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.


Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:09, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad Elrich[edit]

In the off-chance someone has this page still on their watchlist, as a heads-up Ahmad Elrich is going to be in the news for a while... Hack (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Still watching here and keeping an eye on the Elrich article. Camw (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of FC Adelaide[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article FC Adelaide has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

amateur team - makes no claim to notability, no external reliable sources referenced

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Juan Nilo[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Juan Nilo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Assistance required[edit]

I would like some assistance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Kallis primarily as to whether the Queensland State League is a semi or fully professional league and following on, are players who play in this league automatically notable under WP:NSPORTS or not. This link says it's professional, but I would think that most players would be paid, but would also have other main jobs outside of playing football. But I'm open to those who know better. The-Pope (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely semi-pro. Not that I could reference that... Hack (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Association football in Australia[edit]

A Requested move has been initiated for the article Association football in Australia. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Task force?[edit]

Hello members of the Association Football in Australia WikiProject. I am following up on a discussion that has taken place at WT:FOOTY regarding the status of your WikiProject, amongst others. The general consensus among our group is that we recommend you consider converting your WikiProject into a task force of WikiProject Football. The actual changes that would occur would be negligible in a functional sense, as you could continue to assess the importance of your articles separately from football articles in general, via the {{WikiProject Football}} talk page banner, and you could continue to use this page as your 'base of operations'. The benefits of this change to you, however, would be great: increased relations with WikiProject Football would attract a greater number of editors willing to help your cause and improve your articles. Your articles would therefore benefit from the wealth of total experience possessed by WikiProject Football members. If you have any comments or questions about this proposition, I invite you to add them to this thread where we have centralised the discussion. If we do not hear back from one of your participants within 72 hours (i.e. by 19:00 BST, 6 August 2011), we will assume that your silence implies consensus and we will begin the conversion process. – PeeJay 18:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Project reboot[edit]

In light of the suggestion to transition this project to a taskforce, I was looking for thoughts on where editors see this project going.

I see a number of opportunities for further development

1) Creating articles for all notable Australian footballers

2) Improving coverage of state leagues

  • Historical information is lacking on a number of state leagues eg WA and NSW (FNSW and NNSWF)have no significant coverage of their federation/association splits during the 50s and 60s.
  • Defining notability for state league clubs

3) Improving collaboration

  • Centralising information at the project page eg links to resources, creation of a booklist

Hack (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is any interest, I have a list of Women's national team players without a page here. Camw (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, there's no reason you couldn't do all the things you've listed above as a task force of WP:FOOTY. Becoming a task force would not limit your operations in any way, it would just make sure people know you're a part of WP:FOOTY and not a splinter cell. – PeeJay 12:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
@camw - maybe we could merge the lists? Hack (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Games[edit]

If there are any Australian Football fans lurking around, Wikimedians to the Games is a collaboration drive to improve Australian Paralympic articles, with the most active contributors having an opportunity to go attend the Paralympic Games and to cover the Games behind the scenes with a press pass. The top two contributors will get their airfare and accommodation paid for. :) The drive official starts on 10 January 2012. The coverage of Australian disability related football articles appears to be pretty non-existent so great place to carve out a nice niche. :) --LauraHale (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Sydney Derby (A-League) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sydney Derby (A-League) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Derby (A-League) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Hack (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Newcastle players[edit]

Just came across this - playing stats for every Newcastle national league player since 1978. [1] Not sure if its accurate but it looks useful. Hack (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that link is dead - an archived version is here. Hack (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability of state league clubs[edit]

A discussion regarding notability of Australian state league clubs is occurring at WT:FOOTY. Hack (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

FFFSA League Structure[edit]


Super League - 10 teams
Premier League - 10 teams
State League - 10 teams

After the 2012 season FFSA is scrapping the Super League making the Premier League the top tier.

