (as is done in the Chinese Super League)? --SuperJew (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, another nationality debate. I see points to both sides. On one hand, as @SuperJew: says, season articles are really a "snapshot in time:" so players should be listed as to how it would have been viewed at the time. So this is important to get correct. On the other, in some certain cases, as @J man708: says, players that go on to play for different nations clearly align themselves with another nation and should be represented as such. If we do continue to retrospectively change nationalities, we may perhaps open ourselves up to a few players slipping through the cracks? I see two ways of going about this. Either change the footnote to say: 2Australian residents (and New Zealand residents, in the case of Wellington Phoenix) who have chosen to or go on to represent another national team; (generic retrofit) or create new footnotes for specific players (e.g. Ramsay: Australian citizen who chose to represent Philippines from 20XX). There is nothing wrong with making these types of notes, especially if the knowledge is available. It all helps the reader, which is the entire point of the article. I think the other problem here is that you both seem to want have a one rule fits all policy, when traditionally, we have always had a discussion about specific players. I think the best way of doing this then is to generate the conversation on the talk page of each season about all players where there is likely to be a dispute (whilst incorporating one of the two points mentioned above). —Eccy89 (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Pretty sensible suggestions there. McDonald has the added complication of having been called up to the Olyroos once or twice too. Either of the above solutions would remove any ambiguity and be informative too. Macosal (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the footnote should be changed to include such nationality changes (Eccy's first idea). It seems wrong not to include it on an encyclopedia, tbh. Also, as much as Brad McDonald was called up by the Olyroos, he was born in PNG and has only played for PNG at any form of international level. He's as Papuan as any youngster is Australian, who made the move to Europe to further his footballing career. Think about this, what else could he really do to be Papuan? - J man708 (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
He could've chosen not to be involved with the Australian youth setup. He actually said "Maybe in the future if it doesn’t work out with Australia, then I can investigate the passport situation again" (here). Were this happening now, I'd suggest that should mean we list him as Australian. All in all fairly clear that Australia was his preferred representative nationality, for a time at least. Macosal (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the day chose to represent PNG at the expense of representing Australia. He was born in PNG and plays for PNG. If it looks like a duck... - J man708 (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW - Macdawg, if Jai Ingham was called up by Samoa and you said should be listed as Australian, then how on Earth can Brad McDonald be Australian, if PNG is to him what Australia is to Ingham? - J man708 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Ingham was called up to Samoa but didn't show without an explanation. That seems very different to a player who said "I want to represent Australia, but will play for PNG if not" to me? Macosal (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
You're having this whole discussion with the hindsight of retrospect. As said above the season page is a snapshot in time of that season. Regarding the comment about "not including the info on an encyclopedia", it is included - on Brad McDonald's page, which it is relevant too. His nationality representation after that season is not relevant to that season. --SuperJew (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I still think B-Mac's nationality is Papuan. He was born there and has only played for them. He never played for Australia. Seems pretty simple for me. I understand that Ramsay is a different kettle of fish, but McDonald seems set for me. In the 2013-14 season, before he's played for Australia, Brad Smith is listed as an Australian (although I'm sure SuperUndo will fix that soon) and that situation is even more line ball! He at least played for England. McDonald never played for Australia!
