Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


W-League: Season 2009 or 2009-10; plus other issue

The W-League has just put up the schedule for the new season. Link However, while the report states 2009-10, the schedule states 2009. So we need to decides how we should label this season. On top of that, there is a copyright issue with the released fixture. Any idea how we can get their permissions?Frankie goh (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it should be labeled Season 2009, as there are no games played in 2010. The copyright issue I don't really know anything about - is it different to all the other fixture lists that are reproduced here? Camw (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I'd prefer it to be named 2009-10 for consistency with the A-League articles, but you're right about it being pretty silly as there are no games played in 2010. If we were to name it simply W-League 2009 then we would have to rename W-League 2008–09 to W-League 2008 as they didn't play any games in 2009. --timsdad (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh wait, they played the finals series in 2009. If this season's W-League also plays their grand final in 2009, we're going to have a problem with naming the grand final article, as W-League Grand Final 2009 refers to the grand final of the 2008-09 season. --timsdad (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Consistency is always great to aim for but I think the single season label is the most accurate. I was just about to say there were finals games played in 2009 for the previous W-League, that may complicate things further. Looking at the draw, all the games including finals are in 2009 this time around and the draw itself says 2009 season draw, but I wonder if this schedule will change from season to season as well ... Camw (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Any way guys, I have started a test page with part of the fixture. My eyes are getting blurry as I type more and more :)link. Maybe we can use the test page, add/remove whatever we wants and when things are more really as the start of the season gets closer, we can move the ready-product to the main article. :) I personally like the kit and main staff summary at the main A-League 2009-10 page that was just introduced this season, but clearly we do not have enough infomation for that at the moment.Frankie goh (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
To use 2009-10 would be inaccurate as there is no part of the season in 2010. Using 2009 is more appropriate. The old National Soccer League is an example of season titles changing to reflect the single- or cross-year season. - 16keeper (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not like the W-League is changing from a cross-year to single-year season, rather, it has got to do a little with the scheduling. And using 2009 will bring about another problem mentioned earlier, which is how to label the Grand Final? Maybe with brackets, like W-League Grand Final 2009 (2008-09) and W-League Grand Final 2009 (2009 only)? But even that will look messy. Frankie goh (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mosman Football Club

A newly created, and still under construction, article has come to my attention. I don't think Mosman Football Club passes WP:N but I'm not sure if clubs at this level have articles or not. I know it's hardly Wikiproject talk-worthy, but I want to save the creator a lot of time and effort if it does indeed fail notability. Can an expert please advise? Thanks, timsdad (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

i'm no expert, but aren't we keeping these articles based on what league the football club is in. e.g. Victorian Premier League Chumchum14 (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Every club article needs to pass WP:N (or more specifically WP:ORG) regardless of the level played at, it is just generally accepted that at a certain level there will be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mosman FC is well below a level where I would assume that coverage would exist, it looks like the highest level they play at is 6th tier I think. Looking at Google News for coverage shows a few results for "Mosman Football Club" and a few more for "Mosman Soccer Club" (a previous name), but a lot of the articles require paid access so it is difficult to tell how significant the coverage is. At best the subject is borderline and I think in its current state it would get deleted at Articles for Deletion unless some coverage from reliable offline sources in addition to the small number of online sources were found. Camw (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Mfcpresident has made it clear to me that he is only interested in writing a bit about the history of the club. However, he's having his doubts about Wikipedia being the place to do so. See this discussion on my talk page for more info. --timsdad (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I set up an ID and started my first article 5 hours ago, so am feeling a bit like Mick Dundee trying to use the bidet. I can see there is a highly developed etiquette and culture here, and what I'm trying to do (write a collaborative history of MFC) doesn't quite fit.

Personally, however, I think it would be good to have a page on each of the many hundreds of amateur clubs, as this grass roots level has been important to the development of the game in Australia.

On offline sources, we are covered regularly in the Mosman Daily, and once or twice in the Sydney Morning Herald. Mostly, the MD just edits our press releases, so this isn't really independent coverage! -MFCPresident 11:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

All, I've moved this to my user space so we can work on it there. Incidentally, Mosman Rowing Club and Mosman Rugby Club both have pages even though they have a fraction of the players we do, so maybe football is shortchanging itself by not including local clubs? Obviously, this would need to fit in with the overall Wiki guidelines. I wonder what level of baseball is covered in the US, for example?

