Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

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.
 

Medal icons in footballbox[edit]

There is a discussion at Olympics project regarding match templates and medal icons, i.e. if they should be shown (diff) or not shown (diff).

This affects football as well so please join at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal icons on team sport templates

FC or Football Club[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto_FC&diff=738467499&oldid=738251967 All based on a photo of the club's exterior. I pointed out, on the article's talk page, that the club is commonly called Toronto FC (more than 1000 times more often in news source, also provided on the talk page) but there are two club fans who wanted to make the change. Feel free to revert my revert or explain WP:COMMONNAME to the editors on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As explained on talk page, I think you are wrong. Per example Inter Milan amongst many many others. Koncorde (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Does the FC stand for Football Club? I seem to remember a thread a while back where there was actually a club where the "FC" part simply meant FC and sources were provided to support this. Unless this is another example like that then the full name of the club is Toronto Football Club. COMMONNAME should be, and seemingly is, applied correctly to the article title. However, this parameter in the infobox is for the full name and therefore logically would not be the common name. Fenix down (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Article at Toronto FC is correct per Commonname but the fullname parameter should be Toronto Football Club. Kante4 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that's basically what everyone has said (and evidence has been provided from the club's own website), but the argument is continuing on the talk page... Number 57 15:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, I pointed him to New York City FC for an example. It should be the same format as that. I've said my piece, I have nothing else to say. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Just an extra piece of info - Sydney FC is referred to 100% of the time as just "Sydney FC", however their legal name is "Sydney Football Club". - J man708 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
In the same league, there is also a franchise with the legal name "Melbourne Victory F.C" - someone clearly wasn't a detail person. Hack (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
F.C. may means Football Club, but for F.C. Internazionale Milano S.p.A. case, F.C. just F.C., they register a short name in the company register.(may be a long legal name cause problem on contract) the article actually wrong. Matthew_hk tc 04:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you see the dots after "F" and "C", those indicate content has been removed. What you have basically just done is said that W. G. Grace is the full name of the man otherwise known as William Gilbert Grace, which is not the intention of those full stops. Legal name, registered trademarks etc are all largely irrelevant. The "Full Name" is an opportunity to prevent the full name of a club that is otherwise known by its condensed format. Koncorde (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Seems irrelevant as Toronto FC/New York City FC don't have these dots --SuperJew (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The dots are for that particular example. The absence of the dots doesn't actually change the intent of the abbreviation any more than JK Rowling / J.K Rowling would. Koncorde (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Give it up already! It doesn't matter about number of hits on Google or that it's called soccer in Canada or if Toronto FC is used more often, Toronto Football Club is it's official full name and is stated as such in the full name infobox parameter as Number 57 and others have given sources from the club's website along with others. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Give it up already! It does matter about the number of hits on Google. They're a soccer club and they use FC to appeal to fans of the sport in Europe just as Real Salt Lake do. TFC is a soccer club and Real Salt Lake are neither Spanish nor granted royal ascent by a Spanish King. They're just names. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Team of the week[edit]

Is a list of "Team of the week" in league seasons (for example 2016 A Lyga) notable? I disagree a bit with User:Respublik. Qed237 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Any comments? Qed237 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I think no, per WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Well like I mentioned it's official and fair evaluation of players made by the league itself(not by some other sources), so I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed(especially when there aren't any other types of relevant frequent awards and so it isn't redundant information). Also it is used in other professional leagues topics, like Major League Soccer. Respublik (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Respublik: please see WP:NOTSTATS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 20:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Read first one before replying first message, couldn't see which point he was pointing to. Could you be more specific? :) Respublik (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Articles should not be excessiv lists of stats/information. Qed237 (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Relevance criteria for current squad navbox templates[edit]

(This topic was previously raised as an aside in Squad templates turned into redirects but did not come to an conclusion there.)

For the proposed deletions of current squad templates the deletion rationales given in Tfd were either "does not play in a fully-professional league" or "has no notable players/navigational value". While these two often go hand-in-hand, as many of the better (notable) players leave after a club relegates, this is not always the case. Some examples:

  • Le Mans FC with 7 notable players in the French 5th tier (3 levels below fully professional)
  • FC Farul Constanţa with 4 notable players + 1 notable manager in the Romanian 4th tier (3 levels below fully professional)
  • FC Unirea Alba Iulia with 3 notable players in the Romanian 3rd tier (2 levels below fully professional)
  • Here it was shown by Secret Agent Julio that German 4th tier (1 level below fully professional) clubs have between 3 and 15 notable players

I would like to invite everybody here to state their opinion and I hope that these two options below reasonably reflect the available alternatives (if not, please add further)!