If a player can't have an article created because he's not gotten off the bench for a club (John Solari, anyone?) then we shouldn't include a player who merely accepts the opportunity to train with an Australian youth national team as reason enough to call them Australian. - J man708 (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll admit I may have jumped the gun with McDonald, and should look into it again, however Ramsay is a clear-and-shut case. So is Smith's listing in Liverpool's 2013-14 season (which by the way in the two lists there he was listed with different nationalities in each list). Also J man708 you really inspire people to want to work with you. --SuperJew (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not here to inspire, I'm here to add to an encyclopedia. Perhaps I'd be a touch nicer if you didn't slyly edit out what you want from a season article without hitting undo, in order to avoid letting them know you've undone their work. Also, constantly undoing things to how you see it and then wanting them to prove to you why it should be the case is a dick move. - J man708 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on Shane Lowry, out of interest? Irish youth, more recently featured in Australian squads and declared intention to play for Australia. Consensus is quite strong to list for Australia. This discussion touches on a number of relevant points here. Macosal (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite the same, seeing as he actually played for Ireland. Seeing as he hasn't played for Australia, it's really quite line ball. On one hand, he's played for Ireland's youth teams. On the other, he sat on the bench for the Australian national team. If we add to the wording of "who have chosen to represent another national team" to "or go on to", it takes out a lot more ambiguity. As for Lowry, I see both arguments. I'm not 100% sure which way I'd be inclined. - J man708 (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
EDIT - If Lowry is Australian, then Besart Berisha is from Kosovo. Both played for one country and have made the "pledge" to another, without having been capped. - J man708 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Big difference though as Lowry represented Ireland at youth level, while Berisha has represented Albania's senior team and therefore he is cap-tied to Albania. --SuperJew (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Cap-tied... Really? Samir Ujkani's article speaks for itself. As for Lowry, he still played for Ireland's youth team, which is MORE than Brad McDonald did for the Australian team (ie called up to a training squad). - J man708 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I deeply apologise that I wasn't aware of Mr. Ujkani's history. See, I usually follow all Albanian/Kosovo players but just happened to miss him. ::::Even so though, seems it might be different since Ujkani switched when Kosovo were not yet a FIFA-affiliated, while now they are (as of May 2016). --SuperJew (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, if you don't act in such a patronizing and condescending way perhaps users would want to work more with you and not against you. --SuperJew (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
And I apologise for getting hot headed. Thankfully this isn't the comment section of YouTube, where we both get into a year long argument about the promiscuity each other's mothers. I'm cool to refresh here. This link here suggests that Kosovo can pretty much poach who they like for the time being (which probably kills the Swiss team, let's be honest). This info only came to light to me a few days back and I decided to follow it all up. The non-FIFA-affliation is more or less nonsense to FIFA. This is why they didn't give a hoot when Greenland played Tibet in a game that made China go ape-shit at Denmark. China bitched to FIFA to stop the game and they didn't (but that's another story). As for Lowry, the fact that he stepped out officially in Irish youth colours (which is enough to class Jamie Young as English) suggests to me that he is Irish, as much as he leaves himself open to an Aussie call-up. In positions where a player hasn't made a senior national appearance, their next highest/most recent squad listing dictates their nationality. This is why Panos Armenakas for instance is to be shown as an Aussie (as much as we'll have editors frequently changing it to show Greek-Australian, to suit their motifs. Brad McDonald while most definitely having worn an Australian training shirt (and having sat on the bench), never came onto the field to be an Australian player. Ditto John Solari, who has been a bench warming journeyman keeper, but still doesn't have an article until he steps out onto the field of play. If John Solari is "non-notable", then by logic, Lowry has to be Irish. - J man708 (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure the analogy between Solari's notability and Lowry's nationality is a good one (notability and nationality aren't similar). A better (although still flawed) analogy would be if Solari were to bench for Brisbane Roar, that would be listed as his current club. Macosal (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Interesting