Anyway, thanks for your help with this, Timsdad, and hope to be able to help with more "notable" football stuff too! -MFCPresident 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to overload with documents, but other stuff exists isn't usually an argument that carries much weight in deletion discussions. If the other subjects also don't meet the notability policy for organisations they should be discussed for deletion, it will just take someone willing to nominate them. Including more local clubs may be good, but only if they meet the site-wide policy for notability - a line has to be drawn somewhere and including subjects without any significant coverage in reliable references available would make it impossible to verify that the information presented was correct. Camw (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed the article for deletion via WP:PROD, as Mfcpresident is continuing work on a user subpage of his. --timsdad (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
OK - good point. We'll see how much information we can find from secondary sources. At this point, I'm not sure what we'll turn up, but I think there's been a lot of coverage over the years - its just a matter of finding it all. Hopefully, will be able to have a more substantive discussion in a few months/years! -MFCPresident 08:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Australian football (soccer) league system

Hey guys! I just created an article on the Australian football (soccer) league system. It's very hard to determine the tiers of soccer in Australia as there is no direct promotion/relegation system between many divisions. I was wondering if you could help out or leave some feedback on the article or my talkpage. Cheers JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 09:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Northern New South Wales Football, who run the NBN State Football League, are for the purposes of membership of the FFA at the same level of the other state Federations. The way the table is structured suggests that they are below the other states (perhaps by standard of play they are?). Does this come from an official document of any sort?Hack (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The article reads: "Being a regional competition it is hard to compare nationally what tier it would be on, but roughly it could be regarded as the 3rd tier of football in Australia after the A-League and New South Wales Premier League." I'm not sure if this is correct as it's the FFA who set up the system but my guess is that it would be below the NSW Premier League... --timsdad (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have mentioned in the article that is difficult to compare the tiers of football, especially something like the Northern Tasmania Premier League to the NSW Premier League. They are not officially linked in anyway and therefore are pretty incomparable. However, the table is meant to represent the tier of football after the national and highest state level competitions.
The article is not referenced at all as I did not use secondary sources and was simply filling out an important redlink in the international association football league system. I have posted here more or less to check on WP:NPOV. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 15:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that A-League is undoubtedly the first tier with the premier competitions of each of the state federations (including NNSWF) at second tier. The rest seems to be speculation given there appears to be no official grading of the lower leagues.Hack (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I just e-mailed the FFA. They say that they don't rank the various leagues and that it is something for the states. It might be better for the purposes of this page that the various leagues are listed by state federation rather than in a national structure (sort of like Brazilian football league system#Current system). This would it easier to argue this is not original research given the various state federations would have their rankings on their websites.Hack (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New season

I notice that this project has been largely static over the last few months. Just wondering if anyone was interested in a concerted push to improve some of the higher profile Australian articles, possibly with the goal of getting a featured article.Hack (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out here and there, possibly over there as well. Have you got any particular articles in mind? --timsdad (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably a start would be improving or creating articles on all of the Socceroo captains. This reference, hosted on, has a list of players who have captained the national team in full internationals. Another task might be working on some of the higher importance stubs in Category:Stub-Class football (soccer) in Australia articles and Category:Unassessed football (soccer) in Australia articles.Hack (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be keen to have a go at bringing something up to FA - maybe someone like Johnny Warren who is bound to have a truck load of references we could use? Happy to work on whatever people are keen on. FYI there is an updated version of that reference at the Football Australia site, although any players in between the two PDFs would have pages already obviously. Camw (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Johnny Warren would be an ideal FA candidate. While we're on that era I think some of the 74 WC players could do with some work.Hack (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm also keen to improve the Johnny Warren article. He is, after all, one of the biggest legends of the game in Australia. --timsdad (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
A fair bit of his International Career section is a copyvio of this, so the article certainly could use the work even if we don't decide to aim to bring it to FA. Camw (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Queensland Derby‎

Is it just me or is The Queensland Derby‎ original research? I can't find any significant references to matches between the Roar and the Fury being called by this name. I found a couple of references to the derby between the Roar and Gold Coast but by far the most significant usage of this term is to a horse race (Queensland Derby) or the rugby league match between the Broncos and the Cowboys...Hack (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