Premier League - 14 teams
State League - 16 teams

I have been collecting the all time appearances and goals for the super league ( but now that it will be gone should i start again for the premier league starting 2013 or should include statistics from super league 2006-2012? Thoughts? I think i may start again.Simione001 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

anyone? thoughts?Simione001 (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

So it's just a renaming? Hack (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

At the moment in SA we have Super, Premier, State league in that order. FFSA is scrapping the top tier (super league) therefore the premier league (which is already in exsistance from 2006-present) will become to the top tier. im trying to determine if i should start the all time appearances and goals again from 0 or if i should carry over the stats from 2006-2012 super league to the premier league.Simione001 (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If the 2013 Premier League contains substantially the same teams as the 2012 Super League, I would have thought that it was effectively the same league. Hack (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The 2013 Premier League will be made up of all 10 teams from the 2012 Super League and the top 4 teams from the 2012 Premier League. I think i will carry over the stats from 2006-2012 Super League to 2013 Premier League. What about the Category:FFSA Super League players? should i rename it Category:FFSA Premier League players or should i create a new category?Simione001 (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Flag issue[edit]

I've been looking around and getting annoyed. A lot of state league club sites have Australian International listed players with flags of their ethnicity/heritage. For example North Geelong Warriors and Brunswick Juventus. If they have represented Australia they should have the Australian flag against their name. I don't know where the reference is but I am pretty sure it is a rule some where.--TinTin (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Most major football club articles have notes above their squad listings saying the flags refer to their FIFA nationalities (eg Arsenal F.C.#First-team squad). Hack (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

2013 Tasmanian Structure[edit]

For those unaware FFT is launching a state-wide league T-League next year which has then caused cascading changes to the Northern and Southern Premier Leagues and Southern League One. A detailed article FFT here outlining structure of FFT Leagues in 2013. Obviously a few Wiki Artilces will need to be updated to reflect this. --TinTin (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on season naming[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Australian seasons for a discussion on naming of national league season articles. Hack (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Colours used for Central Coast Mariners[edit]

So I understood from Rjbsmith that editors are directed to use the colours "CentralCoastColours 2", rather than "CentralCoastColours". As I understand "CentralCoastColours 2" was only used to differentiate from the Gold Coast United colours, but since they are not part of the A-League since 2012, I see no problem using "CentralCoastColours" now, and it is easier for editos. Thoughts? --SuperJew (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Mariners' kit is back to being more yellow than blue so that seems to make sense. Hack (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
As there are no objections I am going ahead with the change for the 2012-13, 2013-14 seasons. --SuperJew (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's better if it stays with the '2' colours so that there is consistency. Club colours such as Perth Glory and Newcastle Jets have changed a lot since the first season but their new flag colours now apply to all seasons. To avoid confusion, I think the same should be done for Central Coast since there will be three seasons where the colours would have to be different (due to Gold Coast) if we revert back to the original. It will also be an issue for pages such as the A-League records page where all teams feature in various lists. So I think the solution would actually be to update the original Central Coast file (as has been done for every other club) rather than use both. The only club where a change should be applicable is Queensland Roar and Brisbane Roar due to the name change. O for Awesome (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm probably a bit late with my input, but I will give it anyway. Definitely use CentralCoastColours and NOT "2". And I think this should be reflected with their templates as well. Eccy89 (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Internationally Capped Players tables[edit]

Internationally Capped Players tables are completely unnecessary. Why are we adding them to A-League club articles? Firstly, why is it necessary to include such information as caps, goals and years active? Readers do not come to club articles for international statistics. Secondly, why is it necessary to state whether a player is internationally capped on the club article? Is this relevant to the club? It is trivial information to the specific club. All related international information on players can be found on the respected player articles. Again, this is unnecessary, can we remove the tables?--2nyte (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It might be in the same way as some small clubs have a section about notable players (who played for the small club, and went on to larger and famous clubs). The question IMO is the amount, if there are a small number of internationals in each team, then it seems special enough to note. On the other hand, if most of the squad are internationals then it isn't worth mentioning. And even when mentioning, I think it is enough to have a list of internationals and there is no need to include caps, goals and other details, only the player and international team played for. --SuperJew (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
What should be considered as a small number? Marconi, Olympic and United all have similar lists of some length. Should they be worth mentioning?--2nyte (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I have no ideas what the numbers should be, and I think more people should contribute their opinion to this discussion. I think it's a per case thing. For example, you won't list all the international players of Barcelona, because it is nearly (if not all) the whole team. --SuperJew (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, I know that this topic is 2 years out of date, but I do agree with the final statement by SuperJew. In my opinion, I think that there should be an international section on club articles. I think it should only include players who made international appearances whilst at the club but it should not include statistics. —Eccy89 (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WLeague template[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:WLeague NUJ and nine others has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep all. these template are used very frequently --> on all the pages of players who play (currently or in the past) in the W-League, as well as W-League pages, and W-League teams' season pages. They are typing-aid templates, and function like the A-League help templates. --SuperJew (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Lake Oval[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Lake Oval, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Hack (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Due to no consensus on a previous discussion re: article naming, there is a second discussion open about moving Australia national association football team to Australia men's national association football team. We are seeking outside input. Contributions to the discussions are much appreciated. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding FC from season pages[edit]