about the Kosovo story. As a new national team it seems an exception to FIFA's usually tight-fist over switiching nationalities. I would guess it would have a time limit the option of switching, but we'll wait and see. BTW I saw this article and at from the lead thought it was Besart ;P --SuperJew (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mac that notability and nationality are not comparable, so Solari isn't a good example. Jamie Young seems different to Lowry to me as Young played for England U20, but (as far as I know) didn't express any interest in playing for Australia and wasn't called up. Lowry on the other hand committed himself to Australia, was called up for friendlies, for a World Cup provisional squad, and another friendly. Furthermore he holds by having chosen Australia and is still looking for the call-up. --SuperJew (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
But Solari has been on the bench for both Adelaide United and Newcastle Jets in A-League fixtures, Macdawg (obviously keeper substitutions are a rare thing, so he was unlikely to come on). If being included in squads and the like, does that render Jai Ingham a Samoan? What if Ingham plays for Samoa in 4 years' time? Will he be retroactively listed? If making a statement that says you're from Country X is enough to warrant nationality, does this interview mean that we should retroactively add Ramsay as a Filipino? What about players who move here and become Visa players without ever playing international football? Should Cassio be listed as Australian? He's now emigrated to Australia and runs a coaching clinic here. If we're only listing Ramsay as Filipino from 2015, then Cassio should be Australian from 2012. - J man708 (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
We're maybe getting a bit caught up in semantics here. The important thing is the player's representative nationality, which is logically made up of (a) which team(s) they are eligible to play for and (b) which teams they want to play for.
Ok Ingham was called up by Samoa, but for some reason he did not accept that callup (we can't say). Mustafa Amini comes to mind as a similar case, called up by Afghanistan but rejected that offer and therefore should be listed as Australian (clearly). I agree with SuperJew's take on this: for time-specific articles, time-appropriate nationalities seem appropriate to me. The caveat I would add to that is that, as Eccy suggested (now some time ago), footnotes could be added for clarity's sake in complicated cases such as McDonald. Yes, Cassio should be listed as Australian since 2012 I believe, given that after that time he (a) was eligible to play for the Socceroos and (b) Declared an intention to play for the Socceroos. Of course there will always be some players who (a) can play for multiple national teams and (b) it is unclear if they have a preference - and that is where reliable sources are most useful. Macosal (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I get Ramsay. I don't agree, but I get it. Also, I think Ramsay should be included as a non Visa foreign player on the 2014-15 season article. He played for the Philippines within the 2014-15 timeframe. As for McDonald, I don't even understand the argument. He was in a training camp and interested in the idea of playing for Australia. Born in PNG, plays for PNG. Ticks the boxes, surely? - J man708 (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Ramsay should be included as a non-visa foreign player because he played for Philippines after the season had effectively ended. His nationality never affected in the season itself. As for McDonald, after re-looking at it, I agree with you he should be listed as PNG. Why have you added Kwabena Appiah as a New Zealander now? I haven't seen anywhere an inkling connecting him to New Zealand's national team and he moved to Australia at the age of 6, starting his career here. --SuperJew (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here's the thing with McDonald: If we look at a snapshot of time, for example 2011-12 or 2012-13. At that time he was born in PNG, but had moved to Australia at the age of 5 and started his career in Australia (doesn't fulfill criterion 1), had an Australian citizenship and had been called up to Australia U23, claiming he wants to play for Australia, but keep PNG as a back-up. He said here: "In my mind it’s just Australia now, at least until I get too old for the under-23s, then we’ll go from there, I always have Papua New Guinea to fall back on if I can’t make it with Australia.” Sounds to me that at the time he is a player born overseas (but not started his career there so not criterion 1) choosing to represent Australia (so not criterion 2). The solution btw might be to change the criterion wordings. --SuperJew (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