2009-10 Club pages

All of the different club pages have very different layouts, particularly regarding fixtures, results and goalscorers. I would like to standardise them.Tomwijgers (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For the fixtures, I think that the Brisbane Roar page has the best layout. It has the most relevant information, in an easy to read format, and is easy to update from the main A-League page. I am happy to update all the pages on Tuesday if nobody has any issues with this. Tomwijgers (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The goalscorers are a bit more difficult. Personally, I think they should be in a table like the the main A-League page (The Victory page is like this already). However, this leads to problems with some teams having information from pre-season friendlies and ACL games, and we have to think about when teams get into the finals as well. I'm not sure how to go about this one, but I think the normal method of a table with Friendly, ACL, A-League and Total columns is both ugly and a pain to update. Any thoughts? Tomwijgers (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I personally prefer the fixtures layout on the Adelaide United page. It looks much neater, in my opinion, and it's easy to update as well. The goalscorers tables have been in the same format for the last two seasons - the same as the one in the A-League article. See last season's article to see how complications regarding different competitions were avoided - we simply had different level two sections for different competitions. --timsdad (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with the goals. The Adelaide fixtures are quite good, but I do think that opponent goal scorers should be included in the summary. I like the Brisbane one because you can essentially do a straight copy and paste from the main league article, and add in win/loss/draw colours. I can't say I'm much of a fan of the show/hide link though, and when the row is highlighted it certainly looks better with borders.Tomwijgers (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I completely agree with everything you said there, except for the copy and paste. After attempting it myself for Brisbane's round 13 fixture, I discovered that the formatting is slightly different and there are more functions from the collapsible footballbox template (time, location and result - the latter automatically changing the win/loss/draw colour) which makes it even harder to do a copy/paste. It appears that it has been done manually in the past, as with the Adelaide fixtures (and others). --timsdad (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm kind of slow to this discussion, but I am posting here regarding the 2010-11 article formats. I've actually gone ahead and reformatted the upcoming Adelaide United season 2010–11 to resemble the FC Barcelona season 2009–10 format. The reasoning behind this is that as the competition grows, so does the number of rounds and game fixtures, as does the information we are able to gather from the club websites regarding transfers and squad details. This is a sign that there is progress in the competition. I understand that for clubs that are not participating in the AFC Champions League, the need to show/hide fixtures is a bit of an issue, but with the growth that the competition is getting, I'd say we are heading towards a 30+ round season within the next couple of seasons, thus making the A-League fixture table extending far down the page. I have always thought that a cleaner, more streamlined appearance is what encyclopaedic articles must adhere to.
On the topic of what should be listed in the fixture tables, I have liked the way we have done it in the past, however, I can see two options here.
* First is to remove the fixtures list completely from the main A-League season article, and replace it with a cross-reference table of results such as that in the 2009–10_La_Liga#Results section, and have all scorers and cautions listed on individual results-by-round fixtures as per FC_Barcelona_season_2009–10#La_Liga_2. I haven't actually thought about how the 'bye' will work in season 2010-09 as yet.
* Or second, leave everything as per season 2009-10, keep basically a duplicate copy of results on both A-League season page, and club page (minus the opposition's scoring and both team's cautions). - RedsUnited (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The first option, for the club season articles, will include the use of similar fixture displays as Tomwijgers suggested above, currently used in the Brisbane Roar season 2009–10 article. This was considered because it was believed a straight copy-and-paste from the main A-League season article could be performed, when in fact it is requires a complete start from the beginning, as I said above.
I can see the main A-League season articles eventually using the cross-reference table, such as the one used in the 2009–10 Premier League article, as the current display of every match's score, scorers, referees, attendances, etc. takes up a lot of room on the page and requires lots of editing. --timsdad (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Learmont

I came across this person while looking for info on something else. According to the Chicago Sun-Times (of all sources) she ran the line in a match in 1992 between Western Australia and Shelbourne.

WOMAN MAKES HISTORY: Marilyn Learmont, a 44-year-old housewife, will make soccer history here Wednesday when she runs the line in a match between Western Australia and the Irish champions Shelbourne. No woman official has been previously involved in such a high level men's match.