@Frietjes, GiantSnowman, Jogurney, Joseph2302, Mattythewhite, Number 57, Rhinen, Secret Agent Julio, Struway2, and SuperJew: As you have participated in earlier discussions either here or in Tfd, I would appreciate if you joined this poll to have different opinions reflected! Kq-hit (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Option 1 Current squad navigational boxes should be maintained only for clubs playing in a fully professional league

Option 2 Current squad navigational boxes should be maintained for any club with enough[please quantify] notable players to provide navigational value

Option 1 Since we do have the fully pro league guideline and criteria, I reckon we should go by that rather than per number of notable players currently in the club. In general clubs not playing in an fully pro league don't have many notable players, and those who do are the exception. I also feel it'd be inconsistent for some clubs in a league to have squad templates, but others not to. --SuperJew (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
"clubs not playing in an fully pro league don't have many notable players" - that doesn't necessarily follow. The National League is not a FPL, yet Forest Green Rovers and Eastleigh each have (by my count) 16 players with articles...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - the purpose of a navigation box is to navigate between related articles, as long as we have enough of them in a squad template then it's notable. I'd say maybe 5-7 is a good start? GiantSnowman 06:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2. What GiantSnowman said: 5–7 should be enough to provide navigational value. The FPL thing determines whether a player might be presumed notable. It has nothing to say on the notability of clubs, or on the likelihood of a non-FPL club having enough notable players to warrant a navigational box. Chris mentions the non-FPL National League; the clubs in the national division of that league average at about 13/14 notable players with existing articles per squad. Scottish League One clubs average about 11. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Option 1 is bonkers. That would mean deleting the squad navbox of every club that gets relegated out of FPLs each year, and (re)creating a navbox for every club that gets promoted to that level each year. FPL is a guideline for player notability, it is not a hard and fast rule. The dividing line between "FPL" and "not FPL" is much more blurred than this proposal would suggest. For example, in Scotland recently you've had four of the bigger clubs in the country (Rangers, Heart of Midlothian, Hibernian and Dundee United) in league(s) that are not fully professional, because the second tier (Scottish Championship) regularly contains at least one club that is part-time. "In general clubs not playing in an fully pro league don't have many notable players" is ridiculously wrong for similar reasons. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment As I said I based my vote off the fact that we do have the FPL criteria, and it's used for notability. As indeed the case of the "not really fully-pro leagues" but do have notable players, perhaps it's time to review the whole FPL idea? Maybe have it FPL + top tier clubs? Or instead of fully pro leagues, have it by fully pro teams? Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option2 5-7, per Giant Snowman and Struway. Deleting/recreating navboxes for promotion/relegation seems like hard work. Gricehead (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 and 5–7 per the above. Number 57 14:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 If there's sufficient blue links, the templates serve a practical purpose and should therefore be created/retained. Option 1 smacks of zealously touting WP:NFOOTBALL where it doesn't apply. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Should be based on the number of blue links. However, I disagree with the cutoff point. I think there should be at least 10 blue links, otherwise the club's main article should suffice for links. I do not see the point of having so many surnames without links, does not seem very useful nor informative. Also, should the frequency of updates play a factor? Because there are numerous templates that rarely get updated, therefore the usefulness in navigation diminishes, as the template includes players who are no longer at the club, and new players are missing. In these cases, the template is misleading and is unhelpful. The squad lists on the club's main articles is updated much more frequently, and does a better job. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
How would you measure frequency of updates? Also, I noticed recently an interesting concept related to what you're saying: Boca Junior's squad template doubles as also a navigation squad for players pages and also as a squad list on the club's page. --SuperJew (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, that's pretty interesting, looks like a good way to keep the template and article in sync (and possibly the club's season article). I have not seen that style before, but I'd like to use it if it makes things that simple. Also, by frequency of updates I refer to some of the templates I have seen which are extremely out of date, sometimes not having many edits since 2013 or 2014, would depend on the situation. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It really like this template. Is it something to consider to create more of these (or expand)? Kante4 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Deleting all the squad templates of relegated clubs does not make sense if there are sufficient blue links. 5-7 links are okay for me. --Jaellee (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 If a club gets relegated from Football League Two, then are we really going to want to delete their template? Chances are they'll still have lots of players that meet WP:NFOOTY, thus option 1 doesn't make sense. On the other hand, the whole point of templates is to guide users to other Wikipedia articles, so at least a few of the players would need to be notable. Joseph2302 18:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - if the navigation box serves a valid purpose (linking to relevant articles), then it shouldn't be deleted under some rather arbitrary fully-pro league bright-line rule. I worry that editors may create a batch of articles on non-notables and then create a nav box template for them, but we can always remove the nav box once it is determined that the articles should be deleted. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for sure. However, for every "relegated team whose notable players leave" there's a Template:Grays Athletic F.C. squad where the notability of the players on a 7th tier team (Isthmian PL) are due to past careers or international play from small countries where nobody is anywhere near the top tiers. So while I don't buy a bright-line, there should be a range where the navbox makes sense, and I think it needs to be greater than halfway useful both qualitatively and quantitatively. MSJapan (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't really understand your point, of course they've inherited their notability due to earlier exploits in their careers - but also a lot of players move upwards and achieve notability through satisfying WP:FOOTY later in their career. --Jimbo[online] 15:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for cases where at least 5 players (manager counts towards this) have WP articles. That figure, by the way, is suggested at WP:NENAN. C679 11:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 makes the most sense. I don't think a teams stature on the pyramid bears any correlation to navigating through a squad if there are sufficient bluelinks. Be that step 1 or step 21. --Jimbo[online] 15:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