And Georgievski's or Muscat's does effect the season? I had added him because he's listed as a Kiwi on the CCM team page. He's also listed as a Kiwi here and here. I've never seen an inkling connecting him with Australia's national team, either? Also, you don't need to mass watch my edits, like I'm some small child, SJ. It might be my words that made me seem patronizing and condescending, but its your actions that come across as you knowing better than all, and actions speak louder than words... As for changing the criterion wordings, I SUGGESTED THAT EARLIER. Is this all you want to do, filibuster a point to an extent that nobody can be stuffed to continue? - J man708 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


I'm not bothering to do any more of these tables. Clearly SuperJew knows better and has edited every table I've created thus far, despite no consensus being reached, so fuck it, SuperJew, you've inherited the table duties. Enjoy.
- J man708 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What are you ranting on? Because I moved Daniel to a visa-foreigner, as opposed to non-visa, and linked you the article which says they signed him as a visa-foreigner? --SuperJew (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Because you insta-edit anything I edit these days. It's beyond a joke now. - J man708 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

NPL clubs season pages[edit]

@J man708, Matilda Maniac, SuperJew, Macosal, TinTin, and Simione001:

Hey guys. I had a conversation with Jman about starting some NPL season club pages - for the bigger clubs, i.e. the ones that used to play NSL (Wollongong Wolves, South Melbourne etc.) and the Youth/Academy teams of the HAL clubs. We thought it was a good idea and that they would generally pass GNG. I created 2015–16 Sydney FC Youth season page, of which it is now up for deletion. Main reason for creating was following the continued season pages of Northern Fury FC through its NPL campaigns (e.g. 2014 Northern Fury FC season which at the time of discussion remembering most people were for it (dont remember who actually created the page). If you guys could take a look and discuss, would cop it a lot easier from the Aussie taskforce. —Eccy89 (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that these types of articles should be limited to fully pro clubs only. If you start doing this for semi pro then it opens the door for every NPL club in the country. Simione001 (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I can see that point, but what of the Fury situation then? I was really just going under the proviso of aforementioned previously in prior NSL/club offshoot. I have seen a lot of other years Youth results in the respective senior seasons e.g. 2013–14 Brisbane Roar season. Should we just merge then? —Eccy89 (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
A few points here. Firstly, it's well-established that non-pro seasons aren't inherently notable, there needs to be broader independent coverage. A few of the big clubs might pass this, or maybe regional ones (Northern NSW NPL seems quite well-covered, for example). However, consensus appears to be that there needs to be a very strong level of coverage, given that you could essentially make a complete article for some teams well below professional divisions. For that reason the Northern Fury season might be notable but might face this same issue (as I said above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force#Northern Fury season articles.). As for including the results of youth / reserve sides on the main team's page, I am firmly against that practice. It overcrowds and complicates the page with information which (as just discussed) probably isn't notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Macosal (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Cool, some interesting points there Mac. I think by the "letter of the law" then that the page I created shouldn't exist and so I asked for immediate deletion (has since been done). I guess the argument then is that the Fury one should also be deleted. It is un-referenced which therefore means the coverage is non-existent. I'm not a stickler and I kind of like the page so I'm not proposing deletion, but I'd imagine if someone put it up for deletion it would fail. The whole scenario has now made me wonder if half the stuff we are editing for the NPL is actually notable now or whether we are just doing things for completeness? —Eccy89 (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Also BTW, I'm with you Mac on not having full results lists etc. of the youth team in the senior's season page (I'm not particularly a fan of the aforementioned Brisbane Roar article). However, I think a small section of prose regarding the achievements of the academy team would be acceptable/appropriate. —Eccy89 (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd say in general the whole notability thing is lopsided. For some reason the top women's league in Australia (7th place in women's football in the world) isn't considered notable, but the 10th tier in English football is. A player with 150 appearances for W-League clubs is not necessarily notable, while a 17-year-old who came on for 5 minutes at the end of a dead rubber A-League match is? --SuperJew (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, it seems they are at least allowed season pages (e.g. 2014 Sydney FC W-League season). But yeah, with everything needing to be sourced, it is all dependent on what the media (or "independent sources") deems important... —Eccy89 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
As SJ said, it's lopsided. Currently we're in a position wherein an article such as Marcus Schroen's (who was listed in the FFA Cup Team of the Year) can be deleted because he hasn't played a fully professional game, but Teeboy Kamara's article will stand the test of time, due to his sole A-League appearance. I'm just waiting for the day when something ridiculous gets an AfD nomination, such as Ellyse Perry... - J man708 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Tasmanian football 'Championship'[edit]

Some one has incorrectly listed the end of season Victory Cup results for 2013 and 2014 in the listing in this article which has a list of the football (soccer) champions of Tasmania by the various methods listed. I am going to remove these listings and replace with the league (table) results to see my reasoning or discuss please add to the talk page here. --TinTin (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

NPL Federation 'Winners' table[edit]

This table needs to be sorted out: National Premier Leagues#Winners from each member federation. Currently it lists the Finalists from each federation for each year. This is fine but currently it's called the league 'Winners. If it's the Winners then the Newcastle Jets Youth should be listed in the table. Basically it needs to be worked out if this table should be the Winners or the Federation Finalists, and the appropriate heading used. Currently it's a mixture of both which is inconsistent and doesn't work! --TinTin (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the table is included more to be used as "participants in the finals series by year" kind of thing. I do agree that the wording is therefore a bit off. I'm not sure how it's a mixture of the two? As the page is realistically about the NPL Finals Series, I would vote for change of wording to "Federation Finalists" as you have suggested. —Eccy89 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
change of wording to "Federation Finalists" as you have suggested. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps "Qualifiers" is the word to use somewhere? - J man708 (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Qualifiers, or Finalists either would fix the problem as long as its not Winners. TinTin (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Qualifying finalists perhaps? —Eccy89 (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Member Federation representatives Umarghdunno (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Super Dooper Member Final Qualifierinos? - J man708 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I changed it to Federation Finalists for now. If anyone is super keen on Qualifier or similar, I am happy for you to make the change. --TinTin (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, looks good! Though I would be happy to take it further to "Federation finalists by season" and count the appearances in parentheses. —Eccy89 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice additional information with the appearance numbers! --TinTin (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Rewording foreign players footnotes[edit]

The following sentence causes ambiguity when referring to players who change nationality after the years of the season articles in question:

1 - Australian residents (and New Zealand residents, in the case of Wellington Phoenix) who have chosen to represent another national team.