"I understand your (SuperJew's) reasoning for moving the page (Melbourne Heart's season page) back to the title you did but what about consistency with overall pages on wikipedia like 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season or 2013 Toronto FC season. It just makes no sense not to have the FC mentioned as that is their name, Melbourne Heart FC. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's an issue of consistency, I would be happy to help move the rest of A-League teams' season pages. I've always though it strange that that A-League team's season article don't have an FC in the title when every other team in other leagues do. What about consistency?--2nyte (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Personally I don't mind too much one way or another, though I do find the FC addition in team names and such usually redundant because they are mostly referred to without the FC addition, and then there are always long and annoying wikilinks in articles (such as Melbourne Heart). Anyways, it should consistent for all of the A-League teams and updated in the templates, so that they will be bolded."

Hi, Above I've copied a discussion started on my talk page. The suggestion in question is to add the "FC" to the A-League teams' season pages. Let the discussions begin... --SuperJew (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's exactly the same as for 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season, 2013–14 AFC Ajax season, 2013–14 FC Barcelona season or 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season. Whatever the clubs main article name is should be used in the season articles, or for any related article for that matter (e.g. List of Western Sydney Wanderers FC players or List of Perth Glory FC seasons). --2nyte (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Fully agree with this. If "FC" or whatever appears in the main club article then it should also be included in all related articles. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
100% agree that the FC should be included for season pages - it should directly replicate the title. While I'm here, just a quick note of appreciation to those keeping the season pages updated - I know that these pages are widely viewed, particularly during the season itself, so to have updated information with such consistency is awesome. So thanks guys :) Daniel (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So can we move these articles now? It's a unanimous decision to do so.--2nyte (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think so, has everyone had a chance to comment? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The FC is definitely part of the clubs' formal names, but why waste the effort writing it here? The media doesn't use it in narrative form. The fans don't say it. For Australian clubs it's just a pretentious, herd like copying of the style of foreign clubs anyway. A bit like "United" for clubs that have never been un-united. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with HiLo48, and I think also the club pages (also not in Australia) don't need to have the FC. People call Real Madrid C.F. - Real Madrid, S.S.C. Napoli - Napoli, FC Bayern Munich - Bayern Munich, Manchester United F.C. - Manchester United, Beitar Jerusalem F.C. - Beitar Jerusalem.
Point is the club addition (FC/F.C./A.F.C./S.S.C./KV/etc..) is hardly used by media or fans. In the same way we name people's pages after their well known first and last names, and don't include all their middle names if they have. Cristiano Ronaldo, not Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro, Lionel Messi, not Lionel Andrés Messi, Raúl, not Raúl González Blanco, Ronaldinho, not Ronaldo de Assis Moreira, Mark Viduka, not Mark Anthony Viduka. etc. --SuperJew (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It's always good to have some formality when presenting articles, and I think everyone likes consistency. Also I think there's no comparing the use of FC (or its equivalent) to a persons full name; maybe you could compare the use of "Ronaldo" to "Cristiano Ronaldo" - the same as Melbourne Heart and Melbourne Heart FC, one is used in article titles and the other in the articles content.--2nyte (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not "always good" when it's an artificial, sheepish, aping of overseas clubs, maintaining the image of soccer as a foreign game. It perpetuates the image of a game that wants to be like the European clubs where the fans' real heroes play. A bit of difference would provide a better look HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, look, if the Melbourne Heart use "FC" themselves then it should be added to their main article and all other articles relating to the Melbourne Heart (for consistency reasons). However, if they do not use it then it should not be added. Almost like in MLS. Toronto FC use "FC" so we add FC to everything about them (even player pages as they are a franchise and FC is literally a part of their name) however the Montreal Impact don't use FC so we dont add it to their articles. Now, for the Heart... they do use it (per this link) so it should be added to all Heart pages. That should be it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In other words, if FC (or its equivalent) is used for the clubs main article it should be used for season articles or any other articles relating to the club.--2nyte (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ya, why not? I mean, it just makes sense really. Of course, lets say that for the Brisbane Roar FC... there current article should be 2013–14 Brisbane Roar FC season but since they were the Queensland Roar FC at one point then we should have the 2007–08 Queensland Roar FC season as that is what they were officially named then. That is really it, at least to me and I bet to the majority of WP:Football. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree. This is already what every other football season article does; there's no point on reinventing the wheel.--2nyte (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The season articles should match the whatever the club was called in that season. I don't see any reason that the season articles should be different from the club article. Hack (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