FC "CSKA-SOFIA" Sofia and PFC CSKA Sofia[edit]

Is the first a valid split from the second? It looks like another Rangers F.C. scenario with bankruptcy, relegation, ownership disputes, so I've no idea whether two articles are warranted or not. Nthep (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I was about to ask for some help on the matter, as we are currently having fans taking over the content. I really don't know what to make of it all. If anyone would be willing to help, I can provide them with translations of all the relevant info. My feeling is that a compromise could be accepted by all parties if it comes from some outside (outside Bulgaria, that is) source.--Laveol T 10:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Footballers in Brazil by club[edit]

For some reason Category:Footballers in Brazil by club is sub-categorised by state - every other country is, from my experience, not. This makes it extremely hard to see if an existing category exists, to prevent creating a duplication. What are thoughts on this? GiantSnowman 09:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems fairly pointless categorisation to me – I don't see why states are of any importance here. Agreed it would be better to have all the club visible in one category. Number 57 10:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done GiantSnowman 21:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

What determines players' nationalities?[edit]

Is it a player's allegiance to a national team that ultimately determines his nationality as presented on Wikipedia? --Theurgist (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Essentially yes, as that is his or her 'sporting' nationality, regardless of other legal nationalities concurrently or previously held. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If referring to the narrative opening of the article it is often easier to refer to the club, and international team represented, than describing a player as being a particular nationality. Diego Costa is a fine example. You can then expand on the nationality / background later on. If for a flag in an award table or similar, then yes his international country represented (or at least nominally declared for). Koncorde (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It is the narrative openings that I mean. Typically, a player is described as a "XXXian footballer" where XXX is the country he represents internationally, or if he was born elsewhere, then he is a "YYYian-born XXXian footballer". But that's sometimes a bit misleading, isn't it. A player born, raised, and living in France is a "French footballer", and forever remains so, unless he gets capped for some other country he's eligible for, e.g. Gabon (where his grandfather is from) or Cyprus (where he spent a few years earlier in his career), in which case he suddenly becomes a "French-born Gabonese/Cypriot footballer", as if he ceases to be a Frenchman with that act.
I like the example of Diego Costa, and I've also noticed that biographies of non-sports people with such "controversial" nationalities tend to avoid directly stating the person's nationality. Articles should only present objective facts (such as born where, lived/naturalized where, having ancestral links where), and not try to judge if the person is more of a Frenchman or more of something else. --Theurgist (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
What about the fact that a person's country of birth and nationality at birth are not necessarily the same–or the fact that it is quite common to have parents of differing nationality, and thus be born with citizenship of two or even more countries? Do we just default back to the place of birth as the 'real' nationality, even where the person could have left as an infant and grew up somewhere completely different, or indeed never even held the nationality of his birthplace in the first place? No, in my view best to steer clear and go based on national team in the first sentence, as you describe above–then give a proper, objective summary of the facts further down. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I never said that the person's country of birth should be taken by default as his "real" nationality. It shouldn't. But neither should his national team allegiance. (Especially as national team allegiances could be based on factors other than faithfulness to the particular nation, and thus could be somewhat arbitrary. A player eligible for multiple national teams will probably consider where he would fit best and where he would benefit most before choosing which one to represent.) Did you even take a look at the lead of Diego Costa (permalink)? --Theurgist (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say you had said that, Theurgist (re: 'real' nationality), I was just pointing out that I have often come across people who seem to think along those lines. Sorry for not making myself clear, no slight on yourself was meant. Yes, I've seen the lead of Diego Costa. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This sort of stuff is particularly controversial with "Italian-Argentine" and similar, or those historic footballers who represented multiple nations (which is becoming more common in recent years with relaxation of rules), or where federations split due to changing international boundaries (particularly the former communist states which are still evolving). In my opinion most of the time the mention of the nationality is not required when they have represented a national federation, instead you would mention the national federation. You can then deal with more detailed nuanced nationality based arguments in context later in the article. Unfortunately a lot of articles still try to settle such nationality arguments within the first 10 words and turn into mangled messes. Koncorde (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Explain the situation and leave judgments to the readers. --Theurgist (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
If a player has not represented a country, or made a declaration in favour of a country to represent, then we use reliable sources. GiantSnowman 07:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As wikipedia had it own policy on POB and nationality, i feel crazy that some footballer were linked to their POB (and parent ethnicity) instead of country that he spent almost entire life, given that they also hold that country's citizenship. POB was easy to identify but the policy within WP:Footy should be refined. Matthew_hk tc 12:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Help to identify a 90s/00s goalkeeper[edit]

Hi. Looking for help identifying a goalkeeper from the 90s/00s. Possibly very late 80s. My recollection of him:

  • He was decidedly short for a 'keeper but was good at his trade, presumably very good at jumping!
  • He played on a fairly regular basis for at least a couple of seasons in England's top division
  • I have Everton stuck in my head, and thought it may have been Paul Gerrard, but it can't have been him (6ft 2in!)