Eccy89 suggested the idea of this:

2 - Australian residents (and New Zealand residents, in the case of Wellington Phoenix) who have chosen to or go on to represent another national team.

The second sentence removes the ambiguity of players such as Iain Ramsay, Dino Đulbić, John Hutchinson, Manny Muscat etc.

Pretty simply, this is a vote to retroactively show a single nationality for players who were born in one country and then chose to play for another team. Players who originate as Visa players and then go on to gain Australian citizenship (such as Cássio, Henrique etc.) are still shown on the table with their previous nationality listed, so it seems only fitting to make future changes in nationality retroactive. This proposal allows nationality continuity between season articles, hopefully making it easier for the standard reader to follow. Thoughts? - J man708 (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with this wording. I said previously, the season page should represent a snapshot at the time of the season, and not go and be changed retroactively. For example the fact that Ramsay went on to represent PHI in 2015 has no relevance or bearing on the 2010-11 A-League season. Also making that change opens the door to more cracks and slip-ups of players who changed that no-one will bother to go and change retroactively or who won't be in the A-League anymore. Also changing retroactively could make a change directly effecting the quota, for example Henrique was listed as a visa-listed player at the beginning of his career, but in the past few months after gaining Aussie citizenship, he was listed as non-visa-listed player. This retroactive change would suggest to go back to his early years and move him to Australian nationality player which is plainly incorrect. As it is the A-League doesn't have that many editors covering it (and the club's season pages are largely taken care of by one editor), so to add more maintenance (which would require following all players who were ever in the A-League) seems IMO a ridiculous proposal. --SuperJew (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that the main purpose of this list is to show how clubs use(d) their foreign player allocation, players like Cassio or Henrique should definitely be listed as foreign if they occupied one of the five allotted spots (until such time as they gain citizenship, for which seasons they should be moved to the sixth, miscellaneous column). Having said that, it's at best a stretch to say this idea "adds more maintenance" in any meaningful way - maybe one or two players a year? Hardly "ridiculous", and a straw man argument to suggest so.
The main purpose of that sixth column is, in my view, to inform readers as to why a seemingly foreign player did not occupy a spot on the allocation. Could that occur with a modern reader looking at a player who has now chosen a different national side in the context of an older season? Yes, I think so. Having said that, I think I agree with the "snapshot in time" concept. It doesn't seem right to list Hutchinson in the 2005–06 list, for example, at which time I doubt anyone even knew of his Maltese heritage, and he would later be chosen for Australian squads. For someone like Ramsay I'm a bit more in two minds given that he (to my knowledge) never made any Australia squads at any level, it wouldn't be misleading to list him with the above note. Macosal (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Kind of hard to decide based on the reader's knowledge no? Personally, for example if I wasn't active editing in the A-League I doubt I would have known about Ramsay's PHI call-up. --SuperJew (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to decide based on the reader's knowledge, I'm saying it might be useful to inform a reader of a fact which would otherwise not be apparent to them if they looked at this article. Macosal (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
But this fact is irrelevant to that article page. --SuperJew (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
For mine it's questionable but it explains why someone like Ramsay (a Philipino international) is not included on the list of foreign players.
Beyond that, I feel I've pretty much said my piece on what isn't really the biggest issue in the scheme of things. I'd recommend people look to sort something out / compromise here soon or else head to WT:FOOTY to get a broader range of opinions. Macosal (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I think if we do decide to go the retroactive road (which I thing is the wrong way), it should have separate notes for each of the special cases, specifying year they switched nationalities. --11:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the only reason we are having this conversation is because we are retroactively creating the table. If the table was created back in 2006, would we still be having this conversation? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm in Mac's camp that I don't think it is the most pressing concern, but one that I think we should sort out quickly. As I said initially, sure we can retrofit it generally like Jman's outlined at the top but I really believe if we are retroactively fitting it should be on a case-by-case basis and should have a separate note specifying the year (my second idea). It is an Australian league, so if you are Australian you do not fill a VISA spot (obviously!). People like Hutchinson who probably didn't even hold a Maltese passport until he had to speedily receive one for NT service therefore probably shouldn't be on the list. I could be completely wrong on that and would obviously need some clarity/research for his/all other case/(s). Someone like Brad McDonald who was born in PNG and went on to play for PNG should be on the list but with probably a more personalised note as many of you have indicated he held hopes of playing for Australia... I'm still not even convinced Ramsay should be included in his years prior to playing NT for Philippines (had he already left A-League by that stage?) I threw out those ideas to see if others like them, not necessarily fully advocating it. As the only people seemingly to care about it is JM and SJ and Mac and I kinda sitting on the fence I'm not sure we can resolve it ourselves.