SuperJew, can we continue discussing this if you still oppose the change. As I said above, the main reason for change is consistency, to relate the season articles and others to the clubs main page and its title.--2nyte (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what more there is to discuss here. It seems there are 2 opposes to the change (me and HiLo48) and 4 supports (ArsenalFan700, 2nyte, Daniel and Hack). --SuperJew (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm an oppose, mainly because it's both unnecessary, and a silly copying of a foreign custom which adds nothing to the name of an Australian club, and probably does more harm than good to the clubs' images with people who are currently not fans. It's also an inconsistent add-on. We certainly won't be adding the FC everywhere we mention a club. Not sure why it needs to be anywhere really. The names are unique without the FC. But if someone decides, against policy but as is quite commonly done on Wikipedia, that a majority is a consensus, I won't slash my wrists. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
And I note that, with no further discussion, User:2nyte has begun to make these changes. Not good faith editing, but my wrists are OK. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
If pages are to be moved, they need to moved to the name that the club used for the given season. Hack (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

ACL matches in A-League club season articles[edit]

Hi, everyone. Oviously the ALC season is played during two football/A-League seasons. I was wondering in what season(s) we should put the ACL matches for A-League clubs considering the off-season is in June? For example, in the upcoming ACL (2014 AFC Champions League#Schedule) should we put matches up to Round of 16 (2 February 2014-14 May 2014) in the 2013–14 club season articles and the matches from Quarter-finals onwards (17 September 2014-November 2014) in the 2014–15 club season articles. And then if the club competes in the following ACL season would those matches be split into 2014–15 and 2015–16?--2nyte (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion we definitely want to keep the ACL season on the same page, otherwise it will be confusing. And since the current ACL season (2014) starts during the 2013-14 season, that is where it should be included (as is now - the 2014 ACL games are in CCM, MV, and WSW 2013-14 season pages). --SuperJew (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the season ends at the end of May, and the new season starts in July. So shouldn't the ACL matches from July onwards be in next seasons article?--2nyte (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It is confusing of the ACL season is split up to two pages. Especially if the club competes in two consecutive ACL seasons. --SuperJew (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It won't be confusing if it is specified in the article. They are after all season articles, so shouldn't we only include info from the specific seasons?--2nyte (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The thing is that not everything is clear-cut that way. I think it is preferable to keep the ACL season intact. It is also done that way in statistics tables on players' pages. --SuperJew (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
And also (and this is about all your recent discussions): If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --SuperJew (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve the articles, they're not pointless edits. I think it may confuse readers and will make content harder to find if ACL matches played during November 2014 in one article and A-League matches played during November 2014 in another article.--2nyte (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Well as I mentioned (at least twice already) I think it will confuse readers if the ACL season is split up to two pages. Imagine reading about the club's (hopefully) progress through the group stage, then a victory in the round of 16, and then "hey! why aren't they in the quarter finals?!?" or alternatively, user goes into the season page and thinks "WOW! Australian clubs are so well ranked they enter the ACL straight at quarter-final stage?".
And as to your comment "It won't be confusing if it is specified in the article." - it goes to not splitting up the ACL season. --SuperJew (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
So some 2013–14 season articles may have 2014–15 season matches. Wouldn't it make sense to only have 2013–14 matches in the 2013–14 season articles?--2nyte (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I really don't have anything to add to what I've mentioned (three times) already. Are you trying to tire me out so I'll agree with you? or would you like to take this in a new direction? --SuperJew (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
SuperJew, I'm not sure if we should move the ACL matches from Adelaide United's 2007–08, 2008–09, 2010–11 and 2012–13 season to the season earlier.--2nyte (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. However, The FIFA Club World Cup should stay in 2008–09, as it started during the 2008–09 season (December 2008). --SuperJew (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Late into this convo, I know but my two cents: I agree with SuperJew. Keep ACL matches in the season article that ACL season starts in. If there are teams competing in consecutive ACL campaigns, it will be very confusing. Seems logical to keep the matches and stats for one ACL campaign in the one article. Ck786 (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Very late into this convo and I agree with SuperJew and Ck786. In fact, brilliant summation Ck786! Eccy89 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Missed Penalties[edit]