Any help from these lame clues gratefully accepted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Poole at Leicester? Koncorde (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
jeez, tough one but the first one that popped into my head was Fabien Barthez Govvy (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not Barthez and I don't think it was Poole either. His first name may indeed have begun with a K though. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

According to PetScan there are 118 English goalkeepers who played in the Premier League... GiantSnowman 17:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Paul Cooper was decidedly lacking in height. Johnlp (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Kevin Pressman? Dmitri Kharine? Could also have a look at this, quite nostalgic! [1] C679 19:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There was no goalkeeper under six foot who played regularly for Everton in that period.--EchetusXe 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Keith Branagan? I was thinking Pressman, but it turns out he was quite tall – maybe his width made him seem shorter! Number 57 19:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Really appreciate you helping. The K may be misleading and the dating suggests it may be pre-Premier League. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it a photo you are working from, or just a reference or old memory? Between Championship Manager and old age I think I could name every keeper to have played since 1986 if you have any other inkling. Koncorde (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't help but think of Bruce Grobbelaar - J man708 (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Fagio Augusto and Japan?[edit]

Hi all, in a recent article I started I saw that it said here that Fagio Augusto plays for Tokyo Musashino City FC. This information is found on a couple other websites such as this one. Except that this information is not included on his soccerway profile and more importantly Fagio Augusto is not included in the roster on the club's official website. I put "reportedly plays for Tokyo Musashino" on the article, but I am not sure if this is enough. Any ideas? Inter&anthro (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I would say he reported played since I can't find anything from the club itself, the roster does not include him on their website and nothing on twitter as well. Soccerway won't help as they don't track the Japanese Football League (Only J1 League and J2 League). If you want, you can literally go through every match-report on their website and see if he was ever in the squad. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I would question whether he's notable enough to warrant an article - does 3 mins as a substitute for his national team (his only appearance to date), whilst never having played professionally for a club meet the criteria? douts (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
If he's played international football, he meets the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria. Hack (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of reserves/youth squads in infobox[edit]

Hi,

I was wondering regarding including caps+goals for reserves/youth squads in infobox. As far as I know we don't include them when it's a completely youth league (for example National Youth League), but we do when it is a reserves/youth side playing in a senior league at a lower tier (for example Phoenix Premiers in the ASB Premiership, Melbourne Victory Youth in the NPL Victoria, Sturm Graz II in the Regionalliga, Barcelona B in the Segunda División B, etc.). I was wondering how do we consider teams in the Premier League 2? Should Mark Birighitti's 3 caps for Swansea City U23s be in the infobox?

Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a completely youth league, with no connection to the English football league system, so no. In my opinion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, definitely not. Apart from anything else, we've got precisely zero chance of sourcing the equivalent data for players from more than a couple of years ago, so it would be horribly misleading to show it for current players...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to understand, if it is a completely youth league, since they seem to have only U23 sides, but they can compete in the Premier League Cup and the EFL Trophy which have senior sides. --SuperJew (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The Premier League Cup does not have senior sides -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As above; only include stats for a youth team if the youth team plays in the normal senior football pyramid. GiantSnowman 20:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks a lot. Question answered. I was mainly confused because soccerway does record those caps. --SuperJew (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Bristol City F.C.[edit]

Would anyone on this wikiproject be able to take a look at Bristol City F.C.? There is a banner at the top for more citations but more worryingly there are banners (from 3 years ago) on the history section suggesting it may be too long & be slanted towards recent events. I don't know enough about the general structure of football club articles to know if these are appropriate (I also don't know enough about this club or football in general to be able to tackle it).— Rod talk 14:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 30, 2016[edit]

Pinging Parutakupiu. Any thoughts on this edit? We can't use these slashes at TFA (per MOS:SLASH), but aside from that, the UEFA Champions League kind of is and kind of isn't the same thing as the European Cup; many rules were different. Should we list these as separate titles or the same title, and if it's the same, what do we call it? (We have a cap of around 1150 characters, so if we use a very long name for the title, that's less space available to list other accomplishments.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of that guideline. Please do revert those specific changes then; it's preferable to use the most recent designation. Besides, this distinction is explained in the article. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Season articles[edit]

I think everyone needs to chill out when it comes to being anal about the guidelines created (remember, these are guidelines, not rules) for footballing articles, mainly in regards to notability. We're currently in a logicless situation wherein a English team playing in the 7th tier can have season articles created about it, but a second division Australian team's season article fails an AfD, without having been given any chances to improve the article. Ditto a player having played in a national cup semi-final (and being named in that national cup's team of the year), but it's completely fine and dandy that a player who played in a single game at the right place and right time is worthy of an article.