Summing up, I think personalised retroactive in very specific cases. (I'm also not a fan of using the flagicon's in these cases, but that is another whole discussion piece!) —Eccy89 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing all the seasons that currently have tables up, I think the footnotes are fine. I would vote to create the tables for the rest of the seasons within the confines of the current outlined footnotes and should there be any player whose nationality is questionable then raise the issue then. —Eccy89 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"It is an Australian league, so if you are Australian you do not fill a VISA spot" - That's why it says "Non-Visa Foreign". At the end of the day, they still have chosen to represent a foreign national team, as a dual citizen. Of course they're playing under their Australian passports. If we tweak it to make mention something along the lines of them choosing to represent another team at some point, it removes this ambiguity and can allow us to retroactively fix each player, case by case (we could add a footnote to show that Player X made his debut with Team Y in Year Z). As for the idea of it creating more work, that's ludicrous. We've already pretty much got on top of all the players playing for other nations thus far, haven't we? - J man708 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. Have we? Have you checked on every player who's played in the A-League since its inception? --SuperJew (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
They're not really relevant after they've retired, are they? And even if we haven't, the brilliance of it all is that we can add them in. Both on the table and here - J man708 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, if you think it's not a lot more work, be my guest and have a look through all the players who've played in the A-League and make sure we've covered all those who've switched nationalities since. --SuperJew (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not. We manage to cover when all players inevitably die, don't we? Wikipedia is incomplete and there is WP:NORUSH to have every player immediately covered! - J man708 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
But we wouldn't want to mislead people because they are reading it now, not when we decide to get around to editing it. My point anyway is that it is adding work. With over 1,000 players having played in the league up until now and an annual turn-over of around 100-150 players, to follow all these players who you wouldn't follow otherwise (because they are not relevant to the A-league anymore) is adding work, and not a little amount. --SuperJew (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Then we should delete all birth days and death days, because there's a chance we can get it wrong? Of course not. Hell, even FIFA gets it wrong and has to change what they have listed as originally as a fact when they get it incorrect. SJ, we both know each other's points of view. What are you trying to do upon this proposal at this point? I don't understand. You seem to be constantly implying that my way of seeing things is wrong and reverting my edits, but you're doing fuck all in order to create a compromise that you'd be happy seeing. This is a proposal for rewording of something. If you're not a fan of it, say that you're not and please, leave it at that. If you have a compromise, I'd love to hear it, but you're not really contributing to finding a solution, just nitpicking at points and pedantically retorting to everything I say. - J man708 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Birth days and deathdays are not the same kettle of fish. They're added once and then don't change (unless in the occasion that there was a mistake), but you don't need to keep checking a player that he didn't change his birth day (except for special cases where players might try faking their date to play in age-limited competitions, but that's the exception). Regarding death dates, again not something that changes once it happens, but I have seen recently in the South African league a few players who have been deceased for a few years and their articles not updated yet. --SuperJew (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
And Jman, I'm not going for you personally, but just happens that we are about the only 2 editors who seem to give a shit about the articles and are on a constant maintenance of them (with occasional chip-ins by Macosal and Rjbsmith). Which again brings up my point that it's silly to add more work when there's hardly any editors to do the work already there as it is. --SuperJew (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not taking it personally, just frustrated at this point. Lol. - J man708 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think the wording should remain the same as it is now, and the players added as per the snapshot of that time (not retroactively). In very specific cases (such as Brad McDonald, where as I wrote in the previous discussion above), there should be a note added for that specific player. --SuperJew (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, cool; I think we can get somewhere with this. How do you feel about having the players listed with some form of footnote (or perhaps with their names in brackets). Jesse Pinto is another B-Mac style situation, btw, wherein the player played for an Australian schoolboys team, before making an appearance for East Timor. I know they're both Australians, but they did choose to represent another nation at some later point. For the standard reader, it could cause confusion to see someone like McDonald or Pinto as suddenly listed as foreign players from one season to the next. Unfortunately, the standard reader may not understand the whole Visa shenanigans. - J man708 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Pinto seems to me much the case like Ramsay: born in Australia, played for Australia youth (U-19) internationally (unlike Ramsay there), and only represented a different country after his time in the A-League. At his time in the A-League he is Australian through and through, shouldn't be in the foreign players' table at all. --SuperJew (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Another idea is to have the wording more like the List of foreign A-League players, having in the foreign players list only players who are ineligible for the Australian national team (at time of that season). --SuperJew (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Vedran Janjetović is an Australian, but is shown as a Croat, how come that doesn't warrant being deleted from the tables? The current Note 2 causes ambiguity, so keeping the current wording doesn't seem to be a good idea. I'm personally strongly for addition of all players such as the aforementioned to be included. Is there anyway that you'd be satisfied with a major revision of Note 2 in order to show that these players chose to play for other teams at a later date? - J man708 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Janjetovic was born and started his professional career in Croatia, I don't see what the problem is? Anyway, he is under Note 1. I don't see the ambiguity of note 2, if you could give an example that'd help. I don't think their playing for a different team at a later date is relevant to that season. Same as we made the change in the last year or 2 in the transfers page that if a player doesn't transfer directly to a different club we don't list it, as it is not relevant (previously it was listed in brackets, regardless of how long until the player joined the new club one of the discussions here). --SuperJew (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Because Janjetovic is clearly Australian, grew up here and is listed