According a book on WA soccer history she officiated in NSL match in 1993 beteen West Adelaide and Brisbane Strikers making her the first woman to officiate a men's national league match in Australia. Apart from these two sources I am having difficulty finding sources and was wondering if others might have some ideas...Hack (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Listed here in the WA Football Hall of Fame but not a large amount of new information there sorry. Camw (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

2004 OFC Nations Cup

I've just created this template:

I am having difficulty sourcing reliable numbers for players in this tournament. Part of the problem is that the main part of this tournament was played four months before the two-legged final meaning there was a big disparity in the composition of the squads. I have included only players that made it onto the pitch in either the tournament or the final. I would appreciate if someone had a good source for players who may have been in the squad but didn't get off the bench.Hack (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Warren Medal / NSL Player of the Year

As you might know, the Johnny Warren Medal was awarded between 1990 and 2004 for the best player in the National Soccer League. For the purposes of the NSL, was the Johnny Warren Medal a continuation of the NSL Player of the Year? If so, how do we work in the 77-89 winners; or if not, should a new article be set up? Hack (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible non-notable footballers

I have come across a few unreferenced articles on Australian footballers who appear not to be notable. Just wondering if anyone had anything that could be added to these articles to assert their notability...

Hack (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC) at it again

The same IP editor that brought about this huge discussion about the use of the terms defining the sport has yet again begun to go around changing occurences of association football to football (soccer). I originally reverted a few of his edits, however I'm really not keen to go through all of this again. We need to reach a consensus about this. --timsdad (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Queensland Lions and Brisbane Roar

What is the relationship (if at all) between Qld Lions SC and Brisbane Roar these days? Hack (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FC/SC vs Football Club/Soccer Club

Having recently edited a few NSW players recently I noticed that virtually all of the NSW clubs use the full club name including the suffices Football Club or Soccer Club rather than the standard FC or SC (with or without dots). Does anyone have any objection to these being moved, if appropriate, to a shorter version? Hack (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No objection here. Camw (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

2010–11 season layout

Following on from the above conversation regarding club season pages, I've noticed that User: has edited the Wellington Phoenix season 2010–11 page to fit the article format of theirs from this current season (2009-10). Will this need to be reverted back to the edit by User:WellingtonPHOENIXbren which conforms with the standard layout discussed above? - RedsUnited (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a few days ago that the IP has done the same for this season. I don't really feel strongly about changing this, but I do feel that all of next season's team articles should be consistent. --timsdad (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the consistency issue. One of the problem with their edits is that they use a different colour scheme for the W/L/D system that we are used to in other standard football articles. - RedsUnited (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

flag icons everywhere

I must say, the flags are a bit much. Some articles have them against every person. It's distracting, the Austr. and NZ flags can barely be distinguished at that size; it might be criticised for mixing sport with nationalism; and the flags are attached on a personal level, without knowing whether the individuals would want that. Tony (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Football NSW Link Template

Hi all, not sure if anyone links to this site much, but the link format is annoying, containing brackets that have to be converted to ascii character codes to link properly. I've created a template that makes linking to news articles much easier.

If you are interested, the format to use is {{FootballNSW|ttnewsid|articlename}}.

So using {{FootballNSW|3558|NSW Premier League Round 7 Preview}} results in;

NSW Premier League Round 7 Preview - Football NSW Article.

This works for both stories from the main site, as well as ones on the Premier League site and can be used inside reference brackets in the same format. Let me know if you have any suggested changes or problems. Camw (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Australians players not tagged with this project's tags

Hi there, whilst compiling some lists for the Unreferenced BLP drive, I've compared the Category:Australian football (soccer) players against Category:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia articles. There are 114 pages listed in the mainspace category, but not in your project category. Some of these might be appropriately outside of your project, but a couple of random ones I've clicked on include a Socceroo and other very Australian people! Here is the list. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Add timestamp to save list from archiving --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 26#Category:Football (soccer) in Australia may be of interest to contributors here. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Football (soccer) in Australia articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Football (soccer) in Australia articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Task force?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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)
Eccy89, it might be old debate but it seems still relevant. Again, I think there should be an international section only if it is an exception to most of the club players. For example, a club of Barcelona's pedigree wouldn't warrant such a section, but if Sydney United have players who were internationals it would warrant. Regarding time of international appearance, I think it is relevant if it is while the player is at the club or if he was a consistent international member earlier. For example, Del Piero came to Sydney FC after he retired from international football, but he is still notable for his international career. --SuperJew (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

WLeague template

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


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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

Another RfC on naming

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

2015 AFC Champions League playoff position

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

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


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

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

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)
 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


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)