I feel as though these sorts of guidelines are followed too closely. They exist because stupid people wish to create a Wikipedia page about their WP:GARAGEBAND

Remember, we're building an encyclopedia. I think far too many people forget this and think it's a big dick contest about following guidelines and shit. - J man708 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is an opinion piece, nothing more. If you have other ideas on notability etc, the thing to do is to formulate them and present them to the community and to arrive at consensus.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
We're not in that situation because the Wimbledon article also fails WP:NSEASONS (the consensus from over a dozen AfDs is that all English season articles outside of the top four fully-professional divisions do); it just hasn't been AfD'd yet. Number 57 07:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
What about the notability of the players listed? - J man708 (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
If a topic doesn't meet subject-specific notability criteria, you need to produce evidence of significant coverage. Based on the link, Schroen seems to be a run-of-the-mill state league player. Hack (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I created the page because I wanted to learn more about him. I used the information I came across to create said page. Clearly a player in his position is going to get more page views than an article over the international player with one match. Surely that warrants creation of the article in a freakin encyclopedia? - J man708 (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Why clearly? This is your personal opinion. Page views on enWiki means nothing in terms of notability, it is the level of third party coverage the subject has received that matters. From a subject-specific guideline perspective, although it is only one appearance, consensus is that Jais Malsarani is more notable than Marcus Schroen, because he has played football at the very highest level possible for someone from his nation.
You note that Schroen should be considered notable because of his team's performance in the FFA Cup, but this is not relevant per WP:NOTINHERITED, the run to the cup semi final is an achievement of his club, not of the individual. It is however, an achievement of note as is being named in the cup's team of the year, so I would ask you to show where the significant independent coverage of Shroen's specific role in this cup run and his naming in the team of the tournament is that would satisfy GNG.
If these achievements are really that notable and his role in them significant then he would surely have received such coverage? If not then it seems that his achievements and those of his team weren't deemed that important by independent media. Fenix down (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I think a point J man is trying to make is that playing international football for your country is not necessarily the same level for all countries. Case in point, players of the Australia national team are better on average than players of the Vanuatu national team. Or another example the Vieri brothers: Christian played for Italy internationally while Max played for Australia internationally. I'm sure you can tell just by that which one is the better footballer. --SuperJew (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Adding to my point, Max said in an interview Of course I knew it would be hard to play for Italy - they have one of the best strikers in the world, and he happens to be my brother. So when the offer came from Australia, it wasn't hard to accept., implying that Italy is a better team than Australia. --SuperJew (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Surely, taking part in a national cup semi-final AND being a player being selected in the FFA Cup Team of the Year (the only non fulltime professional) WITH the Sydney Morning Herald, the Herald Sun (Australia's two largest newspaper groups) having articles specifically about him warrants an article? Not to mention the addtional "Routine" information available, which will only add to the article. Currently, the idea that he's not, but when once he makes a 90'+6' minute substitute appearance for a top flight club in a single dead rubber match, he suddenly becomes "notable", even if no further information is ever written about him again? Come on, we all know that's total crap!
Once again, the guidelines are set up so that a player who plays for the Sunday league down the road doesn't have an article. As for the Northern Fury season articles, surely, as they are the only former A-League club taking part in the second tier NPL (and having voiced their intent to get back into the top flight), that they themselves would warrant seasonal articles? - J man708 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No point arguing here about specific player notability, that's an issue at the relevant AfD. Hack (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hack, I'm bringing it up here because I'm trying to find an answer. Seems the right place to me. @Fenix down: seems to actually be closest to providing the answer to this one. If the above mentioned news outlets aren't enough secondary sources to warrant an article, what would additionally be needed to pass GNG.
The point I'm trying to bring up is that Jais Malsarani played one international friendly match in a match watched several hundred people. Marcus Schroen was named as one of two non-top flight players in a national cup team-of-the-year, wherein he played in a semi-final in front of some 6,500 people, has been listed in the aforementioned publications as well as playing both for professional youth teams and the first team of a former national champion (and continental winner) before the age of 18. What more could he do shy of having one sole appearance in a dead rubber match in order to pass the notability guidelines? - J man708 (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The answer is obvious, gain significant reliable coverage in independent sources. Can you point to any non-routine articles that deal specifically with the player, i.e. interviews with the players, career summaries, etc. Looking at the two sources you have provided, I would make the following comments:

  1. SMH - This isn't really coverage of the player, more a series of quotes from a number of individuals, one of whom happens to be Schroen, on South Melbourne, not the player in question.
  2. Herald - This is more substantial, focussing specifically on the player and containing content that could be used to form an encyclopedic article. Not enough on its own to show GNG, but useful nonetheless.

Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sabbatino claims that the football team template states that only ground should be listed in the infobox[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sabbatino Multiple entries for "Per Template:Infobox football club – this field is for stadium/ground and not its location". The template does not state that it may not contain the location. There was a discussion at the template where three editors said it made sense and we attempted to determine the best way forward, but we did not move forward. Would anyone like to revert the other edits or assist to move the template forward? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does: ground — The name of the club's home ground (use stadium to label as stadium for American clubs). I don't see any mention about location. And the fact that discussion at the template's talk page has been dead for almost a year means people don't really care with your proposal. You just use personal preference for the MLS clubs to list the location, which is not how a Wikipedia page should be handled. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not Walter's personal preference. The location should really be listed. Number 57 08:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's his personal preference. Location is irrelevant. Otherwise, there would be a parameter for that. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
How is the location of the stadium irrelevant? Sometimes the location isn't immediately obvious by the name of the club, so it makes sense to be explicit about the fact that Chelsea actually play in Fulham, for example. – PeeJay 09:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Location is always given in the first sentence of team's article. Read my previous post above – if the location was needed then there would be a parameter for that in the infobox. Go to template's talk page and discuss there, because I'm tired that some people only woke up after almost a year. It's also funny that you bring up Chelsea F.C., because it used to be like this until 2011 when after some back-and-forth it was completely removed and location was instead added in the opening sentence of the article. Of course about a year after that someone decided to re-add it it without giving any reason for such action. It was again removed in 2015 and that user gave the same reason as me – Per template. There were no objections since then. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There's never been a need for a location parameter because we've always used the ground parameter for ground + location. See here from 2004. Number 57 10:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it it not really needed. Location is mentioned in the lead. Kante4 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear - it is neither required (so we needn't rush off adding it and screaming at others), nor is it frowned upon (so we shouldn't do the same to those that include it), to include the location. If articles differ then that is (on the whole) largely irrelevant and a matter of taste. The location of the stadium does no harm, and so long as it is factually accurate then I see no issue in it being included if an editor adds it. The summary information of the infobox is often duplicated within the article wholesale - this is not a reason to say that it should not be included (but it is an argument to say that the information is not doing any harm). In the case of MLS squads and other sports, we should also be aware of the difference between where a team plays, where it is based, and where the stadium is as there can be significant differences. Koncorde (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems to defeat the purpose of an infobox to force the reader into the article, or to click through a link, to locate a snippet of basic information that can be, and routinely has been, included in that infobox. Leaving off the stadium location is incomplete at best and when omitted is easily ambiguous or confusing. "Tiger Stadium", for example, is not useful; and as noted above, many teams play their games in a place different than the city for which they're named. I am not sure location should be mandatory in each and every case, but I think that methodically removing it from places where it is already is disruptive. JohnInDC (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There are instances where the ground is in a city different from where team is located. The team's location is not a parameter in the infobox.
Agree with Koncorde. It's neither required nor prohibited.
I have updated the docs in the infobox.
"The location of the ground may be included. Follow WP:OVERLINK guidelines to avoid linking common locations or nations."
I could add that it is not required and should not be listed without a ground. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Changes to template documentation without reaching a consensus have been reverted. Stop being so desperate and stop trying to win the argument. Reach a consensus first. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
A three to one score in a match would be a consensus that a team has won. A three to one result on the talk page is the same. The wording is tentative, but I will allow another editor to revert you as I am at 3RR now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Learn to count. There's no 3–1. It's 3–2. But that's not the point, because there's no consensus. Until there's a consensus, I will keep going at what the template suggests. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry. At the template it's 3:1. Consensus is not a vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I restored the location information at FC Schalke 04 because the location of the playing field is not obvious from the stadium name, its inclusion is not prohibited, and the information has been in the info box for a couple of years at least. I left FC Augsburg alone for now because, arguably at least, adding "Augsburg" to Augsburg Arena there doesn't add much. JohnInDC (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As JohnInDC says, this seems a case of using common sense as opposed to having a strict rule for all cases. The example brought emphasises it perfectly. --SuperJew (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit overkill to include the stadium/ground's location in infobox. SLBedit (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Overkill is having the street name, country and postcode. Having the city is a fairly basic necessity I'd have thought, especially given that many clubs aren't named after their hometow or play in a different one. Number 57 22:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Team have to play outside their base city such as Sassuolo, i think removal the actual address (the city and town) of the stadium was overkill. Matthew_hk tc 05:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion only the stadium should be listed in infobox, especially if it has it's own article which would then tell readers were stadium is. The exception would be if the stadium did not have it's own article. DjlnDjln (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The parameter should have both stadium name and town/city. GiantSnowman 09:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

NF-Board[edit]

I would like to get some views of Wiki users on the N.F.-Board. The organisation is defunct by now, but of course there is a value of keeping the article for historical reasons. However, there was some discussion over the last days about the "Members" section in particular. I proposed to only keep members of which we have any proof of existence. Would you give your view on the NF-Board talk page? NikauTokelau (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Any associations you can prove to have been members should be listed, in my opinion, along with their years of membership in parentheses. For example, Greenland (2006-2013). Obviously most of those nations will have an end date of 2013 since that's when the organisation was dissolved, but it makes sense to at least say when they joined. – PeeJay 19:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Good point, User:PeeJay2K3. I did a lot of research today and did a detailed proposal on the talk page of the N.F.-Board page now. Feedback would be lovely!NikauTokelau (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

stadium infoboxes[edit]