as Croatian, simply because he started his career there. From memory, there's a player whose page I'm struggling to find who is listed as Australian, despite being born and starting his career overseas and never having played for Australia. Perhaps he just slipped through the cracks, or something? Anyway, Note 2 has caused the ambiguity of the last few days worth of discussions! Whether or not you can see it, I'm TELLING you that there is ambiguity. Why would I still be going if there weren't? Again, I'll ask, is there any form of revision to Note 2 that you'd be prepared to see, which would allow retroactive addition of players to the tables in question. - J man708 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is not about the ambiguity of note 2, it is about whether to retroactively list players as "foreign" when they switched nationalities only after the specific season. As I've reiterated I think we shouldn't because the season page is about that timeframe and a nationality switch after the timeframe is irrelevant to that season. In very specific cases (such as Bmac, who was born overseas, and then was called up, but didn't play, and also that was youth so wouldn't make not eligible, and then later called up to PNG, and after that also returned to the A-League) then I think we should have a specific note. I think by now we are just rehashing our respective clashing opinions, and unless there are more editors who want to give their thoughts (doubt it as this has been going on for a few days), I think we should take it up to WP:FOOTY for more opinions. --SuperJew (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Macosal, what about rewording note 1 to something like "Players born overseas who received Aussie (or New Zealand...) citizenship only after starting their professional careers abroad"? --SuperJew (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Is that just a cosmetic change or are you trying to change the criteria there? It still reads to have the same meaning to me. Macosal (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
To clarify it per your change regarding Vukovic. Currently it reads Those players who were born and started their professional career abroad but have since gained Australian citizenship (and New Zealand citizenship, in the case of Wellington Phoenix), which sounds like Vukovic would meet that as he was born in Croatia and started his pro career there. It sounds a bit ambiguous to me as I'm not sure if the "since" refers to birth, starting the pro career or both. --SuperJew (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
"From memory, there's a player whose page I'm struggling to find who is listed as Australian, despite being born and starting his career overseas and never having played for Australia." The only ones that come to mind are Mitch Austin, but I think you guys have been listing him as English (I dont necessarily agree with this), the other was Rostyn Griffiths, but it appears he played in U-17's for Australia so he gets loopholed out. Re: the Janjetovic situation, I have never liked him being listed as Croatian due a specific set of circumstances created arbitrarily. To be honest at this stage, I think the less players in the non-foreign Visa column the better. Like Mac mentioned ages ago, the column was really setup for those foreigners that became citizens and became naturalised (thus a year-to-year change) or Aussies (never on the list) suddenly becoming internationals of a different nation (thus another year-to-year change). If the whole column is causing such an issue, I'd rather us just do-away it altogether. For me, it doesn't even really add anything to the article. You can just add a prose of text underneath the table noting that some players were exempt from Visa status for whatever reason including references if need be. You can then, using prose, add players retroactively if you like. Does't necessarily add any extra work either as it does not "need" to be comprehensive. —Eccy89 (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, do you mean Vukovic or Janjetovic? —Eccy89 (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed Janjetovic we're referring to here. The current wording is ok by me re this issue, but if changing to SJ's suggestion as above is preferable / clearer then I don't have any objection to that. As Eccy says, it has also crossed my mind that this column may be redundant / more trouble than it's worth at this point. I think it is informative but not indispensable... Macosal (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes I meant Janjetovic, got my Sydney keepers mixed-up :S --SuperJew (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Macosal can we vote to remove column? —Eccy89 (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I feel like that's possibly a knee-jerk reaction, Eccington. It still adds information (once we come to a consensus, that is). - J man708 (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Eccy89 - How would you feel about having a player in Iain Ramsay's position retroactively listed, provided that a relevant note were attached to his name (I listed before that perhaps we could place his name also in brackets to further show that it's not a clear cut issue). It just seems wrong to have it listed when Cassio goes from Brazilian to citizen (with solely the Brazilian flag still shown), but Ramsay going the other way only is shown when he goes from citizen to Philippino (with solely the Philippines flag showing). - J man708 (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@J man708: re: knee-jerk – wouldn't completely agree, the whole thing has made me re-think the purpose of the table and I don't think the "notes" are as important as the Visa players themselves. Maybe change font style to small and I might be more on board :-)
Re: Ramsay, if we are keeping the column, I wouldn't be against him being placed in brackets (no flagicon, dont see relevance) with a specific note. —Eccy89 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I actually quite like that concept. "You are an ideas man, Steve." - J man708 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@J man708: which part, the small font or the no flagicon? —Eccy89 (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking the no flagicon, but that kinda defeats the purpose, come to think of it... - 18:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't defeat the purpose because it will be in the specific note. It's nice as a quick look for the Visa players, sure, but for the exempt ones, doesn't really matter because they are being classed as Aussie. If your keen to see, well that's what the note is for... —Eccy89 (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think it could look good indented to the same length as the flagicons, so that the player names appear on the same depth - J man708 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Nah, I was thinking something more like thisEccy89 (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Inter Monaro Panthers[edit]