I have heard some people don't particularly like the idea of having missed penalties in [[match infoboxes but imo they deserve to be there as they are a key point in any match. I'd also like to point out that it is noted both in the commentary and lineup in the A-League match centre, used as a summary in the match info box: Lineup & Commentary. Also, it has its own wiki markup for the match info box: Here, Here & Here

Lastly, this is what this produces: {{penmiss}} = Penalty missed

Protenpinner (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If anything a missed pen is a more significant event than a yellow card is. Ck786 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts too. More to the point, if a goal is scored from a follow up shot (should there be one), it would be added straight after, making it obvious that the follow up shot was scored or a play resulting in the miss should a goalkeeper save it and it cleared only to return within say 50 seconds. Protenpinner (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
But we don't mark yellow cards either, so why is that comment relevant? --SuperJew (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Again with the "we". That is your opinion, not the general consensus. If it "shouldn't" be put in, why is there a wiki markup for it? Yellow cards can be put in, would take mere minutes if that to do, something I'm more than happy to do. Protenpinner (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Double yellow = red card clarification on wiki markup[edit]

When a player receives a red card for a second yellow card, under FIFA laws of the game, if a foul is deemed to be a yellow card offence for the second yellow, then the referee must show the second yellow before showing the red card. I was wondering if other people thought that it should be acknowledged as this Yellow cardYellow cardRed card X', XX' ( {{sent off|2|X|XX}} ) instead of this - Yellow cardRed card X', XX' ( {{sent off|1|X|XX}} ). The 2 next to the "|" after the "sent off" denotes that the player got the 2 yellow cards equaling the red card. As you can see on the A-Leagues official match centre, they acknowledge the second yellow card, per FIFA rules of the game.

Protenpinner (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Second yellow card send off's should be Yellow cardYellow cardRed card X', XX'. The only time Yellow cardRed card X', XX' should be used is if the player has been booked then receives a straight red card. As you say, all yellow cards are acknowledged. EDIT: Just on that point - if a player is sent off for a second bookable offence, does that mean he has accumulated two yellows and a red for statistical purposes? FURTHER EDIT: For what it is worth, Opta statistics do not count a red card at all for second yellow send off's, it's just "yellow" and "second yellow". Ck786 (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
False positive for the last bit? Who knows but imo a red card should be displayed when there is 2 yellows equaling the red otherwise it might not fully make sense to those that aren't familiar with the game or it's rules. Besides, the wiki mark up displays it on it's own so it's all that's really needed is the times of the two yellows in the code above in the OP. Nonetheless, I completely agree with you although that much is obvious. Protenpinner (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
In regard to Ck786's question, for the purposes of yellow card suspensions, the double yellows are not counted because the player receives an automatic suspension for the red card. Hack (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:FOOTBALL re A-League season articles[edit]

Please see here. Hack (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC on naming[edit]

Please see the further RfC here. --John (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

2015 AFC Champions League playoff position[edit]

It appears there's a bit of a conflict regarding which team will receive the third/playoff spot on the 2015 AFC Champions League. The ACL page suggests that the GF winner will take that spot, while the A-League ladder template indicates that it will be second place (which would be in line with the regulations (PDF) for this year's competition).