I just added an image I took to White Hart Lane and noticed one thing I didn't like with the infobox, is the fact that it says Tottenham are Tenants in their own ground. This doesn't make sense since Tottenham Football club actually own the ground, you are not Tenants if you own your own property Tenants are for when you're renting a property. I didn't realise this field was there, this field should only be used if a club is in say, administration and the club land is owned by a holding company or by Government. I see the same problem is on Manchester Utd. So I propose that for all clubs which own their stadia this should be removed as a field. Govvy (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with this. In terms of semantics, I guess you're right, but the point of that field is to signify which teams have played at that stadium throughout its history. The term "tenant" may be inaccurate for teams that own their own stadium, but I think you're just being picky. – PeeJay 01:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I work in the real-estate / property sector , that's probably why I find that more annoying! As for which teams have played at what stadium well there is usually more than enough information around the article to show that. I am inclined to remove this field as the information is technically incorrect if your the owner. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"Capped"[edit]

The page on Andrew Ker says "He was capped for Scotland in 1988", and I assume that the same term appears in many other articles on players of this sport. (See what I did there? :-) ) The sentence was totally obscure to me.

With regard to the sport and its jargon, I'm just an ignorant American, as are a great many other readers of Wikipedia. I found Cap (sport) and linked the word in Andrew Ker to it. Would it make sense to do so generally in football articles, presumably by bot? If so, the same could be proposed for its use in cricket, Rugby Union, and Rugby League as well.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I am not sure if it would absolutely necessary to link every player in every sport who has been capped. It could run into thousands of articles. Term is widely used in English speaking sports world outside of North America. Djln Djln (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the Latin Cup be listed as an honour?[edit]

User:Karim3adel seem to think the Latin Cup is an offically recognized tournament by UEFA and FIFA because in an old article at uefa.com it is described as "a forerunner to the European Cup", and in another old article at fifa.com it is listed among Benfica's honours. I've already reworked his original edits to something like this, so as to remove any implication that those descriptions were any kind of official recognition.

However, he also added the Latin Cup in the honours section of each winner's article (Barça, Benfica, Milan, Reims, Real). I was about to revert them all, since I assumed we only listed UEFA- (or equivalent) and FIFA-sanctioned tournaments as international honours, but then I noticed that on Barça's page the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is listed as well. So now I'm not sure anymore and thought I would ask you guys for advice. Luxic (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with including it, particularly since the competition predates the formation of UEFA. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
We should be careful in saying things about the relative recognition of trophies as if that has any actual implication. FIFA and UEFA were not always the masters of football, or owners of competitions and their hierarchies, and in the same way may not forever be the owner of all competitions (the creation of breakaway federations has been common, particularly for the big teams looking to create a super euro-league). Federations change, competitions come and go, and historic competitions in particular often had no association with the european and world federation. On a more local level, actual national football federations are often spin-offs of more local regional competitions, which can mean that entire League Championships have their precursor in more regional City or State championships. Again, we don't need the current Federation to officially recognise the historic achievements for them to still be honours (nor should the absence of recognition be included in an article as some kind of challenge to their legitimacy).
The absence of recognition by UEFA and FIFA is irrelevant and we really shouldn't be adding any value judgement to them, or creating an "officially recognized" definition that isn't explicitly stated in a source. People falsely make the assumption that FIFA.com and UEFA.com contain exhaustive lists of competitions, but they are routinely incomplete and inaccurate or subject to their own bias. An obvious example, for instance, is the 1972 European Super Cup which is 'unofficial' because UEFA refused to sanction it, not because it didn't happen, wasn't considered the Super Cup, or wasn't between the respective cup winners, and didn't meet all other competitive criteria. Its 'unofficial' status is based upon the sources and actual context, not upon its absence from a list on FIFA.com or UEFA.com. Koncorde (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
UEFA rules European football since 1955 and in its official document called "Vision Europe" regards itself as the only one governing body that provides official information about international football held in Europe. So, in this case, the UEFA point of view is relevant. FIFA is another case: until the 2000 FIFA Club World Championship it was not related to clubs (for maked these type of competitions there are the confederations) as claimed in the UEFA document for the 50 years of the European Champions' Clubs Cup. Its website just provides information to fans for historic purpose in pages about clubs' history, but FIFA has not legal power for decide if any continental competition is official or not (any confederation is the only one can to decide this).--181.66.84.243 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
UEFA's opinion on the 1938 Cup of Bulgaria, or the Latin Cup, or the Home Championship is irrelevant as to whether it is an honour (which is the point of this discussion). UEFA does not need to recognise such competitions as they are national association title (or joint federation titles). So, yes, "it regards itself" as the arbiter in such matters, but it is not the sole source of defining 'honours' - particularly if they pre-date UEFA, or where organised outside of its current stance of being the sole arbiter of European Club football. Its current stance is only ever as good as its current membership, and there have been several threats to UEFA over the years, with clubs threatening to break from National Associations (as the Premier League effectively did) to organise their own profit making enterprises. Koncorde (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Latin Cup and Inter City Fairs Cup are perfectly legitimate trophies to include in honours list. Otherwise Wiki is in danger of becoming recent-ist. They were major trophies in their time. Totally irrelevant whether recognised by UEFA or not. Both competition notable enough to have own articles, so why exclude them from honours list. Djln Djln (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Barry Hugman's Footballers[edit]