Does anyone know why both articles currently co-exist? Inter Monaro SC and Monaro Panthers FC seem to be one in the same, unless I'm very much mistaken? - J man708 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The club website acknowledges the history that these are the same club. Umarghdunno (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree, support merge (assuming that's what you want to do!) —Eccy89 (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
A merge seems in order indeed (and now J man708 doesn't know what to do since I agreed with him :P) --SuperJew (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
We can't have that! Merge request withdrawn!... In all seriousness, does anyone feel up for doing this one? I feel like creating player and team articles is my weakness. - J man708 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Done Macosal (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Marko Jesic[edit]

@J man708, SuperJew, and Macosal:

Can someone move this page correcting the spelling. Accidentally moved it with the wrong spelling. Simione001 (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I just moved the info to Marko Jesic and had the mistake (hopefully) redirect. I think I got it right! - J man708 (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's right is it? That's the dodgy way. Simione001 (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

NPL Division / State Federation / Conference / League?[edit]

What is the consensus for the best word to describe each component of the NPL? Currently there appears to be inconsistent use of the terms division, conference, state federation and league. I am guilty of mixing up the terminology myself. Just thought I would check on here to see what people prefer and then try and tighten up the usage. --TinTin (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the official websites, I think each component is a "league" (which makes sense I guess). Macosal (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I 100% understand what you mean. But if you mean what I think you mean, I would agree that the word of choice would be as Mac says "league". (Cos you mean differentiating between leagues, i.e. the "NSW League" and the "Victorian League", yeah?) —Eccy89 (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)