Given the uncertainty around the allocation - which won't be resolved until the AFC meet in November - should we remove the playoff spot from the ladder template now or leave it and remove it in November? Rjbsmith (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Central Coast Mariners FC nominated for removal of FA status[edit]

I have nominated Central Coast Mariners FC for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BencherliteTalk 19:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

teams getting no love[edit]


In the past few months I have been less active on Wikipedia and the task force because of more time used in real life stuff, and today I had a look around what's going on since I left. Some teams (such as Roar, Wanderers and Mariners) seem to be getting love and being kept up to date while some others (such as Glory and Jets) aren't getting any and are out-of-date completely and in some cases haven't been touched at all. I think it would be helpful if users would take on themselves specific teams (such as Protenpinner with Roar and 2nyte with Wanderers), especially the ones which aren't getting updated.

Cheers! --SuperJew (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---Yeah, I can help out. Will do the kits for the teams if no one else does too. Bugged me a bit having some teams with generic kits compared to others. Protenpinner (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that the problem really is that the more "loved" teams are getting too much attention? Soccer seems to be the only sport where player lists (for the "loved" clubs at least) are changed on what seems like a weekly basis. That seems overkill to me. Having current team lists at all seems to breach WP:RECENTISM anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a point I think you should take up at WP:FOOTBALL. My point here is that in my opinion (and what I did when I had the time) is update all the teams on the same basis. --SuperJew (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not an issue for WP:FOOTBALL. That's a classical insular view. It's an issue for the whole of Wikipedia. Please show me another sport where (some) articles are updated whenever one player in a team changes? HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
How about basketball, footy, ice hockey, american football, baseball? In short any sport with a current roster on the team's page, meaning any team sport. My point anyway was that the issue is not here in this section. If you wish and you think the Australia football task force is the place for this discussion, please open a new section. --SuperJew (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a specific example? The sports I follow closely tend not to have teams updated every time a single player changes, but I am open to education. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The "current squad" section forms part of the manual of style for club pages. So yes, if you have a problem with it you should take it up at WP:FOOTBALL. Rjbsmith (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Melbourne City colours[edit]

One thing that hasn't been updated in the Heart -> City move has been the club colours; current season pages referencing the colours (such as the transfers page) are still using the MelbourneHeartColours.png Melbourne Heart colours.

I'd like to suggest a couple of options:

  • MelbourneCityColours.png - uses the home shirt colours
  • MelbourneCityColoursv2.png - combination of Manchester City + Melbourne Heart colours

Any thoughts/suggestions? Rjbsmith (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The first version, which uses the current home shirt colours. The history of a team has no relevance to it's current colouring. Thanks for creating these Rjbsmith :) --SuperJew (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I was just about topost something about this. I'd go with the 2nd one as Melbourne City's pretty much always going to have a red away kit and is included on their logo. Also, given FFA have blocked them from having sky blue, it will also create some diversity between Sydney FC & City. Only thing I would do is add is maybe a small strip of red on the 1st one. Protenpinner (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
First of all, since when do we use the away colours for the colouring? No other team uses the away colours. Secondly, you cannot forecast that they will always have a red away kit.
Thirdly, I didn't understand your last comment. If the FFA blocked them from sky blue, doesn't that automatically give the diversity and we don't have to artificially create it on the wikipage?
--SuperJew (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Adelaide United new kit[edit]

Adelaide United have revealed a new kit. Does anyone know how to work with the kits and can please update it on the club's page and current season? Maybe even explain to me how it works?

Ciaran106, Rjbsmith, 2nyte?

--SuperJew (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not a clue I tried to find out when editing the All Stars page but no luck Ciaran106 (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done There is a list of patters for kits on Template:Football kit/pattern list or you can just make your own (I do it on paint) and upload it to wikimedia commons (like I did for Adelaide's kit: [2][3]).--2nyte (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

abundance of articles with Socceroos results in 2014[edit]


So right now the following pages list Socceroos' results in 2014: Australia national soccer team results, 2014 Australia national soccer team season, 2014–15 in Australian soccer and Australia national soccer team. This seems to me as if there might be a bit of a redundancy.

First of all Australia national soccer team results is just a page which points each year to main article 20XX Australia national football team season, basically just a list of links which at the beginning also has copied the content of the links.