FYI I've created {{Hugman}} to make it easier to add this useful source to articles. GiantSnowman 14:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Tony Pulis' managerial stats[edit]

This BBC article has been used as a source to redo Pulis' managerial stats. It differs from his Soccerbase profile in that it gives him three more games in charge of Bournemouth, two more in charge of Gillingham, but one less in charge of Plymouth. I could probably work out the Gillingham discrepancy by comparing Soccerbase's season-by-season stats with one or more of my books (I'm going to hazard a guess that Soccerbase are missing two games in what's now the EFL Trophy), but does anyone have any idea how we could nail down the discrepancy in his Bournemouth stats and the even more bizarre discrepancy in his Plymouth stats? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The English National Football Archive concurs with the BBC article. Here is his Plymouth record:

Games managed for Plymouth Argyle
24 Sep A Southampton D 0-0 Championship

27 Sep A Sheffield Utd L 0-2 Championship

01 Oct H Stoke City W 2-1 Championship

15 Oct H Sheffield Wednesday D 1-1 Championship

18 Oct A Queen`s Park Rangers D 1-1 Championship

22 Oct A Luton Town D 1-1 Championship

30 Oct H Millwall D 0-0 Championship

05 Nov A Ipswich Town L 1-3 Championship

19 Nov H Queen`s Park Rangers W 3-1 Championship

22 Nov A Sheffield Wednesday D 0-0 Championship

26 Nov H Reading L 0-2 Championship

03 Dec A Coventry City L 1-3 Championship

10 Dec A Watford D 1-1 Championship

17 Dec H Crystal Palace W 2-0 Championship

26 Dec A Cardiff City W 2-0 Championship

31 Dec A Wolverhampton Wanderers D 1-1 Championship

02 Jan H Leeds Utd L 0-3 Championship

07 Jan A Wolverhampton Wanderers L 0-1 FA Cup

14 Jan H Norwich City D 1-1 Championship

21 Jan A Crewe Alexandra W 2-1 Championship

24 Jan H Leicester City W 1-0 Championship

31 Jan H Southampton W 2-1 Championship

04 Feb A Burnley L 0-1 Championship

11 Feb H Sheffield Utd D 0-0 Championship

14 Feb A Stoke City D 0-0 Championship

18 Feb H Coventry City W 3-1 Championship

25 Feb A Derby County L 0-1 Championship

04 Mar H Brighton & Hove Albion W 1-0 Championship

07 Mar H Preston North End D 0-0 Championship

11 Mar A Hull City L 0-1 Championship

18 Mar H Cardiff City L 0-1 Championship

25 Mar A Preston North End D 0-0 Championship

01 Apr H Wolverhampton Wanderers W 2-0 Championship

08 Apr A Leeds Utd D 0-0 Championship

15 Apr A Millwall D 1-1 Championship

17 Apr H Luton Town L 1-2 Championship

22 Apr A Leicester City L 0-1 Championship

30 Apr H Ipswich Town W 2-1 Championship

Even the limited 2005–06 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season article shows 38 games from 24 September until the end of the season. I don't know where Soccerbase have got an extra game from. I don't think there is a way of seeing where they made the error. Soccerbase's Tony Pulis record is just wrong and seen as they don't review mistakes or read e-mails it always will be wrong. Need to be careful with Soccerbase, 99% accurate is probably enough to be considered reliable but it isn't 100%. I started deleting external links sections that just have a soccerbase link when the article already has a referenced statistics table, it is almost like a default for a Wikipedia article to have Soccerbase in the external links and I just don't think it deserves to be there. Yes, when there is no stats table / references then it is good to have it there as a handy link for a quick check on the latest stats but, as I say, seems to be a bit overkill to have it on every article.--EchetusXe 19:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Whichever extra game Soccerbase have added in, they think Plymouth won it, that's as much as I can work out...... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hugo Lloris[edit]

I've updated his stats table but I am not sure what I did wrong for the alignment of the sub total row. Can someone fix that for me thanks. Govvy (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. When you add a new season to the stats table, you need to increase the club's rowspan by 1. --SuperJew (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, didn't realise that, thanks for the fix. Govvy (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin help with botched move needed[edit]

Could one of our admins please move 2016- 17 TT Pro League back to 2016–17 TT Pro League as the user executing the back-and-forth move unfortunately botched it? Thanks in advance! – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Soccer-holic: Done. Number 57 15:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jonas Faccio[edit]

This user has just been through a fair chunk of English teams' articles and changed the kits to include various logos (usually just the manufacturer's logo, not the main sponsor). If anyone spots one, would they mind reverting to the logoless versions? – PeeJay 17:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree not to have sponsors but what's wrong with the manufacturer's logo if it's accurate? GiantSnowman 07:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Omvrasan[edit]

Hello to you all. Can anyone here take a look at this user edits and see if they can reach to him? He's been making a lot of edits in African national teams squads articles, adding a bunch of unreferenced stuff or erasing referenced infos, and won't answer on his talk page. Can an admin do something about this (or tell me to chill out because I'm overreacting from an neutral point of view, maybe)? Thanks. Tuttiseme (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)