Secondly, 2014–15 in Australian soccer seems to have just copied all the league stuff. Is it necessary to have the FFA Cup info on this page and 2014 FFA Cup? Will all the A-League matches be there too?

In my opinion we should leave only 2014 Australia national soccer team season and Australia national soccer team (but only the recent and upcoming matches).

Would love to hear your opinions (that is why I opened a discussion). Jenks24, 2nyte, Hack, Ciaran106, HiLo48, Macosal.

--SuperJew (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion there should be a page for 'Football in Australia' with the leagues, cups etc... (Not sure if there is one already) that does not include results however and only lists winners and seasons.
I agree with you, it is too much effort to have to constantly update all those results keep the 2 pages you've suggested and remove all the others is my vote --Ciaran106 (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You have made a very good point. There are results everywhere, in an obviously out-of-control way. I think that virtually all results should appear only in an article based around the year of the results. Australia national soccer team should not contain results at all. It's meant to be the article covering the whole history of the team. It should not contain a selection of recent and near future games. WP:RECENTISM tells us to not do that. Australia national cricket team is a good model here. 2014 Australia national soccer team season does seem to be the right place for 2014 results, with articles for other years doing their respective jobs. Perhaps the word "season" in that title should be replaced with "results", since "season" is a confusing term these days. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The seasons pages shouldn't just be bald statements of results. That's what the centralised results list is designed for. There needs to be some attempt to build prose around the results otherwise they should be deleted. Hack (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, I agree it's overkill. I'll pretty much just echo what HiLo said – I don't think the national team article should have a list of recent results at all, if the games are clearly notable (e.g. World Cup matches) then they should get a sentence or two of prose in the relevant history section. 2014–15 in Australian soccer should probably just link give a link to 2014 Australia national soccer team season and maybe give a quick summary, but I agree there's no sense duplicating the information. Australia national soccer team results looks completely pointless, we should probably do away with it if possible. Jenks24 (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
2014-15 in Australian soccer is part of a well-established class of articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Country seasons or for example numerous articles at the Category "2014 in association football"). I think the national teams recent results on the team's page itself are relevant/notable to a user interested in the team (and will not be a permanent part of the article). I'm not sure, however, that the national team needs its own "season" article (largely reproduced elsewhere as mentioned, plus as Hilo said, the team does not really have a "season" per se). The FFA Cup stuff at 2014-15 in Australian soccer I agree is too detailed/just a reproduction as it stands but should/would probably be formatted into a 32 team bracket for simplicity/relevance when possible (as the draw for the final rounds occurs). Lastly I don't think there is any issue with having duplication of the results per se, so long as they are relevant to each article in which they are present. Macosal (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48/Jenks24 I had a look at what you said about national football team pages not containing results. Out of the top ten (by FIFA ranking) and a few more I checked, all have recent results. Therefore this would have to be a big change over all the teams and should be discussed at WP:FOOTBALL. Personally I think we should keep it at least to a minimum format such as Uruguay has. --SuperJew (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
What? I said nothing about (other?) national football team pages not containing results. (I certainly wouldn't have said "football". Why won't you follow our convention on naming here?) My comparison was with the Australian cricket team. And I argued using policy - recentism. We should not follow other poor examples. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The cricket issue may relate to the fact that cricket matches are significantly harder to neatly collapse into boxes, are across three formats and are in my experience significantly less updated. Recentism is not applicable here any more than it is to, for example, a current squad. The ten year test cannot be applied to the matches themselves as they will not be there in 10 years. If the ten year test is applied in the sense of "will people still be interested in the team's then-recent results in ten years?" the answer is clearly yes in my view. The weight of practice suggests a strong consensus on this, but as said, here is not the place to discuss this in any case. Macosal (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It is what you implied HiLo48, and for the sake of consistency we should keep the articles with the same structure. Australia's national soccer team has more in common structurally with other national football teams (and yes I will use football because that is the wide consensus except for specific countries with unique football codes) than it does with Australia's other national sport teams. Also as Macosal says the large amount of other poor examples strongly implies consensus and desire of readers for recent results on the team's national sport pages, though I think it really should be recent (limited by timeframe or amount of matches) and not going back and back --SuperJew (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I DID NOT IMPLY THAT!!!!! I implied nothing. When the fuck will editors here comment on the words I actually write rather than commenting on something else they claim I meant. This is bullshit. I also happen to think the frantic updating of current player names in historical articles is completely misplaced. It too is recentism. Saying others do it won't convince me it's right. We should be having an objective discussion on how to best do things, not unthinkingly copying the mistakes and obsessions of others. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
1. quote: Australia national soccer team should not contain results at all. It's meant to be the article covering the whole history of the team. It should not contain a selection of recent and near future games. WP:RECENTISM tells us to not do that. A person reading this would assume that a simple logical implying would imply these points (recentism and the article is meant to be covering the whole history of the team and it should not contain a selection of recent and near future games) to other national football team pages. Or do these points apply only to the Australian teams? If so you should of specifically mentioned it.
2. quote: I also happen to think the frantic updating of current player names in historical articles is completely misplaced. It too is recentism. What does this have to do with the discussion? How did this come up? Are you just diverging off the point?
3. quote: When the fuck will editors here [...] This is bullshit. Please Be Civil.
--SuperJew (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
1. I was discussing THIS article, ALONE. It was you who mentioned the other soccer ones.
2. Macosal mentioned the player names first. I was responding to that.
3. There are far worse ways of being uncivil than what some regard as naughty words. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I (to my knowledge) did not refer to player names anywhere?... If you mean when I referred to current squads, I was not referring to changing player names; I was referring to the section of national teams' articles where the most recent squad is listed (but is not subject to accusations of "recentism"). Also the fact that there are worse forms of uncivility is no excuse for uncivility in itself. Also just to clear up: I personally have no issue with your use of "what some regard as naughty words" but do have an issue with the fact that you are using those words to express anger/frustration with other editors in a way which does not need to be a part of a civil discussion. Macosal (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Including the current squad in an article covering the whole history of a team is a perfect example of recentism. I don't know why we do it in any such article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Accusing someone of saying or implying something that they didn't is incredibly rude. Will you similarly chastise all those who have done that here? If you won't fucking do that I may not be able to stop swearing about the poor behaviour of others!. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You "accused" me of bringing up player names when I did no such thing (not that misunderstanding someone is an "accusation"). Stop using ad hominem arguments and let's try to stay on topic. The articles are not about "the whole history of a team", they are about "a team". Clearly it is relevant to readers to know the current members of that team. Recentism is not a guideline in any case (just an essay) and certainly doesn't justify the extreme reactions you seem to be inferring from it. And I'm not saying don't swear, I'm saying don't express anger/frustration towards other editors. Macosal (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Macosal I feel the "season" page does add to only having the results as it has a summary of the statistics of that year too. --SuperJew (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes that was in the back of my mind when I said "largely reproduced" and agree that is a relevant point. Macosal (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Who can start a delete request on Australia national soccer team results? I feel on that point we have agreed and the discussion now is whether to keep recent results in Australia national soccer team and if to keep 2014 Australia national soccer team season or to change the name. --SuperJew (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Jenks24 you're an admin. Could you take care of it please? --SuperJew (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've done some fiddling. Hopefully you all agree with what I've done, but if not we can always revert. Instead of taking Australia national soccer team results to WP:AFD (which, incidentally, any user can do) I've changed it into a set index. Mainly because Australia national soccer team results was split into a bunch of separate articles and can't be deleted because the history needs to exist for attribution purposes. So the options were redirect it or change it into a set index. I couldn't think of anywhere completely appropriate to redirect it to so I chose the set index option. Hopefully that way any reader getting to Australia national soccer team results should be able to find the article/result they want. It should maybe be moved to List of Australia national soccer team results, but that's not a big issue. Another thing I noticed was that seeing as we have individual season article from 1990 onwards we should probably move Australia national soccer team results (1980–99) to Australia national soccer team results (1980–89) and scrap the 1990s from it so we aren't duplicating any info. I also tagged Template:Australia national football team results2 because I think Template:Australia national football team results does the same job. Jenks24 (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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)


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 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) [4]
  • 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. [5]

Sometimes the editor will make the change and then revert his own edits. [6] 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. [7]

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) [8] - 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 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 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

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 or

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.


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 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 [,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>[,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)

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)

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)